Psychology Exam Prep

• Neuroplasticity: The ability of the brain to modify itself through the making and reorganizing of synaptic connections between neurons, caused by genetic or environmental factors
• Draganski et al 2004 (Procedure)

  • Self-selected (volunteers)
  • Randomly placed into juggler/nonjugglers groups
  • 24 participants with no previous juggling experience (21 female 3 male)
  • Three MRI brain scans done on all participants
  • MRI Brain Scan 1: At the start of the experiment
  • MRI Brain Scan 2: After juggler group spent three months learning 3 ball juggling
  • MRI Brain Scan 3: After three months of juggler group instructed not to juggle
• Draganski et al 2004 (Aim)

  • to investigate whether the human brain can change its structure as a result of environmental demands
• Draganski et al 2004 (Results): found no differences in brain structure or grey matter between both groups in a brain scan.
• Draganski et al 2004 (Results): Jugglers had significantly more grey matter in some areas of cortex, notably in the mid-temporal area of both hemispheres, which is known for coordinating movement.
• Draganski et al 2004 (Results): Structural differences decreased in jugglers but they still had more grey matter than in scan 1.
• Draganski et al 2004 (Results): There was no change in the amount of grey matter in the brains of the non-juggler group across the duration of the study.
• Draganski et al 2004 (Results): The structural changes were closely related to the juggling performance of the individuals.
• Draganski et al 2004 (Conclusion):

  • Learning-induced cortical plasticity is reflected at a structural level (i.e demonstrated via changes in brain structure)
  • Acquiring and developing skills causes certain areas of your brain to grow. 
  • The level of training matters 
  • When you fail to practise, you can lose the development that has taken place as a result of your training
• Draganski et al 2004 (Implications):

  • Useful for everyday people who are learning new things
  • Provides good evidence for neuroplasticity
  • Shows a necessity for continuous training in learning or skill acquisition
  • Also removes the false thought that adults can't manipulate their brains
  • Can provide insight into recovery from brain injuries as doctors can see how the brain adapts if it is damaged
  • Educators can apply knowledge of neuroplasticity to enhance teaching methods possibly
• Confabulation: a memory based on a fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memory believed to be true despite contradictory evidence
• Loftus and Palmer Study 1974 (Context):

  Human memory is not an exact copy of events but a reconstruction that can be altered through discussion with others, media input, and schema processing.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 (Aim):

  To test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 1 (Procedure): (Part 1)

  • Convenience sampling: where a researcher selects participants based on their availability
  • 45 American students from the University of Washington
  • A laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures experimental design).
  • 7 films of traffic accidents, ranging in duration from 5 to 30 seconds, were presented in a random order to each group.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 1 (Procedure) (Part 2):

  • They were then asked specific questions, including the question “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?”
  • The estimated speed was affected by the verb used. The verb implied information about the speed, which systematically affected the participants’ memory of the accident.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 1 (Findings):

  The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph) in descending order.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 1 (Explanation 1):

  Response-bias factors: The misleading information provided may have simply influenced the answer a person gave (a “response-bias”) but didn't actually lead to a false memory of the event.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 1 (Explanation 2):

  The memory representation is altered: The critical verb changes a person’s perception of the accident. (Would have actually changed memory)
• A leading question is a question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 2 (Procedure):

  Procedure:

  • 150 students were shown a one-minute film
  • It was manipulated by asking 50 students “how fast were the car going when they hit each other?”, another 50 “how fast were the car going when they smashed each other?”, and the remaining 50 participants were not asked a question at all (i.e. the control group).
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 2 (Procedure):

  One week later the dependent variable was measured – without seeing the film again they answered ten questions, one of which was a critical one randomly placed in the list: “Did you see any broken glass? Yes or no?” There was no broken glass on the original film.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 2 (Findings):

  • Participants who were asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
  • The probability of saying “yes” to the question about broken glass was 32% when the verb “smashed” was used. 14% when the word “hit was used” (which was almost the same as the 12% in the control group)
  • Participants who were given the higher intensity verb believed they saw broken glass that wasn’t in the video more than 2x as much than participants given the lower intensity verb and no verb.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment 2 (Conclusion):

  This research suggests that memory is easily distorted by questioning techniques and information acquired after the event can merge with original memory causing inaccurate recall or reconstructive memory.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 (Evaluation - Strengths):

  • degree of control over confounding variables (true lab experiment)
  • As a psychological explanation, the reconstructive memory hypothesis is extremely useful; for instance, in formulating guidelines for police questioning of witnesses and suspects.
  • Standardized procedure and easy-to-replicate
  • Big sample size
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 (Evaluation - Weaknesses):

  • Lacked mundane realism/ecological validity. (Participants viewed video clips rather than being present at a real-life accident.)
  • The video clip does not have the same emotional impact as witnessing a real-life accident and the participants would be less likely to pay attention and less motivated to be accurate in their judgements. Also flash-bulb memory.
  • In an experiment, you may well expect to be asked questions about what you are watching and this may make you attend to the film differently.
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 (Evaluation - Weakneses 2):

  • In real life, there may be consequences arising from the answers that you give and this may put pressure on the witness.
  • Overall, we can probably conclude that this laboratory experiment had low ecological validity and thus may not tell us very much about how people’s memories are affected by leading questions in real life.
  • A further problem with the study was the use of students as participants. Students are not representative of the general population in many ways. (age, experiences, vision, memory etc.)
• Loftus and Palmer 1974 (Implications):

  • Leading questions can affect memory and have important implications for interviewing witnesses, by police immediately or soon after an event and also by lawyers in court later.
  • Real-world implications: the Devlin Report (1976) recommended trial judges be required to instruct juries that it is not safe to convict on a single eyewitness testimony alone.
  • Interviewers should avoid leading questions and should be careful to word questions in ways that do not suggest an answer to the person that they are interviewing.
  • Ronald Cotton Case