cognitive

• L+P: both studies were lab experiments using independent measures design.
• L + P: first study was a snapshot study

  second one was longitudinal.
• L+P: first experiment had 45 American college students, divided into 5 groups each group receiving one condition of the IV.
• L+P: second experiment involves 150 American college students divided into 3 groups as this time there was a control condition and 2 levels of the IV.
• L+P: first experiment the DV was estimate of speed.

  second experiment DV was whether p’ said they saw broken glass.
• L+P: first experiment p’ were shown 7 brief clips of car accidents, after each clip they were asked to fill in a questionnaire.

  second experiment p’ we’re shown a one-min film contained a 4-sec multiple car accident.
• L+P: first experiment p’ asked to describe the accident then given a series of questions abt the film clips including one critical question.

  ’How fast were the cars going when they - each other‘.
• L+P: the 5 groups were given different verbs

  1-hit

  2-contacted

  3-smashed

  4-bumbed

  5-collided
• L+P: second experiment

  p’ asked to describe the accident then given the questions abt the film clips including critical question.

  ’How fast were the cars going when they- each other‘
• L+P: 3 groups of p’

  exp. group 1- smashed

  exp. group 2- hit

  control group- there was no question

  a week later asked to return to lab

  ’did you see any broken glass‘
• L+P: exp 1

  mean speed estimate were faster for those given ‘smashed’ (40.5mph) than those with ‘contacted’ (31.8mph).

  P’ we’re not able to accurately estimate speed, mean estimates between 36 and 40 mph.
• L+P: exp 2

  mean speed estimates were faster for those who had ‘smashed’ (10.46mph) than those with ‘hit’ (8.0mph).

  More p’ who had ‘smashed‘ reported seeing broken glass 16/50.

  Most p’ correctly reported seeing no broken glass 121/150.
• L+P: exp 1

  results show that the form of a question can have a significant effect on witness’ answer to the question.

  -Response-bias factors

  -The memory representation is altered
• L+P: exp 2

  results suggest that this effect, believing the car is travelling faster, is not just due to a response-bias because leading questions actually altered the memory the p’ had for the event.

  1. one’s own perception at the time of the original event.
  2. external info supplied after the fact (e.g leading questions).

  2 pieces of into combine to form a memory that generates certain expectation. e.g broken glass.
• L+P: research method and techniques

  • Strength
  • controlled conditions bc lab means that they can control for potential extraneous variables e.g where p’ is standing at time may affect estimate of speed (can threaten the internal validity).
  • Weaknesses
  • not a real accident means p’ lacked emotional involvement.
• L+P: Sampling bias

  • Strength = American students, easy for researchers to obtain
  • Weakness = tend to have better memory, less likely to be affected by leading question.
• L+P: types of data

  estimates of speed and number of yes/no questions = quantitative

  represent results in graphs.
• L+P: reliable due to quantitative data, straightforward measurements.
• L+P: ethical

  did not gain full informed consent, if they had known the aims of the study this would’ve affected their behavior.

  issue with deception.
• Grant: aimed to look at environmental context dependency effect with type of material and type of tests encountered in school.
• grant: background: environmental context dependency effect

  aims: aimed to look at EC effects with the types of material and the type of tests typically encountered in school.

  • specifically the study was looking at the effect of noise and if it might have a negative effect on test performance.
• grant: is seen as both a field experiment and lab experiment.

  • it can be seen as a lab exp bc conditions were intended to be well-controlled and p’ aware of being studied.
• grant: 4 conditions:

  • read in silence, do test in silence.
  • read in silence, do test with background noise.
  • read with background noise, do test in silence.
  • read with background noise, do test with background noise.

  conditions 1 and 4 are matching and conditions 2 and 3 are mismatching.
• grant:

  • IV = whether reading and test were matching or not. (researchers also compared the effects of studying in nosiy vs silent conditions = 2nd IV)
  • DV = number of items correctly recalled on a short answer and multiple choice test. (p’ we’re each tested twice but this is an IMD bc each p’ did one of the 4 conditions/one level of the IV)
• grant: sample: opportunity sample

  8 experimenters members if a psychology lab class

  • each experimenter recruited 5 p’
  • p’ age ranged 17-56
  • 17f and 22m
  • total = 39 p’
• grant: materials:

  • article on psychoimmunology
  • test of recall = 10 short answer questions and 16 multiple choice questions