Cognitive approach

• What are the 3 assumptions?

  Computer analogy, schemas & internal mental processes.
• Computer analogy:

  Compared human mind to computer- compares how we take in information (input), change it/store it (process) & then recall it when necessary (output). During process stage, actively use cognitive processes of perception, attention, memory, language & thinking. Mind= hardware of computer. Cognitive processes= a computer‘s software.
• Schema examples:

  Event schemas (scripts) e.g, going to a restaurant. Role schemas, e.g, nurse. Burglar schema- most probably never witnessed burglary, yet schema would be male, young, wearing balaclava.
• Allport & postman (1947)


  Showed white participants a picture of black person held at knifepoint by white man. When asked to recall event, they misremembered black person as mugger.
• What are schemas?

  Organised packets of information that are built up through experience, & stored in our long-term memory. Generally derived from past experiences but can be refined through further interactions with people & world around us. Don’t necessarily represent reality as they’re often built up via social exchanges- can lead to stereotypes. E.g, media, convos with others, rather than personal interactions.
• Multistore model of memory:

  Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). Computer analogy- information input to brain through the senses (eyes,ears,etc) & moves to short-term memory store & then to long-term memory store. Output when required.
• Internal mental processes:

  Humans as info processors-essential cognitive processes work together to help us make sense of & respond to world around us. E.g, recognising dog: pay attention to it, perceive its features(tail,4 legs,fur) search through memory store to look for match, knowledge of language to name it (info processing).
• How do you investigate internal mental processes?

  Introspection (Wundt)- highly trained research assistants given stimulus, e.g, a ticking metronome, & would report what that stimulus made them think & feel. Some question validity of introspection as an objective scientific tool.
• Griffiths (1994):


  Introspection- investigated thought processes of gamblers vs non-gamblers, proposing thought processes of gamblers more irrational. Participants asked to 'think aloud' while playing a fruit machine & asked to: say everything going through mind, keep talking continuously, don't justify thoughts & don't hesitate to use fragmented sentences. Found gamblers used more irrational verbalisations, e.g, 'I lost as I wasn't concentrating' or 'this machine likes me'.