Reliability of cog process

• What are the 2 topics and what are their studies?

  Reconstructive memory - Bartlett 1932 + Loftus and Palmer 1974.

  
  

  Biases in thinking and decision making - Tversky + Kahnman 1981 + Loftus and Palmer 1974.
• What is reconstructive memory? How does it link to EWT?

  Memory which is recalled, can be distorted and false. These come from our LTM stores and is evident in cultural schemas where memory can be influenced by culture - Bartlett.

  
  

  Shared experiences show differences in recall as you and another person may recall a situation differently.

  
  

  EWT - Gives evidence to the court about a situation, if this is reconstructive it can have negative results on the case as well as cause memory to be distorted.

  -> California Innocence Project = Focused on miscarriages of justice created by EWTs, as DNA evidence is more commonly used due to high miscarriages - 1/4 inaccurate sentences.
• Bartlett


  Aim - investigate memory of an unfamiliar story.

  
  

  Procedure - Students at a US university told to read a Native American story called the War of Ghosts.

  1) 1/2 did repeated reproduction where they repeated the story over weeks.

  2) 1/2 did serial reproduction where they repeated it to another person.

  
  

  Findings - participants changed the story to try to remember it.

  - canoes became boats (British culture - boats more commonly used).

  - ghosts became ignored (British culture - not common on superstition).

  
  

  Conclusions - Memory is reconstructive, as people use schemas for unfamiliar materials.

  
  

  Critical thinking:

  +Gave scientific research into schema theory which links to memory. Has ecological validity, as remembering what to repeat is a natural activity.

  -Findings have low reliability - as other researchers tried to replicate but failed due to a lack of standardised procedures.

  -Has been criticised for not being standardised and specific enough making it difficult to replicate.
• Loftus + Palmer 1974


  Aim - investigate whether leading language affects the memory of events of eyewitnesses.

  
  

  Procedure - 45 American uni students split into 5 groups and were shown 7 videos of car crashes. Asked the question 'How fast were the cars going when they ... each other' 'smashed, collided, bumped, hits, contacted'. Did 2nd study on 150 participants who also saw the clips and asked the speed estimation when using the verb 'hit' or 'smashed'. Also asked if they saw glass.

  
  

  Findings - smashed = 40.5mph, contacted = 31.8mph. Those in the smashed group saw glass due to the intensity of the verb.

  
  

  Conclusion - external information can change memories of an event, as prior definitions of words influence the speed and meaning of the verb.

  
  

  Critical thinking:

  +Extraneous variables controlled = can accurately measure the IV. Also good cause and effect of the study.

  +The procedure was standardised therefore all participants saw the same video and were asked the same question (other than the verb changes). Good if the researcher wanted to replicate the study to see if the results are the same.

  -Students used = not a representative sample and not as diverse.

  -Demand characteristics as they knew it was an experiment and therefore could change the answers according to what they think they are researching.

  -Ecological validity - lab experiment therefore is artificial.
• Biases in thinking + decision making? Definitions of cog bias, anchoring bias + link to study and issue.


  Cog bias - systematic error occurring when people are interpreting their environment. This is a heuristic (part of system 1) that allows people to make quick judgments.

  Issue = can cause errors and stereotypes of inaccurate judgments.

  
  

  Framing effects = Loftus + Palmer - the framing effect of the verb.

  
  

  Anchoring bias - Tendency to rely on the first piece of info available. Use both systems 1 and 2, can be when we don't have the time or effort due to high cognitive load therefore we use our heuristics rather than creating a solution.

  
  

  Tversky + Kahnman - system 2 with a lot of thought for decisions, heuristics on what is morally correct kicks in.