Transcript The Principles of…… The Cognitive Level of Analysis

The Principles of……
The Cognitive Level of Analysis
Outline the principles that define the
cognitive level of analysis and
explain how they can be
demonstrated in research.
Principle 1: Human beings are information
processors and mental processes guide behavior.
• We are always trying to
process the info around
us.
• Our perceptions are
usually based on what
we already know.
• There is a relationship
between our mental
representation and the
way we perceive and
think about the world.
What do
you think
this is?
Principle 1 is demonstrated in
Schema Theory
• A schema is a mental
representation of
knowledge in the brain.
• We have schemas for
basically everything!!!!
But does
this one?
Right now in your head, picture a
model.
Schema Theory
• They provide guidelines
for interpreting
Whether at
religious school information when trying
or at a party,
to make sense of the
you expect
different
world.
behaviors.
• They create
expectations on what
will happen in certain
situations.
What if someone threw
you a curve ball by doing
something you do not
expect.
Schema Theory
Can even explain….
• Stereotyping
– An overgeneralized
belief about a group of
people.
Do schemas affect the way we
perceive race?
Schemas and Memory Reconstruction
• Our memories are not
video and audio
recordings.
• They are constructed by
cognitive
processes….like
schemas.
• How do you think
schemas can effect our
memories?
Schema Theory
A Jean Piaget side note…..
Assimilation
• Incorporating new concepts
into existing schemas.
If I teach my 3 year that an
animal with 4 legs and a tail
is a dog….
Accommodation
• Changing existing schemas
to incorporate new
information.
If I tell someone from the mid-west to picture
their schema of the Bronx they may talk about
the ghetto areas.
What
would he
call this?
Darley and Gross (1983)
• Carried out a laboratory
experiment on schema
theory in the social
world.
• Often called the
Hannah Study
• Participants saw 2
videos of a girl.
Darley and Gross (1983)
• In video 1, girl was
playing in a poor
environment.
• In video 2, girl was
playing in a rich
environment.
• Then they saw a video of
the girl taking what
looked to be an
intelligence test and
answering the questions
inconsistently.
Darley and Gross (1983)
• When participants were
asked to judge the future
of the girls, they all said
the “rich” girl would do
well and the “poor” girl
would do less well.
• On average they judges
the “rich” Hannah as
having a 5th grade
academic level, and
“poor” Hannah at a 4th
grade level.
Darley and Gross (1983)
• The study demonstrates
that participants
probably used prestored schemas of what
it means to be poor and
rich.
• They then interpreted
the rest of the scene
based on these
schemas.
Principle 2: The mind can be studied
scientifically.
Cognitive psychologists
use a wide array of
methods to study the
mind:
• Laboratory experiments
• Neuroimaging
• Case Studies
• Interviews
• Archival Research
Principle 2 is demonstrated in
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Aim:
• To investigate whether
the use of leading
questions would affect
recall in a situation where
participants were asked
to estimate speed.
• This is a situation that
could happen when
people appear in court as
eyewitnesses.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Procedure:
• The student
participants saw
videos of traffic
accidents and had to
answer questions
about the accident.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
• In experiment 1, the
participants were asked to
estimate speed of the cars
based on a critical
question:
• “About how fast were the
cars going when they
smashed/hit/collided/
bumped/ or contacted?”
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Results:
• The mean estimates of
speed were highest in
the “smashed
condition” (40.8 mph).
• Lowest in the
“contacted group” (31.8
mph).
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Results:
Were the results just lucky?
• The p-value
• Anything p<.05 or less is
significant. Which means
there is a 5% chance the
study is BS.
• The results in Loftus were
significant at p<0.005
(.5% chance of that result
occurring due to chance).
• The results indicate that
memory is not reliable
and can be manipulated
by using specific words.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
• The critical word in question
consistently affected the
participants' answer to the
question.
• One explanation could be that
the use of different words
influenced the participants’
mental representation of the
accident….
• i.e., the verb smashed activates
a cognitive schema of a severe
accident and therefore speed
estimates increase.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
• It is not the actual details
of the accident that are
remembered but rather
what is in line with a
cognitive schema of a
severe accident.
• Like reconstructive
memory.
• Or maybe they just suck
at estimating speed?
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Evaluation:
• The experiment was
conducted in a laboratory
setting so maybe an
ecological validity problem.
• Maybe too artificial.
• Use of just students as
participants.
• But the controlled IV
(words) and DV (speed)
made it possible to establish
cause/effect relationship.
Principle 3: Cognitive processes are
influenced by social and cultural factors.
• Research has shown
that cognitive processes
such as perception,
memory and thinking
are influenced by socio
cultural factors.
Principle 3 is demonstrated in
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
Aim:
• To investigate whether
people’s memory for a
story is affected by
previous knowledge
(schemas) and the extent
to which memory is
reconstructive.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
Procedure:
• Bartlett asked British
participants to listen to a
story.
• After a while he asked
them to reproduced
(repeat) the story.
• He asked them again and
again (over a period of
months and years) which
he called serial
reproduction.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
• The story was an
unfamiliar Native
American legend called
“The War of Ghosts”.
The War of Ghosts
One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and while they
were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war-cries, and they thought:
"Maybe this is a war-party". They escaped to the shore, and hid behind a log. Now
canoes came up, and they heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to
them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said:
"What do you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on
the people."
One of the young men said,"I have no arrows."
"Arrows are in the canoe," they said.
"I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you,"
he said, turning to the other, "may go with them."
So one of the young men went, but the other returned home.
And the warriors went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people
came down to the water and they began to fight, and many were killed. But presently the
young man heard one of the warriors say, "Quick, let us go home: that Indian has been
hit." Now he thought: "Oh, they are ghosts." He did not feel sick, but they said he had
been shot.
So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went ashore to his house and made a
fire. And he told everybody and said: "Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we went to
fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed.
They said I was hit, and I did not feel sick."
He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black
came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried.
He was dead.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
Results:
• The participants
remembered the main
idea of the story (the
gist) but they changed
unfamiliar elements to
make sense of the story
by using terms more
familiar to their own
cultural expectations.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
• The story remained a
coherent whole although
it was changed.
• It became noticeably
shorter after each
reproduction.
• Bartlett concluded that
remembering is an active
process.
• Memories are not copies
of experience but rather
“reconstructions”.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
Evaluation:
• The results of the study
confirm schema theory
(and reconstructive
memory).
• But is was performed in
a laboratory and might
lack ecological validity.
Bartlett (1932) “The War of Ghosts”
• Participants did not
receive standardized
instructions and some of
the memory distortions
may be due to simple
guessing (demand
characteristics such as the
Hawthorne effect)
• Still, this study is one of
the most important in the
study of memory.
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
Aim:
• To investigate recall
memory in two
different cultures: the
USA and the Kpelle
people of Liberia.
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
Procedure:
• For the test in Liberia, the
researchers used objects that
would be familiar to the
Liberian children. The same
with the American children.
• The children were then asked
to recall the words (in any
order).
• They then presented both
groups a meaningful story
that had the words, and asked
them to recall them again.
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
Results:
• Before the story, both the
schooled Liberian and
USA children memorized
the words at about the
same rate.
• But the non-schooled
children memorized at a
much slower rate.
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
Results:
• After they put the words
in a story, both the
schooled and nonschooled children
memorized at the same
rate.
• The schooled Liberian and
USA children used
techniques such as
chunking to memorize,
and the non-schooled
children did not.
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
• The non-schooled
children were unable to
use these techniques.
• Education creates a
cultural difference in
memory and
catagorization?
Cole and Scribner (1974)
Cross-cultural study of memory
• I see what they were
trying to do…but what
were there problems?