Stuvia-446744-course-2.1-cognitive-psychology-thinking-and-remembering

Course 2.
1 Cognitive Psychology -
Thinking and Remembering
written by
psychoel
The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
On Stuvia you will find the most extensive lecture summaries written by your fellow students. Avoid
resits and get better grades with material written specifically for your studies.
www.stuvia.com
Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
BLOK 2.1 - actively coordinate ongoing mental activities

- lets you keep information alive & accessible, so that you can use it in a wide
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
variety of cognitive tasks
LECTURE #1 Long-Term Memory
ROOTS OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY => large capacity & contains memory for experiences & information
Plato – Rationalism that have accumulated over a lifetime
=> people use rational thoughts to create knowledge - some research supports that working & long-term memory are the same
-> thinking & logical analysis -> but they may not share same theoretical explanations
Aristotle – Empiricism - performance on everyday tasks different to performance in psychological labs
=> people acquire their knowledge through their
observations of the world around them
-> experience & observation CLASSIC RESEARCH ON WM
Cognitive Revolution
-> intellectual movement 1950-1960s “MAGICAL 7” by George Miller
-> started studying relevant functions in artificial intelligence =-> proposed that we can hold only a limited number of items in
-> observing outward behaviour & its relation to brain activity -> building WM
computational models of the mind - about 7 items (give or take 2) -> 5-9 items
-> mind = complex system composed of many interacting parts Chunks
Cognition by Neisser => memory unit that consists of several components that are strongly associated
“ those processes by which the sensory input is w/ one another
transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, -> e.g.: imagine that someone hears a list like “H, O, P, T, R, A, S, L, U,” and so on. If
& used” the person thinks of these as individual letters, then she will remember seven of
them, more or less. But if the same person reorganizes the list and, in particular,
#1 LEARNING TO REMEMBER thinks of the letters as forming syllables (“HOP, TRA, SLU, . . .”), she’ll remember
ﬁve or six of these syllables—and therefore 15 to 18 letters.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHORT-TERM MEMORY & WM -> describes the basic unit in WM
->short-term memory is very short (2 min) not lasting passive storage of -> was unusual because he wrote the article when behaviourism was popular –
information article proposed that people engage in internal mental processes in order to
-> working memory is storage plus manipulation convert stimuli into a manageable number of chunks
-> emphasized that our cognitive processes are active
WORKING MEMORY
THE BROWN/PETERSON & PETERSON TECHNIQUE
=> the brief, immediate memory for material that you are currently
=> demonstrated that material held in memory for less than a
processing
minute is frequently forgotten
1

Exp.: people studied 3 letters, then they said a 3-digit number & counted - modelled after a computer (input, storage, processing)
backwards by threes from this number for a short period (prevented them from -> information progresses through the system in series of stages (one @ a time,
rehearsing the letters), then they had to recall the letters -> first few trials recalled forgetting occurs @ all stages)
most of them; after several trials = poor recall; after 5-sec delay = forgot half of it - Control Processes (intentional strategies e.g.: rehearsal)
=> provided important information about the fragility of memory -> to improve memory
for material stored for just a few seconds Sensory Memory
=> a storage that records information from each of the senses w/ reasonable
THE RECENCY EFFECT
accuracy
-> Serial Position Effect
-> information is stored for 2 sec or less -> then most of it is forgotten
=> refers to the U-shaped relationship between a word’s position
Short-Term Memory
in a list & its probability of recall
=> contains only the small amount of information that we’re actively using
-> very common
- memories = fragile (but not as much as in sensory memory)
-> shows both – strong recency & strong primacy effect
- draws from LTM: retrieval
=> better recall for items @ the end of the list – many have argued that this is
- memory can be lost within about 30 sec unless they’re somehow repeated
because these items were still in short-term memory
Long-Term Memory
@ the end of recall (shows size of WM -> count number of items @ the end of the
=> has an enormous capacity; contains memories that are decades old
list) -> size estimated to be 2-7 items
- memories are relatively permanent & not likely to be lost
ATKINSON & SHIFFRIN’S MODEL - forgetting (gets worse w/ increasing age – 60+; depends on manner of encoding,
=> proposed that memory can be understood as a sequence of retrieval & strategy)
discrete steps, in which information is transferred from one stage
Attention
area to another
=> representation of the world is an active registration of our physical surrounding
=> acts as a filter that determines which stimuli will be processed further & which
won’t
-> to notice a change in a scene (spotlight)
Research on Forgetting
by Ebbinghaus
- 1st to study human memory
- used nonsense syllable strings (CUV, ZIR etc) as study materials (free of meaning)
-> he was his own participant
=> results: steep forgetting @ first, levels off after a day, after 31 days some
- WM & long-term memory are separate memory is retained -> rate of forgetting isn’t constant & diminishes over time
- memories in WM are fragile & could be lost within about 30 sec unless they’re
repeated
2

THE WORKING-MEMORY APPROACH / MULTICOMPONENT APPROACH Phonological Loop

by Baddeley & Hitch => processes a limited number of sounds for a short period of time
-> pronunciation time can be explained by the limited storage
Short-Term Memory
-> short words => shorter pronunciation => rehearsing a large number of them
-> its major function is to hold several interrelated bits of information – so that this
quickly
information can be worked with & used appropriately
-> long words => longer pronounciation => some words will get lost
-> necessary for a wide of cognitive tasks (e.g.: language comprehension, mental
-> relationship between pronunciation time & recall accuracy holds true whether
arithmetic, reasoning, problem solving)
pronouncing aloud our using subvocalization (silently)
=> immediate memory is a multipart system that temporarily holds & manipulates
- Acoustic Confusion: people are likely to confuse similar-sounding stimuli
information as we perform cognitive tasks
-> emphasizes that WM isn’t simply a passive storage -> emphasis is on the Visuospatial Sketchpad
manipulation of information => processes both visual & spatial information
=> WM is more like a workbench where material is constantly being -> allows you to look @ a complex scene & gather visual information about objects
handled, combined, transformed & landmarks
-> navigates from one location to another
-> allows you to store a coherent picture of both the visual appearance of the
objects & their relative positions in a scene + visual information that you encode
from verbal stimuli
-> limited capacity
-> difficulty performing two visuospatial tasks simultaneously
Central Executive
=> integrates information from the phonological loop, the visuospatial
sketchpad, the episodic buffer & the LTM
=> plays major role in focusing attention, planning strategies, transforming
information, & coordinating behaviour => extremely important & complex
-> has a link with the LONG-TERM MEMORY
-> responsible for suppressing irrelevant information (helps you decide what to do
-> study contradicted the view that WM has only about 7 slots & suggested that & what not)
people can perform two tasks simultaneously (verbal & visual tasks can interfere -> plans & coordinates but doesn’t store information
w/ each other) -> critical role in the overall functions of WM
-> WM seems to have several components which can operate independently of -> limited ability to perform simultaneous tasks -> can’t make numerous decisions
each other @ the same time & can’t work effectively on two simultaneous projects ->
daydreaming requires the active participation of your central executive – can
occupy large portions of the resources
3

Episodic Buffer Decay Theory

=> serves as a temporary storehouse where we can gather & combine => theory about forgetting
information from the loop, sketchpad & LTM -> memory fades due to the passing of time
=> the component of WM where auditory, visual, & spatial information -> mostly affects WM
can be combined w/ information from the LTM
Interference Theory
-> opinions about people etc…
=> memory overwritten
-> serves for more interaction between all components
++ more accepted
-> actively manipulates information so that you can interpret an earlier experience,
- Retroactive (= forgetting that occurs because of interference from
solve new problems & plan future activities
material encountered AFTER learning)
-> limited capacity
- Proactive (= forgetting occurs because of interference from material
-> allows to create a richer, more complex representation of an event
encountered BEFORE learning)
// doesn’t include other sensory inputs
// hasn’t been researched much
// some say memory is a continuum MEMORY STRATEGIES
FACTORS AFFECTING WM’S CAPACITY -> you perform mental activities that can help you improve your encoding &
- Chunking Strategy retrieval
-> increasing number of items by using chunks -> most strategies focus on the past
- Pronunciation Time
-> strongly influences the number of items we can store in WM Divided Attention
-> better recall of words from a list of countries w/ short names than w/ -> memory performance is substantially reduced if people had used divided
long names (greater number of syllables – lower memory span) attention during the encoding phase
=> pronunciation rate + number of chunks need to be considered when -> music = introverts are more distracted by background music than extroverts –
discussing capacity of WM can’t focus their attention on the memory task
- Semantic Similarity Levels of Processing
=> importance of the acoustic properties of stimuli (sound) -> more accurate recall of information if it’s processed @ a deep level rather than
-> Semantics = meaning of words & sentences a shallow level
-> meaning of words can also have an important effect on the number of -> because of elaboration & distinctiveness
items you can store - rich & elaborate encoding (relating to prior knowledge etc.) better than simple
-> words that we have previously stores can interfere w/ the recall of new rehearsal -> “why questions” – use deep processing to think about meaning etc. &
words that are similar in meaning -> the degree of semantic similarity is interconnect new material to answer them
related to the amount of interference -> elaborating on the material & analysing it in a complex, meaningful fashion
=> BEST
- Self-Reference Effect
4

-> enhancing long-term memory by relating the material to own Levels of Processing & Encoding Specificity
experiences -> people recall more material if the retrieval conditions match the encoding
conditions
Encoding Specificity
-> encoding specificity can override level of processing
=> states that recall is often better if the context @ the time of encoding matches
-> e.g.: deep, semantic processing is effective only if the retrieval conditions also
the context @ the time of retrieval
emphasize these deeper, more meaningful features – to determine how to store
// but context effects are often inconsistent
information, you’ll need to figure out the characteristics of the retrieval task
-> consider how you’ll be tested – learn w/ strategies/tasks you have to do in the
exam In Sum:
-> memory is sometimes but not always enhanced when the retrieval context
THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT: ENCODING SPECIFICITY
resembles the encoding context
Encoding Specificity Principle -> is most likely to occur when:
=> states that recall is better if the retrieval context is similar to the encoding -> tasks which assess your recall
context -> use real-life incidents
-> forgetting often occurs when the two contexts don’t match -> examine events that happened long ago
Exp.: people listened to 4 stories, 2 in English, 2 in Spanish after a short delay they -> depend more on mental than physical context
were asked questions about it either in SP-SP or EN-SP & vice versa -> encoding specificity can modify level of processing effect – match between
-> they were less accurate when they had to answer in a different language than the encoding & retrieval in some cases more important than deep processing
one they had heard the story originally
Transfer appropriate Processing
-> we often forget material associated w/ contexts other than our present context => processes are the same during study & testing
-> no need to remember numerous details about previous settings -> effectiveness of learning can only be determined relative to the testing situation
-> context effects = easy to demonstrate in real life but are often inconsistent in -> more about how it is learned not where! Riding a bike vs. reading a book of how
lab to ride a bike -> unsuccessful
Memory Tasks
- recall: participants must reproduce the items they learned earlier; are often real-
MORE STRATEGIES/THINGS TO TAKE CARE OF
life examples
- recognition: participants must identify whether they saw a particular item @ an Overconfidence
earlier time; lab focus -> encoding specificity typically weak in lab situation -> humans are sometimes overconfident about their memory skills ->
Physical vs. Mental Context remembering something incorrectly but don’t even notice it
-> physical context not as important as mental context
The Total-Time Hypothesis
“How well information transfers from one environment to another
=> the amount you learn depends on the total time you devote to learning
depends on how similar they feel, rather than how similar they look”
-> but study time only predicted grade-point average when the researchers also
assessed the quality of study strategies
5

The Distributed-Practice Effect aka. Spacing Effect MNEMONICS using organization

=> remembering more material if you spread your learning trials over time (spaced Organisation
learning) => the attempt to bring systematic order to the material we learn
=> remembering less if you learn everything @ once (massed learning) -> need to use deep processing to sort items into categories
-> for both recall & recognition tasks -> retrieval – easier when it’s organized
-> introduces desirable difficulties (= a learning situation that is somewhat
Chunking
challenging, but not too difficult)
-> combining several small units into larger units
-> testing a concept several times in a row -> easy; but waiting several minutes for
repetition -> makes it harder -> more attention, better remembering & no Hierarchy Technique
overconfidence -> arrange items in a series of classes from most general to most specific
-> a delay of @ least one day between practice sessions -> even more effective in -> structure & organization clearly enhance recall
boosting long-term retention
First-Letter Technique
The Testing Effect -> take the 1st letter of each word you want to remember & compose a word/
=> taking a test = excellent way to boost long-term recall for academic material sentence from those letters
-> testing provides practice in retrieving the relevant material + produces desirable // effectiveness hasn’t been consistently demonstrated in lab. Research
difficulties (task is challenging – no overconfidence)
Narrative Technique
MNEMONICS using imagery => instructs people to make up stories that link a series of words together
=> mental strategy designed to improve the memory -> effective for enhancing memory & successful w/ memory-impaired individuals
-> mnemonics that emphasize imagery => mental representation of BUT ONLY if one can generate the narrative easily
objects/actions that aren’t physically present
-> visual imagery = powerful strategy for enhancing memory Multimodal Approach by Herrmann
=> effective when items are interacting w/ each other -> people must adopt a comprehensive approach to memory improvements
-> especially when image is BIZARRE -> requires you to pay attention to your physical condition (sleep etc.)
-> helpful because they’re motivating & interesting -> strong motivation
-> psychological well-being
The Keyword Method -> develop a repertoire of several memory-improvement techniques
-> to remember unfamiliar vocabulary items (and in learning vocabulary) -> Mindfulness by Langer
-> identify an English word (the keyword) that sounds similar to the new word -> -> flexible approach to the world w/ a particular sensitivity to new
then create image that links keyword w/ the meaning of the new word things & an appreciation for new ways of approaching a problem
The Method of Loci Mood Congruent Memory
=> associate the items to be learned w/ a series of visual images of physical -> bias to remember in same mood as learning
locations -> no neutral moods
-> useful when you want to learn a list of items in a specific order
6

Mood dependent Memory

-> DEPENDS on being in the same mood ???
State Dependent Memory
-> internal environment (e.g.: drugs, alcohol, sleep etc.)
Cue-Dependent Memory
=> encoding specificity principle
-> recall depends on context
Role of Smartphone
by Adrian Ward
-> study to test how people perform when smartphone is nearby
-> better performance if smartphone is in another room than if it’s on the
table+only slightly better performance than if it’s in the bag
=> presence of smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity without people
realizing it – mind isn’t consciously on smartphone but trying not to think about it-
> takes up cognitive resources

#2 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY + 2nd LECTURE Semantic Memory

=> describes one’s organized knowledge about the world that doesn’t
LONG-TERM MEMORY include the contextual elements from episodic memory
Non-Declarative/Implicit Memory -> Procedural Memory
=> our knowledge of how to do something
-> includes knowledge of skills
-> is closely associated w/ motor performance + w/ cognitive skills
-> knowledge is acquired over time
-> is preserved in patients w/ amnesia
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY
Factors Affecting Retrieval of AB memories

-> negative memories are getting better w/ time
THEORIES
Conway
=> memory system that recollects memories about the experienced self
-> AB memory is organized hierarchically (-> underlying structure of AB memory)
1. Lifetime memories: I used to live in Holland
2. General event: I went to Uni in Rotterdam
Declarative/ Explicit Memory 3. Event Specific: I got really drunk one time
=> long-term memory system responsible for retention of personally -> order of “scanning” own memory when asked to recall something (-> but
experienced episodes different order is also possible
-> factual information about the world -> 2 types of retrieval: 1) generative retrieval – retrieval= conscious 2)
Episodic Memory direct/passive retrieval – because of cues that remind you of something
=> memory for events, experiences, & situations; individual memory about
experiences/ for personally experienced events that include contextual Elements of AB Memory
elements -> Working Self
-> Autobiographical Memory -> Autobiographic Knowledge base
=> memory about your own life & experiences -> Autonoetic Consciousness ??? important???
=> recollection of own life; memory for events & issues related to yourself Schemas
-> experience of the self; past events linked to personal history; serves => consists of your general knowledge/expectation which is distilled from your
social & directive functions; develops within social & cultural context past experiences w/ an event/person
-> to guide your recalls
8

-> ordinary life events -> a lot of things happen during that period
-> is used to fill in memory gaps -> if you don’t remember that exact time you went -> specifically for positive events w/ high perceived control
to the beach, you fill it in w/ schemas of other times you went to the beach -> high brain capacity & identity forming phase
-> constructivist theory
Spontaneous Memory
-> Consistency Bias
-> no special meaning, seems random
=> we tend to exaggerate the consistency between our past feelings &
-> can be evoked by cues
beliefs & our current viewpoint -> memory may be distorted
“The way we were depends on the way we are” Narrative Style
=> the way memories are repeated
Source Monitoring
-> in a chronological way
=> the process of trying to identify the origin of memories & beliefs
-> we often try to sort out the source of information in our memory – we include FEATURES OF RETENTION
cues such as our schemas & expectations + nature of the details
-> can produce mistakes Reminiscence Bump
-> humans have the most memories from when they were between 15-30 years
Flashbulb Memories old
=> memories that seem especially vivid -> especially for the happiest & most important events (not for saddest &
=> refers to your memory for the circumstances in which you first learned about a traumatic events)
very surprising & emotionally aroused event
-> are of extraordinary clarity; are long-lasting; are told w/ a lot of confidence, Childhood Amnesia
detail (non-emotional details like the surrounding etc. different to normal -> you can’t remember the first years of your life
memories) & emotion -> no personal relevance; brain not yet developed
-> not more accurate than normal memories -> accuracy grows less w/ time just Recency Effect
like normal memories -> better memories for not long-ago events
-> can usually be explained by standard mechanisms (rehearsal frequency,
distinctiveness, elaboration)
-> Reappearance Hypothesis FALSE MEMORIES/EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
=> memories of trauma = different type
-> Phantom Flashbulb Memories??? Source Monitoring
-> can go wrong – sources can get confused
Field View Memories vs. Observer View e.g.: mistaking other’s ideas for own idea
=> “relive” from own => observing oneself in -> memories = schema-consistent
perspective past situation -> more likely to adopt plausible misleading information
=> memory schemas & faulty source monitoring can alter a witness’s testimony
- people believe they really witnessed something that had actually been
9

suggested to them in a different situation the time of the testimony

-> mistakes more likely in testimonies because people are required to remember 2. If the misinformation is plausible
specific details 3. If there’s social pressure
4. If eyewitnesses have been given positive feedback
The Post-Event Misinformation Effect
5. Stress
=> people first view an event & then afterward they’re given misleading
6. Age – older witnesses are more influenced by false post-event information
information – they mistakenly recall the misleading information rather than the
actual event Age Bias
Exp. by Loftus: -> if perpetrator has eyewitness’ age – more accurate recognition
Retroactive Interference
=> people have trouble recalling old material because some recently
learned, new material keeps interfering w/ old memories ARTICLE by McNally & Geraert
-> have detrimental effects THE RECOVERED MEMORY/FALSE MEMORY CONTROVERSY
-> can be partly traced to faulty source monitoring => theories on child sexual abuse remembered in adulthood
-> Constructivist Approach
=>we construct knowledge by integrating what we know, so that our Recovered Memory Perspective aka. Repression Interpretation
understanding of an event is coherent & makes sense => memories can be forgotten & then recovered
-> we construct a memory by blending information from a variety -> @ a later time this presumably forgotten memory comes flooding back into
of sources consciousness
Own-Race Bias / Class-Race Effect False Memory Perspective

=> people from own race group – easier to recognize / to differentiate => deny the accuracy of many reports about the sudden recovery of early
memories
Verbal Overshadowing -> many of the recovered memories are actually incorrect memories
=> if eyewitness has to describe a face in detail – the overall recognition ability
decreases 3rd Perspective of the Article
-> 2 groups: 1) has false memory 2) forgot about prior recollection
Intrusion Error -> child didn’t experience sexual abuse as trauma -> it wasn’t repressed BUT
=> errors in which other knowledge intrudes into the remembered event forgotten/deliberately suppressed – memory was never unaccessible
-> adults have higher ability to suppress negative thoughts – are reminded
-> participants are almost as confident about their misinformation-based memory
spontaneously of sexual abuse by cues -> increases likelihood of being real
as they’re about their correct memories
-> gradual memory recovery in therapy -> increases likelihood to be false
A confident witness ≠ an accurate witness
Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Memories/Testimonies

1. Errors are more likely when there’s a long delay between the original event &
10

AMNESIA
=> people who have severe deficits in their episodic memory; doesn’t typically
affect cognitive skills
TYPES
Retrograde
=> loss of memory events that occurred prior to brain damage – deficit is especially
severe for events just before the damage
-> memory can be gradually recovered over time
-> often caused by blows to the head (physical damage)
Anterograde
=> loss of memory for events that occurred after brain damage
-> recall almost nothing on tests for explicit memory (can’t learn new things etc.)
but perform fairly accurate on tests of implicit memory
-> caused by alcoholism, inadequate diets etc..
Psychogenic Amnesia
=> doesn’t have any obvious physical origin
-> multiple personality (dissociative) disorder
-> fugue states (specific period of times are forgotten)
-> is preceded by stress/traumata/organic amnesia/depression
-> situation-specific amnesia (e.g. drugs/ forgetting a crime/blackouts/ extreme
emotions)
-> post-traumatic amnesia
BIOLOGICAL BASIS
-> amnesia is typically associated w/ damage that involves the hippocampus &
neighbouring brain areas -> crucial role in memory
-> hippocampus damage => anterograde amnesia
-> main role in memory acquisition (unable to create new memories)
11

#3 ATTENTION 2. Sound intensity (loudness)

3. Location of the sound source
ATTENTION => how harmonious & rhythmic the target sounds -> more important
=> the means by which we actively select & process a limited amount of than other cues
information from all of the information captured by our senses, our stored THEORIES
memories & our other cognitive processes
-> includes both conscious & unconscious processes Bottleneck Theories
-> allows us to use our limited mental resources judiciously -> Assume Tremendous amount of available information
-> we can focus more on the stimuli that interest us by focusing less on outside -> Limited information processing ability
stimuli (sensations) & inner stimuli (thoughts, memories) that aren’t of interest -> Bottleneck limits information attended to
=> heightened focus – increases likelihood of responding speedily & -> Only one message can pass through bottleneck
accurately => paves way for memory processes Early Filter Model (earliest theory) by Broadbent
-> we attend to & process some sensory information & memory without our => we filter information right after we notice it @ the sensory level
conscious awareness -> all the incoming information is being perceived & stored in sensory memory->
sensory memory stores it for a split second & forwards it to a filter that allows only
one message to be processed more in detail -> is distinguished by characteristics
SELECTIVE ATTENTION (loudness, pitch, accent) / not about semantics, target -> short-term memory
Cocktail Party Problem enables us to respond to the message or store it in LTM
=> the process of tracking one conversation while distracted by other
conversations
Exp.: Shadowing/ Dichotic Presentation
=> listening to 2 different messages -> dichotic presentation
=> proofs that you can’t listen to two conversation @ once
-> were successful but required a lot of concentration
-> were able to notice physical, sensory changes in the unattended
message
-> didn’t notice semantic changes (language shifted to another)
-> 1/3 will switch attention when their name is presented – these people
tend to have limited WM capacity -> are easily distracted
Factors that makes you attend only to the message of the target speaker
1. Distinctive sensory characteristics of the target’s speech (high pitch, Selective Filter Theory
pacing, rhythm) => messages that are of high importance to a person may break through
12

the filter of selective attention Late Filter Model by Deutsch& Deutsch

=> the filter blocks out most of the information @ the sensory level but -> suggested that stimuli are filtered out only after they have been
some personally important messages are so powerful that they burst analysed for both their physical properties & their meaning
through the filter of selective attention -> no limit until it receives in WM
-> found that even when participants ignore most high-level aspects of an -> allows us to recognize information entering the unattended ear
unattended message – they still recognize their name
Synthesis of Early & Late Model
-> evidence that early filter model is wrong
-> Preattentive Processes (= feature detection)
=> automatic processes are rapid & occur parallel
-> can be used to notice only physical sensory characteristics
Attenuation Model by Treisman
of the unattended message – doesn’t discern meaning / relationships
=> suggests that @ least some information about unattended
-> Attentive, Controlled Processes (= feature integration)
signals is being analysed
=> are executed serially & consume time + attentional resources
-> the filter (attenuator) doesn’t block out stimuli it merely weakens the strength of
-> occur later & are much more detailed
all stimuli other than the target stimulus
e.g.: if stimuli possess those target properties we pass the signal on to the next
stage -> if not: we pass on a weakened version of the stimulus -> we perceptually
DIVIDED ATTENTION
analyse the meaning of the stimuli & their relevance to us -> if it’s important – it
will be picked up => engaging in 2 or more tasks @ the same time
Equally difficult tasks that require a lot of time

-> performance of multiple tasks was based on skill resulting from practice -> it’s
not based on special cognitive mechanisms
-> was proven correctly in different experiments
Simple Tasks that require speedy responses
-> performance suffers -> responses are slower
-> PRP effect
=> psychological refractory period(auditory) / attentional blink(visual)
=> when both tasks require performance of any cognitive operations ->
one or both tasks => PRP effect
-> more intelligent people are better able to timeshare between 2 tasks & to
perform both effectively
THEORIES
Capacity Model of Attention
=> explains how we can perform more than one attention-demanding
13

task @ a time FACTORS INFLUENCING OUR ATTENTION

-> people have a fixed amount of attention that they can choose to allocate - anxiety
according to what the task requires - arousal
- two different versions -> being tired, drowsy, drugged -> limits attention
1) Allocation Theory 2) Modality Model -> being excited -> enhances attention
=> one single pool of attentional => multiple sources of - task difficulty
resources – can be divided fairly attention for different tasks -> more attentional resources needed for difficult/novel tasks
-> influences performance during divided attention
- skills
-> the more practiced & skilled you are in performing a task – the more
your attention is enhanced
AUTOMATIC & CONTROLLED PROCESSES IN ATTENTION
=> to help us navigate our environment more successfully, we automatize many

processes so that we can execute them without using up resources
AUTOMATIC & CONTROLLED PROCESSES
Automatic Processes
=> involve no conscious control
-> are performed without conscious awareness
// oversimplified -> demand little or no effort or even intention
-> people are better @ dividing attention when competing tasks are in different -> termed Parallel Processes
modalities -> can occur @ once/very quickly & in no particular sequence
-> filter + bottleneck theories => more suitable for competing tasks that appear to -> concealed from consciousness
be attentionally incompatible -> unintentional
-> PRP effect => participants are asked to respond to stimuli once they appear – if -> consume few attentional resources
2nd stimulus follows a 1st one immediately – 2nd response is delayed
=> processes requiring attention must be handled sequentially Controlled Processes
-> resource theory => are accessible to conscious control & even require it
-> better for complex tasks -> occurs sequentially – one step @ a time
-> take relatively long time to execute
Automatization
=> controlled processes can become automatic ones w/ practice
14

-> highly automatized behaviour require little effort/conscious control -> we can
engage in multiple automatic behaviours
EVERYDAY LIFE
-> automatization of tasks isn’t guaranteed (dyslexia etc.)
Stroop Effect
HOW DOES AUTOMATIZATION OCCUR?
=> demonstrates the psychological difficulty in selectively attending to the colour
-> during the course of practice, implementation of the various steps become of the ink & trying to ignore the word that is printed
more efficient Explanation:
-> gradually combing individual effortful steps into integrated components that are 1) for most adults reading is an automatic process – it’s not readily subject
further integrated -> into one single operation to your conscious control
-> you find it difficult intentionally to refrain from reading & instead to
Instance Theory concentrate on identifying the colour of the ink, disregarding the word
-> automatization occurs because we gradually accumulate knowledge about
specific responses to specific stimuli 2) the output of a response occurs when the mental pathways for
producing the response are activated sufficiently
Effects of Practice on Automatization -> in Stroop the two pathways interfere w/ each other – it takes longer to
-> early practice effects are great
-> late practice effects make less & less difference
15

gather sufficient strength of activation to produce the colour-naming

response & not the word-reading response
MISTAKES IN AUTOMATIC PROCESSES
Mistakes
=> errors in choosing an objective or in specifying a means of achieving it
-> involves errors in intentional, controlled processes
Slips
=> errors in carrying out an intended means for reaching an objective
-> involves errors in automatic processes
Different kinds of Slips
-> are most likely to occur when:
1) we must deviate from a routine & automatic processes inappropriately
override intentional controlled processes
2) when our automatic processes are interrupted
=> usually result of external events/ data or internal events (highly
distracting thoughts)
Minimizing the Potential for negative consequences of Slips

- receiving appropriate feedback from the environment
- forcing functions
=> physical conditions that make it difficult/impossible to carry out the slip
16

#4 CATEGORICAL KNOWLEDGE -> people use a decision process to make judgements about these concepts
Defining Features Characteristic Features
STRUCTURE OF SEMANTIC MEMORY => attributes that are => attributes that are merely descriptive
Semantic Memory necessary to the meaning of but not essential
=> the organized knowledge about the world the item
≠ in contrast: Episodic Memory (= contains information about events that happen // distinction between both features bit arbitrary
to us) -> argues that category membership is very clear-cut
-> but no clear-cut distinction Typicality Effect
-> facts => people reach decisions faster when an item is a typical member of a category,
BACKGROUND rather than an unusual member
Semantic Memory -> comparison model tries to explain the effect – when people acounter an
=> includes encyclopaedic, lexical, language, & conceptual knowledge atypical item, they need to compare the defining features for the item &
-> influences most of our cognitive activities its category (extra step – more time)
-> essential components: ++ model can account for typicality effect
Category Concept // no support that category membership is based on a list of necessary features
=> a set of objects => our mental representations // assumption: individual features are independent of one another -> but many
that belong together of a category; helps to infer features are correlate
-> can be natural, artificial, categories // doesn’t explain how the members of categories are related to one another
ad hoc(= serving a particular The Prototype Approach
goal) => we organize each category on the basis of a prototype, which is the item that is
-> allows you to code the objects you encounter most typical & representative of the category
-> you can combine together a wide variety of similar objects by using a => you decide whether an item belongs to a category by comparing that item w/ a
single, one-word concept -> this coding process greatly reduces the prototype – if it’s similar -> you include that item in the category
storage space (many objects can be stored w/ the same label) Prototype
-> concepts allow you to make interferences when encountering new examples => an abstract, idealized example
-> allows us to go beyond the given information -> greatly expanding our -> members of a category differ in their prototypicality/degree to which they’re
knowledge prototypical
-> all members of categories aren’t created equal
Graded Structure
APPROACHES -> a category is gradually structured (most prototypical members to non-
prototypical members)
The Feature Comparison Model
Characteristics of Prototypes
=> concepts are stored in memory according to a list of necessary
1) are supplied as examples of a category
features/characteristics
17

-> also accounts well for the Typicality Effect not writing instrument or Bic fine-point pen)
-> also makes quicker judgements about category membership when 2) are more likely to produce semantic priming effect
assessing prototypes 3) different levels of categorization activate different regions of
the brain
2) are judged more quickly after semantic priming
Subordinate-Level Categories
Semantic Priming
=> lower-level, more specific
=> means that people respond faster to an item if it was
e.g.: “desk chair, collie, Philips screwdriver”
preceded by an item w/ similar meaning
++ can account for our ability to form concepts for groups that are loosely
-> priming facilitates the responses to prototypes more than it
structured
facilitates the responses to non-prototypes
++ can be applied to social relationships, as well as inanimate objects & non-social
e.g.: 1st “apple” the word is shown, 2nd “apple” a picture is shown
categories
=> faster response – priming
// concepts can be unstable & variable – prototypes can change
-> can account for typicality effect?
// we do store specific information about individual examples of a category –
3) share attributes in a family resemblance category should include a mechanisms this
Family Resemblance // vague
=> means that no single attribute is shared by all examples of a
Expertise & Prototypes
concept but each example has @ least one attribute in common w/ some
-> prototypes work differently
other example of the concept
-> novices use more prototype in fields where there are no experts (= they don’t
-> no single attribute serves as the necessary & sufficient criterion for
have detailed knowledge)
membership in that category
-> experts have very specific & detailed categories – are likely to use Exemplar
Concepts can be: Approach
- Fuzziness (= evolved naturally; are abstract; e.g.: life, justice)
The Exemplar Approach
- Classical (= made by experts; are ordered)
=> we 1st learn some specific examples of a concept; then we classify each new
Levels Categorization stimulus by deciding how closely it resembles those specific examples
=> the way that our semantic categories are structured in terms of different levels Exemplar
Superordinate-Level Categories => each of those examples stored in memory
=> higher-level, more general categories -> emphasizes that your concept of a e.g.: a dog is represented by numerous
e.g.: “furniture, animal, tool” examples of dogs you have known (≠ Prototype Approach – idealized
Basic-Level Categories representation of a dog not any particular dog)
=> are moderately specific
e.g.: “chair, dog, screwdriver” -> proposes that we don’t need any list of features because all necessary
-> have special privileges, are more useful information is stored in specific examples
1) basic-level names are used to identify objects (you say pen – -> people don’t need to perform any kind of abstraction process
18

Typicality Effect // no hierarchy

-> the more you see – the more examples you got – the faster you categorize // too flexible
-> typicality effect accounts for most used examples
Hierarchy Model by Collins
// semantic memory would quickly become overpopulated w/ numerous
Animal -> Bird (has wings) -> Robin (red breast)
exemplars for numerous categories
-> principle of inheritance
-> more suitable when considering a category w/ relatively few members
-> most representative is on top of hierarchy
-> prototype approach better w/ a lot of members
-> semantic distance
// too bulky for some purposes – not effective to use a strategy based purely on
-> The network has a hierarchical structure. If an item is found under one concept, which is
exemplars – prototype & exemplar approach should coexist + the feature
itself nested within another higher concept, the original item belongs to BOTH higher-level
comparison model
concepts. For example, the figure above shows that the concepts "canary" and "ostrich"
++ more variety belong both to the class of BIRDS and to the higher class of ANIMALS
Network Model -> In the network the principle of inheritance applies. This means that features are only
stored once and as high as possible in the hierarchy. In the figure above you can see for
=> concerned about the interconnections among related items
instance that "has feathers" is not stored at "canary" but at BIRD, since all birds have
=> proposes a netlike organization of concepts in memory w/ many
feathers. Likewise, "breathes" is stored at the level of ANIMAL, since all animals breathe
interconnections (whether with lungs or through gills).
-> meaning of a particular concept depends on the concepts to which it’s
connected
The Collins & Loftus Network Model

=> semantic memory is organized in terms of netlike structures w/ numerous
interconnections
-> retrieving information -> activation spreads to related concepts
-> each concept can be represented as a Node (= location in network)
-> each Link connects a particular node w/ another concept node
-> length of each link determines relatedness
=> collection of Nodes & Links = Network
Spreading Activation
=> name of concept is mentioned -> representing concept is activated ->
activation expands/spreads to other nodes
-> frequently used links have greater strength – require less time
-> Typicality Effect
++ good theory // but more complex ones are better
// no predictive power // doesn’t explain typicality effect
19

The Parallel Distributed Processing Approach (PDP) 2) unit’s critical level of activation -> affects another unit either by
=> cognitive processes can be represented by a model in which activation flows exciting it or by inhibiting it
through networks that link together a large number of simple, neuron-like units
3) every new piece of information – changes strength of
-> taking into account the physiological & structural properties of human neurons
connection among relevant units by adjusting connection weights
-> works better for tasks in which processes operate simultaneously
Central Characteristics 4) partial memory for some information (= Graceful Degradation)
1) cognitive processes are based on parallel operations rather than serial -> explains why the brain continues to work when an accident,
operations -> many patterns of activation can proceed simultaneously stroke etc has destroyed parts of the cortex ???? maira
2) network contains basic neuron-like units/nodes which are connected ++ most important shifts in cognitive psychology
(one node has many links to other nodes) => Connectionism // relatively new, not well researched
3) concept is represented by the pattern of activity distributed throughout Differences between Spreading Activation & PDP
a set of nodes SA PDP
-> explains how human memory can help us when some information is -> no specification about -> happen @ the same time
missing inhibitory/exhibitory -> brain-like neurons
Spontaneous Generalization -> more about nodes -> about connections
=> drawing conclusions about a general category -> serial processing -> parallel processing
-> people can make a spontaneous generalization by using
individual cases to draw inferences about general information Situated/Grounded Cognition Approach / Situated Stimulation ??? important???
-> accounts for some memory errors + distortions on LTM -> Our knowledge depends on the context that surrounds us. It does not claim that
-> can explain stereotyping representations are abstract, amodel or stable. It sees representations as analog,
-> we reconstruct a memory & that memory sometimes include grounded and variable
inappropriate information -> It helps us transfer a concept from the learning situation to real life
Default Assignment -> People do not have similar representation
=> drawing conclusion about a specific member of a category -> Concepts are rarely processes in isolation but it is influenced by context (e.g.
-> fill in missing information by making a best guess -> based on personal goals)
information from other people/objects -> When you see something, neurons in the visual system fire for the shape, other
-> both can produce errors = both explain stereotypes neurons for the movement. Cross-modal activation in different brain areas
Important Characteristics integrate activations to establish a multi-modal representation. ƒ
1) connection weight between neuron-like units determine how -> Connell (2012): to simulate small objects, sometimes subjects are presented
much activation one unit can pass on to another one- learning with tactile stimulations in their hands. It seems to draw attention and speed up
& experience change weights performance on the task to decide which one of two objects is bigger (apple-pear)
e.g.: sitting @ a pool thinking about a cocktail vs. sitting in the desert thinking
20

about water => proofs why prototypes don’t work !!! – they differ regarding the Schema-Consistent Material
context -> people are highly likely to recall objects consistent w/ a schema (office = books)
Schema-Inconsistent Material
-> sometimes we show better recall for material that violates our expectations
SCHEMAS & SCRIPTS
=> people are more likely to recall schema-inconsistent material when that
Schema material is vivid or surprising
=> information about familiar settings, behaviour, & other “packages” of things we -> more memorable – explanation: especially likely to remember material that
know attracts attention & require more effort to process
=> mental representation => better than consistent material
=> generalized knowledge about a situation/event/person
Boundary Extension
-> influences the way we understand a situation an event
=> our tendency to remember having viewed a greater portion of a scene that was
BACKGROUND actually shown
-> propose that people encode in their memory „generic“ information about a
SCHEMAS & MEMORY ABSTRACTION
situation – use this information to understand & remember new examples of the
schema Abstraction
-> guide your recognition & understanding of new examples => a memory process that stores the meaning of a message but not the exact
-> allows us to predict what will happen words
-> are heuristic = general rules that are typically accurate -> we tend to recall the gist/general meaning w/ impressive accuracy – our
-> emphasize the active nature of our cognitive processes abstracted version is consistent w/ original schema
-> can lead to astray -> errors
Verbatim Memory
Script
=> word-for-word recall
=> a simple, well-structured sequence of events – in a specified order- that
-> usually poor
are associated w/ a highly familiar activity
=> an abstraction, a prototype of a series of events that share an SCHEMAS & INFERENCES IN MEMORY
underlying similarity -> based on gender stereotypes
e.g.: how to act in a class or how to go to a restaurant
-> narrower than schemas – referring to a sequence of events that unfold in a Gender Stereotype
specified order => widely shared set beliefs about the characteristics of females & males
-> if order has been disrupted – harder to remember -> even if it’s partially correct – can’t be applied to every individual
-> people recall a script significantly more accurately if the script has been clearly -> can be connected to schemas -> certain expectations influences how we
identified in advance perceive a situation
SCHEMAS & MEMORY SELECTION
21

How to assess Gender Stereotypes? 6. When we are recalling information from our real-life experiences
-> Explicit Memory Tasks rather than information created by researchers—we may be more
=> directly instructs participants to remember information accurate
-> not suitable for assessing stereotypes – people might guess
that the researchers are measuring their stereotypes -> biased
-> Implicit Memory Tasks
=> people perform cognitive tasks that don’t directly ask for recall
or recognition
-> better for assessing stereotypes
1) Neuroscience Techniques
-> event-related potential (ERP) technique
=> records tiny fluctuations in the brain’s electrical activity in
response to a stimulus
-> ERP’s changed significantly for stereotype-inconsistent sentences
2) Implicit Association Test
=> is based on the principle that people can mentally pair related
words together much more easily than they can pair unrelated words
-> most common; measures response time – quicker when words match
your stereotypes
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SCHEMAS

=> In summary, schemas can influence memory in the initial selection of material,
in remembering visual scenes, in abstraction, in interpretation, and even in the
final process of integration. However, we must note that schemas often fail to
operate in the expected fashion. For instance:
1. We often select material for memory that is inconsistent with our

schemas.
2. We may indeed remember that we saw only a portion of an object,
rather than the complete object.
3. We frequently recall the exact words of a passage as it was originally
presented. (Otherwise, chorus directors would have resigned long ago.)
4. We often avoid making inappropriate inferences.
5. We may keep the elements in memory isolated from each other, rather
than integrated together.
22

#5 MENTAL IMAGERY Pictures -> most important!!!

-> capture concrete & spatial information in a manner analogous to whatever they
MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE represent; convey all features simultaneously
How to assess Mental Representations -> ensure as much similarity as possible between the picture & the object
-> Introspectionist Approach -> analogous relationship between the picture & what it represents
-> assessing mental representation by asking people what they see in their Words
minds -> capture abstract & categorical information in a manner that is symbolic of
// no one has conscious access to their own knowledge-representation whatever the word represents; convey information sequentially
processes – self-reported information about these processes is highly -> according to arbitrary rules that have little to do with what the words represent
unreliable -> both well suited to some purposes but not to others
-> Rationalist Approach
-> trying to deduce logically how people represent knowledge MENTAL IMAGERY
-> distinguished between declarative & procedural knowledge Imagery
-> Standard Laboratory Experiments => the mental representation of things that aren’t currently seen or sensed by the
-> indirective way of study knowledge representation sense organs
-> observing how people handle various cognitive tasks that require the -> in our minds we often have images for objects, events, & settings
manipulation of mentally represented knowledge -> can present things that we have never experienced / that don’t exist at all
-> Neuropsychological Studies outside the mind of the person creating the image
1) observe how the normal brain responds to various cognitive tasks -> may involve mental representations in any of the sensory modalities (hearing,
involving knowledge representation smell, taste)
2) observe the links between various deficits in knowledge representation
& associated pathologies in the brain -> most research has focused on imagery – we’re more aware of visual imagery
than of other forms of imagery
Communicating Knowledge: Picture vs. Words -> applications of mental imagery to other fields in psychology (using guided-
-> focus on the difference of knowledge representation (as mental pictures, in imagery techniques for controlling pain & for strengthening immune responses &
words, or abstract propositions) otherwise promoting health)
-> some ideas are better & more easily represented in pictures, whereas others are -> not everyone is equally skilled in creating & manipulating mental images (-
better represented in words (drawing the shape of an egg rather than describing it measurable w/ fMRI)
etc.) -> use of mental images can help to improve memory
Symbolic Representation
=> relationship between the word & what it represents is simply arbitrary
-> the word “cat”
-> capture some kinds of information but not everything – to represent
additional characteristics, additional words must be used
23

THEORIES PROPOSITIONAL CODES

=> the meaning underlying a particular relationship among abstract concepts
ANALOG CODES (by Paivio)
-> Predicate Calculus (= attempts to strip away the various superficial differences
-> resemble the objects they’re representing; close to perception; descriptive
in the ways we describe the deeper meaning of a proposition)
-> mental images = analogue codes
=> [relationship between elements]([subject element], [object element]
-> different processing than for the symbolic codes
e.g.: The cat is under the table.
SYMBOLIC CODES -> (cat) [under] (table)
-> form of knowledge representation that has been chosen arbitrarily to stand for - blue -> subjects
something that doesn’t perceptually resemble what is being represented - red -> relationship between subjects
-> mental words = symbolic codes -> can be used to describe any kind of relationship (e.g.: actions of one thing on
-> abstract, language-like another, attributes of a thing, propositions, class memberships etc.) + any number
of propositions may be combined to represent more complex relationships
DUAL-CODE THEORY: Images & Symbols => pictorial & verbal information are encoded & stored as propositions – retrieving
-> we use both pictorial & verbal codes for representing information in our minds the information from storage we’re retrieving the propositional representation
-> these two codes organize information into knowledge that can be acted on, // don’t need a propositional code to manipulated information – we can
stored somehow, & retrieved for subsequent use manipulate mental imagery directly
-> combines both codes // propositional codes are less likely to influence imaginal ones when participants
-> verbal information seems to be processed differently than pictorial information create their own mental images (rather than when they’re presented w/ one)
-> responses involving visual perceptions can interfere w/ a task involving ++ figures can be ambiguous; star from pre-> unlikely to see parallelogram (= got
manipulations of a visual image (same w/ verbal expressions) stored in terms of meaning not in terms of image -> interferes – can’t retrieve
=> suggest the use of two distinct codes for mental representation of knowledge image, only meaning)
(1. Imaginal/analogical code 2. Verbal/symbolic code) => ALL CODES EXIST SEPERATELY – ANALOG & SYMBOLIC CODES WERE COMBINED
// participants weren’t able to call up a precise analogical mental image IN THE DUAL-CODE THEORY
(parallelogram) -> propositional code better
// people have analogical images that are imprecise in some ways SYMBOLIC CODES ≠ PROPOSITIONAL CODES
// propositional codes may override the imaginal code in some circumstances -> actual sentences “ that’s -> abstract sentences
// visual images can be distorted through verbal information a blue bottle” -> code shows relationship
++ interference w/ two different senses – suggests that we got 2 different systems “blue” “bottle”
PROPOSITIONAL THEORY: Storing Knowledge as Abstract Concepts Functional-Equivalence Hypothesis

=> suggests that we don’t store mental representations in the form of images or => visual imagery isn’t identical to visual perception – it’s functionally equivalent to
mere words – we may experience our mental representations as images, but these it
images are epiphenomena (= secondary & derivative phenomena that occur as a -> functionally equivalent things are strongly analogous to each other – can
result of other more basic cognitive processes accomplish the same goals
24

=> suggests that we use images rather than propositions in knowledge decrease/disappear
representation for concrete objects which can be pictured -> supports Functional-Equivalence Theory + Analog Code
-> refers back to Elephant – Rabbit Problem
-> longer to notice details on small objects than large – mental screen ( the larger, ZOOMING IN ON MENTAL IMAGES: Image Scaling by Kosslyn
the more details) -> we use mental images the same way we use our actual perceptions
-> resolution is limited
-> seeing details of large objects is easier than seeing such details of small ones
MENTAL MANIPULATIONS OF IMAGES -> when we see something in front of our “mental eye” it takes about the same
amount of time to perceive it, just as it would if we saw something in real life
MENTAL ROTATIONS by Sheppard & Metzler (supports functional-equivalence hypothesis)
-> mental image manipulation – also shows if functional-equivalence hypothesis is -> also supports analogue code
correct (-> whether mental images & the images we see w/ our eyes work in the -> refers to Elephant & Rabbit Problem
same way)
Mental Rotation EXAMINING OBJECTS: Image Scanning
=> involves rotationally transforming an object’s visual mental image -> key idea: images can be scanned in much the same way as physical percepts can
Factors be scanned
-> each increase in the degree of rotation of the figures – corresponding increase -> scanning a map – participants encoded the map in form of an image – just as
in the response time (-> also takes longer in real life) they would have scanned a real map
-> response time longer for degraded stimuli (blurry, incomplete, less informative
AMBIGUOUS FIGURES
stimuli) + longer for complex; unfamiliar items
-> store mental image corresponding to actual object (e.g. star – we should be able
-> older adults have more difficulty – aging affects some aspects of visual imagery
to see parallelogram) => but people not able to so :
more than others
-> supports propositional code
-> practice effects ->better performance w/ increased practice (but not w/ novel
-> only for complex, visual objects or ambiguous figures
figures)
-> Star problem supports propositional code
-> may be an automatic process -> sign of more effective visuospatial skills
Factors influencing our perception of ambiguous figures:
=> mental representations & cognitive processes underlie adaptations to the
-> giving people hints -> changed their proposition
environment -> constitute human intelligence (- low intelligence)
-> no need for new proposition
-> bit easier if it’s rotated clockwise
-> reconstrual – interpret one item as different item (bunny/duck)
-> Gender
=> is a critic for propositional code – you shouldn’t be able to change your
-> differences in brain activation – men & women use different strategies
proposition -> support for analogue codes
to solve mental rotation problems
-> women greater amount of grey matter – disadvantage for mental Representational Neglect
rotation
-> many patients who suffer from spatial neglect also suffer from representational
-> males better than females – but training causes the difference to
25

neglect – can also occur independently -> people use both an analogical code & a propositional code
-> a person asked to imagine a scene ignores half of the imagined scene
HEURISTICS (not always bad, can sometimes actually help)
SPATIAL COGNITION & COGNITIVE MAPS -> sometimes our rules of thumb influence our estimations of distance
=> cognitive strategies = heuristics
Spatial Cognition -> density of landmarks affect our mental image of an area
=> deals w/ the acquisition, organization, & use of knowledge about objects & -> increased density of intervening landmarks-> estimates of distance
actions in two-and three-dimensional space increases (the more landmarks there are, the larger the distance)
Cognitive Maps Distortions of Cognitive Maps

=> internal representation of our physical environment, particularly centering on 1. Right-angle Bias: People tend to think of intersections (e.g., street crossings) as
spatial relationships forming 90-degree angles more often than the intersections really do
-> offer internal representations that simulate particular spatial feature of our
external environment 2. Symmetry Heuristics: People tend to think of shapes (e.g., states or countries) as
-> humans use 3 types of knowledge when forming & using cognitive maps being more symmetrical than they really are
1. Landmark knowledge – information about particular features @ a
location & which may be based on both imaginal & propositional 3. Rotation Heuristic: When representing figures and boundaries that are slightly
representations slanted (i.e., oblique, skewed), people tend to distort the images as being either
Landmark Effects more vertical or more horizontal than they really are
-> influences distance estimation ->e.g.: Rotterdam & Paris
1) shorter distance going to a landmark & longer when going
away from a landmark 4. Alignment Heuristic: People tend to represent landmarks and boundaries that
2) the more landmarks -> the larger the distance are slightly out of alignment by distorting their mental images to be better aligned
than they really are (i.e., we distort the way we line up a series of figures or
2. Route-road knowledge – specific pathways for moving from one objects)
location to another (based on both procedural & declarative knowledge)
-> influences distance more than actual distance 5. Relative-position Heuristic: The relative positions of particular landmarks and
e.g.: A & B is larger way but has a direct route whereas A & C is closer to boundaries is distorted in mental images in ways that more accurately reflect
each other but appears more far away because it has no direct route people’s conceptual knowledge about the contexts in which the landmarks and
boundaries are located, rather than reflecting the actual spatial configurations
3. Survey knowledge – estimated distances between landmarks, much as -> influences mental representation much more strongly than it does perception
they appear on survey maps -> may be represented imaginally or e.g.: Paris Rotterdam
propositionally
-> birds-eye view 6. Border Bias: distance appears longer if you have to cross a boarder
26

7. Landmark Effects
-> semantic/propositional knowledge can also influence imaginal representations

of world maps (either Eurocentric or Americentric views or highlighting own
countries)
-> enlarging more prominent, well-known countries & diminishing the sizes of less
well-known countries
=> both propositional & imaginal representations of knowledge occur – the only
question is when we use which form of representation!!!
Spatial-Framework Model by Franklin & Tversky ????

=> spatial dimensions
-> above/below -> most important (south/north easier than West/East)
-> gravity related
-> front/back -> moderately important; easier to differentiate
-> right/left -> least important – equal perception; longer time
to estimate; symmetry
27

#6 LANGUAGE REPRESENTATION BASIC READING PROCESSES
Neurolinguistic (= examines how the brain processes language) Reading & WM

-> research on adults with aphasia suggests that damage in Broca’s area (located -> plays an important role
toward the front of the brain, manages motor movement and for speaking you -> readers who have a relatively large working-memory span can quickly process
have to move your lips etc.) usually leads to difficulty in producing language, ambiguous sentences + are especially skilled in reading difficult passages & solving
whereas damage in Wernicke’s area (located towards back of the brain) usually complex verbal problems
leads to difficulty in understanding language; however, the distinction is not clear- -> people who can maintain many items in memory – are quick & accurate in
cut. understanding complex sentences
TWO PATHWAYS FOR READING WORDS

(-> how do we look @ a pattern of letters & actually recognize that word?)
Dual-Route Approach to Reading

=> specifies that skilled readers employ both a direct-access route & an indirect-
access route
Direct-Access Route
-> recognizing the word directly through vision
-> the visual pattern is sufficient to access the word & its meaning
-> using this access if the word has an irregular spelling & can’t be sounded
out??
-> common words
-> more talented readers are quicker
-> The left hemisphere typically performs most components of language Indirect-Access Route
processing, such as speech perception, reading, and syntax processing; however, -> recognize this word indirectly by sounding out the word
the right hemisphere performs tasks such as interpreting a message’s emotional -> as soon as you see a word you translate the ink marks on the page into
tone, appreciating humor, and forming connections among sentences. some form of sound, before you can access a word and its meaning
-> using this access if the word has an regular spelling & can be sounded
-> Research using fMRIs highlights a variety of brain regions that are responsible
out???
for language-related activities; for example, this research shows that the right
-> you must go through the intermediate step of converting the visual
hemisphere can distinguish between connected language and a series of
stimulus into a phonological stimulus (sound)
unconnected sentences.
-> unfamiliar words
++ children who are able to identify sound patterns in a word -> better in reading
28

++ flexibility Constructionist View of Inferences

++ consistent w/ brain-imaging research => readers usually draw inferences about the causes of events & the relationship
between events
-> reader actively construct explanations as they integrate the current information
-> Working memory helps readers decode ambiguous sentences and understand w/ all the relevant information from previous parts of the text + their background
complex sentences. knowledge
-> Working memory plays a critical role in processing ambiguous or complicated -> argue that people typically draw inferences, even when the related topics are
sentences. separated by several irrelevant paragraphs
-> The dual-route approach argues that readers sometimes recognize a word ++ supported by research – readers clearly try to connect material within a text
directly from the printed letters (i.e., direct access), and sometimes they convert passage + consult information stored in LTM
the printed letters into a phonological code to access the word (i.e., indirect Factors
access). - more likely to draw inferences w/ large WM capacity
-> The whole-word approach emphasizes visual recognition of words, whereas the - excellent metacomprehension skills (reading skills)
phonics approach emphasizes sounding out the word. Most educators and - having background information/expertise about the topic (can
researchers favour a combination of these approaches. compensate for a relatively small WM capacity)
- fail to construct inferences for scientific texts
- very common in novels
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND DISCOURSE & WHAT MAKES US DRAWING - if information is separated w/ too much text – difficult to draw inferences
INFERENCES???
TYPES
UNDERSTANDING DISCOURSE Logical Inferences
Discourse -> automatic
=> in daily life you’re continually processing connected discourse/language units e.g.: word “husband” indicates it’s a male
that are larger than a sentence
Bridging
Forming an Integrated Representation of the Text -> connecting new sentences w/ previous ones
-> everyone forms integrated representations, remember the material & draw e.g.: The squirrel is looking for nuts. He finds them in…. (“he” is the squirrel”
inferences when they hear spoken language + read written language
-> use of subtle cues to form integrated representations Elaborative Inferences
-> often construct mental models of the material we’re reading -> removing/adding information
-> need to maintain these internal representations in LTM
Higher-Level Inferences
INFERENCES -> can be based on our own preferences about the way we want a story to turn
=> drawing on our world knowledge in order to activate information that isn’t out
explicitly stated in a written passage -> readers who are involved in a story do develop strong mental preferences for a
29

particular outcome – can interfere w/ reader’s ability to judge how the story -> local coherence
turned out -> start representing from present information
// little support – too simple
COHERENCES
=> when logical sequence of sentences can be tracked 3rd CONSTRUCTION-INTEGRATION THEORY
-> les modality-specific activation in incoherent sentences => assumed that comprehension involves forming propositions
-> imagery is stronger if story is coherent => an associative model of discourse comprehension where the comprehension
-> processing slower process is intended to be highly automated, requiring little conscious control
-> bottom-up processing
Local Coherence Phases
=> link between individual sentences but not necessarily between the whole story 1) Construction
-> a crude mental representation is constructed from both linguistic
Global Coherence input & the comprehender’s own knowledge
=> link between the whole story (≠sentences themselves are coherent but the -> mental representation isn’t refined yet
content/whole story isn’t) 2) Integration
-> the associative network is fine tuned so that it becomes a coherent
THEORIES OF HOW LANGUAGE IS REPRESENTED
whole
1st CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW => produce a definitive mental representation of the discourse
=> reader actively creates imagery events from text Levels of Representation
-> top-down processing – constructing representation w/ using your background 1) Surface level
knowledge to understand the text => decode from words & letters
-> active process -> Verbatim Information (= exactly what you see/what the sentences/
=> readers usually draw inferences about the causes of events & the relationship words are about)
between events 2) Propositional level
-> reader actively construct explanations as they integrate the current information => making meaning from the words
w/ all the relevant information from previous parts of the text + their background -> text-based
knowledge -> Gist Information
-> argue that people typically draw inferences, even when the related topics are 3) Situation level
separated by several irrelevant paragraphs => a mental image get connected to prior experience & what we might
++ supported predict as coming
-> best remembered
2nd MINIMALIST VIEW
-> we barely use inferences 1. Sentences are turned into propositions, representing the meaning of the text
-> bottom-up processing (e.g. Harry Potter is a wizard).
30

2. The propositions are entered into a short-term buffer and form a network of ARTICLE by Fecica
propositions (e.g. Harry Potter is a wizard, wizards have wands) “A step at a time: Preliterate children’s simulation of
3. Each proposition that is constructed from the text retrieves a few associatively narrative movement during story comprehension”
related propositions (or inferences) from LTM (e.g. Harry Potter is a wizard,
wizards are not real). -> children’s simulations of a character’s movements were found to be constrained
4. The proposition plus the retrieved information from LTM from an elaborated by their expectation of the duration of the described activities (i.e., walking vs.
propositional network with many irrelevant propositions (e.g. Harry Potter is a driving) and by their expectations about the motivating influence of certain
wizard, Mickey Mouse used to be one too). psychological factors (i.e., character being eager or not eager to get to a location)
5. A spreading activation process selects propositions for the text representations. -> narrative comprehension also involves the creation of a mental representation
Clusters of highly interconnected propositions attract most activation and are of the described situation (= situation model)
therefore most likely to be included as a representation of the text. This is called -> adult’s situation models are quite detailed & contain information about
the integration process. the time, space, entities, intentionality, causal relations etc.
6. The text representation that was formed is stored as episodic text memory. The Embodied Account
associated knowledge and information that was actually in the text gets integrated -> high-level cognitive processes are grounded in bodily mechanisms of
and it is hard to distinguish between the real and fake propositions. perception, action, and affect
7. This results in: surface representation (actual text), propositional/text base -> during comprehension – readers often activate the perceptual & motor
representation (propositions based on the text), and situation representation (a information described in a text (e.g.: reading action words like kick, run has been
mental model describing the situation referred to in the text) found to activate brain regions associated w/ the performance of those actions)
=> results of neuroimaging studies – suggests that the process of comprehending
4th EMBODIED COGNITION narratives may involve the use of perceptual & motor representations to simulate
-> experiences are grounded in our bodies events & actions described in a narrative
-> analogue approach = representations are stored similarly as perceived NOT => behavioural view also supports it
symbolic OR abstract! -> adult readers are faster @ making movements that are consistent w/ the action
-> body plays a role in understanding concepts described in a text than inconsistent ones
-> understanding language requires stimulation in brain’s modality-specific -> conducted 3 studies which demonstrate the preliterate children construct rich
systems, the same systems involved in perceiving & acting in the world mental representations of the events described in a narrative (they simulate a
-> different levels (time, speed, space) are embodied in our representations -> character’s movements & actions – is constrained by children’s expectations &
check slides knowledge of certain factors)
-> Spatial Reference System
LG: HOW DOES LANGUAGE AFFECT OUR SENSES & PERCEPTION??
LG: HOW DO WE MENTALLY REPRESENT A NARRATIVE THAT WE’RE LISTENING TO?
HOW DO DIFFERENT COMPONENTS AFFECT REPRESENTATIONS?? ARTICLE by Kurby
“The activation of modality-specific representations during
discourse processing”
31

-> assessed whether modality-specific imagery/representation occurs during Spatial Iconicity Effect
naturalistic, discourse comprehension -> people often report rich subjective -> means that people give spatial arrangements for semantic judgements (roof
experiences whilst reading stories above basement)
-> reanalysed data from 2 previous studies in which participants read extended
narratives while their brain activity was recorded w/ fMRI – identified clauses in
the text that elicited auditory imagery, visual imagery, motor imagery WHICH BRAIN AREAS ARE INVOLVED??? – they are corresponding to the perceptual
areas
Modality Specific Representations
=> mental representations for senses like seeing, smelling, hearing etc. Studies
1) they had text with auditory imagery (e.g. giggled in a breathless way), visual
Situation Model (SM) imagery (e.g. he had big blue eyes and looked quite cocky), and motor imagery
=> a representation of the events described by a discourse (e.g. Raymond picked up the cat). Visual imagery is associated with near modality-
=> construct them by activating relevant knowledge associated w/ the event & specific brain regions, but these are not significant. Auditory imagery is associated
combining it in ways consistent w/ how the activity is described with regions in or near an auditory cortex (e.g. Wernicke’s and Broca’s area) in
both the left and right hemisphere. Reading motor imagery also activated brain
Sensorimotor Simulation Theories (analog) by Barsalou areas associated with performing grasping motions with touch sensation on the
-> argue that the representational format of SM is in large part sensory & motor – hand (see figure to see precise results).
are implemented by the same sensorimotor neural representations formed while
physically perceiving the event 2) asked to what extent readers activate modality-specific representations while
++ has most support reading disconnected sentences rather than a story. Another study found that the
=> comprehenders simulate perceptual & motor properties of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex was active during situation model construction. This
experience as a normal part of ongoing comprehension is more active during reading coherent stories than scrambled ones. It had
auditory, visual and motor images. Imagery was higher when reading intact than
View/ Situation Model Construction/Propositional Theory by Kintsch scrambled stories.
-> comprehension relies only on symbolic & abstract representations that are
functionally separate from the perceptual systems
-> readers generate a-modal, propositional representations that connect text to => result provide good evidence that the activation of modality-specific
schemas -> claimed to happen without mental images representations occurs during the ongoing reading of discourse & isn’t merely the
product of task demands
New Model/Combination View by Mahon => readers activated sensorimotor regions relevant to the perceptual
-> the way you process information depends on your goals & tasks – conceptual information implied in the text
systems might be both embodied & abstract but not complete without the -> suggests that reader were simulating how to execute the actions described in
perceptual & motor knowledge the text & how it feels to perform them
-> more flexible approach // may be dominant-hand specific
// no effects of reading visual imagery clauses
32

#3 LECTURE
Traditional View on Cognition
-> computational model -> rationalist approach
-> separate brain & cognition (connections to outside world are less important
-> perceptual systems take information from environment & send it through
separate systems
Amodal Theories of Cognition
-> internal cognitive structures don’t resemble the perceptual input from which it
originates
Limitations
- cognitive processes operate parallel (not serially)
- modal symbols represent knowledge in semantic memory (not amodal symbols) –
these symbols are recombined to form a mental simulation
- knowledge activation requires mental simulation in brain
- background knowledge & life experience = essential
Embodied Cognition
=> cognition is grounded in action & perception
- perceptual systems are modal & represented in the same systems
they came from
LANGUAGE PROCESSING & THE BRAIN
-> cognitive processes aren’t separated from the body
- cognition is affected by the body & interaction w/ the environment Processing words that:
Affordances - denote tools activate motor cortex
=> quality of object / environment that allows interaction w/ the individual - denote animals activate visual cortex
- express threat activate amygdala
- reflect hedonic valence modulate activity in anterior cingulate cortex
=> activity in brain regions during language comprehension = simulations
-> when participants are presented w/ sentences containing a verb implying a

hand/foot action -> motor cortex is activated (even for idiomatic sentences)
33

EMBODIED COGNITION 1. finger postures

2. spatial representations
-> memory processes have specific neural underpinnings 3. sensory representations of size
-> episodic memory is a collection of interacting systems (underlie memory 4. motor representations of size
retrieval & distribution of memories) -> number processing is linked to sensory-motor experiences
-> different brain areas are activated in the time course of retrieving an -> number representations are based on cognitive codes for magnitude
autobiographical memory information shared by perception, action and cognition
- retrieving an experience of an event & reconstruction of an event

-> in a similar way (same brain activation + systems as during
the original experience)
-> retrieval involves re-enactment of experience from action,
perception, & emotional systems
- 1st time an event is experienced – underlying sensory, motor &
affective states are stored -> memory of that event -> original
states are partially simulated & re-experienced
=> AB memory retrieval easier when retrieval occurs under congruent body
positions (same as when event happened)
Conceptual Metaphor Theory

-> abstract concepts which aren’t grounded – can still be represented
-> grounding = indirect
-> through metaphorical associations w/ more concrete domains of experience
-> emotions = presented metaphorically
EMBODIMENT & NUMBER PROCESSING
Neuropsychology
-> Gerstmann’s syndrome
- finger agnosia: inability to distinguish fingers on a hand (can predict
later math performance)
-> we share a sense for numbers with non-human animals

-> numbers are not abstractly represented. They are linked to sensory-motor
experiences
34

#7 DEDUCTIVE REASONING & DECISION MAKING -> low intelligence

-> low on flexible thinking (“no one can talk me out of something I know is
Thinking right”)
=> requires you to go beyond the information you were given
-> goals: solution, decision, belief The Confirmation Bias
-> you begin w/ several pieces of information, & you must mentally transform that => people would rather try to confirm a hypothesis than try to disprove it
information to solve a problem, draw a conclusion, to make a decision -> we would rather know what something IS than what it IS NOT -> very strong
preference
Deductive Reasoning -> research: the Standard Wason Selection Task
=> you are given some specific premises, & you’re asked whether those premises Factors
allow you to draw a particular conclusion, based on the principles of logic -> taking no time & being impulsive
-> high scores in SAT exams
Decision Making -> people perform better when task is concrete, familiar, realistic
=> refers to assigning & choosing among several alternatives -> evolution may have favoured people who developed specialized skills in
-> is much more ambiguous than deductive reasoning understanding important, adaptive problems – especially competent in
-> information can be missing/contradictory understanding the kinds of rules that are necessary for cooperative interactions in
a society
DIFFICULTIES WITH NEGATIVE INFORMATION
-> people can handle positive information better than negative information (- are DECISION MAKING
having troubles processing sentences that contain words such as no/not)
-> takes longer & more likely to make errors => an interdisciplinary field that includes research in all the social sciences
=> research examines concrete, realistic scenarios, rather than the kind of abstract
Abstract Reasoning Problems situations used in research on deductive reasoning
-> people better when solving concrete examples, rather than abstract, theoretical
examples Heuristics
-> arbitrary characteristics -> more difficult even when problem is short => general strategies that typically produce a correct solution
-> propositions low in imagery -> more difficult -> need to make difficult decision – use guidelines that are simple & easy to access
The Belief-Bias Effect Kahnemann & Tversky

=> occurs in reasoning when people make judgements based on prior beliefs & -> emphasized decision-making heuristics – an approach to connects decision
general knowledge, rather than on the rules of logic making w/ heuristics
-> people make errors when the logic of a reasoning problem conflicts w/ their -> a small number of heuristics guide human decision making – the same strategies
background knowledge that normally guide us toward the correct decision may sometimes lead us astray
-> example of top-down processing -> relies upon WM – especially the central-executive component
Factors
35

-> these same heuristics become a liability when they are applied too broadly, for Base Rate
example, when we emphasize heuristics rather than other important information => how often the item occurs in the population
-> people rely on representativeness when they are asked to judge category
REPRESENTATIVE HEURISTICS membership
(-> Engineer Problem)
=> a sample looks representative if it’s similar in important characteristics to the -> Base-Rate Fallacy
population from which it was selected => underemphasizing important information about base rates
-> THTHHTT -> would be representative because the order of Ts & Hs looks -> Bayes’ Theorem
random rather than orderly => states that judgements should be influenced by 2 factors:
-> we believe that random-looking outcomes are more likely than orderly 1) likelihood ratio (= assesses whether the description is more
outcomes likely to apply to Population A or B
-> encourages us to make errors when we make more complex decisions 2) base rate
-> this heuristic is so persuasive that we often ignore important statistical
information that we should consider Gambler Fallacy
-> usually helps us to make a correct decision + is simply to use => belief that random events are affected by previous events
1. If the problem is based on a judgment about similarity, you are dealing with the e.g.: experience of bad luck -> estimate probability of good luck as higher
representativeness heuristic.(e.g. We then make judgments about whether the
specific example is similar to the general category that it is supposed to represent Hot Hand Effect
(such as coin tosses or philosophy majors concerned about social justice) => opposite of gamble effect
-> belief that a certain course of events will continue
Sample Size e.g.: basketball player is scoring all the time – estimate probability to continue
-> representativeness is such a compelling heuristic – often fail to pay attention to scoring as higher
sample size
-> a large sample is statistically more likely to reflect the true proportions in a Sunk-Cost Fallacy
population ≠ a small sample will often reveal an extreme proportion => continue to invest in something
-> Small-Sample Fallacy e.g.: repair car again & again rather than buying a new one
=> assuming that small samples will be representative of the population
from which they are selected The Conjunction Fallacy
-> in both, social & abstract statistics problems correct => the probability of the conjunction of two events cant be larger than the
-> hospital example (check) probability of either its constituent events
- to combat: false => judging the probability of the conjunction of two events to be greater than
- become acquainted w/ a large number if people from the target group the probability of a constituent event
- getting trained to appreciate the fact that a small sample of individuals (-> banker + feminism problem)
isn’t representative -> is related to representative heuristic (banker + feminist more likely because the
given characteristics were more representative for being a feminist)
36

-> demonstrates that people can ignore one of the most basic principles of Recognition Heuristic
probability theory => typically operates when you must compare the relative frequency of two
-> even experts fall for this fallacy categories – if you recognize one category, but not the other, you conclude that
the recognized category has the higher frequency
AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC e.g.: which city is bigger? – the city you know
-> result of availability heuristic
=> when you estimate frequency or probability in terms of how easy it’s to think of
relevant examples of something Illusory Correlation
=> people judge frequency by assessing whether they can easily retrieve relevant - Illusory (= deceptive, unreal)
examples from memory or whether this memory retrieval is difficult => occurs when people believe that two variables are statistically related, even
-> generally helpful in everyday life – is accurate as long as availability is correlated though there is no real evidence for this relationship
w/ true, objective frequency e.g.: we often believe that a certain group of people tends to have certain kinds of
2. If the problem requires you to remember examples, you are dealing with the characteristics, even though an accurate tabulation would show that the
availability heuristic (e.g.: when we use the availability heuristic, we are given a relationship is not statistically significant
general category, and we must recall the specific examples (such as examples of Social Cognition Approach
Illinois students). Then we make decisions based on whether the specific examples => we form stereotype by means of our normal cognitive processes; motivational
come easily to mind) factors are less relevant
-> estimating own work in a team as more than of the other group members -> important cognitive factor = availability heuristic (can explain the illusory
because your own contributions are more available to you correlation/helps to create it)
-> availability can be contaminated by two factors that are not related to objective 3. The illusory correlation: We rely too strongly on one well-known cell in a data
frequency: matrix, failing to seek information about the other three cells.
-> complete forgetting of other data can be caused by confirmation bias
Factors
1) Recency THE ANCHORING & ADJUSTMENT HEURISTIC
-> you recall the more recent items more accurately -> they’re more available
=> we judge recent items to be more likely than they really are => we begin w/ a 1st approximation (anchor) & then we make adjustments to that
2) Familiarity number on the basis of additional information
=> the familiarity of items can also produce a distortion in frequency estimation => people tend to endorse their current beliefs, rather than trying to question
3) Priming them
=> makes certain concepts more available (everyone remembers who won the -> emphasize top-down processing
WM 2014) -> so powerful that it operates even when the anchors are obviously arbitrary or
4) Specificity impossibly extreme
=> how easy you can imagine things -> rely too heavily on anchor
-> supports stereotypes
37

-> possible explanation Expected Utility Theory

-> anchor restricts the search for relevant information in memory -> wanting to maximize satisfaction/pleasure & to minimize pain
-> people concentrate their search on information relatively close to the - subjective utility
anchor => expectation of utility vs. reality
e.g.: For example, let’s suppose that you hold a stereotype about people who - subjective probability
belong to a particular group, such as people who live in a region of the United => your expectation of how likely the event is going to happen
States or students who have a particular major. When you meet someone from -> is rational, logical driven & based on calculation // doesn’t reflect real life!!!
that group, you often rely on your stereotype in order to create an initial anchor.
Then you consider the unique characteristics of that particular individual, and you Prospect Theory by Kahnemann & Tversky
make some adjustments. However, you may not make sufficiently large => people’s tendencies to think about possible gains as being different
adjustments away from that initial anchor. from possible losses
-> anchoring strongly effects courtroom sentencing 1. When dealing with possible gains (for example, lives saved), people tend
to avoid risks.
Spotlight Effect 2. When dealing with possible losses(for example, lives lost), people tend
=> you overestimate your own performance to seek risks
-> better version of Expected utility theory
Estimating Confidence Intervals -> adds action to the theory
=> we use anchoring & adjustment when we estimate confidence intervals/range -> quite strong effect (is also common among statistically sophisticated students)
within which we expect a number to fall a certain percentage of the time -> marketing strategy, medical situations, politics
-> we estimate too narrow confidence intervals
OVERCONFIDENCE
THE FRAMING EFFECT => people’s confidence judgements is higher than they should be, based on their
actual performance on the task
=> demonstrates that the outcome of decision can be influenced by two factors Reasons
1) the background context of the choice / background context 1. People are often unaware that their knowledge is based on very tenuous and
2) the way in which the question is worded (framed) / wording uncertain assumptions and on information from unreliable or inappropriate
sources -> don’t know how much they don’t know
Background Information
2. Examples confirming our hypotheses are readily available, whereas we resist
-> provides different frames for different problems
searching for counterexample
The Wording of a Question & the Framing Effect 3. People have difficulty recalling the other possible hypotheses, and decision
(disease problem) – the ways that a question is framed – lives saved or lives lost – making depends on memory (Theme 4). If you cannot recall the competing
has important effect on people’s decision hypotheses, you will be overly confident about the hypothesis you have endorsed
4. Even if people manage to recall the other possible hypotheses, they do not treat
them seriously. The choice once seemed ambiguous, but the alternatives now
38

seem trivial -> use more heuristics

5. When people make decisions as a group, they sometimes engage in groupthink. -> gets used when under time pressure or lack of information
Groupthink can occur when a cohesive group is so concerned about reaching a
unanimous decision that members ignore potential problems, and they are 2) Type 2 Thinking
overconfident that their decision will have a favourable outcome. => more slowly & controlled
My-Side Bias -> requires focused attention
=> describes the overconfidence that one’s own view is correct in a -> more accurate
confrontational situation -> teaching about the types – prevents overconfidence
Planning Fallacy INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

=> underestimate the resources we have (time, money etc.= (decision-making style & psychological well-being)
-> can explain my side bias & sunk-cost fallacy
Maximisers
Overestimation vs. Over placement => have a maximising decision-making style
=> of your own views/ => of other people’s skills => tend to examine as many options as possible
skills etc -> tend to experience more depression
THE HINDSIGHT BIAS Satisficers

=> have a satisficing decision-making style
=> occurs when an event has happened & we say that the event had been => tend to settle for something that is satisfactory
inevitable – we had actually “known it all along” -> aren’t concerned about a potential shirt in another location that might be even
=> reflects our overconfidence that we could have predicted a particular outcome better
-> “victim blaming” – her behaviour made her get raped
=> can be combined
Explanations
-> not clear
-> people might use anchoring & adjustment
-> reconstruct the past that it fits the present CRITICISIM
-> misinformation effect
- leads us to underestimate our decision making
DUAL-PROCESS by Kahnemann - were only conducted in lab settings -> doesn’t reflect real life
-> two types of thinking - questions provoked wrong answers
1) Type 1 Thinking - didn’t consider individual differences
=> fast & automatic
-> requires little conscious attention
39

#4 LECTURE => when evaluation information -> monitoring the source of the
event – when it fails -> misinformation will be labelled as correct
FALSE MEMORY source & accepted
-> remember him because I saw him or because he was in the
TYPES to create false memories news?
Implanted Memory -> more likely if misleading information is thematically similar to
=> likelihood of creating a false memory depends on how plausible the information the event & plausible //less likely if it’s a biased source
is
e.g.: lost in the mall Individual Differences
- some situations – stress
DRM Paradigm - older adults & children
=> false memories guided by how many associations there are between seen - poor general memory
words because lure will be primed or unconsciously activated - high scores on imagery vividness
-> VAP false memory - high empathy scores
Imagination Inflation Confirmation Bias

=> imaging an event leads to increase in likelihood that false memory is created e.g. in hypothesis testing – seeking evidence that supports one’s beliefs
-> people are more confident that this event really happened => a tendency to be more responsive to evidence that confirms your beliefs rather
-> more plausible things are easier to believe/remember even if they didn’t than to evidence that might challenge your beliefs
happen -> people seem to consider only a subset of the evidence which is a subset that is
Experiment: 1. List of childhood events – indicating likelihood that they happened skewed by prior expectations
2. Imagine details about these events 3. Indicating likelihood again => changed -> people show better memory for confirming evidence than for disconfirming
even for the events that didn’t happen evidence
Misinformation Effect
=> memory is altered by misleading post-event information provided after the
event
Explanations:
- Memory Replacement Theory by Loftus
=> misleading information is encountered -> original memory is
lost/ new information has overwritten old information
- Memory Coexistence Theory
=> misleading information = more recent -> obscures original trace
- Source Monitoring Framework
40

#8 PROBLEM SOLVING & CREATIVITY Methods of Representing the Problem

-> finding an effective representation makes you able to organize the information
PROBLEM SOLVING efficiently & reduce the strain on your limited WM
- Symbols (= translating the problem into symbols)
=> an effort to overcome obstacles obstructing the path to a solution - Matrices (= a chart that shows all possible combinations of items;
-> how people solve problems depends partly on how they understand the especially suitable when info is stable)
problem - Diagrams (= can represent complicated info in a clear, concrete form)
- Visual Images
Problem Solving
= when you want to reach a goal but the solution isn’t immediately obvious Situational Cognition (the importance of context)
because important information is missing & obstacles are blocking your path - Situated-Cognition Approach
1) Initial State = our ability to solve a problem is tied into the specific context in which we
= describes the situation @ the beginning of the problem learned to solve that problem
- Ecological Validity (= if the conditions in which the research is conducted
2) Goal State is similar to the natural setting)
= reached when you solve the problem
THE PROBLEM-SOLVING CYCLE
3) Obstacle
=> describe the restrictions that make it difficult to proceed from - includes: problem identification & definition, strategy formulation, organization
the initial state to the goal state of information, allocation of resources, monitoring & evaluation
-> flexibility of cycle is important
UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM -> emotional intelligence can positively influence problem solving
Understanding
= means that you have constructed a mental representation of the problem, based
on the info provided in the problem & your own previous experience
-> need to construct an accurate mental representation
Paying Attention to Important Information

-> need to decide which info is most relevant to the problem’s solution
-> attention is limited & competing thoughts can produce divided attention
-> focusing attention on the appropriate part
attention = necessary initial component of understanding a problem
41

TYPES OF PROBLEMS Insight Problems

=> need to see the problem in a novel way/ differently from how you
Well-Structured Problems would see the problem @ first / or how you solve problem generally
=> have clear paths to solutions Insight (= a distinctive & sometimes seemingly sudden understanding of
e.g.: move problem (cannibals) a problem / of strategy in a totally new way)
- 3 kind of errors when solving well-structured problems ≠in contrast = Non-insight problems (= solving the problem gradually using
1) inadvertently moving backwards: they revert to a state that is further all kinds of skills)
away from the end goal
2) making illegal moves: making a move that isn’t permitted PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES
3) not realizing the nature of the next legal move: they become
“stuck” – don’t know what to do next, given the current stage of Algorithm
the problem => a method that will always produce a solution // process can be inefficient
- problem space (= the universe of all possible actions that can be applied to -> Exhaustive Search (= try out all possible answers using a specified
solving a problem, given any constraints that apply to the solution of the problem) system)
- algorithms (= sequences of operations that may be repeated over & over again –
guarantees the solution a the problem) Heuristics
-> limits of our WM prohibit us from considering more than just a few possible => a general rule that is USUALLY correct
operations – thus, we use mental shortcuts (heuristics)
ANALOGY APPROACH
Isomorphic Problems => employing a solution to a similar, earlier problem to help in solving a new one
=> their formal structure is the same – only the content of 2 problems differ (isomorph problems)
-> problem solvers are unlikely to detect isomorphic problems -> prominent in creative breakthroughs (art, politics, science, engineering)
Structure
Ill-Structured Problems - people tend to focus more on superficial content that on the abstract
=> lack clear paths to solutions underlying meaning -> pay more attention to surface features
-> don’t have well-defined problem spaces -> fail to emphasize the structural features but must be understood in
-> have difficulty constructing appropriate mental representations for modelling order to use analogy approach
these problems & their solutions Factors Encouraging
-> much of the problem – constructing a plan for sequentially following a series of - giving hints to compare both problems
steps - already having tried several similar problems
-> domain knowledge & justification skills(= problem solvers need to choose & - metacognition
justify their selection of a particular representation & solution) = important for Contextual Bias (= not able to use analogy – don’t see similarity of situation)
solving both types of problems ++ can be extremely useful
42

MEANS-END HEURISTIC
1) dividing the problem into a number of subproblems
2) try to reduce the difference between the initial state & the goal
state for each of the subproblems
=> focus attention on the difference between the initial state & the goal state
-> one of the most effective & flexible problem-solving strategy
-> WM important factor
THE HILL-CLIMBING HEURISTIC/ DIFFERENCE REDUCTION

= selecting the alternative that seems to lead most directly toward your goal state
- useful when information about alternatives is missing – when you can only see
the immediate next step
// doesn’t guarantee problem solving
-> encourages short-term goals rather than long-term solutions
INCUBATION -> important

=> putting the problem aside for a while without consciously thinking about it –
offers on way in which to minimize negative transfer
-> taking a pause from the stages of problem solving
-> not supported in the lab
-> break shouldn’t be used to solve other complex tasks
Work-forward strategy
=> beginning -> end
Work-backwards
=> start @ end/goal -> beginning OBSTACLES & AIDS TO PROBLEM SOLVING
Generative Tests MENTAL SETS, ENTRENCHMENT & FIXATION

=> using all possible ways Mental Set/Entrenchment
=> a frame of mind involving an existing model for representing a problem, a
problem context, or a procedure for problem solving
=> keep trying the same solution they used in previous problems, even though the
problem could be solved by a different, easier method
-> they fixate on a strategy that normally works well in solving many problems but
43

doesn’t work well in solving this particular problem different responses made to each test item)
-> Fixed Mindset (= you believe that you have a certain amount of -> focuses on quantity – doesn’t care about quality, defines creativity differently
intelligence & other skills, & no amount of effort can help you perform // doesn’t assess whether the solutions meet the three criteria for creativity
better -> you give up on trying to discover new ways to improve your skills) (novel, high quality, and useful)
-> Growth Mindset (= you believe that you can cultivate your intelligence
& other skills) Convergent Production
=> opposite of divergent
Functional Fixedness -> combine different ideas to one
=> the inability to realize that something known to have a particular use may also
be used for performing other functions Investment Theory
=> means that the functions or uses we assign to an object tend to remain fixed or = produce a creative idea when no one else is interested in it
stable = the essential attributes/ requirements: intelligence, knowledge, motivation,
-> prevents us from solving new problems by using old tools in novel ways encouraging environment, appropriate thinking style, appropriate personality
- also emphasizes factors outside the individual
Stereotypes Threat
=> beliefs that members of a social group tend more or less uniformly to have CHARACTERISTICS OF CREATIVE PEOPLE
particular types of characteristics - high scores on assessment of creativity
-> hinder the problem-solving abilities of the individuals who used them – they - expertise & commitment to their creative endeavour
limit their thinking by using set stereotypes - work long & hard + study the work of their predecessors & contemporaries
-> if you belong to a certain group – you act according to the stereotype – might - personality & intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
hinder better performance - flexible beliefs & broadly accepting attitudes toward other cultures, races &
+ worrying about own abilities -> takes capacity of WM religious creeds
- tend to be more open to new experiences, self-confident, self-accepting,
impulsive, ambitious, driven, dominant, and hostile than less creative individuals.
CREATIVITY They also are less conventional
- creativity is context related
=> the process of producing something that is both original & worthwhile - tended to have moderately supportive, but often strict & relatively chilly early
- measure it through: divergent production (generation of a diverse assortment of family lives
appropriate responses) - showed an early interest in exploring uncharted territory
-> criteria: novel, high quality, useful -> cognitive flexibility
APPROACHES TO CREATIVITY STAGES OF CREATIVITY

1) Preparation
Divergent Production by Gilford
2) Incubation
= creativity should be measured in terms of divergent production (= the number of
44

3) Illumination requires the paralyzed muscle for expression of a congruent emotion

4) Verification -> describing previous studies where people had to hold a pen either in the teeth
or in the lips while reading (= As predicted, reading times for sentences describing
#1 ARTICLE by Holland pleasant situations were faster while participants were smiling than while they
“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of were prevented from smiling, and the reverse was found for unpleasant
Scent on Cognition and Behaviour” sentences.)
- changed the experiment to not holding a pen in the mouth and thus not being
-> tested whether odor can influence people’s cognition & behaviour without bein able to smile/ show facial expressions to a paralysis of facial muscles using botox
consciously aware of the influence => The results demonstrate that blocking facial expression by peripheral
-> exposed the participants to citrus-scented cleaner and as a result their mental denervation of facial musculature selectively hinders emotional language
accessibility of the behaviour concept of cleaning was enhanced – they identified processing. This finding is consistent with embodied simulation accounts of
cleaning-related words faster, they listed cleaning-related tasks more often when cognition in which neural systems used in experiencing emotions are also used to
describing expected behaviour during a day & they kept their direct environment understand emotions in language.
more clean during an eating task => smart way of recruiting participants – would be unethical otherwise
- at first they’re describing how scents influence people’s thinking & doing (e.g. in => testing sad & happy shows that it affects emotions -> only testing one emotion
shopping malls, hotels etc) would only test reading skills => smart!
- based their ideas on recent research concerning the direct link between social => CONVERGENT PRODUCTION
perceptions & behaviour (- mere perception of social categories semantically
activates associated traits or behaviour representations that can guide further
thinking & automatic behaviour)
- earlier research where researchers primed participants w/ words which changed
the participants behaviour (being slow) -> ideo-motor principle
-> extended those result and changed the words into scent so that the participants
get primed with an odor
=> they overcam FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS
=> DIVERGENT PRODUCTION
#2 ARTICLE by Havas
“Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin-A affects processing of emotional
language”
-> demonstrate the causal role of involuntary facial expression in the processing of
emotional language
-> botox was used to paralyze the facial muscle used in frowning
-> found that botox slowed the reading of sentences w/ content that normally
45

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Stuvia-446744-course-2.1-cognitive-psychology-thinking-and-remembering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stuvia-446744-course-2.1-cognitive-psychology-thinking-and-remembering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course 2.

The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

BLOK 2.1 - actively coordinate ongoing mental activities

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

THE WORKING-MEMORY APPROACH / MULTICOMPONENT APPROACH Phonological Loop

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Episodic Buffer Decay Theory

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

The Distributed-Practice Effect aka. Spacing Effect MNEMONICS using organization

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Mood dependent Memory

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

#2 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY + 2nd LECTURE Semantic Memory

Factors Affecting Retrieval of AB memories

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

suggested to them in a different situation the time of the testimony

Own-Race Bias / Class-Race Effect False Memory Perspective

Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Memories/Testimonies

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

#3 ATTENTION 2. Sound intensity (loudness)

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

the filter of selective attention Late Filter Model by Deutsch& Deutsch

Equally difficult tasks that require a lot of time

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

task @ a time FACTORS INFLUENCING OUR ATTENTION

AUTOMATIC & CONTROLLED PROCESSES IN ATTENTION

=> to help us navigate our environment more successfully, we automatize many

AUTOMATIC & CONTROLLED PROCESSES

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

-> automatization of tasks isn’t guaranteed (dyslexia etc.)

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

gather sufficient strength of activation to produce the colour-naming

MISTAKES IN AUTOMATIC PROCESSES

Minimizing the Potential for negative consequences of Slips

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Typicality Effect // no hierarchy

The Collins & Loftus Network Model

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

SCHEMAS & MEMORY SELECTION

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SCHEMAS

1. We often select material for memory that is inconsistent with our

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

#5 MENTAL IMAGERY Pictures -> most important!!!

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

THEORIES PROPOSITIONAL CODES

PROPOSITIONAL THEORY: Storing Knowledge as Abstract Concepts Functional-Equivalence Hypothesis

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

Cognitive Maps Distortions of Cognitive Maps

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

-> semantic/propositional knowledge can also influence imaginal representations

Spatial-Framework Model by Franklin & Tversky ????

Downloaded by: neensbrout | neensbrout@gmail.com

#6 LANGUAGE REPRESENTATION BASIC READING PROCESSES

Neurolinguistic (= examines how the brain processes language) Reading & WM