Overview of Cognitive Psychology Theories

IB Psychology - Cognitive Approach Multi-Store Memory Model (MSM) Theory/ Model Memory Models provide a framework for an understanding of conceptualizations of human memory processes over time. The multi-store memory model (MSM) focuses on the storage of information. The MSM was first proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin. Their theory suggests that information flows through 3 stores: sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Information is first stored in sensory memory (SM) for a fraction of a second. SM is the point where environmental stimuli are picked up by the 5 senses: touch, taste, sound, smell, and sight. This information is then transferred to short-term memory (STM) if we pay attention to it. STM has a limited capacity of seven items +/- 2. Information can be stored in the form of sound for about 30 seconds. This information is then transferred to long-term memory (LTM). when the material is not rehearsed, new information that enters the STM will displace older information. The information in LTM is encoded semantically, by relating it to other ideas and knowledge. It is argued that the capacity of this store may be unlimited. The MSM was an influential theory and prompted a lot of research into memory. Relevant studies such as Glanzer & Cunitz and Milner will be used as evidence to support the idea that memory has separate stores. Evaluation of Theory Strengths: * There’s a lot of research that supports the theory of separate memory stores; the multi-store model * It was the first model to attempt to conceptualize memory, and so it paved the way for further research Limitations * The model is argued to be oversimplified. The models don’t capture how the different stores interact with each other. * Researchers believe that rehearsal alone might not account for the transfer of information from the STM to the LTM * Memory stores are far more complex than depicted by the MSM. The MSM presents STM and LTM as a static store without explaining how they operate Study 1: Glanzer & Cunitz Aim: Glanzer and Cunitz aimed to test the hypothesis that there are 2 distinct storage mechanisms; the STM and the LTM store. Procedure: * In a repeated measures experiment, 46 army enlisted men were presented with a list of 15 common words. * They were then asked to recall the list immediately or after 10 second interval or a 30 second interval. * During the interval they performed a distraction task of counting backwards. Results: * Participants in the intermediate recall condition showed the expected ‘U’ curve of the serial position effect. * More items were recalled from the beginning and the end of the list, showing both primacy and recency effect. * Primacy effect is the ability to recall words at the beginning of the list because they had already been transferred to long-term memory * while recency effect is the ability to recall words that have just been spoken because they are still in short-term memory. * Participants in the 10 second delay condition showed a similar primacy effect to the immediate recall group but less of a recency effect. * In the 30 second delay condition, the primacy effect was high but the recency effect had disappeared with fewed items recalled from the end of the list compared to the other 2 conditions. Evaluation: Strengths * The study was conducted in a controlled environment making it more reliable and replicable Limitations * The sample of this experiment was relatively small, meaning it’s not able to be generalized * The sample was only males, which can lead to gender biases, and it not able to be generalized * The study also lacked ecological vality due to its artificial nature Working Memory Model Theory/ Model The Working Memory Model (WMM) was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) as an alternative to the Multi-Store Model, focusing on short-term memory (STM) as a dynamic and complex system. The WMM suggests that STM is not a single store but consists of several components that process different types of information simultaneously. The central executive (CE) is the control system that directs attention and allocates tasks to other systems. It does not store information but manages cognitive processes. The phonological loop (PL) deals with verbal and auditory information and is divided into the phonological store (inner ear) and articulatory control system (inner voice), which allows information to be rehearsed. The visuospatial sketchpad (VSS) processes visual and spatial data and is made up of the visual cache (form and color) and the inner scribe (spatial and movement information). In 2000, Baddeley added the episodic buffer (EB), which integrates information across the other systems and communicates with long-term memory. Study: Baddeley & Hitch (1974) Research supporting the model includes Baddeley et al. (1973), who conducted a dual-task experiment showing that participants struggled more when completing two visual tasks at once compared to when tasks used different systems (e.g., one visual and one verbal), providing evidence for separate slave systems (VSS and PL). Evaluation The WMM offers a more accurate and detailed understanding of STM compared to earlier models, especially in explaining how we handle multiple types of information in real time. Schema Theory Theory Schemas are mental representations of something obtained from prior experience and knowledge; i.e. a schema for concrete, real things such as cat, house, mother or for abstract ideas/ concepts such as freedom, jealousy, love. A schema holds all of the information that an individual has assimilated (to absorb knowledge into the mind) throughout their life so far. Schemas help our minds to simplify the world around us. When we discuss how things work, this is referred to as a script. Scripts are patterns of behavior that are learned through our interaction with the environment. Scripts are developed within a cultural context - they are not universal. When we travel, we often find that our scripts don’t lead to the predicted outcomes we expect. Schema theory is the theory of how humans process incoming information, relate it to existing knowledge, and use it. The theory is based on the assumption that humans are active processors of information. People interpret and integrate information to make sense of their experiences. However, if information is missing, our brains will fill in the blanks based on existing schemas. Obviously, this can result in mistakes, such as memory distortion and errors in decision-making. Evaluation of Theory Strengths: * Schema theory has been applied to help us understand how memory works. It also helps us understand memory distortion. * Schema theory can have different applications, such as for therapy for depression and anxiety. Limitations: * It is not entirely clear how schemas are acquired in the first place or the exact way they influence cognitive processes. * It has also been argued that schema theory cannot account for why schema-inconsistent information is sometimes recalled Study 2: Anderson & Prichert Aim: Anderson & Prichert aimed to see if people would remember more details about a story based on their assigned perspective - either a robber or a house buyer. Procedure: * The sample consisted of 39 psychology students. * Participants were split into 2 groups: “robber condition” or the “home buyer condition” * Participants were given two minutes to read the story from their assigned perspective. * The story had 15 discreet ideas related to burglary and 13 related to purchasing a home. * They then took a vocabulary test for 12 minutes, serving as a distractor task * Participants were asked to write down as much of the story as they could remember. * After writing, they were given five minutes to complete a spatial puzzle test. * They were then asked to recall the story a second time, with half of the participants having a new schema and half with the same schema Results: The researchers found that: * Burglar information was better recalled than homebuyer information. This may be because students do not have a well-developed homebuyer schema. In other words, it is likely that the schema influenced encoding. * The group that had the burglar perspective recalled more burglar information and the group that had the homebuyer perspective recalled more homebuyer information. In other words, it is likely that the schema influenced retrieval. * Participants who changed their perspective recalled an additional 7.1% of the information relevant to their new perspective. The group that did not change perspective recalled 2.9% less information relevant to their perspective. Evaluation: Strengths * High Internal Validity: The study was a true experiment with a clear cause and effect relationship established. * Replicability: The study was replicated by Borland et al (1987) with a larger sample, supporting the reliability of Anderson and Pichert’s findings. * Influence on Encoding and Retrieval: The study concluded that schema processing has effects on both encoding and retrieval. Weaknesses * Small Sample Size: The original study had a very small sample size (n = 39), which could limit the generalizability of the findings. * Low Ecological Validity: The study was conducted in a controlled environment, which may not accurately reflect real-world situations. * Participant Differences: The study did not account for individual differences among participants, such as their prior personal knowledge and experiences. Thinking and Decision Making: Dual Processing Model Theory The dual-process model of thinking and decision-making suggests that people have two distinct modes of thinking: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is considered to be fast and unconscious; however, it is relying on mental shortcuts (heuristics) that can lead to errors and cognitive biases. System 1 tends to be used for everyday decisions since it is the more automatic way of thinking. System 2 is considered to be slower and conscious, involving deliberate processing that produces more accurate decisions but requires more cognitive effort. System 2 is mainly used for complex decisions and produce more reliable outcomes. An example of a cognitive bias associated with System 1 is the anchoring bias, whereby people rely too heavily on initial information, leading to biased judgments and decisions and to what is referred to as the anchoring effect. This can lead to systematic biases in their later judgments and decisions, even when the anchor is irrelevant to the decision at hand. Evaluation of Theory Strengths: * There is biological evidence that different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain. * Research supported this model and are reliable in their results Limitations: * The model has been argueg to be oversimplified. It contstricts our whole way of thinking and decision-making into only 2 systems * The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear. For example, fast processing indicates the use of System 1 rather than System 2 processes. However, just because processing is fast does not mean it is done by System 1. Experience can influence System 2 processing to go faster. Study 1: Tversky & Kahneman Aim: Tversky & Kahneman aimed to test the influence of the anchoring bias on decision-making Procedure: * Highschool students were used as the participants * Participants were split into two groups; ascending order group and descending order group * In the ascending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 in 5 seconds * In the descending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 in 5 seconds Results: * Results showed that participants in the ascending order group used the number “1” as their anchor and estimated a smaller product, while the descending order group used the number “8” as their anchor and estimated a larger product. * This shows that the participants are using their system 1 way of thinking, leading to anchoring bias due to system 1’s heuristic processing. Evaluation: Strengths * The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results. * The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity. It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students. Limitations: * The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. We never have only five seconds to estimate the value of something * The researchers used the median to report the data, which could have altered the results diminishing the outliers * The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a matched pairs design Reconstructive Memory (Work in Progress) Possible Questions: ERQ * Discuss Reconstructive Memory Theory with reference to research * Evaluate Reconstructive Memory Theory with reference to research * Discuss research related to Reconstructive Memory Theory * Evaluate research related to Reconstructive Memory Theory SAQ * Explain reconstructive memory with reference to one study. Theory Evaluation of Theory Study 2: Kahneman Aim: Kahneman aimed to investigate whether the peak-end rule of memory could be replicated in a clinical setting to lessen patients' memories of the pain of an unpleasant procedure by prolonging the end of the procedure. Procedure: * Participants in this case study were 682 real-life colonoscopy patients * Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups * Half of the patients recieved the standard colonoscopy procedure * The other half had a short interval added to the end of their procedure during which the tip of the colonoscope remained in the rectum. * This lengthened the duration of the procedure but resulted in final moments that were less painful. * Pain during the procedure was measured with a ten-point intensity scale. * Memory following the procedure was measured using both a rating scale and a ranking task. Results: * Patients who received the modified procedure remembered less total pain. * The intervention caused about a 10% relative decrease in the overall memory of pain and a 10% relative increase in the number of patients who returned for a follow-up. * The study suggested that patients judge an experience largely based on how they felt at its end, rather than based on the total sum or average of every moment of the experience. * This combined with previous research led to the proposal of the “peak-end” rule Evaluation: Cognitive Biases (anchoring bias & illusory correlation) Theory Cognitive biases are systematic error in thinking that affects the decisions and judgements that people make. We often make these biases for one of three reasons First, we are cognitive misers. We often do not have the time, the desire, or the resources to make a decision, so we go use heuristics - mental shortcuts - to come to a decision. Sometimes biases influence our decision-making because of ego depletion - a lack of self-control or willpower. Finally, we demonstrate cognitive biases when our cognitive load is too high. That means that we have too many things on out mind (in our working memory) and this does not allow is the mental resources to reason out a solution. Two examples of cognitive biases are anchoring bias and illusory correlation. Anchoring bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the anchor) when making decisions. During decision-making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make the following judgments. Illusory correlation is the tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables, even when there is no relationship. This happens when we see a correlation between two events or characteristics, which often lead to the formation of stereotypes Evaluation of Theory Strengths: * Cognitive biases can help us better understand the human process of thinking and decision-making * There are many studies that support the existence of cognitive biases, such as Tversky & Kahneman and Hamilton & Gifford Limitations: * The theory largely generalizes people. Every person is different and has different values. This can influence to what extent they are affected by cognitive biases. * The theory only explains what cognitive biases are, but does not explain how to mitigate them when they can lead to bad judgments Study 1: Tversky & Kahneman Aim: Tversky & Kahneman aimed to test the influence of the anchoring bias on decision-making Procedure: * Highschool students were used as the participants * Participants were split into two groups; ascending order group and descending order group * In the ascending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 in 5 seconds * In the descending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 in 5 seconds Results: * Results showed that participants in the ascending order group used the number “1” as their anchor and estimated a smaller product, while the descending order group used the number “8” as their anchor and estimated a larger product. Evaluation: Strengths * The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results. * The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity. It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students. Limitations: * The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. We never have only five seconds to estimate the value of something * The researchers used the median to report the data, which could have altered the results diminishing the outliers * The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a matched pairs design Effect of Cognitive Processes on Emotion: Flashbulb Memory Theory Theory Memories of emotional events sometimes have a persistence and vividness that other memories sem to lack, but there is evidence that even high emotional memories may fade over time. Research into how emotion can affect memory has focused on flashbulb memory theory (FBM). FBM was first proposed by Brown & Kulik and is defined as memories of highly charged emotional information. They tend to be more vivid, long-lasting, and accurate than other memories. These ‘emotional memories’, can be significant historical or personal events that impacted your life. However, flashbulb memories can still be forgotten over time. It is theorized that these events are maintained in a unique memory store through discussion and rehearsal. Evaluation of Theory Strengths: * The theory provides valuable insights into how certain memories are formed and why they might be more vivid than others * This theory also highlights the role of emotion in the formation and retrieval of memories Limitations: * There are inconsistencies in research showing that not all emotionally charged events form flashbulb memories * The theory might be too generalized as the formation of FBM can vary across age and culture Study 1: Brown & Kulik Aim: Brown & Kulik aimed to test their theory that flashbulb memories are more vivid and accurate than normal memories Procedure: * In this experiment, the participants were 40 African American and 40 caucasian males * The participants were given surveys, where they had to answer questions about 10 different events. * 9 events were public and related to assassinations of well-known figures, such as John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. * The last event was a personal event * Participants were then asked to recall where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news of each event. Results: * The researchers found that 90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day when these events occurred. * Most participants had very detailed memories of the death of a loved one. * However, there was a difference in their memories of the assassination of public officials, based on the personal relevance of the event to the participant. * 75% of black participants had flashbulb memories of the murder of Martin Luther King, compared to 33% of white participants. Evaluation: Strengths * This study was one of the first to test FBM. It led to a large amount of further research * The procedure could replicated, allowing us to determine if the results are reliable Limitations * The sample was only men, which could lead to gender biases, making it harder to generalize * It is not possible to actually measure the role of rehearsal in the creation of memories.

The MSM was an influential theory and prompted a lot of research into memory. Relevant studies such as Glanzer & Cunitz and Milner will be used as evidence to support the idea that memory has separate stores.
Evaluation of Theory

Strengths:
* There’s a lot of research that supports the theory of separate memory stores; the multi-store model
* It was the first model to attempt to conceptualize memory, and so it paved the way for further research

Limitations
* The model is argued to be oversimplified. The models don’t capture how the different stores interact with each other.
* Researchers believe that rehearsal alone might not account for the transfer of information from the STM to the LTM
* Memory stores are far more complex than depicted by the MSM. The MSM presents STM and LTM as a static store without explaining how they operate
Study 1: Glanzer & Cunitz
Aim: Glanzer and Cunitz aimed to test the hypothesis that there are 2 distinct storage mechanisms; the STM and the LTM store.

Procedure: 
* In a repeated measures experiment, 46 army enlisted men were presented with a list of 15 common words. 
* They were then asked to recall the list immediately or after 10 second interval or a 30 second interval. 
* During the interval they performed a distraction task of counting backwards.

Results: 
* Participants in the intermediate recall condition showed the expected ‘U’ curve of the serial position effect. 
* More items were recalled from the beginning and the end of the list, showing both primacy and recency effect.

* Primacy effect is the ability to recall words at the beginning of the list because they had already been transferred to long-term memory

* while recency effect is the ability to recall words that have just been spoken because they are still in short-term memory.

* Participants in the 10 second delay condition showed a similar primacy effect to the immediate recall group but less of a recency effect.
 
* In the 30 second delay condition, the primacy effect was high but the recency effect had disappeared with fewed items recalled from the end of the list compared to the other 2 conditions.

Evaluation:

Strengths
* The study was conducted in a controlled environment making it more reliable and replicable

Limitations
* The sample of this experiment was relatively small, meaning it’s not able to be generalized
* The sample was only males, which can lead to gender biases, and it not able to be generalized
* The study also lacked ecological vality due to its artificial nature

Working Memory Model
Theory/ Model
The Working Memory Model (WMM) was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) as an alternative to the Multi-Store Model, focusing on short-term memory (STM) as a dynamic and complex system. The WMM suggests that STM is not a single store but consists of several components that process different types of information simultaneously.

The central executive (CE) is the control system that directs attention and allocates tasks to other systems. It does not store information but manages cognitive processes. The phonological loop (PL) deals with verbal and auditory information and is divided into the phonological store (inner ear) and articulatory control system (inner voice), which allows information to be rehearsed. The visuospatial sketchpad (VSS) processes visual and spatial data and is made up of the visual cache (form and color) and the inner scribe (spatial and movement information). In 2000, Baddeley added the episodic buffer (EB), which integrates information across the other systems and communicates with long-term memory.
Study: Baddeley & Hitch (1974)
Research supporting the model includes Baddeley et al. (1973), who conducted a dual-task experiment showing that participants struggled more when completing two visual tasks at once compared to when tasks used different systems (e.g., one visual and one verbal), providing evidence for separate slave systems (VSS and PL).
Evaluation
The WMM offers a more accurate and detailed understanding of STM compared to earlier models, especially in explaining how we handle multiple types of information in real time.
Schema Theory
Theory
Schemas are mental representations of something obtained from prior experience and knowledge; i.e. a schema for concrete, real things such as cat, house, mother or for abstract ideas/ concepts such as freedom, jealousy, love. A schema holds all of the information that an individual has assimilated (to absorb knowledge into the mind) throughout their life so far. Schemas help our minds to simplify the world around us. When we discuss how things work, this is referred to as a script. Scripts are patterns of behavior that are learned through our interaction with the environment. Scripts are developed within a cultural context - they are not universal. When we travel, we often find that our scripts don’t lead to the predicted outcomes we expect. Schema theory is the theory of how humans process incoming information, relate it to existing knowledge, and use it. The theory is based on the assumption that humans are active processors of information. People interpret and integrate information to make sense of their experiences. However, if information is missing, our brains will fill in the blanks based on existing schemas. Obviously, this can result in mistakes, such as memory distortion and errors in decision-making.
Evaluation of Theory

Strengths:
* Schema theory has been applied to help us understand how memory works. It also helps us understand memory distortion.

* Schema theory can have different applications, such as for therapy for depression and anxiety. 
 
Limitations:
* It is not entirely clear how schemas are acquired in the first place or the exact way they influence cognitive processes.

* It has also been argued that schema theory cannot account for why schema-inconsistent information is sometimes recalled

Study 2: Anderson & Prichert
Aim: Anderson & Prichert aimed to see if people would remember more details about a story based on their assigned perspective - either a robber or a house buyer.

Procedure:
* The sample consisted of 39 psychology students.
* Participants were split into 2 groups: “robber condition” or the “home buyer condition”

* Participants were given two minutes to read the story from their assigned perspective.
* The story had 15 discreet ideas related to burglary and 13 related to purchasing a home.

* They then took a vocabulary test for 12 minutes, serving as a distractor task

* Participants were asked to write down as much of the story as they could remember.

* After writing, they were given five minutes to complete a spatial puzzle test.

* They were then asked to recall the story a second time, with half of the participants having a new schema and half with the same schema

Results:
The researchers found that:
* Burglar information was better recalled than homebuyer information.  This may be because students do not have a well-developed homebuyer schema. In other words, it is likely that the schema influenced encoding.
* The group that had the burglar perspective recalled more burglar information and the group that had the homebuyer perspective recalled more homebuyer information. In other words, it is likely that the schema influenced retrieval.
* Participants who changed their perspective recalled an additional 7.1% of the information relevant to their new perspective. The group that did not change perspective recalled 2.9% less information relevant to their perspective.

Evaluation:

Strengths
* High Internal Validity: The study was a true experiment with a clear cause and effect relationship established.

* Replicability: The study was replicated by Borland et al (1987) with a larger sample, supporting the reliability of Anderson and Pichert’s findings.

* Influence on Encoding and Retrieval: The study concluded that schema processing has effects on both encoding and retrieval.

Weaknesses
* Small Sample Size: The original study had a very small sample size (n = 39), which could limit the generalizability of the findings.

* Low Ecological Validity: The study was conducted in a controlled environment, which may not accurately reflect real-world situations.

* Participant Differences: The study did not account for individual differences among participants, such as their prior personal knowledge and experiences.

Thinking and Decision Making: Dual Processing Model
Theory
The dual-process model of thinking and decision-making suggests that people have two distinct modes of thinking: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is considered to be fast and unconscious; however, it is relying on mental shortcuts (heuristics) that can lead to errors and cognitive biases. System 1 tends to be used for everyday decisions since it is the more automatic way of thinking. System 2 is considered to be slower and conscious, involving deliberate processing that produces more accurate decisions but requires more cognitive effort. System 2 is mainly used for complex decisions and produce more reliable outcomes. An example of a cognitive bias associated with System 1 is the anchoring bias, whereby people rely too heavily on initial information, leading to biased judgments and decisions and to what is referred to as the anchoring effect. This can lead to systematic biases in their later judgments and decisions, even when the anchor is irrelevant to the decision at hand. 
Evaluation of Theory

Strengths:
* There is biological evidence that different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain.

* Research supported this model and are reliable in their results

Limitations:
* The model has been argueg to be oversimplified. It contstricts our whole way of thinking and decision-making into only 2 systems

* The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear.  For example, fast processing indicates the use of System 1 rather than System 2 processes. However, just because processing is fast does not mean it is done by System 1. Experience can influence System 2 processing to go faster.
Study 1: Tversky & Kahneman
Aim: Tversky & Kahneman aimed to test the influence of the anchoring bias on decision-making

Procedure:
* Highschool students were used as the participants
* Participants were split into two groups; ascending order group and descending order group
* In the ascending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 in 5 seconds
* In the descending order group, they were asked to quickly estimate the value 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 in 5 seconds

Results:
* Results showed that participants in the ascending order group used the number “1” as their anchor and estimated a smaller product, while the descending order group used the number “8” as their anchor and estimated a larger product.

* This shows that the participants are using their system 1 way of thinking, leading to anchoring bias due to system 1’s heuristic processing.

Evaluation:

Strengths
* The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results.  
* The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity.  It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students.

Limitations:
* The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. We never have only five seconds to estimate the value of something

* The researchers used the median to report the data, which could have altered the results diminishing the outliers

* The study was an independent samples design.  This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results.  It would be better to have a matched pairs design

Reconstructive Memory (Work in Progress)
Possible Questions:

ERQ
* Discuss Reconstructive Memory Theory with reference to research 
* Evaluate Reconstructive Memory Theory with reference to research
* Discuss research related to Reconstructive Memory Theory 
* Evaluate research related to Reconstructive Memory Theory

SAQ
* Explain reconstructive memory with reference to one study.

Theory

Evaluation of Theory

Study 2: Kahneman
Aim: Kahneman aimed to investigate whether the peak-end rule of memory could be replicated in a clinical setting to lessen patients' memories of the pain of an unpleasant procedure by prolonging the end of the procedure.

Procedure:
* Participants in this case study were 682 real-life colonoscopy patients
* Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups
* Half of the patients recieved the standard colonoscopy procedure
* The other half had a short interval added to the end of their procedure during which the tip of the colonoscope remained in the rectum. 
* This lengthened the duration of the procedure but resulted in final moments that were less painful. 
* Pain during the procedure was measured with a ten-point intensity scale.
* Memory following the procedure was measured using both a rating scale and a ranking task.
Results:
* Patients who received the modified procedure remembered less total pain.

* The intervention caused about a 10% relative decrease in the overall memory of pain and a 10% relative increase in the number of patients who returned for a follow-up.

* The study suggested that patients judge an experience largely based on how they felt at its end, rather than based on the total sum or average of every moment of the experience.

* This combined with previous research led to the proposal of the “peak-end” rule

Evaluation:
Cognitive Biases (anchoring bias & illusory correlation)
Theory
Cognitive biases are systematic error in thinking that affects the decisions and judgements that people make. We often make these biases for one of three reasons First, we are cognitive misers. We often do not have the time, the desire, or the resources to make a decision, so we go use heuristics - mental shortcuts - to come to a decision. Sometimes biases influence our decision-making because of ego depletion - a lack of self-control or willpower. Finally, we demonstrate cognitive biases when our cognitive load is too high. That means that we have too many things on out mind (in our working memory) and this does not allow is the mental resources to reason out a solution.

Two examples of cognitive biases are anchoring bias and illusory correlation. Anchoring bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the anchor) when making decisions. During decision-making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make the following judgments. Illusory correlation is the tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables, even when there is no relationship. This happens when we see a correlation between two events or characteristics, which often lead to the formation of stereotypes
Evaluation of Theory

Strengths:
* Cognitive biases can help us better understand the human process of thinking and decision-making

* There are many studies that support the existence of cognitive biases, such as Tversky & Kahneman and Hamilton & Gifford

Limitations:
* The theory largely generalizes people. Every person is different and has different values. This can influence to what extent they are affected by cognitive biases.

* The theory only explains what cognitive biases are, but does not explain how to mitigate them when they can lead to bad judgments 
Study 1: Tversky & Kahneman 
Aim: Tversky & Kahneman aimed to test the influence of the anchoring bias on decision-making

Evaluation:

Strengths
* The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results.

* The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity.  It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students.
Limitations:
* The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. We never have only five seconds to estimate the value of something

* The researchers used the median to report the data, which could have altered the results diminishing the outliers

* The study was an independent samples design.  This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results.  It would be better to have a matched pairs design

Effect of Cognitive Processes on Emotion: Flashbulb Memory Theory
Theory
Memories of emotional events sometimes have a persistence and vividness that other memories sem to lack, but there is evidence that even high emotional memories may fade over time. Research into how emotion can affect memory has focused on flashbulb memory theory (FBM). FBM was first proposed by Brown & Kulik and is defined as memories of highly charged emotional information. They tend to be more vivid, long-lasting, and accurate than other memories. These ‘emotional memories’, can be significant historical or personal events that impacted your life. However, flashbulb memories can still be forgotten over time. It is theorized that these events are maintained in a unique memory store through discussion and rehearsal.
Evaluation of Theory

Strengths: 
* The theory provides valuable insights into how certain memories are formed and why they might be more vivid than others

* This theory also highlights the role of emotion in the formation and retrieval of memories

Limitations: 
* There are inconsistencies in research showing that not all emotionally charged events form flashbulb memories

* The theory might be too generalized as the formation of FBM can vary across age and culture
Study 1: Brown & Kulik
Aim: Brown & Kulik aimed to test their theory that flashbulb memories are more vivid and accurate than normal memories

Procedure:
* In this experiment, the participants were 40 African American and 40 caucasian males

* The participants were given surveys, where they had to answer questions about 10 different events.
* 9 events were public and related to assassinations of well-known figures, such as John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
* The last event was a personal event

* Participants were then asked to recall where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news of each event.

Results:
* The researchers found that 90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day when these events occurred.

* Most participants had very detailed memories of the death of a loved one.

* However, there was a difference in their memories of the assassination of public officials, based on the personal relevance of the event to the participant. 
* 75% of black participants had flashbulb memories of the murder of Martin Luther King, compared to 33% of white participants.

Evaluation:

Strengths
* This study was one of the first to test FBM. It led to a large amount of further research

* The procedure could replicated, allowing us to determine if the results are reliable

Limitations
* The sample was only men, which could lead to gender biases, making it harder to generalize

* It is not possible to actually measure the role of rehearsal in the creation of memories.

Transcript for:Overview of Cognitive Psychology Theories

Transcript for:
Overview of Cognitive Psychology Theories