The Cognitive Approach

Information is processed through the same route for all humans: input-process-
output, in a similar way to how information is processed by a computer.
Four Cognitive processes:
 Attention- sensory information is only retained for further processing if we
pay attention to it. This involves filtering out information that we do not need,
so that we can focus our limited resources on the information that is currently
most important.
 Language- humans differ from other non-human animals in terms of their
complex use of spoken language. Not only do we use language to
communicate, but we also use language to encode new incoming information
(input) and store information in a verbal form as well as images. Many people
experience an inner voice, which allows the to verbalize their thoughts.
 Thinking- much of our cognitive processing happens automatically and
outside of conscious awareness. This processing is very fast and effortless.
 Memory- involves three cognitive processes: encoding, storage, and retrieval.
Information my be encoded (represented in the mind) in different ways relating
to how something looks (visual), sounds (acoustic) and/or what it means and
how it is associated with other stored knowledge (semantic)
Andrade (doodling)—Andrade used a laboratory experiment to see if doodling
helped people to concentrate and remember information from a mock phone message.
Aims- 1. To investigate whether doodling improves our ability to pay attention
(or concentrate on) auditory information (i.e. a message that is heard but not
seen); 2. To investigate whether doodling affects later recall of auditory
information.
Design- Independent Measures Design (IMD) as participants were either in the
doodling or control group.
Variables- IV. Whether the participants were allowed to doodle while they
listened to the phone message or not; DV #1. Monitoring accuracy: the number
of correct names (out of eight) recorded while listening to the tape; the
researcher then deducted false alarms (wrong answers) from the total number
of correct names to give the final monitoring performance score; DV #2.
Memory for monitored information: number of correct names recalled (out of
eight) after false alarms were deducted; DV #3. Memory for incidental
information: number of correct places recalled out of eight.
Sample- 40 participants aged 18-55 from the MRC Applied Psychology Unit
participant panel were recruited for the study. They has all just finished another
experiment (about giving directions) and the researchers asked whether they
would mind staying for another five minutes opportunity sample as they
were readily available
Procedures-
 The tape (audio recording)The researcher recorded a 2.5 minute mock
telephone message about a party. The message was read in monotone at a
speed of 227 words per minute. The message mentioned
o Eight people who were able to come to the party: Jane,
William, Claire, Craig, Suzie, Jenny, Phil and Tony
o Three people and one cat that could not come to the party:
Nigel, John, Nicky, and Ben the cat (“lures”)
o Eight places: London, Penzance, Gloucester, Colchester,
Harlow, Ely, Peterborough, and Edinburgh
o Other irrelevant information
 Listening to the recording each P completed the experiment on their own,
in a quiet, dull room. The standardized instructions said:
o They should pretend the speaker was a friend inviting them to a
party
o The tape is rather dull but that is okay because they do not need to
remember any of it
o Write down the names of the people who will (or probably will)
come to the party (excluding themselves) and ignore the names of
anyone who cannot come
o Do not write down anything else
 The experimental group were given A4 response sheet with the shapes to
shade and a pencil. There was a 4.5 cm margin on the paper to record the
target names. They were told that they could shade the shapes as they
listened to the tape but not to worry about neatness or speed. The control
group was given a sheet of lined paper, with no shapes to shade.
 The surprise memory test the researchers collected the response sheets
and chatted with the P’s for 1 minute. During this time, they revealed the
 deception and there would now be a surprise memory test. Half of the group
were asked to recall names then places, and the other half were told to recall
the places then names (counterbalanced). They were also asked if they
guessed there would be a memory test after.
 The researchers included any names or places that they thought had simply
been misheard as correct- for example, Greg for Craig. Incorrect names
were coded as false alarms
Results- The experimental group shaded an average of 36.3 shapes (range 3-
10). One person did not shade any shapes, so they were replaced by another P.
No one in the control group doodled on their lined paper. Doodlers had a
higher mean in monitoring performance score than the control group
(Doodlers- 7.7; Control- 6.9) The doodlers also had more mean correct names
written down while listening to the recording (Doodlers- 7.8; Control- 7.1)
and their total recall was higher (Doodlers- 7.5; Control- 5.8)
Ethics- Deception before listening to the tape Ps were told that it was rather
dull and boring and they don’t need to remember any of it. This was not true as
the monitoring task that Ps were given was a surprise test Ps are unable to
give fully informed consent. HOWEVER, they were debriefed on the deception
and given when the research and P chatted for 1 minute.
Reliability- Highly standardized procedure this is a strength of the study as
it means it can be easily replicated. All P’s listened to the same audio
recording, and they all completed the study in a quiet, dull room.
Validity- Experimental method and design a strength of the design was that
the order in which P’s recalled the monitored and incidental information was
counterbalanced. This improves validity by minimizing order effects.
Operational definitions a weakness of the study was the operational
definition of doodling. Andrade made it the shading of 1cm shapes, but in real
life doodling is more creative and spontaneous. Confounding variables a
strength of the study was that Andrade checked to see if any of the P’s detected
deception. 18% (3 of the doodlers and 4 of the controls) said they had
guessed there may have been a memory test afterwards, although none of these
P’s claimed to have tried to remember the information. Andrade was concerned
about the potential impact this might have, so she reanalyzed the data without
their scores and found it to be the same. The use of lures a strength of the
telephone message was the use of ‘lures.’ P’s who were not really listening of
 the content of the message and just looking for names might have been ‘lured’
into writing an incorrect answer, which would have reduced their overall
monitoring performance score.
Objectivity and Subjectivity- a weakness of the study was the decision to
mark misheard words as correct an assumption is being made that certain
incorrect names are ‘mishearings’ and not false alarms, meaning that the
coding of answers is rather subjective.
Generalizability and Ecological validity- A weakness of the study is the
overwhelming number of females in the study compared to males  females
made up 87.5% of the sample, meaning it can be described as ‘gynocentric’.
This is important as generalizing findings to males must be treated with
caution. Another weakness is the laboratory setting of the experiment  this
highly controlled setting does not reflect the additional challenges of listening
to a voicemail in a real-world setting. This also means that the study is no
ecologically valid.
Applications- Supporting students  Andrade’s study demonstrates that a
second task such as doodling can improve concentration, allowing students to
remember more of what we have heard. Raising awareness on the benefits of
doodling may be an important addition to teacher training as some teachers
may punish their students for doodling in class.
Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)— This study aims to investigate ‘theory of mind’ and
social sensitivity (in this case, due to high functioning autism/Asperger’s syndrome).
They would be doing so by using a revised version of the ‘eyes test’ (which was
revised in the hope of reducing the ceiling effect the original one posed).
Aims- 1. To test adults with high-functioning autism/Asperger’s syndrome
(HFA/AS) on the revised eyes test to see if the deficits on the original test were
still seen; 2. To see if there is a negative correlation between autism spectrum
quotient (AQ) and eyes test scores; 3. To see if females score higher on the
eyes test than males.
Design- Independent Measures Design (IMD) experiments and correlations
were used.
Variables- IV #1: the group a participant was in; IV #2: sex of the participant
(male or female). DVs: eyes test and AQ scores. The co-variables for the
correlation were the AQ score and the eyes test score.
Sample- There were 4 groups of participants for this experiment:
 1. HFA/AS adults- 15 male adults with HFA/AS. They had a mean age of
29.7 and a mean IQ of 115. They were a volunteer sample from adverts in
UK National Autistic Society magazine or support groups. All diagnosed
using established criteria. They came from the same socioeconomic status
and education level as Group 2.
 2. General population controls- 122 neurotypical adults. They had a mean
age of 46.5. they came from adult community and education classes at
Exeter or public libraries in Cambridge and had a broad range of
occupations and education levels.
 3. Students- 103 (53 male and 50 female) neurotypical undergraduate
students from Cambridge University. They had a mean age of 20.8 and
were assumed to have a high IQ due to the very high university entry
requirements.
 4. IQ-matched controls- 14 randomly selected people from the general
population. They had a mean age of 28.0 and mean IQ of 116. They were
matched on IQ and age to Group 1.
Procedures- Participants in all four groups took the revised eyes test in a quiet
room, alone, in either Exeter or Cambridge. The test required them to select
which of four words matched the expression of a set of eyes. There was one
correct answer and three foils for each set of eyes. Participants with HFA/AS
(Group 1) were also asked to determine the gender of the eyes as a control task.
The other groups did not need to do this as neurotypical adult’s scores have a
ceiling effect. Participants were also asked if they were unsure of any words in
the glossary and to read the meaning of these.
 Eyes test development: 2 authors created the target words and foils for
each item. These were then presented to groups of 8 judges (4 male, 4
female), who had to pick the target word to match each pair of eyes. 5/8 of
the judges needed to agree on the target word for an item to pass and no
more than 2 judges could choose the same foil. Furthermore, the data for
Groups 2 and 3 were combined. For the 225 responses, at least 50% needed
to select the target word and no more than 25% could select the same foil.
4/40 items failed to meet the criteria, leaving 36 items on the revised test.
Results- Group 1 performed significantly worse on the eyes test than the other
groups; males scored higher on the AQ than females; there was a negative
correlation between AQ score and eyes test score (-0.53) for all 3 groups
(Group 2 did not take the AQ); the revised eyes test was successful in being a
more sensitive test for adult social intelligence than the original test.
Ethics- A weakness of this study is that it might have caused psychological
harm to the participants with HFA/AS  when completing the test, they might
have been able to understand the emotions shown by many of the sets of eyes,
which might have caused them distress of embarrassment.
Reliability- A strength of the study was the high level of standardization  the
revised eyes test has a standardized procedure with each P seeing the same 36
pairs of eyes. Additionally, the images were always in the same size, in black
and white, with four options (including three foils). There was also always one
answer and all Ps were provided with a glossary of terms.
Validity- A weakness was that Ps could not be randomly allocated to groups as
the independent variables were naturally occurring diagnosis of HFA/AS or
male/female).  there may have been participant variables between the
groups, particularly as some participants were recruited via volunteer sampling,
with each group being recruited in different ways and from different parts of
the UK. Another weakness is that the study may not have been measuring
theory of mind as it claimed to be  theory of mind involves a second stage of
attributing the content of a mental state to a person (understanding the reason
for their emotion), which the eyes test cannot measure.
Objectivity- A strength of this study was that the data was objective  there
was no interpretation needed on the part of the researchers. The participants
were either right or wrong in their answers as it was a fixed-choice task with
pre-determined correct answers.
Generalizability and Ecological validity- A weakness is that the findings
may not be generalizable to other individuals with HFA/AS. The sample in
Group 1 was very small, with only 15 male adults who had self-selected to take
part in the study. Therefore, the sample may not be representative of all
individuals with high-functioning autism. Another weakness is that the stimuli
of eyes used on the eyes test are static and do not reflect the processing of
human emotions  this means that the study lacks ecological validity as
people will usually use facial movements, verbal and non-verbal cues, as well
as body language to detect emotions. This also reduces mundane realism of the
test.
 Applications- Other clinical groups  the eyes test may be used with other
clinical groups, such as those with brain damage, to determine whether they
have suffered deficits in social intelligence. Education  as the HFA/AS
scored lower than neurotypical adults on the eyes test, the test could be used by
teachers to determine a student’s level of social intelligence. A low score
would indicate the student lacks theory of mind, so extra lessons could be
given to improve their skills.
Pozzulo et al. (line-ups)— This study aims to investigate whether children’s errors
in line-ups result more from social or cognitive factors. They suggest that children
who can pick out a popular cartoon character with 100% accuracy, logically should
be able to reject a target-absent line-up, where the character is not present.
Aims- This study aimed to explore the role of social and cognitive factors in
children’s identification of target faces in line-ups. Specifically, they aimed to
investigate whether children are less able to recognize human faces than adults
and make more false positive identifications than adults when faced with
target-absent vs target present line ups and human faces vs cartoon faces.
Design- laboratory experiment with an interview and questionnaire; the first IV
uses Independent Measures Design (IMD) while IV’s 2 and 3 uses Repeated
Measures Design (RMD)
Variables- IV #1: age (young children or adults); IV #2: nature of target faces
(familiar cartoon characters or unfamiliar human faces); IV #3: type of line-up
(target-present or target-absent).
Sample- children aged 4-7 (21 female, 38 male, mean age = 4.98 years old)
were selected from 3 private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Adults aged
17-30 (36 female, 17 males, mean age = 20.54 years old) were selected from
the Introductory Psychology Participant Pool of an Eastern Ontario University.
Procedure-
 Creating the video clips and photo-array line-ups: the researchers
created 4 video clips, 2 staring the familiar cartoon characters Dora and
Diego. Dora was speaking to the audience in one video and Diego was
putting on safety gloves in the other. The other 2 clips separately included a
male and a female main character but this time the actors were humans,
matched for their age and ethnicity (22 years old and Caucasian). The
woman was brushing her hair and the main was putting on his coat. All
 clips were in color, with no sound, 6-seocnds long and each featured a 2 to
3 second close-up of the person’s face. Each video had an accompanying
photo-array line-up of 4 tightly cropped, black and white headshots. In the
target-present line-ups, one of the photos was the target person/cartoon
character (but dressed differently from the clip) and the other 3 photos were
foils (people who looked similar  similar facial structure, hair length and
color). In the target-absent condition, the target was swapped for another
foil in the same position. All line-ups included a silhouette as a visual
reminder that the genuine target may not be present. All images were view
together and at the same time. Human foils were selected from a set of 90
male and 90 females faces by a panel of 3 researchers. Cartoon foils were
selected online due to their similarity to the target.
 Before the testing phase: The parents of the child Ps completed informed
consent forms and the Demographic and Cartoon watching form, an 8-item
questionnaire. Parents were asked to estimate how long their child spent
watching cartoons each week and of this how much time was watching
Dora the Explorer and Go, Diego, Go! They were also asked their child’s
age, gender, primary language, ethnicity, and whether they had any siblings.
Children were tested individually at their schools. The 4 female researchers
were introduced as people from the university doing research on television
shows and computer games. Before starting the experiment, the children
and the researchers participated in craft activities together to get to know
each other. The adult Ps completed their own paperwork and were told the
study was about memory.
 Watching the videos: The child Ps were told they would be watching some
videos and to pay attention as they would be asked some questions
afterwards. The first video was shown once the child seemed happy and
ready. After each clip, they were asked, “What did the cartoon
character/person look like?” and “Do you remember anything else?”. If they
did not answer, they were asked, “Do you remember anything from the
video?”. The researcher spent 2 minutes on this filler task and wrote the
children’s answers down, although they would not be analyzed. The
procedure was identical for the adults, except they wrote down their own
answers.
 The photo-array line-ups: Ps were given the following standardized
instructions  “Please look at the photos. The person/cartoon from the
video may or may not be here. If you see the person/cartoon, please point to
 the photo. If you do not see the person/cartoon, please point to this box.”
The line-ups were shown using presentation software on a laptop. The
adults completed the same procedure, but they recorded their answers on a
sheet than pointing to the screen.
 After testing was complete: The child Ps were thanked and given gifts of
crayons and a coloring book. The adult Ps completed the Demographic and
Cartoon Watching Form after the testing phase and finally were debriefed
and thanked.
Results- Target-present line-ups: the children were significantly better at
identifying familiar cartoon characters in target-present line-ups than
unfamiliar human faces. Their success rate was 0.99 compared to 0.23 for
unfamiliar human faces. The adults were also significantly better when faced
with target-present cartoon line-ups (0.95) than unfamiliar faces, but their
success rate was much higher than the children’s (0.66). Target-absent line-
ups: the children had significantly higher success rate with target-absent line-
ups including cartoon characters (0.74) compared to human faces (0.45). The
adult also performed significantly better with cartoon characters (0.94)
compared with the human faces (0.70) and their performance was also
significantly better than the children in both human and cartoon faces.
Ethics- One strength of the study was that despite exploring false memory and
using target-absent line-ups, there was no deception  all Ps were informed
before the study began that they would be asked about the video afterwards and
when shown the photo-array line-ups they were told that the person may not be
present.
Reliability- a strength of the study was the use of standardized procedures and
instructions  all Ps were told to watch carefully as there would be questions
afterwards and pictures to look at. They all completed the 2-minute filler task
and were given the same instructions. This means that the study can be easily
replicated. A weakness however is that the researchers did not ask everyone the
exact same questions as part of the 2-minute filler task  some people were
asked 2 questions while others were asked 3. These questions may seem
inconsequential as the data was not analyzed, but the Ps may have gone into
the line-up task with different confidence levels based on how they had
answered the previous questions and this might have altered how they respond
in the line-up task.
Validity- The use of the repeated measures design was a strength of this study
that increased the internal validity of the findings  Ps took part in both types
of line-ups with both types of target. The use of this design is better than if they
had used IMD as results may have been due to participant variables. A
weakness of the design though was that although the researchers suggested that
they were manipulating familiarity when they used popular cartoon characters
versus unknown human actors, they were altering two things: familiarity and
whether the character is 2D animation or 3D human. This is important as it
makes it hard to interpret the findings as it is possible that we are just better as
remembering 2D characters due to their decreased complexity as opposed to
their familiarity. Another strength was the high degree of control  this was
possible due to the carefully created materials (the video clips and photo-
arrays). They ensured that as far as possible everything else remained the
same- for example, all videos were in color, had no sound, and included a 2-3
second close up of the target and were the same overall length (6 seconds).
Objectivity- A strength of the study was that the researchers tried to minimize
subjectivity in the choice of the foils for the photo-arrays. This was done by
having 3 raters who were shown around 10 different cartoons as potential foils
for each target.
Generalizability and Ecological Validity- A weakness is that findings may
not generalizable to participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds  the
children were all from private schools, suggesting that they were from
relatively wealthy families, while the adults were drawn from a university
participant pool, suggesting that they were mainly students. All Ps were under
30, suggesting that they had limited life experience. Another weakness is the
laboratory setting and the artificial nature of the video clips that the participants
observed  Although clips were brief, as may the case when catching a
fleeting glance of a culprit in a real-life situation, the witness would also have
been exposed to other sensory information, including sound and smell, which
can act as powerful memory cues  low ecological validity.
Applications- Police work and Criminal Justice  this study underlines the
importance of evidence-based practice, especially when working with
witnesses whose testimonies may be easily influenced by the perceived
expectations of others. These findings may be used to help the police to
develop guidelines for interviewing child witnesses in order to reduce their
tendency to make incorrect identification.