Cognitive ERQ Test Prep PDF

QUESTION 1:Explain how schema theory can affect human behavior - Cohen (1981) & Stone (2010) FINISHED There are many factors of schema theory that can affect human behavior, such as schematic processing and schema consistent emotion. In this essay, the effect of schematic processing on the cognitiv...

QUESTION 1:Explain how schema theory can affect human behavior - Cohen (1981) & Stone (2010) FINISHED There are many factors of schema theory that can affect human behavior, such as schematic processing and schema consistent emotion. In this essay, the effect of schematic processing on the cognitive process of memory will be focused on, along with the effect of schema activation on the cognitive process of stereotypes. Schema is a cluster of related pieces of information in our mind; mental representations of knowledge. The first study that will be discussed was conducted by Cohen in 1981 and it explored the effect of schematic processing on memory. The second study that will be discussed was conducted by Stone in 2010 and it explored the effect of schema on stereotypes. ​ Schematic processing, a factor of schema theory, affects the cognitive process of memory. ​ Schema theory explains how our memories are molded to fit pre existing information and beliefs in our mind. ​ Schematic processing is how we process new information based on existing schemas, which is a cluster of related pieces of information in our mind. ​ Memory is how the mind remembers and recalls information. ​ Schemas help us to organize and recall memories because we already have existing pieces of information in our mind and we make sure our memories fit to that information. ​ Information that is consistent with our schema is remembered (this is called schema-consistent information), while information that is not consistent with schema can be forgotten or it can be distorted to make it fit the schema. ​ Sometimes, schema can help fill in missing details depending on the schema for that event. It may be accurate, but it can turn out to be wrong too. ​ Schema theory is helpful to understand how our memory works, it allows us to understand the complexity of our world because schemas allow us to make generalizations and predictions that save our cognitive energy. ​ Pre-existing information can expedite the processing of new information. ​ Therefore, schematic processing affects memory by making generalizations using the pre existing information in our mind, helping us remember things more efficiently, and usually more accurately if the information is schema-consistent. ​ A study that supports this is the Cohen study in 1981. ​ The aim of this study was to test the effects of prior knowledge on the processing of new information. ​ The procedure of this study is that 96 undergraduate college students watched a video of a woman having dinner with her husband, and then an informal birthday celebration. Half of the participants watched the video being informed that the woman was a librarian, and the other half of the participants were informed that the woman was a waitress. The video was designed so the woman displayed equal characteristics of a librarian and a waitress. The students were asked to recall information after the video.  ​ The results of the study was that participants were more likely to remember schema consistent information. For example in the librarian condition, participants remembered more of the facts like that she got a book as a present and enjoys listening to classical music. In the waitress condition, participants remembered more facts like she ate a hamburger and was drinking a beer. ​ The conclusion of this study is that schemas simplify our complex world and saves our cognitive energy by focusing attention on information we already know. Schema may have affected the processing of new information of the participants. There may have been other factors of alternative explanations that explains the effect of schematic processing on memory that was displayed in Cohen's study. One factor that could’ve affected memory is individual differences. Individuals all have different cognitive abilities and different capacities to remember information that is irrelevant to the idea of schema consistent information. Individuals with stronger cognitive abilities are more likely to demonstrate more information remembered compared to individuals who have weak cognitive abilities. Another factor that could’ve affected memory is motivation. Some individuals may regard the task as unimportant and do not try to recall or listen to the information, while others deem it important and try harder which would most likely result in those individuals recalling more information. There is no way to operationalize the “activation of schema”, and it can’t be concluded that schematic processing was the factor that caused differences in memory recall due to there being no proper way of measurement. There were also strengths and limitations of Cohen’s study in relation to the effect schematic processing has on memory. One strength was that this study used the experimental method of a true experiment. The independent variable was manipulated and was not naturally occuring, which increases the internal validity, the extent to which the schematic processing (when participants were informed of librarian or water). Another strength was that this true experiment also involved random assignment, which controlled for confounding variables due to the participants being randomly allocated to groups. One limitation of the study was that all the participants were college students in a specific college, so the study had low population validity and also low generalizability because the results may not be able to be generalized to anybody outside of those students in the college, the participants were a very specific and small group. An additional limitation is that the task was quite artificial. Participants would not usually experience being informed of the profession of a person and then made to watch a video. This also raises concerns about demand characteristics, there could’ve been a chance that the participants guessed what the aim of the experiment was which would’ve affected the internal validity. Now, I will be discussing the effects of schema activation on the cognitive bias of stereotypes. Schema activation is when an individual hears a word or sees an image and a bunch of related thoughts, feelings, and ideas pop into their mind. Stereotypes are generalized beliefs about all members of a particular social group, and they are an example of social schema which is how we make generalizations about members of other social groups. Stereotypes save our cognitive energy, which is basically the brain space available, because new information is not needed to be stored since we simply apply existing information to make generalizations. However, stereotypes arising from schematic activation can lead to inaccuracy. Schematic activation often leads to confirmation bias, which is where we favor and tend to remember information that relates to our schema. This happens because when something is seen that is associated with a stereotype in our mind, our schema is activated, making us more likely to remember information that confirms the stereotype. Confirmation bias can lead to information distortion, which is when information is mistakenly remembered to make it make sense in our schemas. A study that explored the effects of schema activation on stereotypes was conducted by Stone et al in 2010. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the perceptual confirmation of racial stereotypes about black and white athletes. The procedure of this study is that participants were told they were participating in a study comparing watching on tv and listening to radio, but they were actually being subject of a study about stereotypes. They were given the name of a basketball player and were asked to listen closely to the radio recording of his performance. Half the participants were told the player was white, and the other half were told he was black. After the recording, the participants answered a questionnaire asking about ability, performance and contributions of the player. The results of the study was that the participants that were told the player was black said that he made a good contribution by positional play while the participants that were told the player was white said he made a good contribution by smart plays in hustle. Researchers concluded that the results were similar to what is perceived in stereotypes: that black athletes are physically better but white athletes make up for their lack in physical skills with their intellect. The conclusion of the study was that by activating the schema of a particular race on the participants, interpretations of the players performance on the court was affected. The study confirms the existence of stereotypes about athletes in the U.S. However, there may be other factors or alternative explanations besides those that explain the effect of schema activation on stereotypes. One factor that would have affected the stereotypes is social and cultural influences. These include family upbringing and peer influences which have an important part in shaping the stereotypes that an individual believes in. Another factor is cognitive dissonance, which is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. When individuals hold stereotypes but encounter something that contradicts those stereotypes, they may experience discomfort and to reduce the discomfort they may alter the beliefs to align with the stereotypes. This explains how stereotypes can be perpetuated even without schema activation. Another alternative explanation is personal experiences and individual differences. Depending on whether the individual has had positive or negative experiences with members of a certain social group, it could have an effect on stereotype formation that is stronger than schema activation. There are limitations and factors to Stone’s study. One strength is the experimental method of a true experiment. The independent variable (the image of the basketball player) was able to be manipulated which increases the internal validity. This helps to establish causal relationships between variables and not just correlational. Another strength is that the study seemed to have a high ecological validity. Watching and commenting on a sports game is not very out of place from everyday activities. These realistic scenarios increase the external validity of the experiment, the extent to which the results can be applied to contexts in the real world. One limitation of the study was the lack of cross-cultural validity. This experiment took place in the United States, and mainly regarded stereotypes in the US. This doesn’t allow the results to be generalizable to contexts outside of the US. Another limitation was that the results were recorded by self-reported data from questionnaires that were completed by the participants. This could’ve induced the social desirability effect, which is when a person responds in accordance with social norms or in a manner in which they believe other people would desire, rather than how they truly feel or believe, to make themselves look good. In conclusion, it can be seen that schema theory has an important role in shaping human behavior as evidenced by the study by Cohen (1981) which investigated the effects of schematic processing on the cognitive process of memory. Stone (2010) study also helped explain the role of schema theory, as his study explored the effects of schema activation on the cognitive bias of stereotypes. Despite that these studies have both strengths and limitations, they do in fact offer valuable insight into the relationship between schema theory and human behavior. In the future, more research should be conducted with results that can be generalized along diverse contexts. QUESTION 2: Discuss the localization of function in the brain (GRAFMAN 1996 and BECHARA 1994) There are many regions of the brain that have specialized functions affecting human behavior and cognition, pertaining to localization of function. In this essay, the effect of damage to the prefrontal cortex and ventromedial prefrontal cortex on the behavior of aggression and cognitive process of decision making will be focused on. Localization of function is the theory that states that specific parts of the brain are responsible for certain behaviors or cognitive processes. The first study that will be discussed is the Vietnam Head Injury Study by Grafman in 1996 which explores the role of the prefrontal cortex in aggression. The second study that will be discussed is Bechara (1994) which explores the role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making. Damage to the specific region of the prefrontal cortex can have an effect on the behavior of aggression. Localization of function explores how certain regions of the brain correspond to certain functions, the different areas control different aspects of human behavior and cognition. For example, the amygdala is known to be the emotional center. It is part of the limbic system along with the hippocampus and hypothalamus, that plays a role in emotion regulation, particularly fear and aggression. Due to this, damage to the amygdala would lead to a partial or drastic loss (depending on the severity of the damage) in emotional regulation or processing (unnecesary), possibly resulting in emotional blunting which is a lack of ability to experience emotions. The prefrontal cortex is the anterior part of the frontal lobe that plays a role in regulating emotions as well as regulating impulsive behavior. The prefrontal cortex also consists of the specific region called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex that is heavily involved in decision making. Damage to the prefrontal cortex would result in a loss of emotional control, increased impulsive behavior and impaired decision making ability. Damage in this area increases levels of aggression more in comparison to other areas of the brain because the prefrontal cortex is widely responsible for inhibiting impulsive behavior and regulating emotions. Individuals with this damage may not be able to control the impulsiveness of aggressive behavior, or may have increased emotional reactivity and react aggressively, or also not be able to identify beneficial and non aggressive decisions. The prefrontal cortex has many functions, and if damaged, it can lead to aggressive behavior. Grafman conducted the Vietnam Head Injury Study, a longitudinal study of over 1000 veterans of the Vietnam war. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of damage to the frontal lobe on aggressive tendencies. Grafman carried out the procedure of comparing 2 groups of Vietnam war veterans with healthy controls (no brain damage), one group of veterans had experienced damage to the prefrontal cortex, the other which had experienced damage to other areas of the brain. MRI machines were used to locate the damage on their brains. Researchers gathered evidence on aggressive and violent tendencies using self reported questionnaires as well as family observations. The results of the study was that the group that had damage to the prefrontal cortex had higher levels of reported violence and aggression compared to the group with damage to other areas and the control group (no damage). A conclusion that was made from this study is that damage to the prefrontal cortex is more likely to lead to aggressive behaviors than damage to other areas of the brain. However, there may be other factors or alternative explanations that explain localization of function. Since the participants were all veterans of the Vietnam War, they may have experienced traumatic events for example losing a friend during the war which could have led to the condition of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD can be associated with irritability and aggression, so the damage to the prefrontal cortex may have not been the cause/main cause of the higher aggressive tendencies in the participants which had damage to the prefrontal cortex. Additionally, individual differences always have to be accounted for. Perhaps the participant was already an aggressive person in the first place. Another explanation could be that the experiment which had low mundane reality due to the use of an MRI could’ve aggravated the participants, resulting in them filling in the self reported questionnaire as more aggressive tendencies than they truly have. Lastly, there are social desirability effects. Especially with the questionnaire, the participants would have filled it in stating that they act in a less threatening manner than they truly do because they believe society looks down on aggressive behavior. There were also strengths and limitations to Grafmans study in regards to the effect damage on the prefrontal cortex has on aggression. One strength of the study was the use of triangulation. This study utilized both family observations and self reported questionnaires to strengthen the internal validity of the results. Another strength was that this study was longitudinal, which allowed for the changes of aggression over time. Both these strengths increased the construct validity of the findings, which is the extent to which the variables resemble what their actually measuring; the strengths allowed the behavior of aggression to be measured more thoroughly. One limitation of the study was generalizability. All the participants were men who had gone through the Vietnam War, a very specific group of people. The results cannot accurately be generalized to women and people who have not experienced war. The participants were also all American, lowering the cross-cultural validity; the results cannot completely be generalized to other cultures. America is known for having a violent culture with guns legalized, which may have affected the aggression measured. An additional limitation is the use of the MRI machine to locate the area of brain damage. This affects mundane reality as the participants would not experience being in a MRI machine in daily, routine life. Now that the damage on the prefrontal cortex and the behavior of aggression has been discussed, this essay will continue with an alternate perspective, addressing how the damage on the ventromedial prefrontal cortex has an effect on the cognitive process of decision making. QUESTION 3: Discuss thinking and decision-making (GRAFMAN 1996 and BECHARA 1994) Thinking and decision-making are fundamental cognitive processes that humans engage in daily. In this essay, the dual processing model will be focused on in explaining this cognitive process. The Dual processing model is a general description of how we process information using different systems when making decisions. The first study that will be used to explore this is Bechara el al. (1994), which explored the effects of damage to the vmPFC on decision making. The second study that will be used is Mischel et al. (2011). Kahneman’s dual processing system shows two distinct systems of thinking: System 1 and System 2. System 1 operates automatically and subconsciously relying on quick judgements. System 2 operates with reflective thinking, it requires conscious effort and rational thinking to process information. When faced with a decision, individuals subconsciously rely on physical cues that are linked to emotion, to assess risks and rewards of different options. These help prioritize choices that align with past experience of positive or negative outcomes. Damage to the brain, to the areas associated with system 1 and system 2, can significantly impact decision-making skills. Damage to the amygdala can impact system 1 processing as it may lead to impairments in emotional processing. Conversely, damage to PFC can impair rational decision making as well as critical thinking. Individuals with damage might struggle to recognize emotional cues or react impulsively without considering long-term consequences. Bechara conducted a study regarding the effects of damage to vmPFC to decision-making. The aim of the study was to see if damage to the vmPFC has an effect on the decision making process. The procedure compared 17 healthy controls with 8 patients with naturally occuring lesions in the vmPFC. They played the IOWA gambling task which had 4 decks of cards, participants were told they could pick from any deck of cards. They start with 2000 dollars and can win money randomly when they pick cards from the decks. 2 decks have small winnings (50) but small penalties and the other 2 decks have large winnings (100) but large penalties. The results showed that the healthy controls slowly learned to not pick the decks of cards that have big rewards but negative long term punishments and opted for low intermediate rewards with longer term gains (less punishment). The patients with damage to vmPFC chose the decks with high rewards and long term punishments. The conclusion is that the prefrontal cortex seems to play a role in adjusting our thinking based on experiences to make more beneficial decisions as we process information using 2 systems. However, there may be other factors or alternative explanations to explain thinking and decision making. The theory of dual processing often presents System 1 and system 2 as distinct processes, overlooking the potential interaction between them. This oversimplification can lead to a simplistic way of human cognition. Another explanation is individual differences. This theory outlines general tendencies when it comes to cognitive processing, it may not capture differences in individual differences in decision-making strategies. People vary on their reliance on system 1 and 2 based on their personal experiences. Failing to account for variability can limit generalizability. There were also strengths and limitations to Bechara et al. study in regards to the effect damage on the vmPFC has on decision making. One strength of the study of the Iowa Gambling Task was the sensitivity to brain damage. This study demonstrates sensitivities to deficits in decision-making associated with damage to specific brain regions. Another strength was that this study was of high ecological validity, the Iowa Gambling Task simulates real-life decision-making scenarios, allowing for the assessment of decision -making to be done in a relevant context. One limitation of the study was limited construct validity. While the IGT measures decision-making under uncertainty, its construct validity may be limited by the complexity of the decision making process, as it can be influenced by other factors, such as emotion regulation and executive functions, which are not fully captured by this task. An additional limitation is the cultural and socioeconomic bias. The IGT’s reliance on monetary rewards and losses may introduce biases, individuals from different backgrounds may have varying attitudes towards risk-taking and financial decision making. This could affect the task’s validity across diverse populations. QUESTION 4: Discuss one bias in thinking and decision making STONE AND COHEN **FIX THIS** There are many types of biases that occur during thinking and decision making such as confirmation biases, which often affects an individual's working memory, thoughts, and decisions. In this essay the effect of schema on confirmation bias will be focused on, along with the impact of the dual processing model on decision making. Schema theory states that people mold memories to fit information that exists in their mind. The first study that will be discussed is Stone et al., which explores the impact of confirmation bias when it comes to stereotypes. The second study that will be discussed was conducted by One significant bias in thinking and decision-making is confirmation bias. This bias refers to the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs and hypothesis. Schemas are mental frameworks that help individuals organize and interpret information based on past experience. These cognitive structures impact the way we perceive new information. When individuals encounter new data, their schemas lead them to favor information that aligns with existing beliefs and dismiss information that contradicts them. This selective processing reinforces their original belief, often making it more resistant to change even in the face of compelling contradictory evidence. Schemas act as the lens through which information is filtered, thereby perpetuating confirmation bias. Moreover, this interaction between schemas and confirmation bias can create a self-fulfilling cycle. As individuals consistently seek out confirming evidence, their schemas become more rigid. This can lead to cognitive dissonance when faced with conflicting information, causing discomfort and a stronger urge to dismiss or downplay opposing viewpoints. Over time, this cognitive bias can narrow one’s perspective, hinder open-minded thinking, and contribute to polarized thinking, where individuals become increasingly resistant to revising their beliefs, even when presented with strong, contradictory evidence. A study that supports this is Stone et al. (2010). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the perceptual confirmation of racial stereotypes about Black and White athletes.The procedure involved participants who were told they were participating in a study comparing listening to a radio and watching TV, but they were really the subject of a study about stereotypes. They were given the name of a basketball player (and shown a photo) and were told to listen carefully to a radio recording of his performance because they would be asked to evaluate it. Half the participants were told the athlete was white, the other half were told he was black. After the recording, theyranked the player by completing a questionnaire based on evaluations of natural ability, performance, and contributions of the player. The results showed that black athletes were rated as making a contribution to the team through good positional play,whereas white athletes made a contribution through smart plays in hustle. The researchers concluded that the ratings were "...remarkably consistent with the stereotypes discussed in the sports media: perceivers reported that Black men have more athletic ability and are better at playing the game of basketball, but White men can contribute because they are more intelligent and make up for their lack of physical ability through effort." The conclusion suggests by activating a schema of the race of a particular athlete, participants' interpretations of their performance on the basketball court was affected. The effect of schematic processing can be seen in the study,their schema of particular athletes was influencing their interpretation of their performance in the game. This study seems to confirm the existence of a stereotype about athletes in the U.S. However, there may be other factors or alternative explanations besides those that explains confirmation bias. One factor that would have affected confirmation bias is social and cultural influences. These include family upbringing and peer influences which have an important part in shaping the way that an individual is susceptible to information that aligns with their existing schema/stereotypes that an individual believes in. Another factor is cognitive dissonance, which is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. When individuals hold stereotypes but encounter something that contradicts those stereotypes, they may experience discomfort and to reduce the discomfort they may alter the beliefs to align with the stereotypes. This explains how stereotypes can be perpetuated even without schema activation. Another alternative explanation is personal experiences and individual differences. Depending on whether the individual has had positive or negative experiences with members of a certain social group, it could have an effect on stereotype formation that is stronger than schema activation. There are strengths and limitations to Stone’s study. One strength is the experimental method of a true experiment. The independent variable (the image of the basketball player) was able to be manipulated which increases the internal validity. This helps to establish causal relationships between variables and not just correlational. Another strength is that the study seemed to have a task close to the real-world, increasing mundane reality. Watching and commenting on a sports game is not very out of place from everyday activities. These realistic scenarios increase the external validity of the experiment, the extent to which the results can be applied to contexts in the real world. One limitation of the study was the lack of cross-cultural validity. This experiment took place in the United States, and mainly regarded stereotypes in the US. This doesn’t allow the results to be generalizable to contexts outside of the US. Another limitation was that the results were recorded by self-reported data from questionnaires that were completed by the participants. This could’ve induced the social desirability effect, which is when a person responds in accordance with social norms or in a manner in which they believe other people would desire, rather than how they truly feel or believe, to make themselves look good. Another way confirmation bias is seen in thinking is through schematic consistent information. Schematic processing, a factor of schema theory, affects the cognitive process of memory. Memory is how the mind remembers and recalls information. Information that is consistent with our schema is remembered (this is called schema-consistent information), while information that is not consistent with schema can be forgotten or it can be distorted to make it fit the schema. Sometimes, schema can help fill in missing details depending on the schema for that event. This process can lead to confirmation bias, as we are more likely to remember information that aligns with our preconceptions, reinforcing existing beliefs. Although schemas can help fill in missing information and make information processing more efficient, it can lead to inaccuracies when it distorts reality to fit our expectations. While schema theory helps explain memory efficiency and cognitive generalizations, it also highlights how schematic processing can contribute to confirmation bias by favoring schema-consistent information. A study that supports this is the Cohen study in 1981. The aim of this study was to test the effects of prior knowledge on the processing of new information. The procedure of this study is that 96 undergraduate college students watched a video of a woman having dinner with her husband, and then an informal birthday celebration. Half of the participants watched the video being informed that the woman was a librarian, and the other half of the participants were informed that the woman was a waitress. The video was designed so the woman displayed equal characteristics of a librarian and a waitress. The students were asked to recall information after the video. The results of the study was that participants were more likely to remember schema consistent information. For example in the librarian condition, participants remembered more of the facts like that she got a book as a present and enjoys listening to classical music. In the waitress condition, participants remembered more facts like she ate a hamburger and was drinking a beer. The conclusion of this study is that schemas simplify our complex world and saves our cognitive energy by focusing attention on information we already know. Schema may have affected the processing of new information of the participants. There may have been other factors of alternative explanations that explains the effect of schematic processing on memory that was displayed in Cohen's study. One factor that could’ve affected memory is individual differences. Individuals all have different cognitive abilities and different capacities to remember information that is irrelevant to the idea of schema consistent information. Individuals with stronger cognitive abilities are more likely to demonstrate more information remembered compared to individuals who have weak cognitive abilities. Another factor that could’ve affected memory is motivation. Some individuals may regard the task as unimportant and do not try to recall or listen to the information, while others deem it important and try harder which would most likely result in those individuals recalling more information. This study is also simply correlational and not causational, as there is no way to operationalize the “activation of schema”, and it can’t be concluded that schematic processing was the factor that caused differences in memory recall due to there being no proper way of measurement. There were also strengths and limitations of Cohen’s study in relation to the effect schematic processing has on memory. One strength was that this study used the experimental method of a true experiment. The independent variable was manipulated and was not naturally occuring, which increases the internal validity, the extent to which the schematic processing (when participants were informed of librarian or water). Another strength was that this true experiment also involved random assignment, which controlled for confounding variables due to the participants being randomly allocated to groups. Onek limitation of the study was that all the participants were college students in a specific college, so the study had low population validity and also low generalizability because the results may not be able to be generalized to anybody outside of those students in the college, the participants were a very specific and small group. An additional limitation is that the task was quite artificial. Participants would not usually experience being informed of the profession of a person and then made to watch a video. This also raises concerns about demand characteristics, there could’ve been a chance that the participants guessed what the aim of the experiment was which would’ve affected the internal validity. QUESTION 5: Discuss reconstructive memory (LOFTUS AND PALMER, LOFTUS AND PICKRELL): There are many factors of reconstructive memory that may have an effect on human behavior and cognition such as leading questions, misinformation and distortion. In this essay, the effect of leading questions on the cognitive process of memory will be focused on, along with the effect of confabulation/misinformation on memory as well. Reconstructive memory states that individuals consciously rebuild our memories each time they try to recall something. The first study that will be discussed was conducted by Loftus and Palmer in 1974 and it explores the effect of leading questions on memory. The second study that will be discussed was conducted by Loftus and Pickrell in 1995, and it explored the relationship between confabulation (false memories) on memory. Leading questions can have an effect on the cognitive process of memory. A leading question is the wording of a question that could lead to distortions of memory. Memory is the ability to remember and recall information. Leading questions cause individuals to focus on specific details that align with the content of the leading question. Memory is reconstructive which means that memory isn't just retrieved but it is rebuilt every time information is presented. If the leading question has specific details that weren't originally present in the memory, the memory will be reconstructed to incorporate those details. However, leading questions can activate schemas that affects schematic processing. Schemas are a cluster of related pieces of information in our mind; mental representations of knowledge. Leading questions can cause schema activation during the process of memory retrieval that caters towards schema-consistent information, which may lead to distortions in memory. Essentially, schema activation affects the reconstructive process of memory by directing the focus onto schema-consistent information which may influence how information is interpreted. Loftus and Palmer conducted a study in 1974 that investigated the effects of leading questions on memory. The aim of their study was to test the effects of the leading question (verb usage) on memory recall (speed estimates/broken glass). The procedure that was carried out was 45 participants were asked to watch several clips of car crashes ranging from about 5 to 30 seconds long. After they watched the films, they were given a series of questions to answer. In the list of questions, there was one critical question that was different for individual participants. The question was "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?" The independent variable was the verb used in the question. After one week participants were asked a different series of 10 questions and the critical question in this list was "Did you see any broken glass?" The results of the study showed that there was a 30% higher speed estimate when the verb was "smashed" compared with "contacted". The stronger the verb, the higher the speed estimate (with the verb "contacted" having a mean of 32, "hit" having a mean of 34, "bumped" having a mean of 38, "collided" having a mean of 39, and "smashed" having a meme of 40). The verb "smashed" resulted in higher speed estimates than "hit". Also, 32% of the "smashed" condition circled "yes", they saw a broken glass (there was no broken glass in the clip), compared with only 14% in the "hit" condition and 12% in the control condition. It was concluded that ​the study provides more solid evidence for the misinformation effect occurring: the "smashed" verb introduced after the video lead participants to actually recall the crash with a greater impact, remembering it as being more severe than it really was, and produced a false memory of something that didn't happen (glass breaking). One explanation is that the verb was a leading question and directed students who weren't sure towards a particular guess. Another possible explanation is that the verb activated a different schema, which actually changed the way the participants were recollecting the event. There may have been alternative explanations or other factors that explain the creation of false memories that are not related to leading questions. One alternative explanation is that leading questions may simply influence participants to alter their responses, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the original memory of the event has altered. Some psychologists argue that the original memory is left intact for retrieval in appropriate conditions but are temporarily influenced by external suggestions. This means that participants may still be able to retrieve original memories accurately when in a situation without misleading questions. Another factor that would have affected the false memory is individual differences. Participants vary in cognitive abilities and that could've affected their susceptibility to distortion of memory. One other alternative explanation is the social desirability effect. Participants may have adjusted their responses to avoid embarrassment, even though they have their original memory intact they adjust their responses to those that they believe the researcher would export/is the norm. There were also strengths and limitations to Loftus and Palmer's study. One strength of the study was the experimental method. One strength was that this study used the experimental method of a true experiment. The independent variable was manipulated and was not naturally occuring, which increases the internal validity, the extent to which leading question had an effect on memory. Another strength was that this true experiment also involved random assignment, which controlled for confounding variables due to the participants being randomly allocated to groups. Also, there were more than 1 group, there were 5 verbs that were used which allows for a wide range of measurement, increasing the internal validity. One limitation is that the study has low population validity, all the participants were college students so the results are not able to be accurately generalized to contexts outside of those college students. students are used to remembering lots of information, and are usually good at memory tasks compared to other people. Also, not everyone who witnesses an event in real life would be a student, so the results cannot be generalized to all individuals. Another limitation is that the study lacks ecological validity because the car crash was a video rather than being real, it was an artificial task that doesn't accurately represent real life situations. Now, the effect of confabulation / misinformation on memory will be discussed. Confabulation is having a memory of something that never happened. Misinformation refers to incorrect information or false suggestions. This happens often when individuals fill gaps in memory with false information that fits with existing beliefs/schema. This can be explained using reconstructive memory, due to the fact that memory is consistently rebuilt, false information can be used to fill in the gaps unintentionally. This is related to schema activation, because when a person is exposed to new information, schemas are activated which may influence their interpretation of that information. If activated schema aligns with false information, distortions to memory can occur as individuals incorporate false details into their memory. The study by Loftus and Pickrell in 1995 explores the relationship between confabulation / misinformation and memory. The aim was to investigate the possibility of creating false memories of an event that never happened. The procedure was: 24 participants who were led to believe they were taking memory tests. They asked family members to provide details of three stories from when the participants were 4-6 years old. They also ask about details that could be plausibly added to a fictional story - being lost in the mall. For instance, the family members might give details like the name of the mall, or when they might have been shopping there. The family members also validated that the participant was never actually lost in the mall as a child. The participants read the descriptions of the four events that had been prepared by the researchers with the help of descriptions from the family members. The participants were interviewed soon after they read the descriptions of the events, and then again in one week. The results of the study showed that 5/24 (i.e. 21%) of the participants recall being lost in the mall, sometimes in great detail. They did, however, rate the memories as being less clear than the other memories. It can be concluded from this study that people can be misled to believe false events, as memories can be altered through suggestions. There are some possible other factors or alternative explanations that could explain the memory distortion unrelated to misinformation. One alternative explanation could be the social desirability effect. Participants might have felt compelled to recall the suggested event of getting lost in a shopping mall to comply with the researcher's expectations or to avoid appearing forgetful, but they didn’t actually have the false memory. Another possible factor is individual differences. Depending on the personality traits and cognitive abilities of the participants, they could've been more susceptible to suggestion and formation of false memories than others. In this case, it is not simply the act of suggestion that creates the false memories, but it is more to do with the individual themself. This also raises concerns about demand characteristics as another factor, there could’ve been a chance that the participants guessed what the aim of the experiment was which would’ve affected the internal validity. There were also strengths and weaknesses to Loftus and Pickrell study in regards to the extent misinformation had an effect on memory. One strength is that this study had high ecological validity because the scenarios they were presented with were all actually from the participants childhood except for the lost in the mall scenario, and all the stories were provided from relatives, making sure the stories are believable. Another strength was the experimental design of a true experiment. The independent variable was manipulated (the false scenario), which helps establish a causal relationship between misinformation and memory instead of just a correlational relationship. During the process, the interview style was kept consistent which minimizes researcher bias. One limitation of the study is that the study relied on self-reported explanations/memories which could be unreliable as there could be a chance they are saying things in the interview that are different to what they truly believe. Another limitation is the ethical consideration of deception. Participants were misled to believe that being lost in a mall was a true event from their childhood, raising ethical concerns. QUESTION 6: Discuss working memory models Intro The multi-store memory model, developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, posits that memory consists of three distinct stores: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Sensory memory acts as a buffer for sensory information from the environment. It has a large capacity but lasts only milliseconds. It includes iconic memory for visual input and echoic memory for auditory input. Information that captures attention is then transferred to STM, which retains it for approximately 15-30 seconds. STM has a limited capacity, often described by Miller’s Law as 7±2 items, allowing for temporary storage. If rehearsed, information can be encoded into LTM or forgotten, which has a potentially unlimited capacity and can store information for extended periods, even a lifetime. There are two types of LTM memory Explicit and Implicit. Explicit includes facts and events that can be consciously recalled while Implicit memory holds information of skills and habits that are unconscious but affect behavior. The process of memory transfer includes attention, encoding, then retrieval. The information from sensory memory that is focused on is transferred to short term memory. Encoding is when information in STM is actively processed and rehearsed so that it can be encoded into LTM. Retrieval is when the information in the LTM can be retrieved into STM when needed. Milner The aim of the case study of HM was to investigate the effects of hippocampal removal on memory formation and to understand the distinct types of memory associated with brain structures. The procedure was that at age 29, HM underwent surgery to remove his hippocampus to control severe epilepsy, followed by a series of cognitive tests, including tasks where he had to remember a three-digit number through rehearsal and a mirror drawing task, which he improved on over time. Results indicated that while HM retained his long-term memories from before the surgery, he was unable to form new explicit memories after the procedure, demonstrating anterograde amnesia; however, he could retain information in short-term memory through rehearsal and develop new implicit memories, such as procedural skills. The study concluded that the hippocampus is essential for consolidating explicit memories but not for implicit ones, supporting the notion that memory consists of distinct stores and emphasizing the role of the hippocampus in transferring information from short-term to long-term memory. While the multi-store memory model developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin provides a useful framework for understanding memory by distinguishing between sensory, short-term, and long-term memory, it oversimplifies the complexities of memory processes. Alternative models, such as the working memory model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch, suggest that short-term memory consists of multiple components that interact in more complex ways, and they emphasize the roles of emotions and context in memory formation and retrieval. The multi-store model offers a clear structure that facilitates understanding and is supported by empirical evidence, such as the case study of HM, which highlights the role of the hippocampus in memory consolidation. However, the model’s linear progression of memory processes may not accurately reflect real-life scenarios, and it fails to adequately address the nuanced types of long-term memory, such as episodic versus semantic memory. Additionally, the findings from HM's case study, while insightful, may not be broadly applicable, as they are based on a single individual with specific neurological conditions, limiting their generalizability to the wider population. The working memory model, proposed by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974, expands on the concept of short-term memory by introducing a more complex structure that actively processes information. Central to this model is the central executive, which directs attention and manages the flow of information from various subsystems. The central executive oversees cognitive tasks like problem-solving and decision-making, coordinating inputs from both verbal and visual sources. The phonological loop is responsible for verbal and auditory information, comprising a phonological store that holds sounds briefly and an articulatory rehearsal process that allows for the repetition of information. Meanwhile, the visuospatial sketchpad processes visual and spatial information, enabling tasks like navigation and mental visualization. In 2000, Baddeley added the episodic buffer, which integrates information across these subsystems and connects it to long-term memory, allowing for a coherent understanding of experiences. It has a limited capacity but allows for temporary store of integrated information that can be used to understand and remember complex information. To investigate the existence of the VSS and the PL as separate components in the Working Memory Model by using a dual-task activity (dual-task study) Participants: There is no information available as to who was included in the sample Procedure: A dual-task lab experiment in which participants were given a tracking task (following a spot of light with a pointer around a circular path) while imagining block capitals in their head such as H, T, F and E ​ Condition A: Participants were asked to start at the bottom left-hand corner of the path and to begin tracking the shape with their light-pointer. They were asked to respond verbally to each angle with a ‘yes’ if it included the bottom or top line of the letter and a ‘no’ if it did not. So, if the participant was thinking of a letter ‘F’ then they would respond that yes, it had a top and a middle line but no bottom line. They did this while tracking the spot of light ​ Condition B: The participants started tracking the pattern with the light-pointer and they were then told to imagine one of the letters, ‘F’ for example. While they were tracking the pattern they were asked, ‘Does this letter have a top line/middle line/bottom line in it’? But they were asked to just imagine the letter in their head. So, they were having to follow a pattern while at the same time imagine a letter in their head Results: Participants in condition B experienced great difficulty in tracking the spot of light and at the same time accurately identifying in their head whether the letter had a top/middle/bottom line. Tracking and letter imagery tasks were competing for the limited resources of the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad, whereas the tracking and verbal tasks in condition 1 (responding verbally whilst visualising the letter) used separate components: the VSS and Phonological Loop​ Conclusion: There may be separate slave systems – the VSS and the PL - which operate in working memory. Overloading one of the slave systems with two tasks means that it cannot function properly The study offers strong empirical support for Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model by demonstrating the separation between the Phonological Loop (PL) and the Visuospatial Sketchpad (VSS). The controlled laboratory setting increases internal validity, showing how tasks that rely on the same subsystem compete for cognitive resources, whereas tasks using separate systems do not. This has practical implications, especially in education, where reducing cognitive overload is important. However, the study has limitations, including the lack of participant details, which affects the generalizability of the findings. The artificial nature of the tasks also limits ecological validity, as such dual-task scenarios rarely occur in real-life settings. Additionally, while the study highlights the VSS and PL, it does not address how these components interact with others, like the central executive, leaving room for further investigation. Conclusion QUESTION 7: Discuss the influence of emotion on cognitive process There are many cognitive processes influenced by emotion. In this essay, the effect of amygdala on fear conditioning will be explored along with the effect of emotion on how we make decisions.Threat perception is the process of recognizing and interpreting potential dangers in the environment. The amygdala is a brain structure that processes emotions, particularly fear and pleasure, and is crucial for emotional memory and threat response. The first study that will be discussed was conducted by Feinstein et. al. in 2011 and it explores the effect of the amygdala in fear and threat perception. The second study that will be discussed was conducted by Luby et. al. In 2014, it explored the relationship between poverty and brain development. Emotion affects cognition through the brain’s fear conditioning mechanisms where amygdala associates emotional significance with sensory stimuli, triggering responses based on emotional memories. In situations of stress, the activation of the HPA axis and the release of cortisol heighten the fight-or-flight response, impacting how individuals perceive threats and react to social and physical dangers. This leads to emotional reactivity and can skew threat perception, enhancing cognitive biases such as emotional blunting. Moreover, chronic stress and activation of the HPA axis can result in the amygdala hijack, where emotional responses override rational thought, weakening the ability to make informed decisions. Long-term stress may also cause atrophy in the hippocampus, impairing the brain’s ability to consolidate memories, especially emotional ones. As a result, the brain’s sensory organs and sensory information become over-focused on negative stimuli leading to an increased startle response. Through these mechanisms, emotions profoundly shape how we process, interpret, and react to the world around us. Feinstein et al. was a case study done on SM, who was a patient with bilateral amygdala damage due to a genetic condition.The aim of this study was to see amygdala (brain damage) plays a role in the experience of fear and threat perception. The procedure conducted tried to induce fear in a 44 year old woman named by S.M. By taking her to an exotic pet stores, an old psychiatric hospital considered one of the “most haunted places in America,” and showing her scary films to see if she would not be afraid. They also gathered data on her life by using self-report questionnaires. The results showed that none of the experiences caused her to feel afraid, as reported by 4 researchers even though she said she “tries to stay away from them [spiders, snakes].” She was curious about snakes saying “This is cool!” And even “scared one of the monsters” in the sanatorium. The conclusion suggests that the amygdala might play an important role in the experiences of fear in scary and threatening situations. The relationship between emotion and cognition is complex, with the amygdala playing a crucial role in fear processing; however, other brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex, also contribute to emotional regulation and threat perception. It is a reductionist theory, by looking at the complexity of this cognition can indicate a more intricate interplay among various brain systems rather than a singular reliance on the amygdala. The study by Feinstein et al. provides strong empirical evidence of the amygdala's role in fear perception through the case of SM, demonstrating the specific impacts of amygdala damage. This understanding can inform therapeutic approaches for anxiety and stress-related disorders, emphasizing the importance of emotional awareness in decision-making. However, the case study design limits generalizability, as conclusions drawn from a single individual may not apply to broader populations. Additionally, the complexity of emotions means that reducing fear response solely to amygdala activity oversimplifies the intricate emotional and cognitive processes involved, potentially overlooking the influence of context and individual differences. Emotions play a crucial role in shaping cognitive processes, influencing how we think, learn, and make decisions. The central argument is that emotional states significantly affect cognitive functioning, with both positive and negative emotions leading to distinct outcomes. For instance, stress, a negative emotional response, can hinder memory formation and retrieval by impairing brain structures like the hippocampus, resulting in difficulties with learning and problem-solving. Conversely, positive emotions, such as joy or excitement, can enhance cognitive flexibility and creativity, enabling individuals to tackle challenges more effectively. Emotions also affect attention; for example, heightened anxiety may narrow focus, making it harder to process information comprehensively. Moreover, emotionally charged experiences are more likely to be retained in long-term memory, underscoring the interplay between emotion and memory. This dynamic relationship suggests that emotional well-being is essential for optimal cognitive performance, as emotions not only influence our thoughts but also shape our behavioral responses to various situations. Ultimately, understanding this connection can lead to better strategies for improving learning and decision-making through emotional regulation. Luby et al. conducted a longitudinal study over 10 years to explore the correlation between poverty and brain development, focusing on mediating variables like stress and parenting. They gathered MRI data from 145 children aged 3 to 6 to examine how poverty, stressful events, and parenting styles impacted hippocampal volume. Parent-child interactions were assessed by having a child wait to open a small gift while the parent completed a questionnaire. Researchers, observing from behind a two-way mirror, noted whether parents used supportive strategies (like praising patience) or hostile strategies (like threats for nagging). Results showed a negative correlation between socioeconomic status, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, indicating poorer children had smaller brain structures. Parenting styles and stressful life events mediated this relationship, suggesting that poverty-induced stress affects parenting, which in turn impacts the child’s brain development. Positive interactions during the waiting task were associated with larger hippocampal volumes, supporting existing evidence linking socioeconomic status to brain development.The findings corroborate evidence from other studies that show correlations between poverty (socioeconomic status) and brain development. The argument that emotions shape cognitive processes is strong, but it overlooks the influence of cognitive functioning on emotional responses. An individual’s prior knowledge can affect how they interpret emotions, indicating a bidirectional relationship. While the discussion effectively highlights the impact of both positive and negative emotions, supported by Luby et al.’s study linking socioeconomic factors to brain development, it may oversimplify emotions by categorizing them strictly as positive or negative. Additionally, the study's findings may not be broadly applicable, as the specific population studied may not represent all demographics, and the research may not fully account for how changes in emotional states over time influence cognitive development. Conclusion HL Extension QUESTION 8: Discuss the influence of digital technology on one or more cognitive processes QUESTION 9: Discuss the positive and negative effects of modern technology on one or more cognitive processes Modern technology can positively impact cognitive processes, particularly working memory and executive functioning, by providing structured and adaptive training environments. By engaging in tasks that progressively increase in difficulty, individuals can strengthen working memory, which is essential for temporarily storing and manipulating information. This enhancement of working memory also leads to improvements in reasoning abilities, as the brain becomes more efficient at processing and organizing information. Furthermore, the theory suggests that practicing cognitive tasks can enhance executive functions, such as response inhibition and attention control, helping individuals better manage distractions and impulses. Technology-based training also provides immediate feedback and adaptability, which can tailor cognitive challenges to an individual's progress, making the practice both engaging and effective. These benefits highlight how modern technology can be used as a tool to improve cognitive performance, particularly in areas that require focus, memory, and self-regulation. Klinberg et. Al conducted a study to investigate the effects of computer-based training (technology) on working memory and executive functioning (cognition). 42 children between ages 7-12 diagnosed with ADHD were randomly assigned to one of two conditions for a five-week trial. The children played a computerized game design to improve their working memory. There were 90 working memory tasks to be completed at least five times per week and each session lasted around 40-45 minutes. In the treatment group, the tasks were designed to increase in difficulty as a children's working memory improved. In the control condition, the same computerized game was played, but the difficulty did not increase with the child's progress, so it was easy for them to complete. After the five weeks, the children performed a range of span-board tasks to measure the effects of the training. The results revealed significant improvements in working memory capacity, reasoning abilities, and decreased displays of ADHD-related behaviors. There was also a significant improvement in response inhibition as measured by performance on the Stroop Test. Lastly, parents reported reduced symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity. Findings suggest that there are neurological benefits involved in practicing strategies to improve working memory. An alternative explanation for the cognitive improvements observed in the study could be increased familiarity with the tasks rather than the effectiveness of the computerized training itself. Children may have simply become better at the test format, leading to performance gains that don't necessarily reflect enhanced cognitive abilities. Additionally, the observed improvements in attention and behavior could be partly due to increased parental involvement during the study period. Strengths of the study include the adaptive nature of the training, which tailored task difficulty to each child’s progress, enhancing engagement and making the intervention more effective. Objective measures, such as the Stroop Test and parent reports, provide multi-dimensional insights into cognitive and behavioral changes. However, the small sample size limits generalizability, and the short-term trial does not provide insight into long-term effects. There may also be a placebo effect, with children in the challenging condition performing better due to motivation rather than the training itself. The theory behind the intervention offers strengths, such as using technology to enhance working memory and executive function, but it assumes that technology is inherently beneficial. This overlooks potential negative effects like overstimulation and reduced social interaction, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to cognitive development through technology The theory suggests that this type of technology, specifically fast-paced TV, can negatively affect cognitive processes such as working memory and executive function in children. Fast-paced media, with its rapid scene changes and high levels of sensory stimulation, can overwhelm a child's cognitive capacity, leading to a temporary reduction in their ability to focus, retain information, and perform tasks that require attention and self-control. This overstimulation disrupts executive functioning, impairing processes such as inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory, which are essential for regulating behavior and processing information effectively. In contrast, slower-paced media or non-technological activities, like drawing, allow for more thoughtful engagement, giving the brain time to process information and maintain cognitive balance. This theory highlights how exposure to certain types of media can undermine attention control and memory retention, suggesting that not all technological experiences are equally beneficial for cognitive development. Liliard and Peterson conducted research to study the effects of different types of TV watching (technology) on executive function and working memory (cognition). Researchers randomly allocated 60 four-year-old children to one of three conditions. In the fast-paced TV condition, the kids watched SpongeBob SquarePants (which has an average scene length of 11 seconds). The slow-paced TV condition watched another cartoon, Caillou (which has an average scene length of 34 seconds). A third group watched no TV and did drawing activities instead. The children watched TV (or drew) for nine minutes before completing a range of tests on their working memory, including a digital span task. Results showed that the kids who watched nine minutes of SpongeBob (fast-paced condition) scored significantly less on the digit-span and other tests of executive function compared to the groups in the drawing and slow-paced TV conditions. This suggests that it is not just about how much TV a child watches, but also the type of TV being watched The theory that fast-paced TV can negatively impact cognitive processes like working memory and executive function offers an important perspective, but there are alternative explanations. It’s possible that individual differences, such as baseline attention span or susceptibility to distraction, might account for the variations in performance, rather than the media itself. Additionally, factors such as the content's complexity or its emotional engagement could influence cognitive outcomes, not just its pace. Strengths of this theory include its practical relevance, as it directly addresses the type of media children are frequently exposed to, and the experimental design allows for controlled comparison between fast-paced and slow-paced media. However, the short exposure time of only nine minutes limits the generalizability of the findings, as it doesn’t account for long-term effects of habitual media consumption. Another limitation is that the study sample consisted of only four-year-olds, which may not be representative of how older children or adults process media. Finally, while the study focuses on negative cognitive impacts, it doesn’t fully explore potential benefits of fast-paced media, such as enhanced processing speed or adaptability in dynamic environments. QUESTION 10: Discuss the positive effects of modern technology on one or more cognitive processes Klinberg (2002) Modern technology can positively impact cognitive processes, particularly working memory and executive functioning, by providing structured and adaptive training environments. By engaging in tasks that progressively increase in difficulty, individuals can strengthen working memory, which is essential for temporarily storing and manipulating information. This enhancement of working memory also leads to improvements in reasoning abilities, as the brain becomes more efficient at processing and organizing information. Furthermore, the theory suggests that practicing cognitive tasks can enhance executive functions, such as response inhibition and attention control, helping individuals better manage distractions and impulses. Technology-based training also provides immediate feedback and adaptability, which can tailor cognitive challenges to an individual's progress, making the practice both engaging and effective. These benefits highlight how modern technology can be used as a tool to improve cognitive performance, particularly in areas that require focus, memory, and self-regulation. Klinberg et. Al conducted a study to investigate the effects of computer-based training (technology) on working memory and executive functioning (cognition). 42 children between ages 7-12 diagnosed with ADHD were randomly assigned to one of two conditions for a five-week trial. The children played a computerized game design to improve their working memory. There were 90 working memory tasks to be completed at least five times per week and each session lasted around 40-45 minutes. In the treatment group, the tasks were designed to increase in difficulty as a children's working memory improved. In the control condition, the same computerized game was played, but the difficulty did not increase with the child's progress, so it was easy for them to complete. After the five weeks, the children performed a range of span-board tasks to measure the effects of the training. The results revealed significant improvements in working memory capacity, reasoning abilities, and decreased displays of ADHD-related behaviors. There was also a significant improvement in response inhibition as measured by performance on the Stroop Test. Lastly, parents reported reduced symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity. Findings suggest that there are neurological benefits involved in practicing strategies to improve working memory. An alternative explanation for the cognitive improvements observed in the study could be increased familiarity with the tasks rather than the effectiveness of the computerized training itself. Children may have simply become better at the test format, leading to performance gains that don't necessarily reflect enhanced cognitive abilities. Additionally, the observed improvements in attention and behavior could be partly due to increased parental involvement during the study period. Strengths of the study include the adaptive nature of the training, which tailored task difficulty to each child’s progress, enhancing engagement and making the intervention more effective. Objective measures, such as the Stroop Test and parent reports, provide multi-dimensional insights into cognitive and behavioral changes. However, the small sample size limits generalizability, and the short-term trial does not provide insight into long-term effects. There may also be a placebo effect, with children in the challenging condition performing better due to motivation rather than the training itself. The theory behind the intervention offers strengths, such as using technology to enhance working memory and executive function, but it assumes that technology is inherently beneficial. This overlooks potential negative effects like overstimulation and reduced social interaction, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to cognitive development through technology. Another way that modern technology, specifically Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET), can have a positive impact on cognitive processes is by helping individuals process and manage traumatic memories. VRET enables individuals to safely confront and re-experience traumatic events in a controlled virtual environment, allowing the brain to gradually reduce its fear response through repeated exposure. This process of fear extinction leads to a decrease in hyper-arousal and threat perception, which are common in conditions like PTSD. The immersive nature of virtual reality creates realistic simulations that trigger emotional responses, allowing individuals to confront their fears in a way that traditional therapy may not facilitate. Over time, this exposure helps to rewire the brain’s emotional reactivity and memory processing, reducing the intensity of negative emotions associated with traumatic memories. Through repeated sessions, individuals can achieve a reduction in symptoms such as flashbacks, anxiety, and avoidance behavior, demonstrating the ability of modern technology to positively influence cognitive processes related to trauma and emotional regulation. RothbumTo test the effectiveness of VRET (technology) in treating PTSD symptoms (cognition). Use VRET treatment with 8 Vietnam War veterans. During the virtual reality treatment they were exposed to different environments. In one, they were in a Huey helicopter (the type used to transport troops in Vietnam) flying over a landscape that look like Vietnam. In the other virtual world they were in a field surrounded by jungle. For the second environment, it's easy to imagine how this would bring about a fear response: being surrounded by jungle means the enemy could hide and if you were in an open field you would be exposed. Using the Clinically Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS), the results showed that all clients had a reduction of symptoms when they had a check-up six months after the treatment. The reduction in symptoms ranged from 15% to 67%. The results suggest that VRET can be effective in treating PTSD. An alternative explanation for the reduction in PTSD symptoms observed in the study could be the natural passage of time or placebo effects, where veterans experienced symptom relief simply due to the belief that they were receiving effective treatment. Additionally, other factors like increased support during therapy or changes in daily routines could have contributed to the improvements rather than VRET alone. Strengths of the study include the immersive and realistic nature of virtual reality, which provides a controlled environment for gradual exposure to traumatic triggers, potentially making the therapy more effective than traditional talk therapy. The use of the CAPS to measure symptom reduction also offers an objective metric for assessing PTSD severity. However, the small sample size of just eight participants limits the generalizability of the findings, and the study lacks a control group for comparison, making it difficult to attribute the results solely to VRET. Moreover, while symptom reductions were significant, long-term effectiveness beyond six months remains unclear. The theory behind VRET, which focuses on fear extinction through exposure, provides a compelling framework for treating PTSD, but it assumes that virtual environments can adequately replicate real-life trauma triggers for all individuals, which may not always be the case. Additionally, VRET may not address the underlying cognitive or emotional processes involved in trauma, necessitating further research into its broader psychological impact. QUESTION 11: Discuss the negative effects of modern technology on one or more cognitive processes The theory suggests that this type of technology, specifically fast-paced TV, can negatively affect cognitive processes such as working memory and executive function in children. Fast-paced media, with its rapid scene changes and high levels of sensory stimulation, can overwhelm a child's cognitive capacity, leading to a temporary reduction in their ability to focus, retain information, and perform tasks that require attention and self-control. This overstimulation disrupts executive functioning, impairing processes such as inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory, which are essential for regulating behavior and processing information effectively. In contrast, slower-paced media or non-technological activities, like drawing, allow for more thoughtful engagement, giving the brain time to process information and maintain cognitive balance. This theory highlights how exposure to certain types of media can undermine attention control and memory retention, suggesting that not all technological experiences are equally beneficial for cognitive development. Liliard and Peterson conducted research to study the effects of different types of TV watching (technology) on executive function and working memory (cognition). Researchers randomly allocated 60 four-year-old children to one of three conditions. In the fast-paced TV condition, the kids watched SpongeBob SquarePants (which has an average seen length of 11 seconds). The slow-paced TV condition watched another cartoon, Caillou (which has an average scene length of 34 seconds). A third group watched no TV and did drawing activities instead. The children watched TV (or drew) for nine minutes before completing a range of tests on their working memory, including a digital span task. Results showed that the kids who watched nine minutes of SpongeBob (fast-paced condition) scored significantly less on the digit-span and other tests of executive function compared to the groups in the drawing and slow-paced TV conditions. This suggests that it is not just about how much TV a child watches, but also the type of TV being watched The theory that fast-paced TV can negatively impact cognitive processes like working memory and executive function offers an important perspective, but there are alternative explanations. It’s possible that individual differences, such as baseline attention span or susceptibility to distraction, might account for the variations in performance, rather than the media itself. Additionally, factors such as the content's complexity or its emotional engagement could influence cognitive outcomes, not just its pace. Strengths of this theory include its practical relevance, as it directly addresses the type of media children are frequently exposed to, and the experimental design allows for controlled comparison between fast-paced and slow-paced media. However, the short exposure time of only nine minutes limits the generalizability of the findings, as it doesn’t account for long-term effects of habitual media consumption. Another limitation is that the study sample consisted of only four-year-olds, which may not be representative of how older children or adults process media. Finally, while the study focuses on negative cognitive impacts, it doesn’t fully explore potential benefits of fast-paced media, such as enhanced processing speed or adaptability in dynamic environments. The theory suggests that engaging in dual-task activities involving modern technology, such as talking on a cell phone while driving, can negatively affect cognitive processes like perception and attention. When an individual is involved in cognitively demanding tasks, such as a conversation, their mental resources become divided, leading to inattentional blindness—the failure to notice important visual stimuli in the environment. This split in attention results in slower reaction times and a reduced ability to detect unexpected events, such as sudden changes in traffic conditions. The cognitive load of multitasking impairs perception, making it difficult to fully process all incoming sensory information. Even when using hands-free devices, the mental effort required for conversation still occupies significant cognitive resources, detracting from the attention needed for tasks like driving. This theory highlights how technology, when used in multitasking situations, can disrupt the brain’s ability to process information efficiently, increasing the risk of errors and accidents. Strayer and Johnson To provide evidence for the effects of the dual-task paradigm on inattentional blindness and perception (cognition). Participants from the University of Utah (average age 21) performed various tasks while performing another task on a computer that was meant to stimulate reactions to traffic. In the two conditions, participants listened to books on tape or the radio and their ability to detect traffic signals and their reaction times to unexpected events (like a car breaking in front of them) were recorded. Results showed that talking aloud, or listening to a book or the radio, did not affect their reaction or their perception. However, when participants were asked to engage in conversations on a cell-phone, they were twice as likely to miss traffic signs and their reaction speeds were slower. In fact, three of the participants in the cell-phone conversation condition got into accidents; even when the conversation happened using a hands-free device. This suggests a negative effect on the reliability of our perception explained by inattentional blindness: if you're driving while trying to send a text or have a conversation, this requires thought and is cognitively taxing, and takes away from the road. This means that even when things happen in front of you, you might not be able to perceive them, or at least your perception will be slower. The theory that dual-task activities, such as talking on a cell phone while driving, impair cognitive processes like perception and attention, primarily due to inattentional blindness, is compelling but can be viewed from different angles. An alternative explanation is that not all multitasking activities carry the same cognitive load; some individuals may possess higher cognitive flexibility, enabling them to multitask more effectively. Additionally, external factors such as stress levels, driving experience, or the complexity of the conversation could influence how attention is divided, rather than multitasking alone being the cause of reduced cognitive performance. Strengths of the theory include its real-world applicability, as it highlights a common and potentially dangerous behavior in modern life. The study's design also provides clear evidence of the effects of cell phone use on driving performance, making the findings relevant for public safety. However, a limitation is that the study relies on simulations rather than actual driving conditions, which may not capture the full complexity of real-life scenarios. The sample size and age group (university students) also limit the generalizability of the findings, as younger individuals may have quicker reflexes and adaptability compared to older or less experienced drivers. Furthermore, the study doesn’t explore potential differences between habitual multitaskers and those less accustomed to dividing their attention, leaving room for further research into individual differences.