2008 Exam Paper PDF

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 2 Some argued that the results were due to demand characteristics (participants could’ve been aware of the way the verb was supposed to influence their responses, and thus adjusted their subjective estimates) To address this, Experiment 2 used forced-choice objectiv...

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 2 Some argued that the results were due to demand characteristics (participants could’ve been aware of the way the verb was supposed to influence their responses, and thus adjusted their subjective estimates) To address this, Experiment 2 used forced-choice objective questions about the event, instead of subjective estimate (ie. speed of the car) Participants watched video of event, and were then asked a series of questions about the accident Critical Question: - “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other” - “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other” - Another group were not asked about the vehicle speed A week later, participants returned. They didn’t watch the video again, but answered a series of questions about the accident Critical Question: “Did you see any broken glass” (Yes/No) - There was no broken glass in the original video - Any participant who said yes demonstrated a false memory What can we take away from Loftus and Palmer? Loftus and Palmer showed that participants can genuinely believe aspects of an event to have occurred through the power of suggestion, when some details of the event did not occur Perhaps this was only a minor detail to participants, and maybe memory is only suggestible to erroneous minor details To test this, Loftus (1975) tested whether a larger object could be falsely implanted into participants’ memories via suggestion Loftus (1975) Notably, almost 3% of participants were still reporting that there was a barn, even though they hadn’t been exposed to the misleading question This shows that false memories can occur, and they’re especially likely to occur by a suggestion What causes false memories? Each time you recall the memory, it is susceptible to other sources of information contaminating the original memory Can people have a false memory for an entire event? Loftus (1998) had participants watch 4 video clips of crime scenes, depicting: - A bank robbery - A warehouse burglary - A liquor-store hold up - A domestic disp Human memory can be unreliable Even in these experiments where participants had nothing to gain by being dishonest, they were readily reporting memories for objects and even entire events that did not occur Differentiating real from false memories is tough - Confidence is not a reliable predictor of memory accuracy (Loftus, 1979) oEven false memories can be held with strong convict Live Lecture Content Memory Questions Summary What’s the difference between retrospective and prospective memory? Answer: Retrospective memory regards recollection of things that happened in the past, such as remembering you had Weet-Bix for breakfast yesterday. Prospective memory refers to remembering to do something. For example, knowing that you need to go to Coles after work to pick up some milk. If memory is not explicit/declarative, then is it ______ memory? Answer: Implicit/Non-declarative memory. What are the three stages of memory? Answer: Encoding, Storage, and Retrieval. What is the DRM paradigm, how does it work, and what does it show? Answer: It is an experimental paradigm that can reliably create false memories. It is where a bunch of semantically related words are presented (eg. pyjamas, night, moon, bed), and one word that is semantically related to those words is not presented (eg. sleep). Then, when participants are tested on which words were initially presented, participants (on average) have a high degree of confidence in stating that the critical foil (ie. sleep) was present initially – even when it wasn’t Week 10 Pre-Recorded Lecture Content Video 1A: Flashbulb Memories Flashbulb Memories Summary This is a memory for a surprising, emotional, and consequential events Examples: - 9/11 Terrorist Attacks - Michael Jackson’s death - Trump winning 2016 election Refers to the circumstances surrounding how a person heard about the event, not the event itself They are subjectively vivid - Analogy of a photograph (‘flashbulb’) - Are flashbulb memories accurate? oEmpirical evidence suggests they aren’t (or at least they’re not as accurate as a photo) Origins of Flashbulb Memories Brown and Kulik (1977) asked people to recall details of their experience with the assassination of JFK in 1963 Many people provided vivid, detailed reports, and believed their memory to be extremely accurate, like a photograph Suggested that it might be a special type of memory Recent Developments More recently, Talarico and Rubin (2003) contacted Duke University students on September 12, 2001, and asked them for details of: - Event of learning of terrorist attack - Another everyday event oResearchers examined the consistency of these memories over 1-32 weeks later - People believe their flashbulb memories are more accurate than their everyday memories - However, their flashbulb memories weren’t accurate Note that it is difficult to measure (objectively) the accuracy of these types of memories - However, we can use the number of details that people report in the memory oBoth the flashbulb and everyday memories declined in the number of details reported over time Greenberg (2004) Greenberg (2004) notes the inconsistencies in the three accounts from President Bush: - Memory 1 and 3 are nearly identical, but clearly differ from Memory 2 - But Memory 1 and 3 seem to be impossible – there was no footage of the first plane crashing into the building (at least not right away), thus these memories don’t seem to be accurate TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: - Flashbulb memories are more subjectively vivid than everyday memories, but they don’t seem to be more accurate - They are not like a photograph Video 1B: Photographic Memories Eidetic Memories Summary Some people claim to have a photographic memory, is this true? “Eidetic” memory is the closest concept - Eidetic = related to extraordinarily detailed and vivid recall of visual images, comes from the Greek word (eidos) which means “form” Picture Elicitation Method The most common way to identify eidetikers is the Picture Elicitation Method - Unfamiliar picture placed on an easel and a person carefully scans the entire scene - After 30 seconds have elapsed, the picture is removed from view, and the person is asked to continue to look at the easel and to report anything that they can observe - People possessing eidetic imagery will confidently still claim to “see” the picture oThey can scan it, examine different parts of it just as if the picture were still physically present oTalk about picture in the present tense when answering questions about the missing picture oCan report extraordinary detail about it Eidetic Images Not mere after-images (don’t move around with eye movements) Remain between half a minute to several minutes only - Then begin to fade away involuntarily part by part Can be destroyed by the simple act of blinking intentionally Rarely can be retrieved However, unlike a true photograph, eidetic imagery is not perfectly accurate - Sketchy on some details - Alterations/inventions that were not in the original image - Suggests have a reconstructive basis, like regular memory Who has an eidetic memory? The majority of people who have been identified as possessing eidetic memory are children - Estimated around 2-10% - No gender differences Exceptional Memory Forms vs Eidetic Memory Other forms of exceptional memory are often mistaken for eidetic memory Expertise effects - Example: Chess experts chunk chess configurations into elaborate memories oBut this is different from eidetic memory They have no better memory than novices when presented with configurations that could never occur during a game (ie. pieces on the wrong squares) World Memory Championships Not a single champion has ever reported eidetic memory Instead, they use clever and extensive mnemonic strategies TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: - People differ in the vividness of their memories and number of details remembers -However, nobody has a perfect ‘photographic’ memory - Exceptional memory performance is often due to extensive experience or the use of strategies Video 1C: Judgement and Decision-Making Lecture Outline Summary - Dual Cognitive Systems model - Heuristics & fallacies - Adjustments & anchoring - Prospect Theory Dual Cognitive Systems Model Summary System 1: Operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control - Some heuristics or ‘mental shortcuts’ operate at this level System 2: Allocates attention to effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations - System 2’s operations are often associated with subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration When we think of ourselves, we typically identify with System 2 that has beliefs, makes choices, and decides what to think about and how to act - However, System 1 can still have a powerful influence Heuristics and Fallacies Heuristics People largely rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgemental operations (System 1) In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors Subjective Assessment The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size - We resort to simple heuristic rules/mental shortcuts oExample: Object appears clearer, therefore they must be closer - Heuristics work well in most situations - However, they may lead to systematic error oExample: Poor visibility conditions = distances over-estimated Probabilities Many of the probabilistic questions with which people are concerned belong to one of the following types: - What is the probability that object A belongs to class B? - What is the probability that event A originates from process B? - What is the probability that process B will generate process A? In answering such questions, people typically rely on the representativeness heuristic: probabilities are evaluated by the degree to which A is representative of (or resembles) B Representativeness Heuristic Consider an individual who has been described by a former neighbour as follows: - “Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful, but with little interest in people, or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.” Is Steve more likely which of the following: farmer, salesperson, airline pilot, librarian, or physician? Research has shown that people most say that Steve is most likely to be a librarian - Kahneman and Tversky (1973) argued that this is because people are using the representativeness heuristic: the probability that Steve is a librarian is assessed by the extent to which he is representative or matches the stereotype of a librarian The representativeness heuristic is your brain giving a compelling answer to a simpler question when confronted with a more difficult one - This can be an adaptive way to provide a quick answer to a question - However, it can lead to problems in reasoning (see below) Insensitivity to Base Rates One of the reasoning problems it may lead to is insensitivity to prior probabilities of outcomes - Judgements based on representative ignore the prior probabilities or base-rate frequency of particular outcomes - Statistically, prior probabilities should enormously influence our judgements (Bayes’ theorem) oExample: with Steve, if there are many more farmers than librarians in the population oThis should influence our estimate of the probability that Steve is a librarian rather than a farmer oBut they do not oInstead, the similarity between Steve and the stereotypes of farmers vs. librarians is the source of judgement oBy relying on representativeness heuristic, people often overlook base rates Kahneman and Tversky (1973) Base Rate Experiment: - Showed participants brief descriptions of several individuals, allegedly sampled at random from a group of 100 professionals – engineers and lawyers - Participants were asked to assess probability each description belonged to an engineer versus lawyer oIn one condition told that descriptions drawn from group of 70 engineers and 30 lawyers oOther condition told that drawn from a group of 30 engineers and 70 lawyers - Participants produced essentially the same judgements irrespective of base rates Conjunction Fallacy Example: Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. - Is it more likely that Linda is a bank teller, or a feminist bank teller? Most people say that it is more likely that Linda is a feminist bank teller This is relying on representativeness to make the judgement But it is making the conjunction fallacy The probability of a conjunction of events is always less than or equal to the probability of either of the events in isolation - Example: Soccer player, or female soccer player? oAny given individual is far less likely to be both a female and a soccer player, rather than just a soccer player Thus, if people judge the probability of bank teller & feminist to be higher than just bank teller, they are falling prey to a logical fallacy Availability Heuristic Example: Which do you think is more common in English: Words beginning with the letter ‘k’, or those with ‘k’ as the third letter? - Most people answer words beginning with k - However, words with k as the third letter are actually far more common This is because people are using the availability heuristic where they judge the likelihood or frequency of something by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind Availability Heuristic Demonstration: - Participants heard a list of well-known male and female personalities and were subsequently asked to judge whether the list contained more names of men or women - Different lists were presented to different groups of participants - In some lists, the men were relatively more famous than the women, and in the others, women were relatively more famous than the men - In each of the lists, participants judged the gender that had the more famous personalities as more numerous Example: - Participants asked within 5 seconds to answer o8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 Median estimate: 2,250 o1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 Median estimate: 512 oAlthough these equations are mathematically identical (The correct answer being 40,320), people’s estimates were heavily influenced by what numbers came first This suggests that they’re probably looking at the first few numbers, and then doing a rough calculation in their head to get a rough guide, then trying to adjust up for the number of digits that are there Prospect Theory Expected Utility Theory How do people make decisions in ‘risky’ (ie. uncertain outcome) situations? For centuries, economists relied on expected utility theory - Higher expected value investments are preferred oRational / ideal (prescriptive) oCompute expected utility (factoring in payoff & probability) oFocuses on final states (rather than changes in state, gains or losses) Assumes people will compute expected utility, and then choose whichever option has the higher expected value Then, prospect theory came along Prospect Theory Kahneman and Tversky (1979) developed Prospect Theory - Prospect Theory violates core tenets of expected utility - It is descriptive, rather than prescriptive oIt explains how people actually make decisions, rather than a model which suggests how people should make decisions Essentially, humans don’t really compute expected utility, and they actually make decisions based on other types of criteria How does it work? Example: - Which of the following would you prefer oA: 50% to win $1,000 and a 50% chance to win nothing oB: $450 guaranteed According to Expected Utility (EU): - A: E(X) = $500 - B: (1*450) = $450 - People will pick Option A According to Prospect Theory: - A = uncertain - B = certain oThis is what people are most likely to choose, even though the expected outcome is lower Prospect Theory: Loss Scenario In addition to whatever you own, you have been given $2000. You are now asked to choose between: - A: 50% chance of losing $1000 - B: Certain loss of $500 According to EU: - A: (0.5* -1000) = - $500 - B: (1* - 500) = -$500 - People should have no systematic preference over the other Prospect Theory: - In a loss scenario, people are risk-seeking - People are very sensitive to the relative state-change of a decision - Therefore, most people are likely to select Option A Prospect Theory: Gain Scenario Notes In addition to whatever you own, you have been given $1000. You are now asked to choose between: - A: 50% chance of winning $1000 - B: Certainty of $500 EU: - A: (0.5*1000) = $500 - B: (1*500) = $500 Prospect Theory: - In a gain scenario, people are risk-averse oThey tend to avoid risk - According to Prospect Theory, people are more likely to choose Option B Characteristics of Prospect Theory Not all changes in state (even if they have the same absolute value change) are not perceived psychologically the same Instead, it’s significant to people how those changes fare relative to their reference point (the principle of non-linearity) Non-linearity: - If you have nothing, $100 has significant value - But if you had just won $500,000, you wouldn’t care much about winning an additional $100 Loss Aversion: - The pleasure of gaining $100 is less intense than the pain of losing $100 Prospect Theory incorporates this non-linearity and loss aversion in psychological preference, whereas EU does not - Non-linearity: Gains initially increase happiness massively, but this eventually plateaus - Loss Aversion: Graph shows massive decreases in happiness for losses compared to equivalent gains in money What are some examples of flashbulb memories from your life? Answer: Flashbulb memories are memories for surprising, emotional, and consequential events. They are memories not about the event itself, but rather how the individual heard about the event. An example of a flashbulb memory for me was opening Instagram early in the morning and finding out that Kobe Bryant had died. How do flashbulb memories compare to memories for everyday events in terms of both subjective vividness, and accuracy? Answer: Flashbulb memories are more subjectively vivid than everyday events. However, their accuracy isn’t guaranteed. Like accuracy for everyday events, accuracy for flashbulb memories tend to decline over time. Photographic Memory Questions Summary People who do have exceptional memory (such as winning the World Memory Championships) – what makes their memory so good? Answer: Those with exceptional memory don’t innately have a better memory. Instead, the use of different memory strategies is deployed. For example, the use of chunking or the use of a spatial layout. These strategies are practiced and refined to enhance one’s memory of novel information. Judgment and Decision-Making Questions Summary What is the dual cognitive systems model? Answer: We have two systems for processing information and making decisions. System 1 gives us quick and easy answers, as they operate automatically and involuntarily. It usually involves mental shortcuts or the use of heuristics. System 2 is a slower, deliberate, effortful system that requires more voluntary control. System 2 is much more accurate, but uses much more mental resources than System 1. What is an example of a likely System 1 based judgement? Answer: Responding to the question “What is 1 + 1?”. This is something that immediately comes to mind, and is easy to respond to without effort and deliberate thinking. What is an example of a likely System 1 based judgement? Answer: Finding Waldo in a “Where’s Wally” image People often rely on representativeness to make decisions. What important source of information does this make people’s judgements insensitive to? How did Kahneman and Tversky demonstrate this? Answer: Where people match stereotypes/representations to a given situation (in making a decision), they become insensitive to/they ignore base rates. Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated this by giving people given scenarios. For example, giving a description of Joe Smith, and the participant is representative of a certain job. However, they also would tell participants that Joe Smith came from a group of 100 people – where 20 are farmers and 80 are lawyers. If the description of Joe Smith was representative of a farmer, people were more likely to declare he was a farmer. This reasoning ignores base rates. What is the conjunction fallacy? Answer: A cognitive bias where people mistakenly believe that a specific combination of characteristics is more likely than one of the characteristics alone, despite the combined scenario being logically less probable. This is due to the representativeness heuristic. For example, although a description of someone may sound like they are both a feminist and a librarian, it is statistically more likely they are only a librarian than a feminist librarian. Q: what is relationship between heuristics mentioned today and illusory correlations mentioned in a previous video? Answer: The availability heuristic could be tied up in illusory correlations. For example, thinking “I’m always stuck in the slow lane in traffic”, because you can only remember times when you’ve been in the slow lane. Week 11 Pre-Recorded Lecture Content Video 1A: Motivation Motivation Summary An important distinction is between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation - Intrinsic: Doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable (doing the task is enough reward) - Extrinsic: Doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (doing the task because you’ll be rewarded externally) Evidence suggests that boosting extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation (see the studies below) Lepper & Greene (1973) Tested 50 pre-schoolers aged between 3-4 All children selected for the study were intrinsically interested in drawing Children then randomly assigned to one of three conditions: - Expected Reward : Told they would receive a certificate with a gold seal and a ribbon if they took part - Surprise Reward: Received the same certificate, but not told until after drawing finished - No Reward: Neither expected nor received an award Method: - Each child was invited into a separate room to draw for 6 minutes - Then either given reward or not, depending on their condition - Over the next few days, children were observed via one-way mirrors to see how much they would continue drawing of their own accord Results: - Expected reward significantly reduced the amount of time the children spent drawing relative to the other two conditions - The pictures generated by children in this condition were also judged to be less aesthetically pleasing (artwork not as good) This is evidence that rewards reduced intrinsic motivation, particularly the expectation of reward Ariely et al (2009) Recruited people living in villages in India - Volunteers played 6 games testing creativity, memory, and motor skills - Were offered low (4 rupees), mid (40 rupees), or high reward (400 rupees) for achieving high scores in each of them - They earned less money in the high reward conditions, compared to the other two conditions - The pressure from the availability of the high reward resulted in poor performance compared to the other two conditions (they ‘choked’) The nature of the task matters - 24 US students were offered cash rewards if they achieved a certain score on a maths task (cognitively complex – requiring more attention), and a repetitive key-pressing task (very basic/boring) - Some students were offered low reward ($15-$30) whereas others were offered high reward ($150-$300) - Between-subjects manipulation - This is called a disordinal/crossover interaction oThe direction/nature of the relationship between the IVs and DV changes as one moves from one condition of an IV to another oKey Pressing: High rewards = High performance/earnings but Low rewards = Low performance/earnings oMaths Task: Low rewards = High performance/earnings but High rewards = Low performance/earnings Thought Questions Is it a good policy for employees to be paid bonuses based on good performance? - Depends on the complexity of the tasks that employees are required to complete oSimple/Repetitive Tasks: Paying bonuses (extrinsic motivation) could increase performance oComplex/Creative Tasks: Extrinsic motivation could harm performance, so they should rely on intrinsic motivation If a child enjoys drawing and you want to encourage them to do more of it, what should you do? - Giving external rewards may undermine the child’s intrinsic motivation for drawing - This is possibly due to attributions for behaviour (ie. implicit association is formed between the reward and the reason for doing the behaviour) Thinking Exercise for Live Lecture What is the relationship between Operant Conditioning and Motivation? Answer: Operant Conditioning works in a similar fashion to extrinsic motivation. You provide either reward or punishment to shape behaviour. Video 1B: Self-Cognition Overview Summary Mirror Self-Recognition Test Self-Prioritisation Effect (SPE) Mirror Self-Recognition Test Summary One famous test for whether an organism can recognise themselves is mirror self- recognition test First testing was done with chimpanzees (Gallup, 1970) When initially exposed to mirrors, most animals with adequate visual sensitivity respond as if the image represented another animal (bobbing, vocalizing, threatening) Over time, chimps appear to start using the mirror in a self-directed way (grooming parts of the body which would otherwise not be visible, picking bits of food from between the teeth, making faces) Tests on Animals and Humans Key Test: Red mark placed on animal’s face while anaesthetised - To what extent does the animal use the mirror to inspect the mark? In human children, the test involves putting rouge makeup on their face without the child noticing (ie. they’re distracted by something else) It is thought that animals who show self-directed responses on the mirror self-recognition test are recognising themselves Animals shown to pass the mirror self-recognition test: - Humans (around 2 years) - Great apes (orangutans, chimpanzee, bonobos, but evidence is mixed for gorillas) - Dolphins - Orcas - European magpies - 1 elephant Animals that have failed: - Sea lions - Giant pandas - Dogs - Cats - Monkeys - Grey parrot - Octopi Criticisms of the Mirror Self-Recognition Test The test may be prone to false negatives - Animal may notice the mark, but not react to it if don’t deem it important and/or if not prone to self-grooming behaviour - Vision might not be primary sensory modality oExample: Dogs may fail the mirror test because vision isn’t their primary sensory modality, but may pass on olfactory version (there is some evidence for this) - Very aggressive tendencies may overshadow the opportunity to appreciate self in the image (eg. gorillas) What does it actually mean when an organism recognises themselves in the mirror? Does self- recognition imply self-awareness? Self-Prioritisation Effect (SPE) Summary Self-priorisitaion effect (SPE) emerges from a paradigm in which people learn to associate the self with a simple geometric shape This learning process then leads to differential effects on attention and memory The advantage of this paradigm is that it’s designed to isolate self-relevance from familiarity - Example: Cocktail party effect oPeople’s names confound self-relevance with familiarity oYou’ve heard your name so many times that it is difficult to differentiate familiarity with the name, from self-relevance - Participants are told that you are a square, your best friend Jonny is a triangle, and a stranger is a circle - People associate themselves vs a friend vs a stranger with these different geometric shapes - This is counterbalanced across the experiment (ie. people may be told to associate themselves with a triangle or circle instead of a square) Matching Task – Sui et al (2012) The next stage is a matching task On each trial, a shape and a particular label is presented, and the participant makes a correct/incorrect judgement about the corrected pairing the participant would respond that this is an incorrect pairing because it suggests you are a triangle (instead of a square) Results: - Participants are faster and more accurate on trials that contained the shape that was related to the self, compared to the other shapes - Graph A: Matching pairs (label and shape matched, ie. a correct pairing) - Graph B: Non-matching pairs (label and shape didn’t match, ie. an incorrect pairing) Other SPE Finding Self-prioritisation was first documented in this paradigm in 2012, and since then has been used to investigate self-prioritised processing and its consequences Self-prioritisation has been shown in other sensory modalities, including for auditory and vibrotactile stimuli (Schafer & Weisslein, 2016) – it is not limited to the visual domain Self-prioritisation speeds up overall search times, but does not alter search slopes when self-related shapes are used in visual search (Wade & Vickery, 2018) – no change in search efficiency Identity-relevance moderates stimulus prioritization (Golubickis et al., 2020) - The self is not a monolithic concept, and there are parts of your identity that are more important to you than others - Example: Identity as an ANU student is more important to you than your identity as a Melbournian oIf you associate a shape with being an ANU student, you will show greater SPE than a shape associated with being a Melbournian Video 1C: Social Cognition/Empathy Social Cognition/Empathy Summary Empathy is a psychological process (as distinguishable from ‘helping behaviour’) - It is often a precursor to things like helping behaviour, but these are conceptually distinct Empathy is something that is occurring internal to the person that is empathising, and is related to thoughts/feelings/motivations of the person engaging in empathy - This has consequences around prosocial behaviour and interactions with others, but they are separate ideas! Components of Empathy: - Affective Empathy - Cognitive Empathy - Empathic Concern Note about ‘affect’ Note: ‘affect’ is a psychology term that essentially means ‘emotion’ Affect could be a noun, in addition to the general language use of the word as a verb (ie. to affect an outcome) You can think of ‘affective’ as ‘emotional’ (not to be confused with ‘effective’) Affective vs Cognitive Empathy Affective Empathy Affective empathy (AE) is typically defined as feeling what someone else is feeling Example: If you see your friend upset and crying, affective empathy is where you would come to feel upset in response to this It is similar to the notion of ‘emotional contagion’ However, there is debate on the definition of affective empathy in psychology literature: Debate 1: Awareness - Some argue that to qualify as affective empathy, the person must be aware of the source of the emotion oExample: In seeing your friend upset and crying, you need to be aware that the reason you’ve become upset is because you’ve seen your friend in this state - Others argue that affective empathy may be an implicit/unconscious process Debate 2: Similarity of Emotion - Some argue that the emotion elicited must closely resemble that of the person being empathised with (ie. there must be a high degree of congruence between the emotions) - Others argue that a variety of emotional responses (in response to somebody else’s displayed/felt emotion) qualifies as affective empathy -Be careful with broadening the definition of affective empathy too much oExample: If you felt happy after seeing someone crying, then it should not be considered affective empathy Cognitive Empathy Cognitive empathy (CE) is typically defined as understanding another person’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, akin to “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” to understand their perspective Affective is about feeling, whereas Cognitive is about understanding For example, if you see your friend upset and crying, cognitive empathy is where you could come to understand that they are upset because their boyfriend has just broken up with them It is similar to the concept of ‘Theory of Mind’ - There is debate on whether there are distinct components of ToM (Cognitive vs Affective) - Stephanie Goodhew argues that there’s insufficient evidence to suggest that they should be considered as separate components Affective vs Cognitive: Differences Evidence suggests though, that they are dissociable (ie. they are distinct aspects of empathy) Affective empathy appears earlier in development There is a double dissociation in neuropsychological patients with different types of damage & impairments in CE versus AE - Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex = impaired CE but intact AE - Damage to inferior frontal gyrus = impaired AE intact CE Double dissociations in clinical conditions - People with Autism Spectrum Disorder can have impaired CE but intact AE - People with Psychopathy can have intact CE, but impaired AE Qualitatively different relationships (different directions – one has a positive association, but one has a negative association) with attentional & cognitive control - Increased attentional switching = higher CE (AE not impacted) - Increased focusing = lower AE (CE not impacted) - Increased everyday cognitive failures = lower CE but increased AE It is important to distinguish between them, but they are often conflated in the literature (e.g., just called ‘empathy’) While they are distinct, both cognitive and affective empathy are important, and work in concert to achieve prosocial and adaptive responses to others There are distinct aspects of empathy, we need to understand what they are/how they’re different, and treat them as distinct, in order to not cloud or muddy the relationships between empathy and other variables That being said, while they’re clearly distinct, both components are important, and in a healthy brain they work together to achieve prosocial and adaptive responses to others - Deficits in either can lead to interpersonal issues - However, the nature of these interpersonal issues differs depending on whether the deficit is in the cognitive or affective aspects of empathy Goldilocks Zone It can be important to have the right amounts of cognitive and affective empathy – there might be a ‘Goldilocks’ zone (Weisz & Cikara, 2021) - Example: oToo high AE can lead to occupational burnout in helping professions (ie. clinical psychologist) oCE buffers against burnout oHowever, note that minimal AE is characteristic of psychopathy, so a middle ground between AE and CE is crucial oEmotion regulation ability may be important too, otherwise high AE may lead to the person consoling the other being too invested in the issue and upset rather than provide an adaptive/helpful response to overcome the issue Empathic Concern Summary Empathic concern is a motivational dimension about desiring the wellbeing of other For example, if you see your friend upset and crying in response to relationship breakdown, empathic concern would be wanting them to find a loving relationship in which they are happy Empathic concern is less extensively studied than CE and AE (but is still very important) Measuring Cognitive Empathy Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) Participants are shown pictures of people’s eyes – and asked to discern what emotion the person is feeling and expressing Example: Is person A joking, insisting, amused, or relaxed? Researchers analyse the accuracy in intuiting the emotion that the person is experiencing from only their eyes RMET has been extensively used as a measure of CE in the literature However, it has recently been critiqued for not truly measuring mentalizing (Quesque and & Rossetti, 2020) - You don’t need to understand why someone is feeling what they’re feeling, just recognising what others are feeling It is a great measure of emotion recognition, but not cognitive empathy (and shouldn’t be used in this manner) Perspective-Taking Tasks Communicating with the other person in a non-ego-centric or biased way (recognising the other person has a different perspective) Director’s Task - The participant stands on the triangle (see image below) - Director stands on the other side - Participant is informed that the director can only see objects in the shelves where they are open (ie. without the grey backing) - Various activities happen, and the participant and director interact - The director may instruct the participant to “pick up the smaller ball” and move it to “location X” - The smaller ball from the director’s perspective is the basketball (as they can only see the basketball and the beach ball) - If the participant truly appreciates the director’s perspective, they will pick up and move the basketball - This is done over multiple trials to see whether people make egocentric errors - More egocentric errors = Lower cognitive empathy Sally-Anne Task: - Do people have beliefs that don’t reflect reality? - Children who haven’t developed a ToM will say that Sally should look in the box (without appreciating that Sally doesn’t know the ball is in the box) Implicit Measures: -Where do participants look? -This is an adaption of the Anne-Sally Task, where participants watch a video where the individual in the video doesn’t know that the ball has swapped locations (see below) -While people typically pass the explicit version of this test, it can be useful to gauge the sense the extent to which this kind of processing is implicit/automatic by comparing it with things such as a working memory load (to see if any changes occur) QCAE Many self-report instruments have good evidence for their validity on Cognitive and Affective empathy measurement, eg “Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) (Reniers et al., 2011) - Cognitive Empathy Example Items: oWhen I am upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in their shoes” for a while oOther people tell me I am good at understanding how they are feeling and what they are thinking oI am quick to spot when someone in a group is feeling awkward or uncomfortable - Affective Empathy Example Items: oI often get deeply involved with the feelings of a character in a film, play, or novel oIt affects me very much when one of my friends seems upset - Response Options: oStrongly Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Slightly Agree, Strongly Agree Self-report measures have issues with social desirability, but there is good evidence for some of these Likert scales having good correlations ith things like psychopathy and Machiavellianism, as well as the fact that higher scores on each area of empathy (cognitive vs affective) are associated with the different brain areas responsible for each Measuring Affective Empathy Summary There aren’t as many established tasks for gauging affective empathy Some authors have looked at facial mimicry via facial EMG (e.g., Holland et al., 202 - Seeing someone else happy and smile - You will be demonstrating a greater affective empathy if you also smile Could also use other physiological measures (e.g., skin conductance) or self-report measures of affect Measuring Empathic Concern Summary A small number of questionnaires gauge empathic concern - Example: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) with a subscale of empathic concern oI often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me oSometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems Summary of Empathy Summary 3 key dimensions of empathy They are dissociable, but also interact in important ways The interplay between these different dimensions may be particularly important in determining compassionate and prosocial behaviour and adaptive interpersonal interactions Video 1D: Language Language Outline Summary Aphasia Whorfian Hypothesis Associations between language and space Associations between language and colour Conceptual Stroop effect Aphasia Summary Aphasia is a disorder that affects how a person communicates - It’s usually a consequence of a stroke or head injury Two major types: - Broca’s aphasia - Wernicke’s aphasia Broca’s Aphasia Difficulty in the production of speech or language, comprehension usually intact Results from damage to Broca’s area - A lot of effort is required to produce language - What they do produce is often not effective in what they want to communicate Wernicke’s Aphasia Difficulty in language comprehension, production is fluent but meaningless Results from damage to Wernicke’s area Whorfian Hypothesis Summary Evidence generally supports a weak Whorfian hypothesis, rather than a strong Whorfian hypothesis Strong Version: Language determines thought Weak Version: Language influences thought Some of the most famous evidence in favour of the Whorfian hypothesis comes from Winawer et al. (2007 - English & Russian languages divide the colour spectrum differently - Russian makes an obligatory distinction between lighter blues (“goluboy”) and darker blues (“siniy”) - Winawer et al. found that Russian speakers were faster to discriminate two colours when they fell into different linguistic categories in Russian - This suggests that language shapes colour perception oIt’s not consistent with a strong Whorfian hypothesis (as English speakers could still classify these colours) but the faster response time supports a weak Whorfian hypothesis Associations between Language and Space Concrete Words People associated concrete words with particular spatial locations (e.g., Zwaan & Yaxley, 2003; Estes et al., 2008) - Attic, Sky, Eagle = upwards/high spatial locations - Basement, Grass, Ground = downwards/low spatial locations - Participants presented with pairs of words, one in an upper and one in a lower location on a screen - Participants had to make a judgement of whether the words were semantically related - People were faster when the words appeared in their canonical spatial locations (eg. attic appears above basement) Abstract Words People also associated abstract words with particular spatial locations (e.g., Meier & Robison, 2004; Chasteen et al., 2010) (eg., champion vs enemy, happy vs sad) Positive Abstract words (champion, happy, joy) is associated with higher spatial locations Negative Abstract words (enemy, sad, misery) is associated with lower spatial locations - Word presented in the center of the screen - Simple target appears on the next screen (either upper or lower) - If a positive abstract word is presented, then people will be faster in responding to the target if it’s in a higher location (and vice versa) Impact of Different Languages There is clear evidence that people associate particular words with particular spatial locations However, are these associations specific to English, or are they more universal? - One study found a high degree of correspondence between the word-space associations for English versus Mandarin speakers (Wu, Kidd, & Goodhew, 2019) This suggests that associations between language and space is universal, it manifests in all languages Associations between Languages and Colour Synaesthesia People who have synaesthesia are called synesthetes - Synaesthesia takes many forms - It is like a blending of senses, in that a stimulus in one sensory modality can trigger a sensation in another One of the most common forms of synaesthesia is Grapheme-Colour Synaesthesia - Particular graphemes (eg. letters) elicit particular colours for people experiencing this - Note that it is not universal (and the image below is just an example of the most common ones - Although this is a different experience (eg. non-synesthetes associating yellow with happy, while synesthetes experience the colour yellow when they read the word happy) it appears that there are some commonalities in terms of the types of words that are associated with particular colours Synesthetes and non-synesthetes have some tendencies to systematically associate particular words with particular colours Stroop Effect People are presented with words in particular colours, but the congruence between the meaning of the word and the physical colour the word presents is manipulated Participants are instructed to name the physical colour of the word - People are far more accurate in the congruent stimuli condition, compared to the incongruent stimuli condition Conceptual Stroop Effect Building on this work about the subjective associations people self-report between particular abstract words and colours, Goodhew & Kidd (2020) investigated if these associations were strong enough to influence objective task performance, even when they weren’t relevant to the task at hand - Tested across a series of experiments - Varied whether the task was to identify the colour of the word (like a standard Stroop task) and also whether the task was to identify the valence of the word (was it a positive/negative word) - Trials were either congruent or incongruent oWas the concept word presented congruent in its association for most people, or was it presented in an incongruent manner oExample: Cheerful presented in Yellow = congruent trial Cheerful presented in Blue = incongruent trial Results: - Regardless of if people were making a valence or colour judgement, there was a congruency effect - People were faster and more accurate to make these judgements on congruent trials - Thus, these associations between particular abstract words/concepts and colours are so embedded in people’s minds that they influence their task performance, even when it’s not relevant to the task at hand (eg. when they’re identifying the physical colour of the words) - This suggests there are strong associations between particular words (both concrete and abstract) and colours Live Lecture Content Motivation Questions What is intrinsic motivation? Answer: Internal motivation. It refers to a desire within the self to pursue a goal. You do something because you enjoy it, there’s no reward at the end. What is extrinsic motivation? Answer: Where you perform a behaviour for an external reward. What impacts can rewards have on intrinsic motivation? Answer: Rewards may undermine an individual’s intrinsic motivation. This is because we often make attributions about why we’re behaving in certain ways. We may think we engage in the behaviour just because we’re getting rewarded, rather than we actually like doing the task. How does task complexity moderate the relationship between motivation and behaviour? Answer: For low complex/mundane tasks, extrinsic motivation is the most useful for extracting the desired behaviour. For high complex/interesting tasks, any rewards may actually undermine intrinsic motivation, as people may be interested in completing the task on its own (without needing anything else) anyway. Answer: Refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It is only when the lower level needs are met can people strive for higher levels. Our most basic needs are physiological (hunger, thirst), and the next level is safety (shelter). Extrinsic rewards, and particularly money, satisfy the bottom two levels. Therefore, if people are still worried about these basic needs, they should be given extrinsic motivation (in the form of monetary rewards) to ensure they complete required tasks. Self-Cognition Questions Issues with the Mirror Self-Cognition Test: - Animals that show high levels of aggression may be a false negative on this test - They’re so aggressive that they don’t get to demonstrate more self-directed responses which would pass this test Social Cognition/Empathy Questions What type of empathy is described in the following scenarios? If your friend is angry about something and you find yourself feeling angry along with them. Answer: Affective empathy. We ‘feel what others feel’. If you realise that your co-worker misunderstood something you said. Answer: Cognitive empathy. Thinking and reasoning about others’ thoughts/perspectives. We take the co-workers’ perspective to acknowledge they don’t understand something that we do. If a therapist wants to help their client with grief but isn’t feeling grief along with the client. Answer: Empathic concern. This is a broader sense of compassion and desire for someone’s welfare. It is distinct from affective empathy in that you don’t feel what the other person is feeling. Is more empathy always better? Why or why not? Answer: Affective empathy may result in people feeling so overwhelmed with emotions that they don’t focus on helping the other person resolve their issue. How would you respond to a researcher who suggested using the Reading the Eyes in the Mind Test as a measure of cognitive empathy? Answer: This test measures emotion recognition, but it doesn’t measure cognitive empathy. You don’t need to understand why someone is feeling what they’re feeling, just recognising what others are feeling Language Questions What is Broca’s aphasia? Answer: Problems in language production. People can’t physically produce the sound of the word they want to say. What is Wernicke’s aphasia? Answer: Problems in language comprehension. People can physically produce the sounds of words, but the words said out land don’t match the words they want to say (though they think the words they say out loud do make sense). For example, the person might want to say/think they say, “Can I go to the toilet” but they actually say, “Can cheese eat hamburger basketball?”. What are the two versions of the Whorfian hypothesis? Answer: The strong version suggests that language determines thought, while the weaker version suggests language influences thought. Evidence supports the latter, but not the former What kinds of words do people associate with up vs down? Is this consistent across different languages? Answer: People associate positive valence words (attic, joy, champion, happy) with up, and negative valence words with down (basement, sad, depressed). This occurs for both concrete and abstract words. It is also consistent across languages. A study compared native speakers of English and Mandarin, and found they both had a strong tendency to associate positive valence words with up, and negative valence words with down (even though the words were different). What common assumption about perceptual experience does synaesthesia challenge? Answer: Synaesthesia suggests that our perceptual/sensory experience of the world can significantly differ among people. How does the Conceptual Stroop effect differ from a standard Stroop effect? Answer: A standard Stroop effect involves getting the word ‘blue’, but the text colour is green. A conceptual stroop effect is an association between abstract words and certain colours. For example, most people tend to associate ‘joy’ with ‘yellow’. What does the Conceptual Stroop effect demonstrate? Answer: The Conceptual Stroop effect demonstrates an association between abstract words and colour. Week 12 Pre-Readings Study 1: What Happened to Mirror Neurons (Heyes & Catmur, 2022) Heading Summary - Are mirror neurons acquired through visual motor learning? Mirror Neurons: - Three types oStrictly congruent Charge during execution and observation of the same action Example: Gripping something, and watching someone else grip something oBroadly congruent Active during the execution of one action and during the observation of another similar action oLogically related Respond to different actions in observe and execute conditions Causal methodologies, including brain stimulation and patient studies, have continued to support the consensus that mirror-neuron brain areas contribute to imitation Evidence suggests that learning plays an important role in the development of mirror neurons Mirror neurons contribute to complex control systems, rather than dominating such systems or acting alone - They contribute at a low level (eg. body movement discrimination rather than intention reading) Live Lecture Content Heyes and Catmur (2022) Summary What role do mirror neurons play in action understanding? - Mirror neurons are involved in low-level processing of sensory motor stimuli oExample: The actions that someone is performing What role do mirror neurons play in autism? - Initially, people proposed a ‘broken neuron’ hypothesis for autism oThat is, there was neuron dysfunction - However, evidence supports the opposite, that there may be increased activation in these areas for people with autism What role do mirror neurons play in understanding others’ goals and intentions? - Mirror neurons don’t play a role in understanding others’ goals and intentions oExample: No impact on empathy and perspective taking - All they respond to is precisely the concrete action that is being observed Overall, mirror neurons are important in understanding/encoding actions at a low level, rather than high level social processes Why do the authors argue against the notion of a ‘mirror neuron system’? - This is because of the overlap of mirror neurons with other neurons - When you use the term ‘system’, it implies there are a discrete set of neurons that work independently of things around them - However, while mirror neurons exist, they don’t behave qualitatively differently to the neurons around them What reason do they give for why the concept of mirror neurons was so popular? - People initially thought that they were neurological evidence of empathy, and how they assisted in mediating social interaction What shift in approach to understanding the role of the brain in behaviour did the authors identify is taking place? - They emphasised that the brain is a distributed network - This can be influenced by things like learning, rather than being completely pre-determined - We are moving away from “X part of the brain does Y function” Given what you have learned about empathy, what aspect of empathy would mirror neurons be possibly linked to, and how? - They could possibly be linked to affective empathy - There appears to be a lot of mapping someone else’s emotional expressions onto your own sensory motor systems What aspects of empathy aren’t captured by mirror neurons? - Cognitive empathy -Mirror neurons aren’t really equipped for understanding and reasoning about someone’s mental states -Empathic concern (broader desire for people’s wellbeing) is something unlikely to be captured by neuron function Murphy et al (2022) Summary What was the key argument in this paper? - They were anti-RIM (restrictive isomorphic hypothesis) oRIM is the idea that there must be a very close correspondence between the empathic response you demonstrate as a result of seeing someone else demonstrate feelings - They argued that, for example, just because someone else is sad, doesn’t mean you also need to be visibly sad Given what you have learned about the conceptualisation of empathy, what do you think that the authors overlooked here? - They treat empathy as a single concept - Empathy consists of affective, cognitive, and empathic concern - Their argument that we have to expand further than the RIM hypothesis weren’t examples of affective empathy, they were examples of empathic concern - Example: oIf you’re a psychologist and your client experiences grief, you won’t feel grief with them, but you may feel desire/care for them oThis maps on to empathic concern, rather than affective empathy What aspect of empathy is RIM relevant for? - RIM is relevant for affective empathy - It doesn’t make sense to apply it to cognitive empathy and empathic concern oEmpathic Concern: Sympathy and care may be quite different to the emotion you’re witnessing someone else express oCognitive Empathy: Thinking and reasoning, so your emotional experience is less If we rejected the RIM for Affective Empathy, that would mean that experiencing glee in response to someone else’s distress could be classified as affective empathy. Do you think that it should be? - No, it would be counterintuitive to the concept of affective empathy if we classified it in this manner