Schemata, Eye Witnesses and Memory Distortions

Definitions:
Schema: cognitive frameworks of the way that certain things should be - these ideas and frameworks of thinking are developed as a result of experience.
Memory: the way that one recalls information that was once processed.
Eye-witness: the witness of an incident of a third-person.

Experiments:
Loftus and Palmer, 1974
Loftus believed that memory was a reconstructive process, just as Bartlett had suggested in his "War of the Ghosts" study in 1932. She wanted to know how leading questions would affect the memory of an eye-witness. She chose to show how the memory of participants of a study could change depending on the way that a 'critical question' of an incident (i.e. a short film of a car crash) was worded. Palmer, on the other hand, was interested in seeing how questioning could change the memory of participants.
Loftus and Palmer collected participants in America in the 70s to watch a film of two cars crashing into each other. After viewing the video, the participants were as "how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/crashed/touched each other?" The main verb in the question was different according to the group that the participants were assigned by the researchers. As a result, Loftus and Palmer found that participants that were asked "how fast were the cars going when they crashed/smashed into each other?" had the fasted estimates, especially among subjects who were asked "how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?"
Loftus and Palmer concluded that this was due to the critical question's main verb's impression on the individual. Words such as smash and crash were attached to schemata of severe crashes, while words such as "came into contact" and "hit" were not as severe. Loftus found that leading questions could indeed change or alter the memory of the participants. This suggests that eye-witness testimonials are not accurate and can be manipulated depending on the question that is asked of the eye-witness. In a later study, Loftus and Palmer divided participants into three groups, where all three groups watched the same video once again but were asked a series of questions. One group was asked "how fast were the cards going when they smashed into each other?", another was asked "how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" and the control group was asked questions but not of the speed of the cars. Two weeks later, participants were called back and asked whether they remember glass breaking in the videos. Suprisingly, those that were asked "how fast were the cars going when the smashed into each other?" had a 33% rate of participants saying that they had seen glass, while only 14 percent of the second group saw glass. Only 6 percent of the control group claimed they had seen glass. In reality, there was no glass. This second study suggests that initial processing that is manipulated by leading questions and schemata are liable to affect the way that consequences are processed in the future. As a result, it can be concluded that memory of witnesses, ie eye witness testimonials are susceptible to distortion and thus are no reliable. It also explains how schemata can affect the way that memories are kept, just as Bartlett had suggested in his 1932 study.

However, there are instances in psychology experiments where it has been shown that general details are remembered clearly by eye-witnesses, even under severely stressful and high-risk situations. An example is a relatively recent study that analysed the eye-witness testimonials of how the titanic sank: whether it broke in half before sinking, or sunk intact. The eye witnesses (with the exception of two people) said that the ship had sunk after breaking, despite the 'leading questions' asked by the British and American hearings a few days after the titanic rescue. While this is a general detail that was remembered by the eye witnesses, it brings upon the question of whether specific details are accurately recalled by witnesses. (Titanic eye witness study by Riniolo).

Potential Exam Questions

Biological Level of Analysis (SAQ)

1. Explain how determinism relates to the biological perspective.
2. Explain why the reductionist approach is regarded as controversial.
3. Describe one study from the biological perspective and discuss how this study has contributed to our understanding of behavior.
4. Outline one strength and one limitation of the biological perspective in explaining one psychological or social question.
5. Explain how one hormone influences human behavior.
6. Explain how evolution has influenced human behavior.
7. Explain how one or more neurotransmitters affect human behavior.
8. Explain how one study demonstrates localisation of the brain.
9. Distinguish between localisation and lateralisation.

(LAQ)

1. Describe one study from the biological perspective and discuss how this study has contributed to our understanding of behavior.
2. Evaluate two research methods that are used in the biological perspective.
3. Discuss ethical considerations related to genetic influences of behavior.
4. Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the BLA, with reference to at least one study.
5. Discuss the use of brain imaging technoloqies to investigate the relationship between biological factors and behavior.

Cognitive Level of Analysis (SAQ)

1. Outline one assumption of the cognitive perspective. Identify one key concept based on the assumption outlined above and explain their relationship.
2. Explain how one key concept from the cognitive perspective helps us understand behavior.
3. Explain one theoretical explanation of human behavior in the cognitive perspective.
4. Describe one study that investigated the schema theory.
5. Explain cognitive dissonance.
6. Outline two principles that define the cognitive level of analysis.
7. Outline how emotion affects one cognitive process.
8. Describe one ethical consideration related to one research study at the cognitive level.
9. Explain how one biological factor can affect a cognitive process.

(LAQ)

1. Assess the extent to which one model of information has helped in understanding cognitive processes.

2. Explain the extent to which free will and determinism relate to the cognitive perspective.

3. To what extent do social or cultural factors affect one cognitive process?

4. To what extent is one cognitive process reliable?

Social Cultural Level of Analysis (SAQ)

1. Describe one theory that is relevant to the social learning theory.
2. Describe one theory that is relevant to the social identity theory.
3. Outline two errors in attribution.
4. Describe one theory or study on the formation of stereotypes.
5. Explain one compliance technique.
6. Explain why one particular method has been utilised in the socio-cultural level of analysis.
7. Distinguish between emic and etic.
8. Explain factors that influence conformity.
9. With reference to a study, explain conformity.
10. Discuss the use of technology in investigating the relationship between cognitive factors and behavior.

(LAQ)

1. Using empirical studies, explain two research studies that were employed by psychologists in the socio-cultural level of analysis.
2. Evaluate one or more applications of one theory in the socio-cultural level of analysis.
3. Discuss factors influencing conformity.
4. Outline and evaluate schema theory with reference to studies.
5. Evaluate social identity theory with reference to relevant studies.
6. Discuss factors influencing conformity.
7. Discuss the reliability of one cognitive process.

Flashbulb Memory: Brown and Kulik (1977)

Flashbulb Memory

Brown and Kulik (1977)

Emotion can affect one's memory of an occurrence. According to LeDoux, a psychologist who argued that there are biological pathways of emotion in the brain, the arousal of emotion will facilitate the memory of events that occur during that aroused state. However, one should always remember that memory can be enhanced and amplified by an intense emotion, but will not always be accurate.

The theory of flashbulb memory was suggested by Brown and Kulik in 1977. This theory suggests that some memories are remembered distinctly - even after time had passed - because the events incited highly emotional responses at the time. The emotional events are recorded in the brain as if by the flash of a camera.

Brown and Kulik found that people had clear memories of where they had been, what they had been doing, and what had happened in events in which they were emotionally involved. Examples include when JFK and MLK Jr. had been assassinated. These participants of the study were asked if they also had flashbulb memories of personal events. Out of the 80 participants, 73 said yes for events that were especially emotional, such as traumatic events or the deaths of family members. 

Explaining the actuality of the flashbulb theory: Brown and Kulik attempted to explain the biology of this effect by suggesting that there were special neural mechanisms that triggered emotional arousal for unexpected or extremely important events. This hypothesis is now supported by modern neuroscience: emotional events are better remembered than less emotional events. While reasons are still unknown to us, it could be because of the involvement of the amygdala (which is responsible for emotional responses and memory.

Neisser (1982): Argues against the flashbulb memory theory:

Neisser argued that flashbulb memory was not a cogent theory as people do not know that events are important until after the event is over. Thus, Neisser feels that the reason that some memories are especially vivid is due to their being rehearsed over and over again, once the event is known to be "important". Neisser argues that flashbulb memory is due to internal narrative: "where was I when [important event] happened?" "what was I doing when [important event] happened?" "who told me about [important event]?"...

Vivid Memories are Not Always Accurate:

In January of 1986, seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Challenger died due to a tragic accident. This event was aired on television, so it was a shocking event for all its audience. Neisser and Harsch (1992) investigated people's memory accuracy of that event, 24 hours within the timeframe that the accident occurred, and once again 2 years later. They found that the participants were very confident in the accuracy of their memories, but 40% of them had distorted memories after the second year. Neisser and Harsch analyse that this is due to post-event information that has jumbled up their initial memory of the events. Inaccuracy of emotional memories are common, just as they are vivid. Talarico and Rubin found in 2003 that the confidence that one has of his memory is not correlated with the accuracy of that memory.

While post-event information can distort memories, it is recognised that present-views and emotions of past-events also affect one's memory. For example, men who are divorced will reflect back upon events that occurred while they were married in a more negative perception than they actually would had they remained in a successful marriage (Holmberg and Holmes 1994).

Emotion and Memory: Eye-witness testimonials of Titanic Accident

Click here for PDF with annotations.
Click here for YouTube video supplement for the PDF (read the PDF first).

4.2 Reciprocity: Foot in the door, Door in the face, Low-balling, Hazing

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is a compliance technique. The reciprocity principle is that "we should treat people the way that they treat us". Reciprocity is a way of creating confidence among people in that what is given to another is not lost but rather a sign of a future obligation that enables development of various kinds of relationships and exchanges. The rule of reciprocity is so common and universal that it can be used to one's advantage, and often is.

When someone does something very kind to you, you feel obliged to repay them in some way - perhaps by being kind to them, or offering a small gift as a sign of gratitude. When you don't reciprocate what has been done to you, you feel guilty. This feeling of guilt is how reciprocity can be used for manipulation in response to a request. 

Reciprocity does not always involve gifts. Reciprocity can occur when you feel that somebody has compromised on what he or she wanted for you, and you feel that you should not have them have to compromise for you once again. You feel as if the initial compromise should be acknowledged in some form or another.

1. Foot in the door technique (FITD)

A small request is used as an instrument to lead to the true, larger request. This technique is employed by getting someone to do something small, in the hopes that they will comply with even larger requests in the future. Dickerson et al (1992) found that the FITD technique was effective in promoting commitment: Dickerson et al wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in their dormitory showers. They first asked the students to sign a poster that said "take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you". ( - This is the small request). Then, the researchers asked them to take a survey that was designed to make them reflect on their shower times and water wastage. Third, their shower times were monitored. The participants that had signed the petition and answered the survey had shorter shower times than the students who did not do the two things. 

2. Door in the face technique (DITF)

A large request that the asker is certain will be turned down is asked first. Then, the asker asks a smaller, more feasible request (which is the true request) in an attempt to exploit reciprocity within the subject. People are more likely to respond positively to the second request because they feel as if the asker has already had to compensate once, with the larger request. Cialdini et al (1975) studied the effectiveness of the DITF technique by pretending to be representatives of the "County Youth Counselling Programme" and asking college students if they were willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo (a large, unfeasible request for college kids). 83% of the college students refused. To another group, Cialdini et al initially asked them if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours a week as counselors for a minimum of two years (an unfeasible request). Nobody agreed to this task either. Then, the true request was made ( - and it seemed a lot more reasonable, in comparison to the first request!). The college students were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a day trip to the zoo for juvenile delinquents: 50% of the students agreed to chaperone. This experiment shows how effective the DITF technique can be, and thus how it can be exploited in real life.

3. Low-balling

Low-balling is a persuasion technique that is used when something that is very feasible is requested, but the request is later changed to a larger request that is harder to agree with. The concept is, that because the subjects already agreed to a project, that they would not refuse once the details were changed. Cialdini et al (1974) demonstrated the effect of low-balling in a class of first-year psychology students. He asked them to participate in a study on cognition, and that they would meet at 7:00 in the morning. Only 24 per cent of students were willing to participate due to the early time. Next, another group was told to meet, without being told the time. 56 per cent of students agreed to participate. It was only then that they were told the meeting time would be at 7:00 am. However, 95 per cent of those who already said that they would participate actually showed up, showing how effective it is to low-ball.

4. Hazing

Hazing is a controversial practice of reciprocity where a series of initiation rites that are performed in order for a person to join a certain exclusive social group. Hazing is similar to initiation rites that are seen in various cultures, such as in African tribes where there are initiation rites for young men to indicate that they have become adults. Hazing continues despite being painful, humiliating or dangerous because it is the individual's choice (initially) that he/she wants to join a group. At the time of decision, the individual is cognisant of the pain that he/she will have to endure to join the group, but resolves to join anyway. During the hazing, one has to rationalise that the pain, or the endurance of it, is "worth it" if they could become a part of the group. Once hazing is accomplished and the individual is accepted into the group, they are filled with a sense of accomplishment and ingroup favoritism. Young (1963) found that out of 54 tribal cultures, those that had the most stoic hazing rites were those that had the greatest group solidarity. 

4.2 Emic and Etic Concepts

Emic and Etic Concepts

Outcome: explain, using concepts, emic and etic concepts:

1. EMIC

- Emic research studies one culture alone to understand culture-specific behaviors.

- Researchers attempt to study behavior through the eyes of the people who live in that culture. They try to "walk in their subjects' shoes". The way the phenomenon is linked to the culture and the meaning it has in the culture is emphasized through the emic concept. 

- Emic research attempts to focus on the norms, values, motives and customs of the members of the culture as they (vis: the researchers) interpret and understand it themselves. Emic concepts are explained in the researcher's own words. 

Examples of emic approaches in psychology:

a) Bartlett 1932: mentioned the ability of the Swazi herdmen to recall individual characteristics of their cattle. Bartlett explains: "Swazi culture revolves around the possession and care of cattle and thus it is important for people to recognise their animals as it is a sign of their wealthiness" - Bartlett attempts to understand the phenomenon of the Swazi herdsmen memorising individual cattle through analysis of the culture of Swazi people and why they would need to remember which cattle belonged to them. This is an emic approach: Bartlett is walking in the shoes of the Swazi people.

b) Yap 1967: suggested the term culture-bound syndrome as a culture-specific disorder that can only be understood within a specific cultural context ( - see how this is already taking an emic approach). Among the Yoruba people of West Africa, it is believed that spirits might come into the possession of one's soul, and that person can be treated by spells by a medicine man or a healer. (More about culture-bound syndrome here) 

2. ETIC

- Etic approach compares psychological phenomena across cultures to find out what might be universal in human behaviors. 

- Etic approach aims to compare and contrast cultural phenomena across cultures to investigate whether phenomena are culture-specific or universal.

Examples of etic approaches in psychology:

a) Kashima and Triandis 1986: identified that there was a difference in the way that people explain their own success when they compared Japanese and American people talking about their respective successes. American participants tended to explain that they were successful due to their dispositional factors (such as diligence, integrity, shrewdness) while Japanese participants lent their success to situational factors (such as luck). American participants thus displayed self-serving bias and the Japanese displayed modesty bias: the cultures in which each participant came from has influenced the way that they perceive themselves and their successes. American countries promote individualism, while Asian countries such as Japan value collectivism and modesty.

b) Berry 1967: replicated Asch's conformity experiment to study whether conformity rates along the Temne in Sierra Leone in Africa and the Inuits of Canada could be linked to social norms and socialisation practices. The Temne (which had an agricultural economy) had high rates of conformity, while the Innuits (who were a community of lone hunters) had low rates of conformity. Additionally, Temne culture valued obedience in childrearing as the culture is dependent on cooperative farming. On the other hand, Innuit culture valued self-reliance in childrearing practices as hunting alone required integrity and the ability to solve decisions on one's own.  

Social Representations and Stereotypes

Social Representations

Social representations are defined as the shared beliefs and explanations help by a society in which we live, or the group to which we belong. (Moscovici, 1973). Moscovici argued that social representations were at the foundation of social cognition: social representations help us make sense of our world and master it, enabling communication to take place among members in a group. That is to say, cultural schemata are funamental to the identity of the group, and provide the group with common understanding and a ground for communication.

Cultures have different views and ideals: cultural schemata are what influence these differences. Adler (1990) asked a Russian mother what it meant for her children to share something: "to use it together". He asked an American mother what it meant for her children to share something "to take turns using it independently".

Howarth (2002) carried out focus-group interviews with adolescent girls in Brixton, to study how these girls described and evaluated themselves. Howarth found that the girls had a positive view of being "from Brixton" which was contrasted with the views of people outside of Brixton. This may be a sign of positive social identity due to ingroup favoritism.

Stereotypes and their effects on behavior

A stereotype is defined as a social perception of an individual in terms of his or her group membership. Stereotypes are generalisations that are made about a group that are then attributed to each individual member of a group. These generalisations can end up being positive or negative. Example: "women are talented speakers" vs "all women do is gossip"

Stereotypes are able to influence the person who believes it, as well as who the stereotype is referring to. Researchers explain stereotyping as a result of schema processing.

Stereotype threats: the effect of stereotypes on an individual's performance:

A stereotype threat is something that occurs when an individual is in a situation where there is a threat of being judged or treated stereotypically, or a fear of doing something that might inadvertently confirm the stereotype. 

Steele and Aronson (1995): A study on stereotype threat

Aim: to see the effect that stereotype threats had on performance.

Procedure: They carried out an experiment to see the effect of stereotype threats on performance. A 30 minute verbal test made up of difficult multiple choice questions were given to African American students and European American students. In the first trial, the researchers told the students that they were being "genuinely tested of verbal ability". As a result, the African American students did much worse than the European American students. However, in the second trial, when the researchers told the students that they were being tested to see "how certain problems were generally solved", the African American's scores increased compared to the first trial's, and were up to par with the European American students. This shows that stereotype threat can happen to any member in a group that is stereotyped, and can affect the way that they perform or behave. This may explain why some racial or social groups seem to identify themselves as more inept than other groups. Believing in such stereotypes can actually lower ability or performance.

Steele (1997): stereotype threats turns on spotlight anxiety which causes emotional distress and pressure that may undermine an individual's performance ability. This is why students under stereotype threats can under-perform, and fulfill the stereotype that is being place on them. Additionally, stereotypes and stereotype threats can limit student's education prospects. 

Spencer et. al (1977): Testing the effect stereotype threats have on intellect

Spencer et al tested how stereotype threats can influence a student's intellectual capability.

Procedure: the researchers gave difficult maths test to students who were strong in mathematics, predicting that women under stereotype threat would underperform compared to the men taking the test. (Stereotype: women are worse at math than men). The stereotype threat causes women taking the test to see mathematics as an important part of their self-definition, so that a stereotype threat might result in an interfering pressure under test conditions.

Result: stereotype threat had caused women to significantly underperform against men, while their mathematics capabilities were the same as the men's. The validity of the experiment is justified through the same experiment occurring with literature tests: women did not underperform as they were not under any stereotype threats.

How stereotypes form

Tajfel argues that stereotypes are a natural cognitive process from social categorisation (categorising who is in the ingroup / outgroup), it does not explain how stereotypes form. Stereotypes are a salient part of our social and cultural environment: we learn stereotypes through daily interactions, conversations and the media. Additionally, they are not based only on an individual's experience with a member of a group. They are also influenced by cultural and social factors: stereotypes are contextualised, and not simply the results of an individual's cognitive process. Stereotypes are often held by large groups as social representations (=social representations: the beliefs that are held by a group). Campbell (1967) maintains that it is this convergence with personal experience and the influence of social and cultural environments that cause stereotypes to form. His grain of truth hypothesis argues that an experience with an individual from a group will be generalised to the whole group. 

Hamilton and Gifford (1976) have another hypothesis as to how stereotypes were formed: Hamilton and Gifford argue that stereotypes are a product of illusory correlation: people see a relationship between two variables even when they are not related. This occurs when people associate a social group to the specific behaviors of those that belong to that group. This illusory correlation lead people to make false associations and links between unrelated variables. They come in many forms and some culturally based prejudices are a result of illusory correlation.

Once illusory correlations are made, people seek out or remember information that supports that relationship of variables. This is an example of confirmation bias: when people look for evidence that supports their theory, and ignore all evidence that goes against it. In context to stereotypes, the individuals in a group that do not conform to the stereotype given about that group are ignored, or dismissed as outliers. Confirmation bias is why stereotypes are unlikely to disappear. 

Snyder and Swann (1978) conducted a study in which they told female college students that they would meet a person who was either an introvert or an extrovert. They were then asked to prepare a set of questions for the person they were going to meet. Participants came up with questions that corresponded to the type of person that they were told that they would meet. Those that thought they were meeting an introvert had questions like "What do you dislike about parties?", "Are there times when you wish you were more outgoing?" and those that thought they were meeting extroverts prepared questions like "what do you do to liven up a party?". Snyder and Swann concluded that the questions confirmed the participants' stereotypes of the personality types that they were told they would meet.

It was also found that a stereotype may be adopted by a person in order to be in consensus with an ingroup. Rogers and Frantz (1962) found that white immigrants to Zimbabwe held more prejudices and stereotypes of the people there than were held back in America. This was thought to be so that the immigrants could be in agreement with the ingroup (whites) in Zimbabwe. 

The Princeton Trilogy

1. Katz and Braley (1933) performed an experiment investigating how traditional social stereotypes had a cultural basis by asking 100 males students that attended Princeton University to choose 5 words from a list of 84 words to describe different ethnicities. Results showed that there were many words chosen for certain ethnic groups, and that they confirmed negative stereotypes. Additionally, they were extremely positive about their own ethnic group (ingroup favoritism to maintain a successful social identity). Conclusion: as most of the Princeton students never came into contact with the ethnic groups that they categorised, it was assumed that stereotypes were formed through gateways such as media and cultural views. 

2. Gilbert (1951) replicated the experiment of Katz and Braley but found that more people were reluctant to categorise ethnic groups into words that defined them. There was also less uniformity of agreement about unfavorable traits compared to the 1933 study. However, the conclusion from the 1933 study was also concluded in this study as the students held extremely negative views of the Japanese ethnic group (most likely due to Pearl Harbor) and this information was relayed to them from television, radio and news. 

3. Karlins et. al (1969) the most recent replication of this study was one where students objected to classifying ethnic groups. When the task was completed, there was greater agreement on the stereotypes assigned to the different groups compared to the 1951 Gilbert study. Researchers concluded that this was a reemergence of social stereotyping but in the direction of a more favorable stereotype image.

Stereotype formation

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1970)

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)

Social Identity is the way that one identifies with himself in relation to his memberships to various social groups, and the value of being in that group ( - "Social comparison": when one weighs the pros and cons of being in his own group [ingroup] and another group [outgroup] )

Individuals try to maintain a positive self-image and self-esteem. The groups that they belong in, and the social comparisons of the groups and other groups will affect how the individual values himself. To protect oneself from low self-esteem (which would arise from being in a group with little advantages,) the individual may express ingroup favoritism, and a pattern of discrimination with the outgroup. 

= When a social comparison results in a positive outcome for the individual's ingroup, the need for a positive social identity is fulfilled. However, if the outcome is negative, this could result in low self-esteem, shame, embarrassment, etc. 

Cialdini et al (1976): College students were more likely to wear school gear (hats, sweaters, shirts) when their football team wins a match. This is mostly likely due to the students' need for a positive self-concept / self-image. The positive self-image brought on by winning a game can result in bias and predilection for ingroups, and all the things the ingroup represents.

Intergroup discrimination can be a way to uphold a positive social identity for an ingroup.

How social identity is built by an individual.

Tajfel (1970) Experiment in intergroup discrimination: minimal group paradigm

Aim: to see if boys who were randomly placed in groups based on a meaningless task would display ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination.

Experiment 1: 64 schoolboys of ages 14 to 15 were invited to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. The boys all knew each other well. Boys were seen moving clusters on a computer screen, and were told to estimate the number of dots that were in each cluster. Boys were then randomly assigned to groups such as "over-estimator" and "under-estimator". Then, boys had to hand out money to the other boys in the experiment. All the boys knew was whether the other boy was in or not in his own group.

Experiment 2: boys were randomly allocated into groups according to which artist's art they liked better. The boys then had to award money to other boys.

Results: boys gave more money to members in their own category (i.e. boys that were in the ingroup). In the second experiment, the boys tried to maximise the difference between the two groups. Both experiments indicate ingroup favoritism which supports the predictions of the social identity theory.

Evaluate: results contributed to the development of the social identity theory. Tajfel demonstrated that a minimal group is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. This experiment was criticised for being too artificial, and having demand characteristics. Boys might have thought the task was competitive, which caused them to react the way that they did (i.e. exhibit ingroup favoritism and discriminate between the outgroup).This study also established that intergroup conflict is not necessary to create induce ingroup favoritism. 

Social identity theory has contributed to explaining how stereotypes, prejudices and conformity to ingroup norms have occurred.