Revision Cognitive Ethics
Revision Cognitive Ethics
Revision Cognitive Ethics
Conceptual understanding
In both an SAQ and an ERQ, you are expected to first describe and/or explain the theory. For describe, this
means that you are identifying and defining the different components of the theory. Explain asks you to be
specific about how the theory actually works - that is, identifying assumptions made by the theory and/or
explaining how the components of the theory interact.
Attrition rate: The percent of an original sample that drops out of a study over time. If too many
participants drop out, or if too many of one type of participant drop out, the sample may become less
representative of the target population.
Deception by omission: When the researchers do not explain all the details of a study to avoid
demand characteristics. The participants are not told anything that is untrue, but the lack of detail
means that they are not giving informed consent.
Deception by commission: When the researchers give incorrect information to the participants
about the study. This could include giving them a false aim of the study.
Informed consent: Participants agree to be part of a study after being told what the study is about,
what the possible outcomes of the study are, and what their rights are as a participant.
Undue stress or harm: "Undue stress" refers to any stress that would be more than a participant
would encounter in everyday life. Simple discomfort or embarrassment is not "undue stress or
harm."
2. False memory research, like the studies by Loftus & Pickrell (1995) and Shaw (2015), relies on
deception by omission.
3. The right to withdraw from research can have a direct effect on the generalizability of a study.
4. In Martin and Halverson's (1986) study, they would only have to get the informed consent of the parents,
not from the children.
about:blank 1/3
22/11/2024, 08:25 Page printer
5. Once a participant has been debriefed, the ethical responsibilities of the researcher are over.
Understanding research
For an SAQ, you need to be able to describe/explain one study. This means that you have to be able to
describe the aim, procedure, and findings of the study. To explain it, you must link it to the theory or concept in
the question. In an ERQ, you should know two pieces of research. In addition, to describing the aim, procedure,
and findings, you need to be able to evaluate the research. The use of correct terminology when describing a
study - for example, correctly identifying the research method - is an important aspect of the top mark band.
The aim of Brewer & Treyens' (1981) study was to investigate the role of schema in the encoding and
retrieval of episodic memory. The sample was made up of 86 university psychology students. Participants
were seated in a room that was made to look like an office. The room consisted of objects that were typical
of offices. There were some items in the room that one would not typically find in an office and there were
items that were omitted.
Each participant was asked to wait in the professor's office. The researcher left the room and said that he
would return shortly. After 35 seconds the participants were called into another room and then asked what
they remembered from the office.
The recall condition: Participants were asked to write down as many objects as they could remember.
Then, they were given a booklet containing a list of objects and were asked to rate each item for how sure
they were that the object was in the room.
The drawing condition: Participants were given an outline of the room and asked to draw in the objects
they could remember.
The verbal recognition condition: Participants were read a list of objects and asked whether they were
in the room or not.
When participants were asked to recall either by writing a paragraph or by drawing, they were more likely to
remember items in the office that were congruent with their schema of an office. The items that were
incongruent with their schema of an office were not often recalled. When asked to select items on the list,
they were more likely to identify the incongruent items. They also had a higher rate of identifying objects
which were schema congruent but not in the room. In both the drawing and the recall condition, they also
tended to change the nature of the objects to match their schema.
The aim of Loftus & Palmer's (1974) research was to investigate whether the use of leading questions
would affect the estimation of speed. 45 students participated in the experiment. They were divided into five
groups of nine students. Seven driver education films of traffic accidents were shown to each participant.
When the participants had watched a film they answered a questionnaire with different questions about the
accident with one question being the critical question where they were asked to estimate the speed of the
cars involved in the accident. The participants were asked to estimate the speed of the cars. They were
asked the same question but the critical question included different words. One group of participants was
asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" The critical word "hit’" was replaced
by ‘collided’, ‘bumped,’ ‘smashed’ or’ contacted’ in the other conditions.
The mean estimates of speed were highest in the ‘smashed’ condition (40.8 mph) and lowest in the
‘contacted’ group (31.8 mph). The results indicate that the critical word in the question consistently affected
the participant's answer to the question.
about:blank 2/3
22/11/2024, 08:25 Page printer
2. Undue stress and harm with regard to Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Critical thinking
Remember that critical thinking is an essential part of the ERQs, but not of the SAQs. There are two key ways in
which critical thinking is assessed. First, you need to be able to evaluate the research that you use in your
response. Secondly, you need to address the command term. The command term may ask you to evaluate the
theory or discuss the theory. Evaluate means that you must address both strengths and limitations of the
theory. Discuss is the broader command term allowing you to discuss either the strengths or limitations of the
theory, why it is difficult to study the theory, or the implications of the research.
When discussing ethical considerations, you may consider the following points:
Write a response to the following SAQ: Describe one ethical consideration with reference to one study in
the study of cognitive processes.
50 lines
about:blank 3/3