Term
|
Definition
LOftus and Palmer(1974)
Deregowski(1972)
Baron-Cohen,Leslie Frith(1985)
Gardner and Gardner (1969) |
|
|
Term
| Aim of Loftus and Palmer ? |
|
Definition
| To see if questions asked after an event can cause reconstruction in ones memory. |
|
|
Term
How did Loftus and palmer carry out the research?
and what was th sample? |
|
Definition
Study1:45 student participants each shown a 7 clips after viewing each clip they where given a questionair about how fast where the cars going when the..smashed,collided,bumped,hit,contacted.depending on the group.
Study2:150 students watch 1 minute film with 4 sec crash
divided into3 groups f 50 how fast when the hit,smashed,and 50 not asked(control group)
week later all asked if they saw broken glass when there was none at all |
|
|
Term
| Finding of Loftus and palmer? |
|
Definition
Study1:mean estimate of speed was the highest for smashed 40.8mph,collided 39.3,Bumped38.1,hit 34.0,contacted 31.8
Study2:smashed 16 answered yes 34 said no,hit 7 yes 43 no,in the control group 6 yes 44 no |
|
|
Term
| explanation and dependent and independent variables for Loftus and palmer |
|
Definition
In both studies the dependent variable is the verb used.while the dependent variable is the in the first study is the speed estimate and in the second study weather they believed there was broken glass.
Study1:
i)the participants memory could be distorted due to the verbal labels used to characterise the intensity of the crash.and ii)response bais factors,participant isn't aware of the speed and guess accordingly to what would please the experimenter.
Study2: recontructive hypothesis:
there 2 types 'o memory what u interprt while u watch and wat ur told later over time they mix! |
|
|
Term
| Strengths and weaknesses of Loftus and palmer's study. |
|
Definition
Strengths:lab experiments=high control which = elimination of other factor in daily life.nothing influencing the dependent variable! all procedures where the same except for (IV).not ethically invalid.
Weaknesses:ecologically invalid .the sample was students who are used to stuff like that and are a certain age group.and jave fewer expreences. |
|
|
Term
Explanation of loftus and palmer????
=[ |
|
Definition
the recontructive hypo. food alchol emotions and other factor influence thought and reasoning so like the 2nd study between when they where asked and after they may have dif. exprences.
some psych. suggest memory doesn't change but ppl go along with wat thier told but may be able 2 rember if shown the truth!
study has wide implictions like to do with justic and eye witnesess |
|
|
Term
| aim and procedure of Deregowski? |
|
Definition
Aim:was to review cross-curtral research into the perception of picture and find out if there is lingua-carata/inter-cultural commnication?
derewgowski reviewed a number of studies done by hudson.
Starts by reviewing antodocl evidence. |
|
|
Term
| important phrases!<3 =[...=] |
|
Definition
| Depth perception refers to the interpretation of distance from sensory informationDepth cues are things which give us an indication of how far away an object or image isRelative size (when objects are further away they leave a smaller image on our retinasOverlap (objects closer to us overlap objects further away) This is also called Linear perspective (when parallel lines are pointing away from us they seem to get closer together in the distanceTexture gradient (when objects such as grass or pebbles are closer we perceive more detail and when they are further away they tend to have less texture ethnocentric |
|
|
Term
| what is the dependent and independt variables in deregowski's study? |
|
Definition
| it's a natural exprimentThe method actually used to collect the data is a kind of natural experiment in which either the independent variable is the culture of the participants or is the characteristics of being a 3-D or 2-D perceiver (based on the answers to the Hudson’s picture testsThe method is an example of a natural (or quasi) experiment because the researcher is unable to manipulate the independent variable as it is a characteristic the participant already possesses. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Study1:Hudson had two pictures one of a human an elephant and an antlope in their correct size and then one far away on a hill and when asked which is far both adults and children found it hard to understand frm african tribes??
Study2:reseach participants shown picture and told to make 3-d model with clay.3d paticpant made a 3-D object while others didn't.
Study3:trident ppl told to copy picture of illusion of 3 tooth trident 3-D percivers had a hard time while 2-D ones didn't
Study4:appratus...???
Study5:split drawing are what 2-D percivers prefer. |
|
|
Term
| main finding and explanation of deregowski's exprimant? |
|
Definition
main findings where that most non westerntribes lack depth perception and they perfer split drawing to perspective!
explanation:deregowski belived that the 2-d percivers was lack of learning when it was cultural diffrences
blelives all children have a prefrence for split style drawing but in the west it is suppressed because it doesn't reflect the truth! |
|
|
Term
| evaluation of procedure!for deregowski |
|
Definition
strengths of procedure,we find the difference between different cultures.
HOWEVER!!!:weaknesses are that the meathod of thins where forgien to participants as in cultruly they had never seen paper and when it was replaced by cloth more answers where correct.
it also seemed texture depth was the most important of visual cue for non westners! |
|
|
