Paper 1: CA – Methods (AJW) 2019

Explain one research method used to study cognitive processing with

reference to one research study.

Laboratory experiments are used in cognitive psychology as they are the only
research method which enables the researcher to determine a cause and effect
relationships. This is done by manipulating a single independent variable and
observing whether this has any consistent effect on the measured or dependent
variable. This can be achieved by comparing a control group or condition to an
experimental group or condition. If all other variables are controlled (kept the same
for each group/condition) then it is possible to state a ‘cause and effect’ relationship,
whereby the IV has caused the changes in the DV.

Dijksterhuis (2004) used a laboratory experiment to investigate the effectiveness of

‘System One’ thinking, which they hypothesised would be more effective when
making complex choices, due to the limited capacity of conscious thought.

63 undergraduates were shown 48 pieces of information about four rental

apartments and subsequently asked to rate the apartments on a 10 point scale. 12
pieces of information were given about each apartment and Apartment B was
always the most attractive (8 positive attributes and 4 negative) and Apartment D
was always least attractive (8 negative and 4 positive). Apartments A and C were in
the middle with 6 positive and 6 negative.

There were three levels of the IV; the control group had to make an instant decision,
(no time to think before rating the apartments) and two experimental groups were
given three minutes before completing the rating scales. Dijksterhuis (2004)
manipulated the thinking systems used by the two experimental groups’ by having
one group complete a distractor task, so any thinking about the apartments was
unconscious or system one whereas the other group were allowed to think about the
apartments consciously, so deploying system two.

The dependent variable was the ratings given to each apartment out of 10 (where 1
was extremely negative and 10 was extremely positive). This allowed the researchers
to see whether participants correctly rated apartment B more favourably than
apartment D.

Laboratory experiments may involve an independent or repeated measures design.

Independent measures uses different participants in the experimental and control
groups and participants are often randomly allocated to minimise participant
variables. In a repeated measures design participants take part in both the
experimental and control conditions and counterbalancing or randomisation is used
to control order effects.
Dijksterhuis (2004) used an independent measures design, random allocating his 63
undergraduate students to one of the three groups. This improved the internal
 Paper 1: CA – Methods (AJW) 2019

validity of the study meaning participant variables could not affect the choices that
they made and any differences in decision-making could be attributed purely to
whether they used system one or two thinking.
Laboratory experiments use a standardised procedure making them replicable,
which is important and helps other researchers to check the reliability of the
findings. In Dijksterhuis’ study (2004) all participants worked individually in
separate cubicles and were presented with the 48 pieces of information in a random
order to minimise order effects. Each piece of information was displayed for 4
seconds in the centre of their screen. Apartments were always rated in the same
order starting with A through to D. Those in the conscious thought group were
shown a blank screen with a clock counting down for three minutes while those in
the unconscious thought group all completed the same n-back distractor task for
exactly three minutes, where they had to decide whether a digit on the slide matched
a digit shown two slides previously.
Operationalisation of variables is very important in laboratory experiments and it
was important that Dijksterhuis (2004) was sure that participants in the unconscious
through group were not able to carry out any conscious thinking. To this end three
participants who made more than 10% errors on the n-back task were eliminated
from the analysis as it was possible that they were thinking about the apartments
whilst doing the n-back and this caused them to make errors.
The researchers were interested in the difference between the ratings given to
apartment B and D. There was no significant difference in the mean ratings given to
these apartments by participants in the control group and the conscious thought
group, however, a mean difference of 1.23 was found for the unconscious thought
group and this was significant (p<0.02).
This study also found a gender difference which demonstrated that male
participants performed especially poorly in the instant decision group and
exceptionally well in the unconscious thought group, however, this was not the case
for female participants.
This study is a good example of the use of a laboratory experiment as Dijksterhuis
(2004) was able to carefully standardise the procedure to ensure that the only
difference between the participants was whether they performed the distractor task
or not, allowing him to infer that the unconscious thought group’s ability to
successfully differentiate between the apartments was solely due to the opportunity
for system one thinking.