COGNITIVE APPROACH

Main assumptions of the cognitive approach:

• Information is processed through the same route in all humans: input – process – output, in a similar
way to how information is processed by a computer.
• People have individual differences in their cognitive processing such as with attention, language,
thinking
and memory. These processes can also help to explain behaviour and emotion.
Therefore, Cognitive Approach assumes,
1. The mind actively processes information from our senses (touch, taste etc.).
2. Between stimulus and response are complex mental processes, which can be studied
scientifically.
3. Humans can be seen as data processing systems.
4. The workings of a computer and the human mind are alike – they encode and store information,
and they have outputs.
In summary, it assumes the mind operates in a similar way to how a computer processes information.
This processing takes place in the form of thoughts, and uses cognitive ‘models. These cognitions include
things like memory, perception and problem-solving, and can be studied indirectly through experiments.

Theoretical and computer models: Theoretical models suggest that the mind processes information in a
systematic way, for example the multi-store model of memory. Computer models suggest that the mind
works like a computer, turning information into a format in which it can be stored (coding).

Theoretical and computer models are proposed to attempt to explain and infer information about
mental processes. For example, the Information-Processing Model, describes the mind as if a computer,
in terms of the relationship between incoming information to be encoded (from the senses),
manipulating this mentally (e.g. storage, a decision), and consequently directing an output (e.g. a
behaviour, emotion). An example might be an artist looking at a picturesque landscape, deciding which
paint colour suits a given area, before brushing the selected colour onto a canvas.

Using experimental research methods, the cognitive approach studies internal mental processes such as
attention, memory and decision-making. For example, an investigation might compare the abilities of
groups to memorize a list of words, presenting them either verbally or visually to infer which type of
sensory information is easiest to process, and could further investigate whether or not this changes with
different word types or individuals.

Schema: Schemas are packages of information relating to various concepts to do with the way the world
works. People have schemas relating to all sorts of things, for example gender behaviours, eating,
catching the bus, and so on. Schemas develop through experience, starting as very basic in childhood
and getting more complex as the brain develops and more knowledge is gained. Schemas are like mental
‘short cuts’ to help humans make sense of the world more easily. However, schemas can lead to
distortions if a person’s expectations do not match up with the reality of what they have
seen/experienced.

CORE STUDY 1 (ANDRADE DOODLING 2010)

Aim

To find out whether doodling assisted information processing by increasing attentiveness or by

enhancing memory.

The psychology being investigated includes: attention; memory.

Background

Research shows we perform less when our attention is divided. However, doodling might aid
concentration. Wilson and Korn (2007) suggested that doodling may help to maintain arousal as we are
doing something physical while thinking. Andrade defines doodling as sketching patterns or figures that
are unrelated to the primary task.

Research Method

Laboratory experiment (unnatural settings)

Research Design

Independent measures design implemented as participants were either in the doodling or control group.

Sample
1. 40 participants who were members of the Medical Research Council of the Applied Psychology
Unit were chosen through the method of opportunity sampling.
2. They were aged 18-55 years, mostly women, and were paid a small sum for participation.
3. In each experimental condition, there were 20 participants.
4. They had just completed participating in a study and were about to go home when they were
asked if they could spare 5 minutes in Andrade's study.
VARIABLES
1. The independent variable was whether they doodled or not.
2. The dependent variable was responses to the 2 tasks to measure rec
Procedure
1. All participants listened to a dull telephone call about a party for 2.5 minutes,
2. The call was recorded at a speed of 227wpm (words per minute).
3. They were in a dull quiet room.
4. Participants were told that they would be tested on the names of the partygoers — Monitoring
task.
5. There was a surprise task where they were tested on the names of places mentioned — Recall
task.
6. The order of tests was counterbalanced to reduce order effects.
 7. The dependent variable was operationalised as plausible mishearings were counted as correct,
totally wrong names as false alarms, other words relating to people were ignored. The final
score was the number of correct names minus the number of false alarms.
8. The call had 8 names of partygoers, and 3 people and a cat who didn't attend. 8 place names
were mentioned.
9. Participants were given standardised instructions.
10. A4 sheets were given to participants in the doodle group with alternating rows of squares and
circles, ten per row. It had a wide margin on the left to record targeted information.
11. Participants were asked to shade while listening to relieve boredom. Participants in the control
group were given a lined paper.
12. All participants listened at a comfortable volume.
13. The experimenter apologised for conducting a surprise task and then conducted the 2 tasks.
14. New names and the names mentioned on the tape as slurs were counted as false alarms.

Results
Doodle group- mean no. of shapes shaded was 36.3 from a range of 3-110.
Control group- No participants in the control group spontaneously doodled.
The control and doodling group made an average false alarm of 0.3 in the Recall task.

Task 1: Monitoring Task Results

Participants of the control group recalled a mean of 7.1 names. 5 people made a false alarm.
Participants of the doodling group recalled a mean of 7.8 names. 1 person made a false alarm.

Overall Results
Doodling participants recalled a mean of 7.5 names and places, 29% more than the mean of the control
group (5.8).
Recall for both tasks was better for doodlers, even when participants suspected of demand
characteristics were excluded.
Conclusions

Doodling helps concentration on a primary task as doodling participants performed better than
participants who only listened to the primary task.

Doodle group performed better on both tasks. There are 2 possible explanations:

i) either doodling affected attention or,

ii) doodling improved memory by encouraging deeper information processing.

However, without a measure of daydreaming, it is difficult to distinguish between the 2 explanations.

Daydreaming could have been measured either through a self-report or by using brain scans to identify
reduced activation of the cortex. The cortex is associated with daydreaming.

Strengths and Weaknesses

 1. Extraneous variables could be controlled as it was a laboratory experiment. For example, people
listened at a comfortable volume so there were no differences in stress on words.
2. The standardised procedure made all participants equally likely to be bored and therefore
daydream. For example, the same monotonous recording was used and all participants were sat
in a dull quiet room. This improves validity as differences in results were due to doodling or not.3
3. There is high reliability as all participants were similarly bored.
4. The operationalisation of doodling was standardised by using the doodling sheets and this
increases validity.5
5. The dependent variable had been operationalised in terms of false alarms and score calculation.
6. Participants' age ranged from 18-55 years thus, were representative.
7. Participants were from a recruitment panel and may be very similar. For example, they all may
be interested in psychology. This could bias the sample, therefore lowers validity.
8. Most of the participants were females.The study collected quantitative data, the number of
names and places. This is an objective record of memory.
9. It would have had been helpful to ask participants for self-reports of any daydreaming to
understand whether differences in results were due to attention or daydreaming.

Ethical Concerns

 Participants did not give informed consent fully for the recall task. This may have caused
psychological distress.
 Participants were debriefed and apologised to by the researchers.

Application to Everyday Life

When listening to a lecture, doodling might be advantageous. However, deliberately drawing something
may be counterproductive.

Individual vs. Situational Explanation for Behaviour

As doodling affected recall, this shows a situational effect on information processing. However, people
do not doodle in the same way. This shows an individual difference behind doodling behaviour.

CORE STUDY 2 (Baron- Cohen et al eyes test 2001)

The psychology being investigated includes: theory of mind; social sensitivity.

Key Notes

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A neurodevelopmental disorder impairing a child's ability to

communicate and interact. Symptoms: repetitive behaviour, little or no eye contact and can't recognise
facial expressions. High Functioning Autism is HFA.

Aspergers Syndrome (AS): Autism spectrum disorder that affects language and communication skills.
Symptoms: restricted & repetitive behaviours and trouble identifying facial expressions.

Autism Spectrum Quotient Test (AQ): self-report questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 50. A high
score suggests that the person has more autistic traits.

Theory of Mind (ToM): the ability to understand the view of another.

The original study (1997)

The original study had numerous issues. Participants were presented with 25 photos showing different
eye expressions and they chose the mental state shown between 2 options.

Issues with the original study:

1. Problem: It had more female faces than male faces.

Solution: equal no. of male and female faces in the RET question.
2. Problem: Test had both basic and complex mental states. The basic ones were too easy.
Solution: Only complex mental states were used.
3. Problem: The questions were forced choice with only 2 options which were always opposite in
meaning
Solution: the number of options for responding was increased to four and were not opposites
4. Problem: only 25 set of eyes were used in the test so many in the ASD group scored 24/25
causing a ceiling effect
Solution: 36 set of eyes were used in the final analysis of the revised eyes test result.
5. Problem: the emotion in some of the photos could be resolved by checking the direction in
which the eyes were gazing e.g ignoring
Solution: these set of eyes were deleted from the test
6. Problem: Participants might not have understood the words in the task
Solution: participants were given a glossary

Aim

1. To test if the revised version of the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' test would be successful at
differentiating participants with AS or HFA (High Functioning Autism) from the general population.

2. To test if there is a negative correlation in a sample of normal adults and between the RET and the AQ.

3. To test any sex differences on the RET when normal adults take the test.

4. scores on the AQ and RET would be negatively correlated

Hypotheses

1. Participants with autism will score significantly lower in the RET than the control group.

2. Participants with autism will score significantly higher on the AQ test.

3. Females in the 'normal' group (grp 2 & 3) will score higher on the RET than males in those groups.

4. Males in the 'normal' group will score higher on the AQ measure than females.

5. Scores on the AQ and RET will be negatively correlated.

Background
Baron-Cohen suggested that people with autism have an undeveloped 'ToM'. To measure the 'ToM' of
individuals, Baron-Cohen came up with the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task where participants would
be evaluated on their ability to label others' emotions by observing their eye expressions on photos.

Sample/ Sample Characteristics

Group 1: 15 male adults with AS/HFA. Self-selecting sampling from the UK National Autistic Society
through a magazine advert. Average IQ of 115; from a mix of socio-economic and educational
backgrounds.

Group 2 - Comparative control group of adults: 122 adults from the adult community & educational
classes from Exeter and public library users in Cambridge. 55 males and 67 females. From a broad mix of
occupations and education.

Group 3 - Comparative control group of students: 103 undergraduate students from Cambridge. 53
males and 50 females. Assumed to have IQ higher than other participants.

Group 4 - IQ matched controls: 14 randomly selected adults whose IQ matched with that of group 1.
Average IQ of 116.

Research Method, Design and Variables

Quasi-experiment.

Independent groups design

Independent Variables: Whether they had AS/HFA or were normal, and gender.

Dependent Variables: RET score, AQ score, and gender identification for group 1.

Procedure A

 Developing the Revised Eye Test (RET): Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright originated target words
and foils for 36 photos.
 It was piloted on 8 judges (4 males and 4 females).
 At least 5 judges had to agree on the target word and no more than 2 judges could select any
single foil word.
 If this did not happen, the target word and or foil would be repiloted until the criteria were met
for each.
 In pilot tests, groups 2 and 3 achieved 100% on judging gender.
 The control group were tested with 40 photos but 4 were eliminated, resulting in 36 items.
 When results were being calculated, only the data for the 36 eye sets were taken.
Procedure B
i. Implementing the Tests: Each test was individually administered in a quiet room at either
Cambridge or Exeter.
ii. There was no time limit.
iii. Each participant was given a practice test and then presented with 36 sets of eyes and 4
possible target words.
iv. Group 1 judged the gender of each photo as a control task.
v. Participants in groups 1, 3 & 4 completed the AQ test.
vi. They read through the glossary of terms and were asked to ask questions as needed; they could
use the glossary during the test.

Ethics

 Participants' consent was taken and they knew the nature of the study.
 Group 1 participants had been diagnosed in specialist centres using APA criteria.
 The data collected was anonymised.
Results

• Scores ranged from 17 - 35, with a mode of 24.

• Adults with AS/HFA performed significantly worse than other groups for the RET (H1 supported).
• On the AQ test, adults with AS/HFA performed significantly higher than the control groups (H2
supported).
• Females scored higher on the RET (H3 supported).
• There was a significant negative correlation (-0.53) between scores on AQ and RET (H5 supported).
Conclusions

• Current study replicated findings that AS/HFA adults are significantly impaired in identifying the
emotions of others.
• Current study replicated findings that AS/HFA adults score significantly higher on the AQ test than the
general population.
• There were gender differences found on the RET as females performed better than men. However, it
would have been more significant with a greater sample.
The Revised Eye Test was a more sensitive measure of adult social intelligence.

Strengths and Weaknesses

S1: It was a laboratory experiment; therefore, confounding variables could be controlled. Thus, there is
internal validity and it is easily replicable. Everyone saw the same set of eyes.

S2: Improvements on the eyes test improved validity.

W1: The study lacks ecological validity as eye expressions in real life are quick, and not static.

W2: The experimental sample (group 1) is small, so generalising results to those with AS/HFA is not
possible.

W3: Only the eyes were used, but normally we study the whole face (mouths are expressive) therefore it
lacks ecological validity.
W4: As this was a quasi-experiment, it wasn't possible to randomly allocate participants to the
conditions. This introduces a confounding variable as it could be another factor causing the difference in
scores between groups. Researchers try to attend to this by having the IQ matched control group.

Application to Everyday Life

Programmes could be conducted to help people with AS/HFA in developing their skills of interpreting
emotions. The eyes test could be improved to help diagnose individuals who may have underlying
autistic disorders.

Individual vs. Situational Explanations

The AS/HFA group performed significantly worse on the RET than the 'normal' group. This suggests that
the ability to identify mental states is an individual skill that is developed. The environment had been
standardised (supports individual explanation).

Children as Participants

Sophisticated words would not be appropriate for children. So, the 'Anne and Sally' test was developed
to understand the theory of mind of children.

CORE STUDY 3 (POZZULLO ET AL LINE UPS 2011)

The psychology being investigated includes: false positive responses; eyewitness testimony, false
memory, lineups

Pozzulo et al. conducted research on line-ups, which are commonly used in eyewitness identification.
Let’s delve into their study:
1. Background:
o Pozzulo investigated child witnesses and recognized post-event cognitive effects.
o Research by Pozzulo and Lindsay (1997) revealed that children were less likely than
adults to say “I don’t know.”
o Social factors may explain why children make incorrect decisions in line-ups:
 Children feel compelled to choose a person rather than having the option to say
they don’t know.
 They view adults as authority figures, leading to compliance.
 Fear of getting into trouble may pressure them to make a choice.
 Children are pressurized to choose as they fear they would get in trouble

The study sheds light on how children and adults perform in line-ups, considering both cognitive and
social factors.

2. Aim:
oThe study aimed to explore the effect of social versus cognitive factors on children’s
performance as eyewitnesses.
o Cognitive effects that could impair children’s decision-making were minimized.
3. Method:
 o Laboratory experiment with three independent variables:
 Age: Young children vs. adults.
 Line-up type: Identification vs. rejection.
 Level of cognitive demand: Cartoon vs. human.
o Identification Test:
 Participants identified the correct face if present or the empty silhouette if not.
o Sample:
 59 Child participants: Aged 4 to 7 years (mean age: 4.98 years).
 53 Adult participants: Aged 17 to 30 years (mean age: 20.54 years).
 (Child Participants) 21 females, 38 males
 (Adult Participants) 36 females, 17 males
 The child participants were recruited from kindergarten classes in 3 private
schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada
 The adult participants were recruited from introductory psychology participant
pool at Eastern Ontario University.
o Stimulus Material:
 Human face targets: Video clips and photo-arrays.
 Cartoon face targets: Video clips and photo-arrays.
4. Procedure:
o Target-present line-ups contained the target and 3 foils.
o Target-absent line-ups contained 4 foils.
o All line-ups included a blank silhouette.
o Participants viewed line-ups simultaneously.
o Each participant watched 4 videos followed by a line-up.

Human face targets

2 types of stimulus material:

 For the videos –6 second clip, a female brushing her hair and a male putting his coat. Colored,
no sound, 2-3 seconds of an individual’s face.
 For the photo-arrays –different clothes than video, 4 foil photographs with only the face, neck
and shoulders.

Cartoon face targets

2 types of stimulus material

•For the videos-two 6 second clips; Dora the Explorer talking to the audience and Go Diego Go! putting
on safety gloves. Colored, no sound, no other cartoons and showed 2-3 seconds of the target cartoons
face.

•For the photo-arrays-still images of the cartoons plus 4 'foils' found from the internet, 3 raters judged
the similarity of approx. 10 cartoons and the 4 most similar in terms of facial features, hair length and
color were chosen. They only showed the characters face

o Target-present line-ups contained the target and 3 foils

o Target-absent line-ups contained 4 foils
o All line-ups contained a blank silhouette
 o Line-up was shown to participants simultaneously
o Each target was randomly placed in the line-up except the 4thfoil of the target-absent line-up
o All photographs were in black and white
o Each participant watched 4 videos in total Presented in a random order followed by a line-up
o The position of the target/foil was counterbalanced
o Videos and photo-arrays presented on 13-inch laptop screens

The following sequence was adopted for each participant:

 The 3 female experimenters were neatly dressed, wearing professional yet casual clothing (a
sweater/blouse and dress pants).
 child and adult participants were tested separately, asked to pay attention and told about being
shown pictures and follow-up questions after.
 Participants were asked a free recall filler question (what did the cartoon character look like?)
 Children were asked another question in case they did not respond to the original question.
 The child Participants were asked to point to the target (if present) or the blank silhouette (if not
present) when shown the photo.
 Adult responses recorded on a matching sheet.
 Procedure repeated with all 4 videos.

The DV was whether the participant identified the correct face or empty silhouette.

RESULTS

2 key differences investigated:

1. Difference between children’s and adult’s identification and rejection accuracy

2. Difference between children’s identification and rejection accuracy between cartoon characters
and humans

The result shows that adults were better than children at most tasks and generally, responses to
cartoons were more accurate than human targets.

CONCLUSION

•As predicted, young children produced a significantly lower correct rejection rate than adults for
cartoon faces.

•As predicted, young children produced a significantly lower rejection rate than adults for human faces.

•As predicted, young children and adults produced a comparable correct identification rate for cartoon
characters.

•As predicted, young children compared to adults produced a significantly lower rate of correct
identification for human faces.

Strength and Weaknesses

1. It was a Laboratory experiment. This ensured high levels of standardization

2. Quantitative data was gathered
 3. High internal validity as demand characteristics were controlled
4. Line-up was not real
5. Low ecological validity

ETHICAL ISSUES

Ethical guidelines was maintained.

1. Informed consent was gained

2. Right to withdraw granted
3. Protection from psychological harm