THE COGNITIVE

APPROACH
CHAPTER 3
LECTURER: DR. KOYAR SHERKO
INTRODUCTION

• The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the cognitive approach in psychology and to
explore three studies from this approach.
• This chapter will examine how different cognitive processes can have an impact on a
person’s behavior.
• In each core study you will learn about the background to the research, the way it was
conducted and the conclusions.
• You will also get familiar with how a range of issues and debates can be applied to the
concepts considered to this approach.
IS BEHAVIOR ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
PROCESSING?
• Cognitive psychologists are interested in the processes that work within the mind and
how these affect our behavior.
• They study concepts such as attention, memory, decision making, language development
and how cognitive abnormalities can impact on how we behave.
• The mind actively processes information and sometimes it is compared to a computer and
discussed in terms of input process and output.
IS BEHAVIOR ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
PROCESSING?
IS BEHAVIOR ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
PROCESSING?
• For example, when playing a sport, our senses process information about other team
member or where the ball is and where we are in relation to it.
• Thst is the INPUT element of cognition.
• All of this sensory information is then processed in the brain with some areas (such as the
prefrontal cortex) making decisions about necessary actions.
• They are often accessing memories to help inform the process.
• WHAT HAPPENS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS?
IS BEHAVIOR ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
PROCESSING?
• As a consequence of this process we move, respond and act in an appropriate way.
• This is the OUTPUT. All of this usually occurs as a seamless subconscious process.

• Memory is a cognitive process.

• As a students you spend a lot of time using your memory and hoping that when it really
counts you can recall that important piece of information in the exam.
• Without memory, learning can not take place.
• So memory is the cognitive ability to encode, store and retrieve information.
IS BEHAVIOR ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
PROCESSING?
• When we experience an event, we have to encode (convert) this sensory information into
a format that the brain can store.
• This is the brain’s ability to maintain a record of the event without actively using it.
• Finally when you need the information, you need to be able to recall, or retrieve, the
information.
3.1 THE COGNITIVE APPROACH

• In this chapter, we will be looking how cognitive process like memory can be influenced
by doodling and focusing concentration.
• This suggests that there are ways that support our cognitive processes to improve our
memories of events.
3.1 THE COGNITIVE APPROACH

• Autism, a problem with cognitive processing that can influence a person’s ability to
interact with people socially and impair their social cognition.
• We can also see how false memories can influence our preferences for different foods.
• Cognitive theories simplify cognitive processes and allow us to understand mental
processes that are not directly observable.
• However, the cognitive approach tends to ignore biology and genetic influences and
provides another view of human behavior.
3.1 CORE STUDY1:
ANDRADE (DOODLING), 2010
• What does doodling do?
• AIM: doodling, such as shading all the Os in ‘psychology’ on a worksheet, is a common
activity. Andrade was interested to know whether this activity assisted information
processing, perhaps by enabling people to attend more effectively or by enhancing their
memory.
• What is attention? The concentration of mental effort on a particular stimulus. It may be
focused or divided.
BACKGROUND

• Teachers often tell students off for doodling.

• “I didn’t even know I was doing it”, you think to yourself in self-defence.
• Your teachers complaint is justified: research has shown that we perform less well when
our attention is divided between tasks.
• It might make sense to assume that if we are engaged in doodling, we would not be
attending as well to any other task, so be worse at them than if we were not doodling.
• However in your defense, doodling might be useful. It might aid concentration.
BACKGROUND

• For example, doodling may help reduce daydreaming so that you stay focused.
• This idea is based on the working memory model.
• Daydreaming is linked to high arousal when we are bored and it uses important cognitive
processing resources (central executive) so inhibits performance on tasks that use this
resource, including attention and memory.
• In Adrade’s study, the primary task of listening to a message, was an auditory task.
• Whereas doodling, is a visuo-spatial task.
BACKGROUND

• It is therefore possible that the concurrent task of doodling would interfere less with
overall processing than devoting a greater amount of central executive function to
daydreaming.
• Also, doodling may help to maintain arousal (Wilson and Korn, 2007)
• For example by giving you something physical to do while you think. It could raise
arousal to help to keep you awake if you are sleepy.
• Or reduce arousal if you are agitated because you are bored.
BACKGROUND

• Doodling: the sketching of patterns and figures that are unrelated to the primary task.

• Such doodling either could take cognitive resources away from the intended (primary)
task as if it placed simultaneous demand on cognition by dividing attention?
• Or it could, improve performance by raising arousal and enhancing focused attention on
the primary task.
RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN

• This was a lab experiment.

• The environment was not the normal place in which people would respond to telephone
messages
• The situation was controlled.
• The design was independent measure design.
• Participants were either in the control group or in the doodling group.
SAMPLE

• No. of participants: 40
• They were members of a participant panel at the medical research council for cognitive
research.
• The panel was made up of members of the general population aged 18-55 years and they
were paid a small sum for participation.
• 20 participant in each group.
• Mainly females, only two males in the control group and three in the doodling group (one
participant in this condition did not doodle and was replaced).
PROCEDURE

• All participants listened to a dull telephone call about a party. (on the book)
• During this task, they either doodled or did not doodle (the control group)
• So the independent variable is doodling.
• They were told beforehand they would be tested on the names of people who were
attending the party (not the ones who are not) this was the monitoring task
• They also had an unexpected test, on the names of the places mentioned. This was the
recall task
PROCEDURE

• The order of these tests were counter-balanced, half of the participants were asked to
recall the names of the party goers first then the places mentioned. The other half recalled
places first, then party goers.
• These two tasks were measures of the dependent variable (DV) to recall.
• To operationalise the DVs, plausible mishearing, such as ‘Greg’ for ‘Craig’, were counted
as correct.
• Other names that were on the tape but were not party goers, were scored as false alarms.
 PROCEDURE

• The final score for monitoring was: number of correct names – false alarms .
PROCEDURE

• The mock telephone message lasted 2.5 minutes.

• It was recorded in a monotonous voice at an average speed of 227 words/minute.
• It had eight names of people attending a party, and the names of three people and one cat
who could not attend.
• Eight place names were mentioned, as well as irrelevant details.
• The participants were given standardized instructions: page 68
PROCEDURE

• ‘I’m going to play you a tape. I want you to pretend that the speaker is a friend who has
telephoned you to invite you to a party. The tape is rather dull but that’s okay because I
don’t want you to remember any of it. Just write down the names of people who will
definitely or probably be coming to the party (excluding yourself.) ignore the names of
those who can’t come. Do not write anything else.’
PROCEDURE

• An A4 sheet was given to the participants in the doodling condition, with alternating rows of
squares and circles. Ten per row.
• There was also a wide margin on the left for recording the target information.
• These participants were also given a pencil and asked to shade in the squares and circles while
listening to the tape.
• They were told it doesn’t matter how neatly or how quickly you do this, its just something to
relieve the boredom.
• The control participants were given a sheet of lined paper to write their answer on. (which they
could also have used for doodling.)
PROCEDURE

• The sheets were collected after the participants completed them.

• Then they talked to the participants and apologized for misleading them about the
memory test.
• They then completed the surprise test of recalling names of places then people or vice
versa.
RESULTS

• In the doodling group, the mean number of shaded shapes on the printed sheet was 36.3
with a range of 3-110.
• No participants in the control condition doodled spontaneously.
• Participants in the control group recalled a mean of 7.1 of the 8 party goers and five
people made a false alarm.
• Participants in the doodling group correctly recalled a mean of 7.8 party goers and one
person made one false alarm.
RESULTS

• Overall, the doodling participants recalled a mean of 7.5 names and places. 29% more
than a mean 5.8 for the control group.
• Recall for both monitored and incidental information was better for doodlers.
CONCLUSIONS

• Doodling helps concentration on a primary task as the doodling participants

performed better than participants just listening to the primary task with no
concurrent task.
• However, because the doodling group were better on both the monitored and
incidental information, there are two possible explanations.
CONCLUSIONS

• Either the doodlers noticed more of the target words, an effect on attention.
• Or doodling improved memory directly.
• However, without any measure of daydreaming, it is difficult to distinguish
between these two explanations.
• That could have been done by self-report.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

• The main method was a lab experiment, using independent measure design.
• This means that it was possible to control Extraneous Variables (EV)
• It was standardized, so the participants were all equally likely to be bored and therefore to
daydream.
• Because conditions were kept the same and all the participants went through the same
procedure, the research was more valid and more reliable.
• The operationalization of doodling was also standardized.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

• There still is risk of participant variables confounding the results, as the amount of shapes
the individuals shaded differed.
• Although the participants varied in age (18-55 years) so were representative in this
respect.
• They were all member of the same panels, and these people are more likely to be similar,
for example having time to spare and an interest in psychology. This could bias the
sample, lowering validity.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

• There was risk of demand characteristics because of of the participants suspected a

memory test. But they were roughly equal in each condition and did not actively try to
remember, so this is unlikely to have reduced validity.
• The study collected quantitative data, the number of names and places recalled, which is
an objective record of memory.
• It would also have been useful to use self-reports to ask participants whether they
daydreamed or not.
• Not the content of their daydreaming, as this would be an invasion of their privacy.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

• This study raised a few ethical issues.

• The participants were unable to give fully informed consent as they were given an
unexpected test on place names.
• This had the potential to make them distressed if they were unable to remember the
names. So could expose them to risk of psychological harm.
• Although, debriefing is not a substitute for good ethical procedures, the experimenters
debriefed the participants and apologized for misleading them.