Cognitive Approach

Cognitive ApproachAssumption:The human mind works like a computer, taking information from our senses, actively processing the information by trying to make sense of it. The output is the behaviour appropriate to the input.All behaviour is determined by mental processes such as memory, perception and language. These cannot be directly observed, but can only be measured by inference- we cannot directly see processes such as thinking but we can infer what a person is thinking based on how they act.Implication:Abnormal behaviour can be explained in terms of faulty processing of information; irrational thinking can lead to inappropriate behaviour.Similarities:Both Loftus & Palmer and Baron-Cohen are lab experiments to investigate how cognitive processes influence both eye witness testimony and testing advanced theory of mind. Baron-Cohen tested some of the pps in Cambridge university where they completed the eyes task and the strange stories task, as well as 2 control tasks. Loftus and Palmer also tested pps in a university setting at Washington. PPs watched a series of clips and were allocated into one of 5 conditions.Differences:A difference between the two studies is that Loftus and Palmer used American students as the pps, whereas Savage-Rumbaugh used Banobo chimpanzees. Loftus and Palmer wanted to investigate eye witness testimony so used  students to see if post event information effected their memory of the event, whereas Savage-Rumbaugh wanted to investigate language acquisition of chimpanzees so used chimpanzees at the language research center, Georgia.Strengths �One strength of the cognitive approach is that it has many practical implications and has shown us insights into disorders such as Autism. For example Baron-Cohen  has shown that although many adults can pass a basic ToM test, there is a deficit in their ability to pass an advance ToM test. This can be very useful for showing psychologists the ways people can be affected by a lack of ToM. �Another strength of the cognitive approach is that controlled conditions are often used, which improves reliability within research. This can be seen in the Loftus and Palmer study where they conducted a laboratory experiment. All pps viewed the same series of clips for the same time, they were all had the same room conditions, and only changed the wording in the critical question (the IV). If this was repeated they would expect the same results as there are few extraneous variables. Weaknesses �A weakness of the cognitive approach is that the cognitive processes can not be directed measured. This is a problem as there is no way of objectively measuring this. For example in Savage-Rumbaugh the researcher’s can only measure the fact that Kanzi was able to use symbols in combination but there is no way of directly testing that Kanzi shares the same cognitive processes as humans when using language.   �Another weakness of this approach is that it tends to ignore more complex explanations and is reductionist in the way it explains thinking processes, for example in Baron-Cohen’s study he reduces the sole reason for autism down to a lack of ToM alone and ignores other common features such as lack of imagination. This is a weakness as we may be missing other important reasons behind such disorders and not researching these. Often lab experiments (B-C and L&P) which lack ecological validity; L&P study the participants watch a clip of a road accident so the task is unrealistic as it lacks emotional arousal which may affect their memory of the event. This means that the approach is not useful as the findings of the approach cannot be applied to real life Sometimes uses a case study; Savage-Rumbaugh used a case study which lasted over 18 months studying 2 pygmy chimps- Kanzi and Mulika and 2 common chimps- Sherman and Austin in regards to investigating whether chimps could acquire language acquisition. This means that you cannot generalise the findings to target population as it is a small sample size these chimps may be more/less intelligent than the average chimp and they were also brought up in captivity, so the usefulness of this approach reduces. Behaviours:L&P study of eyewitness testimony demonstrates how the cognitive process of memory can be distorted by other information supplied after an event. This highlights that memory is not merely a tape recording but is a dynamic process which can be influenced by many events such as leading questions. The study also shows that memory is a dynamic process and changes to make sense of experiences.When we behave in a particular way towards another person it is likely that we attempt to understand how the other person is thinking and feeling. B-C study shows that our behaviour can be influenced by a cognitive process called a theory of mind. The Theory of Mind refers to the ability of understanding how the mind works in general, and seeing things from another individual’s point of view. Having a theory of mind enables a person to appreciate that other people have thoughts and beliefs that are different from their own. Baron-Cohen's study attempts to demonstrate that the central deficit of autism is a failure to fully develop this cognitive process of a theory of mind.The cognitive approach helps explain language acquisition by identifying how the mental process involved in the learning of language is developed through cultural transmission. Savage-Rumbaugh can help demonstrate how pygmy chimps were able to acquire language through being immersed in human culture- this environment led the chimps to acquire language spontaneously in the same way that a child acquires language. 

Loftus & PalmerBackground: Native American story was told to western children and asked to repeat the story a week later, they replaced foreign words with words they knew in their culture such as canoe to boat. This shows the effects of the schema as they weren't able to process this new information, that their memory of it can be altered. The schema changed the words in order to fit the details to what it can understand from their normal culture.Experiment 1Aim: To investigate whether how information supplied after an event influences a memory of an event e.g car crashMethod: Lab experiment; IV- the verb used in the critical question (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted), DV- estimation of speed of the car; used a volunteer sample of 45 students from University of Washington    :) Keen and enthusiastic (due to volunteering)    :( Lack of driving experience; ethnocentric; not representative of whole population- cannot generalise; report biasProcedure: The students watched 7 clips of staged and real car crashes from local police training videos and then asked to write a general account of what they saw and fill out a questionnaire. They were divided into 5 groups with each group having a different condition of the IV. The questions were asked in different orders to reduce order effects. They had to guess the speed that the car was travelling.Findings: Students in the smashed group guessed the cars were travelling at 40.8 mph which is the highest. Students in the contacted group guessed the car was travelling at the lowest speed.Conclusion: The wording of the critical question does distort a person's memory of events; OR report bias- as the students wanted to please professor gave false answers/it was mandatory so they weren't bothered as they had to be there.Experiment 2Aim: To find out whether information supplied after an event can distort the memory of that eventMethod: Lab experiment; IV- the verb used in the critical question, DV- whether the student saw glass; volunteer sample of 150 students from University of Washington    :) Large sample size; keen and enthusiastic    :( Lack of driving experience; ethnocentric; not representative of whole population- cannot generaliseProcedure: Students watched a minute clip of a car crash (actual crash lasting 4 seconds and then asked to write a general account of what they saw and fill out a questionnaire. They were divided into 3 groups with each group having a different condition of the IV (smashed, hit, control-they weren't asked questions). The questions were asked in different orders to reduce order effects. They were asked to return a week later and they were asked whether they saw broken glass.Findings: Smashed had the highest number of people seeing broken glass- 16/50. Both control and hit received similar results (6 and 7/50)Conclusions: The verb used in a leading question does distort the person's memory of the event.Evaluation:Usefulness: In court for eyewitness testimonies can't convict on it  Used by police- cognitive interview no leading questionsStrengths: controlled conditions: age of participants, incident viewed, equipment used so only IV affected DVWeaknesses: Ecological validity: no emotional arousal, task and environment not true to life more context but they had been cued- wasn't unexpected BUT people may be asked for an estimation of the car speed in real life Sample

Baron-CohenBackground: Sally Anne Task was used to test theory of mind in children but the task is too simple to test theory of mind in adults with autismAim: to develop an advance theory of mind test for adults with autsimMethod: Lab experiment and Quasi-experiment (cannot manipulate the IV conditions); IV- diagnosis, DV- how many correct answersSample: 16 Autistic adults- volunteer sample from National Autistic Society Magazine, representing 4:1 ratio of males to females with normal intelligence with high functioning autism.                50 No diagnosis adults- random sample from population of Cambridge, 25 males, 25 females of normal intelligence (to compare results)                12 Tourettes adults- volunteer sample referred from a clinic in London, representing 4:1 ratio of males to females with normal intelligence (developmental condition):) Represents female to male ratio in population so can be generalised for genders:( Procedure: 25 black and white 15x10cm photos are shown for 3 seconds that show faces with different expressions from the top of the nose to above eyebrows; beneath are a list of emotions, some foils e.g "happy" and "sad". These are conducted in the lab and at home to decrease anxiety felt by participants. Also carries out a strange stories task as a control task as if you get different results to the task that has been proved to show a lack of theory of mind then the study is invalid. Also conducted 2 control tasks: gender recognition and basic emotion task as if they cannot understand simple emotions there's no point to conducting the study.Findings: Austistic adults performed the worst- 16.3/25. Tourette's group scored the highest but it was very similar to no diagnosis group at 23 and 22. Some people in the Tourettes and normal groups scored 25/25. When comparing males with females, the females out performed the males with 23/25 rather than 18/25 with a lot of the females achieving 100%.Conclusion: This has proved that it does test theory of mind and shows that autistic adults lack it and it is not due to a developmental condition as it didn't affect the Tourettes group.Evaluation:Changes to ecological validity

Savage-RumbaughBackground: People tried to teach chimpanzees language acquisition through sign-language and it was thought they could communicate with them when in fact the chimps were just imitating the handler's signs.Aim: To find out whether pygmy chimps could learn language acquisitions better than common chimpsMethod: Case study, longitudinal (as study took place over a long period of time-18 months and in a lot of detail with few participants) and quasi-experiment (as the IV condition cannot be manipulated) IV- species of chimp- common chimp or pygmy chimp, DV- how quick they learnt language acquistionSample: 2 pygmy chimps- Kanzi and Mulika (both born in captivity); 2 common chimps- Sherman and Austin (removed from mothers at 2.5 and 1.5 years old)Procedure: 

Cognitive Approach

Loftus & Palmer

Baron-Cohen

Savage-Rumbaugh