Cognition unit test
A test on this unit alone, marked as a percentage and a letter grade — for the test your class is actually sitting, rather than for May. Answer everything, then submit once: seeing the answer to question 3 before attempting question 4 makes the final percentage meaningless.
Working memory model
Inattentional blindness
Misinformation effect
Chunking
Levels of processing
Language acquisition
Perceptual constancy
Perceptual set
Linguistic relativity
Availability heuristic
Depth cues
Convergent vs divergent thinking
Short answer 1. Define or explain: Gestalt principles
3 ptsShort answer 2. Define or explain: Retroactive vs proactive interference
3 ptsShort answer 3. Define or explain: Selective attention
3 ptsShort answer 4. Define or explain: Representativeness heuristic
3 ptsFree response
7 ptsARTICLE ANALYSIS QUESTION (AAQ). Using the source provided, respond to all parts of the question. Write the response to each part in complete sentences, using appropriate psychological terminology. THE SOURCE (summarized from Pena, Klemfuss, Loftus & Mindthoff, 2017, Psychology of Consciousness): Introduction. The study explores the effect of being presented with varying amounts of misinformation about a specific event on memory of that event. Participants. 127 students at a large university, recruited through the research participation system for course credit; 69% women, 31% men; 65% Hispanic/Latino/a, 15% Black/African American, 11% White/European American, 4% Asian/Asian American, 5% Other; ages 18–39 (mean 21.21, SD 3.28). Method. After giving consent, participants watched a 6.5-minute silent video of a mock crime — an electrician stealing possessions from a house — then completed a 12-minute trivia distractor task, all online. They were told that eight previous participants had written summaries of the robbery and that one summary, with a profile of its author, would be shown to refresh their memory. The "previous participants" were invented; the profiles were built from campus demographics so the summaries would seem credible. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: LOW misinformation (8 of the summary's 40 sentences misleading — 20%), MEDIUM (20 of 40 — 50%), or HIGH (32 of 40 — 80%). Misleading sentences changed details of items in the video (a navy blue cloth described as brown); neutral sentences avoided the detail (just "a cloth"). After a 5-minute math distractor, everyone answered the same 40 multiple-choice questions about the video, each with a CORRECT option (navy blue), a MISLED option matching the summary's misinformation (brown), and an INCORRECT option matching neither (yellow). A final questionnaire asked how credible the previous participant's summary seemed. Results. Mean percentages of responses by condition: Response type High misinfo Medium misinfo Low misinfo Correct 63% 66% 74% Misled 30% 27% 19% Incorrect 7% 7% 7% Within each condition, participants who distrusted the summary performed best. Those given more misinformation were more likely to report distrust, and the distrustful resisted more misinformation than the trusting.
A. Identify the research method used in the study.
B. State the operational definition of high misinformation in the study.
C. Describe what the mean indicates for the percentage of correct responses between the high misinformation group and the low misinformation group.
D. Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.
E. Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.
F. Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the misinformation effect.