Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
1
Loftus and Palmer
Section A questions
Section B questions
1 The study by Loftus and Palmer used film clips of car accidents. Outline
two ways that this might affect the ecological validity of the study. [4]
Answer the following question with reference to
the Loftus and Palmer study:
2 Loftus and Palmer concluded, at the end of the first experiment, that
there were two possible explanations for why leading questions affect the
accuracy of memory. Outline these two explanations. [4]
(a) State one of the hypotheses investigated in
this study. [2]
3 Identify two conclusions that can be drawn about memory from the study
by Loftus and Palmer. [4]
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
4 (a) Loftus and Palmer asked participants to estimate the speed of two
cars in a traffic accident. They used different verbs in the questions
they asked. Name two of the verbs. [2]
(b) What was the effect of using the different verbs you identified in (a)? [2]
(b) Describe the sample used in this study and
give one weakness of using this sample. [6]
(c) Outline the procedure of this study. [6]
(d) Outline the findings of this study. [6]
(e) Discuss the reliability of the findings of this
study. [6]
5 Loftus and Palmer used the same set of standardised procedures with
each participant. Describe two of these procedures. [4]
(f)
6 (a) Explain the difference between the two experiments in the study by
Loftus and Palmer. [2]
(b) Explain the reason why a control group was used in this study. [2]
Section C questions
7 Loftus and Palmer concluded that leading questions do affect memory.
Describe two findings that support this conclusion. [4]
8 Loftus and Palmer used the experimental method in their study. Outline
one strength and one weakness of using this method in this study. [4]
9 The study by Loftus and Palmer used an independent measures design.
Explain one strength and one weakness of using this design in this study. [4]
10 (a) Describe the two samples used in the study by Loftus and Palmer. [2]
(b) Outline one weakness of the sample. [2]
Section A questions
1 The film clips might affect the ecological validity in two ways.
First, if participants are watching film clips they are expecting
to take note of events, whereas in real-life people who
eyewitness accidents are not expecting something to happen
which they might need to especially take note of. This means
that in Loftus and Palmer’s study, the participants might be
better at estimating speed than if they saw an accident in
real life. Second, watching a video does not have the same
emotional impact as seeing an accident in real life. In real
life the noise would be much louder and shocking, and the
emotional impact – shock, fear, worry for passengers, etc. –
may affect what details participants can remember.
2 The first explanation was that it could be due to response bias.
In other words, at the time of the experiment when participants
are asked the key questions, it just encourages them to
answer in a particular way (e.g. maybe slightly increase their
speed estimate) rather than actually change their memory. The
second explanation was that the participants’ memory had
actually been altered – the leading question retrospectively
changes their perception of the accident.
3 One conclusion is that memory is not a perfect, 100%
accurate record of what a person witnessed and so this
means that eyewitness testimony should not be used to
convict people. Another conclusion is that memory is formed
from two sources – information at the time of the event and
information from after the event such as leading questions.
4 (a) Two verbs were ‘smashed’ and ‘hit’.
(b) Participants who had the word ‘smashed’ gave a higher
speed estimate than the ‘hit’ participants – a mean of
40.8 mph compared with 34.0 mph.
5 One procedure was that the candidates had exactly the same
set of questions to answer after seeing the videos with the
exception of the target question (smashed, hit, contacted,
collided, etc.). One other standardised procedure was that
they all saw exactly the same events from the same stance –
this is because the events were shown in video clips.
© Psychology Press 2013
Describe and evaluate changes that could be
made to the way this study was conducted. [10]
(a) Outline one assumption of the cognitive
approach. [2]
(b) Describe how the cognitive approach could
explain memory. [4]
(c) Describe one similarity and one difference
between the Loftus and Palmer study and
any other core studies that take cognitive
approach. [6]
(d) Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the
cognitive approach using examples from any
core studies that take this approach. [12]
6 (a) In Experiment 1, the participants watched the videos and
then the target question was ‘How fast were the cars going
when they (smashed, hit, etc.)?’ and the DV was the mean
estimate of the speed for each condition. In Experiment 2,
participants came back a week later after seeing the videos
and being asked the question (conditions were ‘smashed’,
‘hit’ and ‘control’). Here the DV was the response to the
question: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’
(b) A control group was shown the same video so that they
knew the baseline rate of recalling broken glass (even
though there was none) when no leading question had
been asked. This means that then they could compare
the rate for the ‘hit’ and the ‘smashed’ group and know if
there was a significant difference.
7 In the first study participants were more likely to give higher
speed estimates if they had been asked a ‘stronger’ leading
question (smashed rather than contacted, for example).
Another finding is that when participants had the stronger
verb, ‘smashed’, they were more likely to recall having seen
broken glass, even though there was none. This shows that
the leading question had altered the memory of the event.
8 One strength is that experiments show a cause and effect
relationship between the IV and the DV. This means that in
this study we can say that the leading questions affected the
memories that the participants had for the event in the video.
One weakness is that the setting is artificial so the results
may be different in a real life scenario when the scene the
participants had witnessed would be emotional and their
attention may have been directed elsewhere. This means
that the results may not tell us about people’s memories in
real life situations.
9 One strength is that an independent measures design means
that there are no order effects; in this study this means
that the participants will not guess the purpose of the study
by hearing the same question repeated several times with
different verbs, which would have given a clear indication that
this was intended to affect their answers.
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
One weakness is that individual differences mean that some
people’s memories for events and/or speed-estimating skills
may be better than others, and it was this that caused the
effects on the DV.
10 (a) The samples were 45 American students in Experiment 1
and 150 American students in Experiment 2.
(b) One weakness of the sample is that students are all
similar in that they are relatively intelligent and used
to dealing with data; this means their memories may
be better than other people’s and so they are not
representative.
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Section B questions
(a) ‘Participants are more likely to report seeing broken glass
when they are given the word ‘smashed’ in a previous
question than when they have the word ‘hit’.’
(b) The sample used were 45 university students in the first
study. In the second study, the sample were again students,
but this time a new group of 150. Both samples were
probably gained opportunistically and were just available and
easy to recruit at the time. One limitation of this sample is
that they are not like the general population in a number of
ways – they are relatively young and similar in age, unlike the
general public. Their memories, in some ways, may be better
than average because they are younger (memory is said to
decline with age) and because they are used to having to
revise for exams and retain information.
(c) Participants came to the laboratory in Experiment 1 and
were shown some videos of car crashes. They were then
asked a number of questions immediately afterwards. The
key question was ‘How fast were the cars going when they
*****ed?’ The verb here was the IV. Different groups of
participants had different words – smashed, contacted,
bumped, hit, collided. The participants estimated a speed
in miles per hour and Loftus and Palmer calculated the
mean for each group. For Experiment 2, again participants
were shown videos of cars and immediately afterwards
asked the question ‘How fast were the cars going when
they *****ed?’ In this experiment, there were only two verb
conditions – ‘hit’ or ‘smashed’. There was also a control
group who were not asked this question. Loftus and Palmer
calculated the mean speed estimate (mph) for each group.
But the main DV was measured when, one week later,
participants returned to the laboratory and were asked ‘Did
you see any broken glass?’ They could answer either ‘yes’
or ‘no’. Loftus and Palmer calculated the frequency of ‘yes’
answers depending upon the condition of ‘smashed’, ‘hit’ or
control group.
(d) Loftus and Palmer in Experiment 1 found that the stronger
the verb, the higher the speed estimate. For ‘smashed’ the
mean speed estimate was 40.8 mph; collided 39.3 mph;
bumped 38.1 mph; hit 34.0 mph; contacted 31.8 mph. Loftus
and Palmer said this showed one of two things: either a
response bias, where participants just responded with higher
estimates because the word influenced their responses;
or the verbs had actually changed their memories. In
Experiment 2, Loftus and Palmer wanted to investigate which
it was, and they found that when participants were asked
the question with the ‘smashed’ verb, they were twice as
likely to say they had seen broken glass than with the ‘hit’
or ‘contacted’ condition, even though there was none. This
shows that participants’ memories had been altered after
watching the video by the leading questions. Memory is not
100% accurate and any memory is composed of both the
event itself as well as information after the event.
(e) Accuracy of memory for events was measured in this study,
in the context of the effects of leading questions. This is a
replicable study due to its standardised procedure, which
improves reliability; it would be easy to show the video
clips again and ask participants the same questions. This
would allow assessment of the reliability of the measures,
as you would expect consistent results if the study were
repeated. There is no reason to think that this is a ‘fluke’
result. However, because the sample could be said to be
© Psychology Press 2013
2
unrepresentative, if the study were repeated using a different
group of people the results may be different. For example,
using a group of people who had driven for many years or
people with previous experience of acting as a witness may
both produce more accurate speed estimates.
(f) One change could be that participants would be real
eyewitnesses and would be interviewed after real accidents.
Half the eyewitnesses for each accident could be asked a
leading question while the other half were not. This might
mean that there is less control altogether in the experiment
because it is now a field experiment and there is no control
over the actual events in the accident or the speeds or how
much broken glass or other damage there was. However,
balancing conditions out between each actual accident
should to some extent account for this. It is difficult to
know the outcome in terms of results. Probably in a real-life
situation, leading questions will have less effect on memory.
This is because there would be so much more information
about the event for the person to process – what happens
before as well as the accident being much more perceptually
rich (with louder noises, smells of oil or burning rubber, etc.)
and so the leading question will have less influence. Another
change could be to keep the experiment in the laboratory
and with the same procedure but with different participants.
The sample could be selected from a larger target sample
– adults from the general public. They could still be
recruited opportunistically or through adverts in newspapers.
Obviously, this sample would be more expensive and time
consuming to recruit than a sample of students, but it
would be more representative of the general population and
therefore the results would be more generalisable. I think
this sample might have an impact upon the results. Again,
I think the leading question would have less impact upon
people’s recollections of speed because they would be
more experienced in life, have their own opinions, and more
experience of cars and estimating their speeds. However, it
is possible the leading questions would have some effect,
just not as much.
Section C questions
(a) One assumption of the cognitive approach is that people’s
brains process information a bit like a computer – there are
inputs and outputs and the memory is like a storage system.
(b) The cognitive approach would explain memory as a storage
system which retains information which has been received.
A bit like a computer memory, information is organised
along fairly logical lines. When we ‘remember’ information or
‘recall’ information, it is retrieved from memory.
(c) One similarity between Loftus and Palmer and Baron-Cohen
et al. is that they both conducted their study in a laboratory
under controlled conditions. In Loftus and Palmer, they
showed them videos so as to ensure each participant saw
exactly the same and so that any differences in the DV was
due to the IV (verbs in the leading questions). Similarly, in
Baron-Cohen et al., participants were shown specific pictures
of faces to ensure high levels of control. One difference
between Loftus and Palmer and Baron-Cohen et al. is that
Baron-Cohen et al. used a diverse sample of autistic adults,
adults suffering from Tourette syndrome as well as nonclinical (normal) adults. Therefore, they were quite a diverse
set of participants. However, Loftus and Palmer used a more
homogeneous sample – all students and probably all of a
very similar age.
(d) One strength of the cognitive approach is that it focuses
upon the mind and this should be central to the study of
psychology. For example, Loftus and Palmer have shown
how the mind is not just a straightforward perfect record
of events, but that our minds are complex. According to
Loftus and Palmer our memories are formed not only from
the event itself but from information afterwards (such as
leading questions) which can alter the original memory.
This shows us that because our memories might be a
more complex construction of the event, that eyewitness
testimony may not be 100% accurate. Another strength of
the cognitive approach is that it is one of the more scientific
3
approaches. For example, in the Loftus and Palmer study,
they conducted the research in a laboratory and had a high
number of controls, e.g. the event was duplicated for each
participant because they watched a video. Participants saw
seven videos and these were deliberately seen in a different
order to prevent any order effects from the sequence of
the videos. All participants were asked exactly the same
questions (except for the target question). Because the study
is highly controlled and reduces the possibility of extraneous
variables, we can be more certain the changes in the DV are
just due to the IV rather than anything else. One weakness
of the cognitive approach is that it ignores emotion. We
do not know from this study how it feels to really witness
an accident and what impact that might actually have
upon recollection. For example, because a car accident is
unexpected, it must be very surprising and shocking. Car
accidents are also very noisy events and they are probably
quite scary. Witnesses probably get a big adrenaline hit
and feel scared. The cognitive approach often overlooks the
impact of emotions on thought and treats us much more
logically and like a human computer, and this probably
ignores a really important influence on what and how we
recall events. Another weakness of the cognitive approach
is that cognitive functioning cannot be directly observed.
This means that we can only really deduce or guess what is
going on in the mind (from measuring ‘outputs’ or responses,
etc.), and we may not be right. For example, in Loftus and
Palmer, because we cannot directly observe memory, we
cannot be 100% certain if they were changed or not. Even
in Experiment 2 when more of the ‘smashed’ group said
they had seen glass, it may have just been that they were
responding to demand characteristics or response bias from
their original question. We cannot be 100% sure that the
conclusions are actually correct.
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
© Psychology Press 2013
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
4
Baron-Cohen et al.
Section A questions
Section B questions
1 (a) In the study by Baron-Cohen et al. why did they need to devise a new
test of Theory of Mind? [2]
(b) Explain what is meant by the term ‘Theory of Mind’. [2]
2 In what way are individuals with autism the same as those with Asperger
syndrome, and in what way are they different? [4]
3 (a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al., describe one of the control
tasks that was used. [2]
(b) Outline the findings from this task. [2]
(a) Outline the aim of this study. [2]
(b) Describe two examples of quantitative data
recorded in this study. [4]
(c) With reference to this study, suggest one
strength and one weakness of quantitative
data. [6]
4 Identify one similarity and one difference between the participants in the
autism/Asperger group and the normal adults tested. [4]
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Answer the following question with reference to
the Baron-Cohen et al. study:
(d) Describe the procedures of this study. [8]
5 (a) In the study by Baron-Cohen et al. theory of mind was tested using
the Eyes Task. Describe this task. [2]
(b) Describe a different way to test Theory of Mind. [2]
(e) Suggest how this study could be improved. [8]
6 (a) Baron-Cohen et al. say that earlier tests of Theory of Mind produced
ceiling effects if used with participants aged over six years. Explain
the term ‘ceiling effects’. [2]
(b) Explain how such effects were avoided by the newer Eyes Task. [2]
Section C questions
7 (a) Explain what is meant by the term ‘ecological validity’. [2]
(b) Explain in what way the study by Baron-Cohen et al. may be
described as lacking ecological validity. [2]
(b) Describe how the cognitive approach could
explain autism. [4]
8 (a) Give one example of a word pair in the Eyes Task. [2]
(b) Outline one finding from the Eyes Task. [2]
9 (a) Identify two ways that quantitative data was collected in this study. [2]
(b) Give two examples of quantitative data collected in this study. [2]
10 What evidence from this study suggests that adults with autism do not
have a Theory of Mind? [4]
Section A questions
1 (a) They needed a new test of Theory of Mind because
the existing ones were not adequate for testing highfunctioning adults. Previous tests had been pitched
mainly at children and therefore when autistic adults took
the task, there was a ‘ceiling effect’; it didn’t differentiate
between autistic adults and non-autistic adults because it
was ‘too easy’ for the autistic adults.
(b) ‘Theory of Mind’ refers to the ability to represent the
mental states of another person and understand what
they are likely to be thinking or feeling.
2 Individuals with autism and those with Asperger syndrome
are similar in that they are likely to have some deficits in
Theory of Mind (ability to represent mental states of other
people). However, they are different in the overall severity of
their symptoms. For example, those with Asperger syndrome
typically have less rigidity in their routines and usually have
normal IQ.
3 (a) One of the control tasks used was the Gender
Recognition task. This Gender Recognition task was to
make sure that if participants did not do well on the main
Eyes Task, it was not because they had a more general
problem with face perception but because of problems
specifically with Theory of Mind.
(b) Baron-Cohen et al. found that there was no difference
between the groups 1 and 3 (autistic versus Tourette) on
the Gender Recognition task.
4 One similarity was that the autism/Asperger participants
performed the same as the control groups on the gender and
emotional control tasks. One difference was that the autism/
Asperger had a lower mean score on the Eyes Task than the
normal group (16.3 versus 20.3).
© Psychology Press 2013
(f)
Outline the implications of the improvements
you have suggested for this study. [8]
(a) Outline one assumption of the cognitive
approach. [2]
(c) Describe one similarity and one difference
between the Baron-Cohen et al. study
and any other core studies that take the
cognitive approach. [6]
(d) Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the
cognitive approach using examples from any
core studies that take this approach. [12]
5 (a) In the Eyes Task, participants were shown 25 pictures
of the eye area of faces. Each set of eyes was displayed
for just three seconds and then participants were asked
to choose an emotion from two possibilities (e.g. happy
versus sad) that were presented.
(b) Another way to test Theory of Mind would be the Sally–
Anne Task. There are two dolls, Sally and Anne, and they
are made to move around by the researcher. Sally puts
a ball in her basket and walks away. Anne gets the ball
from the basket and puts it in a box. Sally comes back
into the room. Participants are then asked ‘Where will
Sally look for her ball?’ Autistic children generally say ‘In
the box’ as they cannot appreciate (due to lack of ToM)
that Sally will not ‘know’ that Anne has moved the ball.
6 (a) ‘Ceiling effects’ occur because a test is designed for
a certain group or ‘ability’ of people. When people
well above that ability take the test, the test will not
discriminate (show individual differences) between them.
The measuring tool does not ‘go high enough’.
(b) This is a much harder test because it focuses only on
reading the emotion of a limited part of the face and
also because it involves reading some relatively complex
mental states (e.g. daydreaming versus observing).
7 (a) Ecological validity concerns the ability to generalise a
research effect beyond the particular setting in which it is
demonstrated to other settings. ‘High ecological validity’
is when a task or setting resembles a real life situation
so the behaviour the participant shows is more likely to
reflect their natural behaviour.
(b) Baron-Cohen et al.’s study could be said to be low in
ecological validity because the participants were asked
to identify emotion from only a small section of the face
(the eyes), when normally people use a whole face to
judge emotion. The fact that the face was shown in a
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
photograph, and was therefore static, lowers the ecological
validity because normally the movement of the face would
help to establish the emotion someone was feeling.
8 (a) Concerned – unconcerned
(b) The normal and the TS groups performed identically on
the Eyes Task whereas the autism/AS group significantly
less able to cope with the Eyes Task.
9 (a) Counting the number of emotions correctly identified in
the Eyes Task; counting the number of correct answers in
the Strange Stories Task.
(b) Mean scores for correct answers on the Eyes Task:
correct answers in the Strange Stories Task.
10 That adults with autism performed worse on the Eyes Task
than both of the other groups. This means that they have
trouble inferring what is in someone else’s mind, and this
is related specifically to those with HFA/AS because the
Tourette group performed identically to the ‘normal’ group.
This means it cannot be put down to having any mental
disorder.
Section B questions
(a) In order to assess whether high-functioning ASD adults do
really have Theory of Mind a new test was devised, the Eyes
Task.
(b) Mean scores for correct answers on the Eyes Task; correct
answers in the Strange Stories Task.
(c) Strength: You can easily compare the performance of each of
the groups of the task and see if there are differences in the
ability to read emotions.
Weakness: It may not give a full picture of why there are
differences. Without collecting qualitative data, we cannot
be absolutely sure of the reason why the autism/Asperger
group did not do so well overall. If participants had been
asked about why they had given one answer rather than
another, it may be possible that in some cases it was not
due to misreading the emotion, but to problems with the
vocabulary used.
(d) There were three groups of participants: 16 people with HFA/
AS; 50 age-matched ‘normal’ controls; and 10 adults with
Tourette syndrome. They all underwent the Eyes Task where
they were shown 25 different faces of males and females,
showing only the eye region. They were shown the photos for
three seconds and were given a forced-choice question to
indicate what emotion the person in the photo was feeling.
The forced-choice was a pair of terms, one emotion and its
‘foil’ or opposite, e.g. friendly – hostile. It was correct if it
corresponded with judgements made by neutral observers.
The participants also underwent the Strange Stories Task
and two control tasks where they had to recognise gender
from eyes in photos and basic emotions from whole faces
in photos.
Number of correct answers were recorded.
(e) One change to this study is that Baron-Cohen et al. should
have used a larger number of participants in the autistic
group. In the current study, he only used 16 adults, which is
actually quite a small sample. They should have used about
50 autistic adults instead, again of normal IQ.
One other change could be that Baron-Cohen et al. could
conduct the study using the same Eyes Task, but instead of
providing only two possible answers – the correct answer and
its ‘foil’ – to try to reduce the impact of guessing, it would be
better to provide four possible answers with one correct and
three ‘distractors’.
(f) This would probably improve the representativeness of the
sample to the general population as well as making the
findings more certain. Possibly, these changes might make
the difference between the autistic group and the normal
group more pronounced and more statistically significant.
© Psychology Press 2013
5
This would reduce the chances of getting a correct answer
through guessing and therefore increase the validity.
This change would probably reduce the mean scores for
all the groups (as people would be less likely to pick up
marks through guessing). But maybe it would show a more
pronounced difference between the autistic group and
the other two groups as well. Certainly it would increase
the validity.
Section C questions
(a) One assumption of the cognitive approach is that humans
are like computers. In particular, the way the mind works is
like a computer in that it has information inputted (stimuli). It
does some processing (e.g. storing information) and it gives
some output (eg recalling information).
(b) The cognitive approach would explain autism along the lines
of a cognitive deficit. So it wouldn’t explain it in terms of
genes, biology, neurotransmitters or brain areas, but in terms
of some faulty thinking processes. For autism, a popular
cognitive explanation is lack of theory of mind as suggested
by Baron-Cohen et al. This means that an autistic person
is not able to infer in other people mental states such as
beliefs and emotions. So, an autistic child might think that
someone else is also thinking and feeling in the same way
as they do, and knows the same things.
(c) One similarity between Baron-Cohen et al. and Loftus and
Palmer is that they both use a kind of experimental approach
and this is a popular methodology for cognitive studies.
In Baron-Cohen et al., the IV is whether the participant is
autistic, has Tourette or is normal. The DV is measured
through a task (the Eyes Task). In Loftus and Palmer, the
IV is the word given to the participants and again, the DV
is measured through a task (recall of speed of the car in
the video). One difference between Baron-Cohen et al. and
Savage-Rumbaugh et al. is that Baron-Cohen et al. uses a
comparatively large sample whereas Savage-Rumbaugh et al.
uses a small sample which is discussed in a lot of detail
and follows over time. This is therefore more like a case
study and so not generalisable, whereas Baron-Cohen et al.’s
sample is probably big enough that it could be said to be
representative of his target population.
(d) One strength of the cognitive approach is that it focuses
upon what people think and this is very relevant to the whole
subject of psychology. For example, Baron-Cohen et al.’s
study has demonstrated how autistic people are not able
to conceive of what other people are feeling as easily as
non-autistic people, i.e. not capable of ‘mind-reading’. This
is shown because the autistic/AS participants scored less
well on the Eyes Task than the non-autistic groups. This is
useful research because it can help people know how best to
communicate with and treat autistic children.
Another strength of the cognitive approach is that it is quite
scientific. For example, in Baron-Cohen et al. it is scientific
because it uses the experimental method and there are
many controls, e.g. matched ages, two control groups,
standardised tasks, etc. This means we can be more sure
that the results are valid.
One weakness of the cognitive approach is that it ignores
emotion. We do not know from Baron-Cohen et al.’s study
how it feels to be an autistic child or person and what their
experience is. This means that the cognitive approach tends
to be reductionist as it focuses on one aspect of psychology,
missing out others.
Another weakness of the cognitive approach is that it is really
only guessing about how people think as you cannot directly
observe thinking in the way that you can observe behaviour.
So, in the Eyes Task, we do not know why the autistic people
did less well – it might not be because of poor theory of
mind or it might have been for some other reason, e.g. they
didn’t understand the adjectives, or they didn’t concentrate.
Thought processes cannot be directly observed and rely on
inferences and producing valid ways of measuring.
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
6
Savage-Rumbaugh et al.
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Section A questions
Section B questions
1 From the study by Savage-Rumbaugh et al. outline two methods that were
used to record the lexigrams used by the chimpanzees. [4]
Answer the following question with reference to
the Savage-Rumbaugh et al. study:
2 Describe two differences between the language acquisition of pygmy
chimpanzees and common chimpanzees. [4]
(a) Briefly outline the previous research or
event which was the stimulus for this study. [2]
3 Savage-Rumbaugh et al. claim that Kanzi and Mulika were exposed to
language in a different way to Sherman and Austin.
(a) Explain in what way this was different. [2]
(b) How might this difference have affected their development of
language? [2]
(b) Describe two ethical issues raised by this
study. [6]
4 (a) Savage-Rumbaugh et al. conclude that Kanzi’s use of language
might be ‘a precursor of syntactical structure’. Explain is meant by
‘syntactical’. [2]
(b) Describe one other conclusion from the study by SavageRumbaugh et al. [2]
(d) Give two weaknesses of the case study
method as used in this study. [6]
(c) Give two strengths of the case study method
as used in this study. [6]
5 Identify two similarities between Kanzi’s acquisition of language and the
way children acquire language. [4]
(e) Outline the results of this study. [8]
(f)
Suggest how this study could be improved.
Give reasons for your answer. [8]
Section C questions
(a) Outline one assumption of the cognitive
approach. [2]
6 (a) Savage-Rumbaugh et al. used formal tests with the chimpanzees.
Why were such tests necessary? [2]
(b) Describe one of the formal tests that was used to test Kanzi. [2]
7 In the study by Savage-Rumbaugh et al. explain the criterion used to
decide whether a chimpanzee had acquired true comprehension of a word. [4]
8 In the Savage-Rumbaugh study quantitative data was gathered.
(a) Identify two methods used to collect this quantitative data. [2]
(b) Give two examples of the quantitative data that was collected in this study. [2]
9 The study by Savage-Rumbaugh involved two subjects who were studied
over a long period of time.
(a) Describe the subjects studied by Savage-Rumbaugh. [2]
(b) Explain why these subjects may not have been representative of their
own species. [2]
(b) Describe how the cognitive approach could
explain language acquisition in apes. [4]
(c) Describe one similarity and one difference
between the Savage-Rumbaugh et al. study
and any other core studies that take the
cognitive approach. [6]
(d) Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the
cognitive approach using examples from any
core studies that take this approach. [12]
10 In the study by Savage-Rumbaugh qualitative data was recorded.
(a) Describe one example of qualitative data that was recorded. [2]
(b) Give one advantage of using qualitative data. [2]
Section A questions
1 One method was that when the chimpanzees were inside,
the computer would automatically record the lexigrams used.
The other was when the chimpanzees were outside, the
researchers had to make a note of which lexigrams were used.
2 One difference was that Kanzi and Mulika acquired an
understanding of spoken English, which had not been
seen in chimps before. Although they could not produce
it themselves, they could comprehend it and respond
appropriately. Austin and Sherman did not acquire this.
Another difference was the specificity of use of language.
Austin and Sherman often used words quite generally, e.g.
‘juice’ might be used interchangeably with ‘coke’, and not
used to refer to specifically different things. Even when they
were taught to differentiate, they were inclined to drift back
into using them generally. Kanzi and Mulika, on the other
hand, could use words more specifically.
3 (a) Kanzi and Mulika were exposed in a more ‘natural’
fashion. Like human babies they were exposed through
observation and natural communication, rather than being
explicitly trained. So the ‘teachers’ would say something
out loud and then translate that utterance into lexigrams.
(b) It is difficult to tell, but it might make Kanzi and Mulika
more inclined to communicate naturally, rather than just
communicating for treats or tickles.
4 (a) Syntax is the rules of grammar which govern word order
and sentence structure so that the meaning is clear.
(b) One other conclusion from the study was that Pygmy
chimps acquire language more readily than common
chimps.
© Psychology Press 2013
5 One similarity is that Kanzi’s language was acquired
naturally, through observation and interaction and he started
to use lexigrams without any overt attempt. Another similarity
is the process – Kanzi seemed to acquire a new term in an
associative context first (i.e. a particular environment) and
then later be able to use it in a context free situation. This
two stage process is similar to human infant’s language
acquisition (Lock’s two steps).
6 (a) Such tests were necessary to make sure that the chimps
were not just appearing to use language with meaning
when really they were responding to inadvertent cues.
(b) One formal test involved being shown photographs of
objects and being asked to select the right lexigram – so
the test was context free.
7 True comprehension was checked by ‘behaviour verification’.
If Kanzi said something using a lexigram, the researchers
would note whether this then matched the following behaviour
(concordance) (e.g. points to drink and then goes to get
drink). It had to be verified in such a way on nine out of ten
occasions.
8 (a) Recording on the lexigram the number of utterances the
chimps made. Formal testing to gather the number of
correct responses made when identifying a symbol for a
spoken word or a symbol for a photo.
(b) Number of nonimitative combinations of symbols; number
of new words acquired.
9 (a) Kanzi and Mulika were Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees.
Kanzi was male and aged 30–47 months during the
study, and Mulika was his younger sister, aged 11–21
months.
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
(b) Because they may have been particularly bright, or have
a particular affinity with humans, or may have had a
particular aptitude for language.
10 (a) Description of Kanzi’s behaviour when showing the ‘blind’
visitor around, i.e. going to the area that was usually not
allowed.
(b) Gives a detailed description allowing a level of
understanding not shown by numbers; complex behaviour
such as Kanzi’s merits a ‘word-picture’ to do it justice
rather than a simple count of particular actions or
reactions.
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Section B questions
(a) Past research with chimpanzees has provided lots of
evidence of associative symbol learning but representational
usage, i.e. using language to refer to objects, has less
research history.
(b) One ethical issue is that Kanzi and Mulika have no choice
about being included in the study or about living in a
situation that is not natural for chimps. There is a question
about whether it is right to subject animals to this kind of
treatment, particularly apes which are intelligent and very
aware of their surroundings.
Another is that Kanzi and Mulika can never now be ‘normal’
Bonobos again; they will always be different from others
of their species and as such would not be accepted by a
bonobo community. This means that they will inevitably
have to spend the rest of their lives in human company and
captivity, and rely on their keepers to ensure that they have
good treatment and an acceptable quality of life for their very
individual needs.
(c) One advantage of conducting case studies is that they
give really in-depth data so that you can understand what
is being studied very well and not just superficially. This
study by Savage Rumbaugh et al. is the first study where
the entire language usage and comprehension has been
recorded for apes. This means that we can gain a thorough
and valid understanding of the ways in which the chimps
acquired language and how it is similar or different from child
language acquisition.
Another advantage is that their longitudinal nature means
that we can see how the Bonobos changed over time,
gaining an overall picture of their language acquisition as it
happened rather than just a snapshot of the outcome once
the process itself was over.
(d) One disadvantage of conducting case studies is the lack
of generalisability. Thus, because only a small number of
participants are being studied, it might be that they are not
representative of the whole ape population and therefore the
conclusions may not hold true for the whole population. In
this study, it might be, for example, that Kanzi and family are
particularly gifted chimps and that other pygmy chimps might
not be.
Another disadvantage is that it is very time-consuming and
complex to maintain the chimps’ environment, the training
and the testing procedures over many months.
(e) Kanzi and Mulika used gestures to communicate without
being trained to do so, for example Mulika showing she
wanted a balloon blown up by pushing it towards a person’s
mouth. Although there was no direct attempt to teach
lexigram use, both chimps started to use them without being
shown. At 14 months, Mulika used some new words such
as cherry and surprise. During the study, Kanzi acquired
46 words and Mulika 37. Kanzi used 2,540 non-imitative
combinations of symbols, almost all of which were judged
to be appropriate and understandable. Kanzi and Mulika
imitated others when learning new words; about 15% of their
utterances were imitative. In formal tests, both chimps could
select photos with the lexigram, and vice versa. Kanzi could
choose a symbol or photo and then go to the correct area of
the forest.
(f) One change that could be made to this study would be to
raise one pygmy chimp and one common chimp at the same
© Psychology Press 2013
7
time in the same way and give them the same opportunities
to learn language. In the study as it is, Kanzi seemed to get
much more natural opportunities to converse than Sherman
and Austin. For example, they could both be spoken to in the
same way, introduced to the lexigram at the same time; both
could be present when conversation between the ‘teachers’
was translated onto the lexigram etc. It is difficult to say
what impact this might have on the results. It still may end
up being the case that the pygmy chimp acquired language
faster and better than the common chimp – however, one
impact of this change would be that, because both species
would be reared side by side, we would be able to be
more convinced and certain that differences in language
acquisition were due to the species, and not just due to
differences in treatment and language exposure. Another
change could be to use a portable touch screen laptop. In
the current study, the researchers had to take a board with
the lexigrams on and make notes of which lexigrams the
chimps used when they went outside into the more natural
habitat. This way, the laptop will automatically record, e.g.
Kanzi’s choice of lexigrams so that the researchers do not
have to painstakingly record what was said, which may have
got in the way of a natural ‘conversation’. With this change,
it is likely that the validity of the recordings will increase as
it will be less prone to error from missing things out, misremembering what lexigrams were signalled. It might also
mean that Kanzi’s language improved as the researcher
would have more time to converse and expose Kanzi to
language, rather than busily taking notes.
Section C questions
(a) One assumption of the cognitive approach is that behaviour
is the result of information processing, and in this way the
mind is like a computer. Some data is input, a process such
as thinking or learning happens, and there is an output in
terms of reaction or behaviour.
(b) The cognitive approach could explain language acquisition
in apes by identifying how the mental process involved
in the learning of language is developed through cultural
transmission. Savage-Rumbaugh et al. 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. The ‘input’ in the
computer analogy is the stimuli from living with the humans
who were using speech and the lexigram; the processing
goes on in the learning in the chimpanzee’s mind, and the
‘output’ is the behaviour of using the symbols and lexigrams
themselves, and responding the spoken words.
(c) One similarity between Savage-Rumbaugh et al.’s study and
Baron-Cohen et al.’s study of autism is the use of a formal,
standardised test procedure. Kanzi and Mulika were tested
using standardised questions requiring a specific, correct-orincorrect response. In the same way, Baron-Cohen et al.’s
participants were tested using the Eyes Task, Happé’s
Strange Stories, the Basic Emotion Recognition Test and
the Gender Recognition Test, which all had a standardised
procedure and a very clear-cut answer that could be scored
as right or wrong.
One difference between Savage-Rumbaugh et al.’s study
and Loftus and Palmer’s study of eyewitness testimony is
that the former collected both quantitative and qualitative
data while the latter only gathered quantitative data. SavageRumbaugh included descriptions of the Bonobos’ behaviour,
such as descriptions of how Kanzi’s use of words varied
across different contexts, and his use of the lexigram
on his own. She also gathered quantitative data such as
number of words correctly used and number of nonimitative
combinations of symbols. This means that we have an
increased understanding of the outcome of her study. Loftus
and Palmer, however, only gathered quantitative data in the
form of speed estimates and numbers of people reporting
having seen broken glass. This makes the results easy to
compare but doesn’t give us a depth of data explaining
people’s motivations and reasons for their behaviour.
M ODEL ANS WERS TO THE E X A M-S TY LE QUE S TI ONS I N TH E B O O K
Chapter 2 Cognitive psychology
(d) A strength of the cognitive approach is that it has many
practical applications, relating to processes and functions
that we see and experience every day. For example, BaronCohen et al.’s study enabled us to better understand autistic
behaviour and why they don’t have a Theory of Mind. This
is a strength because it created modern types of therapy
which are based on the cognitive approach. Although SavageRumbaugh et al.’s study could be said to be less directly
relevant to everyday life, it is interesting to compare language
acquisition in apes with that of children, and learning is
of profound interest to psychologists; it also leads us to
consider the nature of the cognitive difference between
humans and animals.
Another strength of the cognitive approach is that it uses
scientific lab-based methods which are high in control. For
example, Loftus and Palmer were able to control the age of
the participants, the use of video and where the experiment
took place. Savage-Rumbaugh used standardised testing
as part of her procedure for the same reasons. This is a
strength because by having highly controlled conditions
within a experiment we can test for reliability and eliminate
confounding variables.
However, a weakness of the cognitive approach is that it
tends to be reductionist. For example, Savage-Rumbaugh
© Psychology Press 2013
8
et al. focus on the influences of humans in ape language
acquisition without discussing the input of genetic influences
or individual differences between specific Bonobos. This
is a weakness because the cognitive approach ignores
other influences such as biological and social factors that
may have an impact on a cognitive processes. However,
reductionism can also be of benefit when it allows a
researcher to focus on a particular aspect of psychology
which may otherwise be too complex for useful research
conclusions.
Another weakness of the cognitive approach is that it often
uses laboratory methods that tend to be low in ecological
validity. For example, Loftus and Palmer conducted a lab
experiment on memory in an artificial environment. This
is a weakness because in an artificial situation it may
be hard to generalise the findings in a real-life situation;
people’s memories for a video may be very different from
their memories for a real-life car crash when emotions may
be running high. Similarly, Baron-Cohen et al.’s conclusions
from the Eyes Task may not hold true in real life when there
are other cues for people to use such as context, full facial
expression and facial mobility, all of which may lead to
relatively improved emotion recognition.