LO #3 and #4: Methods used in the cognitive level of analysis and the ethical concerns they raise.
Research at the cognitive level of analysis relies on a variety of research methods. Mainstream cognitive
psychology uses mostly experimental methods. Cognitive neuroscience combines the experimental methodology of
cognitive psychology with neurophysiological techniques such as brain imaging. Several other methods are also
used including the computer modeling of cognitive theories.
Experimental Methods
The experiment is as necessary in the cognitive level of analysis as it is in any context where explanatory
theories are being tested. With its ability to detect cause-and-effect relationships between variables, the wellcontrolled experiment is the method of choice when we need to establish the causes of the cognitive phenomena
we investigate. Experiments do not make much sense unless they are considered in the context defined by the
theoretical ideas (hypotheses about causal relationships) they address.
Field experimental studies may increase ecological validity but this is usually at the expense of internal
validity. Cross-cultural studies, like those investigating cultural influences on FBMs, are, in effect, natural
experiments with very little, if any, control over extraneous variables. Their value derives from their high
ecological validity and the meaningfulness of their findings.
Several memory studies are simple experiments, for example, Loftus’ study on reconstructive memory of
an automobile crash.
Ethical concerns include the need for informed consent to always be sought from the participants. Some
experimental studies raise serious ethical issues; for example, some of the experiments on eye witness testimony
where criminal scenes (potentially upsetting for participants) are staged (Ihlebaek et al., 2003), or experiments
where the weapons effect is investigated (Loftus et al., 1987), or the “mall study” in which Loftus created false
memories in her participants and manipulated an individual’s personal memories.
Case Studies
Case studies, like those from the biological level, have made substantial contributions by providing indepth information about phenomena that cannot be studied experimentally. It is not always easy to generalize
from case studies, but as more and more case studies relevant to the same phenomenon accumulate and point to
the same conclusions, so our confidence in those conclusions increases.
There are several famous case studies in the study of memory, for example, HM, and Clive Wearing.
Needless to say, the eagerness of scientists to investigate individuals with unusual characteristics should
never lead to a situation where liberties are taken with the studied individuals’ time and comfort. Finally,
confidentiality and anonymity, more perhaps than in other studies, should always be promised and delivered. The
use of case studies of people with brain damage or who have experienced severe personal trauma may raise ethical
concerns. Issues of consent and the maintenance of a professional and objective relationship between the
researcher and the individual have sometimes been an issue. The case study method enables the researcher to
obtain personal information. The researcher should make sure that the participant consents to the publication of
some personal information.
Correlational Studies
Correlational studies are often based on self-reported data or the use of brain-imaging technologies. Since
cognitive processes are localized in the brain, modern neuroimaging technologies offer possibilities to look into
brain processes that no researcher could even dream of 100 years ago. Neuroscientists can now study which brain
areas are active when people make decisions, and how cognitive processes can be disrupted by brain damage, for
example, amnesia or Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers then use their data to support or refute cognitive models –
or to propose new models. However, it should not be forgotten that what is established by such studies are
correlations between phenomena at the psychological level and some neural activation patterns.
Despite their methodological sophistication, the fMRI studies make their contributions within the usual
constraints posed by the nature of the technology used: fMRI scans are not direct photos of what is happening in
the brain. The construction of the colorful images we habitually see is often based on the averaged activity of
several individuals. Moreover, it is based on computer models that make complex, and often disputed, assumptions
(Purves et al., 2008). Such provisos notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that fMRI technology has hugely
expanded the ways we can approach the study of cognition and has already, in the hands of cognitive
neuroscientists, led to considerable breakthroughs.
Regarding ethical issues, it should be noted that scanning procedures are time-consuming and many
individuals find them very uncomfortable. Potential participants should always be fully briefed and their wishes
always respected.
Interviews
Several of the studies covered in this level use interviewing procedures. The fact that we rely on interviews
in the cognitive level of analysis should not come as a surprise. Although the data may be subjective, the
participants are not asked about the minutiae of the workings of their mind; they are asked to report on subjective
experiences (ex. Flashbulb memory) that are readily accessible and to a great extent easy to communicate to
others. The value of the data collect by interviews does, of course, depend on the type of interview used, the
sensitivity of the issues addressed, and the validity of the data analysis techniques employed.
Neisser’s study of reconstructive memory was a combination of gathering information by questionnaire
and then carrying out a series of interviews.
Likely ethical issues relate to the immediacy and power relations inherent in the types of social interaction
interviewing requires, the sensitivity of what is being discussed and confidentiality issues.
In conclusion, different methods have their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is, therefore, necessary to use
triangulation – that is, apply a variety of methods to the study of the same cognitive phenomenon.
Elements taken from the following sources: Pearson Baccalaureate Psychology (2010); IB Prepared Guide (2012);
IB Diploma Programme Psychology Course Companion (2009).