Loftus & Palmer

Aim?

Loftus & Palmer

Sample

Exp1. 45 students

Exp2. 150 students

Loftus & Palmer

Procedure for Exp1?

• Shown 7 5-30 second clips of traffic collisions
   
• A written account is given of the collisions and then a questionairre is given out.
   
• Questionairre includes multiple questions to disguise one critical question
   
• Crit Qu = How fast were the cars going when they ***** each other."
   
• Word options = Smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted

Loftus & Palmer

Exp1 Results?

• Speed estimate averages based on the word used in critical question
   
• Smashed = 40.8mph
• Collided = 39.3mph
• Bumped = 38.1mph
• Hit = 34.0mph
• Contacted = 31.8mph

Loftus & Palmer

Exp2 Procedure?

• Shown a 1 minute clip involving a 4 second multi-car accident
   
• written account given, then questionairre
   
• Questionairre involves a Critical question, so IV is same as Exp1.
   
• There is now a control group not asked the critical question
   
• 3 groups of 50 students two critical groups and one control
   
• Critical qu = Speed of vehicles upon collision
   
• "How fast were the cars going when they **** each other"
   
• either 'Hit' or 'Smashed' used in crit question.
   
• Another questionairre asked a week later, this included the DV question "Did you see any broken glass?" all groups were asked this.

Loftus & Palmer

Exp2 Results?

• Hit group = 16 saw broken glass, 34 did not
   
• Smashed group = 7 saw broken glass, 43 did not
   
• Control group = 6 saw broken glass, 44 did not
   
• No broken glass present in any video.

Loftus & Palmer

Conclusions?

• Two types of memory
   
• info gathered during event
   
• info added after event
   
• Both sources create a single memory
   
• therefore it is possible to alter someones memory through input of info after an event such as a leading question

Baron-Cohen

Aim?

Baron-Cohen

Sample?

• 16 Autistic adults, 12 Asperger's, 4 HF Autism (13 male, 3 female)
   
• Autistic sample gathered through an advert in the National Autistic Society magazine 'Communication'
   
• Autistic sample average IQ = 105.3
   
• 50 age matched typical adults (25 male, 25 female)
   
• Gathered from Gen. Pop. of Cambridge
   
• Assumed average IQ over 85
   
• 10 Tourettes Syndrome adults (8 male, 2 female)
   
• age matched to autistic group
   
• average IQ = 103.5

Baron-Cohen

Procedure?

• Conducted either in a quiet room of the participant's home, in the researchers' clinic or in Cambridge Uni labs.
   
• Eyes task ----> AToM test
  
  magazine photos of eyes in black and white, 25 of them. all convey various emotional or mental states
  shown for 3 seconds
  participant given two option words to describe the eyes conveyed mental state, the two options were termed the 'target' and the 'foil'
  
  
• Control tasks
  
  Gender recognition, identification of gender of the eyes that were shown
  
  Simple emotional recognition, shown 6 full face full colour photos of the 6 basic emotional states
  
  Anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise
   

Baron-Cohen

Findings?

• Autistic Adults --->
  
  Eyes task, average 16.3 (max 25)
  
  Gender Recog. average 24.1 (max 25)
  
  Simple Emotion Recog. Average 6 (max 6)
  
  
• Tourettes --->
  
  Eyes task, average 20.4
  
  Gender Recog. average 23.7
  
  SE Recog. average 6
  
  
• Typical group --->
  
  Eyes Task, average 23.3
  
  G Recog. average 23.3
  
  SE Recog. average 6
  
  
  
• Sex differences in Eyes task in the normal group also studied
  
  
• Female
  
  Eyes = 21.8 ave.
  G Recog. = 23.8 ave.
  
  
• Male
  
  Eyes = 18.8 ave.
  G Recog = 24.0 ave. 

Baron-Cohen

Conclusions?

• Core deficiency in Autistic adults is lack of AToM
  
  
•  This is shown by the Autistic groups' poor performance in the Eyes Task. 
  
  
• This poor performance could not otherwise be explained by low IQ as sample was shown to have no IQ deficiency.
  Similarly, it is not due to developmental neuropsychiatric disability as Tourettes sufferers performed well in the Eyes Task (So lack of AToM can be said to be an exclusive feature of Autism). 

Baron-Cohen

EXTRA: Why is the Eyes Task considered a valid test of AToM?

• The target words are mental state terms, not emotional state terms, so the eyes task is not just a measure of emotional recognition.
  
  
• Concurrent validity can be shown by correlating results being found with the Happe's Strange Stories test (A pre-existing AToM test).

Savage-Rumbaugh

Aim?

Savage-Rumbaugh

Sample?

• 2 Pygmy Chimps, Kanzi + Mulika. Reared in a language using environment with access to their mother.
  Kanzi was 4 yrs old at time of report
  Mulika was 3 yrs old at time of report
  
  
• 2 Common Pygmy Chimps, Austin + Sherman. Reared in a language using environment.
  Austin was 9 yrs old at time of report
  Sherman was 10 yrs old at time of report 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Procedure: Basics

Hint: Study type?

• In depth longitudinal study conducted over 17 months
  
  
•  Quasi-experimental tests used

Savage-Rumbaugh

Procedure: Lexigram & Communication

• Lexigram composed of a series of geometric symbols and written english words to create buttons with individual meanings.
  
  
• Lexigrams
  
  Indoors, K+M ---> Electronic, touched symbol would illuminate and a speech synthesiser would vocalise the associated english word
  
  Outdoors, K+M ---> Laminated sheets of symbols
  
  Indoors, A+S ---> Same as K+M excluding the speech synth.
  
  Outdoors A+S ---> Not used, A+S's hand movements were not fine enough to indicate individual symbols on the laminate sheets. 
  
  
• Other communication
  
  Spoken english was used by experimenters to accompany lexigram utterances
  100 odd American sign language signals used 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Procedure: Rearing Environments

• Rearing environments were much similar. All chimps were around people who used the visual symbol system around them throughout the day
  All chimps were allowed to interact with humans and observe human interaction using the lexigrams, spoken english and sign.
  
  
• Differences in the rearing environments were that K+M were reared in an observational setting whereas A+S were reared in a formal training setting.
   
• A+S were given formal training in the use of the lexigrams in an attempt to actively teach them how to communicate via the lexigram.
  K+M were never formally trained, they simply interacted with and observed humans. Human use of the lexigram was constantly present, so K+M were able to observe the lexigram frequently, but were never forced to (inkeeping with the 'no formal training')
  
  
• Humans used lexigram utterances to accompany various activities and objects, almost like narration of their own actions. 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Procedure: Data, Vocab. Aquisition and Controls

• Data
  
  From Kanzi's first lexigram utterance at 2.5 yrs of age his utterances were all recorded for a period of 17 months.
  Mulika was recorded from 11 to 21 months
  
  
• Utterances were classified as such
   
• Correct or incorrect - Appropriate or Inappropriate utterance?
   
• Spontaneous - Was the utterance initiated without any prior prompting, querying or attempts to elicit a specific utterance?
   
• Imitated - An utterance which includes any part of a companions prior utterance
   
• Structured - Any utterance initiated by questions, requests or object showing behaviour on the part of the companion, e.g. "What is this?"
  
  
  
• Vocab Aquisition
  
  Two criteria had to be met before an utterance was included in K+M's learned vocabulary
  
  
• Symbol production should appear appropriate
  
  
• The word must appear spontaneously on 9 out of 10 occassions. This must then be followed by 9 out of 10 additional demonstrations of concordance.
  For example, If Kanzi was to ask to go to the treehouse and then led the researchers to the treehouse, this would show behavioural concordance.
  
  
  
• Controls
  
  Data was recorded by an observer in real time and then checked by another experimenter using video playback of the scenarios
  
  There was 100% agreement between realtime and playback ratings of 'Correct or Incorrect'
  However, 9 utterances were seen on the playback that were not noted in realtime. 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Procedure: Formal Testing

• K+M were tested in everyday situations. For example, if Kanzi had scattered objects on the floor he would be asked to help pick them up in a particular order. If he failed any task he was shown how to do it correctly. These tests only used established vocab and were not associated with any sort of reward.
  
  
• At the end of the 17 month period K+M were formally tested on all items in their vocab. These tests were controls to ensure symbol usage was not being cued by the setting or companions.
  These were blind tests and were carefully controlled so that experimenters had no knowledge that could bias responses.
  
  
• Similar tests were carried out on all 4 chimps 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Findings: Gestures 

• Between 6 and 16 months K+M spontaneously began to use gestures to communicate directions of travel or actions they wished to have performed. A+S began to spontaneously use gestures from 2-4 yrs
  
  
• Kanzi's gestures could often be quite explicit, for example, if he wanted a nut opened, he would place it in the experimenters hand. If the experimenter did not fully understand, Kanzi would slap the nut and place a rock over the nut to indicate the desired action. These gestures were far more explicit than A+S were ever observed using. 

Savage-Rumbaugh

Findings: Formal Tests

• Kanzi and Mulika performed well in all formal testing from the beggining, they seemed to understand that experimenters were not communicating about something that was going to happen when they touched a symbol, rather, that they were posing a specific question.
  
  
• Sherman and Austin, when first asked to label an item as a test would anticipate that they would then recieve the item. When they did not, they became confused, concequently, labelling had to be introduced slowly.
  
  
• 4 main differences between the species were identified.
  
  K+M comprehended lexigrams with far more ease and used them for more spontaneously than A+S without the need for formal training
  
  K+M were able to comprehend spoken english far more easily
  
  K+M used lexigrams far more specifically, for example, they would distinguish between juice and coke, rather than just requesting a drink
  
  Kanzi was able to form requests that involved others, A+S never formed requests were they themselves weren't the beneficiaries.

Savage-Rumbaugh

Conclusions

• Results suggest that Pygmy Chimps exhibit far more developed symbolic and auditory perceptual skills that are distinctly different from those of Common Chimps
  
  
• The large behavioural difference between two closely related species minimizes the significance of the Human - Ape difference.
  
  
• Findings highlight the power of Culture Learning
  
  
• Pygmy Chimpanzees have the capacity to understand speech 

The Cognitive Approach

Assumptions

• Attempts to explain our behaviour through an understanding of our mental processes
  
  
• We recieve information through our senses. Cognitive Psychology focuses on how we make sense of this information