Psych 240-Lecture 14

Front 1

Logical inference

Back 1

Study passage:
There is a tree with a box beside it, and a chair is on top of the box. The box is to the right of the tree. The tree is green and extremely tall.


Recognition test: Which did you hear before?
1 - The box is to the right of the tree.
2 - The chair is to the right of the tree.
3 - The box is to the left of the tree.
4 - The chair is to the left of the tree.

42, 29, 16, 13

Front 2

Pragmatic inference example

Back 2

1. John was trying to fix the bird house. He was pounding the nail when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
2. John was trying to fix the bird house. He was looking for the nail when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.
Recognition test. Did you hear this sentence earlier: “John was using the hammer to fix the bird house when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.”

Result: Group reading paragraph 1 more likely to accept the test sentence

Front 3

Advertising with colds (example of pragmatic inference)

Back 3

Assertion commercial:
Aren’t you tired of sniffles and runny nose all winter? Tired of always feeling less than your best? Taking Eradicold Pills as directed will get you through a whole winter without colds.
Implication commercial:
Aren’t you tired of sniffles and runny nose all winter? Tired of always feeling less than your best? Get through a whole winter without colds. Take Eradicold Pills as directed.
Test -- T/F: Eradicold pills will get you through the winter without colds.

Subjects warned to not interpret implications as true.

Result: Subjects accepted over 50% of the implications as truthful statements.

Front 4

People ignore hedges (examples)

Back 4

Lavium Pills may help relieve tension”
(but they may not)
“Spring Fluoride fights cavities”
(but it might lose)
“This detergent leaves dishes virtually spotless”
(what does “virtually” mean?)

Front 5

Unclear comparisons

Back 5

“Snarfo makes you healthier” (than what?)
“The inside of this car is 700% quieter.”

Front 6

Which story is inferences during encoding

Back 6

Washing clothes story

Front 7

Which story is inference during storage

Back 7

Test recall for “War of the Ghosts” story
More distorted 4 months later than immediately
Memory is changed during storage

Front 8

Inferences at retrieval

Back 8

Hellen Keller story..better chance that the story said "she was deaf, blind and mute" if put Helen Keller's name in the story

Front 9

Hit and smashed experiment..(Loftus)

Back 9

better chance saying broken glass if cars "smashed" into each other

Front 10

Broken headlight example

Back 10

Did you see a broken headlight? 7% say “yes”
Did you see the broken headlight? 17% say “yes”

Front 11

Stop vs. Yield sign example

Back 11

A lot of people said stop sign there if misled them with previous question about car passing

Front 12

Memory trace replacement (Loftus)

Back 12

This is untrue but here:

Event---misinformation--new memory

misinformation completely replaces event as new memory

Front 13

Misinformation acceptance (this one is legit)

Back 13

event--misinformation--new memory

new memory is both stop and yield..then choose..old event is not completely replaced..can then choose

Front 14

source monitoring error (source confusion)...misinformation acceptance

Back 14

Not clear which memory is the real one.

Front 15

retroactive interference..misinformation acceptance

Back 15

New information interferes with the old memory and is stronger.

Front 16

4 ways to improve eyewitness reliability

Back 16

Start with open-ended questions, ask specific questions later

Let witness tell story without interruption
1 and 2 reduce misinformation

Reinstate conditions
Exploits encoding specificity: original context

Use reverse order
Fewer inferences

Front 17

how to do line-ups

Back 17

Sequential presentations, not simultaneous
For each suspect, yes vs. no, one at a time
Lowered rate of false identifications from 51% to 28% (Steblay et al., 2001)
Avoids relative judgment
But some controversy:
Lower number of correctly identified perpetrators in sequential: possible overall lower tendency to identify someone
Double-blind administration
Person giving the test doesn’t know who the suspect is.
Avoid subtle cues from administrator.

Front 18

sequential questioning

Back 18

Multiple interviews better than one long one (Scrivner and Safer , 1988)

“Hypermnesia” – number of correct details gets better with each attempt at recall

Recalling one event makes associated events more active, next recall accesses those events

Front 19

hypnosis

Back 19

Not a good technique:
People are anxious to cooperate so generate lots of info that’s not accurate
People don’t weed things out that are wrong
Loftus’ misinformation effects increase