Applied Research in Cognitive Psychology

Applied Research in Cognitive Psychology
For many psychologists, the desire to “know about knowing” is sufficient reason
to study human cognition; however, there are more tangible benefits.
Examples of these widespread practical applications may be found in the
fields of artificial intelligence, law, and in the everyday world of decision
making.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that strives to
create a computer capable of reasoning, processing language, and, in short,
mimicking human intelligence. While this goal has yet to be obtained in
full, research in this area has made important contributions. The search for
AI has improved the understanding of human cognition; it has also produced
applied benefits such as expert systems. Expert systems are computer
programs that simulate human expertise in specific domains. Such programs
have been painstakingly developed by computer scientists who have
essentially extracted knowledge in a subject area from a human expert and
built it into a computer system designed to apply that knowledge. Expert systems
do not qualify as true artificial intelligence, because, while they can
“think,” they can only do so very narrowly, on one particular topic.
A familiar expert system is the “chess computer.” A computerized chess
game is driven by a program that has a vast storehouse of chess knowledge
and the capability of interacting with a human player, “thinking” about each
game in which it is involved. Expert systems are also employed to solve problems
in law, computer programming, and various facets of industry. A medical
expert system has even been developed to consult interactively with patients
and to diagnose and recommend a course of treatment for infectious
diseases.
The cognitive research of Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues at the University
of Washington demonstrates the shortcomings of human long-term
memory. This research is relevant to the interpretation of eyewitness testimony
in the courtroom. In one study, Loftus and John Palmer showed their subjects films of automobile accidents and asked them to estimate the
speeds of the cars involved. The critical variable was the verb used in the
question to the subjects. That is, they were asked how fast the cars were going
when they “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” “hit,” or “contacted” each
other. Interestingly, the stronger the verb, the greater was the speed estimated.
One interpretation of these findings is that the nature of the “leading
question” biased the answers of subjects who were not really positive of
the cars’ speeds. Hence, if the question employed the verb “smashed,” the
subject was led to estimate that the cars were going fast. Any astute attorney
would have no trouble capitalizing on this phenomenon when questioning
witnesses to a crime or accident.
In a second experiment, Loftus and Palmer considered a different explanation
for their findings. Again, subjects saw filmed car accidents and were
questioned as to the speeds of the cars, with the key verb being varied as previously
described. As before, those exposed to the verb “smashed” estimated
the fastest speeds. In the second part of the experiment, conducted a week
later, the subjects were asked additional questions about the accident, including,
“Did you see any broken glass?” Twenty percent of the subjects reported
seeing broken glass, though none was in the film. Of particular interest
was that the majority of those who made this error were in the group that
had been exposed to the strongest verb, “smashed.”
Loftus and Palmer reasoned that the subjects were melding actual information
that they had witnessed with information from another source encountered
after the fact (the verb “smashed” presented by the questioner).
The result was a mental representation of an event that was partly truth and
partly fiction. This interpretation has implications for the evaluation of eyewitness
testimony. Before testifying in court, a witness will likely have been
questioned numerous times (and received many suggestions as to what may
have taken place) and may even have compared notes with other witnesses.
This process is likely to distort the originally experienced information.
Consider next the topic of decision making, an area of research in cognitive
psychology loaded with practical implications. Everyone makes scores
of decisions on a daily basis, from choosing clothing to match the weather to
selecting a college or a career objective. Psychologists Amos Tversky and
Daniel Kahneman are well known for their research on decision making
and, in particular, on the use of heuristics. Heuristics are shortcuts or rules
of thumb that are likely, but not guaranteed, to produce a correct decision.
It would seem beneficial for everyone to appreciate the limitations of such
strategies. For example, the availability heuristic often leads people astray
when their decisions involve the estimating of probabilities, as when faced
with questions such as, Which produces more fatalities, breast cancer or diabetes?
Which are more numerous in the English language, words that begin
with k or words that have k as the third letter? Experimental subjects typically,
and incorrectly, choose the first alternative. Kahneman and Tversky’s
research indicates that people rely heavily on examples that come most easily to mind—that is, the information most available in memory. Hence, people
overestimate the incidence of breast-cancer fatalities because such tragedies
get more media attention relative to diabetes, a more prolific but less
exotic killer. In a similar vein, words that begin with k come to mind more
easily (probably because people are more likely to organize their vocabularies
by the initial sounds of the words) than words with k as the third letter, although
the latter, in fact, outnumber the former. One’s decision making will
doubtless be improved if one is aware of the potential drawbacks associated
with the availability heuristic and if one is able to resist the tendency to estimate
probabilities based upon the most easily imagined examples.

admin