The research suggests that capacity of short term memory could only be enlarged by grouping items together known as chunking. By chunking information, we are more likely able to remember it whether in single or combined forms which is why it’s known as the magical number seven plus or minus two. However, the experiment could also be criticised in the sense that there could have been experimenter bias and demand characteristics. It also isn’t ecologically valid since people don’t have to memorise random letter and numbers all the time. Nevertheless,
Interestingly in the Rutter study those who were adopted before the age of 6 months tended to show a more marked improvement compared to their older counterparts. This seems to coincide with Schaffer and Emerson’s Glaswegian infant study which showed that children below the age of 6 months treat everything indiscriminately having not formed an attachment. So naturally by definition the Romanian infants below 6 months couldn’t and didn’t suffer privation and so therefore didn’t suffer the effects of it later. However with the Rutter study it is hard to establish cause and effect. Many of the children suffered cognitive deficits but this might have rather been a result of a lack of substantial intellectual stimulation within the institutions as opposed to privation.
Why or why not? In my honest opinion prejudice is hard to measure because it cannot accurately be predicted or judge by a test. I feel like prejudice cannot be measured accurately because the test shows the association between different groups. The only thing I can see the implicit association test is measured are the groups that I may belong to or fit in. People cannot show the result of being or prejudice because people are known to select things that they are more familiar with, things that they are more commutable with, and things that they see in their everyday environment.
When I was taking the IAT, I did not feel that it was effortless and habitual, I found myself frequently forgetting which side each category was on and having to glance at them to remember. I felt like I was frequently expressing my explicit attitudes toward these words, but implicit attitudes are so hard to measure that maybe it really was my implicit attitude. Why did it provide opposite results then? This test is supposed to be able to measure my implicit attitude based significantly on my response time to categorizing various words into correct groups. I can understand the concept that we will respond quicker when two categories that we implicitly associate are grouped together.
T., Leung, D., Ordqvist, A., & Parsons. R., 2013). Although results suggested that participants could, there are problems with the research which could suggest otherwise. The main criticism being that the fixation points the children showed towards the characters eyes does not represent any higher levels of processing in understanding facial emotion like the study suggests. The participants may have been fixated on the eyes for reasons such as simply showing an attraction towards the characters eyes.
The phase-plane plots also highlight the increased stability of motor control that was engendered by the month of training with visual cues. Sidaway et al. (2006) The underlying mechanism by which long-term training with visual cues facilitated improvements in gait speed and step length could not be addressed by the experiment. Previous research suggested that the hypokinesia seen in people with PD may be the result of a disruption in the connections between the basal ganglia and the supplementary motor area leading to the inadequate generation of internal cues. Brotchie et al.
Even though this generation might be losing some ability to focus for long periods of time, technology is helping us adapt to the ever-changing world. There are people who believe that this generation is the dumbest, but others would disagree. Some would argue that times have changed, as have the ways of research and learning. This generation might not know the same things as their grandparents, but that is because they are taught different occurrences in history, then back when their grandparents and parents were in school. Furthermore, many people honestly believe that the technology isn’t making us stupid, but it is making that generation smarter and more capable of understanding the world around them.
There are three properties that seem to make language different from other cognitive functions. According to Willingham, (2007), humans seem to be primed to learn language without special instruction, but just by being exposed to it at a critical period in childhood. Language seems to be innate, meaning human seem to be predisposed to the learning of language. Language is special because only humans have the capability to learn the complex nuances of language. Language influences other cognitive processes.
21). Holland (2000) states that in 2000, California programs that utilized segregation methods that taught exclusively in English achieved more success than any other program that incorporated and allowed the use of both languages. However, Akkari (1998) claims that some effects of this type of program are that students often lose a sense of belonging to the class body, as they are labeled and set aside often counteracts the goal of mainstreaming. Students can also lose sight of their real goals as they feel inadequate to pursue
He concluded that at the time of college entrance the students were still handicapped by bilingualism. However, bilingual background of students had no effect on the GPAs, whereas the exception was seen in the Korean group their level of bilingualism and GPA were positively correlated .43 but Smith failed to mention this. Overall, the positive correlation between the GPA and the degree of bilingualism (in case of Korean students) was more impressive than the negative correlation between aptitude and