Laney et al. (2008) Asparagus
what were the strengths and weaknesses of this study?
Strengths: Qualitative and Quantitative data Laboratory experiment (reliability, validity) but lab also weakness - low ecological validity weaknesses: Lacks generalisability Ethical issues duration of study
STRENGTH: how was being a lab experiment a strength? validity
Study had many controls As laboratory experiments have high levels of control, researchers can be more confident it is the IV directly affecting the DV. - many controls (e.g. rating scales and false feedback given) - researchers can be more confident that it was the false feedback that was affecting participants' liking of asparagus - high validity
what were the controls in the first experiment
- only false belief p's were used in analysis, 31 subjects removed (love:17, control:14), quite sure liked asparagus first time trying it. if > 5 for critical item (FHI) = removed
What is the psychology being investigated?
False memories -> human memory subject to distortion People recall things that did not happen/happen different way, FMs created when memories are recalled FMs added to mind storage, used to 'reconstruct' memories. Eg. ''filling in the gaps'' + use false info that gets embedded in actual info.
what were the results from experiment 1? MEMORIES OR BELIEFS
asked: specific memories about loving asparagus, believed case but no specific, not been the case at all Love: - 22% memory - 35% belief - 57% memory or belief - 43% not the case Control: - 12% = memory - 28% = belief - 39% = memory or belief - 61% = not been the case difference but not statistically significant.
how did they asses the consequences of false beliefs in experiment 1? RQ, FPQ, FCQ
believers were compared to control group On RQ - believers = > desire to eat critical asparagus On FPQ - compare to control group (mean 3.84) believers (mean 6.14) reported liking asparagus > On FCQ - believers = pay more for asparagus than CG = with 14 in CG = would never buy asparagus = 0 believers selected the never buy response.
WEAKNESS: how is generalisability a weakness?
both samples: uni students who volunteered False memory production: way students' memory systems work may be diff from memory systems in other members of the population = not representative of wider population. dif to adults or children for eg
why was this study conducted?
false belief that one had a negative experience with food can lead to them avoiding the food but can a positive false belief lead to them wanting to eat food no one = tested false beliefs for positive events would lead to positive consequences for their p's
What was the independent variable for experiment 1?
implantation or no implantation of false memories Whether a p had the false belief (enjoyed asparagus as a child) embedded during 2nd part of experiment. These p = compared control (received no false belief)
what were the results for the food history inventory (FHI) for the experiment 2?
same w exp 1: 'Love' rated liking asparagus similarly before manipulation and different after Love (n=40 from 58) Week 1: 1.7 Week 2: 4.2 Control (n=33 from 45) Week 1: 1.5 Week 2: 2.5 excluded: 30 p's (18love, 12control) who were sure they loved asparagus first time they tried it = 5> on FHI scale
what were the results for memories and beliefs for experiment 2?
similar to 1st exp: results MBQ suggested those p's who were told that they loved asparagus = greater chance of generating a FM or belief to prove this false memory. Love: Memory: 28% Belief: 28% M or B: 57% not the case: 45% Control: Memory: 6% Belief: 38% M or B: 39% not the case: 56%
what was the sample for aim 1/experiment 1? how were the participants from aim one recruited?
- 128 undergraduates from University of California - volunteer sample - received course credit (incentive) - 77% female, imbalance of genders (F: 99, M:29) - average age 20.8 (collage campus) randomly assigned to either the 'love' condition (63) or the 'control' group (65) up to 8 people
what are some smaller strengths and weaknesses that could be asked in the evaluation
- Self report: asking p about feelings/attitudes/beliefs ○ S: a lot quantitative (memory or beliefs, food profile) & qualitive data (questionnaires) = compared/analysed ○ W: DC - distort behaviour to fit with the exp (SD, lie) - Independent groups: dif p's used in each condition ○ S: avoids order effects as have to do it once = < DM ○ W: > people needed, individual dif can distort results - Qualitive data: description ○ S: not restricted to no's, express themselves x limited ○ W: subjective to findings, interpretation may be bias by researchers, detailed data may not generalise to GP
what is the procedure for experiment 1?
1) Arrive at lab in groups up to 8 2) Told part of 'food preferences and personality.' •Deception - to limit demand characteristics 3) 1st week - All p's treated identically, finished FHI & RQ + p's asked to complete 3 questionnaires = distraction -> personality measure + social desirability scale + eating habits Q. 4) 1 week later (session 2) p's randomly split to love or control + given false food profiles (by computer) -> all had ''you disliked spinach'' ''you enjoyed fried foods'' ''you felt happy when a classmate bought sweets to school'' + ''you loved to eat cooked asparagus'' = 3rd -> control only had 3 fillers, no asparagus 5) to ensure p's possessed feedback, love p's responded to brief Qs about sweets + asparagus - Imagine setting in which experience happened - Where were you? Who was with you? - Scale of 1 (x at all) - 9 (very much) what extent did this experience affect your adult personality? 6) then did FHI & RQ 2nd time (compare pre and post) 7) FPQ & FCQ (additional postmanipulation measure) 8) asked to do memory of belief questionnaire 9) when materials = completed, subjects were debriefed and excused (each day's procedure = 1/2 h for subjects)
what is the background for this study?
1) Braun et al. (2002) - how advertising can change our memories of the past 2) Daniel M. Bernstein, Laney (2005) - false beliefs ab fattening foods=healthy consequences Prior this study, psychologists only focused on FM for negative/neutral events. no one = FM could be created for positive events/experiences
what is the aim for experiment 2?
1) examine possible underlying mechanisms of FM consequence effect, exploring if after false love of asparagus implanted, sight of asparagus = > appealing 2) Secondary aim - replicate + extend results of first experiment to check the reliability of the findings.
What was procedure of experiment 2
1) p's arrived at lab, told going to complete questionnaires = personal profile of eating experiences 2) all p's completed FHI, RQ and FPQ + 2 distractor ones: personality measure and social desirability scale 3) one week later p's invited back where randomly allocated 'Love' or 'Control' 4) told their responses computer processed into profile of their expected early childhood experiences w food 5) p's in 'love' given profile that contained 'you loved asparagus the first time you ate it' in 3rd position 6) after reading profile, p's completed elaboration exercise - had to give details about memory of eating asparagus/or if no memory, what might of happened 7) control told nothing ab asparagus, no elaboration 8) all p's asked: ''What is the most important childhood, food related event in our life that you food profile did not report?'' 9) slideshow 20 colour pictures common foods = 30 sec 10) asked 4 q's on each slide. scale 1 (not at all) - 8 (very) 1. how appetizing they found the food in the picture 2. how disgusting they found food in photo 3. artisitc quality off the photo 4. whether the photo was taken by a novice, amateur or expert photographer 11) p's completed RQ, FPQ, FHI 2nd time + same MBQ 12) when all questionnaires completed, p's debriefed.
What were the conclusion of experiment 2?
1) p's can be given positive false food beliefs (effecting memory) + beliefs have consequences on behaviours + attitudes to foods (effecting choices too) 2) p's who believed false feedback = > likely (compare to c) to rate a photograph of asparagus = > appetising + < disgusting. 3) Photograph measure = step towards to u cognitive mechanisms associated with false memories - the false memory prepared the participant to process images of asparagus more positively. 4) Across 2 experiments = p's could have FB implanted about whether they had a specific positive experience with asparagus and that this belief had consequences on their attitudes and even memories about that food.
What was the sample for experiment 2?
103 undergraduate students at university of Washington - received course credit (incentive) - 64 females (62%) 39 males - mean age: 19.9 years old - weren't told any aim at all randomly assigned to either 'Love' (58) or control (45)
what was the food history inventory: number of items any critical items number of points on the scale categories, examples of questions how participants answered.
1st questionnaire (FHI) - vents that may or may not have happened to you before you were 10 years old - 24 items - CI: 16th ''Loved asparagus the first time you tried it'' - 8-point scale: how certain event did/did not happen - 8 = definitely did happen, circling option - eg. Broke a piñata at a birthday party/bake bday cake
what was the restaurant questionnaire? number of items any critical items number of points on the scale categories, examples of questions how participants answered.
2nd questionnaire (RQ) - imagine out for special dinner + decide how likely they were to order each item - 32 separate food items - ''sautéed asparagus spears'' - Look like a menu - appetizers, soups/salads, entrees, sides and desserts - 8 no scale, 1 - definitely no, 8 = definitely yes - circling
what was the food preferences questionnaire? number of items any critical items number of points on the scale categories, examples of questions how participants answered.
3rd questionnaire - Rating foods + beverages items in terms of how much you enjoy it - 62 separate food items - asparagus item - 1-8, : 1 - definitely don't like to eat (for whatever reason), 8 - definitely like to eat - eg. ___ Watermelon (writing no in space provided)
what was the results for the believers and non believers? experiment 1
48% believers increased average 4.5 points (1-2) on FHI non believers increased average 0.9 points on FHI Of 22 p's = believers: - 10 claimed to have an asparagus "memory" - 12 claimed a "belief" on MBQ Memories increased average 5.5 points/Beliefs = > 3.6 = statically significant
what was the food cost questionnaire? number of items any critical items number of points on the scale categories, examples of questions how participants answered.
4th questionnaire - most they would be willing to pay for food items at a grocery store - 21 different foods - a pound of asparagus - $1.90, $2.50, $3.20, $3.80, $4.40, $5.00, $5.70 - a "would never buy'' option too
how is application to the real world an issue or debtate?
= possible to impact p's attitudes towards asparagus by giving a small amount of false info: -> help people change diets & become healthier -> help people change attitudes towards healthier food -> used with children labelled as 'fussy eaters' = 'tricked' by parents/dietician by telling them that they loved. -> If implanting FM could encourage people to eat more healthy = contribute to solving problems - obesity - implanting fm about a phobia someone has to help them view it more positively and less disgusting
STRENGTH: how was quantitative data a strength
A lot of data was collected: many questionnaires p's - Participants: 241 participants (97 - used first exp in results 73 - used second exp in results) - many questionnaires (FHI, RQ, RPQ, M&B etc) - Easy comparisons and analysis between groups - The ratings of asparagus could easily be compared. - Statistical analyses were conducted to show significant differences between the groups - easier
What were the psychological issues and debates in the study?
Application to everyday life Individual and situational explanations
what were the conclusions of experiment 1?
Convinced 48% they loved asparagus first time even when not confident that was the case at start -> False beliefs lead to consequences p's can be led to develop positively framed FB + FB = consequence on behaviour + food preferences. P's who had FB implanted > rating of love of asparagus + beliefs = impacts on how much to spend, > intention to eat asparagus in future + > preference for it
WEAKNESS: how is ethics a weakness?
Deception p's told taking part of 'food preferences + personality.' but actually about implanting false memories of the love of asparagus so participants = deceived but also needed to limit DC through awareness of the true aim. Informed consent P's did not know the true aim of the study so they could not give specific permission to take part in it. Right to withdraw Participants may have felt that they did not have the right to withdraw due to course credit received. Debriefed All the participants were debriefed.
difference between memory and belief
Distinction: memories & beliefs = remember and know Memories - the ability to recall specific structured events with some details; the participant 'remembers' an experience. Beliefs - less detailed and not tied to a specific time or place; the participant 'knows' it happened but cannot go into specific detail.
what are the aims for experiment 1 and 2?
Experiment 1: To test whether positive false memories could be implanted for a food and whether this would lead to increased liking for the food. Experiment 2: To find out whether people could be led to believe that they liked asparagus when they were young and if that made them give a higher rating to a photograph of asparagus.
what were the types of questionnaire?
FHI: Food History Inventory RQ: Restaurant questionnaire FPQ: Food Preference questionnaire FCQ: Food Costs questionnaire MBQ: Memory or Belief questionnaire + filler experiments (disguise true nature of experiment) -> Personality measure, subset of Marlowe-Crowne -> Questionnaire about eating habits
how was individual/situational argument and issue and debate?
Individual: Not everyone believed the false memory (not everyone was a believer) Situation: effect of FM embedded by telling one group of p's that they loved asparagus as a child. he controlled that info presented to p's = same (exc: asparagus) suggests info from situation = consequence on later b
WEAKNESS: how is ecological validity a weakness? weakness of lab exp
Laboratory experiments = weakness p's exp nothing like real-life ones = lack mudane realism. not a usual task: completing q's + given false feedback about eating habits Therefore, the study may lack mundane realism. - low ecological validity could have done a buffet and see who got asparagus for eg
What was the dependent variable for experiment 1? what is wrong with this type of dependent varible
Measured through use of 5 questionnaires (FHI, RQ, FPQ, FCQ, MBQ) -> questionnaires = self reports (respond through writing their answers down) -> could lead to DM. eg. social desirability
What were the believers vs nonbelievers results in experiment 2?
Participants were separated into believers or nonbelievers = same criteria as in the first experiment 40 p's in love met criteria = believers. compare to c RQ: neither believers nor control reported increase desire to eat critical asparagus when compare 2 weeks FPQ: compare to c, belivers reported > desire to eat asparagus On photograph ratings - believers rated asparagus photo > appetising than those in the control group (5.10 vs 4.00), and as less disgusting (1.81 vs 3.24).
what was the research method? what was the research design?
RM: lab experiment (artificial/not everyday event) - tested in groups of 8 •Love: n= 63 (had to say you didnt like asparagus in Q to be in group) •Control: n= 65 RD: independent groups design - either ''Love''/control
STRENGTH: how was being a lab experiment a strength? reliability
Study had a standardised procedure -> high levels of standardisation, replicated for reliability e.g Standardised questionnaires - critical item "Loved asparagus the first time you tried it," was in 16th position in FHI for every participant eg. Standardised false feedback - critical item - 'you loved to eat cooked asparagus,' = 3rd position of the profile for participants in the 'love' = other researchers could easily replicate = reliability. - 2nd experiment helped with reliability, less DC
what was the first background experiment for this study? what was it? what did they find out?
What: p's see ad (Disney) suggest they shook hands with impossible character (e.g. Bugs Bunny) as a kid Found: Ad increase confidence = creation of FM Real world: Marketers use autobiographical advertising = creates nostalgia for products = people believe they had experiences as children that are mentioned in ads
what was the second background experiment for this study? what was it? what did they find out?
What: suggest to 228 p's as children they had negative experiences with a fattening food. (eg. ill after strawberry ice cream = more likely to indicate not wanting strawberry ice cream now.) Found: is possible to convince people that as children, they experienced negative event with fat food = this FM results in avoidance in adulthood. Real world: through suggestion = manipulate nutritional selection = could improve health.
WEAKNESS: how was the duration of the study a weakness?
conduced in short space of time + p's not followed up. so not able to see how long false memories lasted questionnaires completed within mins = no way of knowing how long lasting impact so more research on longitudinal design to research durability of any attitude/behavioural consequences of FM
what was the research method for experiment 2? what was the research design for experiment 2?
method: lab experiment design: independent groups - p's 'Love' or 'control'
what was the memory or belief questionnaire?
open ended Qs to indicate whether they had a memory of an experience with 3 items from the FHI - "love" condition had CI of asparagus Choices were: - they had specific memory of the event occurring? - a belief the event had occurred (lacked specific)? - positive that the event had not occurred
what was the dependent variable of experiment 2?
operationalised: use of 4 questionaires and p's feedback to a slideshow of 20 pictures of common foods. = visual test to see if people find image more attractive after implantation of false memory
what are believers and non believers? What was the criteria for believers and non believers?
people can be more susceptible to a given manipulation to others: believers - given a low rating on the FHI when initially asked if they loved asparagus (week one) - increased their rating on the FHI when asked if they loved asparagus (week two) - given positive "memory" or "belief" response on MBQ.
what was the aim of the first experiment
to investigate whether giving false feedback (suggesting that a p had loved to eat asparagus as a child) would generate a false belief/memory of experiences linked to eating and enjoying asparagus
what were the results from experiment 1? FHI
two issues to investigate: whether subjects formed false asparagus-related beliefs + if beliefs = consequences FHI: Only FB so 31 p's (love:17, control:14) excluded as = quite sure, loved asparagus before manipulation = 97 subjects Love (46): average response increase by 2.6 points after manipulation = > confident liking asparagus first time Control (51): only increased 0.2 points = Statistically significant difference between conditions.
what was the independent variable of experiment 2?
whether p had false belief of loving asparagus embedded = these were compared with control (no FB)
why were there two experiments?
•1st aimed to see if false feedback about a liking of a food could cause a false memory and change a participant's eating behaviors •2nd experiment wanted to replicate 1st and explain cognitive mechanisms of the false memory consequence effect.