However the way in which the contextual information was presented in the experiment discussed here, could have been done better. Contextual memory, while it can include things as simple as the color or font a word appeared in seems simple enough to test, it may not accurately portray contextual memory, as people don’t always ascribe such nominal details to memory in their everyday life. Perhaps if the context was something visual other than words with different fonts and colors. If the attentional boost
Impulsivity is defined as is a multifactorial construct that involves a tendency to act on a whim, displaying behavior characterized by little or no forethought, reflection, or consideration of the consequences. But when it comes to defining it in the field of psychology, it has been observed to be quite difficult obtain a clear definition. According to Cyders (2012) as well as Verdejo-Garcia (2010), impulsivity is simply defined as behavior that is performed without initially thinking about the consequences that could arise from it. It clearly shows that humans have the vulnerability of having impulses disrupt clear plans which they would have set for themselves. When something does not go right, it can be said that impulsivity has taken over thus the inability of thinking before doing something.
This helps explain why people's behaviors are sometimes disjoined from their actual capabilities and why their behavior may differ widely even when they have similar knowledge and skills. For example, many talented people suffer frequent (and sometimes debilitating) bouts of self-doubt about capabilities they clearly possess, just as many individuals are confident about what they can accomplish despite possessing a
Possibly, this is because a person reminds us of something else in our past that we don’t like, even though we are not aware of the memory of that other being. These types of memory, both explicit and implicit memory, can also turn into repressed memories. Moreover, Elizabeth Loftus (1997), stated the repressed memories may be inaccurate or even completely false. With this, it represents false memories. In provision to her statement, implicit and explicit memories are interrelated with false memories.
Bias is less of a deep process it is more of a preference tool. Bias and Perceptions both affect the way we make decisions and the way we behave but they affect our decision making and behavior in very different ways. For example, bias effects our behavior by holding on to our preferences, and beliefs it completely disregards discordant data or knowledge. It may cause us to act rashly in a situation because of the information we retained from a similar event or it can cause us to act calmly. Our bias actions can be traced using one of the six perspective in psychology which is a biological perspective because sometimes our biased views and actions are instilled in us from a young age and we aren’t aware of it.
The remember-know procedure has been criticised for its reliance on an individual report of recollection and familiarity, resulting in variability (Strack & Forster, 1995). Due to this, NB's receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were tested, relying on confidence ratings of old or new items based on recollection and familiarity by stating that they are two individual processes. Results showed her familiarity was still lower than controls, but this may be because she appeared unwilling to give low confidence responses. She also maintained higher confidence responses for recollection. Although these results suggest the hippocampus is necessary for recollection, and perirhinal cortex for familiarity, it is important to consider that other areas likely affected during surgery may also produce similar
What accounts for the divergent and intriguing results observed in this recent research? Although within-person analyses appear to be essential to reveal the negative self-efficacy effect, it seems untenable to conclude that all positive effects of self-efficacy on performance observed in the vast body of existing research are little more than artifacts of between-persons methodology. As Bandura and Locke (2003) noted, the voluminous research on self-efficacy has utilized varied methodologies, including designs in which self-efficacy was experimentally altered both between persons and within persons. With few exceptions, these studies have found self-efficacy to positively relate to subsequent performance. These results, when considered alongside those reported by Vancouver and colleagues (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Vancouver et al., 2002, 2001), highlight the variable nature of the self-efficacy and performance relationship, as both positive and negative relationships have been observed even among studies conducted at the within-person level of analysis.
Based on this research, the present study’s results concerning emotion are confusing when considering the evidence highlighting the importance of eye gaze and fearful emotional perception. However, it may be more pronounced in individuals with trait anxiety (Mathews et al., 2003), which could explain the conflicting evidence. The effect of mundane realism may also contribute to this effect, as anxious participants reliably respond to danger-related stimuli much more than controls (MacLeod & Mathews, 1988), therefore fearful expressions alone may not be sufficient to illicit such a response in non-anxious individuals (Mathews et al., 2003). As such, it is recommended that further research be conducted by differentiating participants based on anxiety levels,
This is because disagreement depending on the situation hinders the process of consensus by creating a hiatus in the process of the development of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge through disagreement could be obstructed by human emotions and the accompanied biases which transcend logical reasoning; religion and age-old traditions that virtually descended into the hands of their followers are common examples. In such cases, disagreement, either fails to penetrate human thinking or else, serves to further strengthen the existing belief. Similarly, reasoning (inductive or deductive) help the two parties demonstrate the truth in their arguments. Therefore, certain ways of knowing can influence the extent to which disagreement may aid or hinder the pursuit of knowledge.
Emotion as a way of knowing hinders our ability to make good judgments because it is sometimes impulsive; it qualifies as an impediment in obtaining knowledge so it does not exactly serve as a check on our instinctive judgments. This suggests that not all ways of knowing are a check on instinctive judgments. One may also argue that an instinctive action could have at least saved at least one and at best five lives; whereas a reasoned decision may save none. Besides that, if ways of knowing verify our instinctive judgments, then these are no longer instinctual, they are now made based on ways of knowing, not instinct. Impulse allows us to react instantly, but are there times when it is not vital?