So You Think You Can Multi-task?

If I asked you how many things you are able to do at one time, what would you say? 1? 2? More?

Well, if you said anything more than one, you are wrong. What about multi-tasking? Ah, that is where this all begins. Let’s start off by recognizing that multi-tasking is, in fact, not a thing. We are not capable of dividing our attention between multiple tasks without our work suffering. Perhaps you are watching a movie while reading this blog post or checking your phone for a text message. Now as you finish reading this sentence, can you think back and tell me exactly what just happened in your movie? I didn’t think so.

Research has shown that no matter the source of the various tasks, multitasking is not only impossible, but it can also be detrimental. According to research done at Stanford University in 2009 (see reference link at the bottom of the post), even if all of the multitasking is related, such as all media tasks, the allegedly successful “multi-tasker” is easily distracted, lacks focus, and cannot control his/her memory. These consequences to multi-tasking can even become fatal when it comes to the ever-so-popular topic of texting while driving. We all say we don’t do it and we all blame teenagers and how naïve and inexperienced they are as drivers as well as how caught up they are with the media era. However, I can say from personal experience that every time I have come close to being hit by a car (while in the crosswalk, mind you), it has been an adult or even a parent 

behind the wheel barely avoiding an accident with my unprotected, pedestrian body.

Furthering the texting while driving example, let’s run through this together to see what happens to our attention when we do something like that. So as you are driving, you are focusing on the road (I hope!). Then you hear that ever-so-obnoxious ding of your cell phone in the passenger seat, you reach over to pick it up, and look down to see what the notification was for. Ooh a text message! Now that you realize your mom, dad, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, or whoever REALLY wants to get in contact with you and say “what’s up,” you decide you need to reply A.S.A.P. When you look down at your phone to reply to the message, you no longer pay attention to the road. You have no idea if a turn is coming up, or a crosswalk, or a tree, or a dead end. You have absolutely no idea, even if you think you have a photographic memory of the road and are absolutely flawless at estimating distance travelled. As you realize that you have no idea where your car is currently going and wonder if you’re about to run off the road, you look back up at the road and change your attention to driving. However, in doing this you have probably just forgotten what that text message said and what you were planning to respond. Uh-oh. Now you have to try to remember what it was you were going to say and as you work towards recalling this very information, you once again stray your attention away from the road. It is absolutely impossible for you to focus all, or even half, of your attention on each task simultaneously. However, because the switch in focus happens so quickly we believe that we are in fact good at multi-tasking and that we are paying full attention.

So the next time you have to sit down and write an essay or do your math homework, or even write a blog post, turn off "27 Dresses," ignore your phone, complete the task at hand and then move on. Your brain will thank you, your grades will thank you, and really, what’s the harm? I’m sure Jill or Bob or whoever it is will still want to know "what’s up" in an hour or so. And now you understand how divided attention works (or doesn't work!). I promised to teach you something new in each post, after all.

Stanford research link: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html

How do we perceive? A guest post by Sal Schiano

In class we learned that sensation is defined as the signals received by our organs through the five senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste & touch).  And perception is how we experience those sensations.  

The Gestalt psychologists, in an attempt to explain how we perceive objects, believed that we group things together in order to interpret information more easily, i.e. we use heuristics to understand the world around us. For example, the law of similarity explains that when we see a row of dots we refer to it as a “row of dots,” rather than repeating “dot” as many times as there are dots in the row.

Perception is influenced by our knowledge of regularities in the environment, for example: if you were to look at a picture of a tree, with half of it cropped out, you would probably know that the object in the picture was a tree. How? Because of our knowledge of certain physical regularities that occur in the physical properties of the environment -- you know that trees in nature have whole, round, large trunks, and branches and leaves on both sides. Just because you cannot see the other half of the tree does not mean it doesn’t exist.

The information the stimulus is giving us (bottom-up processing) is that there is half of a tree. Then your top-down processing acknowledges what you know about trees:  trees do not grow in such a way to only sprout on one side of it, nor are there any living tree trunks out there that are split down the middle. So you know that the picture must be cropped.

Think of waiting at the bus stop and seeing the bus coming, but its way far, down the road. It looks small, you could even cover it up with your thumb if you close one eye, but you know it’s not the small size it appears from a distance because you know there are people on there and that there is still plenty of room left to hold you. You realize that things do not change size just because it appears so. It may appear small from a distance, but that does not mean it is actually small; this is size consistency. All of these concepts occur without us actively thinking about them. 

Representing the Marvels of the World with Spatial and Propositional Imagery. A guest post by Nicholas Imlach

Spatial representation uses an image, or part of an image, to explain where something specifically is (see photo). Propositional representations, on the other hand, use symbols or statements to explain where something is (e.g. cat under table).  Although most textbooks will talk about these two types of representation as a debate or a great divide in mental imagery research, I could not help but use the two types of representation in conjunction. While going over mental imagery in last week’s class, I could not help but use propositional information to paint a more vivid representation of a concept that one would normally think of spatially.

While in class I thought about different well-known landmarks such as the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls, and thought of the implications of both spatial and propositional representations when describing these landmarks to someone. As opposed to driving up and seeing the grandiose size of the objects in your visual field, how could I describe such wonders in words. I’m sure most people, at one time or another, have seen a picture of the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls and have thought about (if they had not been there before) the true scale of these marvels . By invoking propositional information, such as the specific dimensions of the natural phenomenon in relation to more familiar objects, someone may be able to generate a clearer spatial image when describing such important monuments.

To clarify the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words,” unless there is previous or given knowledge available to the person looking at the photograph, there is nothing to assist them in scaling the object. One can look at a picture of Niagara Falls and say it is a big waterfall, but how big is “big?” Someone looking at a picture without a scale or relative comparisons could make a judgment or attempt to guess how big. However,  using some additional information, they may be able to form a representation that is more vivid and precise. While looking at the picture, the person showing it to them tells them what the tour guide told them: The Canadian “Horseshoe” part of the falls, for example, is 167 feet high, 2,600 feet around, and roughly 600,000 gallons water go over the falls per second.

Now, looking at the picture above, one may be able to infer how big this part of Niagara Falls actually is, but could they really grasp the enormity without the propositional information? I do not think they could. I do believe with the combination of the spatial (image) and the propositional (verbal/written description), they may be able to. Say the person looking at the picture lives in a 15-story apartment building on the 15^th floor, which is about 150-160 feet high. Maybe that person is also an avid runner and knows that 2,600 feet is about half a mile and knows a specific part of their run which equals half a mile. Now with the propositional representation in conjunction with the spatial one, the person is beginning to create a vivid representation of the concept “Niagara Falls.” The person could say, for example: “If I stood on the roof of my apartment building and looked out, the Falls would be to the pavement below and would stretch to the restaurant down the street. That is a long distance.” I believe the only way to make an accurate spatial representation is by using propositional information as a guide. 

Optical Illusions

Some of my favorite optical illusions stem from 3-D chalk drawings. With bottom-up processing your first response is a response to the stimulus (the drawing and the subject matter of the drawing). For example, in the drawing to the right, one might first react to the thoughts evoked by the drawing such as someone actually falling off of scaffolding. However, once you gained knowledge from outside sources you would realize "wait, I'm standing on the sidewalk," "this is just chalk," or perhaps even "hey, I saw this one online!"
This is how perception and sensation can initially deceive us when it comes to visual imagery and stimuli.

Disclaimer: so perhaps these aren't the most realistically thought-provoking opitcal illusions, but I bet if you were walking down the street and saw this you would temporarily freak out (perhaps due to seeing it out of the corner of your eye), or stop short, asses the stimulant, and walk around it as you wrote it off as a chalk drawing and nothing more.

photo courtesy of: http://www.thisismarvelous.com/postImages/Julian_Beever_3D_optical_illusion_chalk_drawings-normal.jpg

Connecting Cognitive Psychology and Research Methods. A guest post by Kyle Luke.

                I found it extremely beneficial to review the importance of experiments and of conducting them in the correct manner.  I am taking Research III and thought that it was very helpful to get a refresher on properly conducting an experiment.   In Research III, we have to design and conduct an experiment, which allows us to use what our years of psychology classes have taught us.  As an honors student this is particularly helpful in writing the required honors thesis as I am hoping to use what I learn from my Research III study to take a deeper look at how psychology can affect the justice system and people in general.  Although, my experiment is currently in the planning phases, I am hoping to use what I learn in Cognitive Psychology in my study. 

                While reviewing and working on the group experiment project I was able to think about my own study and thesis, as well as plan out the way I would like to conduct my own experiment.  One thing that I noticed from the group work was how I had overlooked the importance of having a random group of participants (a random sample).  As I thought more about it I realized that it is unlikely that I would be able to acquire an accurate account from unbiased participants, due to the manner that the Psychology department acquires participants.  Currently, the psychology department requires that all students taking General Psychology take part in the Research III studies, yet this is not a random sample as these students are mostly psychology majors/minors and tend to be younger students because it is a pre-requisite for most psychology classes.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the participants would represent the overall student body accurately.  This may pose a problem as I hope to have my experiment and its results published.  It also got me thinking about how I would like to present my experiment to the participants; should I mainly use qualitative or quantitative methods, and how would I ensure that my biases would not affect the participants?  The variables for my study are something I still have to think about as I have not given it much thought thus far.  Yet, during the exercise I realized just how much of an impact something as simple as time or location can affect the results of a study.  I understand that it is not possible to control all variables, but I would like to control as much as I can or I would like to find a way to record it. 

                Going over the requirements for conducting the ideal experiment was a great refresher and has helped my work in my other classes.  I have not really focused on many Cognitive Psychology concepts, yet I feel that it is important for me to look at some of their ideas.  It has allowed me to look at my study with a new perspective and helped me plan out a large portion of it. I feel much more prepared to talk to my professor about my study and the manner with which I want to conduct it. I still have a long way to go in finalizing and conducting the study, but I’m sure that I will be able to use what I learn in class to help me along the way.  

Where did this come from?! The history of Cognitive Psychology

                For those of you who don’t know, Cognitive Psychology is one branch on the “Tree of Psychology;” this branch is concerned with the scientific and empirical study of the mind. What is the mind? It’s an abstract thought to some, intangible and almost indescribable. Where is the line drawn differentiating between the mind and the brain? Is there a difference?

                Cognitive psychologists believe there is. When we think of the brain we think of that somewhat wrinkly-looking, butt-shaped mass hanging out in our heads. We think of neurotransmitters and synapses. We think biology. However, when we think of the mind we tend to think about consciousness, conscientiousness, decision-making, and perhaps spirituality: the mind-body connection.

                The mind creates and controls mental functions we use every day from perception and attention, to memory, emotions, language, and reasoning. However, aside from saying so, is there any way to truly separate the brain from the mind and vice versa? Can you have a brain and not have a mind?

                Okay, so that’s unlikely. However, a lot of things seemed unlikely not so long ago in this fairly new field. In 1868 a Dutch physiologist by the name of Franciscus Donders wanted to know just how long it takes to make a decision. How can that be measured? Donders measured reaction time (the time it takes to respond to the presentation of a stimulus, i.e. a picture or light): simple reaction time (reaction time to one stimulus) v. choice reaction time (reaction time to choose between multiple stimuli). This was the first dabble in the field of Cognitive Psychology, before it was a recognized field (or even named).

                Fast forward to the 1890s when the still unnamed field revolved around introspection. William James published a textbook based on introspections of his own mind – he basically wrote a textbook about his thoughts and feelings about his own thoughts and feelings. It was slightly roundabout, but it was progress. However, once the early 1900s hit, the “Tree of Psychology” was overpowered by behaviorism. Behaviorists believed in studying observable behavior/behavioral changes and chose to forget about the mind as an entity. They believed all behavior was caused by responses to stimuli and that introspection was entirely too flawed.

                Okay, so perhaps introspection wasn’t perfect. Neither was behaviorism. However, both were necessary to the birth of Cognitive Psychology. While John Watson evoked a fear of small, white things in a 9-month old baby (Google “Little Albert”) and B.F. Skinner made rats run around and learn to push bars, they were really leading up to the Cognitive Revolution. Chance Tolman, a self-proclaimed behaviorist, was actually a cognitive psychologist before the title existed. When Tolman studied rats as they explored a maze, he came to learn that perhaps rats are capable of developing cognitive maps – no matter where the rat is relocated, it is capable of finding the reward (food). Perhaps there is something to this whole “mind” nonsense (light bulb!).

                The 1950s marked the Cognitive Revolution, 1956 being noted as “the birthday of cognitive science.” Much curiosity spurred during this time, from Cherry’s attention and recollection experiment to the beginnings of artificial intelligence to the number of items the human mind is capable of processing (seven, plus or minus two – George Miller). Cognitive Psychology built off of behaviorism, but while it measures behavior it also infers mental processes. In 1967 Ulrich Nesser published the first Cognitive Psychology textbook.

                Think of how long ago 1967 was – likely you or your parents were alive at this time or perhaps before it. Cognitive Psychology became a more recognized and respected field after both of my parents were born – this is a baby science! Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It depends how you look at it. It can be said that because it is a newer field it does not have as much information as other fields; however this is good news to the optimist and innovator and bad news to the reader and note-taker. You have the chance to make discoveries in this field, more so than some other, more-developed fields. If you’re not interested in psychology at all, you likely have a friend or relative who is. How cool would it be to read his/her name in a textbook or see him/her on the news talking about the latest ground-breaking research? Cognitive Psychology has become a subarea where you have the chance to make a name for yourself, connect the mind and behavior, and understand why people see things, remember things, decide things the way they do. So while there may be much currently left unanswered, there is still much that has been answered and much more waiting to be discovered.

Well, I know this was a rather historical post, but without reading about the history of Cognitive Psychology and how it came to be, how could you enjoy my future posts about how it is seen in our daily lives? Keep an eye here to read more about perception, illusions, multi-tasking, etc. I promise you’ll learn at least one new thing in every post!