KULKOFSKY ET AL.

 aim was to investigate formation of FBM in individualistic and collectivistic

cultures.
- Study for role of emotion on cognition/behavior.
- Study for dimensions.
- Study for research methods in sociocultural approach
- Culture and its role on cognition/behavior

BERRY STUDY  aim was to investigate the level of conformity in individualistic and collectivist
countries based on the previous study done in 1959 by Barry, Bacon, Child.
- Culture and its role on cognition/behavior
- Dimensions

FAGOT  to observe parents’ reaction when children would engage in behaviors deemed as
inappropriate for their gender.
- Study for enculturation

ODEN AND ROCHAT  aim: to investigate role of observational learning (based on SCT) in
enculturation in Samoa.
- Study for enculturation
- Study for dimensions

LUECK AND WILSON  aim: to investigate how different variables play a role in acculturation
stress in nationally representative sample of Asian and Asian-americans
- Study for research methods in sociocultural approach
- Study for assimilation

STEELE AND ARONSON  aim:

- For stereotypes

HAMILTON AND GIFFORD  aim:

- Stereotypes
JOY, KIMBALL, ZABRACK 
BANDURA 
TAJFEL 
GLANC AND CUNITZ 
HM MILNER 
YUILE AND CUTSHALL
PALMER AND LOFTUS
SHAROT ET AL
TVERSKY AND KAHNEMAN
ENGLICH AND MUSSWEILER
 SHAROT ET AL.
AIM: to examine role of biological factors on flashbulb memories.
o Flashbulb memories are vivid, in great details memories of events that left an
emotional impression on us due to its being extremely unexpected or surprising. First
proposed by Brown and Kulik who also came up with the concept of ‘SPECIAL-
SYSTEM MECHANISM” that indicates the brain has a special way of storing
unexpected and emotionally arousing memories due to the SPECIAL NEURAL
MECHANISM.
PROCEDURE: quasi-experiment, done 3 years after the 9/11 attack. There were 24 participants, who
were recruited through advertisement. Then underwent fMRI during which they were showed a list
of words that they either were meant to link with 9/11 event or summer.
After scanning the participants rated their memories for vividness, detail and confidence. They wrote
descriptions of their personal memories.
FINDINGS: only half reported FBM, typically those closer to the World Trade Center.
o They showed activity in amygdala when recalling 9/11 events, indicating that the
proximity to the event may engage the neural mechanisms that create vivid, detailed
memories.
EVALUATION:
 KULKOFSKY ET AL
AIM: was to examine the creation of FBM across different cultures (individualistic and collectivistic
cultures).
o Flashbulb memories are vivid, in great details memories of events that left an
emotional impression on us due to its being extremely unexpected or surprising. First
proposed by Brown and Kulik who also came up with the concept of ‘SPECIAL-
SYSTEM MECHANISM” that indicates the brain has a special way of storing
unexpected and emotionally arousing memories due to the SPECIAL NEURAL
MECHANISM.
o The concept of culture assumes that there are various dimensions that are
represented by a culture (proposed by Hofstede). One dimension was about
individualistic vs collectivistic cultures.
 Collectivistic are more common to form coherent, strong groups where
people share values, experiences, etc.
 Individualistic are more common to have loose ties between members of the
group. They take into consideration personal experiences in most of the time.
PROCEDURE: study involved participants from 5 different countries of individualistic and collectivistic
cultures – china, Germany, turkey, usa and uk.
They were asked to recall public, important events that happened at least one year prior to the study.
Basing on those memories the researchers concluded a ‘memory questionnaire’ with questions based
on Brown and Kulik questionnaire:
1. Where were they during the event,
2. With whom were they,
3. What were they doing,
4. How did they find out about it,
5. What time of the day was it.
o The questionnaires were back-translated into the participants’ native language to
avoid it being a confounding variable.
They were also asked about the event’s importance on national and personal level.
RESULTS: showed that in collectivistic countries like China, the personal experience and emotional
intensity were less important in formation of FBM in comparison to individualistic countries such as
USA.
On national importance, in both cultures the formation of FBM seemed to be linked.
EVALUATION:
 LOFTUS AND PALMER
AIM: to investigate whether leading questions would affect the participants’ memory of an event.
o RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY is a concept of recalling memories and adding details
that weren’t present in the event or when we omit details that were there.
 It is often due to misinformation effect, which is the leading questions that
are suggestive in some way or due to post-event information which is all that
a person is exposed to after witnessing something. Those cause memory to
distort.
PROCEDURE: Participants were students, divided into 5 groups with 9 participants in them. they were
showed 7 short videos of traffic accidents. After watching them, they were asked to describe what
they had seen.
The researchers then would give them a questionnaire with questions regarding the accidents. One of
the questions was critical, regarding the speed of the cars in an accident. In the question how fast
were they going, the researchers use verb ‘hit’ in one group and changed it to other, more intensified
verbs such as ‘smashed’, ‘bumped’, ‘contacted’.
- Changed words were the IV, while DV was the accuracy of speed estimation.
o The expectation was that in the condition with more intense verbs, the participants
would estimate a higher speed of cars.
RESULTS: showed that the assumption was correct, and participants who were given questions with
more intense verbs were more likely to say the cars were going at a higher speed.
EVALUATION:
- Done under controlled conditions and it’s an artificial situation. The participants were
watching accidents, not witnessing them real-life. That could’ve played a role in how they
approached the topic. They might’ve showed less interest in events, that they weren’t
involved in emotionally.
- Because there’s independent samples design used, there’s participant variability. Their
approach towards the sensitive topic of accidents might’ve different, or they could have
different memory abilities.
- Awareness of being a part of a study could result in demand characteristics. Their answers
might’ve been influenced by what they believed the researcher wanted to gain.
- Can be replicated with other populations to establish reliability.
 YUILE AND CUTSHALL
A study similar to LOFTUS AND PALMER.
AIM: was to investigate if leading questions would affect the witnesses’ memory of an event.
o RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY is a concept of recalling memories and adding details
that weren’t present in the event or when we omit details that were there.
 It is often due to misinformation effect, which is the leading questions that
are suggestive in some way or due to post-event information which is all that
a person is exposed to after witnessing something. Those cause memory to
distort.
PROCEDURE: after a real-life accident of a thief shooting a gun shop owner, researchers interviewed
13 out of 21 participants few months after the accident.
In the interviews they used leading questions that aimed to mislead the participants. Half of the
group was asked about a non-existent headlight, the other half was asked about a yellow panel on
the getaway car. Both of those details weren’t present in the situation. They were also asked to rate
their stress level on that day.
The researchers use actual police reports to compare and contrast the answers of participants.
RESULTS: showed that 10 out of 13 participants actually weren’t mislead by the leading questions,
and showed real reliability of memory. In comparison to police reports they showed around 75% of
similarity.
They also didn’t report stress, but mostly adrenaline.
EVALUATION:
- The participants reported feeling adrenaline, which could mean the memory are a case of
flashbulb memories when an event leaves an emotional impact on a individual. That makes
the study difficult to compare to LOFTUS AND PALMER, who specifically focus on
reconstructive memory.
- Because the study took part some months after, the participants could’ve been exposed to
post-event information that established how well they remember the details of an event. If
they for example saw descriptions of the cars, they are less likely to be mislead by a question
as they’re certain of what others saw, too.
- The findings can be said to be generalizable, as the event is an actual real-life situation.
However, it would apply only to population who were also witnesses of a similar accident. It’s
difficult to establish, whether other accidents leave a similar impact on a population.
- There was a possibility of causing stress / anxiety, when demanding the participants to recall
the event. It’s unclear to what extent has the accident left the person emotionally disrupted
after witnessing it.
 TVERSKY AND KAHNEMAN
AIM: to investigate whether people will rely on the first piece of information given in a math equation
task.
When thinking we use either system 1 or system 2 thinking. System 1 is more intuitive and effortless
way of thinking. Because it’s fast and not based on logic, it’s more prone to mistakes. It also uses
mental shortcuts, which are heuristics. Commonly used for every-day decisions. System 2 on the
other hand, is a logical, rational thinking that requires concentration and effort. It’s less prone to
mistake and used to analyze things around us.
- One thing that may influence how we think are cognitive biases which are systematic errors
in judgements and decisions that people make, often caused by little time to think, being
overwhelmed with things on our minds, or due to lack of desire/resources that cause us to
use heuristics.
o An example of a heuristic is ANCHORING BIAS, that occurs when people rely on the
first piece of information (anchor) they are given.
WHEN referring to thinking and decision making: EXPLAIN thinking processes – decision making and
problem solving.
o Decision making is a person choosing between options that’s often based on values
or preferences. It’s how we come to conclusions or reach solutions.
 Meanwhile, problem-solving is the process occurring within the decision
making. It’s us finding different ways of finding a solution to a
challenge/problem by creating a plan in our head.
 THEN, refer to system 1 system 2 thinking.
PROCEDURE: involved participants who were divided into two conditions, 1st condition was ascending
condition: they had to calculate 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 in 5 seconds. 2nd condition was descending
condition: 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1. The researchers assumed that the first piece of information, which is
the number 1 and 8 in this case will act as anchors and lead the participants to estimate a value that’s
based on it.
RESULTS: the assumption was correct, the descending condition predicted a higher value than
ascending condition, due to the anchor being a higher number (8>1)
EVALUATION OF THINKING SYSTEMS:
- It’s unclear how the different systems work together, the model doesn’t elaborate on that.

- It also assumes that every fast procession of information is categorized as system 1 thinking.
o However, that may not be always a case. Sometimes there are factors that may
influence how system 2 thinking works, such as experience which enhances how fast
we act/think in situations we are familiar with.

- It also doesn’t explain how emotion may influence how we think and process information.
Under stress we’re more likely to be prone to mistakes even if we use system 2.
EVALUATION OF THE STUDY:
- Artificial situation. Not often are we put in situations where we have to calculate something
in a very limited period of time. Also, because it’s done under controlled conditions, it
 doesn’t represent mundane realism. Perhaps, there’s a chance of thinking differently when
being in a natural environment.

- because independent samples design was used, the variability in participants might’ve played
a role in their approach towards the task. There is a possibility that some participants
might’ve developed mathematical skills or under-developed which would cause them to be
either be able/unable to calculate in a fast pace.

- Because there was little time to do the task, it could’ve resulted in stress within the
participants, which would cause them to underperform.

- It’s easily replicable. Even if a sample isn’t totally representative, other populations could be
studied to test if the findings apply to every population.
 ENGLICH AND MUSSWEILER
AIM: to see if a prosecutor’s recommended sentence would influence a judge’s final decision on an
alleged rape case.
When thinking we use either system 1 or system 2 thinking. System 1 is more intuitive and effortless
way of thinking. Because it’s fast and not based on logic, it’s more prone to mistakes. It also uses
mental shortcuts, which are heuristics. Commonly used for every-day decisions. System 2 on the
other hand, is a logical, rational thinking that requires concentration and effort. It’s less prone to
mistake and used to analyze things around us.
- One thing that may influence how we think are cognitive biases which are systematic errors
in judgements and decisions that people make, often caused by little time to think, being
overwhelmed with things on our minds, or due to lack of desire/resources that cause us to
use heuristics.
o An example of a heuristic is ANCHORING BIAS, that occurs when people rely on the
first piece of information (anchor) they are given.
WHEN referring to thinking and decision making: EXPLAIN thinking processes – decision making and
problem solving.
o Decision making is a person choosing between options that’s often based on values
or preferences. It’s how we come to conclusions or reach solutions.
 Meanwhile, problem-solving is the process occurring within the decision
making. It’s us finding different ways of finding a solution to a
challenge/problem by creating a plan in our head.
 THEN, refer to system 1 system 2 thinking.
PROCEDURE: study involved a sample of young trial judges, 19 of them both female and male. They
were given a case of an alleged rape to read through and then propose a sentence. The case material
was formed via advice of more experienced judges – that served as a PILOT STUDY.
o The older judges served as a representation of SYSTEM 2 thinking, they were a
control group.
There were two conditions: in the 1st condition the prosecutor demanded a 2-month sentence (low
anchor), and in the 2nd condition the prosecutor demanded a 34-month sentence (high anchor).
Expectations were that the young judges who had 15 minutes to read the case and make a decision
would base their sentence on the prosecutor’s decision.
o The little time pushes them to use system 1 thinking rather than system 2 thinking,
which is more prone to mistakes and heuristics – the anchor bias in this case.
RESULTS: showed that in the 1st condition mean estimated sentence was 18 months, and in the 2nd
condition mean estimated sentence was 28 months. That would mean that the judges based their
sentences on the recommendations by the prosecutor.
FINDINGS: we can draw conclusions, that system 1 is often used due to lack of time to decide
rationally which makes us lead towards the mental shortcuts. The recommendations served as an
anchor on which the trial judges based their answers, as they had no time to use their system 2
thinking.
EVALUATION OF THINKING SYSTEMS:
 - It’s unclear how the different systems work together, the model doesn’t elaborate on that.

- It also assumes that every fast procession of information is categorized as system 1 thinking.
o However, that may not be always a case. Sometimes there are factors that may
influence how system 2 thinking works, such as experience which enhances how fast
we act/think in situations we are familiar with.

- It also doesn’t explain how emotion may influence how we think and process information.
Under stress we’re more likely to be prone to mistakes even if we use system 2.
EVALUATION OF A STUDY:
- The sample was made of young trial judges, therefore findings are very restricted to the
population of people with similar experience. It’s difficult to generalize the findings outside
the study.
- The experiment allowed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the sentence
and anchor.
- The PILOT STUDY helped to establish reliable and sensible anchors. The use of more
experienced judges served as control group, which demonstrated the system 2 thinking in
comparison to the experimental condition.
 LANDRY AND BARTLING
Aim: to see if articulatory suppression would influence free recall of phonologically dissimilar letters.
- WMM includes several components, and assumes that STM consists of several units, not just
big, single one (like MSM claims it). said components are:
o Central executive, which has the capacity to focus, divide, and switch attention
between tasks. It has a limited capacity of things we can attend to at once. It’s
modality-free, meaning it processes any sensory memory.
o The phonological loop consists of two components, articulatory control system, the
‘inner voice’ that holds heard words that are repeated like a silent voice. Phonological
store, which hold auditory memory traces. It receives information either from LTM
(verbal form) or sensory memory (auditory).
o Visuo-spatial sketchpad is a temporary store for visual, spatial information received
either from sensory memory or LTM. The visual cache recalls structure of things
(color, shape) while the inner scribe processes spatial and movement information. It
helps to guide us around for e.g. cities as it localizes things.
o Central buffer holds several sources of information active at once while we decide
what’s needed in the current situation.
 Articulatory suppression is what blocks the inner-voice, a.k.a. articulatory
control system. It’s used by the researchers when they want to directly block
the ability to rehearse (articulate) information that an individual wants to
learn.
 When trying to do two tasks at once that use the same store, we are unable
to do both of them equally well due to input overload.

PROCEDURE: the participants were undergraduate psychology students, who were given a task of
recalling a list of phonologically dissimilar letters. The study used independent samples design and
divided the participants intro conditions:
1st condition, the participants were showed the lists and at the same time had to say 1-2, 1-2, while
recalling the words until they filled out the answer sheet. That served as an articulatory suppression
condition.  they used DUAL-TASK TECHNIQUE, which is doing two tasks at the same time.
In the 2nd condition the participants only had to recall the letters that each was showed for 5 seconds.
After another 5 seconds passed they were able to write down the letters.
- BOTH conditions were repeated 10 times.
The IV in the study was the distractive task (1-2, 1-2) and DV was the accuracy of recalling the letters.
RESULTS: showed that in the articulatory suppression condition the accuracy of the letters was lower
than in the 2nd condition. It supports the claim that articulatory suppression prevents rehearsal, due
to phonological loop overload.
EVALUATION OF THE WMM:
- The model itself can be seen as over-simplified. It doesn’t explain how different stores work
together. It also focuses on the STM only, it doesn’t explain how does LTM store memories.
- The role of the central executive is unclear. It’s not well explained what exactly central
executive is.
 - It doesn’t explain the role of emotions on memory formation, and doesn’t explain memory
distortion.
- Some of the WMM studies have been criticized for having low internal validity, or ecological
validity due to methodological restrictions such as unrepresentative methods.
- However, WMM may explain how we’re able to multi-task in certain situations and why in
some we are not.
- Brain scans have showed that different parts of the brain are active when doing visual tasks
than verbal tasks.
- It’s supported by biological evidence of patients with brain injury such as KF.
EVALUATION OF THE STUDY:
- The sample used psychology students. Therefore, there’s a chance that they showed demand
characteristics. They might’ve figured out the aim of the study, and aimed to provide the
researcher with data that would satisfy him.
- It is done in lab environment, It allows for cause-and-effect relationship to be established
between articulatory suppression task and ability of rehearsal and recall.
o However, the nature of the study itself is rather artificial. In real-life settings there
could be more variables affecting the way something is recalled, and not often are we
expected to remember letters.
o It’s easily replicable, so it can be tested with other populations to see whether the
findings could be generalized to a wider population.

WARRINGTON AND SHALLICE

- WMM includes several components, and assumes that STM consists of several units, not just
big, single one (like MSM claims it). said components are:
o Central executive, which has the capacity to focus, divide, and switch attention
between tasks. It has a limited capacity of things we can attend to at once. It’s
modality-free, meaning it processes any sensory memory.
o The phonological loop consists of two components, articulatory control system, the
‘inner voice’ that holds heard words that are repeated like a silent voice. Phonological
store, which hold auditory memory traces. It receives information either from LTM
(verbal form) or sensory memory (auditory).
o Visuo-spatial sketchpad is a temporary store for visual, spatial information received
either from sensory memory or LTM. The visual cache recalls structure of things
(color, shape) while the inner scribe processes spatial and movement information. It
helps to guide us around for e.g. cities as it localizes things.
o Central buffer holds several sources of information active at once while we decide
what’s needed in the current situation.
 Articulatory suppression is what blocks the inner-voice, a.k.a. articulatory
control system. It’s used by the researchers when they want to directly block
the ability to rehearse (articulate) information that an individual wants to
learn.
 When trying to do two tasks at once that use the same store, we are unable
to do both of them equally well due to input overload.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The patient KF suffered from brain injury as a result of motorcycle
accident. His LTM seemed to be intact but the STM showed impairment.
AIM: to investigate the relationship between the STM and LTM when STM is impaired.
PROCEDURE: It was a longitudinal study that lasted over 4 years. The observers in 1972 noticed that
KF couldn’t remember information (words, numbers) presented to him orally but he had no issue
recalling them when presented to him visually (visual-spatial sketchpad?).
o This suggests that there are different stores for visual and verbal information
(phonological loop). His impairment seemed to be mainly for verbal information
rather than visual.
Later testing showed that although he couldn’t recall verbal information, he had no issue
remembering sounds like ringing of a phone or cat meowing.
RESULTS: researchers concluded that his STM impairment was mainly for verbal and auditory
information, rather than non-verbal and visual information. Findings indicate that the phonological
store seemed to be more unaffected as he could still remember sounds, but the articulatory control
system couldn’t encode heard words.
EVALUATION:
- Because it’s a study done on one person, findings are difficult to generalize. However, there
are other cases of patients who suffered from brain injury and provided evidence for different
memory stores in STM.
- No other explanation to how material is transferred into LTM if STM is impaired.
- It was a longitudinal study, which allowed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship and
observe changes over time.
- It supports both WMM and MSM, as it provides evidence for separate STM stores (wmm) and
separate STM and LTM units.
 HM, MILNER
AIM: to study the effects that the operation done by William Scoville had on HM’s brain.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: HM suffered from serious brain injury at the age of 7 when he got hit
by a cyclist. He would experience severe epileptic seizures that made him unable to lead a normal life
by the age of 27. He and his family then consented to undergo an experimental surgery done by
neuroseurgon William Scoville who removed tissue from the medial temporal lobe (including
hippocampus) from both sides of his brain.
- It is a study that supports MSM, that claims that that STM and LTM are separate stores.
o STM is a temporal store for memories that last around 6-12 seconds. Without active
rehearsal they’ll be forgotten. STM acts as a gateway for information to reach LTM. 
The rehearsed information then are turned into LTM that’s long-term almost
permanent memories about everything we’ve learnt in life.

- Several memory types are included in MSM, such as declarative memories of facts, events
and consciously-recalled information.
o EPISODIC MEMORY, regarding events and what time and place they took place in;
o SEMATIC MEMORY, the general knowledge about the world, names, faces, etc.
o PROCEDURAL MEMORIES refer to unconscious memories of learning skills, it’s about
how we automatically do certain tasks.
o SENSORY MEMORY stores sensory information for around 1-2 seconds, that briefly
enter our senses. If we failed to notice them, they quickly vanish.
- HM study provides evidence for the concept of MSM.
PROCEDURE: after the operation HM was observed and interviewed by a neuropsychologist Brenda
Milner, who noticed that HM would forget events almost as fast as they occurred indicating STM
impairment.
However, his memory about the past remained largely unaffected. His RETROGRADE AMNESIA
(forgetting events from the past) seemed to vanish some time after the operation. What he suffered
from was ANTEROGRADE AMNESIA (inability to form new memories).
- HM couldn’t acquire new episodic or semantic memory. This suggests that removed parts
from his brain were largely responsible for conversion of those memories from STM to LTM
 hippocampus.

- His spatial memory seemed to be unaffected. He was able to sketch a map of his house’s
pattern. He also had the capacity for working memory as he could have conversation which
requires minimal understanding and comprehension of information.

- His procedural memory seemed to be unaffected too. Although he couldn’t remember the
tasks he would learn, he showed improvements in the reverse mirror drawing. Though if a
researcher asked him to do so, he would say he had never done it before.
o Provides evidence for different memories being stored in different parts of the brain.
Corkin ran brain scans on him to study the extent of damage done to HM’s brain. Mostly damaged
was the medial temporal lobe and hippocampus  explains lack of memory conversion. In
hippocampus there’s the neurotransmitter acetylocholine that’s plays a role in how memories are
converted.
RESULTS: show that hippocampus is heavily responsible for conversion of memory. After the surgery
which cut out HM’s this part of the brain, he couldn’t transfer his episodic and semantic memories
into LTM.
The medial temporal lobe has been proved to not be responsible for the storage of LTM, as HM had
the ability to recall events from the past. However, it’s responsible for the organization and storage of
memories in different parts of the brain.
Findings provide with information that STM and LTM are separate stores, and STM acts as a gateway
for information to reach LTM. It also shows evidence that different memories are stored in different
parts of the brain, and If one of them is affected it doesn’t mean all will be.
EVALUATION OF THE STUDY:
It was a longitudinal case study that enabled to establish cause-and-effect relationship between the
HM’s inability to form new LTM memories, as well as observe overall changes in HM such as the
improvement in procedural tasks.
Some of the aspects of the study are retrospective in nature – we don’t have information about HM’s
cognitive abilities in the past.
It is a case study done on one person, so the findings are hard to apply to other populations.
However, different studies with patients suffering from brain injury provide outcomes similar to what
HM presented increasing reliability of the findings.
High EV, no variable was controlled, and HM was observed in his natural environment.
 GLANZER AND CUNITZ
Aim: to investigate the effect of delay on free recall.
MSM assumes that there are STM and LTM are separate, individual stores.
o Support for this claim comes from the findings of the study, that investigates the role
of delay on recency and primacy effect.
 Recency effect  remembering information that was presented as last.
 Primacy effect  remembering information that was presented as first.
PROCEDURE: enlisted army men were used in a sample. The task included presenting 15 fifteen word
lists that the participants had to recall. One word was showed at a time for a 1 second, and time
difference between the words was 2 seconds.
After the last word from the list either a # was shown: the participants would write down the words
right after.
If a digit from 0-9 was shown, the participants had to count down from that number. In the meantime
the researchers applied the delay effect and would measure either 10 or 30 seconds. Only after
would they say to write the words down.
Each delay condition was used with 5 of the lists. Each participant had randomly assigned set of
words and delay condition. They were given around 1.5 minute after each list to write down the
answers.
RESULTS: showed that in the recency effect the 30 delay completely eliminated the recency effect. In
the primacy effect, there was more or less influence of delay in both 10 and 30 conditions.
o STM is said to store memories for around 6-12 seconds that will disappear without
active rehearsal. Therefore, the distractive task in the form of counting down and the
delay, resulted in difficulties to rehearse and then transfer the information from STM
into LTM.
EVALUATION:
KULKOFSKY ET AL
- Explain dimensions
- Explain fbm, misinformation effect, special neural mechanism connected to special
mechanism hypothesis. Brown and kulik.
- 5 countries, collectivistic and individualistic cultures
- Aim was to study formation on fbm across different cultures
- Recalling memories of public important events
- Questionnairsed that were back-translated into the native languages
- Results show that personal experience and emotional intensity play less of a roll in formation
of fbm in collectivistic cultures.

BERRY ET AL
- Study on dimensions, individualistic, collectivistic
- Studies level of conformity in those types of cultues based on previously done study in 1959.
- Tenma people and inuit people (agriculture – collect., hunting, fishing – individ. Culture),
urban rural scots as control group.
- Asch paradigm. 6 trials, first 2 practical, 3rd gives a correct answer by the researcher as a hint
that their people would chose x line. 4-6 give an incorrect answer.
- Results show that inuits were definitely less likely to conform and Tenma people would
conform more bc theyre collectivistic.
ODEN AND ROCHAT
- Enculturization, direct tuition and participatory learning.
- Done In samoan villages on children. Samoa is a country that has high power distance index
o Dimensions, Hofstede, culture. Also used for enculturization.
- Aim was to see how observational learning occurs in enculturization in samoa
- Parents have the non-interventionist approach they leave the children to learn on their own
as they believe they can develop an understanding of culture’s dimensions, norms, behaviors.
- Longitudinal, 25 months.
- By age of 12 kids were bale to fish o their own without any prior learing from the parents
- They showed basic understanding of rituals, hierarchy, values in the samoa culture simply
from overhearing and observations.
LUECK AND WILLSON
- Study on assimilation
- 2095 asian Asian-americans are participants.
- Semistructured interviews on acculturative stress. Nitervierwes of similar linguistic and
cultural backgrounds.
- Interviews measured level of acculturative stress by measuring factors such as discrimination,
social networks, family structure, language preferences, socioeconomic position on
acculturative stress.
FAGOT
- Study on parents reaction when children would show nehaviors deemed as inappropriate for
their gender.
- Enculturizaiton, direct tuition, gender norms
STEELE AND ARRISON
- Stereotype threat on African americans performance in tests
- Two conditions, two iv vairabiles race and test description
- 1 test about intellectucal skills
- 2 test abiuyt problem solving skills
- Results show they would perform worse in the first tesy due to stereotype thrteat –
expectations, negative syereotypes.
GIFFORD AND HAMILTON
- Study on illusionary correlation between group size and negative behavior. Stereotypes.
- Group a group b, group b smaller.
- Statementsabout members of each group both negativr and positive = same amount of them.
- Participants asked to rate the members of a group based on traits e.g. popular, smart, social.
- Then booklet with the statmeents- what member do they think did what the statement
claims?
- Findings – negative stereotypes in minority groups are more common bc they r distinc,
representative.