Flashcards in Psychology 100 Writing Assignment #2 Deck (39)
What is the title of the article?
Asparagus, a Love Story: Healthier Eating Could Be Just a False Memory Away
What happened in one recent study?
Subjects were given false feedback about how they gotten sick as children after eating either dill pickles or hard-boiled eggs. Some of them believed it and that increased their confidence in false event and avoidance of dill picked and hard-boiled eggs.
What is the hypothesis of this article?
They hypothesized that a positive false belief about an experience can lead to positive consequences on one's attitude and behaviors towards it in the future by doing experiments about implanting false beliefs of loving asparagus to see if it increases the likelihood of eating it more often.
Why did the experiment used asparagus as the food item?
Because it is a healthy vegetable with sophisticated taste such that it isn't a food most children immediately like or or that most adults assume they liked as children.
What is the overview of experiment 1?
Subjects were given false feedback telling them they liked cooked asparagus as children. The experimenters looked for consequences of the false feedback which included changes in general liking of asparagus and willingness to eat asparagus in a restaurant setting. They were not told anything about false memory to limit the influence of demand characteristics.
What were the subjects like in experiment 1?
128 undergraduates at University of California. 77% females.
How were the subjects assigned in experiment 1?
Subjects were randomly assigned to the "Love" group and the control group. They were ran in groups of up to eight.
What happened in session 1 for experiment 1?
Subjects were told to complete 5 questionnaires for a study of relationship between "food preferences and personality".
1. Food history inventory that contained "loved asparagus the first time you tried it"
2. Restaurant questionnaire that asked which subjects would like to order for each 32 separate dishes including "sautéed asparagus spears".
The other three questionnaires were about personality measure, a subset of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and eating habits. These three questionnaires were used to disguise the true nature of the experiment
What happened in session 2 for experiment 1? 3 points
1. One week later, subjects were given false feedback by giving them a profile of what they liked and what they disliked when they were children.
2. The love group were told "they loved to eat cooked asparagus" in their profile. The control group were given three filler items and were told nothing about asparagus.
3. Next both groups were asked three questions: "imagine the setting in which this experience might have happened. Where are you? Who was with you?" and "to what extend did this experience affect your adult personality?" on a scale 1-9 (Nine being very much).
In experiment 1, how were subjects measured to assess the changes from pre-manipulation to post manipulation? 5 things
Subjects completed the food history inventory and restaurant questionnaire the second time. Subjects were to complete "Memory or belief?" questionnaire, food preference questionnaire that rated 1 to 8 (eight being definitely eat), and food cost questionnaire which assessed what subject is most willingly pay for.
What was the results of the experiment 1 of Food History Inventory?
31 subjects who premanipulation rating of the asparagus were five or greater on the eight-point scale. People in the Love group became more confident that they loved asparagus the first time as a kid.
Were the difference between the memories or beliefs statistically significant?
No. The difference between them was expected
In the memories or beliefs questionnaire, how many of the love group had a memory of loving asparagus and a belief of loving asparagus and how many from the control group for experiment 1?
Nearly 1/4 of the Love group indicated that they had a memory of loving asparagus the first time they tried it and another 35% indicated they had a belief of it. For the control group, only 12 % reported a memory of it, 28% reported a belief of it and 61% were positive that the event had not occurred.
Those were were susceptible to manipulation
Opposite of believers
What is one reason why some subjects are more susceptible to manipulation?
Individual differences in performance
How are subjects labeled as believers due to manipulation? 2 things
1. Subjects must have an increased change in rating in the Food History Inventory in sesson 1 from before and after the manipulation.
2. They must have given a "memory" or "belief" response on the Memory or Belief questionnaire.
Were the believers and controls statistically indistinguishable on pretest consequence measures?
What were the results of the restaurant questionnaire and the food preference in experiment 1?
The Love group and the believers had more desire to eat asparagus than the nonbelievers and the control group.
What were the results of food cost in experiment 1? What the experimenters use to assess food cost?
The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used in order to assess food cost. Believers were willing to pay more for asparagus than the control group. Over a quarter of the control group would never buy asparagus while all the believers did not select the "never buy asparagus" response.
In experiment one, how much of the subjects were the experimenters manipulate into liking asparagus?
Nearly half (48%)
What was the aim in experiment 1?
To see if false beliefs about loving asparagus as a children can lead to increased liking of that food
What was two aims of experiment 2?
First aim: to replicate and extend the results of experiment 1
Second aim: To make an initial attempt at examining a possible underlying mechanism of our false memory consequence effect by exploring whether, after our false asparagus manipulation, the very sight of asparagus is more appealing to subjects
What were the subjects like and how were they assigned in experiment 2?
Subjects were 103 undergraduates at University of Washington. 62% were female and subjects were assigned to Love group or control group
What happened in session 1 of experiment 2?
Subjects were asked to fill out 5 questionnaires. Food History Inventory, Food Preference and Restaurant questionnaires were used. (food preference and restaurant questionnaires to be filled out before and after manipulation). The other 2 questionnaires were personality questionnaire and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale and they were used to disguise the true purpose of the study
What happened in session 2 in experiment 2? 4 things
1. One week later, subjects returned and were given false feedback about materials from session 1. They were given a profile of their early childhood experiences with certain food such as asparagus while the control group were told nothing about asparagus.
2. The Love group were asked when they had a memory or imagine an event of asparagus.
3. Subjects were asked to look at 20 slides and rate them how appetizing the food in the slide was out of 8 (8=very much).
4. Subjects complete Restaurant, Food Preferences and Food History Inventory and Memory or Belief questionnaires
What was the difference between experiment 1 and experiment 2 in session 2?
For the given profile, in experiment 2, subjects were told "they loved asparagus the first time you ate it" while in experiment 1, subjects were told they "loved to eat cooked asparagus".
What was the result of Food History Inventory in experiment 2?
The Love group mean confidence of liking asparagus increased compared to experiment 1. In the control group, the mean confidence increased less compared to experiment 1.
In the memories or beliefs questionnaire, how many of the love group had a memory of loving asparagus and a belief of loving asparagus and how many from the control group for experiment 2?
The love group had 28% reported memories and 28% reported belief while 45% were positive it had not been the case. In the control gorup, 6% reported memories, 38% reported beliefs and 56% were positive it had not been the case. *IMPORTANT* These group differences reflected a trend in the expected direction. The confidence of believers with "memory" were higher than the believers with "belief".