Lab Exercises with Quizzes
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
GoCognitive is a website with various demos exploring cognitive processes.
Follow-up exercise: Have students try the DRM procedure. What is the main purpose of this task? Why is it that we misremember or even make up information or an event? What does this indicate about human memory? Are there any other instances when human memory is not perfectly reliable?
This experiment highlights one methodology that biases people to recall things that did not occur.
False memory resources. [Cautionary note: Much of the web material on repressed/false memories--over 3 million pages now!--is heavily slanted toward one side of the debate or the other; instructors should caution students to think critically about any extreme claims regarding the prevalence of repressed memories or false memories. A few of the more interesting web sources are listed below:]
“Remembering Dangerously.” This is the full text of a very accessible article by Elizabeth Loftus, originally published in the Skeptical Inquirer in March, 1995. It presents an analogy between the “repressed memory movement” and the Salem witch trials, now a classic argument of false memory advocates. Not much laboratory data, but a few nice case study examples.
“Repressed memories and recovered memory therapy (RMT).” Skeptical summary of RMT techniques and court decisions related to repressed memory claims. Good list of references regarding false memories.
“False Memory Syndrome Facts” web page. Clearly slanted, but does have links to some good articles and resources, and even "comic relief."
Follow-up exercise: Ask students to read one or more of these resources and briefly report on what they find. You might even organize a formal debate on the existence of repressed memories or the extent of the “problem” of false memories.
Website of Gary Wells, an Iowa State University professor who has been the leading researcher on eyewitness testimony.
Follow-up exercise: Have students perform the eyewitness testimony task. Were they able to identify the perpetrator? What factors can bias our ability to identify perpetrators? How is this task different from an actual eyewitnessing and testimony?