According to Chomsky, language gives people the ability to communicate (Chomsky et al., 2002). Goldstein defines language as “a system of communication using sounds or symbols that enables us to express our feeling, thoughts, ideas and experiences,” (Goldstein, 2011). Language has specific characteristics such as that it “is regular, it has rules that must be followed, it is productive, and it is arbitrary,” (Goldstein, 2011). Finally, language gives us the ability to think and talk about things that are not in our close settings, known as displacement. Interestingly, language might also shape the way people think according to recent studies.

What is truly fascinating about language is the ability for people to “communicate ideas to one another,” (Goldstein, 2011). For example, if I am thinking of an idea, I can put that idea into words and speak those words out loud (Goldstein, 2011). According to Goldstein, when a person speaks a word out loud, “the words are transformed into changes in air pressure that your ear can now hear”. Then, your “ears will receive the sound waves and transduce them into action potentials which will be sent up to the brain”. Finally, your “brain will then parse the signal into words and you will associate the words with knowledge that you have about the world” (Goldstein, 2011). However, people who speak different languages might experiences thing differently simply because of that fact.

A new cognitive research study suggests that language significantly affects the way people see the world. Essentially, the research shows that language possibly shapes thought. According to Boroditsky, “whether languages shape the way we think goes back centuries,” (Boroditsky, 2010). However, in the 60s and 70s when Noam Chomsky’s language theories became popular, he stated that language did not differ in any significant way, that there was a “universal grammar for all human languages,” (Boroditsky, 2010).

Just because people speak differently does not necessarily mean they think differently too. That is why recent cognitive researchers have started to measure not only how people talk but also how people think, “asking whether our understanding of even such fundamental domains of experience as space, time and causality could be constructed by language,” (Boroditsky, 2010). Language also shapes how people comprehend causality in addition to space and time. In one study, speakers of English, Spanish, and Japanese watched videos of people “popping balloons, breaking eggs, and spilling drinks either intentionally or unintentionally,” (Boroditsky, 2010). After the participants watched the videos they were given a memory test where each participant was asked if they could recall who did what for each event. The results showed a “cross linguistic difference in eyewitness testimony,” (Boroditsky, 2010). The English speakers remembered the people of the accidental events better than both the Spanish and the Japanese participants.

There is no question that language is complex and unique. The more researchers study language, the more they uncover about what makes us human. Depending on the languages people speak, human nature is explained very differently. Different languages and the different speakers of language differ greatly from one another and the more that this is studied, the more this is validated. Although a great deal has been learned and uncovered through centuries of research, there is still an endless amount of knowledge about language still waiting to be learned.

Works Cited

Boroditsky, L. (2010, July 23). Lost in Translation. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703467304575383131592767868

Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. A. Belletti, & L. Rizzi (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

According to Goldstein, flashbulb refers to a “person’s memory for the circumstance surrounding hearing about shocking highly charged events,” (Goldstein, 2011). The term was coined by psychologists Roger Brown, PhD and James Kulik, PhD in 1977 who theorized that these memories are so emotionally significant to people that they are “laid down as vividly, completely and accurately as a photograph,” (Law, 2011). Goldstein further states that flashbulb memory refers to “how a person heard about an event,” rather than the event itself (Goldstein, 2011). Therefore, a flashbulb memory for the September 11^th attacks would be memory for where a person was and what they were doing when they found out about the attacks. According to cognitive psychologist Williams Hirst, PhD, a flashbulb memory researcher at the New School for Social Research, “What makes these events so memorable is the unusual intersection of the personal and the public, so that what becomes salient for you is actually learning about the event, in addition to the facts of it,” (Law, 2011).

Most people remember where and when they received the news regarding the 9/11 attacks. Psychologist Jennifer Talarico, PhD, was no exception. According to Talarico, she immediately thought the attack would be “a tremendous opportunity for a flashbulb study,” while feeling guilty even considering it since it was such a tragedy (Law, 2011). However, the more she thought about it, the more she came to the realization that “studying people’s immediate reactions to the tragedy could advance the research on flashbulb memories,” (Law, 2011).

One of the studies was “widely cited for measuring flashbulb memory accuracy by comparing people’s immediate recollections with later recollections,” which was published in the book Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of ‘Flashbulb’ Memories (1992) (Law, 2011). According to Talarico however, the research had shortcomings. For example, the research only studied people’s memories at two times, immediately after the attacks and well after the attacks occurred. Therefore, Talarico felt it wasn’t evident when or how their flashbulb memories declined. Additionally, the study did not relate flashbulb memories with “regular autobiographical memories” to determine if the decline was comparable for both (Law, 2011).

Therefore, Talarico and a colleague decided to run their own study that consisted of 54 Duke University students and their recount of the 9/11 attacks. The students answered questions about their memories of the attacks and about a “regular everyday memory immediately after the event” (Law, 2011). “One group of 18 students answered the same set of questions one week later; another group of 18 answered them six weeks later; and a different group of 18 answered them 32 weeks later” (Law, 2011). The study indicated that “the rate of forgetting for both types of memory slowed and stabilized after a year. But overall flashbulb recollections declined more than factual recollections, possibly because nonstop media coverage bolstered people’s factual memories” (Law, 2011).

According to Hirst and Talarico and her colleague’s findings, it is implied that flashbulb memories are not very accurate. However, the studies do indicate that flashbulb memories do seem to be more vivid than other memories. In my own experience, I vividly remember where I was and what I was doing at the time I heard about the 9/11 attacks. For example, I was in 7^th grade, and I was in gym class. However, I could not tell you what I did or where I was the very next day, other than guessing I was in school since it was a weekday. Although, I do feel that since the attacks have been retold over and over again, it could be a reason I remember the flashbulb memory so vividly, so it may not be as accurate as I believe it to be. Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when you found out about the attacks?

Works Cited

Goldstein, B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Wadsworth, Inc.

Law, B. (2011, September 1). Seared in our memories. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/09/memories.aspx

Goldstein defines memory as “the processes involved in retaining, retrieving, and using information about stimuli, images, events, ideas, and skills after the original information is no longer present” (Goldstein, 2011). It can be reasoned in basic terms as the use of past experience to alter or influence current behavior. Long-term memory refers to the ongoing storage of information. The more information is repeated or used, the more probable it is to ultimately end up in long-term memory. Long-term memory can store infinite amounts of information forever. There are many tips and suggestions on how to improve or enhance one’s long term memory such as getting regular seep, maintaining a healthy diet, and avoiding stress. However, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins University, caffeine can be added to that list.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have found that caffeine has a progressive effect on long-term memory. Michael Yassa, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences’ at the university and his team of scientists have discovered that caffeine increases particular memories at least up to 24 hours after it is consumed. According to Yassa, “We’ve always known that caffeine has cognitive-enhancing effects, but its particular effects on strengthening memories and making them resistant to forgetting has never been examined in details in humans” (Gatlin, 2014).

The study that was conducted was a double-blind study in which neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is getting a particular treatment. This particular type of study is used to avoid bias in research results. The study involved participants who did not often eat or drink caffeinated products. The participants got either a placebo or a 200-milligram caffeine tablet five-minutes after reviewing a series of images. Salivary samples were obtained from the participants before they took the tablets to measure their caffeine levels. Samples were taken over, one, three, and 24 hours afterwards (Gatlin, 2014).

The following day, the participants who received the placebo and the participants who received the 200-milligram caffeine tablet were tested on their capability to identify images from the preceding day’s study session. Some of the pictures were the same as those from the previous days while others were new pictures. Additionally, some were alike but not the same. According to the findings, “more members of the caffeine groups were able to correctly identify the new images as similar to previously viewed images rather than erroneously citing them as the same” (Gatlin, 2014). According to Yassa, “If we used a standard recognition memory task without these tricky similar items, we would have found no effect of caffeine,” “however, using these items requires the brain to make a more difficult discrimination—what we call pattern separation, which seems to be the process that is enhanced by caffeine in our case” (Gatlin, 2014)

“According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 90 percent of people worldwide consume caffeine in one form or another” (Gatlin, 2014). “In the United States, 80 percent of adults consume caffeine every day” (Gatlin, 2014). It was not until this study was conducted that caffeine was found to have a positive effect on long term memory. Past studies found that caffeine had no effect on long-term memory retention. According to Yassa, more studies need to be done, particularly determining the brain mechanisms causing the enhancement (Gatlin, 2014).

 References:

Gatlin, L. (2014, January 12). Caffeine has positive effect on memory, Johns Hopkins researchers say. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/01/12/caffeine-enhances-memory

Goldstein, B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Wadsworth, Inc.

According to the lesson commentary, cognitive psychology is “the scientific study of the mind”. Furthermore, the mind includes all facets of our “neurological experience”. For instance, cognition involves neuroscience, perception, attention, memory, knowledge, imagery language, problem solving, and reasoning. Cognition also involves decision making, which for children, is one of the most important skills needed to develop to become healthy and mature adults according to Dr. Jim Taylor, professor at the University of San Francisco in Psychology Today (Taylor, 2009).

Taylor asserts that decision making is essential because the decisions a child makes determine the path that their lives take. He maintains that parents can teach their children to make their own decisions which have numerous benefits. When children make good, positive decisions “they gain the greatest amount of satisfaction and fulfillment because they chose it,” he says (Taylor, 2009). However, if children make bad or negative decisions, although they may hurt from it, Taylor states that they can “learn from the experience and make better decisions in the future” (Taylor, 2009).

In the article, Taylor discusses the process of good decision making. He states that educating children about the decision-making process is part of helping them to gain experience with making decisions. According to Taylor, “good decision making is complex and takes ears of experience to master” (Taylor, 2009). And since children do not have an abundance of experience and perspective, they are inclined to make decisions that are “impulsive and focused on immediate gratification” (Taylor, 2009). Therefore, Taylor asserts that that initial step in the process of teaching good decision making is to teach them to “stop before they leap” (Taylor, 2009). Essentially, it’s about teaching children to think before acting. One way of accomplishing this is to teach children to ask themselves questions such as “Why do I want to do this?” By asking children to ask themselves these types of questions, it helps them better understand what motivates their decisions.

Since making bad decisions is inevitable in children since it is a part of their “road to maturity” as Taylor puts it, it’s essential for parents to hold their children responsible for their poor decisions, because if they don’t, the bad decision is bound to happen again (Taylor, 2009). Other than holding children responsible for their bad decisions parents should ask their children why they make bad decisions. Taylor states that responses such as “I didn’t stop to think,” “I was bored,” and “Peer pressure” are very common (Taylor, 2009). However, if children are held responsible, they are less likely to make bad decisions and more likely to make good ones.

Taylor explains that “part of children learning to make good decisions is allowing them to make poor ones” (Taylor, 2009). He asserts that “if handles properly” poor decisions can play a significant part in children becoming good decision makers (Taylor, 2009). Finally, Taylor states that children should be required to “explore their decisions”, understand why they made a poor decision, and confirm that they realize what they did so they won’t make the same bad decision (Taylor, 2009).

Reference:

Taylor, Jim. “Parenting: Decision Making.” Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Psychology Today, 19 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Sept. 2014. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/200910/parenting-decision-making>.