To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Cognitive psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of mental processes such as "attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, creativity, and thinking".[1] Much of the work derived from cognitive psychology has been integrated into various other modern disciplines such as Cognitive Science and of psychological study, including educational psychology, social psychology, personality psychology, abnormal psychology, developmental psychology, linguistics, and economics.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    1 622 708
    2 084 643
    5 517
    573 579
  • ✪ Cognition: How Your Mind Can Amaze and Betray You - Crash Course Psychology #15
  • ✪ How We Make Memories - Crash Course Psychology #13
  • ✪ Cognitive Neuroscience — Neil Burgess
  • ✪ How Does the Brain Work? - Human Cognition | PSYCHOLOGY & BRAIN SCIENCE VIDEO
  • ✪ the history of cognitive psychology - ok science


Why do smart people make dumb decisions? Why do conspiracy theorists think that we didn’t land on the moon or that Hillary Clinton is a space alien? And why won’t Bernice admit that the new Superman movie just isn’t very good? We’ve talked about cognition before. We usually refer to it as the process that we use to think and solve crossword puzzles and stuff. But really, cognition involves knowing, remembering, understanding, communicating, and to a certain extent, learning. And as truly wonderful as our brains are, we can be spectacularly bad at ALL of these things. We used to think our cognition worked like a computer -- logically processing information. But that cabbage-sized chunk of pink, wet brain matter in your skull can do a lot more than math, and the things that it does are certainly not always logical. Many experts argue that it’s cognition that makes us truly human, and that everything that comes with it -- our preferences, prejudices, fears, and intuitions -- are what make us the individuals that we are. We’re not the only animals that show some evidence of cognition, of course: Chimps and gorillas exhibit insight and planning; crows use tools; elephants teach each other. But our capacity as humans to figure stuff out is matched only by our ability to totally misjudge stuff. As prone as we are to brilliance and insight, we’re equally likely to succumb to irrational thinking and false intuition. So, to borrow a riff from Rene Descartes, you think, therefore you are. Which means you’re brilliant a lot of the time. And sometimes, you’re just going to look stupid. [INTRO] We all want to make sense of the world. And one of the major ways our cognition allows us do that is by forming concepts -- mental groupings of similar objects, people, ideas, or events. We like to lump things together. Concepts simplify our thinking in such a fundamental way that we usually don’t have to stop and think about using them, they’re just there. And yet without concepts, we’d need a unique name for everything. You couldn’t just ask me to shake the anglerfish -- because there’d be no concept of shake or fish, let alone stuffed, blue anglerfish. And if I told you I was devastated that I lost my anglerfish -- which I probably would be -- I’d also have to explain my emotions, their intensities, even the words themselves that I had to use. So basically, without concepts, no one would ever get anything done. We’d all be like a bunch of ents taking all morning to say “Hey, what’s up?” We often organize our concepts by forming prototypes--mental images or pinnacle examples of a certain thing. For example, if I say “bird”--the general shape of a songbird probably pops into your head before like, a penguin or chicken or emu, because robins and cardinals more closely resemble our bird prototype. Still, if I show you a picture of some crazy creature you’ve never seen before, and you note that it has feathers and a beak, you’ll probably file it under the bird category because it more closely resembles your concept of bird than your concept of rodent or overcoat or footstool. Concepts and prototypes speed up our thinking, but they also can box in our thinking, and lead to prejudice if we see something that doesn’t fit our prototypes. A hundred years ago the sight of a female doctor might have caused some heads to explode, because in peoples’ tiny minds, the prototypes of “doctor” and “woman” didn’t have any overlap. And actually some people today still feel that way. Haters gonna hate. So it’s important to actively keep your mind open mind to make room for evolving concepts, and remember that concepts may sometimes hurt as much as they help. One of the biggest ways our cognition works to our benefit, though, is through our ability to solve problems. We use our problem-solving skills all the time: How to assemble Scandinavian furniture, bake muffins with a missing ingredient, or handle the crushing disappointment of the new Superman movie. And we approach problem-solving in different ways -- sometimes we value speed; other times, accuracy. Some problems we figure out using trial and error--you know, you try something and if it doesn’t work, try it a different way, and keep at it until something works. Trial and error is slow and deliberate--which may be good or bad, depending on the problem. We can also use algorithms and heuristics to come up with solutions. Algorithms are logical, methodical, step-by-step procedures that guarantee an eventual solution, though they may be slow to work through. Heuristics, on the other hand, are more like mental shortcuts -- simple strategies that allow us to solve problems faster, although they’re more error-prone than algorithms. Say you’re at the store, looking for a family-sized bottle of Sriracha. You could use an algorithm and methodically check every shelf and aisle in the store. Or you could use heuristics and first search the Asian or condiment sections--the places that make the most sense based on what you already know. Heuristics may be way faster, but the algorithmic approach guarantees you won’t overlook the sauce along the way, because they stuck it in the deli or whatever dumb thing they did this week. So algorithms, heuristics, and trial-and-error are problem-solving strategies that involve a plan of attack. But sometimes we get lucky while puzzling out a problem, and Aha!, out of nowhere a sudden flash of insight that solves our problem. I’ll use orange in the muffin recipe instead of lemon! Or, Sriracha lives in the Mexican section! For some reason! Neuroscientists have actually watched that kind of sudden, happy brain flash on neuroimaging screens. In one experiment, they gave subjects a problem to solve: What word can be added to the three words CRAB, PINE, and SAUCE to create a new compound word? Then they asked the subjects to press a button when they had the answer. While the subjects thought about it, scans showed activity in their frontal lobes, the areas involved in the focused attention of typical problem-solving. But right at the Aha! moment, just as they pushed the button, there was a clear burst of activity just above the ear in the right temporal lobe, which, among many other things, is involved with recognition. The answer, by the way, we already gave you the hint earlier in the episode. Where’s my fish? Those sudden bursts of insight are awesome, but you can’t count on them to solve all your problems. And just because something feels, doesn’t mean it’s truly correct. Because as inventive and smartypants as we may be, our cognition often leads us astray in all kinds of ways. For instance, we often look for, and favor, evidence that verifies our ideas, while we’re more likely to avoid or ignore contradictory evidence -- a tendency known as confirmation bias. This is really similar to the overconfidence we’ve talked about, when you’re basically more confident than you are correct. When this kind of cognitive bias takes hold, you might cling to your initial conceptions in a kind of belief perseverance, even in the face of clear proof to the contrary. This happens all the time, and it can be maddening for people watching it happen. People still think that the earth is flat! It’s like...WHAT? HOW? There’s space pictures! I probably don’t need to tell you -- people can really get weird and defensive when they evade facts and choose to see only the information that confirms their beliefs. They may even become functionally fixed, unable to view a problem from a new perspective. Instead they just keep approaching a situation with the same mental set, especially if it’s worked in the past. Say you’ve got a nail sticking out from a board, and you’re like “I need to take care of that!” There’s rocks, and bricks all around you. But because of your functional fixedness on the idea that only hammers work on nails, you don’t even consider hitting it with the brick, and instead you waste a bunch of time in the garage looking for a hammer, and you’re angry and frustrated, and there’s still a nail sticking up from the board. So, our mental set predisposes how we think, just as you’ll remember that our perceptual set predisposes how we perceive. This is what makes heuristics -- those super-convenient mental shortcuts that we all use -- so easily fallible. In the 1970s, cognitive psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman researched how we make snap judgments, and discovered one way smart people make dumb decisions. They found that people believe an event will be more likely to occur if they can conjure up examples or memories of it, especially if those examples are particularly vivid, scary, or awesome. So, say you’re in a casino and you win two dollars at a slot machine. Suddenly every flashing light and ringing bell in the place goes off. But when you lose -- which is the vast majority of the time -- it’s just...crickets. With all their lights and noise-making, the casino makes sure that wins are super vivid and memorable, while losses just go away unacknowledged. That way, the next time you’re standing there with 100 bucks in your pocket, you’re more likely to overestimate your chances of winning, because the memories of winning are more striking. The more mentally available those memories are, the more it seems that it’s going to happen again. This is known as the availability heuristic. And it can warp our judgements of people, too. If we keep remembering news footage that shows people of a given group shooting guns, that can shape our impression of the entire group -- even if what we saw was only a tiny minority within that group. Essentially, we are great at fearing the wrong things. We worry about being killed in a plane crash or getting bitten in half by a shark or accidentally choking on a dumpling. Thanks to our brain’s b-roll of horrific images, we come to fear what’s actually very rare, instead of worrying about much more common, but less memorable ends like car accidents, cancer, and heart failure. Our thinking can also be swayed by framing, or how an issue is presented. Imagine you’re considering climbing Everest or getting a nose job or eating a bowl of raw blowfish. I can frame the risks in different ways. Telling you that you’ve got a 95 percent chance of survival sounds a lot different than saying five out of a hundred people die doing this activity, though the information is the same. Our cognitive minds are capable of incredible intellectual feats and tremendous failures. We can solve problems better than any organism on the planet, but given the chance, we can also mess up a pretty simple judgment every day of the week. But if we’re mindful of our capacity for error -- and if we honor our ingenuity and intellect -- I think our ability to solve any problem is nearly infinite. And that, gives me a lot of hope. Seriously though where is my fish? Today you learned how we use concepts, prototypes, and our mental sets to think and communicate, and how algorithms, heuristics, and insight help us solve problems. You also learned about how fixation, the availability heuristic, fear, overconfidence, and belief perseverance can get in the way of good decision-making and thinking. Thank you for watching, especially to our Subbable subscribers, who make this whole channel possible. If you’d like to sponsor an episode of Crash Course, get a special Laptop Decal, or even be animated into an upcoming episode, just go to This episode was written by Kathleen Yale, edited by Blake de Pastino, and our consultant is Dr. Ranjit Bhagwat. Our director and editor is Nicholas Jenkins, the script supervisor is Michael Aranda, who is also our sound designer, and the graphics team is Thought Café.



Philosophically, ruminations of the human mind and its processes have been around since the times of the ancient Greeks. In 387 BCE, Plato is known to have suggested that the brain was the seat of the mental processes.[2] In 1637, René Descartes posited that humans are born with innate ideas, and forwarded the idea of mind-body dualism, which would come to be known as substance dualism (essentially the idea that the mind and the body are two separate substances).[3] From that time, major debates ensued through the 19th century regarding whether human thought was solely experiential (empiricism), or included innate knowledge (nativism). Some of those involved in this debate included George Berkeley and John Locke on the side of empiricism, and Immanuel Kant on the side of nativism.[4]

With the philosophical debate continuing, the mid to late 19th century was a critical time in the development of psychology as a scientific discipline. Two discoveries that would later play substantial roles in cognitive psychology were Paul Broca's discovery of the area of the brain largely responsible for language production,[3] and Carl Wernicke's discovery of an area thought to be mostly responsible for comprehension of language.[5] Both areas were subsequently formally named for their founders and disruptions of an individual's language production or comprehension due to trauma or malformation in these areas have come to commonly be known as Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia.

From the 1920s to the 1950s, the main approach to psychology was behaviorism. Initially, its adherents viewed mental events such as thoughts, ideas, attention, and consciousness as unobservables, hence outside the realm of a science of psychology. One pioneer of cognitive psychology, who worked outside the boundaries (both intellectual and geographical) of behaviorism was Jean Piaget. From 1926 to the 1950s and into the 1980s, he studied the thoughts, language, and intelligence of children and adults.[6]

In the mid-20th century, three main influences arose that would inspire and shape cognitive psychology as a formal school of thought:

  • With the development of new warfare technology during WWII, the need for a greater understanding of human performance came to prominence. Problems such as how to best train soldiers to use new technology and how to deal with matters of attention while under duress became areas of need for military personnel. Behaviorism provided little if any insight into these matters and it was the work of Donald Broadbent, integrating concepts from human performance research and the recently developed information theory, that forged the way in this area.[4]
  • Developments in computer science would lead to parallels being drawn between human thought and the computational functionality of computers, opening entirely new areas of psychological thought. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon spent years developing the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) and later worked with cognitive psychologists regarding the implications of AI. This encouraged a conceptualization of mental functions patterned on the way that computers handled such things as memory storage and retrieval,[4] and it opened an important doorway for cognitivism.
  • Noam Chomsky's 1959 critique[7] of behaviorism, and empiricism more generally, initiated what would come to be known as the "cognitive revolution". Inside psychology, in criticism of behaviorism, J. S. Bruner, J. J. Goodnow & G. A. Austin wrote "a study of thinking" in 1956. In 1960, G. A. Miller, E. Galanter and K. Pribram wrote their famous "Plans and the Structure of Behavior". The same year, Bruner and Miller founded the Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies, which institutionalized the revolution and launched the field of cognitive science.
  • Formal recognition of the field involved the establishment of research institutions such as George Mandler's Center for Human Information Processing in 1964. Mandler described the origins of cognitive psychology in a 2002 article in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences[8]

Ulric Neisser put the term "cognitive psychology" into common use through his book Cognitive Psychology, published in 1967.[9] Neisser's definition of "cognition" illustrates the then-progressive concept of cognitive processes:

The term "cognition" refers to all processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used. It is concerned with these processes even when they operate in the absence of relevant stimulation, as in images and hallucinations. ... Given such a sweeping definition, it is apparent that cognition is involved in everything a human being might possibly do; that every psychological phenomenon is a cognitive phenomenon. But although cognitive psychology is concerned with all human activity rather than some fraction of it, the concern is from a particular point of view. Other viewpoints are equally legitimate and necessary. Dynamic psychology, which begins with motives rather than with sensory input, is a case in point. Instead of asking how a man's actions and experiences result from what he saw, remembered, or believed, the dynamic psychologist asks how they follow from the subject's goals, needs, or instincts.[9]

Mental processes

The main focus of cognitive psychologists is on the mental processes that affect behavior. Those processes include, but are not limited to, the following:


The psychological definition of attention is "a state of focused awareness on a subset of the available perceptual information".[10] A key function of attention is to identify irrelevant data and filter it out, enabling significant data to be distributed to the other mental processes.[4] For example, the human brain may simultaneously receive auditory, visual, olfactory, taste, and tactile information. The brain is able to consciously handle only a small subset of this information, and this is accomplished through the attentional processes.[4]

Attention can be divided into two major attentional systems: exogenous control and endogenous control.[11] Exogenous control works in a bottom-up manner and is responsible for orienting reflex, and pop-out effects.[11] Endogenous control works top-down and is the more deliberate attentional system, responsible for divided attention and conscious processing.[11]

One major focal point relating to attention within the field of cognitive psychology is the concept of divided attention. A number of early studies dealt with the ability of a person wearing headphones to discern meaningful conversation when presented with different messages into each ear; this is known as the dichotic listening task.[4] Key findings involved an increased understanding of the mind's ability to both focus on one message, while still being somewhat aware of information being taken in from the ear not being consciously attended to. E.g., participants (wearing earphones) may be told that they will be hearing separate messages in each ear and that they are expected to attend only to information related to basketball. When the experiment starts, the message about basketball will be presented to the left ear and non-relevant information will be presented to the right ear. At some point the message related to basketball will switch to the right ear and the non-relevant information to the left ear. When this happens, the listener is usually able to repeat the entire message at the end, having attended to the left or right ear only when it was appropriate.[4] The ability to attend to one conversation in the face of many is known as the cocktail party effect.

Other major findings include that participants can't comprehend both passages, when shadowing one passage, they can't report content of the unattended message, they can shadow a message better if the pitches in each ear are different.[12] However, while deep processing doesn't occur, early sensory processing does. Subjects did notice if the pitch of the unattended message changed or if it ceased altogether, and some even oriented to the unattended message if their name was mentioned.[12]


The two main types of memory are short-term memory and long-term memory; however, short-term memory has become better understood to be working memory. Cognitive psychologists often study memory in terms of working memory.

Working memory

Though working memory is often thought of as just short-term memory, it is more clearly defined as the ability to process and maintain temporary information in a wide range of everyday activities in the face of distraction. The famously known capacity of memory of 7 plus or minus 2 is a combination of both memory in working memory and long term memory.

One of the classic experiments is by Ebbinghaus, who found the serial position effect where information from the beginning and end of list of random words were better recalled than those in the center.[13] This primacy and recency effect varies in intensity based on list length.[13] Its typical U-shaped curve can be disrupted by an attention-grabbing word; this is known as the Von Restorff effect.

The Baddeley & Hitch Model of Working Memory
The Baddeley & Hitch Model of Working Memory

Many models of working memory have been made. One of the most regarded is the Baddeley and Hitch model of working memory. It takes into account both visual and auditory stimuli, long-term memory to use as a reference, and a central processor to combine and understand it all.

A large part of memory is forgetting, and there is a large debate among psychologists of decay theory versus interference theory.

Long-term memory

Modern conceptions of memory are usually about long-term memory and break it down into three main sub-classes. These three classes are somewhat hierarchical in nature, in terms of the level of conscious thought related to their use.[14]

  • Procedural memory is memory for the performance of particular types of action. It is often activated on a subconscious level, or at most requires a minimal amount of conscious effort.[15] Procedural memory includes stimulus-response-type information, which is activated through association with particular tasks, routines, etc. A person is using procedural knowledge when they seemingly "automatically" respond in a particular manner to a particular situation or process.[14] An example is driving a car.
  • Semantic memory is the encyclopedic knowledge that a person possesses. Knowledge like what the Eiffel Tower looks like, or the name of a friend from sixth grade, represent semantic memory. Access of semantic memory ranges from slightly to extremely effortful, depending on a number of variables including but not limited to recency of encoding of the information, number of associations it has to other information, frequency of access, and levels of meaning (how deeply it was processed when it was encoded).[14]
  • Episodic memory is the memory of autobiographical events that can be explicitly stated. It contains all memories that are temporal in nature, such as when one last brushed one's teeth or where one was when one heard about a major news event. Episodic memory typically requires the deepest level of conscious thought, as it often pulls together semantic memory and temporal information to formulate the entire memory.[14]


Perception involves both the physical senses (sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch, and proprioception) as well as the cognitive processes involved in interpreting those senses. Essentially, it is how people come to understand the world around them through interpretation of stimuli.[16] Early psychologists like Edward B. Titchener began to work with perception in their structuralist approach to psychology. Structuralism dealt heavily with trying to reduce human thought (or "consciousness," as Titchener would have called it) into its most basic elements by gaining understanding of how an individual perceives particular stimuli.[17]

Current perspectives on perception within cognitive psychology tend to focus on particular ways in which the human mind interprets stimuli from the senses and how these interpretations affect behavior. An example of the way in which modern psychologists approach the study of perception is the research being done at the Center for Ecological Study of Perception and Action at the University of Connecticut (CESPA). One study at CESPA concerns ways in which individuals perceive their physical environment and how that influences their navigation through that environment.[18]


Psychologists have had an interest in the cognitive processes involved with language that dates back to the 1870s, when Carl Wernicke proposed a model for the mental processing of language.[19] Current work on language within the field of cognitive psychology varies widely. Cognitive psychologists may study language acquisition,[20] individual components of language formation (like phonemes),[21] how language use is involved in mood,[22] or numerous other related areas.

Broca's and Wernicke's areas of the brain, which are critical in language
Broca's and Wernicke's areas of the brain, which are critical in language

Significant work has been done recently with regard to understanding the timing of language acquisition and how it can be used to determine if a child has, or is at risk of, developing a learning disability. A study from 2012, showed that while this can be an effective strategy, it is important that those making evaluations include all relevant information when making their assessments. Factors such as individual variability, socioeconomic status, short-term and long-term memory capacity, and others must be included in order to make valid assessments.[20]


Metacognition, in a broad sense, is the thoughts that a person has about their own thoughts. More specifically, metacognition includes things like:

  • How effective a person is at monitoring their own performance on a given task (self-regulation).
  • A person's understanding of their capabilities on particular mental tasks.
  • The ability to apply cognitive strategies.[23]

Much of the current study regarding metacognition within the field of cognitive psychology deals with its application within the area of education. Being able to increase a student's metacognitive abilities has been shown to have a significant impact on their learning and study habits.[24] One key aspect of this concept is the improvement of students' ability to set goals and self-regulate effectively to meet those goals. As a part of this process, it is also important to ensure that students are realistically evaluating their personal degree of knowledge and setting realistic goals (another metacognitive task).[25]

Common phenomena related to metacognition include:

  • Déjà Vu: feeling of a repeated experience
  • Cryptomnesia: generating thought believing it is unique but it is actually a memory of a past experience, aka unconscious plagiarism.
  • False Fame Effect: non-famous names can be made to be famous
  • Validity effect: statements seem more valid upon repeated exposure
  • Imagination inflation: imagining an event that did not occur and having increased confidence that it did occur

Modern perspectives

Modern perspectives on cognitive psychology generally address cognition as a dual process theory, expounded upon by Daniel Kahneman in 2011.[26] Kahneman differentiated the two styles of processing more, calling them intuition and reasoning. Intuition (or system 1), similar to associative reasoning, was determined to be fast and automatic, usually with strong emotional bonds included in the reasoning process. Kahneman said that this kind of reasoning was based on formed habits and very difficult to change or manipulate. Reasoning (or system 2) was slower and much more volatile, being subject to conscious judgments and attitudes.[26]


Abnormal psychology

Following the cognitive revolution, and as a result of many of the principle discoveries to come out of the field of cognitive psychology, the discipline of cognitive therapy evolved. Aaron T. Beck is generally regarded as the father of cognitive therapy.[27] His work in the areas of recognition and treatment of depression has gained worldwide recognition. In his 1987 book titled Cognitive Therapy of Depression, Beck puts forth three salient points with regard to his reasoning for the treatment of depression by means of therapy or therapy and antidepressants versus using a pharmacological-only approach:

1. Despite the prevalent use of antidepressants, the fact remains that not all patients respond to them. Beck cites (in 1987) that only 60 to 65% of patients respond to antidepressants, and recent meta-analyses (a statistical breakdown of multiple studies) show very similar numbers.[28]
2. Many of those who do respond to antidepressants end up not taking their medications, for various reasons. They may develop side-effects or have some form of personal objection to taking the drugs.
3. Beck posits that the use of psychotropic drugs may lead to an eventual breakdown in the individual's coping mechanisms. His theory is that the person essentially becomes reliant on the medication as a means of improving mood and fails to practice those coping techniques typically practiced by healthy individuals to alleviate the effects of depressive symptoms. By failing to do so, once the patient is weaned off of the antidepressants, they often are unable to cope with normal levels of depressed mood and feel driven to reinstate use of the antidepressants.[29]

Social psychology

Many facets of modern social psychology have roots in research done within the field of cognitive psychology.[citation needed] Social cognition is a specific sub-set of social psychology that concentrates on processes that have been of particular focus within cognitive psychology, specifically applied to human interactions. Gordon B. Moskowitz defines social cognition as "... the study of the mental processes involved in perceiving, attending to, remembering, thinking about, and making sense of the people in our social world".[30]

The development of multiple social information processing (SIP) models has been influential in studies involving aggressive and anti-social behavior. Kenneth Dodge's SIP model is one of, if not the most, empirically supported models relating to aggression. Among his research, Dodge posits that children who possess a greater ability to process social information more often display higher levels of socially acceptable behavior. His model asserts that there are five steps that an individual proceeds through when evaluating interactions with other individuals and that how the person interprets cues is key to their reactionary process.[31]

Developmental psychology

Many of the prominent names in the field of developmental psychology base their understanding of development on cognitive models. One of the major paradigms of developmental psychology, the Theory of Mind (ToM), deals specifically with the ability of an individual to effectively understand and attribute cognition to those around them. This concept typically becomes fully apparent in children between the ages of 4 and 6. Essentially, before the child develops ToM, they are unable to understand that those around them can have different thoughts, ideas, or feelings than themselves. The development of ToM is a matter of metacognition, or thinking about one's thoughts. The child must be able to recognize that they have their own thoughts and in turn, that others possess thoughts of their own.[32]

One of the foremost minds with regard to developmental psychology, Jean Piaget, focused much of his attention on cognitive development from birth through adulthood. Though there have been considerable challenges to parts of his stages of cognitive development, they remain a staple in the realm of education. Piaget's concepts and ideas predated the cognitive revolution but inspired a wealth of research in the field of cognitive psychology and many of his principles have been blended with modern theory to synthesize the predominant views of today.[33]

Educational psychology

Modern theories of education have applied many concepts that are focal points of cognitive psychology. Some of the most prominent concepts include:

  • Metacognition: Metacognition is a broad concept encompassing all manners of one's thoughts and knowledge about their own thinking. A key area of educational focus in this realm is related to self-monitoring, which relates highly to how well students are able to evaluate their personal knowledge and apply strategies to improve knowledge in areas in which they are lacking.[34]
  • Declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge: Declarative knowledge is a persons 'encyclopedic' knowledge base, whereas procedural knowledge is specific knowledge relating to performing particular tasks. The application of these cognitive paradigms to education attempts to augment a student's ability to integrate declarative knowledge into newly learned procedures in an effort to facilitate accelerated learning.[34]
  • Knowledge organization: Applications of cognitive psychology's understanding of how knowledge is organized in the brain has been a major focus within the field of education in recent years. The hierarchical method of organizing information and how that maps well onto the brain's memory are concepts that have proven extremely beneficial in classrooms.[34]

Personality psychology

Cognitive therapeutic approaches have received considerable attention in the treatment of personality disorders in recent years. The approach focuses on the formation of what it believes to be faulty schemata, centralized on judgmental biases and general cognitive errors.[35]

Cognitive psychology vs. cognitive science

The line between cognitive psychology and cognitive science can be blurry. Cognitive psychology is better understood as predominantly concerned with applied psychology and the understanding of psychological phenomena. Cognitive psychologists are often heavily involved in running psychological experiments involving human participants, with the goal of gathering information related to how the human mind takes in, processes, and acts upon inputs received from the outside world.[36] The information gained in this area is then often used in the applied field of clinical psychology.

Cognitive science is better understood as predominantly concerned with a much broader scope, with links to philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience, and particularly with artificial intelligence. It could be said that cognitive science provides the corpus of information feeding the theories used by cognitive psychologists.[37] Cognitive scientists' research sometimes involves non-human subjects, allowing them to delve into areas which would come under ethical scrutiny if performed on human participants. I.e., they may do research implanting devices in the brains of rats to track the firing of neurons while the rat performs a particular task. Cognitive science is highly involved in the area of artificial intelligence and its application to the understanding of mental processes.


In the early years of cognitive psychology, behaviorist critics held that the empiricism it pursued was incompatible with the concept of internal mental states. Cognitive neuroscience, however, continues to gather evidence of direct correlations between physiological brain activity and putative mental states, endorsing the basis for cognitive psychology.[38]

Some observers have suggested that as cognitive psychology became a movement during the 1970s, the intricacies of the phenomena and processes it examined meant it also began to lose cohesion as a field of study. In Psychology: Pythagoras to Present, for example, John Malone writes: "Examinations of late twentieth-century textbooks dealing with "cognitive psychology", "human cognition", "cognitive science" and the like quickly reveal that there are many, many varieties of cognitive psychology and very little agreement about exactly what may be its domain." [3] This misfortune produced competing models that questioned information-processing approaches to cognitive functioning such as Decision Making and Behavioral Science.

Major research areas

Influential cognitive psychologists

See also


  1. ^ "American Psychological Association (2013). Glossary of psychological terms". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  2. ^ "Mangels, J. History of neuroscience". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  3. ^ a b c Malone, J.C. (2009). Psychology: Pythagoras to Present. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. (a pp. 143, b pp. 293, c pp. 491)
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Anderson, J.R. (2010). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
  5. ^ Eysenck, M.W. (1990). Cognitive Psychology: An International Review. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (pp. 111)
  6. ^ Smith, L. (2000). About Piaget. Retrieved from
  7. ^ Chomsky, N. A. (1959), A Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior
  8. ^ Mandler, G. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38, 339–353.
  9. ^ a b Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Neisser's definition on page 4.
  10. ^ "How does the APA define "psychology"?". Retrieved 15 November 2011.
  11. ^ a b c Chica, Ana B.; Bartolomeo, Paolo; Lupiáñez, Juan (2013). "Two cognitive and neural systems for endogenous and exogenous spatial attention". Behavioural Brain Research. 237: 107–123. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2012.09.027. PMID 23000534.
  12. ^ a b Cherry, E. Colin (1953). "Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 25 (5): 975–979. doi:10.1121/1.1907229.
  13. ^ a b Ebbinghaus, Hermann (1913). On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College.
  14. ^ a b c d Balota, D.A. & Marsh, E.J. (2004). Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings. New York, NY: Psychology Press. (pp. 364–365)
  15. ^ "Procedural Memory: Definition and Examples". Live Science. Retrieved 2018-09-06.
  16. ^ Cherry, K. (2013). Perception and the perceptual process
  17. ^ "Plucker, J. (2012). Edward Bradford Titchener". 2013-11-14. Archived from the original on 2014-07-17. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  18. ^ "University of Connecticut (N.D.). Center for the ecological study of perception". 2012-11-30. Archived from the original on 1997-04-12. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  19. ^ Temple, Christine M. (1990). "Developments and applications of cognitive neuropsychology." In M. W. Eysenck (Ed.)Cognitive Psychology: An International Review. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 110
  20. ^ a b Conti-Ramsden, Gina; Durkin, Kevin (2012). "Language Development and Assessment in the Preschool Period". Neuropsychology Review. 22 (4): 384–401. doi:10.1007/s11065-012-9208-z. PMID 22707315.
  21. ^ Välimaa-Blum, Riitta (2009). "The phoneme in cognitive phonology: Episodic memories of both meaningful and meaningless units?". Cognitextes (2). doi:10.4000/cognitextes.211.
  22. ^ "Berkum, J. Language in action - Mood and language comprehension". 2010-12-06. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  23. ^ Martinez, M. E. (2006). "What is metacognition". The Phi Delta Kappan. 87 (9): 696–699. doi:10.1177/003172170608700916. JSTOR 20442131.
  24. ^ "Cohen, A. (2010). The secret to learning more while studying". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  25. ^ "Lovett, M. (2008). Teaching metacognition". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  26. ^ a b Kahneman D. (2003) "A perspective on judgement and choice." American Psychologist. 58, 697–720.
  27. ^ "University of Pennsylvania (N.D). Aaron T. Beck, M.D". 2013-10-23. Archived from the original on 2017-09-14. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  28. ^ Grohol, John M. (2009-02-03). "Grohol, J. (2009). Efficacy of Antidepressants". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  29. ^ Beck, A.T. (1987). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press
  30. ^ Moskowitz, G.B. (2004). Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (pp. 3)
  31. ^ Fontaine, R.G. (2012). The Mind of the Criminal: The Role of Developmental Social Cognition in Criminal Defense Law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (p. 41)
  32. ^ "Astington, J.W. & Edward, M.J. (2010). The development of theory of mind in early childhood. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, 2010:1–6" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  33. ^ Brainerd, C.J. (1996). "Piaget: A centennial celebration." Psychological Science, 7(4), 191–194.
  34. ^ a b c Reif, F. (2008). Applying Cognitive Science to Education: Thinking and Learning in Scientific and Other Complex Domains. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. (a pp. 283–84, b pp. 38)
  35. ^ Beck, A.T., Freeman, A., & Davis, D.D. (2004). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. (pp. 300).
  36. ^ Baddeley, A. & Bernses, O.A. (1989). Cognitive Psychology: Research Directions In Cognitive Science: European Perspectives, Vol 1 (pp. 7). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd. (pg. 7)
  37. ^ "Thagard, P. (2010). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  38. ^ Gardner, Howard (2006). Changing Minds. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4221-0329-6.

Further reading

  • John A. Groeger. 2002. "Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Volume 5, Issue 4, pages 235–248
  • A.M. Jacobs. 2001. "Literacy, Cognitive Psychology" of International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pages 8971–8975
  • Warren Mansell. 2004. "Cognitive psychology and anxiety." Psychiatry, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 6–10
  • Philip Quinlan, Philip T. Quinlan, Ben Dyson. 2008. Cognitive Psychology. Publisher-Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 0131298100, 9780131298101
  • Robert J. Sternberg, Jeff Mio, Jeffery Scott Mio. 2009. Publisher-Cengage Learning. ISBN 049550629X, 9780495506294
  • Nick Braisby, Angus Gellatly. 2012. Cognitive Psychology. Publisher-Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199236992, 9780199236992

External links

This page was last edited on 14 April 2019, at 21:44
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.