Parallel Processing Is The Processing Of Several Aspects Of A

Parallel processing is the processing of several aspects of a problem simultaneously; the brain’s natural mode of information processing for many functions, including vision. Parallel processing contrasts with the step-by-step (serial) processing of most computers and of conscious problem solving. A general example: the retina projects not just to one visual cortex area but to several areas, each of which become active in response to retinal stimulation. When the brain integrates this visual information, further processing in another cortex area, the temporal lobe, enables us to recognize the image. The whole process of facial recognition requires tremendous brain power. During the car accident, Alicia receives information that she processes through parallel processing. Alicia probably had to recognize what was actually happening in the situation and then assess the “rights” and “wrongs” of the scene later. Therefore, when the police asked her what had happened, she was able to accurately give a statement. However, Alicia’s eye witness can be influenced (208). Alicia’s incentive is to be a good citizen. An incentive is a positive or negative environmental stimulus that motivates behavior. Alice’s incentive might change the way she viewed the incident because she feels that in order to be a good citizen, she needs to obey the police force. So when she is later asked in court to explain what she saw, Instead of saying that a male driver drove through the yellow light, she explained that the boy was in a hurry and sped through the yellow light. Her incentive to please what the public wants to believe made her change her own memory of the accident (457). The attribution theory is the theory that we tend to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition. In the accident, Alicia witnessed a young male driver driving through the yellow light but then explained later on trial that the boy was in a hurry and sped through the light. Alicia falls victim to the attribution theory; even though it is arguable that the young male driver was probably in a hurry, or was driving like a reckless teenager, Alicia doesn’t really have proof that this was the case. The young male could have been driving at the actual speed limit and just drove through the yellow light because forcing a stop would’ve been more dangerous. Plus, a lot of people drive through the yellow light when it just turns yellow anyway. Alicia doesn’t know what happened with the boy that made him drive through the yellow light. Perhaps he was just tired and distracted and didn’t find enough time to stop before hitting the car in front of him. To say that he was in a hurry would be a generalized explanation that Alicia has no evidence to make (696). The normative social influence is the influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval. Alicia could have changed her report because she was influenced by her peers. Asch’s experiment to explain conformity (adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard) revealed that conformity increases when: one is made to feel incompetent or insecure, the group has at least three people, the group is unanimous, one admires the groups status and attractiveness, one has made no prior commitment to any response, others in the group observe one’s behavior, and one’s culture strongly encourage respect for social standards. Alicia might have read news articles surrounding the crash or spoken with people of whom suggested that the male driver was probably speeding because he was so young. Alicia then is placed in a court room where, had she given an original answer the relatives of the older male driver and others might have objected if she didn’t pin the blame on the younger male driver. In this social context, Alicia changed her story in order conform with society’s standards (705). The misinformation effect when one incorporates misleading information into one’s memory of an event. In more than 200 experiments, involving more than 20,000 people,

Elizabeth Lofts has shown how eyewitnesses similarly reconstruct their memories when questioned. When witnesses were asked “how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other,” rather than “how fast were the cars going when they hit each other,” the viewers were likely to say that the cars were going twice as fast and that there was broken glass even though there was no broken glass shown. The police officer asked Alicia, “how fast was the teen speeding before the crash,” instead of just saying “how fast was the young male driving before he hit the other driver.” The officer incorporated information into Alicia’s head; she later testifies that the boy was in a hurry. Alicia’s memory was affected by the misinformation effect. However, another possibility is that Alicia suffers from source amnesia which is attribution to the wrong source; an even that we have experienced, heard about, read about, or imagined. Alicia has probably heard about many instances where a teenager was driving recklessly. The background information in Alicia’s memory and the officer’s misinformation both probably distorted her memory of the even (372).