AP exam review verified for 2027

AP Psychology Unit 2 Review: Cognition

Review AP Psychology Unit 2 to build a complete picture of how people perceive, think, remember, and measure intelligence. This unit carries 15-25% of the exam weight and covers everything from Gestalt principles and heuristics to the forgetting curve and IQ testing.

Use the topic guides, key terms, and practice questions available for this unit to work through all eight topics before your exam.

What is AP Psychology unit 2?

Cognition is the study of mental processes: how you take in information, make sense of it, store it, and use it to make decisions. Unit 2 moves from perception through memory to intelligence, showing how each process can work well or break down.

Unit 2 covers perception, thinking and problem-solving, memory types and models, encoding and retrieval strategies, forgetting, and intelligence measurement. It asks you to explain how internal and external factors shape cognition and how those processes can produce errors.

Perception and thinking

Topics 2.1 and 2.2 explain how bottom-up and top-down processing shape what you perceive, how Gestalt principles organize visual scenes, and how heuristics like the availability and representativeness shortcuts lead to systematic judgment errors.

Memory: encoding, storage, and retrieval

Topics 2.3 through 2.6 trace information through the multi-store and working memory models, explain how encoding strategies like chunking and the spacing effect improve retention, and show how context-dependent and state-dependent cues aid retrieval.

Forgetting and intelligence

Topics 2.7 and 2.8 cover why memories fail through interference, the forgetting curve, and constructive memory errors, then shift to how intelligence is theorized (Spearman's g, Gardner, Sternberg), measured with standardized IQ tests, and complicated by stereotype threat and the Flynn Effect.

Cognition is active, not passive

Every process in Unit 2 shows that the mind constructs rather than records. Perception is filtered by schemas and culture. Memory is reconstructed at retrieval, not played back like a video. Intelligence scores reflect test design, access, and societal factors as much as raw ability. Keeping this constructive view in mind helps you apply concepts to novel scenarios on the exam.

AP Psychology unit 2 topics

2.1

Perception

Covers bottom-up and top-down processing, schemas and perceptual sets, Gestalt principles (closure, figure-ground, proximity, similarity), selective attention, inattentional blindness, binocular and monocular depth cues, perceptual constancies, and apparent movement.

open guide
2.2

Thinking, Problem-Solving, Judgments, and Decision-Making

Covers concepts and prototypes, schema assimilation and accommodation, algorithms versus heuristics, representativeness and availability heuristics, mental set, functional fixedness, framing, anchoring, executive functions, and creativity.

open guide
2.3

Introduction to Memory

Covers explicit memory (episodic, semantic), implicit memory (procedural), prospective memory, long-term potentiation, the multi-store model, the working memory model (central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad), and the levels of processing model.

open guide
2.4

Encoding Memories

Covers mnemonic devices (method of loci, acronyms), chunking, the spacing effect (distributed vs. massed practice), the serial position effect (primacy and recency), and how encoding depth affects later retrieval.

open guide
2.5

Storing Memories

Covers sensory memory (iconic, echoic), short-term memory capacity and duration, working memory, long-term memory, maintenance versus elaborative rehearsal, highly superior autobiographical memory, retrograde and anterograde amnesia, Alzheimer's disease, and infantile amnesia.

open guide
2.6

Retrieving Memories

Covers recall versus recognition, retrieval cues, context-dependent memory, mood-congruent memory, state-dependent memory, retrieval practice, the testing effect, and metacognition.

open guide
2.7

Forgetting and Other Memory Challenges

Covers the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, encoding failure, proactive and retroactive interference, the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, repression, the misinformation effect, source amnesia, constructive memory, and imagination inflation.

open guide
2.8

Intelligence and Achievement

Covers theories of intelligence (Spearman's g, Gardner's multiple intelligences, Sternberg's triarchic theory), IQ measurement history, psychometric principles (standardization, construct and predictive validity, test-retest and split-half reliability), the Flynn Effect, stereotype threat, misuse of IQ scores, and achievement versus aptitude tests and mindset.

open guide
practice snapshot

Hardest AP Psychology unit 2 topics

This snapshot uses Fiveable practice activity to show where students tend to miss questions and which review moves are worth prioritizing first.

71%average MCQ accuracy

Across 78k multiple-choice practice attempts for this unit.

78kMCQ attempts

Practice activity included in this snapshot.

68%average FRQ score

Across 155 scored free-response attempts for this unit.

Hardest topics in unit 2

MCQ miss rate
2.8

Review Intelligence and Achievement with attention to how the concept appears in AP-style source and evidence questions.

35%10,786 tries
2.1

Review Perception with attention to how the concept appears in AP-style source and evidence questions.

31%15,068 tries
2.3

Review Introduction to Memory with attention to how the concept appears in AP-style source and evidence questions.

31%11,416 tries
2.2

Review Thinking, Problem-Solving, Judgments, and Decision-Making with attention to how the concept appears in AP-style source and evidence questions.

30%11,723 tries

Unit 2 review notes

2.1

Perception

Perception is the brain's interpretation of sensory input. It is shaped by both the raw data coming in and by internal expectations. Gestalt psychologists identified organizing principles that explain how humans group visual elements automatically. Depth perception relies on binocular cues (retinal disparity, convergence) and monocular cues (relative size, texture gradient, linear perspective, interposition, relative clarity). Perceptual constancies keep objects stable even when retinal images shift.

  • Bottom-up processing: Perception driven by incoming sensory data, starting from raw features and building toward recognition.
  • Top-down processing: Perception driven by prior knowledge, expectations, and schemas that shape how sensory input is interpreted.
  • Gestalt principles: Closure, figure-ground, proximity, and similarity describe how the brain organizes visual elements into coherent wholes.
  • Selective attention: The cocktail party effect shows that attention can be focused on one stimulus while filtering others; inattentional blindness and change blindness show the limits of that focus.
  • Perceptual constancies: Size, shape, and color constancy allow stable perception of objects even when viewing angle, distance, or lighting changes.
Can you distinguish a binocular depth cue from a monocular depth cue and give one example of each?
Cue typeRequires both eyes?Examples
BinocularYesRetinal disparity, convergence
MonocularNoTexture gradient, linear perspective, interposition, relative size, relative clarity
2.2

Thinking, Problem-Solving, Judgments, and Decision-Making

Thought is organized around concepts and prototypes. Schemas are updated through assimilation (fitting new info into existing frameworks) or accommodation (revising the framework). Problem-solving uses algorithms (exhaustive, guaranteed) or heuristics (fast, fallible). Common heuristics include the representativeness heuristic and the availability heuristic. Biases like mental set, functional fixedness, anchoring, and framing affect decisions. Executive functions including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility support higher-order thinking.

  • Prototype: The most typical or ideal example of a concept, used as a mental benchmark for categorization.
  • Representativeness heuristic: Judging probability by how closely something matches a mental prototype, which can lead to ignoring base rates.
  • Availability heuristic: Estimating likelihood based on how easily an example comes to mind, often skewed by vivid or recent events.
  • Mental set: A tendency to approach new problems using strategies that worked in the past, even when a different approach would be more effective.
  • Functional fixedness: Seeing an object only in its typical use, which blocks creative problem-solving.
What is the difference between the representativeness heuristic and the availability heuristic? Give a real-world example of each.
StrategyHow it worksRisk
AlgorithmTests all possible solutions systematicallySlow and resource-intensive
HeuristicUses a mental shortcut to reach a quick judgmentCan produce systematic errors and biases
2.3

Introduction to Memory

Memory is not a single system. Explicit memory (episodic and semantic) can be consciously described; implicit memory (procedural) cannot. Prospective memory involves remembering to do something in the future. Long-term potentiation (LTP) is the biological basis of memory: repeated activation strengthens synaptic connections. Three major models describe memory structure: the multi-store model (sensory, short-term, long-term), the working memory model (central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad), and the levels of processing model (structural, phonemic, semantic encoding).

  • Explicit memory: Consciously accessible memory, divided into episodic (personal events) and semantic (general knowledge).
  • Implicit memory: Memory that is difficult to verbalize; procedural memory for skills is the key example.
  • Long-term potentiation (LTP): Repeated synaptic activation strengthens neural connections, providing the biological mechanism for memory formation.
  • Working memory model: Baddeley and Hitch's model in which a central executive coordinates the phonological loop (verbal) and visuospatial sketchpad (visual-spatial) to process active information.
  • Levels of processing model: Craik and Lockhart's framework: semantic (deep) encoding produces stronger memories than phonemic or structural (shallow) encoding.
How does the working memory model differ from the multi-store model in how it describes short-term memory?
Memory typeConscious access?Examples
EpisodicYesMemory of your last birthday
SemanticYesKnowing that Paris is in France
ProceduralNoRiding a bike, typing
ProspectiveYesRemembering to take medication at noon
2.4

Encoding Memories

Encoding is the process of getting information into memory. The strategy used determines how well information is later retrieved. Mnemonic devices (method of loci, acronyms, acrostics) create retrieval-friendly associations. Chunking groups information into meaningful units to reduce cognitive load. The spacing effect shows that distributed practice produces stronger encoding than massed practice. The serial position effect predicts better recall for items at the beginning (primacy) and end (recency) of a list.

  • Chunking: Grouping individual items into larger meaningful units to increase the amount of information that can be held and encoded.
  • Spacing effect: Distributing study sessions over time (distributed practice) leads to stronger memory consolidation than cramming (massed practice).
  • Serial position effect: Items at the start of a list (primacy effect) and end of a list (recency effect) are recalled better than middle items.
  • Method of loci: A mnemonic device that associates items to be remembered with specific locations along a familiar mental path.
  • Levels of processing model: Semantic encoding, which involves thinking about meaning, produces deeper, more durable memory traces than structural or phonemic encoding.
Why does distributed practice produce better retention than massed practice, and which memory model explains this?
2.5

Storing Memories

Memory storage systems differ in duration, capacity, and content. Sensory memory holds raw input briefly (iconic for visual, echoic for auditory). Short-term memory holds about 7 items for roughly 20 seconds without rehearsal. Working memory actively processes current information. Long-term memory has essentially unlimited capacity and duration. Maintenance rehearsal repeats information to keep it active; elaborative rehearsal connects new information to existing knowledge and produces stronger storage. Amnesia (retrograde and anterograde), Alzheimer's disease, and infantile amnesia illustrate how storage can be disrupted.

  • Sensory memory: Brief, high-capacity store for raw sensory input: iconic (visual, about 0.5 seconds) and echoic (auditory, about 3-4 seconds).
  • Maintenance rehearsal: Repeating information to keep it in short-term memory without necessarily moving it to long-term storage.
  • Elaborative rehearsal: Connecting new information to existing knowledge or meaning, which promotes transfer to long-term memory.
  • Retrograde amnesia: Inability to retrieve memories formed before a brain injury or trauma.
  • Anterograde amnesia: Inability to form new long-term memories after a brain injury, while older memories remain intact.
How do maintenance rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal differ in their effect on long-term storage?
Storage systemDurationCapacity
Sensory memoryMilliseconds to ~4 secondsLarge but fleeting
Short-term memory~20 seconds without rehearsal~7 items (plus or minus 2)
Working memoryActive processing durationLimited, task-dependent
Long-term memoryPotentially lifetimeEssentially unlimited
2.6

Retrieving Memories

Retrieval is getting stored information back out of memory. Recall involves producing information without cues (free recall) or with partial cues (cued recall). Recognition involves identifying correct information when it is presented. Retrieval is enhanced when the context, mood, or physical state at retrieval matches encoding conditions. Retrieval practice (the testing effect) strengthens memory more than passive rereading. Metacognition, or monitoring your own understanding, helps you judge whether you actually know material.

  • Recall: Retrieving information without being shown the answer; free recall has no cues, cued recall provides partial hints.
  • Recognition: Identifying correct information from options presented, as in multiple-choice questions.
  • Context-dependent memory: Retrieval is better when the physical environment at recall matches the environment during encoding.
  • State-dependent memory: Retrieval is better when the physiological or psychological state at recall matches the state during encoding.
  • Retrieval practice: Actively retrieving information from memory, rather than rereading, strengthens long-term retention through the testing effect.
How does context-dependent memory differ from state-dependent memory? Give a concrete example of each.
2.7

Forgetting and Other Memory Challenges

Forgetting is not random. Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve shows rapid memory loss shortly after learning that levels off over time. Encoding failure means information was never properly stored. Proactive interference occurs when old learning disrupts new memory; retroactive interference occurs when new learning disrupts old memory. The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon reflects retrieval failure despite storage. Psychodynamic theory attributes some forgetting to repression. Memory accuracy is also compromised by the misinformation effect (Loftus), source amnesia, and constructive memory processes including imagination inflation.

  • Forgetting curve: Ebbinghaus's finding that memory loss is steepest immediately after learning and gradually levels off over time.
  • Proactive interference: Previously learned information interferes with the ability to recall newer information.
  • Retroactive interference: Newly learned information interferes with the ability to recall previously learned information.
  • Misinformation effect: Exposure to misleading post-event information alters a person's memory of the original event, as demonstrated by Loftus's eyewitness research.
  • Constructive memory: Memories are rebuilt at retrieval using existing knowledge and expectations, making them vulnerable to distortion through imagination inflation and source amnesia.
What is the difference between proactive and retroactive interference? Which direction does each run?
Cause of forgettingMechanism
Encoding failureInformation was never properly stored in the first place
Proactive interferenceOld memories block recall of new information
Retroactive interferenceNew memories block recall of old information
RepressionPsychodynamic: unconscious blocking of distressing memories
Misinformation effectPost-event information overwrites or distorts the original memory
2.8

Intelligence and Achievement

Intelligence has been defined as a single general factor (Spearman's g), a set of primary mental abilities (Thurstone), multiple independent intelligences (Gardner), or three interacting abilities (Sternberg's triarchic theory). Early IQ tests divided mental age by chronological age; modern tests use standardized scoring. All useful psychological tests must be standardized, valid (construct and predictive validity), and reliable (test-retest and split-half). The Flynn Effect describes rising IQ scores over generations due to societal factors. IQ scores have historically been misused to restrict immigration, military rank, and educational access. Achievement tests measure current knowledge; aptitude tests predict future performance. Fixed versus growth mindset beliefs affect academic outcomes.

  • Spearman's g: The general intelligence factor proposed by Charles Spearman, suggesting a single underlying ability that influences performance across cognitive tasks.
  • Flynn Effect: The observed generational increase in average IQ scores worldwide, attributed to societal improvements such as better nutrition, health care, and education.
  • Construct validity: A test has construct validity if it actually measures the theoretical construct it claims to measure, such as intelligence.
  • Predictive validity: A test has predictive validity if its scores accurately forecast future performance, such as academic success.
  • Stereotype threat: Awareness of a negative stereotype about one's group can impair performance on tests, contributing to group score differences.
What is the difference between an achievement test and an aptitude test? Give one example of each.
TheoryTheoristCore claim
General intelligence (g)SpearmanOne factor underlies all cognitive performance
Multiple intelligencesGardnerEight or more independent intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, etc.)
Triarchic theorySternbergAnalytical, creative, and practical intelligence are three distinct but related abilities

Practice AP Psychology unit 2 questions

Try AP-style multiple-choice questions and written prompts after you review the notes.

Example AP-style MCQs

open all practice
Topic 2.8

Intelligence and Achievement practice question

Question

Over four years, students labeled fixed or growth mindset showed different gains. Fixed averaged 71% and gained 3 points while growth averaged 73% and gained 14 points. Which concept best explains the larger gains for growth mindset students?

Belief that intelligence is malleable increases effort and persistence.

Growth mindset students have higher innate intelligence than fixed students.

Fixed mindset students have lower aptitude and cannot improve.

Achievement tests measure learned knowledge not mindset directly.

Topic 2.8

Intelligence and Achievement practice question

Question

Researchers gave a standardized achievement test and an aptitude test to students in two schools with identical demographics but different resources. School A (well-funded) mean achievement 82, School B (under-resourced) mean 71. Aptitude means were nearly identical at 98. Which interpretation best explains this pattern?

Achievement reflects learning shaped by school resources while aptitude shows potential

Students in School B have lower intelligence despite equal aptitude scores

Aptitude tests are culturally biased while achievement tests reflect true ability

Under-resourced students have fixed mindsets that prevent achievement despite aptitude

Example FRQs

open all FRQs
FRQ

Psychological mechanisms influencing human behavior and cognition

This question has three parts: Part A, Part B, and Part C. Use the three sources provided to answer all parts.

For Part B and Part C, you must cite the source that you used to answer the question. You can do this in two different ways:

• Parenthetical Citation: For example: "...(Source 1)."
• Embedded Citation: For example: "According to Source 1..."

Write the response to each part of the question in complete sentences. Use appropriate psychological terminology.

2. Using the sources provided, develop and justify an argument about the extent to which post-event information distorts eyewitness memory.

A.

Propose a specific and defensible claim based in psychological science that responds to the question.

B.
i.

Support your claim using at least one piece of specific and relevant evidence from one of the sources.

ii.

Explain how the evidence from Part B (i) supports your claim using a psychological perspective, theory, concept, or research finding learned in AP Psychology.

C.
i.

Support your claim using an additional piece of specific and relevant evidence from a different source than the one that was used in Part B (i).

ii.

Explain how the evidence from Part C (i) supports your claim using a different psychological perspective, theory, concept, or research finding learned in AP Psychology than the one that was used in Part B (ii).

Source 1

AI generated

Introduction

This study investigated whether the grammatical structure of post-event questions influences individuals' memory reports for events they witnessed. Specifically, researchers examined how using definite articles ('the') versus indefinite articles ('a') in questions about a car accident video might lead participants to falsely remember details that were never present, a phenomenon central to understanding the misinformation effect and framing in memory reconstruction.

Participants

  • Total N: 96

  • Gender Breakdown: 58 women, 36 men, 2 non-binary individuals

  • Age Info: Mean age = 19.4 years (SD = 1.2, range: 18-24)

  • Recruitment: Participants were recruited from the introductory psychology subject pool at a large Midwestern university and received course credit for participation

Method

The experiment employed a between-subjects design with three conditions, where participants watched a short video of a minor car accident and later answered questions about what they had seen. The video depicted two cars colliding at low speed in a parking lot and did not show any broken headlight on either vehicle.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (n = 32 per condition). Upon arrival, they were seated individually at computer stations and told they would watch a brief video and answer questions about it. All participants viewed the same 45-second video clip showing a minor parking lot collision between a blue sedan and a silver SUV. After a 10-minute delay during which participants completed an unrelated word puzzle as a distractor task, they received a questionnaire containing either the critical question with 'the,' the critical question with 'a,' or only filler questions. All participants then completed a final memory assessment one week later.

The primary dependent variable was the percentage of participants who reported seeing a broken headlight during the one-week follow-up memory assessment. Responses were coded as 'yes' (reported seeing a broken headlight) or 'no' (did not report seeing one). Participants also rated their confidence in this memory on a 1-7 Likert scale.

Definite Article Group: Participants were asked 'Did you see the broken headlight?' using the definite article 'the,' which presupposes the existence of the object

Indefinite Article Group: Participants were asked 'Did you see a broken headlight?' using the indefinite article 'a,' which does not presuppose existence

Control Group: Participants were not asked any question about a headlight and only answered filler questions about other aspects of the video

Results

  • In the Definite Article Group, 53.1% of participants falsely reported seeing a broken headlight that was never present in the video

  • In the Indefinite Article Group, 21.9% of participants reported seeing a broken headlight

  • In the Control Group, only 9.4% of participants reported seeing a broken headlight

  • Participants in the Definite Article condition also reported higher confidence in their false memories (M = 4.8) compared to the Indefinite Article condition (M = 3.2)

A chi-square test revealed a significant association between question type and false memory reports, χ²(2, N = 96) = 14.87, p < .001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed the Definite Article group differed significantly from both the Indefinite Article group (p = .012) and the Control group (p < .001).

Percentage of Participants Falsely Reporting a Broken Headlight by Question Type

013.326.639.853.1123
False Memory Rate
X-axis: Question Condition | Y-axis: Percentage Reporting Broken Headlight (%)

Percentage of Participants Falsely Reporting a Broken Headlight by Question Type

Series

1

2

3

False Memory Rate

53.1

21.9

9.4

Discussion

These findings demonstrate that subtle linguistic cues in post-event questioning can significantly alter memory reports, supporting the misinformation effect theory that memories are reconstructive and susceptible to external influence. The use of the definite article 'the' appears to presuppose the existence of an object, leading participants to integrate this false information into their memory representation of the witnessed event.

Hernandez, M. R., Chen, W., & Blackwood, T. A. (2021). Linguistic presupposition and memory distortion: How definite articles create false memories for witnessed events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(3), 412-425.

Source 2

AI generated

Introduction

How does discussing a witnessed event with another person influence what we remember seeing? This study investigated memory conformity—the phenomenon where individuals adopt information from others into their own memory—and examined whether co-witness discussion could lead people to confidently recall details they never actually observed, a process related to source amnesia.

Participants

  • Total N: 86

  • Gender Breakdown: 52 females, 34 males

  • Age Info: Mean age = 34.2 years (SD = 11.8), range 19-67 years

  • Recruitment: Community adults recruited through local newspaper advertisements and community bulletin boards in exchange for $20 compensation

Method

The study employed a between-subjects experimental design comparing memory accuracy in participants who discussed a witnessed event with a co-witness versus those who recalled the event individually. The critical manipulation involved showing discussion partners slightly different versions of the same video, allowing researchers to track the transmission of false information between witnesses.

All participants were told they would watch a short video and later answer questions about it. In the Dyad Condition, 58 participants (29 pairs) were seated in separate rooms to watch their respective video versions, then brought together to discuss what they had witnessed. Discussion was free-form but participants were encouraged to help each other remember details. In the Individual Condition, 28 participants watched one video version alone. After a 20-minute delay, all participants completed a detailed recall questionnaire independently, asking them to describe everything they remembered seeing in the video.

The primary dependent variable was the recall of critical details that appeared only in the partner's video (false details for the participant). Researchers coded responses for the presence of four critical details—two unique to each video version. A detail was scored as 'falsely recalled' if a participant reported seeing something that was only present in their partner's video. Secondary measures included confidence ratings (1-7 scale) for each recalled detail.

Dyad Condition: Participants were paired with another participant and watched what they believed was the same video of a museum theft. In reality, each partner viewed a slightly different version containing two unique critical details (e.g., one video showed the thief hiding stolen jewelry in a backpack, the other showed a duffel bag). Partners then discussed the video together for 10 minutes before completing individual recall tests.

Individual Condition: Participants watched one version of the museum theft video alone and completed individual recall tests without any discussion period. They engaged in an unrelated filler task for 10 minutes to match the timing of the Dyad Condition.

Results

  • In the Dyad Condition, 71% of participants (41 of 58) recalled at least one critical detail that they had not seen but their partner had mentioned during discussion.

  • In the Individual Condition, 0% of participants (0 of 28) reported false critical details, as expected since they had no exposure to alternate information.

  • Participants who reported false details showed high confidence in their memories (M = 5.4 on a 7-point scale), indicating they genuinely believed they had seen these details.

The difference between conditions was statistically significant, χ²(1, N = 86) = 38.42, p < .001, φ = .67, indicating a large effect size.

Percentage of Participants Recalling False Critical Details by Condition

017.835.553.371Dyad ConditionIndividual Condition
Dyad Condition
Individual Condition
X-axis: Experimental Condition | Y-axis: Percentage of Participants Recalling False Details (%)

Percentage of Participants Recalling False Critical Details by Condition

Condition

Percentage of Participants Recalling False Details (%)

Dyad Condition

71

Individual Condition

0

Discussion

These findings demonstrate powerful memory conformity effects, where the majority of participants incorporated details from their discussion partner's account into their own memories. The high confidence ratings suggest source amnesia—participants lost track of whether they had actually seen these details or merely heard about them, highlighting the reconstructive and socially malleable nature of eyewitness memory.

Whitmore, K. L., Desmond, R. J., & Nakamura, T. (2021). Social contagion of false memories: Co-witness discussion and the misattribution of sources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 94(3), 104112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104112

Source 3

AI generated

Introduction

Can explicitly warning people about potential misinformation help them avoid incorporating false details into their memories? This experiment investigated how metacognitive awareness—specifically, source monitoring processes that help individuals evaluate the reliability of information—might serve as a protective factor against memory distortion following exposure to misleading post-event information.

Participants

  • Total N: 84

  • Gender Breakdown: 51 women, 32 men, 1 non-binary

  • Age Info: Mean age = 20.3 years (SD = 1.8, range: 18-26)

  • Recruitment: Undergraduate students recruited from an introductory psychology course participant pool at a midwestern university; received course credit for participation

Method

This experiment utilized a classic misinformation paradigm with a between-subjects design. Participants individually completed the study in a quiet laboratory room. The study employed a staged event video followed by a written narrative summary that contained both accurate and misleading details about the original video.

All participants first watched a 4-minute video depicting a museum theft, including 24 critical details (e.g., the thief wore a green jacket, escaped through a window). After a 15-minute filler task (completing word puzzles), participants read a 500-word narrative summary ostensibly written by 'another witness.' This summary contained 8 pieces of misinformation that contradicted the original video (e.g., stating the thief wore a blue jacket). Participants in the Warned Group received the credibility warning immediately before reading. After another 10-minute delay, all participants completed a 36-item cued-recall memory test asking specifically about details from the original video.

Memory accuracy was operationally defined as the percentage of correct responses on the 36-item test. Misinformation acceptance was specifically measured by examining accuracy on the 8 items corresponding to details that had been altered in the misleading narrative. A baseline comparison score was established using a separate pilot sample (n = 30) who viewed the video but read no post-event summary.

Warned Group: Participants (n = 42) were told before reading the post-event summary: 'Please note that the following account was written by another witness and may contain some errors or inaccuracies. Read carefully and try to distinguish what you actually saw from what you read.'

Unwarned Group: Participants (n = 42) read the identical post-event summary without any warning about potential inaccuracies.

Results

  • The Warned Group demonstrated significantly higher accuracy on misinformation items (M = 68.5%, SD = 14.2) compared to the Unwarned Group (M = 41.3%, SD = 16.8), indicating successful rejection of more misleading details.

  • However, both groups showed memory distortion compared to the baseline control group, who achieved 89.2% accuracy on those same items—the Warned Group still incorporated approximately 31% of the misinformation despite the explicit warning.

  • On non-misled items, both the Warned Group (M = 82.4%) and Unwarned Group (M = 79.8%) performed similarly, suggesting the warning specifically enhanced source monitoring for potentially misleading information.

An independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference between the Warned and Unwarned groups, t(82) = 8.24, p < .001, d = 1.75. One-way ANOVA comparing all three conditions was significant, F(2, 111) = 94.67, p < .001, η² = .63.

Accuracy on Misinformation Items by Condition

022.344.666.989.2Baseline (No Summary)Warned GroupUnwarned Group
Baseline (No Summary)
Warned Group
Unwarned Group
X-axis: Condition | Y-axis: Accuracy on Misinformation Items (%)

Accuracy on Misinformation Items by Condition

Condition

Accuracy on Misinformation Items (%)

Baseline (No Summary)

89.2

Warned Group

68.5

Unwarned Group

41.3

Discussion

These findings demonstrate that metacognitive warnings can substantially enhance source monitoring, enabling individuals to more effectively scrutinize and reject misinformation. However, the persistent gap between the Warned Group and baseline suggests that even heightened metacognitive awareness cannot fully prevent source confusion, highlighting the automatic and reconstructive nature of memory processes.

Thornton, R. M., Vasquez-Reilly, C., & Park, J. H. (2021). Metacognitive warnings and misinformation resistance: The limits of source monitoring interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(3), 412-426.

FRQ

Navigational errors: device users versus non-users

Using the source provided, respond to all parts of the question.

1. Your response to the question should be provided in six parts: A, B, C, D, E, and F. Write the response to each part of the question in complete sentences. Use appropriate psychological terminology in your response.

A.

Identify the research method used in the study.

B.

State the operational definition of navigational errors in the study.

C.

Describe what the data indicates about the frequency of navigational errors for Device Users compared to Non-Users.

D.

Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.

E.

Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.

F.

Explain how the research findings support or refute the concept of divided attention.

As mobile device usage has become increasingly prevalent in urban environments, researchers have grown concerned about how smartphone engagement may interfere with attentional processes necessary for safe pedestrian navigation. This longitudinal study examined how patterns of mobile device use during daily commutes related to navigational safety behaviors over an extended period, drawing on theories of divided attention and cognitive load to understand how technological multitasking affects real-world performance.

  • Total N: 186

  • Recruitment: Participants were recruited from three major metropolitan transit stations through posted flyers and digital announcements. Individuals who commuted through these stations at least four days per week were eligible to enroll. The study followed commuters over an 18-month period with assessments at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months. Of the initial 186 participants enrolled at baseline, 142 completed the 18-month assessment, representing a 23.7% attrition rate. Dropout was higher among younger participants and those with longer commute distances, which may limit the representativeness of findings at later time points.

  • Gender: 54.3% women, 43.5% men, 2.2% non-binary or other gender identities¹

  • Race/Ethnicity: 61.8% White, 18.3% Black or African American, 11.3% Hispanic or Latino, 5.9% Asian, 2.7% multiracial or other

  • Age Range: 19-58 years

  • Age Mean: 34.2

  • Age SD: 9.8

  • Compensation: Participants received a $25 transit card credit at each assessment point for a maximum of $100 over the study duration

  • Behavioral observation checklist for recording navigational incidents

  • Self-report device usage questionnaire administered via tablet

  • Wearable activity tracker to log movement patterns during commute

  • Standardized transit station observation zones with marked safety boundaries

  • Digital consent forms for ongoing participation confirmation

  1. At baseline, participants completed informed consent procedures and demographic questionnaires at their primary transit station.

  2. Trained research observers, blind to study hypotheses, were stationed at designated observation zones within each transit station during peak commuting hours (7:00-9:00 AM and 5:00-7:00 PM).

  3. Participants were classified as Device Users or Non-Users based on their self-reported typical commuting behavior and verification through initial observation sessions.

  4. At each assessment point (baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months), participants were observed on three separate commuting days within a two-week window, and navigational incidents were recorded using a standardized behavioral checklist.

  5. Navigational errors were operationally defined as any instance in which the participant bumped into another person, stumbled or lost balance while walking, or stepped beyond designated platform safety lines marked in yellow.

  6. At each follow-up assessment, participants were contacted via email and text message two weeks prior to their scheduled observation window and were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

  7. Participants completed a brief device usage survey at each time point to track any changes in their typical commuting phone behaviors.

  8. To maximize retention, participants received reminder communications and were offered flexible scheduling within their observation window.

Navigational errors were operationally defined as the total count of observable incidents during the commute observation period in which the participant: (1) made physical contact with another pedestrian (bumping), (2) exhibited a visible loss of balance or unsteady gait (stumbling), or (3) placed one or both feet beyond the yellow platform safety lines. Each incident type was recorded separately by trained observers using a standardized checklist, and the sum of all three incident types constituted the participant's navigational error score for that assessment point.

Researchers implemented ongoing informed consent procedures at each assessment wave, during which participants were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without forfeiting compensation already earned. Participants signed updated consent forms at the 6, 12, and 18-month assessments confirming their continued voluntary participation.

The longitudinal data revealed that Device Users demonstrated a consistent increase in mean navigational errors over the 18-month study period, rising from 3.42 incidents at baseline to 4.61 incidents at the final assessment. In contrast, Non-Users maintained relatively stable and low error rates across all time points, ranging from 1.18 to 1.31 incidents. This pattern suggests that habitual device use during commuting may be associated with progressively declining navigational safety over time, while non-users showed no such deterioration in their navigational performance.

Group

Baseline (N=186)

6 Months (N=171)

12 Months (N=158)

18 Months (N=142)

Device Users - Mean (SD)

3.42 (1.23)

3.89 (1.31)

4.27 (1.45)

4.61 (1.52)

Non-Users - Mean (SD)

1.18 (0.87)

1.24 (0.91)

1.31 (0.94)

1.28 (0.89)

Sample Size - Device Users

n = 112

n = 101

n = 92

n = 83

Sample Size - Non-Users

n = 74

n = 70

n = 66

n = 59

The findings support the hypothesis that mobile device engagement during pedestrian navigation is associated with increased navigational errors, with this relationship strengthening over the 18-month observation period. These results align with theories of divided attention², which posit that attentional resources are limited and that attempting to allocate cognitive capacity to multiple demanding tasks—such as processing smartphone content while navigating a crowded transit environment—results in degraded performance on one or both tasks. The progressive increase in errors among Device Users may reflect the cumulative effects of chronic attentional division or the development of overconfident multitasking habits that exceed actual cognitive capabilities.

Thornton, R. M., Vasquez, A. L., & Kim, S. J. (2022). Divided attention and pedestrian safety: An 18-month longitudinal study of mobile device use during urban commuting. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 48(3), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/acp0000892

  1. Gender categories reflect participant self-identification. The terminology used in this study follows current APA guidelines for inclusive demographic reporting.
  1. Divided attention refers to the cognitive process of allocating limited attentional resources across multiple simultaneous tasks or stimuli, typically resulting in reduced performance compared to focused attention on a single task.

Key terms

TermDefinition
monocular depth cuesDepth perception cues that work with one eye, including relative clarity, relative size, texture gradient, linear perspective, and interposition.
visual perceptual constanciesThe tendency to perceive objects as maintaining their properties (size, shape, color) even when the retinal image changes due to distance or viewing angle.
apparent movementThe visual perception of movement in objects that are not actually moving, such as in the phi phenomenon.
overconfidence effectA cognitive bias in which people overestimate the accuracy of their own beliefs and judgments, often leading to poor decision-making.
multi-store modelAtkinson and Shiffrin's model proposing three sequential memory systems: sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory.
phonological loopThe component of working memory that temporarily stores and processes verbal and acoustic information.
visuospatial sketchpadThe component of working memory that temporarily stores and processes visual and spatial information.
levels of processing modelCraik and Lockhart's model proposing that deeper semantic encoding produces stronger, more durable memories than shallow structural or phonemic encoding.
ChunkingGrouping individual pieces of information into larger meaningful units to reduce cognitive load and improve encoding.
Spaced learningDistributing study or practice sessions over time rather than in a single massed session, which improves long-term retention through the spacing effect.
Recency EffectBetter recall for items presented at the end of a list, one component of the serial position effect.
State-Dependent MemoryThe phenomenon in which retrieval is better when the physiological or psychological state at recall matches the state during encoding.
constructive memoryThe process by which memories are rebuilt at retrieval using existing knowledge and expectations, making them vulnerable to distortion through imagination inflation and source amnesia.
RepressionA psychodynamic defense mechanism in which distressing memories or thoughts are unconsciously pushed out of conscious awareness.
construct validityA test has construct validity if it accurately measures the theoretical construct it claims to measure, such as intelligence or anxiety.

Common unit 2 mistakes

Confusing proactive and retroactive interference

Proactive interference runs forward: old information blocks new learning. Retroactive interference runs backward: new information disrupts old memories. A helpful anchor is that 'retro' means backward, so retroactive interference works backward on older memories.

Mixing up the availability and representativeness heuristics

The availability heuristic is about ease of recall (how quickly an example comes to mind). The representativeness heuristic is about similarity to a prototype (how much something matches a mental category). Both cause errors, but through different mechanisms.

Treating the multi-store model and working memory model as the same thing

The multi-store model (Atkinson-Shiffrin) describes three sequential stores. The working memory model (Baddeley-Hitch) replaces the single short-term store with an active system that has three components: the central executive, phonological loop, and visuospatial sketchpad.

Assuming IQ measures a fixed, unbiased trait

IQ scores are influenced by test design, cultural context, access to education, and socioeconomic factors. The Flynn Effect shows scores change across generations. Stereotype threat demonstrates that situational factors depress scores independently of ability.

Confusing construct validity with reliability

Reliability means a test gives consistent results across administrations. Validity means the test actually measures what it claims to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid: it consistently measures the wrong thing.

How this unit shows up on the AP exam

Applying concepts to novel scenarios

AP Psychology questions frequently describe a person's behavior or experience and ask you to identify the correct psychological concept. For Unit 2, practice reading a scenario and deciding whether it illustrates a specific heuristic, a type of interference, a memory model component, or a validity issue with a test. The key skill is matching the mechanism to the described outcome, not just recalling a definition.

Explaining research findings

Questions may describe a memory or perception experiment and ask you to explain the result using a specific concept such as the spacing effect, the misinformation effect, or the forgetting curve. Be ready to name the concept, explain the mechanism, and connect it to the described outcome in precise psychological language.

Evaluating psychological assessments

Unit 2 includes psychometric principles that appear in questions asking you to evaluate whether a test is valid or reliable. Know the difference between construct validity and predictive validity, and between test-retest and split-half reliability. Questions may also ask you to identify how stereotype threat or cultural bias could affect score interpretation.

Final unit 2 review checklist

  • Final Unit 2 review checklistUse this list to confirm you can apply each major concept before your exam.
  • Explain perception using both processing directionsDescribe a scenario using bottom-up processing and a different scenario using top-down processing, and identify which Gestalt principle applies to a given visual example.
  • Distinguish memory types and modelsClassify a memory as explicit (episodic or semantic), implicit (procedural), or prospective, and map it onto the multi-store model or working memory model.
  • Apply encoding strategiesExplain why distributed practice outperforms massed practice using the spacing effect, and predict which items on a list will be recalled best using the serial position effect.
  • Explain retrieval and forgettingDistinguish recall from recognition, explain how context-dependent and state-dependent memory affect retrieval, and identify whether a forgetting scenario involves encoding failure, proactive interference, retroactive interference, or the misinformation effect.
  • Evaluate intelligence theories and testsCompare Spearman, Gardner, and Sternberg on what intelligence is, explain what makes a test valid and reliable, and describe how the Flynn Effect and stereotype threat complicate score interpretation.

How to study unit 2

Step 1: Perception and thinking (Topics 2.1-2.2)Read the topic guides for 2.1 and 2.2. Draw a quick diagram labeling binocular versus monocular depth cues. Then write out the representativeness and availability heuristics in your own words with one real-world example each. Use the available key terms to check your definitions.
Step 2: Memory types and models (Topic 2.3)Create a table comparing explicit, implicit, and prospective memory with one example each. Then sketch the working memory model labeling all three components. Review the levels of processing model and rank structural, phonemic, and semantic encoding from shallowest to deepest.
Step 3: Encoding and storage (Topics 2.4-2.5)List three encoding strategies (chunking, spacing effect, mnemonic devices) and write one sentence explaining why each works. Then compare the four storage systems on duration and capacity using the comparisonTable in the review notes as a reference.
Step 4: Retrieval and forgetting (Topics 2.6-2.7)Practice distinguishing recall from recognition with two examples. Then work through the five causes of forgetting in the comparisonTable and write a brief scenario for each. Use the available practice questions to test whether you can identify the correct cause in a novel scenario.
Step 5: Intelligence and achievement (Topic 2.8)Compare Spearman, Gardner, and Sternberg using the comparisonTable in the review notes. Then define construct validity, predictive validity, test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Finish by explaining the Flynn Effect and stereotype threat in two to three sentences each, focusing on what they reveal about the limits of IQ scores.

More ways to review

Topic study guides

Open the individual guides for Unit 2 when you want a closer review of one topic.

browse guides

Practice questions

Use AP-style practice after you review the notes so you can check what you understand.

start practice

FRQ practice

Practice free-response reasoning and compare your answer with scoring guidance.

practice FRQs

Cheatsheets

Use unit cheatsheets for a quick visual review after you work through the notes.

open cheatsheets

Score calculator

Estimate your broader AP score goal after you review the course and exam format.

open calculator

Frequently Asked Questions

What topics are covered in AP Psych Unit 2?

AP Psych Unit 2 covers 8 topics built around perception and cognition: Perception (2.1), Thinking and Problem-Solving (2.2), Introduction to Memory (2.3), Encoding Memories (2.4), Storing Memories (2.5), Retrieving Memories (2.6), Forgetting and Other Memory Challenges (2.7), and Intelligence and Achievement (2.8). Together they trace how the brain takes in, processes, stores, and retrieves information. See the full breakdown at AP Psych Unit 2.

How much of the AP Psych exam is Unit 2?

AP Psych Unit 2 makes up 15-25% of the AP exam, making it one of the heavier-weighted units. That means roughly 12-20 multiple-choice questions could come from this unit alone. The unit covers perception, memory processes like encoding and storing memories, thinking and problem-solving, forgetting, and intelligence, so strong preparation here pays off significantly on exam day.

What's on the AP Psych Unit 2 progress check (MCQ and FRQ)?

The AP Psych Unit 2 progress check includes both MCQ and FRQ sections drawn from all 8 topics in the unit. MCQ questions test your recall and application of perception, encoding memories, storing memories, retrieving memories, forgetting, thinking, and intelligence. The FRQ section typically asks you to apply memory or cognition concepts to a scenario, so knowing the stages of memory and key terms like chunking or the forgetting curve is essential. Practice with matched questions at AP Psych Unit 2 before attempting the progress check.

How do I practice AP Psych Unit 2 FRQs?

AP Psych Unit 2 FRQs most often draw from memory topics like encoding memories, storing memories, retrieval, and forgetting, as well as perception and thinking and problem-solving. Questions usually present a real-life scenario and ask you to identify or explain a concept, so practice by writing out definitions and then connecting them to examples. Focus on precise vocabulary: terms like elaborative encoding, the serial position effect, and the misinformation effect come up often. Find practice prompts and scoring guidance at AP Psych Unit 2.

Where can I find AP Psych Unit 2 practice questions?

The best place to find AP Psych Unit 2 practice questions, including MCQ and practice test sets, is AP Psych Unit 2. That page has resources covering all 8 topics, from perception and thinking to memory, forgetting, and intelligence. For MCQ prep, focus on questions that ask you to apply concepts to new scenarios rather than just recall definitions, since that matches the actual exam format.

How should I study AP Psych Unit 2?

Start with perception and work through the memory topics in order, since encoding memories, storing memories, and retrieving memories build on each other. Use spaced repetition flashcards for vocabulary-heavy topics like thinking and problem-solving, forgetting, and intelligence. For each memory concept, create a real-life example, not just a definition. That habit directly prepares you for FRQ scenarios. Review your weak spots using practice questions at AP Psych Unit 2, and revisit forgetting and Other Memory Challenges last since it ties the whole memory sequence together.

Ready to review Unit 2?Start with the notes, check the topic cards, and use the practice or resource links when they are available for this course.