• RRP: £174.99
  • You Save: £122.50 (70%)
FREE Delivery in the UK.
Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.
Gift-wrap available.
Cognition has been added to your Basket
+ £2.80 UK delivery
Used: Like New | Details
Sold by Nearfine
Condition: Used: Like New
Comment: Looks unread! Expect delivery in 20 days.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Cognition Hardcover – 19 Nov 2010

1 customer review

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"
£20.99 £16.15
£52.49 FREE Delivery in the UK. Only 1 left in stock (more on the way). Dispatched from and sold by Amazon. Gift-wrap available.

Frequently Bought Together

Cognition + Clinical Psychology Practice
Price For Both: £83.98

Buy the selected items together

Product details

  • Hardcover: 604 pages
  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; 1 edition (19 Nov. 2010)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0471715662
  • ISBN-13: 978-0471715665
  • Product Dimensions: 20 x 2.5 x 23.4 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 676,901 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Rubbish. Set text book for course, which we complained about as there are far better books available. Badly edited, inaccurate or just plain wrong information. Terrible book. DO NOT BUY IT.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 4 reviews
Do NOT buy this book 5 April 2013
By Frustrated NUS Student - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover
I'm currently a student in a university in Singapore and this was chosen as my course text. I fully agree with what some have said here about how POORLY written this book is. There are numerous mistakes and I will let me tutor's own emails regarding the textbook speak for itself:

Email No. 1:

"Hi all,

A student's query has brought to my attention a slight error in the Cognition textbook (Whitman) with respect to the Waugh- Norman study, which looked at decay vs interference in STM (pages 162-163). In the study, there were two rates of presentation of items: 1 item/sec, and 4 item/sec. Obviously, the 1 item per second is the slow rate of presentation, while the 4 items/ sec is the fast rate.

In the figure accompanying the text (figure 4.10 (a), page 163), the 4 items/sec is labelled as slow, while 1 item/sec is labelled as fast. This is an error. The correct label should be:
4 items per second: fast rate-less decay time; and
1 item per second: slow rate--more decay time.

Also, on page 162, second paragraph, it is stated that if 12 intervening items are presented before the probe digit, then at one digit per second, it would take 12 seconds before the probe digit appears; while at four items per second, there is 48 seconds of decay time. This is again incorrect. If you show items at the rate of 4 items per second, then it should take less time for the 12 items to be presented before the probe digit, so the intervening time in the 4 item/sec condition would be 3 seconds in this case.

Hope this was clear"

Email No. 2:

"Hi ppl.

A few more errors (and ambiguous wordings) in the textbook (Whitman) have come to our notice, thanks to alert students. So here they are:
The second last paragraph (and accompanying figure) of page 188:
The text correctly states that the visual interference task selectively reduced memory for the visual memory task, while the spatial interference task interfered with the spatial memory span. This is consistent with the researcher's claim of the presence of separate visual and spatial memory buffers. However, the accompanying figure.11(c) has the labels wrong; Dark blue and light blue labels can be swapped to give the right picture (visual interference leads to poor performance in visual sequential, but not spatial pattern reproduction; and the reverse holds for spatial interference).
So in short, Light blue should stand for visual interference, while dark blue should stand for spatial interference. Hope this was clear.

The last line of the first paragraph of page 115:
This is regarding Pashler's series of experiments.The text says that "... increasing the time duration between the beginning of the first and second tasks, thereby giving more time for completion of the first task, does not reduce the time to completion of the second task but actually increases it. An example will make the phenomenon clear".

In fact, the example in the next paragraph seemingly contradicts the above statement. The text details an experiment where the subjects have to respond to a tone (the first task) before responding to visual stimuli such as numbers (the second task). As the text says in the last line of the paragraph, ".....as the time between the tone and the numbers is shortened, the time required to respond to the numbers increases". This statement is congruent with the figure in the next page (figure 3.7, page 116), but incongruent with the statement in the previous paragraph cited above. So which is correct?

The critical feature of these series of experiments is that as time between the onset of the first stimuli and the onset of the second stimuli (called stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA) is decreased, the reaction time for the second task becomes slower. In other words, the sentence, ".....as the time between the tone and the numbers is shortened, the time required to respond to the numbers increases" is correct. I am not sure what the first cited sentence might mean, but please disregard it. I hope this is clear.

The figure 3.7 makes it clear that as the SOA decreases and the second stimulus appears nearer in time to the first stimulus, the reaction time taken to respond to the second stimulus increases. The reason is that the second stimulus has to wait while the response selection for the first stimulus is going on, and only then can its own response selection be handled. So even if the second stimulus comes in early, it has to wait while the first stimulus is being processed.
For instance, if you come in early to meet the teacher, but your teacher is talking to another person at the time, you waste more time doing nothing than if you had come a bit later.

I hope this was clear."


Fellow Student
Awful Textbook 24 Oct. 2011
By KRO - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
This textbook is terribly written and is full of careless errors and misspellings. These range from outright untruths (for example, page 48 the fovea is mixed up with the area that the optic nerve enters the eye) to simple sloppiness (misspelling Selfridge's name as Slefridge in the caption on page 73). The book refers to several of the figures as if they were in color, while the book is only printed in blue/black (for example, bottom of page 189). Graphs are mislabeled, and there are several sentences that just don't make any sense. I would not recommend this textbook to anyone, though I doubt most people reading this have a choice...
could use revision 21 Oct. 2011
By ndotterweich - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
It's a good textbook except for a few little things. Key terms aren't defined anywhere in the book, so when your instructor asks for definitions you need to use your best judgement to figure it out. Also, when describing how certain experiments played out, the author writes as though the reader already knows the experiment front to back.
Great Service 2 April 2014
By Darryl Dixon - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Everything went well I was pleases with your service and will definitely use it again. God bless and keep up the great work.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know