lecture 14 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011

Lecture 14 – Psyco 350, B1Fall, 2011

N. R. Brown

Psyco 350 Lec #14– Slide 2

Outline

1. Semantic Memory• Network Models

• The Nelly Study

• Scripts/Schemata

2. Discrepant Partner Reports and the MSP– The Discrepancy

– MSP


Neely (1977)

Basic Premises: 2 components to priming

Automatic component:

fast, effortless, unaffected by intention/expectation

Controlled component:

Attentional, Slow, Effortful, Benefits (if correct) Costs (if incorrect)


Neely (1977)

Goal: Contrast automatic & controlled priming

Task:

Lexical Decision -- Timed Word/Non-word Decision

Trial:

Prime Target Response

SOA RT

SOA = Stimulus Onset Asynchrony


Neely (1977): Design

Prime-Target*

ExpectationX Relation X SOA .

No Shift 250 msec

Shift 400 msec

700 msec

2000 msec

* see next slide


No Shift Trials: See Bird as prime expect a bird name as target.

1. Neutral XXXX-- robin2. No Shift BIRD -- robin3. Shift (unexpected) BIRD -- arm

Shift Trials: See Building as prime, expect a Body Part as target.

1.Neutral XXXXX -- window2. No Shift BUILDING -- window3. Shift (expected) BUILDING -- leg4. Shift (unexpected) BUILDING -- robin


No Shift Trials: See Bird as prime expect a bird name as target.

1. Neutral XXXX-- robin2. No Shift BIRD -- robin 80% primed trials3. Shift (unexpected) BIRD -- arm 20% primed trials

Shift Trials: See Building as prime, expect a Body Part as target.

1.Neutral XXXXX -- window2. No Shift BODY -- leg 10% primed trials3. Shift (expected) BODY – window 80% primed trials4. Shift (unexpected) BODY – robin 10% primed trials


Neely (1977): Results

A Priming Effect: Neutral Trials - Primed Trials

Two Type of Priming Effects:

1. Facilitation Effects -- Positive Priming

• Priming effect is positive -- Neutral > Primed

2. Inhibition Effect -- Negative Priming

• Priming effect is negative -- Neutral < Primed


Neely (1977) Results – NO Shift Expected

1. No-shift, same-category pairs (Bird-robin):

• Substantial facilitation at all SOA.

2. Shift, different-category pairs (Bird-arm):

• Inhibition increases with SOA


Neely (1977): Results – Shift Expected

1. Expected Shift (BODY –door):

• Facilitation increases with SOA

2. No-shift, same-category (BODY -- heart):

• Facilitation at smallest SOA• Increasing inhibition at longer

SOAs


Neely (1977): Results – Shift Expected

1. Expected Shift (Building-leg):

• Facilitation increases with SOA

2. No-shift, same-category pairs (Building-window):

• Facilitation at smallest SOA• Increasing inhibition at longer

SOAs

3. Shift to unexpected category (BODY - robin)

• Inhibition at all SOAs • Inhibition increases with SOA


Neely (1977): An Explanation

1. Automatic Spreading Activation: • Originates at prime, spreads to related concepts, decays

rapidly.

2. Attention required to maintain activation over longer SOAs.



3. Focusing attention on one category:

• facilitates (primes) processing of category members

• interferes with the processing (reading/word recognition) of items from other categories



4. In the Shift-Expected condition, subjects shift attention to & maintain attention for cued category

• It takes time to shift attention to new category.

• Once attention is shifted, focus is on the new category.



Shifting categories takes times.

Maintaining focus on indicated category:• facilities processing of focal category members• reduces attentional resources required to read & decide

whether letter string is a word.


Semantic Networks & Priming

• Semantic Network– general knowledge representation– based on relatedness, meaning-based similarity

• Spreading Activation– automatic consequence of processing a related

information

– preparation for encountering the expected

• Activated concepts sometimes equated w/ consciousness & focal elements of WM (Cowan)


Schemata & Scripts

Schemata:• Complex, stable knowledge structures

– occupations, geographical/architectural layouts, story structures, etc.

Scripts:Schemata representing stereotypical event sequences

Assumption – this knowledge is represented in semantic memory & used extensive in planning, comprehension, and recall (reconstruction)


Schemata

Bartlett 1st to recognize importance of schemata.

“War of the Ghosts” Study• English undgrads read a North American Indian

legend twice.• Recalled the story once after 15 min and then over of

the course of several month


Bartlett – War of the Ghosts

Main Findings:• Reproduction distorted in ways that brought the story

increasing in lines with European:

– narrative conventions

– beliefs re: physical & biological causality

Interpretation:

• Participants combined fragmentary story memory with schematic knowledge to reconstruct a “sensible” story.


Schemata: General Findings

When present:• Schema-consistent info, well remembered

• Schema-inconsistent info, less well remembered.

When NOT present:

• Schema-consistent info often falsely remembered (schema-driven reconstruction)

• Schema-inconstant info generally not falsely remembered


Recognizing Script-based Materials: Hannigan & Reinitz (2001)

• Schemata that capture general information about routine event sequences

– Eating in a restaurant, attending a movie, a visiting a doctor’s office, attending class, going to the beach

• Scripts identify central (& less central) actions & typical (& atypical) roles, & props.

• When not specified (or experienced) central actions & typical roles & props inferred/reconstructed


Hannigan & Reinitz (2001): Method

Materials: • four 13-slide sequences

– a sequence represented one script-based activity (e.g. grocery shopping)

– including• HIGH schema-relevant items (e.g. get shopping

cart) • LOW schema-relevant items (e.g., put food on

belt)

– Presentation: 5.5 s/slide



Test Phase:0-to-5 Recognition Confidence Judgment on each slide:• 0 = certain slide not seen• 5 = certain slide was seen

Design:

Item Type X Schema-relevance X Delay

OLD high 15 min

NEW low 48 hr


Hannigan & Reinitz (2001): Results

For OLD items:• Reco very good• high > low

For NEW items @ 15 min delay:

• high > low• tendency to

infer/reconstruct stronger for high-relevance items

Delay

15-Min 48-HR

Rec

ogni

tion

Con

fiden

ce

0

1

2

3

4

5HO

HO

LO LO

HN

HN

LN

LN

High-OLD HOLow-OLD LOHigh-NEW HNLow-NEW LN


Hannigan & Reinitz (2001): Results

Effect of Delay:• OLD items: memory still

very good• False recognition

greatly for high-relevance items

Delay

15-Min 48-HR

Rec

ogni

tion

Con

fiden

ce

0

1

2

3

4

5HO

HO

LO LO

HN

HN

LN

LN

High-OLD HOLow-OLD LOHigh-NEW HNLow-NEW LN


Semantic Memory: Main Points

Semantic networks can represent simple facts and reflect conceptual similarity/relatedness

Semantic priming is well established process• serves to prime related informationSchemata/scripts – complex, stable knowledge

structures • captures generalizations re: complex, but regular

features of experience.• facilitate/bias perception & memoryChallenge:

Develop detailed extensions of these notions to deal with full range of knowledge domains & modalities


Memory for “How Many”

Modal explicit memory test:

• Memory for “what”

Other explicit memory test focus on event properties:

• when – event age/date/recency, list position

• where – physical location

• physical properties – appearance/sound/smell

• how often/how many – frequency



Theoretical Issues:

• Understand the impact of repetition on memory.

• Why is frequency performance often very good?

• How is frequency information represented, updated, & used?

• How and when is frequency information used to inform probability judgments and prediction?



Practical Issue:

• Self-reported “behavioral frequency” questions common in surveys & scales.

– business, government, Social Sciences, medicine (epidemiology)

• When are estimates accurate/inaccurate?

• When/why are they inaccurate/biased?

• Is there anyway to improve accuracy?


A Commonly Asked Frequency Question


Importance

• Epidemiology

• Sociology

• Psychology

• Methodology

♂SPs = ♀SPs

SP = sex partner


♂SP Mean = ♀SP Means

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M



F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

(♀SP = 2) = (♂SPs = 2)



F M

F M

F M

F M

F M



F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

(♀SP = 2) = (♂SPs = 2)


The Discrepancy

♂s report far more opposite-sex SPs than ♀s

Magnitude:

• 2 X – 4X

Generality:

• US, UK, France, Canada, Norway, New Zealand


SP Discrepancy as Case Study:

Explanations

Sampling Response

Social Cognitive


Sampling Account (Brewer, et al 2000)

• Prostitutes under-sampled

• Support: – adjustment =

estimate[# CSW]* estimate [# partners/CSW]

– adjustment reduces discrepancy

• Problems

– implication: For ♂s, ≈75% SP are CSWs

– Wiederman (1997) – removing “Johns” reduces discrepancy slightly, but does not eliminate it.


Social Account: Self-Presentation

Bad-faith Explanations

• Respondents are "telling themselves and others enormous lies“ -- Lewontin

• "Intentional misreports are the main source of the discrepancies.” -- Smith


Social Account: Self-Presentation

Bad-faith Explanations

Assumed to Reflect a socially prescribed Directional Biases

The-Macho-and-the-Maiden Hypothesis:

• ♂ exaggerate

• ♀ minimize


The Social Account: Support

Intuition

Robust attitude differences (Oliver & Hyde, 1993)


The Stakes

Bad-Faith Partner Estimates

Undermine credibility of self-report

placing "all scientific sociology...in deep trouble” -- Lewontin


A Problem for the Social Account

Problem:• Non-discrepant response patterns are the norm --

duration, frequency, activities, # past-year SPs• Example: Laumann et al. (1994)


A Cognitive AccountThe Multiple Strategies Perspective

Links the discrepancy to between-sex differences in strategy use.

Identifies common strategies w/ explicable bias

• Enumeration underestimation

• “Rough Approximation” overestimation


Multiple Strategy Perspective

• multiple strategies

• multiple representations

• encoding content

• content strategy

• strategy performance

References:• Blair & Burton, 1987; Brown, 1995, 1997, 2002, in press; Burton &

Blair, 1991; Conrad et al, 1998, 2003; Menon, 1993.


encoding factors

contents

effort bias accuracy

strategy


Multiple Strategy Perspective

• Encoding factors determine task-relevant contents of memory.

• Contents of memory restrict strategy selection.

• Strategy selection and response bias often related.


An Empirically Derived Taxonomy of Frequency Estimation Strategies


Relating Encoding, content, strategy & Performance

encoding content Strategy performance

‘memorable’events

‘on-target’ instances

on-target enumeration RT frequnderestimation

regularity rate rate retrieval fast, flat RTheaping

intent tally tally retrieval fast, flat RTaccurate(?)

frequent presentation

vague quantifier

impression retrieval fast, flat RToverestimation

indistinct instances

fluencymemory assessment fast, flat RT

overestimation

encoding/test mismatch

‘off-target’ instances

off-target enumerationSLOW, flat RTregressive estimates

lecture 14 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011

Documents