1 / 47

Lecture 12 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011

Lecture 12 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011. N. R. Brown. Outline. Dual Process Models Recognition & Remember/Know Process Dissociation Procedure Direct Tests Indirect Tests Implicit Memory & Real-World Estimation Semantic Memory. Remember/Know: An Example – Rajaram (1993).

afi
Download Presentation

Lecture 12 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 12 – Psyco 350, B1Winter, 2011 N. R. Brown Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 1

  2. Outline • Dual Process Models • Recognition & Remember/Know • Process Dissociation Procedure • Direct Tests • Indirect Tests • Implicit Memory & Real-World Estimation • Semantic Memory Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 2

  3. Remember/Know: An Example – Rajaram (1993) Exp 1. Levels of Processing • R: semantic > rhyme; K: deep = shallow Exp 2. Pictures vs words • R: picture > words; K: picture = word Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 3

  4. Remember/Know (Radvansky, pp 307-308) General Findings: factors  recollection,  “remember” LOP, repetition, short (vs long) delay Problems: • poor terminology Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 4

  5. Remember/Know Instructions: Rajaram (1993) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 5

  6. Remember/Know General Findings: factors  recollection,  “remember” LOP, repetition, short (vs long) delay Problems: • poor terminology • judgmental criteria • r/k as confidence judgment Converging Evidence: Process dissociation studies Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 6

  7. Process Dissociation; Jacoby (1991) • Two Independent Process: recollective (R) automatic (A) • Strategy: set processes in opposition  manipulate factor(s) affecting recollection  2 tests: recollection  yes (Inclusion) recollection  no (Exclusion) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 7

  8. Process Dissociation 2 tests: • recollection  yes (Inclusion) • recollection  no (Exclusion) Goal: Compute values for R & A • Data: Inclusion = R + A(1-R) Exclusion = A(1-R) • Parameter Estimates R = Inclusion – Exclusion A = Exclusion / (1-R) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 8

  9. Process Dissociation Evidence for the role of Dual-Processes in two classes of memory test • A Direct Test (recognition) • An Indirect Task (fragment completion) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 9

  10. Process Dissociation: Direct Test • Read a list of words – List 1 • Hear a list of words – List 2 • Two recognition tests: • Both tests include List 1, List 2 and novel words. • Inclusion test: Respond “old” if word was on either list. • Exclusion test: Respond “old” only if word was on List 2. Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 10

  11. Inclusion test • Inclusion test: Respond “old” if word was on either list. • Intentional (recollective) process will have a certain probability of concluding “old” for List 1 words – R • Automatic process will also have a certain probability of concluding “old” for List 1 words – A • If either process concludes “old”, the subject will respond “old” P(old) = R + A (1-R) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 11

  12. Inclusion Condition Recollected “OLDR” R% List1Word High Familiarity “OLDA” A% NOT Recollected 1-R% Low Familiarity 1-A% “New” P(OLD) = P(OLDR) + P(OLDA) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 12

  13. Exclusion test • Exclusion test: Respond “old” only if word was on List 2. • Subject will only respond “old” to List 1 words if two things happen: • The automatic process responds “old” due to a feeling of familiarity – A • The intentional process fails to recognise the word (if it had, it would recall it was from List 1) – (1-R) P(old ) = A(1-R) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 13

  14. Exclusion Condition Recollected “NEW” R% List1Word High Familiarity “OLDA” NOT Recollected A% 1-R% Low Familiarity 1-A% “New” P(OLD) = P(OLDA) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 14

  15. Dissociating the processes Data: • Inclusion: P(old) = R + (1- R) • Exclusion: P(old) = A(1-R) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 15

  16. Inclusion Condition Recollected “OLDR” R% List1Word High Familiarity “OLDA” A% NOT Recollected 1-R% 1-A% Low Familiarity “New” P(OLD) = P(OLDR) + P(OLDA) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 16

  17. Exclusion Condition Recollected “NEW” R% List1Word High Familiarity “OLDA” A% NOT Recollected 1-R% 1-A% Low Familiarity “New” P(OLD) = P(OLDA) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 17

  18. Dissociating the processes Data: • Inclusion: P(old) = R + (1- R) • Exclusion: P(old) = A(1-R) Parameter Estimates • Inclusion – Exclusion = R • A = Exclusion / (1-R) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 18

  19. Jacoby (1991) Materials: • List 1: READ words • List 2: HEAR words Tests: • Inclusion • List 1  “OLD” • List 2  “OLD” • Exclusion • List 1  “NEW” • List 2  “OLD” Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 19

  20. Jacoby (1991; Exp 3) Two recognition tests (% “OLD” for READ words): • Inclusion test P(old) = 0.48 • Exclusion test P(old) = 0.37* • R = Inclusion – Exclusion = 0.11 • A = Exclusion / (1-R) = 0.37 / 0.89 = 0.42 *in exclusion condition, “OLD” are errors Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 20

  21. Jacoby (1991; Exps 2 & 3) Implication: When recollection is knocked out, P(OLD) in exclusion condition should equal A Exclusion test w/ digit monitoring task (monitor for 3 odd digits in a row). Expectation: Recollection eliminated by divided attention (digit task) – R = 0 Prediction: Exclusion = A(1-R) = 0.42 (1-0) = 0.42 Results: Exclusion w/ divided attention: Prob(Old) = 0.43 Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 21

  22. Process Dissociation: Indirect Test Jacoby, Toth, & Yolelinas, (1993, Exp 1b) Study: read words • full attention • divided attention ( recollection) Task: stem completion: • inclusion: complete with list word or guess • exclusion: complete with new words only @ Test: green stem inclusion red stemexclusion Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 22

  23. Jacoby et al. (1993): Results Divided attention: • Inclusion task:  P(old) • Exclusion task:  P(old) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 23

  24. Jacoby et al. (1993): Results Results: • Inclusion: div (46%) < full (61%) • Exclusion: div (46%) > full (36%) Interpretation: • div attention knocked out recollection • recollection  accuracy in both conditions Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 24

  25. Jacoby et al. (1993): Results Computing A & R Full R = I – E A = E/(1-R) 25 = 61 – 36 47 = 36/75 Divided R = I – E A = E/(1-R) 0 = 46 – 46 46 = 46/(1-0) Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 25

  26. Process Dissociation Procedure: Conclusion • There are no process pure tasks. • Both recollective/explicit & automatic/implicit processes can influence performance on both direct and indirect tests of memory Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 26

  27. Implicit Memory & Judgment – Mere Exposure (Radvansky, p. 108-109) Zajonc (1969) Study: • view a set of Chinese characters • subliminal exposure (4 msec/charter) Test: • recognition (2IFC – exposed vs new) -- OR -- • preference judgment (2IFC – exposed vs new) Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 27

  28. Zajonc (1969): Results Recognition at chance. Preference Judgment: 65% favored exposed character. Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 28

  29. Zajonc (1969): Explanation • (Even subliminal) exposure facilities subsequent processing fluency, i.e., speed & easy of processing • Evidence for fluency: Repetition priming effects on tasks like lexical decision & perceptual identification. • People are sensitive to between-item differences in fluency, though not necessarily aware of their origins. • OTBE*, people tend to attribute POSITIVE things, fluently processed stimuli. *OTBE = Other Things Being Equal Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 29

  30. Fluency Effects Memory & perceptual judgments: recognition recency frequency loudness Non-mnemonic Judgments: liking/preferences truth fame r-w world estimates Question: When, why, and to what extent does fluency (implicit memory) affect knowledge-based judgment? Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 30

  31. Estimate the current populations of the following countries. Actual Pop Estimate 1992 2006 .Austria 37.0 mil 7.6 mil 8.2 mil Bangladesh 15.0 mil 114.7 mil 147.2 mil Nigeria 16.5 mil 115.6 mil 131.9 mil Norway 24.5 mil 4.2 mil 4.6 mil Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 31

  32. “Availability Bias” & Populations Estimation 1. People tend to UNDERestimate populations of large, obscure countries. Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 32

  33. “Availability Bias” & Populations Estimation 2. People tend to OVERestimate populations of small, well-known countries. Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 33

  34. A Possible Explanation for Availability Bias Domain-specific knowledge & fluency-based intuitions can influence real-world estimation. For populations estimation: • People use fluency/familiarity/availability to gauge relative population size. • Assumption: better known countries have larger populations then less-well known countries. Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 34

  35. Availability Terminology: • Tversky & Kahneman (1973) identified the “Availability Heuristic.” • when ease-of-retrieval used to estimate frequency or probability of events. Generalization: • ease-of-retrieval  fluency, familiarity • “availability” used in situations in which fluency is found to affect judgment and decision making. Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 35

  36. Availability The Logic of the Availability (fluency, familiarity) Assume: propx correlates w/ memory Goal: propx for itemi? Mechanism: • assesses availability of info for itemi. • use assessment as index of propx for itemi . Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 36

  37. Implicit Memory & Real-Estimation Brown & Siegler (1992) Background: availability might be a good cue for estimating population. But is it used? Reason: population & media exposure highly correlated • R(New York Times index/ True Pop) = .59 Prediction: • estimated population should correlate strongly w/ rated knowledge (a proxy for availability) Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 37

  38. Brown & Siegler (1992): Method Materials: 100 countries Participants: 24 CMU undergrads Tasks: • Rate knowledge • Estimate population Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 38

  39. Brown & Siegler (1992): Results Important results: • As predicted, R(est w/ know) quite high (.58) • [R(est w/know) = .58] >> [R(est/true) = .41] Interpretation: • pop-estimates based in availability-base intuitions Psyco 350 Lec #12– Slide 39

  40. Availability & Population Estimation Interpretation: • pop-estimates based in availability-base intuitions An Alterative Interpretation: • People hold preexisting beliefs about the size of well-known countries. • These beliefs are biased by media coverage. • People infer that unknown countries are small. (Recognition Heuristic – Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996) Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 40

  41. Availability & Population Estimation • People can and do justify their estimates with reference to task relevant knowledge. • Size categories are often mentioned. • Comparisons w/ other countries also occur Key question: • Are size categories retrieved or inferred? Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 41

  42. Brown, Cui, & Gordon (2002) Aim: Determine whether population estimation is sensitive to priming, as Availability account predicts. Method: • Phase 1 – rate knowledge • 52 countries (primed set) • Phase 2 – estimate populations • 52 primed countries & 52 unprimed countries* *primed & unprimed sets matched for estimated pop, rated kn, actual pop, actual area &region Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 42

  43. Brown et al. (2002): Results Availability Prediction: Primed > Unprimed Results: • Primed: 23.3 million • Unprimed: 21.2 million •  2.1 million* • %  10% Interpretation: knowledge ratings  availability/fluency in primed set Availability/fluency influenced estimation process Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 43

  44. Another Example: Fatality Estimates Task: How many Canadians died of CauseX last year? Results: • reasonable correlation between estimated & true fatality rate. • Availability Bias: holding true frequency constant, more vivid causes elicit  estimates Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 44

  45. Another Example: Fatality Estimates Task: How many Canadians dies of CauseX last year? Results: • reasonable correlation between estimated & true fatality rate. • Availability Bias: holding true frequency constant, more vivid causes elicit  estimates Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 45

  46. Importance of Availability Importance of availability differs across tasks. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Determinants: • actual/perceived correlation between propx and memory • quantity & credibility of competing information __________________________________________________________________________________________ Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 46

  47. Importance of Availability Judgment/estimation tasks that are (sometimes) display an availability bias: • recency (dates, recognition), truth, fatality rates, frequency, probability, corporate sales, wealth, population Judgment/estimation tasks that do not display an availability bias: • age, distance, area, latitude, longitude Psyco 350 Lec #12 – Slide 47

More Related