Social Reasoning, Anxiety, and Collaboration with Rejected ...

Social Reasoning, Anxiety, and Collaboration with Rejected ...

Associative Judgments Block Semantic Processing
Erin Buchanan, William S. Maki, and Melissa Patton
Texas Tech University
Experiment 2

Abstract
but not vice versa. Several experiments were performed to
understand the differences in processing associative and semantically
related words. First, some participants judged how many people
would report a word A in reference to a word B, while other
participants were asked how much words A and B overlapped in
meaning. Consistently, associative scores will predict judgments in
both associative and semantic judgment conditions while semantic
scores will only predict semantic judgments. From there, other
participants were asked to both judge words and report words in an
rapid serial visual presentation task (RSVP). There is a separation in
priming for associative and semantic word types, and judgment data
is replicated. However, judgments seem to be a higher level process
that do not restrict priming, therefore they do not interact with
priming for word types.

Experiment 1
Stimuli
- 72 word pairs that varied on semantic and associative measures.
Associative Measures
Nelson, McEvoy, and Schreiber, 2004 Free Association Norms
Forward Strength (FSG)
Backward Strength (BSG)
Semantic Measures
McRae, Cree, Seidenburg, and McNorgan, 2005
Feature Production Norms (COS)

Question
Differential processing has been shown for judgments, where
associative information is used for both semantic and associative
judgments. There has been substantial research in priming that
shows priming for both associative and semantic word pairs (Lucas,
2000). We tested priming to see if this differential processing of
word relationships would carry over to a priming task.
Stimuli
Word pairs were created so that there was orthogonal relationships
using the associative databases from Experiment 1 and WordNET
Norms (Fellbaum, 1998; Patwardhan and Pedersen, 2003)
Informational distance (JCN).
Associative word pairs
54 judgment pairs (ATOM-SCIENCE)
54 priming pairs (ATOM-BOMB)
Semantic word pairs
54 judgment pairs (PATROL-POLICE)
54 priming pairs (PATROL-GUARD)
Unrelated word pairs
108 judgment pairs (POPCORN-BUTTER)
108 priming pairs (POPCORN-POP)
Procedure

Experiment 2 - Results

Experiment 2 Discussion

Priming

Again, we see that associative information is available and used to
make judgment even during semantic judgment tasks.
Priming results suggest that associative priming is stronger than
semantic priming, in all types of judgment conditions.
We dont see transfer appropriate processing, which indicates that
priming and judgments may be at different levels of processing
information.

associative
semantic

0.5
0.45

0.45

0.4

0.4

0.35

0.35

0.3

0.3

0.25

0.25

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0

0
1

3

1

6

associative
semantic

0.4
0.35

Judgment Type FSG (Associative Scores)

84 ms

0.3

0.3

0.25

0.25

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15
0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0

0
3

1

6

84 ms

Experiment 2A and 2B

48$&0^5
84 ms
pony

= -.074, pr =.005

Semantic

= .245*, pr2=.055

= .561**, pr2=.286

Note: ** = p<.001, * = p<.01 associative 0.55 Semantic Judgment By Lag semantic 0.55 associative Appears that semantic and associative memory can be separated. When we make judgments on these memory types, associative information is available and accessed for the task. Comparable results are found in priming tasks, where associative information of words directs priming at a higher level than semantic information. It may be that associative information is stored in a lexical network, similar to Williams (1996) inter-lexical hypothesis. Therefore, associative information would always be accessed in semantic tasks because accessing word information would activate associative links. This idea could explain both higher levels of associative priming and the block of semantic information during an associative judgment task. The direct links for associative are being accessed during an associative task and semantic level representations are bypassed. However, it is still the case that in lower-level tasks, such as priming, semantic information is activated (possibly automatically). This information is then blocked or not used during a higher cognition task, such as the judgment task. semantic 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 ?7>86&%

0.25

0.25

0.15

0.15

0.05

0.05

Word
Entry

Recall
-0.05

associative judgment

semantic judgment

-0.05

associative judgment

semantic judgment

Judging Second

Judging First

Judgment

0?&^7*5

Experiment 2C priming results by lag using difference scores (Related
Unrelated).

pony

Judgments

horse
+
cow

48$&0^5
0?&^7*5

Word
Entry

2A

pony

Experiment 1 Discussion
Associative information seems to be available at all times, and used
to make judgments on all word types regardless of task.
During the associative judgment task, it appears that semantic
information is blocked or not used to make the judgment.

6

General Discussion

84 ms

COS (Semantic Scores)

= .683**, pr =.424

3

0?&^7*5

Judgment

2

semantic

0.35

Experiment 2B priming results by lag using difference scores (Related
Unrelated).

horse
+
cow

Associative

2

associative

0.4

500 ms

Analyses
2 simultaneous Multiple Linear Regressions using database
measures to predict participant scores (FSG and COS).

Experiment 1 - Results

6

Experiment 2A priming results by lag using difference scores (Related
Unrelated).

1

horse
+
cow

3

Semantic Judgment By Lag

Associative Judgment By Lag

Associative Judgment By Lag

Procedure
Participants (N=57 judged words on two categories: Semantic
Relatedness: how many features do these words have in common?
Associative Relatedness: how many college students out of a
100 would give the SECOND word given the FIRST?
Participants judged these words on a 10 point Likert scale.

associative
semantic

0.5

2B

48$&0^5
Word
Entry

2C

Experiment 2C
Judgment

Judgment
Associative

FSG
JCN
= .392**, pr2=.136 = -.108, pr2=.010

Semantic
Associative
Semantic
Associative
Semantic

= .191*, pr2=.030
= .247**, pr2=.061
= .191*, pr2=.036
= .411**, pr2=.167
= .296*, pr2=.087

Note: ** = p<.001, * = p<.01 = -.407**, pr2=.145 = .021, pr2=.000 = -.195**, pr2=.038 = .100, pr2=.010 = -.023, pr2=.000 References Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 618-630. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-559. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402-407. Patwardhan, S., & Pedersen, T. (2003). WordNet::Similarity. http://search.cpan.org/dist/WordNet-Similarity. SPSS for Windows, Rel. 14.0.0. (2005). Chicago: SPSS Inc. Williams, J. (1996). Is automatic priming semantic?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 113-161.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Polygenic and Multifactorial Inheritance Chapter 10 Central Points

    Polygenic and Multifactorial Inheritance Chapter 10 Central Points

    Arial MS Pゴシック Wingdings Times Blank Presentation Default Design 1_Blank Presentation Polygenic and Multifactorial Inheritance Central Points Case A: Prenatal Pills 10.1 Polygenic Traits Slide 5 10.2 What Is a Multifactorial Trait?
  • SCI Identification Training - Fermilab

    SCI Identification Training - Fermilab

    Learning Objectives (continued) At the conclusion of this training, you should be able to… Understand how molded-case circuit breakers may be refurbished and sold as new and name some common indicators that electrical devices may be suspect
  • Welcome to Mr. Goodman&#x27;S Class!

    Welcome to Mr. Goodman'S Class!

    -TSW understand the arrangement of the periodic table including group properties and individual uses. ... The Lewis Dot Structure is a diagram that shows how many valence electrons are in the outer shell of an atom. ... GOODMAN'S CLASS!
  • Clinical Research Trial Office

    Clinical Research Trial Office

    The President determines in writing that consent: Is not feasible. Is contrary to the best interests of the military member. ... Examples: powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, and surgical drapes. Device Class III. Most stringent regulatory category for devices.
  • An intro to Scratch - Michigan State University

    An intro to Scratch - Michigan State University

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Programming concepts via Scratch; Quick Intro GET YOUR OWN Free download of software available at www.scratch.mit.edu Video tutorials for learning available at www.learnscratch.org Learn...
  • 6.3 - Square Root Functions and Inequalities

    6.3 - Square Root Functions and Inequalities

    Range of Square Root Functions: Range: (What type of #'s will result . from square rooting a #???) • Answers WILL NOT be negative, so… the y-values resulting from the . square root function have to be > 0!
  • Ambulatory Services Presentation to QPSC September 27, 2018

    Ambulatory Services Presentation to QPSC September 27, 2018

    Important that we align goals and incentives up/down/across Ambulatory. Cascading this data down to annual performance goals and then, weekly data. For example, on Wednesday, all primary care staff are having round table discussions on how they contribute to our...
  • Greek Philosophy, Art, &amp; Literature

    Greek Philosophy, Art, & Literature

    Art. Early sculptors mimicked Egyptian styles . Rigid poses. 450 BCE Greek sculptors developed a new style. Emphasized natural forms. Lifelike. Idealistic. Paintings. On pottery. Literature. Classical Style. Elegant and balanced forms of tradition Greek art. Homer. Epic poems.