The Automatic Encoding of Dog Breed Characteristics Revealed in Free Recall Elizabeth M. Briones & Philip H. Marshall Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University Introduction • The free recall paradigm has been used to assess various organizational strategies in memory (Tulving, 1962; Zaromb & Roediger, 2010). • For example, randomly presented categorized lists may show output clustering of related items in free recall (Robinson, 1966). • Previous research has shown that ratings of perceived aggressiveness in dog breeds results in distinct categories (Briones & Marshall, 2017). • Specifically, using a categorized list of dog breeds based on perceived aggression, we determined if the breeds would be represented, organized, and retrieved in clusters in a free recall task. PARTICIPANTS • n = 61 • Age M = 19.20, SD = 1.49 • Female 67% MATERIALS & PROCEDURE • Images and names of 30 breeds of dogs were presented individually, sequentially, and in random order in 3 study-test free recall trials. • Stimuli were shown for 3 seconds each, after which participants were allowed 2 minutes to write down as many of the dog breeds they could recall. • Exp. 1: No evidence was found for category clustering based on breed aggressiveness, and Medium aggressive breeds were recalled the best. • Exp. 2: Participants’ knowledge of dog breeds per se did not explain the recall results in Exp. 1, since in a subsequent study, participants named more breeds from the High, not the Medium aggression group. • Other explanations for Exp. 1 are being considered. References Briones, E. M., & Marshall, P. H. (2017, April). Perceived aggressive tendencies and functional attitudes towards various breeds of dogs. Poster session presented at the Annual Convention of the Southwestern Psychological Association, San Antonio, TX. Mangano, S., Briones, E. M., & Marshall, P. H. (2018, November). On the immediacy of evaluative information about aggressive and non-aggressive breeds of dogs from lexical decisions tasks. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA. Robinson, J. A. (1966). Category clustering in free recall. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 62(2), 279-285. Roenker, D. L., Thompson, C. P., & Brown, S. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 45-48. Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of "unrelated" words. Psychological Review, 69(4), 344-354. Zaromb, F., & Roediger, M. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 995-1008. Experiment 1 Conclusions Experiment 2 Acknowledgments Breed images © the American Kennel Club (AKC), used with permission. Presented at the Meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Albuquerque, NM, 2019 Contact information: [email protected] PARTICIPANTS • n = 133 • Age M = 19.07, SD = 1.44 • Female 74% MATERIALS & PROCEDURE • Similar procedure as Exp. 1, but had arithmetic problems replace dog image presentations. • After solving the problems, participants were just asked to “name as many dog breeds they know.” RESULTS • Breeds were categorized into 3 groups (High, Medium, and Low) based on perceived aggressiveness ratings obtained elsewhere (Briones & Marshall, 2017). Category Clustering • Adjusted ratio of clustering scores (ARC; Roenker, Thompson, & Brown, 1971) were calculated for each of the 3 trials. • A one-way repeated measures ANOVA of the ARC scores over trials showed no statistically significant clustering effects for the categories (High M = .13, Medium M = .04, and Low M = .08), p = .18. Item Recall Proportions • A two-way repeated measures ANOVA (trials x categories) resulted in an expected significant increase in items recalled over trials (Trial 1 M = .39, Trial 2 M = .53, Trial 3 M = .62), p < .001, with breeds from the Medium aggression group being recalled the most, p < .001. Australian Shepherd “non-aggressive” Doberman Pinscher “aggressive” Would these dog breeds be part of different clusters in free recall? • To explore alternative explanations for Experiment 1 findings, Experiment 2 sought to assess dog breed knowledge in a sample of undergraduates. 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Proportion of Items Recalled High Medium Low Note: Error bars denote standard errors. QUESTION Why were Medium aggressive breeds recalled more in Experiment 1? Perhaps because people just know more dogs breeds in that category? METHOD Simply had participants give as many dog breed names as they could, for three successive trials. RESULTS • A two-way repeated measures ANOVA (trial x categories) showed a significant main effect for trials. Participants listed fewer dog breeds over the three trials (Trial 1 M = .29, Trial 2 M = .07, Trial 3 M = .04), p < .001. • Critically, there was a main effect for specific categories, with participants listing significantly more breeds from the High category group (High M = .16, Medium M = .13, and Low M = .11), p < .001. Experiment 2 Results (continued) • Summing over the three trials, the proportion of breeds named from within each of our categories decreased significantly (p < .001) from High-, to Medium-, then to Low- aggressiveness. 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 High Medium Low Proportion of Breeds Listed from Our Categories Note: Error bars denote standard errors.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Automatic Encoding of Dog Breed Characteristics Revealed in Free Recall
Elizabeth M. Briones & Philip H. MarshallDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University
Introduction
• The free recall paradigm has been used to assess various organizational strategies in memory (Tulving, 1962; Zaromb & Roediger, 2010).
• For example, randomly presented categorized lists may show output clustering of related items in free recall (Robinson, 1966).
• Previous research has shown that ratings of perceived aggressiveness in dog breeds results in distinct categories (Briones & Marshall, 2017).
• Specifically, using a categorized list of dog breeds based on perceived aggression, we determined if the breeds would be represented, organized, and retrieved in clusters in a free recall task.
PARTICIPANTS• n = 61• Age M = 19.20, SD = 1.49• Female 67%
MATERIALS & PROCEDURE• Images and names of 30 breeds of dogs were
presented individually, sequentially, and in random order in 3 study-test free recall trials.
• Stimuli were shown for 3 seconds each, after which participants were allowed 2 minutes to write down as many of the dog breeds they could recall.
• Exp. 1: No evidence was found for category clustering based on breed aggressiveness, and Medium aggressive breeds were recalled the best.
• Exp. 2: Participants’ knowledge of dog breeds per se did not explain the recall results in Exp. 1, since in a subsequent study, participants named more breeds from the High, not the Medium aggression group.
• Other explanations for Exp. 1 are being considered.
ReferencesBriones, E. M., & Marshall, P. H. (2017, April). Perceived aggressive tendencies and
functional attitudes towards various breeds of dogs. Poster session presented at the Annual Convention of the Southwestern Psychological Association, San Antonio, TX.
Mangano, S., Briones, E. M., & Marshall, P. H. (2018, November). On the immediacy of evaluative information about aggressive and non-aggressive breeds of dogs from lexical decisions tasks. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
Robinson, J. A. (1966). Category clustering in free recall. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 62(2), 279-285.
Roenker, D. L., Thompson, C. P., & Brown, S. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 45-48.
Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of "unrelated" words. Psychological Review, 69(4), 344-354.
Zaromb, F., & Roediger, M. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 995-1008.
Experiment 1
Conclusions
Experiment 2
AcknowledgmentsBreed images © the American Kennel Club (AKC), used with permission.
Presented at the Meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Albuquerque, NM, 2019
Contact information: [email protected]
PARTICIPANTS• n = 133• Age M = 19.07, SD = 1.44• Female 74%
MATERIALS & PROCEDURE• Similar procedure as Exp. 1, but had
arithmetic problems replace dog image presentations.
• After solving the problems, participants were just asked to “name as many dog breeds they know.”
RESULTS• Breeds were categorized into 3 groups (High, Medium, and Low) based
on perceived aggressiveness ratings obtained elsewhere (Briones & Marshall, 2017).
Category Clustering• Adjusted ratio of clustering scores (ARC; Roenker, Thompson, &
Brown, 1971) were calculated for each of the 3 trials.
• A one-way repeated measures ANOVA of the ARC scores over trials showed no statistically significant clustering effects for the categories (High M = .13, Medium M = .04, and Low M = .08), p = .18.
Item Recall Proportions• A two-way repeated measures ANOVA (trials x categories) resulted in
an expected significant increase in items recalled over trials (Trial 1 M= .39, Trial 2 M = .53, Trial 3 M = .62), p < .001, with breeds from the Medium aggression group being recalled the most, p < .001.
Australian Shepherd“non-aggressive”
Doberman Pinscher“aggressive”
Would these dog breeds be part of different clusters in
free recall?
• To explore alternative explanations for Experiment 1 findings, Experiment 2 sought to assess dog breed knowledge in a sample of undergraduates.
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Prop
ortio
n of
Item
s Rec
alle
d
High Medium Low
Note: Error bars denote standard errors.
QUESTIONWhy were Medium aggressive breeds recalled more in Experiment 1?
Perhaps because people just know more dogs breeds in that category?
METHODSimply had participants give as many dog breed names as they could, for three successive trials.
RESULTS
• A two-way repeated measures ANOVA (trial x categories) showed a significant main effect for trials. Participants listed fewer dog breeds over the three trials (Trial 1 M = .29, Trial 2 M= .07, Trial 3 M = .04), p < .001.
• Critically, there was a main effect for specific categories, with participants listing significantly more breeds from the High category group (High M = .16, Medium M = .13, and Low M = .11), p < .001.
Experiment 2 Results (continued)• Summing over the three trials, the proportion
of breeds named from within each of our categories decreased significantly (p < .001) from High-, to Medium-, then to Low-aggressiveness.
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
High Medium Low
Prop
ortio
n of
Bre
eds L
iste
d fr
om
Our
Cat
egor
ies
Note: Error bars denote standard errors.
Related Documents
