Making Sense Of It All: Mapping the Current to the Past
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes17 views
The dissertation explores how the representation of narratives, particularly fantasy and reality-based narratives, is influenced by their systematicities and comparisons. It includes several studies that analyze participants' judgments after reading different narrative types, confirming that reading a reality-based narrative first can reduce processing demands for subsequent narratives. The findings contribute to understanding the relationships between narrative structure, similarity judgments, and cognitive processing in narrative comprehension.
Making Sense Of It All: Mapping the Current to the Past
- 1. Making Sense Of It All: Mapping the Current to the Past Dissertation Defense Dept of Psychology University of Texas at Austin April 19, 2010 John Lawrence Dennis Peter MacNeilage, Supervisor; Barbara Davis, Richard Gerrig, James Pennebaker, Jacqueline Wooley Committee Members:
- 2. Conceptual Overview Mapping the Current to the Past
- 3. Mapping the Current to the Past Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives Conceptual Overview
- 4. Mapping the Current to the Past Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives Systematicity Differences Conceptual Overview
- 5. Mapping the Current to the Past Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives Systematicity Differences Comparative Judgments Conceptual Overview
- 6. Theoretical Questions • How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an analogy to a previously encountered narrative?
- 7. Theoretical Questions • How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an analogy to a previously encountered narrative? • How is this process is moderated by the systematicities of the two narratives?
- 8. Theoretical Questions • How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an analogy to a previously encountered narrative? • How is this process is moderated by the systematicities of the two narratives? • How is this process reflected in various judgments about the narratives?
- 9. Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st Studies 1-3 Road Map
- 10. Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st Study 2: Reality vs Reality Studies 1-3 Road Map
- 11. Studies 1-3 Road Map Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st Study 2: Reality vs Reality Study 3: Fantasy vs Fantasy
- 12. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a book attacking a pencil Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
- 13. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a book attacking a pencil Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
- 14. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a book attacking a pencil Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment • Directional Duration Judgment Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
- 15. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a book attacking a pencil Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment • Directional Duration Judgment • Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
- 16. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a book attacking a pencil Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment • Directional Duration Judgment • Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure • Listing of Commonalities and Differences Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
- 17. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition
- 18. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition • For RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase
- 19. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition • For RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase – Directional duration should decrease
- 20. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition • For RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase – Directional duration should decrease – Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration
- 21. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition • For RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase – Directional duration should decrease – Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration – Commonalities and differences statements should increase
- 22. Predictions • Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality narrative for RealityFirst condition • For RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase – Directional duration should decrease – Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration – Commonalities and differences statements should increase – Semantic overlap should increase between reality narrative and statements
- 23. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase » CONFIRMED
- 24. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase » CONFIRMED – Directional duration should decrease » CONFIRMED
- 25. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase » CONFIRMED – Directional duration should decrease » CONFIRMED – Segmentation should increase » CONFIRMED
- 26. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase » CONFIRMED – Directional duration should decrease » CONFIRMED – Segmentation should increase » CONFIRMED – Commonalities and differences statements should increase » FAILED TO CONFIRM
- 27. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst: – Directional similarity should increase » CONFIRMED – Directional duration should decrease » CONFIRMED – Segmentation should increase » CONFIRMED – Commonalities and differences statements should increase » FAILED TO CONFIRM – Semantic overlap should increase between reality narrative and statements » CONFIRMED
- 28. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
- 29. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997) • Systematicity differences on the representational side – What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2
- 30. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997) • Systematicity differences on the representational side – What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2 • To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996)
- 31. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997) • Systematicity differences on the representational side – What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2 • To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996) • Word count for FantasyFirst highest
- 32. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997) • Systematicity differences on the representational side – What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2 • To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996) • Word count for FantasyFirst highest • Fantasy-based narrative grounded in the reality-based narrative
- 33. Discussion • Most predictions were confirmed • Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997) • Systematicity differences on the representational side – What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2 • To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996) • Word count for FantasyFirst highest • Fantasy-based narrative grounded in the reality-based narrative • Regression analysis
- 34. Subjects read stories consistent with reality: • eg, a wolf attacking a chicken • eg, a friend attacking a teammate Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment • Directional Duration Judgment • Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure • Listing of Commonalities and Differences Study 2: Reality vs Reality
- 35. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives
- 36. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst
- 37. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst
- 38. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst
- 39. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst – Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror RealityFirst
- 40. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst – Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror RealityFirst – Semantic overlap should increase between first narrative and statements
- 41. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed
- 42. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
- 43. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • “Counter-intuitive” result – Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2 – Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998) – Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985)
- 44. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • “Counter-intuitive” result – Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2 – Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998) – Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985) • First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences
- 45. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • “Counter-intuitive” result – Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2 – Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998) – Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985) • First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences • Regression analysis
- 46. Subjects read stories inconsistent with reality: • eg, book attacking a pencil • eg, rolling pin attacking a spoon Then performed a series of comparative judgments: • Directional Similarity Judgment • Directional Duration Judgment • Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure • Listing of Commonalities and Differences Study 3: Fantasy vs Fantasy
- 47. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives
- 48. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst
- 49. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst
- 50. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst
- 51. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst – Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst
- 52. Predictions • Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on representational systematicity, there will be less perceived differences between the narratives • No matter which narrative was read first: – Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst – Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst – Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst – Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst – Semantic overlap should increase between first narrative and statements, mirror Studies 2
- 53. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed
- 54. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the directional similarity and directional duration comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
- 55. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the directional similarity and directional duration comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences mirrored FantasyFirst
- 56. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the directional similarity and directional duration comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences mirrored FantasyFirst • First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences
- 57. Discussion • All predictions were confirmed • Results for the directional similarity and directional duration comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst • Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences mirrored FantasyFirst • First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences • Regression analysis
- 58. Take Home • RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read fantasy-based narrative
- 59. Take Home • RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read fantasy-based narrative • Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3 – Segmentation & commonalities and differences
- 60. Take Home • RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read fantasy-based narrative • Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3 – Segmentation & commonalities and differences • Source for commonalities/differences – Studies 2 and 3 first-read narrative – Study 1 reality-based narrative
- 61. Take Home • RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read fantasy-based narrative • Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3 – Segmentation & commonalities and differences • Source for commonalities/differences – Studies 2 and 3 first-read narrative – Study 1 reality-based narrative • Highly similar narratives – but different situation models – Situation model as crucial for representation of narrative (Kintsch, 1983)
- 62. Implications • Original research on relationship between dependent variables – First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated segmentation and duration – First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries and commonalities/differences
- 63. Implications • Original research on relationship between dependent variables – First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated segmentation and duration – First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries and commonalities/differences • Systematicity manipulated “representationally” – Not typical removal of key causal links
- 64. Implications • Original research on relationship between dependent variables – First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated segmentation and duration – First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries and commonalities/differences • Systematicity manipulated “representationally” – Not typical removal of key causal links • LSA Analysis – Unique use of LSA to determine the “grounding” of the commonalities/differences statements
- 65. Limitations & Future Research • Narrative considerations – All narratives involved the transformation of the inanimate into fantastical animate – Where the transformation occurred in the narrative – Participant generated coherency ratings for narratives
- 66. Limitations & Future Research • Narrative considerations – All narratives involved the transformation of the inanimate into fantastical animate. – Where the transformation occurred in the narrative – Participant generated coherency ratings for narratives • Dependent Variable considerations – Believability – Expected behaviors – Imagined feature listing
- 70. Structure Mapping, Systematicity and Similarity Asymmetries Structure-Mapping – Comparisons are the result of putting concepts into correspondence based on the alignment of their structures – One-to-one correspondences & parallel connectivity - Rutherford “planetary model” – Positive correlation between number of commonalities and the number of alignable differences Systematicity – Refers to the mapping of systems of mutually constraining relations, such as causal chains or chains of implication Similarity Asymmetries – North Korea is similar to Red China preferred Red China is similar to North Korea – Directional informativity hypothesis and base systematicity advantage
- 71. Retrospective Duration and Segmentation Retrospective Duration Estimate – Participants don’t know in advance that a temporal judgment will be made – Participants use an availability heuristic, ie, the number segments that were “passively” encoded during an interval to make a duration estimate Segmentation – Breakdown of events into chunks - automatic – More segments during a new experience and this lengthens remembered duration – Less segments during a predictable experience and this shortens remembered duration – Less segmentation = shorter duration (Poynter, 1983)
- 72. Similarity and Duration Similarity • Similarity of the second story in relation to the first story Duration • Center vertical line = duration of the first story • Draw a vertical line to = duration of the second story in relation to the first story • Greater distance from center vertical line = greater difference in duration between two stories
- 73. Duration Comparison Coding An Example • Measure distance between existing vertical line and subject vertical line • Subject distance/total distance + 1 • Eg, 12/120 + 1 = second story 90% duration of the first • Two coders for each packet 12 mm 120 mm