Schema and neural networks

WHAT IS SCHEMA
• IN PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE, A SCHEMA (PLURAL SCHEMATA OR
SCHEMAS) DESCRIBES A PATTERN OF THOUGHT OR BEHAVIOR THAT ORGANIZES
CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM.
• IT CAN ALSO BE DESCRIBED AS A MENTAL STRUCTURE OF PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, A
FRAMEWORKREPRESENTING SOME ASPECT OF THE WORLD, OR A SYSTEM OF
ORGANIZING AND PERCEIVING NEW INFORMATION.
• SCHEMATA INFLUENCE ATTENTION AND THE ABSORPTION OF NEW KNOWLEDGE:
PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO NOTICE THINGS THAT FIT INTO THEIR SCHEMA, WHILE RE-
INTERPRETING CONTRADICTIONS TO THE SCHEMA AS EXCEPTIONS OR DISTORTING
THEM TO FIT. SCHEMATA HAVE A TENDENCY TO REMAIN UNCHANGED, EVEN IN THE
FACE OF CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION. SCHEMATA CAN HELP IN UNDERSTANDING
THE WORLD AND THE RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT.
• PEOPLE CAN ORGANIZE NEW PERCEPTIONS INTO SCHEMATA QUICKLY AS MOST
SITUATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE COMPLEX THOUGHT WHEN USING SCHEMA, SINCE
AUTOMATIC THOUGHT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.[3]

HISTORY
• EFORE PSYCHOLOGY SEPARATED FROM PHILOSOPHY, THE TERM "SCHEMA"
WAS PROMINENTLY DISCUSSED IN PHILOSOPHY BY IMMANUEL KANT.
• EARLY DEVELOPMENTS OF THE IDEA IN PSYCHOLOGY EMERGED WITH THE
GESTALT PSYCHOLOGISTS AND JEAN PIAGET: THE TERM "SCHEMA" WAS
INTRODUCED BY PIAGET IN 1923.
• THE CONCEPT WAS POPULARIZED IN PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION THROUGH
THE WORK OF THE BRITISH PSYCHOLOGIST FREDERIC BARTLETT,[7] WHO
DREW ON THE TERM BODY SCHEMA USED BY NEUROLOGIST HENRY HEAD. IT
WAS EXPANDED INTO SCHEMA THEORY BY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
RICHARD C. ANDERSON.[8] SINCE THEN, OTHER TERMS HAVE BEEN USED TO
DESCRIBE SCHEMA SUCH AS "FRAME", "SCENE" AND "SCRIPT".

MORE ON SCHEMA
• A SCHEMA IS A MENTAL STRUCTURE WE USE TO ORGANIZE AND SIMPLIFY OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD AROUND US. WE HAVE
SCHEMAS ABOUT OURSELVES, OTHER PEOPLE, MECHANICAL DEVICES, FOOD, AND IN FACT ALMOST EVERYTHING.
• SCHEMAS CAN BE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER, SOMETIMES IN A HIERARCHY (SO A SALESMAN IS A MAN IS A HUMAN).
• SCHEMAS AFFECT WHAT WE NOTICE, HOW WE INTERPRET THINGS AND HOW WE MAKE DECISIONS AND ACT. THEY ACT LIKE
FILTERS, ACCENTUATING AND DOWNPLAYING VARIOUS ELEMENTS. WE USE THEM TO CLASSIFY THINGS, SUCH AS WHEN WE
‘PIGEON-HOLE’ PEOPLE. THEY ALSO HELP US FORECAST, PREDICTING WHAT WILL HAPPEN. WE EVEN REMEMBER AND RECALL THINGS
VIA SCHEMAS, USING THEM TO ‘ENCODE’ MEMORIES.
• SCHEMAS HELP US FILL IN THE GAPS. WHEN WE CLASSIFY SOMETHING WE HAVE OBSERVED, THE SCHEMA WILL TELL US MUCH
ABOUT ITS MEANING AND HOW IT WILL BEHAVE, HENCE ENABLING THREAT ASSESSMENT AND OTHER FORECASTING.
• SCHEMAS APPEAR VERY OFTEN IN THE ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSE. THE MULTIPLE NECESSARY CAUSE SCHEMA IS ONE WHERE WE
REQUIRE AT LEAST TWO CAUSES BEFORE A ‘FIT’ TO THE SCHEMA IS DECLARED.

CONTD
• ONCE WE HAVE CREATED OR ACCEPTED A SCHEMA, WE WILL FIGHT HARD TO SUSTAIN IT, FOR EXAMPLE BY IGNORING OR
FORCE-FITTING OBSERVATIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE SCHEMA. IT IS ONLY AFTER SUSTAINED CONTRARY
EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF US WILL ADMIT THE NEED TO CHANGE THE SCHEMA.
• SCHEMAS ARE OFTEN SHARED WITHIN CULTURES, ALLOWING SHORT-CUT COMMUNICATIONS.EVERY WORD IS, IN EFFECT, A
SCHEMA, AS WHEN YOU READ IT YOU RECEIVE A PACKAGE OF ADDITIONAL INFERRED INFORMATION.
• WE TEND TO HAVE FAVORITE SCHEMA WHICH WE USE OFTEN. WHEN INTERPRETING THE WORLD, WE WILL TRY TO USE
THESE FIRST, GOING ON TO OTHERS IF THEY DO NOT SUFFICIENTLY FIT.
• THE PLURAL OF SCHEMA IS SCHEMAS (USA) OR SCHEMATA (UK). SCHEMAS ARE ALSO KNOWN AS MENTAL MODELS,
CONCEPTS, MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES (ALTHOUGH DEFINITIONS DO VARY--FOR EXAMPLE
SOME DEFINE MENTAL MODELS AS MODELING CAUSE-EFFECT ONLY).

TYPES OF SCHEMA
Schemas are also self-sustaining, and will persist even in the face of disconfirming evidence. This is
because if something does not match the schema, such as evidence against it, it is ignored. Some schema
are easier to change than others, and some people are more open about changing any of their schemas than
other people.
Other types of schema include:
•Social schemas are about general social knowledge.
•Person schemas are about individual people.
•Idealized person schemas are called prototypes. The word is also used for any generalized schema.
•Self-schemas are about oneself. We also hold idealized or projected selves, or possible selves.
•Role schemas are about proper behaviors in given situations.
•Trait schemas about the innate characteristics people have.
•Event schemas (or scripts) are about what happens in specific situations.
•Object schemas about inanimate things and how they work.

RESEARCH PART 1
• THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF SCHEMATA IS LINKED WITH THAT OF RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY AS PROPOSED
AND DEMONSTRATED IN A SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS BY BARTLETT.[11] BY PRESENTING PARTICIPANTS WITH
INFORMATION THAT WAS UNFAMILIAR TO THEIR CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS AND EXPECTATIONS AND THEN
MONITORING HOW THEY RECALLED THESE DIFFERENT ITEMS OF INFORMATION (STORIES, ETC.), BARTLETT
WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT INDIVIDUALS' EXISTING SCHEMATA AND STEREOTYPES INFLUENCE NOT ONLY
HOW THEY INTERPRET "SCHEMA-FOREIGN" NEW INFORMATION BUT ALSO HOW THEY RECALL THE
INFORMATION OVER TIME. ONE OF HIS MOST FAMOUS INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED ASKING PARTICIPANTS
TO READ A NATIVE AMERICAN FOLK TALE, "THE WAR OF THE GHOSTS", AND RECALL IT SEVERAL TIMES UP TO
A YEAR LATER.

PART 2
• ALL THE PARTICIPANTS TRANSFORMED THE DETAILS OF THE STORY IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT REFLECTED THEIR CULTURAL
NORMS AND EXPECTATIONS, I.E. IN LINE WITH THEIR SCHEMATA. THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THEIR RECALL WERE:
• OMISSION OF INFORMATION THAT WAS CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT TO A PARTICIPANT;
• TRANSFORMATION OF SOME OF THE DETAILS, OR OF THE ORDER IN WHICH EVENTS, ETC., WERE RECALLED; A SHIFT OF FOCUS
AND EMPHASIS IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE TALE;
• RATIONALIZATION: DETAILS AND ASPECTS OF THE TALE THAT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE WOULD BE "PADDED OUT" AND
EXPLAINED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RENDER THEM COMPREHENSIBLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION;
• CULTURAL SHIFTS: THE CONTENT AND THE STYLE OF THE STORY WERE ALTERED IN ORDER TO APPEAR MORE COHERENT AND
APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE PARTICIPANT.

EXAMPLE
• A MAN NAMED COHEN SHOWED PEOPLE A VIDEOTAPE OF A SCENE INCLUDING A LIBRARIAN DRINKING. THE
PEOPLE RECALLED (RECONSTRUCTED) IT WITH THE LIBRARIAN DRINKING WINE, BECAUSE THEIR
SCHEMAS FOR LIBRARIANS CLASSIFIED THEM AS BEING MORE LIKELY TO DRINK WINE.
• SOME PEOPLE DISLIKE POLICE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SCHEMA OF POLICE AS PEOPLE WHO PERCEIVE
EVERYONE AS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. OTHER PEOPLE FEEL SAFE AROUND POLICE AS THEIR
SCHEMAS ARE MORE ABOUT POLICE AS BRAVE PROTECTORS.

PART 3 -----
• AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEMA THEORY WAS TAKEN BY THE WORK
OF D.E. RUMELHART DESCRIBING THE UNDERSTANDING OF NARRATIVE AND
STORIES.[FURTHER WORK ON THE CONCEPT OF SCHEMATA WAS CONDUCTED BY W.F.
BREWER AND J.C. TREYENS, WHO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SCHEMA-DRIVEN
EXPECTATION OF THE PRESENCE OF AN OBJECT WAS SOMETIMES SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER
ITS ERRONEOUS RECOLLECTION. AN EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED WHERE PARTICIPANTS
WERE REQUESTED TO WAIT IN A ROOM IDENTIFIED AS AN ACADEMIC'S STUDY AND WERE
LATER ASKED ABOUT THE ROOM'S CONTENTS. A NUMBER OF THE PARTICIPANTS RECALLED
HAVING SEEN BOOKS IN THE STUDY WHEREAS NONE WERE PRESENT. BREWER AND
TREYENS CONCLUDED THAT THE PARTICIPANTS' EXPECTATIONS THAT BOOKS ARE PRESENT
IN ACADEMICS' STUDIES WERE ENOUGH TO PREVENT THEIR ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF
THE SCENES.

MODIFICATIONS
• NEW INFORMATION THAT FALLS WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL'S SCHEMA IS EASILY
REMEMBERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THEIR WORLDVIEW. HOWEVER, WHEN
NEW INFORMATION IS PERCEIVED THAT DOES NOT FIT A SCHEMA, MANY
THINGS CAN HAPPEN. THE MOST COMMON REACTION IS TO SIMPLY IGNORE OR
QUICKLY FORGET THE NEW INFORMATION. THIS CAN HAPPEN ON A DEEP
LEVEL— FREQUENTLY AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT BECOME CONSCIOUS OF OR
EVEN PERCEIVE THE NEW INFORMATION. PEOPLE MAY ALSO INTERPRET THE NEW
INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT MINIMIZES HOW MUCH THEY MUST CHANGE
THEIR SCHEMATA.
• FOR EXAMPLE, BOB THINKS THAT CHICKENS DON'T LAY EGGS. HE THEN SEES A
CHICKEN LAYING AN EGG. INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE PART OF HIS SCHEMA
THAT SAYS "CHICKENS DON'T LAY EGGS", HE IS LIKELY TO ADOPT THE BELIEF
THAT THE ANIMAL IN QUESTION THAT HE HAS JUST SEEN LAYING AN EGG IS NOT
A REAL CHICKEN. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF DISCONFIRMATION BIAS, THE
TENDENCY TO SET HIGHER STANDARDS FOR EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS
ONE'S EXPECTATIONS.[18] HOWEVER, WHEN THE NEW INFORMATION CANNOT
BE IGNORED, EXISTING SCHEMATA MUST BE CHANGED OR NEW SCHEMATA
MUST BE CREATED (ACCOMMODATION).

JEAN PIAGET (1896 – 1980)
• WAS KNOWN BEST FOR HIS WORK WITH DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. HE BELIEVED KNOWLEDGE
WAS CONSTRUCTED ON COGNITIVE STRUCTURES, AND HE BELIEVED PEOPLE DEVELOP COGNITIVE
STRUCTURES BY ACCOMMODATING AND ASSIMILATING INFORMATION. ACCOMMODATION IS CREATING NEW
SCHEMA THAT WILL FIT BETTER WITH THE NEW ENVIRONMENT OR ADJUSTING OLD SCHEMA.
ACCOMMODATION COULD ALSO BE INTERPRETED AS PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON A CURRENT SCHEMA.
ACCOMMODATION USUALLY COMES ABOUT WHEN ASSIMILATION HAS FAILED. ASSIMILATION IS WHEN PEOPLE
USE A CURRENT SCHEMA TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AROUND THEM. PIAGET THOUGHT THAT SCHEMATA ARE
APPLIED TO EVERYDAY LIFE AND THEREFORE PEOPLE ACCOMMODATE AND ASSIMILATE INFORMATION
NATURALLY.[20] FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS CHICKEN HAS RED FEATHERS, BOB CAN FORM A NEW SCHEMATA THAT
SAYS "CHICKENS WITH RED FEATHERS CAN LAY EGGS". THIS SCHEMATA WILL THEN BE EITHER CHANGED OR
REMOVED, IN THE FUTURE.

ASSIMILATION
• ASSIMILATION IS THE REUSE OF SCHEMATA TO FIT THE NEW INFORMATION. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, WHEN AN UNFAMILIAR
DOG IS SEEN, A PERSON WILL PROBABLY JUST INTEGRATE IT INTO THEIR DOG SCHEMA. HOWEVER, IF THE DOG BEHAVES
STRANGELY, AND IN WAYS THAT DOESN'T SEEM DOG-LIKE, THERE WILL BE ACCOMMODATION AS A NEW SCHEMA IS FORMED
FOR THAT PARTICULAR DOG. WITH ACCOMMODATION AND ASSIMILATION COMESTHE IDEA OF EQUILIBRIUM. PIAGET
DESCRIBES EQUILIBRIUM AS A STATE OF COGNITION THAT IS BALANCED WHEN SCHEMA ARE CAPABLE OF EXPLAINING
WHAT IT SEES AND PERCEIVES. WHEN INFORMATION IS NEW AND CANNOT FIT INTO EXISTING SCHEMA THIS IS CALLED
DISEQUILIBRIUM AND THIS IS AN UNPLEASANT STATE FOR THE CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT. WHEN DISEQUILIBRIUMHAPPENS, IT
MEANS THE PERSON IS FRUSTRATED AND WILL TRY TO RESTORE THE COHERENCE OF HIS OR HER COGNITIVE STRUCTURES
THROUGH ACCOMMODATION. IF THE NEW INFORMATION IS TAKEN THEN ASSIMILATION OF THE NEW INFORMATION WILL
PROCEED UNTIL THEY FIND THAT THEY MUST MAKE A NEW ADJUSTMENT TO IT LATER DOWN THE ROAD, BUT FOR NOW THE
CHILD REMAINS AT EQUILIBRIUM AGAIN. THE PROCESS OF EQUILIBRATION IS WHEN PEOPLE MOVE FROM THE EQUILIBRIUM
PHASE TO THE DISEQUILIBRIUM PHASE AND BACK INTO EQUILIBRIUM.

LEGEND CONTINUES : SELF SCHEMATA
• SCHEMATA ABOUT ONESELF ARE CONSIDERED TO BE GROUNDED IN THE PRESENT AND BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCES.
MEMORIES ARE FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF ONE'S SELF-CONCEPTION. FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE WHO HAVE POSITIVE SELF-
SCHEMATA (I.E. MOST PEOPLE) SELECTIVELY ATTEND TO FLATTERING INFORMATION AND SELECTIVELY IGNORE
UNFLATTERING INFORMATION, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT FLATTERING INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO DEEPER
ENCODING, AND THEREFORE SUPERIOR RECALL . EVEN WHEN ENCODING IS EQUALLY STRONG FOR POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
FEEDBACK, POSITIVE FEEDBACK IS MORE LIKELY TO BE RECALLED. MOREOVER, MEMORIES MAY EVEN BE DISTORTED TO
BECOME MORE FAVORABLE-PEOPLE TYPICALLY REMEMBER EXAM GRADES AS HAVING BEEN BETTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY
WERE. HOWEVER, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE NEGATIVE SELF VIEWS, MEMORIES ARE GENERALLY BIASED IN WAYS THAT VALIDATE
THE NEGATIVE SELF-SCHEMA; PEOPLE WITH LOW SELF-ESTEEM, FOR INSTANCE, ARE PRONE TO REMEMBER MORE NEGATIVE
INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES THAN POSITIVE INFORMATION. THUS, MEMORY TENDS TO BE BIASED IN A WAY THAT
VALIDATES THE AGENT'S PRE-EXISTING SELF-SCHEMA.

VIDEO
• SCHEMA : HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=A6Q2MN_9WRA
• HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=KMCULQ56YYG
• SCHEMA THEORY : HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=U1_FDHQRIEW
• SCHEMA 2 : HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=CLCEONRAE6U

Schema and neural networks

More Related Content

Similar to Schema and neural networks (20)

More from chibisidd (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Schema and neural networks