Grounded Congruency Effects: Automaticity and 'Strategery' in Cognition Open Access
McDonough, Lauren Ann (2010)
Published
Abstract
Grounded Congruency Effects
Abstract
Grounded Congruency Effects: Automaticity and 'Strategery' in
Cognition
By Lauren A. McDonough
According to theories of grounded cognition, words whose semantics
are associated with
a salient vertical position (e.g., CEILING vs. CARPET) should
activate simulations of these
positions in space. When responses are analogously made in the
vertical dimension, grounded
congruency effects should result (e.g., processing CEILING should
be faster for an UP vs.
DOWN response). Previous research obtained grounded congruency
effects when participants
used ink color (RED vs. BLUE) as a cue for response direction
(Casasanto, 2008). Typically
researchers assume that these effects are automatic, but they could
possibly be strategic. In
addition, we also explored a possible correlation between grounded
congruency effects and
empathic perception. Two experiments attempted to assess these
issues with 6 groups of 24
participants each, but failed to replicate the original grounded
congruency effect, leading us to
question its reliability when ink color is used as a cue. We
further discovered a motor facilitation
effect for upward as opposed to downward responses not reported
previously in this paradigm.
Grounded Congruency Effects
Grounded Congruency Effects: Automaticity and 'Strategery' in
Cognition
By
Lauren A. McDonough
B.A. University of Notre Dame, 2008
Advisor: Lawrence W. Barsalou, Ph.D.
An abstract of
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the
James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in Psychology
2010
Table of Contents
Grounded Congruency Effects
Table of Contents
GROUNDED CONGRUENCY EFFECTS: AUTOMATICITY AND 'STRATEGERY' IN
COGNITION…………………………………………………………………………………….……..……1
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Grounded
Cognition……………………….………………………………………………………..1
Grounded Congruency
Effects…………………………………………………………….3
Automaticity and
Set……………………………………………………………………..................5
Assessing whether congruency effects are
automatic……………………………………13
Role of Empathy in
Set……………………………………………………………………………15
Overview of
Experiments……………………………………………………………………….…18
EXPERIMENT
1………………………………………………………………………………………..…20
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Design and
Participants………………………….………………………………………20
Materials………………………………..………………………………………………...21
Individual difference measures of
empathy………..…………………………………….22
Procedure….……………………………………………………………………………..25
Results and
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….28
Congruency Effect
calculations….………………………………………………………28
Response time
calculations….…………………………………………………………...29
Error Rate
calculations…………………………………………………………………...33
Critical word item
analyses………………………………………………………………34
Correlation between empathy scales and congruency
effects……………………………34
Emory error rate
calculations…………………………………………………………….35
EXPERIMENT
2………………………………………………………………………………………..…35
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………….36
Design and
Participants……….…………………………………………………………36
Materials……………….………………………………………………………………...36
Procedure……..…………………………………………………………………………..37
Results and
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….38
Congruency Effect
calculations………………………………………………………….38
Response time
calculations……………………………………………………………....39
Error Rate
calculations…………………………………………………………………...40
Critical word item
analyses………………………………………………………………41
Correlation between empathy scales and congruency
effects……………………………41
Emory error rate
calculations…………………………………………………………….41
GENERAL
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………...…………....42
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...………..………63
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………...…69
Appendix
A………………………………………………………...……………………………...69
Grounded Congruency Effects
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Congruent and incongruent trial averages by high and
low spatial words for full
response time
(ms)……………………………………………………………………………….48
Table 2. Congruent and incongruent trial averages by high
and low spatial words for stimulus
onset to button release response time
(ms).……………………………………………..……….49
Table 3. Congruent and incongruent trial averages by high
and low spatial words for button
release to button press response time
(ms)………………………………………...…………….50
Table 4. Congruent and incongruent trial averages by high
and low spatial words for error
rates………………………………………………………………………………….…………...51
Figure 1. 'Ideal' hypothesized results for automatic vs.
strategic
processing…………….…….52
Figure 2. Original congruency effect for full response time
………………...………………….53
Figure 3. Original congruency effects broken into high and
low spatial words…......................54
Figure 4. Demonstration of motor
effects……………………………………………………….55
Figure 5. Alternate congruency effect for full response
time…………………………………...56
Figure 6. Alternate congruency effect for component response
times………………………….57
Figure 7. Alternate congruency effect for component response
times broken into high and low
spatial
words…….……………………………………………………….………………………58
Figure 8. Percent error and true percent
error.…………..…………….…….……..………...…59
Figure 9. Alternate congruency effect for true percent
error.….……...……………………...…60
About this Master's Thesis
| School | |
|---|---|
| Department | |
| Degree | |
| Submission | |
| Language |
|
| Research Field | |
| Keyword | |
| Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor | |
| Committee Members |
Primary PDF
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Grounded Congruency Effects: Automaticity and 'Strategery' in Cognition () | 2018-08-28 10:11:47 -0400 |
|
Supplemental Files
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|