Grounded Congruency Effects: Automaticity and 'Strategery' in Cognition Público

McDonough, Lauren Ann (2010)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/wd375w317?locale=es
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

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research field
Palabra Clave
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Última modificación

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files