Cog- knowledge
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 24-12-21 14:35
View mindmap
- Knowledge
- General knowledge- communicated by a range of non- specialist media and encompassing a wide range
- Component of crystallised intelligence, stored in semantic memory,
- Important for making sense of the world and for learning new info, substantial amount of info of GK relates to knowledge of language (words and concepts)
- Semantic knowledge
- Knowledge about language and words (average adult knows 50,000 words), conceptual knowledge
- Organises info by using the idea of concepts and categories
- Concept- mental representation of a category of objects, typically derived from experience, allows us to make predictions about the world, used in communication to convey info about ourselves and the world
- Situated nature of concepts (Barsalou 2003, 1008, 2009)- rep of any concept will vary depending on current goals and important aspects of situation
- Evidence we access info when process concepts
- More to them than an abstract rep of the concept itself
- Hawk et al (2004)- ps presented with words eg lick, pick, lack, activated motor cortex corresponds with body part would perform
- Evidence we access info when process concepts
- Hierarchy- Rosch at al 3 levels- superdinate, basic, subordinate
- Situated nature of concepts (Barsalou 2003, 1008, 2009)- rep of any concept will vary depending on current goals and important aspects of situation
- Category- set of objects that belong together eg birds, fruit, can be individual differences in beliefs about category membership
- McCloskey & Glucksberg (1978) found variation in the categorisation of pumpkins as a fruit both between and within individuals
- Concept- mental representation of a category of objects, typically derived from experience, allows us to make predictions about the world, used in communication to convey info about ourselves and the world
- Spreading activation model Collins & Loftus (1975)
- Appropriate node is activated
- Prototype model of categorisation (Rosch & Menus 1975, Hampton 2010)
- There are characteristic features that are not necessary but are commonly present for many members of the category (not defining features, eg birds fly- penguins don't)
- Prototype- abstract idealised representation of the category member
- Based on average of members
- Items in any category differ in their prototypicality
- Rosch described these as differences in typicalitites, Rosch (1975) gathered typicality ratings (eg chair is typical furniture unlike mirrors/ telephone)
- Allows for a fuzzy boundary- if an object shares only a few features with the prototype then it likely shares features with another eg dolphins are fish (they are mammals)
- Hampton (2010)- people offer typical features rather than essential features
- Not all members have equal status (Meridan & Smith 1984)
- Family resemblance- objects can be classified to a category when there is a match
- Rosch & Mervis (1975) evidence- 5 typical members of vehicle category eg car, 5 less typical members eg horse, lift (low FR score)
- some categories show little evidence of FR- goal derived categories eg things to take on holiday
- Barsalou's (1985) example of holiday packing, people can categorise things into newly defined categories
- Hamilton (1981)- some categories do not have clear prototype concept like justice, belief etc
- However, evidence for prototypes of abstract concepts
- Fehr (2004)- prototype for friendship intimacy in some same sex friendships
- high PF- self disclosure loyal, emotional support, low PF- shared activities, practical support
- Fehr (2004)- prototype for friendship intimacy in some same sex friendships
- Exemplar approach
- Make category judgements by comparing new stimuli with instances already stored in memories (exemplars)
- More able to account for tricky categories like games and atypical examples do not get lost in an average
- accounts for typicality- objects categorised faster are closer to stored exemplars
- Prototypes and exemplars may be combined and vary on level of abstraction
- Make category judgements by comparing new stimuli with instances already stored in memories (exemplars)
- Knowledge based approach
- We have understanding of the relationship between the features/attributes
- Impacts whether objects belong to certain categories (Ahn et al 2000)- especially for causal relationships
- We have understanding of the relationship between the features/attributes
- Schemas
- Mental framework used to organise and simplify our knowledge of the world
- larger knowledge units than the concepts
- Types
- Social schema-
- Person schema- oneself, idealised/projected oneself, possible selves
- Role schema- proper behaviours in given situations
- Event schema/ scripts- what happens in specific situations
- Brewer & Tryens (1981)- ps recalled schematic objects eg desk in office
- Scripts
- narrower than schema,well structured sequence of evennts associated with particular activity
- Helps us understand everyday events
- could interfere with memory
- Western social structure encourages a strong degree of behavioural scripts
- prevents cog overload
- Allows us to make predictions
- narrower than schema,well structured sequence of evennts associated with particular activity
- Stereotypes
- Simplified generalisations about groups, a type of schema
- Can influence soc beh and cog processing
- eg evidence impressions based on accents
- Studying stereotypes- explicit measures eg questionnaires not always reliable- social desirability bias
- Implicit Association Test developed
- Kreiner et al (2008)- ps read, eye movement tracked
- not stable, Garcie- Marques (2006) variation in traits selected over time
- General knowledge- communicated by a range of non- specialist media and encompassing a wide range
Comments
No comments have yet been made