background preloader

Priming (psychology)

Priming (psychology)
Priming can occur following perceptual, semantic, or conceptual stimulus repetition. For example, if a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to complete a word starting with tab, the probability that he or she will answer table is greater than if they are not primed. Another example is if people see an incomplete sketch they are unable to identify and they are shown more of the sketch until they recognize the picture, later they will identify the sketch at an earlier stage than was possible for them the first time.[4] The terms positive and negative priming refer to when priming affects the speed of processing. Negative priming is more difficult to explain. The difference between perceptual and conceptual primes is whether items with a similar form or items with a similar meaning are primed. Perceptual priming is based on the form of the stimulus and is enhanced by the match between the early and later stimuli. Related:  TheoriesCognitive PsychologyNarratives shaping perception

Priming Explanations > Theories > Priming Description | Research | Example | So What? | See also | References Description Priming is providing a stimulus that influences their near-term future thoughts and actions, even though they may not seem to be connected. Priming also increases the speed at which the second, related item is recognized. In effect, priming either introduces new things or brings old thoughts close to the surface of the subconscious, thus making them more accessible and more likely to be used over less accessible (and possibly more relevant) thoughts. Priming has a limited effect as the thoughts fade back to the deeper subconscious. Conceptual priming occurs where related ideas are used to prime the response, for example 'hat' may prime for 'head'. Semantic priming occurs where the meaning created influences later thoughts. Non-associative semantic priming refers to related concepts but where one is less likely to trigger thoughts of the other, for example 'Sun' and 'Venus'. Example

Social cognitive theory Social cognitive theory (SCT), used in psychology, education, and communication, holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. The theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and the consequences of that behavior, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Observing a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in behavior they already learned.[1][2] In other words, people do not learn new behaviors solely by trying them and either succeeding or failing, but rather, the survival of humanity is dependent upon the replication of the actions of others. Depending on whether people are rewarded or punished for their behavior and the outcome of the behavior, the observer may choose to replicate behavior modeled. History[edit] In 1941, Neal E. Overview[edit] Modeling[edit]

Synesthesia How someone with synesthesia might perceive (not "see") certain letters and numbers. Synesthetes see characters just as others do (in whichever color actually displayed), yet simultaneously perceive colors as associated to each one. Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes. Difficulties have been recognized in adequately defining synesthesia:[5][6] many different phenomena have been included in the term synesthesia ("union of the senses"), and in many cases the terminology seems to be inaccurate. Only a fraction of types of synesthesia have been evaluated by scientific research.[11] Awareness of synesthetic perceptions varies from person to person.[12]

Our Ability To Smell Depends On Our Culture I have a sense of smell so strong it's probably rivaled only by Superman's. I can often smell things that no one else in the room can smell, or can only smell faintly when I can smell them strongly. There are a lot of upsides and downsides to it though, for example, unpleasant smells have a very strong effect on me to the point where it's difficult to converse with someone who has bad breath, or hard to be in a room where someone has farted. My wife is the same way. And yes, I call it her super power. Nice to meet you Dr. I feel like I've got an enhanced olfactory bulb, too, or maybe I just relish scents more than the average person. I'm like that too, and so is everyone in my immediate family. The last 3 generations of my family were born in the US, so I'm not sure about it being a European thing. I feel bad for you. I had an ammonia accident as a child (one of those grade school science experiments about growing crystals) that seems to have burned out those receptors.

Opponent-process theory Visual perception[edit] The opponent-process theory was first developed by Ewald Hering. He noted that there are color combinations that we never see, such as reddish-green or yellowish-blue. Opponent-process theory suggests that color perception is controlled by the activity of three opponent systems. In the theory, he postulated about three independent receptor types which all have opposing pairs: white and black, blue and yellow, and red and green. These three pairs produce combinations of colors for us through the opponent process. The colors in each pair oppose each other. According to this theory, color blindness is due to the lack of a particular chemical in the eye. Motivation and Emotion[edit] Richard Solomon developed a motivational theory based on opponent processes. Hurvich & Jameson proposed a neurological model of a general theory of neurological opponent processing in 1974. See also[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Solomon, R.L. (1980). Further reading[edit] ERN Grigg, MD.

Cognitive Hierarchy Theory Cognitive Hierarchy Theory (CHT) is a behavioral model originating in behavioral economics and game theory that attempts to describe human thought processes in strategic games. CHT aims to improve upon the accuracy of predictions made by standard analytic methods (including backwards induction and iterated elimination of dominated strategies), which can deviate considerably from actual experimental outcomes. Framework[edit] Like other theories, Cognitive Hierarchy Theory assumes that players in strategic games base their decisions on their predictions about the likely actions of other players. A completely non-strategic player will choose actions without regard to the actions of other players. In its basic form, CHT implies that each player believes that he or she is the most sophisticated person in the game. Some theorists, [3][2] have noted that players do not necessarily fall under the archetypes above. Example: The Keynesian beauty contest[edit] Example: The centipede game[edit]

Milgram experiment The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[1] The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" The experiment[edit] Milgram Experiment advertisement Results[edit] Criticism[edit] Ethics[edit] Replications[edit]

Story, History, Story Ann: Some time ago, I got interested in why European languages so often use the same word for “story” and “history.” Every English speaker knows that having one word for two such different things — fiction and truth, respectively — is anathema. But my thinking didn’t go much farther than that, it rarely does. Audra: Of course histories are stories. Ann: Boy, does that sound exactly how I see my own stories: I’m taking the real world and assigning beginnings, middles, and ends. Audra: But “story” doesn’t necessarily mean fiction! Alex: I think the term historians usually prefer these days is not “stories” but “narratives,” which is a fancier way to get the same concept across. Ann: You know what happens to the wicked queen in the original Snow White? Narrative requires artistic intervention, it requires choices, it requires a sense of what a good beginning, middle, and end might look like. Ann: By God, that sounds like heresy. Audra: Wait, Ann, it gets worse. This is historiography.

Overjustification Effect Explanations > Theories > Overjustification Effect Description | Research | Example | So What? | See also | References Description This occurs where I attribute my behavior more to a conspicuous extrinsic motivator than to intrinsic reasons. This effect is less when rewards are given for performance success rather than simply completing tasks, but can still be significant. Research Greene, Sternberg and Lepper (1976) played mathematical games with schoolchildren, which the children seemed to enjoy. The explanation was that the children had decided that they were playing for the reward, not for the fun. Example I fly largely with one airline, where I do not think I get particularly good service. So what? Using it If you want someone to really buy into something, do not use big extrinsic rewards. Defending Beware of short-cuts in thinking. See also Discounting, Extrinsic Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, Minimal Justification Principle References |awa|

Every Schema Triggers Another Schema Prisoner's dilemma The prisoners' dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence rewards and gave it the name "prisoner's dilemma" (Poundstone, 1992), presenting it as follows: Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. It's implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision won't affect their reputation in future. There is also an extended "iterative" version of the game, where the classic game is played over and over between the same prisoners, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. Strategy for the classic prisoners' dilemma[edit] Nice

Narrative therapy Their approach became prevalent in North America with the 1990 publication of their book, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends,[1] followed by numerous books and articles about previously unmanageable cases of anorexia nervosa, ADHD, schizophrenia, and many other problems. In 2007 White published Maps of Narrative Practice,[2] a presentation of six kinds of key conversations. Overview[edit] Michael White 2006 By conceptualizing a non-essentialized identity, narrative practices separate persons from qualities or attributes that are taken-for-granted essentialisms within modernist and structuralist paradigms. Operationally, narrative therapy involves a process of deconstruction and "meaning making" which are achieved through questioning and collaboration with the client. Narrative therapy topics[edit] Concept[edit] Narrative therapy holds that our identities are shaped by the accounts of our lives found in our stories or narratives. Narrative approaches[edit] Common elements[edit] Method[edit]

Overjustification effect The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. According to self-perception theory, people pay more attention to the external reward for an activity than to the inherent enjoyment and satisfaction received from the activity itself. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Experimental evidence[edit] Researchers at Southern Methodist University conducted an experiment on 188 female university students in which they measured the subjects' continued interest in a cognitive task (a word game) after their initial performance under different incentives. Richard Titmuss suggested that paying for blood donations might reduce the supply of blood donors. Theories[edit] Controversy[edit] There are also differences in effect among the different age groups. Education