LANGUAGE, COGNITION, AND CULTURE

1
WORKSHOP III

• LANGUAGE, COGNITION, AND CULTURE
• Group 1

EAESP 12th Summer School Padova, 21 August 2
September
2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Zoom In or Zoom Out? The Attention-Focusing
Function of Language

• Èva Fülöp
• Geoff Kaufman
• Janine Bosak
• Michela Menegatti
• Milena Marzano
• Tamara Rakic
• Ursula Szillis

Workshop mentors Anne Maass Gün Semin
6
Agenda

• Theoretical Background
• Study 1
• Study 2
• Conclusions and Future Directions

7
Relationship between Language and Cognition

• It is an accepted and confirmed fact that
  cognition can shape or constrain language.
• The idea that language can influence or shape
  cognition, especially basic processes such as
  attention, memory, and perception, is more
  controversial.

8
Whorf Hypothesis (1957)

• The language spoken in a given linguistic
  community can influence perception and
  higher-level cognitive processes.
• People who speak different languages see
  different realities (e.g., the classification of
  physical stimuli such as color or snow).
• Initial interest, followed by period of deep
  skepticism and renewed interest and extension
  to social cognition in the 1990s

9
Cultural Variants of Language

• e.g, Syntax and Grammar
• Grammatical Gender (Konishi, 1993)
• Nouns that are feminine in one linguistic
  community and masculine in another ? effects on
  perceived agency of referent
• Masculine form ? Higher ratings of agency
• Feminine form ? Lower ratings of agency
• Politeness Forms
• Linguistic rules that influence attention to
  proxies of social status (e.g., age)

10
General Effects of Language on Cognition

• Previous research has focused on domain-specific
  effects of language between cultures.
• However, within the same language community,
  linguistic structures may have a more general
  influence on basic cognitive processes

Attention
Perception
Categorization
Memory
11
General Effects of Language on Cognition

• Semin (1998) proposed that language can be used
  as a tool to direct attention to different
  aspects of ones physical and social environment.
• Stapel Semin (2006) investigated the ability of
  particular linguistic predicates (verbs vs.
  adjectives) to channel peoples attention.
• Used the Linguistic Category Model as a
  conceptual framework

12
The Linguistic Category Model(LCM Semin
Fiedler, 1988)

• Designed to identify the general cognitive
  functions of linguistic predicates, especially
  interpersonal verbs and adjectives.

13
The Linguistic Category Model(LCM Semin
Fiedler, 1988)

• Marks fist travels with high speed in space,
  making contact with Lukes chin and knocking him
  out flat.

concrete
abstract
14
The Linguistic Category Model(LCM Semin
Fiedler, 1988)
15
Stapel Semin (2006)

• Do different linguistic categories have a generic
  attention-channeling effect on ones perception
  of a stimulus environment?
• Adjectives ? global perceptual focus?
• Verbs ? local perceptual focus?

16
Stapel Semin (2006)

• Participants were primed with action verbs or
  adjectives and then asked to engage in an
  unrelated task.
• Feature Matching with Geometric Stimuli

Original
Match on Local
Match on Global

• Features of geometric stimulus used for feature
  matching
• Adjectives ? global features
• Verbs ? local features

17
Stapel Semin (2006)

• Categorization of (non-social) objects
• Adjectives ? fewer categories
• Verbs ? more categories

18
Objective of Proposed Studies

• To extend the research on the attention-driving
  capabilities of language to interesting, novel,
  and important domains that
• are more applied and complex in nature (e.g., map
  reading)
• involve the perception of social stimuli (i.e.,
  people)

19
Overview of Proposed Studies

• Study 1 Attention to global versus local
  features on a map
• Visual, verbal, and spatial information
• Study 2 Categorization of an array of pictures
  of individuals
• Social perception and categorization
• Study 3 Category-based versus individuated
  impression formation
• Implications for stereotyping
• Study 4 Own- vs. other-group face recognition
• Implications for the outgroup homogeneity effect,
  prejudice, and stereotyping

20
Overview of Proposed Studies

• Study 1 Attention to global versus local
  features on a map
• Study 2 Categorization of an array of pictures
  of individuals
• Study 3 Category-based versus individuated
  impression formation
• Study 4 Outgroup face recognition

21
Study 1 What do you see on a map?
Does the abstractness of language shape our
focus on mainly global or local features on a
map?
22
Task 1Independent Variable
Supraliminal prime (Scrambled Sentence
Task)ExampleAction verbs smiles table at
he him ? he smiles at him (concrete)
Adjectives friendly vacation he is the
? he is friendly (abstract)
23
Task 2Get familiar with a map
24
Task 3Potential Dependent Variable I
Redraw the map DV Number of recalled global
vs. local features from the original
map Hypotheses Abstract prime ? recall more
global features (e.g., borders) Concrete
prime ? recall more local features (e.g.,
details such as furniture)
25
Task 3Potential Dependent Variable II
Present participants with two maps more similar
to the original in regard to either local or
global features. DV Frequency of choice of each
map Hypotheses Abstract prime ? choose map
with similar global features (e.g., borders)
Concrete prime ? choose map with similar local
features (e.g., furniture)
26
Control Variables

• Participants mood
• Positive mood facilitates abstractness, whereas
  negative mood facilitates concreteness
• Individual differences in spatial orientation
• Survey vs. landmark representation (see Pazzaglia
  De Beni, 2001)

27
Study 1 Discussion

• Language abstractness shapes not only the
  perception of basic or simple figures (e.g.,
  triangles) but also more complex figures like
  maps.

28
Study 2 What do you see in the social world?

• Does the abstractness of language influence
  social categorization?

29
Extension to the social context

• Social perception
• Social categorization
• Stereotyping

30
What type of information / features are more
salient in directing our attention?

• Categorical thinking is a natural and inevitable
  tendency of the human mind (Allport,1954)
• Abstract
  Gender, race, age
• Concrete Toward individual

31
Study 2 Method

• Supraliminal priming
• (Scrambled Sentence Test)
• Adjectives
• Action Verbs

32
Method
33
Method
34
Procedure

• Card Sorting Task
• Each target person from the group is represented
  on an individual card.
• Participants are free to create as many groups as
  they wish.
• Dependent Variable
• Number of card piles (i.e., categories)

35
Method

• Controlling for
• Mood
• Positive mood facilitates abstractness, whereas
  negative mood facilitates concreteness.
• Motivation
• Unmotivated participants may use the global
  categorization just to finish sooner.
• Attractiveness of target persons
• Pre-test

36
Hypothesis 1

• Participants primed with adjectives will tend to
  categorize on a more global level (i.e., using
  holistic view) and therefore use fewer groups to
  divide target persons.
• They will also use more global categories (e.g.,
  gender or race).

37
Hypothesis 2

• Participants primed with verbs will tend to
  categorize on a more concrete level, and
  therefore use more groups to divide target
  persons.

38
Discussion
Language abstractness shapes not only the
perception of non-social objects, but, more
importantly, it influences social perception and
therefore also social categorization.
39
Conclusion

• Meta-linguistic categories drive peoples
  attention to different aspects of reality.
• The studies will test the impact of linguistic
  devices on
• study 1 different types of spatial features
  when studying a map
• study 2 the number of categories used to
  classify people
• study 3 the level of information used to form
  impressions
• study 4 the face-recognition errors made for
  own /other race members

40
Implications

• Language and Perception
• Language has an attention-driving function
• Strategical use of language to direct attention
  (e.g., in political debates)
• Prejudice and stereotyping (e.g., ability to
  recognize individuals, motivation to consider
  individuating information)

41
Future Directions

• Language and Perception/Attention
• Language and attention to deviant behavior of
  ingroup members (e.g., workshop member who sleeps
  through the groups presentation)
• Language and recall of narratives (e.g., health
  brochures, political brochures/speeches)

42

Concluding Remark
A single basic mechanism may drive all of these
very different phenomena!
43

Köszönjük
Tesekkür ederim
Grazie
Thank You!
Kiitos
Danke schön
Gracias
Hvala
Emitekati
Dziekuje