Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning

Jacoby, Larry L.; Brooks, Lee R.

doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60358-8

Cited by 416 publications

(354 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

317

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And it will be necessary to reconcile the current framework with other potentially relevant theories such as Anderson's feature integration theory (Anderson, 1981), Huttenlocher's category model (Huttenlocher et al, 1991), and Gigerenzer's fast and frugal heuristics perspective (Gigerenzer, 1999; also see Brown, 2002;Friedman, 1993;Jacoby & Brooks, 1984;Parducci, 1963;Poulton, 1989). Finally, some clear predictions fall out the framework.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-world estimation: Estimation modes and seeding effects

Brown¹

2002

Psychology of Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-world estimation: Estimation modes and seeding effects

Brown¹

2002

Psychology of Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, the typological view maintains that traits composing a social category have an integrity or internal connectedness that differs from trait relations between categories. Recent research on concept and classification learning (e.g., Carey, 1982;Jacoby & Brooks, 1984;Medin & Smith, 1984;Murphy & Medin, 1985;Oden, 1987;Reed, 1972;Smith & Medin, 1981;Whittlesea, 1987) is compatible with the view that categories are not necessarily dense regions of highly correlated attributes and that categorization can best be understood by seeing features in a given set in an interactive manner. Thus, the central question is, does a typological or person-type approach yield anything unique to our understanding of how people think about other people?…”

Section: Contrasting the Three Views Of Person Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception.

Anderson

Sedikides²

1991

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The associationistic view of person perception states that people are perceived in terms of trait covariations. The dimensional view maintains that others are perceived by means of a limited number of dimensions. In contrast, the typological view is that others are perceived in terms of person types, and traits within a given person type have a unique interactive relation. In Experiment l, associationistic, dimensional, and typological representations of implicit personality theories were empirically derived. The derived stimuli were used in Experiment 2, which examined the effects of person type membership on impression priming and perceived trait belongingness, controlling for associationistic and dimensional factors. As expected, results validated the unique contribution of a typological approach to person perception. Implications of the present findings for the implicit personality theory, stereotype, and person memory literatures are discussed. People constitute important categories of objects. It is of no surprise, then, that thinking about people is such a pervasive phenomenon. We routinely form impressions of other people's personalities, make predictions about their behavior, wonder about their intentions, and evaluate their performance outcomes. In this article, we are concerned with the issue of how we think about, perceive, or cognitively represent other people. How Do People Think About People? There are at least three general views that speak to this issue: The associationistic, the dimensional, and the typological view. i Associationistic and Dimensional Views The simplest view, the associationistic, is that people think about others in terms of trait covariations. Expectations about a target person's standing on some unknown trait (e.g., shyness) are derived from beliefs about the correlations of that trait with known traits (e.g., outgoingness, aloofness). More formally, Trait A is expected to accurately describe a person who has Traits B, C, and D to the extent that A is believed to correlate positively with B, C, and D. The expectation for a given unknown trait depends on the perceived relations between that trait and all We thank the participants in the Nags Head Conference on Social Cognition, especially Dave Schneider, for their helpful suggestions. We also thank Rob Nosofsky and the anonymous reviewers for their perceptive comments on drafts of this article and Phil Wood for his expert advice on multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. The help of Mary Finch, Deborah Weaver, and Lee Metzler in conducting this research is gratefully acknowledged.

show abstract

“…The instance theory and EBRW describe the acquisition and expression of automaticity in a manner that relates it to theories of memory (Hintzman, 1988;Jacoby & Brooks, 1984), concept learning (Hintzman, 1986;Medin & Schaffer, 1978;Nosofsky, 1988), problem solving (Ross, 1984(Ross, , 1987, judgment (Kahneman & Miller, 1986), and social categorization (Smith & Zarat~, 1992). So interfacing CTVA with instance theory should go a long way toward a general account of cognition.…”

Section: Proximity and Grouping Effects In Partial Report Several In-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Logan

1996

Psychological Review

278

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a theory that inte~ates space-based and object-based approaches to visual attention. The theory puts together M. P. van Oeffelen and P. G. Vos's ( 1982Vos's ( , 1983) COntour DEtector (CODE) theory of perceptual grouping by proximity with C. Bundesen's (1990) theory of visual attention (TVA). CODE provides input to TVA, accounting for spatially based between-object selection, and TVA converts the input to output, accounting for feature-and category-based withinobject selection. CODE clusters nearby items into perceptual groups that are both perceptual objects and regions of space, thereby integrating object-based and space-based approaches to attention. The combined theory provides a quantitative account of the effects of grouping by proximity and dis~nce between items on reaction time and accuracy data in 7 empirical situations that shaped the current literature on visual spatial attention.For the last decade the attention literature has been embroiled in a debate over the nature of visual spatial attention that focuses on the "thing" that attention selects (e.g., Baylis & Driver, 1993;Driver & Baylis, 1989;Duncan, 1984;Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994;Kramer & Jacobson, 1991;Vecera & Farah, 1994). Advocates of space-based attention argue that attention selects regions of space independent of the objects they contain. Attention is like a spotlight illuminating a region of space. Objects that fall within the beam are processed; objects that fall outside it are not (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974;Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Posner, 1980;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Gormican, 1988). Advocates of object-based attention argue that attention selects objects rather than regions of space. Selection is spatial because objects necessarily occupy regions of space, but objects rather than the regions themselves are the things that are selected (Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kahneman & Treisman, 1984;Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1992;Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Objectbased theories assume that attention only selects regions of space that are occupied by objects, whereas space-based theories assume that attention can select empty regions of space (cf. Yantis, 1992).The purpose of this article is to propose a theory of visual spatial attention that integrates space-based and object-based views. The theory takes a computational approach to the problem, characterizing attention in terms of representations and the processes that operate on them. It differs from most ap- proaches to attention by being concerned with the representation of space and the representation of objects, incorporating a theory of perceptual organization and a theory of selection. The resolution of the controversy derives from the theory's assumptions about representation.The article begins by describing five important questions that face any theory of visual spatial attention. The answers proposed by the new theory are presented by way of describing the theory. The theory is applied to seven important paradigms that shaped the cur...

show abstract

Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning

Cited by 416 publications

References 59 publications

Real-world estimation: Estimation modes and seeding effects

Real-world estimation: Estimation modes and seeding effects

Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception.

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About