Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift

Abstract

When considered in the context of prior research, the articles in this special issue on verbal overshadowing largely support the contention that verbalization can induce a processing shift that interferes with the application of non-verbal operations. Multiple sources of evidence for a processing shift are reviewed, including: (1) verbalization quality often does not correspond to recognition performance; (2) describing one stimulus can interfere with memory for a different stimulus; (3) engaging in a featural processing tasks impairs recognition in a manner comparable to verbalization; and (4) engaging in non-verbal tasks can reverse the negative effects of verbalization. In the light of this evidence, it is suggested that verbalization produces a 'transfer inappropriate processing shift' whereby the cognitive operations engaged in during verbalization dampen the activation of brain regions associated with critical non-verbal operations. This account of verbal overshadowing is then used to explain both the generality and fragility of the verbal overshadowing effect.

Reevaluating the role of verbalization of faces for composite production: Descriptions of offenders matter!

“…Nevertheless, our findings do not fit well with an account relying upon alterations in processing (e.g., Schooler, 2002). A delay between description and composite construction should have allowed a temporary "switch" to featural processing to subside.…”

“…Moreover, this whole-face technique has been found to improve the effectiveness of both feature-based and holistic-based composite systems (for a review, see Frowd et al, 2015; note, a subset of the current dataset described in Footnote 4 also supports a benefit of this whole-face technique when using a holistic system). Nevertheless, our findings do not fit well with an account relying upon alterations in processing (e.g., Schooler, 2002). A delay between description and composite construction should have allowed a temporary “switch” to featural processing to subside.…”

Effects of Motivational Cues on Perceptual Asymmetry: Implications for Creativity and Analytical Problem Solving.

“…Before analyzing creativity scores, we first examined the between-groups difference in the total number of responses tendered. Consistent with previous findings (Friedman & Fo ¨rster, 2001, 2002, an ANOVA revealed that cue had no reliable effect on the total number of uses for a brick listed by participants (M approach ϭ 7.06; M control ϭ 6.77; M avoidance ϭ 6.54), F Ͻ 1, suggesting that motivational cues do not reliably influence the sheer volume of production. To assess the hypothesis that approach, relative to avoidance, cues enhance creativity, we then submitted the mean creativity score to an ANOVA, using cue as a predictor.…”

“…This hypothesis was supported by the results of four experiments, which used multiple variants of two different behavioral measures of relative hemispheric activation, a linebisection task (Experiments 1, 3, and 4) and a chimeric faces task (Experiment 2). Consistent with earlier findings (Friedman & Fo ¨rster, 2000, 2002, 2003, we also found evidence that approach, relative to avoidance, cues bolster creativity and that avoidance, relative to approach, cues bolster analytical problem solving. Moreover, we collected evidence that the facilitative influence of approach cues on creative generation is mediated by increased relative right (diminished relative left) hemispheric activation and that the facilitative influence of avoidance cues on analytical problem solving is mediated by increased relative activation of the left (diminished relative activation of the right) hemisphere (Experiment 4).…”

Skimming the Surface

“…In contrast, the present findings are consistent with the suggestion that verbalization induces a processing shift, wherein individuals rely on processes that are more commensurate with those associated with verbalization (Dodson, Johnson, & Schooler, 1997; Macrae & Lewis, 2002; Schooler, 2002; Schooler et al, 1997). Indeed, the present findings mesh with Schooler's (2002) speculation that verbalization may increase individuals' relative reliance on left-hemisphere processes while dampening those associated with the right hemisphere, as recognizing more distant relations between concepts represents an ability particularly associated with the right hemisphere (Fiore & Schooler, 1997; Winner & Gardner, 1977).…”