Title: Representation and Retrieval
1Representation and Retrieval
- Reviewing the framework
- Information processing sequence
- Encoding entering information into cognitive
system - Attention
- Interpretation
- Elaboration going beyond the information
- Evaluation and judgment
- Inference
- Attribution
- Representation storing new knowledge
- Retrieval using stored knowledge
- Response
2Representation and Retrieval
- So far focus on how information is processed
- Some (but not all) stimulus info encoded
selective attention - Interpreted
- Elaborated in various ways evaluation,
inference, attribution
3Representation and Retrieval
- Information then stored in memory. But
- Stimulus info has been transformed. Therefore --
- Mental representation of it may differ from
actual input. But - That representation is basis for later retrieval
and response - So -- Use of information is based on retrieval
4Representation and Retrieval
5Representation and Retrieval
- Model does a good job of specifying
- How information is represented in memory (and
why) - How information is retrieved from memory
6Representation and Retrieval
- Representation, retrieval, and judgment the use
of heuristics - Information represented in memory -- used for
many purposes, e.g., judgments decisions. - Do you think Ryan is a smart guy?
- Candidate Smith is he a conservative?
- How many times have we been told the economy is
sound? - How are these judgments made?
7Representation and Retrieval
- Do you think Ryan is a smart guy?
- Judgment formed on-line (stored in memory) or
memory-based (on retrieval of relevant info from
memory) - Candidate Smith is he a conservative?
- Image (prototype) of what a conservative is.
How well does Mr. Smith match prototype?
Pro-choice, but anti-gun control, pro-business,
but anti-tax cuts, etc. - How many times the economy is sound?
- To provide accurate answer, recall all instances
from memory - Problem to be accurate, judgment process can
take a lot of work (time, energy). - Solution short cuts heuristics. Tversky
Kahneman (1974 Rdng. 10).
8Representation and Retrieval
- Heuristic
- a rule of thumb applied to available
information - allows making judgments with little processing
effort - yields judgments that are in most cases
reasonably accurate. - However --
- rule of thumb is not thorough, logical
analysis therefore -- - can produce systematic errors and biases.
-
9Representation and Retrieval
- Why base judgments on error-prone process?
- All information needed to make logical judgment
may not be available - Person has limited capacities and resources
- Decisions need to be made quickly
- Though subject to error, heuristics usually
produce judgments that are sufficiently accurate
10Representation and Retrieval
- Judgment heuristics
- Representativeness
- Assigning single elements (e.g., persons) to
larger categories (e.g., groups), estimating
probability - Availability
- Making frequency and probability judgments
11Representation and Retrieval
- Representativeness heuristic categorization
based on resemblance of exemplar to category
(prototype). - If A is highly representative of B, the
probability that A originates from B is judged to
be high. - Bob is quiet and shy, reads a lot, and is
concerned with detail and orderliness. Is Bob a
farmer or a librarian? - Is Candidate Smith a conservative?
- The heuristic makes sense category members
usually do resemble prototype of category. Hence
useful and often accurate.
12Representation and Retrieval
- Problems sources of error (see Tversky
Kahneman reading) - Insensitivity to base rates. Example -- exemplar
resembles one category, but other category more
likely. Base rates vs. representativeness. - Conjunction fallacy.
- Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and
very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a
student she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice, and also
participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. - What is probability that today
- Linda is a bank teller.
- Linda is a bank teller and a feminist.
13Representation and Retrieval
- Insensitivity to chance.
- the hot hand in basketball
- Ignoring regression to the mean.
- the Sports Illustrated jinx.
-
- Some names..
14- Jennifer Lopez
- Steve Whitaker
- Hillary Clinton
- Sam Mudd
- Condolesa Rice
- Jim Sherman
- John Levine
- Serena Williams
- Bruce Stuckel
- Eleanor Roosevelt
- Oprah Winfrey
- Bob Hall
- Garry Demarest
- Laura Bush
- Jeff McMillan
15Representation and Retrieval
- Availability heuristic judging frequency of
occurrence based on ease of retrieving instances.
- Which occurs more frequently
- Robins or owls?
- Fords or Mercedes?
- Baseball players or soccer players?
- The heuristic makes sense. Instances in large
classes are usually recalled more easily than
instances in small classes. - But -- Availability is the inverse if instances
can be recalled easily, there must be a lot of
them.
16Representation and Retrieval
- Of the names you saw, were there more females or
more males? - Females?
- Males?
- Problems sources of error ease of retrieval
can be due to factors other than actual
frequency. Anything that makes instances more
accessible in memory will influence judgments.
17Representation and Retrieval
- What factors influence ease of retrieval?
- Familiarity
- Famous and not-so-famous names. Females on list
all famous. Males not famous. - Recency
- Salience, vividness
- Egocentric bias
18Representation and Retrieval
- Egocentric bias in retrieval of instances (Ross
Sicoly, 1979 Rdng. 12). - Married couples, each person indicates extent of
their responsibility for each of 20 activities
making breakfast, cleaning dishes, grocery
shopping, cleaning house, planning joint
activities, etc. - Results add two values from partners, greater
than total possible. - Why? Self-relevant inputs are more available for
retrieval from memory.
19Representation and Retrieval
- Separating amount of recall from ease of
retrieval. - The problem availability heuristic relies on
ease of retrieving instances. But in many
cases there is more recall (famous names). Is
overestimation due to recalling more or recalling
a few more easily?
20Representation and Retrieval
- Strategy for solving (Schwarz et al., 1991 Rdng.
11). - Describe 6 (12) situations in which you behaved
assertively (unassertively). - Rate how assertive you are.
- no. recalled assertive unassertive
- 6 6.3 5.2
- 12 5.2 6.2
21Representation and Retrieval
- Retrieval -- Different routes to retrieval
- Information in memory -- retrieved for judgments,
decisions, etc. How will information be
retrieved? Have already seen a few ways. - Free recall retrieving items of acquired
information - Frequency estimates
- Trait ratings
22Representation and Retrieval
- Two well-known effects in the literature
- Better recall of expectancy-inconsistent items
(e.g., Srull, 1981 Rdng. 23). - Proportion Recalled
- Congruent .400
- Incongruent .470
- Irrelevant .278
- Overestimation of frequency of expectancy-consiste
nt items (e.g., Hamilton Rose, 1980). - Traits Stereotypic of
- Occupation Accts Doctors Salesmen
- Accountants 2.67 1.99
2.25 - Doctors 2.21 2.66 2.41
- Salesmen 1.94 2.12 2.94
23Representation and Retrieval
- How can we explain both of these effects??
- The effects occur under different conditions
- Different retrieval processes for different tasks
- Return to the associative network model.
24Representation and Retrieval
25Representation and Retrieval
- The TRAP Model (Twofold Retrieval from
Associative Pathways) (Garcia-Marques Hamilton,
1996). - Assumes same encoding and representation as
network model. - One more assumption pathways connecting person
node to -- - consistent items -- strong (easily accessible)
- inconsistent items -- weak (less accessible)
26Representation and Retrieval
- Major proposal of TRAP Model Two strategies for
retrieval - Exhaustive retrieval. Example recall.
- Heuristic retrieval. Example frequency
estimates. - What are differences between two retrieval
strategies?
27Representation and Retrieval
- Exhaustive Retrieval Heuristic Retrieval
- Example free recall Example frequency
estimates - Thorough search Selective search,
focused on specific type of
information - Retrieve anything and Uses availability
to gauge everything, in any order
frequency or amount of - information
- Resource-consuming Less systematic, less
demanding - Output retrieval of specific Output summary
estimate - items
-
28Representation and Retrieval
- Implication of TRAP Model
- Recall and frequency estimation rely on different
retrieval strategies - So could use both strategies to retrieve info
from same representation - If so in same study, could we show
- (a) better recall of incongruent items
- and
- (b) overestimation of congruent items?
29Representation and Retrieval
- Empirical test (Garcia-Marques Hamilton, 1996)
- Task form impressions of two persons.
- Method
- different occupations, opposite stereotypes
(expectancies) cab driver (unambitious, fun),
computer programmer (ambitious, boring) - read 36 behaviors, 18 about each person (6
congruent, 6 incongruent, 6 neutral per person) - Recall behaviors
- Estimate of behaviors for each trait
30Representation and Retrieval
- Results
- Recall no. items recalled
- congruent 3.67
- incongruent 4.72
- irrelevant 3.33
- Frequency estimates
- mean estimate
- congruent 16.61
- incongruent 13.49
31Representation and Retrieval
- Conclusion two retrieval strategies exhaustive
heuristic -- can produce - divergent outcomes
- based on same information
- on immediately successive tasks
32Representation and Retrieval
- Next study (Garcia-Marques, Hamilton, Maddox,
2002) - Same basic methodology, with some manipulations
-- intervene to alter exhaustive retrieval - Cognitive load at encoding
- Cognitive load at retrieval
- Free recall vs. focused recall
- Dependent measure recall
-
33Representation and Retrieval
- Mean Recall
- No Load Load Encoding Load
Retrieval - Cong Inc Cong
Inc Cong Inc - Free Recall 4.00 5.05
- Focused Recall
34Representation and Retrieval
- Mean Recall
- No Load Load Encoding Load
Retrieval - Cong Inc Con Inc
Cong Inc - Free Recall 4.00 5.05 4.55 4.10
4.70 4.10 - Focused Recall
35Representation and Retrieval
- Mean Recall
- No Load Load Encoding Load
Retrieval - Cong Inc Con
Inc Cong Inc - Free Recall 4.00 5.05 4.55
4.10 4.70 4.10 -
- Focused Recall 4.68 4.32 4.53 3.76
5.17 3.83
36Representation and Retrieval
- Summary of findings
- Cognitive load during either encoding or
retrieval changes outcome (for different reasons) - Focused recall changes outcome
- Note -- focused recall makes free recall
(exhaustive) resemble the heuristic retrieval
process
37Representation and Retrieval
- Remembering that vacation
- Collaborative recall retrieval as a social
process (Garrido, 2007) - Procedure
- 3 persons per session
- Task form impression
- Expectancy John, computer programmer,
intelligent, wise, quick thinker - 30 behaviors
- Recall
- Collaborative groups
- Nominal groups
38 39Representation and Retrieval
- Collaborative retrieval lower recall why?
- Relationship between encoding retrieval
- Items represented in memory
- Representation implies retrieval routes
- Normal recall -- retrieval follows those routes
- Collaborative recall
- Each person has idiosyncratic representation,
retrieval routes - Other person may recall item not implied by
retrieval plan disruptive inhibits recall - Consequence lower recall in collaborative
40Representation and Retrieval
41Representation and Retrieval
- But not the whole story
- Transactive memory (Wegner, Erber, Raymond,
1991) - Shared memory schemes within couple,
- Each member has special knowledge
- Both members know who knows what
- I dont need to remember stuff you know
- Together, better memory
- Should occur only in established couples
42Representation and Retrieval
- Method
- Natural impromptu couples
- Task memorize items from 7 categories
- Assignment of expertise or not (3 categories to
one partner, 4 to other) - Dyadic memory task
43Representation and Retrieval
44Representation and Retrieval
- Results
- No assignment natural impromptu
- Assigned expertise impromptu natural
- Why??
- No assignment pre-existing structures in
natural couples provides advantage - Assigned expertise
- interference of assigned structure with
pre-existing structure - in natural, but not impromptu, couples