Several things from last week’s readings have been lingering
in my mind; one in particular is the example of the gentleman’s IAT test
results changing once after several times of receiving the same results all
because of a recent exposure to an African American historical figure, Dr.
King, perceived in a positive light. As I was viewing the PowerPoint lectures
and readings for this week’s topic on information processing I was again struck
by something that stood out to me, specifically how our brains select and draw
attention to the various stimuli that we are exposed to in any given moment.
What makes one stimulus more alluring or attractive than others? When what is
being presented is ambiguous or incomplete, how does our brain organize the information
so that it makes sense? And how does this effect learning?
While I was hunting for something to share with others on how
we register and perceive information the questions I presented above kept
lingering in the back of my mind. I don’t know if anyone has experienced this
before when searching the World Wide Web (key words being world and wide), but
it is very easy to veer off into different avenues related to one’s search
topic. Sometimes this can have a negative outcome where you find yourself 3
hours later in a completely different continent, figuratively speaking. However
it can also have a positive outcome, which thankfully happened to me, where you
stumble upon something that provides a connection, and helps to fill in some of
the gaps, to the questions you’ve been pondering. That is what I found when I
came across a concept known as “perceptual set”, which is the effect that frame
of mind, which is coded in the brain, has on perception (Feist and Rosenburg,
2012, pg. 128).
In a classic study of perceptual set, researchers Bruner and
Minturn in 1955 (McLeod, 2007) showed two groups of participants an image (image
#1 below), one group was shown a series of numbers right before viewing this
image and the other group saw a series of letters. The participants were then
asked what they thought the figure in the middle was. The group that saw the numbers beforehand
said it was the number 13 and the group that saw the letters said it was the
letter B. The researchers concluded that what people had seen prior to the test
image created an expectation, or perceptual set, for how they perceived what
came next.
I think this information stood out to me because I had been
thinking quite a bit about automaticity and implicit responses, specifically
how the gentleman’s IAT score changed. This information supported this unique
shift in his test results, which were a rarity from what I understand. I didn’t
know that this concept even existed. The general psychology books I’ve used in
class never discussed it, although it is a foundational topic similar to Weber’s
law.
If what we are exposed to in repetition significantly effects how we store, and later recall, information then that is something of
value that I as an instructor need to be aware of. With all the distractions of
not only our external surroundings but our internal ones as well, it's important
to repeat and present material in a way that is connected to the intended
learning outcome. In his chapter on attention James (1899/2001) talks about how
a figure off in the distance is barely noticeable and hardly draws our
attention. But when our companion (or teacher) defines or describes it in a way
that ignites our own set of experiences (schema) to be connected to it, then we
focus more upon it and draw connection to it (pg. 54). To me, this is the
bridge connecting what we are exposed to, what we select and draw attention to,
and then how we associate it with
already existing information. From there we can then go into rehearsal for long
term memory of storage and retrieval.
Image #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ3bA3NBRo4
(short clip showing perceptual set)
Reference:
Feist, G.J. & Rosenberg, E.L. (2012). Psychology: Perspectives and connections.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLeod, S. (2007). Perceptual Set. In Simply Psychology. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/perceptual-set.html.
**I wasn’t able to get my hands on a copy of the original
study by Bruner and Minturn (1955) because I don’t have access to the Taylor and
Francis journals. If anyone does and can obtain it I would greatly appreciate a
copy for my own library.
Yes, automaticity and implicit responses are really interesting. I keep thinking about Gladwell's description of how the students walked more slowly out of the room when they were primed to think about old age. As a communication student, it makes me wonder if the words we use in instruction are much more significant than we realize. How carefully should I craft a message? Does using one adjective over another subtly change my students' response? I'd like to conduct research that examines this idea much more in-depth. How can I "prime" students to learn information more quickly than through the associations my words create?
ReplyDeleteAgreed! Fascinating experiment on priming. I believe that the words we use and the way we craft our messages has a significant effect on how the information is absorbed, stored, and later recalled. We as teachers help to create that meaning making, it's just all on them.
DeleteIf you find yourself pursuing this line of research I'd be interested in either assisting or reading about your findings.
I find this phenomenon of implicit responses fascinating as well. I totally agree with you Tori about the importance of repetition and generalization of information in the classroom. The implicit response examples that related to race really affected me as well. It made me think about our typical curriculum in the schools where the history and historical figures that are presented focus on the achievements and lives of Caucasians or European Americans. There is really only a focus on minority groups during "special" months (Black History month, Women's history month, etc.). I wonder if there would be fewer negative stereotypes and negative, implicit feelings towards these groups if schools incorporated more history about minority groups and the achievements of these groups in the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points Whitney! I would have to agree with you in regards to your question about less stereotyping, well less negative ones anyway, if more information about various cultures was presented. There's two theories in communication can I just love and help to explain a little bit about your question/concern. Uncertainty reduction and predicted outcome value. Uncertainty reduction; we hate uncertainty, not knowing things about other people or what's going on around us (hmm sounds a little like cognitive dissonance), so in order to reduce that uncertainty we try to acquire information and usually are looking for things that are similar to us. Then we have predicted outcome value. If based on what we find out we predict that our future interactions will be positive then we are more likely to engage them in conversation and think of them in a positive light. If not then, well we fill in the gaps that we don't know with inferences which tend to be negative stereotypes.
DeleteI really like this line of thinking you're on to. :)