Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSG (10,000)
PSY (800)
Final

PSY370H1 Study Guide - Final Guide: Verbal Overshadowing, Motivation, Cognitive Flexibility


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSY370H1
Professor
John Vervaeke
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 21 pages of the document.
PSY370 FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE (Post-Midterm)
PART 1 INSIGHT
Recent Insight & Neuroscience Research
October 27
Weisberg comes back and makes a
methodological critique
, saying insight research has conceptual
confusions about:
1.
Subjective status of insight problems
how can we determine whether a “problem” actually exists?
What is a problem for Trevor may not be a problem for me (the concept isn‟t stable or objective)
a. Bowden & Jung-Beeman
2.
Homogeneity of CLASS of insight problems:
maybe there are hybrid problems, some require search-
inference as well as insight processes. If so, our performance on “purebred” insight problems are not
generalizable
a.
Gilhooly & Murphy
how can we determine objectively what constitutes an insight problem?
BOWDEN & JUNG-BEEMAN 2003
Aha! Insight experience correlates w/ solution activation in the RH.
told subjects what is MEANT by “insight” & “non-insight” & the associated experiences
subjects given a bunch of non-labeled problems, told to REPORT when they are having an insight
experience.
Results:
when patients were working on problems that they reported to be associated with insight,
they showed a quick hemispheric lateralization to the RH. Across subjects, the same problems were
associated with the same reports and the same type of brain activity (lateralization)
o
Specifically, in the right anterior supramarginal temporal gyrus, EEG showed increased
activity almost immediately before solution
Correlates with F.O.W. data! (Metcalfe‟s feeling-of-warmth theory)
Their results were consistent & theoretically meaningful
The Theoretical Meaningfulness of Hemispheric Lateralization
To get a solution to an insight problem, we make a sudden shift to a
landscape/gestalty
view of the
environment (RH), and then a quick shift BACK (LH) - probably verifying our solution.
Explanation: When 2 organisms compete, the one that wins is able to pick up on small variations & details
& can make smaller changes in his behavior -----
fine-grained & sequential processing
~ occurs in LH
Gestalty big-picture processing and response required for NOVELTY &
multiple simultaneous constraint
problems (such as being attacked by a tiger)~ occurs in RH
navon letters
(big H made up of Ss)
damaged RH will see only sssss
damaged LH will see only H

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

WE see both approach a
dynamical equilibrium -
both seem to be pulling on each other
Snyder & Chi
THINKING CAP
transcranial magnetic stimulation impose lateralization shifts improve insight probsolv!
****When somebody can use previous results & theories and CAUSE/ INTERVENE in phenomena, it‟s strong
evidence for UNDERSTANDING of a phenomenon****
** insight problem-solving lateralization reflects a shift in processing
STYLE,
not content.
BOWDEN & JUNG-BEEMAN point out that LANGUAGE PROCESSING shows this shift as well, triggering
spikes in RH activation
garden path sentences:
the horse raced past the barn fell
metaphor:
shifting levels of construal
shows that “VERBAL OVERSHADOWING” is a misnomer – the problem isn‟t language in and of itself, it‟s
that a specific type of concurrent verbalization causes overshadowing. The STYLE & MANNER OF
PROCESSING is what‟s important
LANGUAGE THAT OVERSHADOWS: the kind that results in LH routine sequential processing
LANGUAGE THAT FACILITATES INSIGHT: the kind that results in shifting levels of construal, triggers spike in
RH big-picture activation.
Gilhooly & Murphy 2005 Differentiating insight from non-insight problems
if restructuring is necessary ~ it‟s an insight problem
if it‟s not necessary ~ non-insight problem
if it‟s helpful but not necessary ~ hybrid problem
A)
cluster analysis
look for a
positive manifold
(things are mutually predictive & highly correlated)
in insight problems assumes that different problems share core processing features
o FOUND IT! Insight probs clustered strongly together, non-insight too, but less so.
o Empirical results correlate w/ a priori taxonomy for insight vs. non-insight problems
o our intuition of insight probsolv seems to reflect reality
B)
individual differences methodology
see WHICH abilities are predictive of insight & non-insight
problem solving
o
cognitive flexibility
is important for insight (requires
attention shifting, inhibition of no-
longer relevant info, working memory
) facilitates
dynamical processing
(LH RH shifting)
TASKS:

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

figure fluency task make as many shapes as possible from a dot pattern (requires gestalt 
detail switcherooing)
alternative use task - how many things can you use this object for?
Weisberg comes back again w/ Fleck IS THIS IMPORTANT???
Trying to pay attention to methodological work on verbal protocols
Lotta people have been noticing interference effects, retooling how we use concurrent verbalization
REVIEW re-design their constructions on how to engage in concurrent verbalization
Arguing against SCHOOLER‟s thing that concurrent verbalization impairs insight problem solving
Facial recognition & verbal overshadowing see faces, later describing them impairs later recognition
OVERVIEW OF CONCURRENT VERBALIZATION RESEARCH
Macrae & Lois show that language isn‟t necessary for overshadowing in FACIAL RECOGNITION
see faces
shown something like NAVON LETTERS
a) driven to FEATURAL level (LH; sss)
b) driven to GESTALT level (RH; H)
facial recognition task
o a)
featural
shows overshadowing
o b)
gestalt
outperforms controls!! facilitation!
Schooler says it ain‟t verbal overshadowing, it‟s a
Transfer Inappropriate Processing Shift
*** Suggests that we could facilitate probsolv by changing the intervening task***
FINGER 2002
Participants presented with pictures of faces
Participants describe faces aloud
Intermediate task
o group a: do maze or listen music (MSC, pattern detection& tracking) no impairment
o group b: do another verbal task overshadowing
Facial recognition task
conclusions: group a‟s second task shifted them BACK to gestalt level
Meisner et al. 2001
More extensive & constrained/demanding verbalization task more overshadowing (inapprop processing
shift)
(extensive = asked to elaborate, be more thorough/detailed)
Allowed to be loose & associational used language that doesn‟t trigger LH activation no overshadow
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version