Comparison of the Learning Result and Selective Attention between Referential Communicators

Abstract

Abstract: Undergraduate students have participated in the current study. The study designed three kinds of experimental materials. The relational complexity is manipulated. The tasks of functional prediction and dimensional selection were used to explore the characteristics of the learning result and selective attention between referential communicators by the paradigm of referential communication. The results showed that The scores of the high-score group are significantly higher than the low-score group in Block 10. The main effect of relational complexity is significant. The results of dimensional selection are not significantly different between referential communicators. The relational complexity affects the results of dimensional selection and relative dimensional selection. The results suggested that The learning results between referential communicators are unbalanced, and this imbalance is not affected by relational complexity. However, selective attention shows coherence between referential communicators. This coherence is not affected by relational complexity.

Key words: referential communication, relational complexity, learning result, selective attention, imbalance.

摘要： 以144名大学生为被试,采用参照性交流范式,设计复杂性不同的材料,创设功能预测和维度选择任务,探查比较参照性交流双方学习效果与选择性注意特点。结果高成绩组block10成绩显著高于低成绩组,关系复杂性主效应显著,参照性交流双方维度选择结果不存在显著差异,关系复杂性影响维度选择的整体结果、有关维度选择结果。表明：双方学习效果不平衡,但选择性注意协调一致,均不受复杂性影响。

关键词: 参照性交流, 关系复杂性, 学习效果, 选择性注意, 不平衡性。

Zhang Hengchao, Yin Guo′en. Comparison of the Learning Result and Selective Attention between Referential Communicators[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(1): 14-19.

张恒超, 阴国恩. 参照性交流双方学习效果和选择性注意的比较^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(1): 14-19.

References

1 沈德立, 白学军.(2006). 实现高效率学习的心理机制研究. 心理科学,(1), 2-5.
2 张恒超, 阴国恩.(2010). 学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响. 心理与行为研究, 8(4), 257-262.
3 张恒超, 阴国恩.(2012a). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习的影响. 心理发展与教育, 28(2), 193-200.
4 张恒超, 阴国恩.(2012b). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习中选择性注意的影响. 心理科学, 35(4), 823-828.
5 张恒超, 阴国恩.(2012c). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习分类的影响. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 34(8), 138-144.
6 Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M.(2004). The old and thee, uh, new. Psychological Science, 15, 578-582.
7 Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H.(2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195-225.
8 Bezuidenhout, A.(2013). Perspective taking in conversation: A defense of speaker non-egocentricity. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 4-16.
9 B?觟gels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., & Chwilla, D. J.(2011). Pitch accents in context: How listeners process accentuation in referential communication. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2022-2036.
10 Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A.(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13-B25.
11 Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J.(2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465-1477.
12 Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H.(1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482-1493.
13 Brown-Schmidt, S.(2009a). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171-190.
14 Brown-Schmidt, S.(2009b). The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(5), 893-900.
15 Brown-Schmidt, S., Gunlogson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(2008). Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation. Cognition, 107, 1122-1134.
16 Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N.(2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 30-49.
17 Clark, H. H.(1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18 Duran, N. D., & Dale, R.(2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 131-146.
19 Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D.(2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998-1007.
20 Frobenius, M.(2014). Audience design in monologues: How vloggers involve their viewers. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 59-72
21 Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E.(2010). Attenuating information in Spoken Communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51.
22 Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W.(2013). Gesture′s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual review of psychology, 64, 257-283.
23 Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290-305.
24 Holler, J., & Wilkin, K.(2011). Co-Speech gesture mimicry in the process of collaborative referring during Face-to-Face dialogue. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(2), 133-153.
25 Jacquette, D.(2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), 143-159.
26 Kaplan, F., & Hafner, V. V.(2006). The challenges of joint attention. Interaction Studies, 7(2), 135-169.
27 Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S.(1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, (1), 113-114.
28 Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S.(1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 331-354.
29 Metzing, C. & Brennan, S. E.(2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partnerspecific effects in the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 201-213.
30 Mills, G. J.(2011). The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of CogSci. Boston. USA.
31 Nicholas, D. D., Rick, D., & Roger, J. K.(2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other′s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121, 22-40.
32 Rogers, S. L., Fay, N., & Maybery, M.(2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PLoS One, 8(2), e57211.
33 Ruiter, J. P., Bangerter, A., & Dings, P.(2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 232-248.
34 Shintel, H., & Keysar, B.(2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260-273.
35 Tyl′en, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C.(2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind & Language, 25(1), 3-29.
36 Yoon, S. O., Koh, S., & Brown-Schmidt, S.(2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 699-707.

[1]	Gu Jiyou, Lv Yong. The Different Effects of Selective Attention and Divided Attention on Multisensory Integration [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(2): 202-206.
[2]	Xu Xiaobo, Pang Weiguo. Relationship between Primary and Secondary Students′ Carelessness Phenomenon in Mathematics and Attention Ability [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(1): 80-86.
[3]	Chen Rui, Yang Jinlin, Li Peng, He Shunchao, Tao Yun. The Influence of the Emotional Word during Working Memory on Selective Attention [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(2): 200-204.
[4]	Zhang Hengchao,Yin Guoen. THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAY OF LEARNING UPON THE INDIRECT LEARNING OF RELATIONAL CATEGORY [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2010, 8(4): 257-262.
[5]	Gan Tian,Luo Yuejia. REVIEW AND COMPARISON OF TWO NEGATIVE PRIMING EFFECTS IN SELECTIVE ATTENTION [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2009, 7(4): 312-318.
[6]	Zhang Li, Xin Ziqiang. Review on the Theory of Relational Complexity [J]. , 2006, 4(4): 312-317.