A good tennis player does not lose matches. The effects of valence congruency in processing stance-argument pairs


Autoři: Naomi Kamoen aff001;  Maria Baukje Johanna Mos aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224481

Souhrn

According to the principle of Argumentative Orientation (AO), speakers and writers adjust their frame choice to the opinion they want to convey and hearers and readers are sensitive to this profile choice. In three reaction time studies (N = 68; N = 97; N = 60) we investigated whether, in line with AO, stance-argument pairs congruent in valence are easier to process and to verify than incongruent pairs. Second, we tested whether, in line with predictions from the Markedness Principle (MP), positive congruent pairs are easier to process than negative congruent pairs. In line with AO, participants made faster and more accurate judgments of congruent pairs than of incongruent pairs. This effect was observed when controlling for word length and word frequency, and occurred irrespective of the distance between the evaluative word in the stance and argument. No unambiguous effect of Markedness was found.

Klíčová slova:

Cognition – Decision making – Experimental design – Glass – Language – Reaction time – Semantics – Sports


Zdroje

1. Levin IP, Schneider SL, & Gaeth GJ. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 1998; 76(2): 149–188. 9831520

2. Holleman BC, Pander Maat HL. The pragmatics of profiling: Framing effects in text interpretation and text production. Journal of Pragmatics. 2009; 41(11): 2204–2221.

3. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of consumer research. 1988; 15(3): 374–378.

4. Levin IP. Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1987; 25: 85–86

5. Dunegan KJ. Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78: 491–503.

6. Sher S, McKenzie CRM. Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition. 2006; 101(3): 467–494. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 16364278

7. Sher S, McKenzie CRM. Framing effects and rationality. In: Chater N, Oaksford M, editors. The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 79–96.

8. McKenzie CRM, Nelson JD. What speaker’s choice of frame reveals: reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2003; 10: 596–602. doi: 10.3758/bf03196520 14620352

9. Tribushinina E. Cognitive reference points: Semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of space and colour (doctoral dissertation). Utrecht: Netherlands graduate school of Linguistics LOT-reeks; 2008.

10. Langacker RW. Why a mind is necessary. Conceptualisation, grammar, and linguistic semantics. In: Albertazzi L, editor. Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2000. pp. 25–38.

11. Langacker RW. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

12. Horn LR. A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1989.

13. Givón T. Functionalism and grammar. John Benjamins: Amsterdam; 1995.

14. Pollatsek A, Juhasz BJ, Reichle EA, Machacek D, Rayner K. Immediate and delayed effects of word frequency and word length on eye movements in reading: a reversed delayed effect of word length. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance. 2008; 34: 726–50. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.726 18505334

15. Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A. E-Prime: User's guide. Psychology Software Incorporated; 2002.

16. Mos MBJ, Kamoen N. Een goede tennisser verliest geen wedstrijden. Twee reactietijdenstudies naar het effect van attribuutframing in standpunt-argumentparen. [A good tennis player does not lose matches. Two reaction time studies into the effect of attribute framing in stance-argument pairs]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 2017; 45: 184–200.

17. Fazio RH. A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Hendrick C, Clark MS, editors. Research Methods in personality and social psychology. Newbury Park/London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1991. pp. 74–97.

18. Quené H, Van den Bergh XE, Van den Bergh H. On multilevel modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication. 2004; 43: 103–121.

19. Quené H, Van den Bergh XE, Van den Bergh H. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008; 59: 413–442.

20. Ratcliff R. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin. 1993; 114: 510–532. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 8272468

21. Yan T, Tourangeau R. Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2008; 22: 51–68.

22. Kamoen N, Holleman B, Mak P, Sanders T, Van den Bergh H. Agree or disagree? Cognitive processes in answering contrastive survey questions. Discourse Processes. 2011; 48: 355–385.

23. Rayner K, Duffy SA. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition. 1986; 14: 191–201.

24. Oostdijk N., Reynaert M., Hoste V., Schuurman I. (2013) The Construction of a 500 Million Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch in: Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme (eds. Spyns P., Odijk J.), Berlijn: Springer Verlag.

25. Anderson JR. A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1983; 22: 261–295.

26. Perea M, Gotor A. Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition. 1997; 62(2): 223–240. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00782-2 9141908

27. Neely JH, Keefe DE, Ross KL. Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1989; 15(6): 1003–1019. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.6.1003 2530303

28. Comrie B. Markedness. In: Verschueren J, Ostman J-O, Blommaert J, Bulcaen C, editors. Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia; 1996. pp. 1–13.

29. Fagley NS, Miller PM. The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1990; 16: 496–510.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11