Brent Strickland

Event completion: Event based inferences distort memory in a matter of seconds

We present novel evidence that implicit causal inferences distort memory for events only seconds after viewing. Adults watched videos of someone launching (or throwing) an object. However, the videos omitted the moment of contact (or release). Subjects falsely reported seeing the moment of contact when it was implied by subsequent footage but did not do so when the contact was not implied. Causal implications were disrupted either by replacing the resulting flight of the ball with irrelevant video or by scrambling event segments. Subjects in the different causal implication conditions did not differ on false alarms for other moments of the event, nor did they differ in general recognition accuracy. These results suggest that as people perceive events, they generate rapid conceptual interpretations that can have a powerful effect on how events are remembered.

The intentionality bias in schizophrenia

The tendency to over-interpret events of daily life as resulting from voluntary or intentional actions is one of the key aspects of schizophrenia with persecutory delusions. Here, we ask whether this characteristic may emerge from the abnormal activity of a basic cognitive process found in healthy adults and children: the intentionality bias, which refers to the implicit and automatic inclination to interpret human actions as intentional (Rosset, 2008, Cognition 108, 771-780). In our experiment, patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls were shown sentences describing human actions in various linguistic contexts, and were asked to indicate whether the action was intentional or not. The results indicated that people with schizophrenia exhibited a striking bias to over attribute intentionality regardless of linguistic context, contrary to healthy controls who did not exhibit such a general intentionality bias. Moreover, this study provides some insight into the cognitive mechanisms underlying this bias: an inability to inhibit the automatic attribution of intentionality.

Moral Structure Falls Out of General Event Structure

At the core of Gray, Young, and Waytz’s fascinating and wide-ranging target article is the idea that people understand morally charged events in terms of two basic roles. On one hand, there is an agent who intentionally brings about an outcome; on the other, there is a patient who suffers that outcome’s effects. Much of the article is devoted to working out the surprising empirical implications of these role assignments, exploring their relevance to everything from psychopathology to religious belief. This work raises many deeply interesting issues, but we focus here on a question that is in some sense more fundamental. We want to know why it is that people understand moral events in terms of these specific roles in the first place. Why is it that people consistently make sense of moral events in terms of agents and patients instead of thinking in terms of some other set of roles, or perhaps even using different roles to understand different events?

The Influence of Social Interaction on Intuitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity

We present experimental evidence that peoples modes of social interaction influence their construal of truth. Participants who engaged in cooperative interactions were less inclined to agree that there was an objective truth about that topic than were those who engaged in a competitive interaction. Follow-up experiments ruled out alternative explanations and indicated that the changes in objectivity are explained by argumentative mindsets: When people are in cooperative arguments, they see the truth as more subjective. These findings can help inform research on moral objectivism and, more broadly, on the distinctive cognitive consequences of different types of social interaction.

Categories and Constraints in Causal Perception

When object A moves adjacent to a stationary object, B, and in that instant A stops moving and B starts moving, people irresistibly see this as an event in which A causes B to move. Real-world causal collisions are subject to Newtonian constraints on the relative speed of B following the collision, but here we show that perceptual constraints on the relative speed of B (which align imprecisely with Newtonian principles) define two categories of causal events in perception. Using performance-based tasks, we show that triggering events, in which B moves noticeably faster than A, are treated as being categorically different from launching events, in which B does not move noticeably faster than A, and that these categories are unique to causal events (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, we show that 7- to 9-month-old infants are sensitive to this distinction, which suggests that this boundary may be an early-developing component of causal perception (Experiment 3).

The texture of causal construals: Domain-specific biases shape causal inferences from discourse

We conducted five sets of experiments asking whether psychological and physical events are construed in broadly different manners concerning the underlying textures of their causes. In Experiments 1a–1d, we found a robust tendency to estimate fewer causes (but not effects) for psychological than for physical events; Experiment 2 showed a similar pattern of results when participants were asked to generate hypothetical causes and effects; Experiment 3 revealed a greater tendency to ascribe linear chains of causes (but not effects) to physical events; Experiment 4 showed that the expectation of linear chains was related to intuitions about deterministic processes; and Experiment 5 showed that simply framing a given ambiguous event in psychological versus physical terms is sufficient to induce changes in the patterns of causal inferences. Adults therefore consistently show a tendency to think about psychological and physical events as being embedded in different kinds of causal structures.

Evaluating Arguments from the Reaction of the Audience

In studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically focused on logical form and content. This emphasis has masked an important yet underappreciated aspect of everyday argument evaluation: social cues to argument strength. Here we focus on the ways in which observers evaluate arguments by the reaction they evoke in an audience. This type of evaluation is likely to occur either when people are not privy to the content of the arguments or when they are not expert enough to appropriately evaluate it. Four experiments explore cues that participants might take into account in evaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience. They demonstrate that participants can use audience motivation, expertise, and size as clues to argument quality. By contrast we find no evidence that participants take audience diversity into account.

The Tribalism of Truth

The article reports that cognitive scientists have gathered empirical evidence to see how ordinary people actually think about relativism versus immutable truth. It mentions that as political polarization grows, arguing to win is seemingly a more popular style of discourse than arguing to learn, especially in online forums such as social networking service Facebook and Twitter.

Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing

A crucial component of event recognition is understanding event roles, i.e. who acted on whom: boy hitting girl is different from girl hitting boy. We often categorize Agents (i.e. the actor) and Patients (i.e. the one acted upon) from visual input, but do we rapidly and spontaneously encode such roles even when our attention is otherwise occupied? In three experiments, participants observed a continuous sequence of two-person scenes and had to search for a target actor in each (the male/female or red/blue-shirted actor) by indicating with a button press whether the target appeared on the left or the right. Critically, although role was orthogonal to gender and shirt color, and was never explicitly mentioned, participants responded more slowly when the targets role switched from trial to trial (e.g., the male went from being the Patient to the Agent). In a final experiment, we demonstrated that this effect cannot be fully explained by differences in posture associated with Agents and Patients. Our results suggest that extraction of event structure from visual scenes is rapid and spontaneous.