参照性交流双方学习过程与选择性注意的比较

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究以大学生为被试，采用参照性交流范式，设计虚拟学习材料并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过程与选择性注意特点。结果发现：与低分组比较，高分组从学习阶段2开始得分显著更高；且维度选择整体结果显著优于低分组，这主要表现在对无关维度的抑制水平显著更高。结果表明：参照性交流双方的学习过程表现出不平衡性；参照性交流双方的选择性注意整体水平表现出不平衡性，具体表现于选择性注意的集中性水平。

关键词: 参照性交流, 学习过程, 选择性注意, 不平衡性

Abstract: The study took the undergraduate students as the experimental object and designed the experimental materials of virtual aliens. It created the tasks of functional prediction and dimensional selection to explore the characteristics of the learning process and selective attention between referential communicators by the paradigm of referential communication. The results showed that: From Block 2, the scores of the high-score group were extremely significantly higher than the low-score group. The overall results of dimensional selection of high-score group were significantly better than low-score group. The results of non-relative dimensional selection made a good manifestation. The results suggested that: The learning process between referential communicators was unbalanced. The overall levels of selective attention were unbalanced, and the imbalance was reflected by the concentration level of selective attention.

Key words: referential communication, learning process, selective attention, imbalance

中图分类号:

G442

张恒超. 参照性交流双方学习过程与选择性注意的比较[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(1): 55-60,74.

ZHANG Heng-chao. Comparison of the Learning Process and Selective Attention between Referential Communicators[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(1): 55-60,74.

参考文献

Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195-225.

Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 391-418.

Bezuidenhout, A. (2012). Perspective taking in conversation: A defense of speaker non-egocentricity. Journal of Pragmatics, in press.

B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.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13-B25.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & McLean, J. F. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2355-2368.

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.

Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291.

Bromme, R., Jucks, R., & Wagner, T. (2005). How to refer to 'diabetes'? Language in online health advice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19,569-586.

Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171-190.

Brown-Schmidt, S., & Hanna, J. E. (2011). Talking in another person's shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing. Dialog and Discourse, 2, 11-33.

Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332-373.

Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Epley, N., Keysar, B., VanBoven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339.

Frank, M. C., & Gibson, E. (2011). Overcoming memory limitations in rule learning. Language, Learning, & Development, 7, 130-148.

Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998-1007.

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.

Haugh, M. (2012).On understandings of intention: a response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9,164-194.

Haywood, S. L., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialog? Psychological Science, 16, 362-366.

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.

[JP+1]Holler, J., & Wilkin, K. (2009). Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 267-289.

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.

Jennifer, E. A., Jason, M. K., & Giulia, P. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505-525.

Kaplan, F., & Hafner, V. V. (2006). The challenges of joint attention. Interaction Studies, 7(2), 135-169.

Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25-41.

Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others' knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9(1), 2-24.

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.

Kristen, S. G., Whitney, G., Chelsea, R. M.,& Michael, K. T. (2011). Memory representations supporting speakers' choice of referring expression: Effects of category overlap and shared experience. The 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(CogSci11). Boston, MA.

Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 436-455.

Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 331-354.

Mills, G. J. (2011). The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of CogSci. Boston. USA.

Nicholas, D. D., Rick, D., & Roger, J. K. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other's perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121, 22-40.

Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 136-141.

Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-Derived Categories: The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 147-157.

Rossnagel, C. (2000). Cognitive load and perspective taking: Applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 429-445.

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.

Scott-Phillips, T., Kirby, S., & Ritchie, G. (2009). Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition, 113(2), 226-233.

Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260-273.

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.

Wagner, M. & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 905-945.

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.

Yu, C., Schermerhorn, P., & Scheutz, M. (2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 1(2), 13-43.

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.

沈德立, 白学军. (2008). 实现高效率学习的认知心理学基础研究. 天津: 天津科学技术出版社.

杨丽霞, 陈永明, 周治金. (2001). 不同理解能力的个体在词汇加工中的抑制机制. 心理学报, 33(4), 294-299.

张恒超. (2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29(5), 552-560.

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.

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.

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.

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.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	张恒超. 交流语境对学习过程中学习者语言选择性注意的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 320-328.
[2]	张恒超. 参照性交流中的“听者设计”[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(5): 552-560.
[3]	张恒超, 阴国恩. 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2012, 28(2): 193-200.
[4]	罗良, 林崇德, 陈桄. 注意次级任务对客体与空间工作记忆信息保持的选择性干扰[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2010, 26(6): 561-568,576.
[5]	张学民, 申继亮, 林崇德, 王萍萍, 刘帅. 小学生选择性注意能力发展的研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2008, 24(1): 19-24.