The Effects of Prior Processing Episodes on Basic level Superiority

Lin, Emilie L.; Murphy, Gregory L.; Shoben, Edward Joseph

doi:10.1080/027249897392215

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Focusing on communalities induces a focus on overarching categories, and thus a high construal level mindset. A focus on differences induces a focus on lower level categories, and hence a low construal level mindset (Lin et al, 1997).…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the Lin et al (1997) construal level manipulation has so far been used in a limited number of studies only (we know of only two: Fujita & Roberts, 2010;Smith & Trope, 2006), we followed the procedures set out by Fujita and Roberts (2010) to check for the effectiveness of this construal level induction. Specifically, we used a modified version of the Behavioral Identification Form ('BIF'; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) as manipulation check.…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This exercise actually constituted the construal level manipulation, which was presented to participants as a "mind focusing exercise". We used a procedure developed by Lin, Murphy, and Shoben (1997) to prime construal level mindset.…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Houwelingen

Dijke

Cremer

2015

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All normative leadership theories suggest that disciplining followers that transgress moral norms is a crucial leadership task. However, leaders sometimes yet fail to do so. Previous research has indicated that leaders may refrain from enacting discipline out of self-interest or from concern for the organization's interest. We explore another option: leaders may simply be unwilling to enforce moral norms because of a negative attitude towards them. We argue and show that leaders that construe norms on relatively low (i.e. concrete) levels are likely to see norms as annoying obstacles, whereas leaders that construe moral norms on high (i.e. abstract) levels will have a more positive view of norms. In line with this, high construal level leaders are likely to be willing to enforce moral norms through discipline in response to follower moral transgressions.Low construal level leaders, in contrast, actively avoid doing so. We show this effect in different contexts and for different types of leader discipline.

show abstract

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Houwelingen

Dijke

Cremer

2015

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lin, Murphy, and Shoben (1997) examined whether knowledge could influence the basic level of categorization (Murphy & Smith, 1982;Rosch et al, 1976). They attempted to prime knowledge relevant to the superordinate or subordinate level in order to eliminate the superiority of basic-level categories in visual categorization.…”

Section: Object Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection.

Lin¹,

Murphy²

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that background knowledge affects the ease of concept learning, but little research has examined its effects on speeded categorization of instances after the category is well learned. Subjects in 4 experiments first learned novel categories. At test, they categorized a new set of novel stimuli that were either consistent or inconsistent with background knowledge given about the categories. Background knowledge affected categorization responses in an untimed task, with usual reaction time instructions, with a response deadline, or when the stimuli were presented for 50 ms followed by a mask. Three other experiments using a part-detection task showed that subjects were more likely to notice missing parts that were critical than noncritical according to background knowledge. The mechanisms by which background knowledge affects categorization and part detection are discussed.Human categorization is a cognitive proceSs in which people decide whether an instance is a member of a category by comparing the instance with their conceptual representations. Categorization research in the 1970s and early 1980s primarily focused on certain issues of representation, such as whether concepts are represented by prototypes (summary representations of an entire category) or by exemplars (individual instances of the categories). Despite the differences between these models of conceptual representation, they share some common assumptions. One assumption is that concepts are collections of features; another is that categorization involves feature matching and computation of feature similarity between the instance to be categorized and the concept with which the instance is compared (see Smith & Medin, 1981, for a review).More recently, however, a growing number of researchers have argued that similarity computation by feature matching is insufficient to explain conceptual coherence and the nature of conceptual representation. One type of argument is that the similarity relation between an instance and a concept can vary widely across contexts, but the featurematching process used by most models cannot capture this flexibility (Murphy, 1993). Another type of argument points to the evidence that perceptual similarity is not the sole factor that contributes to conceptual coherence; underlying beliefs about the nature of the category greatly influence coherence and category decisions (Keil, 1989;Medin & Ortony, 1989;Murphy & Medin, 1985;Rips, 1989;Rips & Collins, 1993). For example, people expect members of a biological kind to have an underlying genetic relation and artifacts of the same type to have a similar function. Thus, Emilie L. Lin and Gregory L. Murphy, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gregory L. Murphy, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois, 405 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801. Electronic mail may be sent to gmurphy@s.psych.uiuc.edu.researchers have begun to propose that an account of concepts and categorization ...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, superordinate-level names are typically learned (produced and comprehended) later in life than basic-and subordinate-level names (see, e.g., J. M. Clark & Johnson, 1994;Rosch et al, 1976). Finally, categorization remains considerably slower than naming throughout life (Costa et al, 2003;Irwin & Lupker, 1983;Jolicoeur et al, 1984;Lin, Murphy, & Shoben, 1997;Smith & Magee, 1980;Wingfield, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is overwhelming evidence that during speech planning semantically related words become lexically activated and compete for selection with the to-be-produced target word. The vast majority of this evidence stems from studies using the picture-word task, in which a distractor word (e.g., bird) drawn from the same semantic category as the target (e.g., fish) was shown to inhibit the picture-naming response more strongly than did an unrelated distractor word. By contrast, corresponding evidence from distractor words (e.g., carp) bearing a hierarchical relation to the target (e.g., fish) is sparse and inconclusive. In the present study, we investigated effects of subordinate-level distractors during basiclevel naming and effects of basic-level distractors during subordinate-level naming. Hierarchically related distractors were found to inhibit the naming response in both situations. This pattern of results did not depend on whether the pictures were preferably named at the basic level or at the subordinate level. The results suggest that hierarchically related name alternatives compete for selection.

show abstract

The Effects of Prior Processing Episodes on Basic level Superiority

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection.

Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About