Reasoning and Decision Making - Lecture 4

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

how we perceive the world is influenced by language.

strong form - linguistic determinism - language determines thought. no language for concept = cannot understand it.

weak form - linguistic relativity - language influences thought. can experience things without having the words for them.

Universalism

opposes SWH - predicts all languages share same structures/universal grammar (Chomsky).

all humans had to create words to represent their thoughts - differences in language only superficial.

labelling does not influence perception and cognition.

Colour - Language Similarities

language does not influence perception - universal trends in colour naming across languages (Berlin & Kay, 1969).

some languages have two terms for colour (always black and white) = suggests universal.

increasing number of terms - start with focal, have derived colours as terms increase. focal colours remembered better, universal across cultures.

Colour - World Colour Survey (Regier et al., 2005)

consistencies of what constituted ‘typical’ focal colours across 110 languages.

commonalities = similarities in colour perception → universality of language despite different labels.

Colour - Papua New Guinea Tribe

did not have better memory for focal colours (Roberson et al., 2005). perception of colours determined by language’s 5 colour terms. suggests language can influence perception

Colour - Winawer et al. (2007)

Ps (26 Russian, 24 English) asked what colours they see on gradient of blue shades.

English speakers - ‘blue’.

Russian speakers - ‘goloboy’ (light/sky blue), ‘siniy’ (darker, ocean blue). different linguistic categories for colours.

English speakers see no difference, Russians differentiate colours due to more linguistic labels - supports SWH.

Colour - Gilbert et al. (2006)

if language influences colour perception, influence more likely when colours projected in RVF (LH).

across category (blue/green), or within category (blue/blue shade).

faster distinguishing when projected into RVF (language hemisphere).

suggests language influences perception, mainly in RVF. Supports SWH.

Space

use different reference points to refer to objects around us in perception.

relating objects to self = egocentric.

relating objects to each other = allocentric.

allocentrics better at keeping track of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscape → language can influence cognition.

Stroop

task - time self naming colours of text while ignoring text itself. reading the text interferes with naming the colours, supporting SWH.

Gender (Konishi, 1993)

some words gendered differently in different languages.

Germans = clocks and bridges feminine due to being slender and elegant.

Spaniards = clocks and bridges masculine due to being stronger.

Supports SWH - suggests language can influence cognition.

Visual Memory - Carmichael, Hogan & Walter (1932)

group 1 - abstract shapes with labels that can map onto shape

group 2 - same shapes, different labels

asked to draw objects studied - recollecting items similar to labels. different across groups, despite shapes being the same.

suggests language can shape perception.

Visual Memory - Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Ps view movie of car accident.

group 1 - asked speed of cars when ‘collided’

group 2 - asked speed of cars when ‘smashed’

Ps estimate speeds - increase as language becomes more severe.

misinformation effect - suggests language influences cognition.

Face Recognition - Fallshore & Schoolar (1995)

group 1 - watch video of bank robbery, describe robber, identify in line-up

group 2 - watch video, write irrelevant lists, identify robber in line-up.

group 1 perform worse.

group 2 more accurate only for own-race faces - effect disappeared for identifying other races because we process other race faces featurally.

verbalisation may create shift from configural to feature-based processing (Brown & Lloyd-Jones, 2002). we recognise faces as unitary percept - describing breaks configural shape.

Face Recognition - Wickham & Swift (2006)

Ps view face and identify face from array.

Group 1 - articulatory suppression

Group 2 - tap fingers

Group 2 more accurate than Group 1 - shows language negatively influences perception of faces.