Identification facilitation for emotionally arousing verbs during the attentional blink

The present study aimed to examine affective modulation of the "attentional blink" effect during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant written verbs were used as a 2nd target (T2) in an 8.6-Hz RSVP paradigm. Pronounced effects of 1st target (T1)-T2 stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) were found, showing reduced report accuracy for 232- and 464-ms SOAs. Affectively arousing (pleasant and unpleasant) T2s were associated with enhanced accuracy compared with neutral T2s specifically during short (232 ms) SOAs. In contrast, pleasant and unpleasant T2s rated low in terms of emotional arousal did not show this enhancement. These results suggest that affectively arousing information is selected preferentially from a temporal stream, facilitating processes such as working memory consolidation and action.     

Effects of Causal Structure on Decisions About Where to Intervene on Causal Systems

We investigated how people design interventions to affect the outcomes of causal systems. We propose that the abstract structural properties of a causal system, in addition to people's content and mechanism knowledge, influence decisions about how to intervene. In Experiment 1, participants preferred to intervene at specific locations (immediate causes, root causes) in a causal chain regardless of which content variables occupied those positions. In Experiment 2, participants were more likely to intervene on root causes versus immediate causes when they were presented with a long‐term goal versus a short‐term goal. These results show that the structural properties of a causal system can guide the design of interventions.     

Syntax and intentionality: An automatic link between language and theory-of-mind

Three studies provided evidence that syntax influences intentionality judgments. In Experiment 1, participants made either speeded or unspeeded intentionality judgments about ambiguously intentional subjects or objects. Participants were more likely to judge grammatical subjects as acting intentionally in the speeded relative to the reflective condition (thus showing an intentionality bias), but grammatical objects revealed the opposite pattern of results (thus showing an unintentionality bias). In Experiment 2, participants made an intentionality judgment about one of the two actors in a partially symmetric sentence (e.g., “John exchanged products with Susan”). The results revealed a tendency to treat the grammatical subject as acting more intentionally than the grammatical object. In Experiment 3 participants were encouraged to think about the events that such sentences typically refer to, and the tendency was significantly reduced. These results suggest a privileged relationship between language and central theory-of-mind concepts. More specifically, there may be two ways of determining intentionality judgments: (1) an automatic verbal bias to treat grammatical subjects (but not objects) as intentional (2) a deeper, more careful consideration of the events typically described by a sentence.     

What matters in scientific explanations: effects of elaboration and content

Given the breadth and depth of available information, determining which components of an explanation are most important is a crucial process for simplifying learning. Three experiments tested whether people believe that components of an explanation with more elaboration are more important. In Experiment 1, participants read separate and unstructured components that comprised explanations of real-world scientific phenomena, rated the components on their importance for understanding the explanations, and drew graphs depicting which components elaborated on which other components. Participants gave higher importance scores for components that they judged to be elaborated upon by other components. Experiment 2 demonstrated that experimentally increasing the amount of elaboration of a component increased the perceived importance of the elaborated component. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that elaboration increases the importance of the elaborated information by providing insight into understanding the elaborated information; information that was too technical to provide insight into the elaborated component did not increase the importance of the elaborated component. While learning an explanation, people piece together the structure of elaboration relationships between components and use the insight provided by elaboration to identify important components.     

Constraints on Constraints: Surveying the Epigenetic Landscape

It is now relatively commonplace to advocate the need for some sorts of constraints on learning and knowledge acquisition. The critical issues to cognitive science concern the sorts of constraints that are able to best model various phenomena of learning and development. Four types of constraints on learning are proposed to be used as an interpretative framework within which to: 1. Better understand the nature of current research: 2. Allow the exploration of alternative models of learning related phenomena, and 3. See more clearly needs for further research. Superficially similar learning phenomena can be modeled by very different configurations of underlying constraints with strong implications for the sorts of representational states that are involved. Each of the five papers in this issue (Brown, Gelman, Markman, Newport, and Spelke) is considered in terms of the configuration of constraints after which each author intends to model their phenomena and in terms of alternate configurations. The papers are construed as illustrating a diverse set of models of how constraints might guide learning, and while the evidence generally favors the configurations suggested by the authors, in each case alternative models are possible and motivate quite specific future research questions. More broadly, it is suggested that asking detailed questions about the sorts of Constraints types that could potentially model complex cases of natural knowledge acquisition helps motivate fundamental questions about learning and the nature of knowledge and that the five papers in this issue are superb examples of how adopting this kind of perspective has been fruitful research orientation.