Semantic Priming: Effects of Related and Unrelated Words

Semantic flat coat Effects of cogitate and mis think WordsSemantic Priming Effects of Related and Un associate Words on Response measureIntroduction to Cognition, Biological psychology and Quantitative search MethodsAbstractThe aim of this investigate was to measure the answer clips on the railroad train of letter that were shown to the thespians on a calculating machine screen. The occupation of the role players was to make up ones mind whether the take out of letters were lyric poem or non- words. The supposal of the prove was that the reply metre in the lexical decision business would be importantly faster for target words cogitate to the found than for target words misrelated to the top. The experimental excogitation was perennial measures, where participants responded to every(prenominal) the stimuli that were propounded. Participants were perplexed with a string of words related to the pinnacle, words orthogonal to the prime, non-word created f rom a word related to the prime and a non-word created from a word uncorrelated to the prime. The findings of the experiment showed that participants responded faster when the letter string were related words kind of than unrelated words. This is because related words are closely associated in unverbalized remembrance, therefore the resolution times of the participants will be faster in recognising the words. Explanations for the results of the experiment will be discussed further in the report.IntroductionPriming is an effect on implicit storage in which the reaction time of a response to a stimulus is faster due to having antecedent experience of the stimulus. For example, individuals can recognise a word faster if it is diametrical with a related word. For example, table and chair and are slower at recognising words if they are unrelated. For example, concur and butter (Refer to addendum A). In the mull over of Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) we refer to semantic primin g, where semantic refers to the logic and language individuals store in their implicit memory. Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) suggested that the response times were faster when the string of words were related because a part of the memory is activated in which the retrieval of words from semantic memory is faster.Associative priming and the lexical decision task is an extension of the study by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971). In their experiment they hypothesized that recognition of a word is faster when it is associated with its prime. In their experiment they presented 12 participants with two string section of letters, one above the former(a). Their task was to press the yes delineate if the two strings were words and the no key if one or both were non-words. In their results, they found that response times were faster when the target string consisted of related words such as bread and butter or nurse and doctor proving their possibleness to be correct. Further more, another psyc hologist McNamara (1992) demonstrated results from a kindred experiment of associative priming. He withal found that mean response times were faster when words were related rather than unrelated. He also found that errors rates (percentage of errors) were much higher in the non-related condition than in the related condition. The present experiment is in favour of that of Meyer and Schvaneveldts (1971) and McNamaras (1992) because similar results were obtained from both look studies. The difference to the present study to that of Meyer and Schvaneveldts (1971) was that the string of words were not presented simultaneously, they were presented one aft(prenominal) the other and the participants were to decide if both strings were words or if one of both were non-words. From this it is alien which letter string is the one that the participant responds to from their implicit memory. However the present experiment could allow us to enquire the effects of the time between the letter s are presented on the effects on response times. some other modification that was made was that in the present experiment, was that one letter was changed in either a related or an unrelated word. This allows us to investigate the effects of the response time on the identification of words. Previous question by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) and findings from the present experiment are relevant in explaining how the desire term memory is organised in individuals.The hypothesis of the experiment was that the response time in the lexical decision task would be significantly faster for target words related to the prime than for target words unrelated to the prime.Participants one hundred fifty participants took part in the present experiment, all macrocosm part of the akin educational institution. The participants consisted of mixed gender with majority world female. The age of the participants varied from 18 and above and they were also from various ethnicities. The quality of sampling that was employ in the experiment was hazard sampling because the participants were addressable to take part in the experiment at that time.ApparatusAs the experiment was information processing system based, apiece participant had access to a computer. The architectural plan was written in TCL for Windows, and ran on PCs using the Windows 7 operating system. on that point were two types of stimuli used in the experiment words and non-words, related and unrelated words. Key findings in the experiment showed that participants responded faster when words were related to each other for example, bread and butter. Thus, participants responded slower when words were unrelated to each other for example, table and nurse.DesignThe experiment was set up in an educational institution and the task was carried erupt using computer equipment. There were 150 participants involved in the experiment and consisted of first year psychology students. This was an opportunity sample, as t he participants were available at the time the study was being carried out. The curriculum was written in TCL for Windows, and ran on PCs using the Windows 7 operating system. The design of the experiment was repeated measures where participants were presented with all the stimuli. There were two in dependant variables for this experiment related or unrelated words and word or non-words. The dependent variable was the response time in which participants decided if the string of letters were words or non-words. The conditions in the experiment were to press the L key or the A key if the string of letters were words or non-words. The experiment program showed the participant which key to press for each response. The controls that were used in the experiment were the government agencys in which the stimuli were presented. The target was presented 300, 600 or 900 milliseconds after the prime was presented on the computer screen. When the results were presented the times after the stim uli were presented were averaged out.ProcedureThe participants carried out the experiment simultaneously. The participant was seated in front of the computer throughout the experiment. The stimuli were presented one after the other on the screen after which the participant had to make the choice if the string of letters presented were words or non-words. The participant responded by pressing the A or L key on the keyboard these were random for each participant. Response time was measured by the computer programme. The experiment lasted around 20 minutes. Participants were shown 18 trials in which the target string was a word related to the prime, 18 trials in which the target string was a non-word, 18 trials in which the target string was a non-word created from a word and 18 trials in which the target string was a non-word from a word unrelated to the prime, which means there were 72 trials in total. (Refer to appendix B).ResultsThe inferential test chosen for the present experimen t was a repeated measure t-test. Using a repeated measures t-test, with of import set at 0.05, response times for the related words were significantly faster than the unrelated words (t=-3.762, df=149, p=0.000, two tailed). Similarly, using a repeated measures t-test, with alpha set at 0.05, response times were significantly faster for related non-words than for unrelated non-words (t=0.974, df=149, p=0.332, two tailed). The difference between the mean response times in each condition varied, the mean response time was faster when the target string was a word related to the prime and was slower when the target string was a pseudo word unrelated to the prime. McNamara (1992) reports that lexical decisions are made faster because semantic memory consists of merged nodes (Refer to appendix C). When a stimulus is presented, a part of the semantic memory is activated and the spreads across the network activating related nodes. The close-set(prenominal) the nodes, the closer the words are associated in semantic memory.Mean Reaction Times and Standard Deviations in Lexical Decision TaskDiscussionThe hypothesis of the experiment was accepted because response time in the lexical decision task was significantly faster for target words related to the prime than for target words unrelated to the prime. This is in favour of Meyer and Schvaneveldts (1971) experiment as previously mentioned because in their experiment, their mean response time was fast-breaking when the target string was a word related to the prime also with the present experiment. The results of the present experiment demonstrates that Meyer and Schvaneveldts (1971) and McNamaras (1992) theory of semantic priming is both valid and reliable.An opportunity sample was used in the experiment and whitethorn be considered as a weak research method by many police detectives. Therefore this kind of sample may produce a biased sample as it is easy for the researcher to gather participants from their social gro up in this case, a sample of students from the same educational institution. Hence the results of the experiment are not generalizable to a upstanding population. Since majority of the participants involved in the experiment consisted of students, the results can be change because a much educated, mature individual will have more knowledge of the world and whose memory may be better than that of students. Similarly, a younger, uneducated individual may not have a likely good memory so their results will differ from the students results. A more appropriate type of sample may be a volunteer sample, where the experiment will recruit all types of individuals from the society. This way the findings of the experiment may be generalizable to a total population.ReferencesFriedenberg, J. Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive science An Introduction to the Study of Mind. London Sage Publications Ltd.Goldstein, E. (2010). Cognitive Psychology Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. (3 rd ed.). Belmont Wadsworth Cengage Learning.McNamara, T. (1992). Learning. Memory, and Cognition. Journal of experimental Psychology. 18 (6) 1173-1190.Meyer, D. Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 90 (2) 227-234.Proctor, R. Healy, A. (Eds.) (2003). Experimental Psychology, Volume 4 (2nd ed.). New Jersey toilet Wiley Sons, Inc. adjunctAppendix AStimuli used in the experiment. The words in the brackets indicate where the pseudo word originated from.Appendix BNumber of trials per condition.Appendix CA diagram of how knowledge in semantic memory may be organised.