Cargando…
A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity
INTRODUCTION: Free recall tends to be better for names of animate concepts such as animals than for names of inanimate objects. In Popp and Serra’s 2016 article, the authors replicated this “animacy effect” in free recall but when participants studied words in pairs (animate-animate pairs intermixed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10232972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37275705 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1146200 |
_version_ | 1785052123819409408 |
---|---|
author | Mah, Eric Y. Grannon, Kelly E. L. Campbell, Alison Tamburri, Nicholas Jamieson, Randall K. Lindsay, D. Stephen |
author_facet | Mah, Eric Y. Grannon, Kelly E. L. Campbell, Alison Tamburri, Nicholas Jamieson, Randall K. Lindsay, D. Stephen |
author_sort | Mah, Eric Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Free recall tends to be better for names of animate concepts such as animals than for names of inanimate objects. In Popp and Serra’s 2016 article, the authors replicated this “animacy effect” in free recall but when participants studied words in pairs (animate-animate pairs intermixed with inanimate-inanimate pairs) and were tested with cued recall, performance was better for inanimate-inanimate pairs than for animate-animate pairs (“reverse animacy”). We tested the replicability of this surprising effect and one possible explanation for the effect (semantic similarity). METHODS: Our Experiment 1 was a preregistered direct replication (N = 101) of Popp and Serra’s Experiment 1 (mixed-lists condition). In a second preregistered experiment conducted in four different samples (undergraduate N = 153, undergraduate N = 143, online Prolific N = 101, online Prolific/English-as-a-first-language N = 150), we manipulated the within-category semantic similarity of animal and object wordlists. RESULTS: AIn Experiment 1, just as in Popp and Serra, we observed an animacy effect for free recall and a reverse animacy effect for cued recall. Unlike Popp and Serra, we found that controlling for interference effects rendered the reverse animacy effect non-significant. We took this as evidence that characteristics of the stimulus sets (e.g., category structure, within-category similarity) may play a role in animacy and reverse animacy effects. In Experiment 2, in three out of our four samples, we observed reverse animacy effects when within-category similarity was higher for animals and when within-category similarity was equated for animals and objects. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that the reverse animacy effect observed in Popp and Serra’s 2016 article is a robust and replicable effect, but that semantic similarity alone cannot explain the effect. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10232972 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102329722023-06-02 A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity Mah, Eric Y. Grannon, Kelly E. L. Campbell, Alison Tamburri, Nicholas Jamieson, Randall K. Lindsay, D. Stephen Front Psychol Psychology INTRODUCTION: Free recall tends to be better for names of animate concepts such as animals than for names of inanimate objects. In Popp and Serra’s 2016 article, the authors replicated this “animacy effect” in free recall but when participants studied words in pairs (animate-animate pairs intermixed with inanimate-inanimate pairs) and were tested with cued recall, performance was better for inanimate-inanimate pairs than for animate-animate pairs (“reverse animacy”). We tested the replicability of this surprising effect and one possible explanation for the effect (semantic similarity). METHODS: Our Experiment 1 was a preregistered direct replication (N = 101) of Popp and Serra’s Experiment 1 (mixed-lists condition). In a second preregistered experiment conducted in four different samples (undergraduate N = 153, undergraduate N = 143, online Prolific N = 101, online Prolific/English-as-a-first-language N = 150), we manipulated the within-category semantic similarity of animal and object wordlists. RESULTS: AIn Experiment 1, just as in Popp and Serra, we observed an animacy effect for free recall and a reverse animacy effect for cued recall. Unlike Popp and Serra, we found that controlling for interference effects rendered the reverse animacy effect non-significant. We took this as evidence that characteristics of the stimulus sets (e.g., category structure, within-category similarity) may play a role in animacy and reverse animacy effects. In Experiment 2, in three out of our four samples, we observed reverse animacy effects when within-category similarity was higher for animals and when within-category similarity was equated for animals and objects. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that the reverse animacy effect observed in Popp and Serra’s 2016 article is a robust and replicable effect, but that semantic similarity alone cannot explain the effect. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10232972/ /pubmed/37275705 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1146200 Text en Copyright © 2023 Mah, Grannon, Campbell, Tamburri, Jamieson and Lindsay. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Mah, Eric Y. Grannon, Kelly E. L. Campbell, Alison Tamburri, Nicholas Jamieson, Randall K. Lindsay, D. Stephen A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title | A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title_full | A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title_fullStr | A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title_full_unstemmed | A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title_short | A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
title_sort | direct replication and extension of popp and serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10232972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37275705 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1146200 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mahericy adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT grannonkellyel adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT campbellalison adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT tamburrinicholas adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT jamiesonrandallk adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT lindsaydstephen adirectreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT mahericy directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT grannonkellyel directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT campbellalison directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT tamburrinicholas directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT jamiesonrandallk directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity AT lindsaydstephen directreplicationandextensionofpoppandserra2016experiment1betterfreerecallandworsecuedrecallofanimalnamesthanobjectnamesaccountingforsemanticsimilarity |