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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mah, Eric Y., Grannon, Kelly E. L., Campbell, Alison, Tamburri, Nicholas, Jamieson, Randall K., Lindsay, D. Stephen
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