This project is about the representation of the present as an analogy to the past and differences between situations that do and don’t map well to the past.

1. Making Sense Of It All:
Mapping the Current to the Past
Dissertation Defense
Dept of Psychology
University of Texas at Austin
April 19, 2010
John Lawrence Dennis
Peter MacNeilage, Supervisor; Barbara Davis, Richard Gerrig, James Pennebaker, Jacqueline
Wooley
Committee Members:

2. Conceptual Overview
Mapping the Current to the Past

3. Mapping the Current to the Past
Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives
Conceptual Overview

4. Mapping the Current to the Past
Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives
Systematicity Differences
Conceptual Overview

5. Mapping the Current to the Past
Fantasy vs Reality-Based Narratives
Systematicity Differences
Comparative Judgments
Conceptual Overview

6. Theoretical Questions
• How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an
analogy to a previously encountered narrative?

7. Theoretical Questions
• How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an
analogy to a previously encountered narrative?
• How is this process is moderated by the systematicities of
the two narratives?

8. Theoretical Questions
• How is the representation of a narrative tied up in an
analogy to a previously encountered narrative?
• How is this process is moderated by the systematicities of
the two narratives?
• How is this process reflected in various judgments about
the narratives?

9. Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
Studies 1-3 Road Map

10. Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
Study 2: Reality vs Reality
Studies 1-3 Road Map

11. Studies 1-3 Road Map
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st
Study 2: Reality vs Reality
Study 3: Fantasy vs Fantasy

12. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a book attacking a pencil
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st

13. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a book attacking a pencil
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st

14. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a book attacking a pencil
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
• Directional Duration Judgment
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st

15. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a book attacking a pencil
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
• Directional Duration Judgment
• Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st

16. Subjects read reality and fantasy-based narratives:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a book attacking a pencil
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
• Directional Duration Judgment
• Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure
• Listing of Commonalities and Differences
Study 1: Reality1st vs Fantasy1st

17. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition

18. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition
• For RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase

19. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition
• For RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
– Directional duration should decrease

20. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition
• For RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
– Directional duration should decrease
– Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration

21. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition
• For RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
– Directional duration should decrease
– Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration
– Commonalities and differences statements should increase

22. Predictions
• Grounding representation of the fantasy narrative in the reality
narrative for RealityFirst condition
• For RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
– Directional duration should decrease
– Segmentation should increase and positively correlate with duration
– Commonalities and differences statements should increase
– Semantic overlap should increase between reality narrative and statements

23. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
» CONFIRMED

24. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Directional duration should decrease
» CONFIRMED

25. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Directional duration should decrease
» CONFIRMED
– Segmentation should increase
» CONFIRMED

26. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Directional duration should decrease
» CONFIRMED
– Segmentation should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Commonalities and differences statements should increase
» FAILED TO CONFIRM

27. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed, for RealityFirst:
– Directional similarity should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Directional duration should decrease
» CONFIRMED
– Segmentation should increase
» CONFIRMED
– Commonalities and differences statements should increase
» FAILED TO CONFIRM
– Semantic overlap should increase between reality narrative and
statements
» CONFIRMED

28. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)

29. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
• Systematicity differences on the representational side
– What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2

30. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
• Systematicity differences on the representational side
– What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2
• To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was
needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996)

31. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
• Systematicity differences on the representational side
– What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2
• To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was
needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996)
• Word count for FantasyFirst highest

32. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
• Systematicity differences on the representational side
– What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2
• To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was
needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996)
• Word count for FantasyFirst highest
• Fantasy-based narrative grounded in the reality-based narrative

33. Discussion
• Most predictions were confirmed
• Processing was reduced when the reality-based narrative was
read first consistent with Bowdle & Gentner (1997)
• Systematicity differences on the representational side
– What was Reality1 is now Fantasy2
• To obtain asymmetries in similarity, a directional formulation was
needed inconsistent with Catrambone et al (1996)
• Word count for FantasyFirst highest
• Fantasy-based narrative grounded in the reality-based narrative
• Regression analysis

34. Subjects read stories consistent with reality:
• eg, a wolf attacking a chicken
• eg, a friend attacking a teammate
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
• Directional Duration Judgment
• Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure
• Listing of Commonalities and Differences
Study 2: Reality vs Reality

35. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives

36. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst

37. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst

38. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst

39. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst
– Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror RealityFirst

40. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, mirror RealityFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, mirror RealityFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror RealityFirst
– Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror RealityFirst
– Semantic overlap should increase between first narrative and statements

41. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed

42. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst

43. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• “Counter-intuitive” result
– Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2
– Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998)
– Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985)

44. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• “Counter-intuitive” result
– Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2
– Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998)
– Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985)
• First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences

45. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• “Counter-intuitive” result
– Reality1 both shorter and longer than Reality2
– Task seems shorter second time performed (Boltz, 1998)
– Familiar texts tax working memory less (Graesser & Clarke, 1985)
• First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences
• Regression analysis

46. Subjects read stories inconsistent with reality:
• eg, book attacking a pencil
• eg, rolling pin attacking a spoon
Then performed a series of comparative judgments:
• Directional Similarity Judgment
• Directional Duration Judgment
• Segmentation of Narrative Event Structure
• Listing of Commonalities and Differences
Study 3: Fantasy vs Fantasy

47. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives

48. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst

49. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst

50. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst

51. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst
– Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst

52. Predictions
• Since both narratives were reality-based, matched on
representational systematicity, there will be less perceived
differences between the narratives
• No matter which narrative was read first:
– Directional similarity should not differ, no asymmetries, differ FantasyFirst
– Directional duration second always shorter than first, differ FantasyFirst
– Segmentation should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst
– Commonalities and differences should not differ, mirror FantasyFirst
– Semantic overlap should increase between first narrative and statements,
mirror Studies 2

53. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed

54. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the directional similarity and directional duration
comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst

55. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the directional similarity and directional duration
comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences
mirrored FantasyFirst

56. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the directional similarity and directional duration
comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences
mirrored FantasyFirst
• First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences

57. Discussion
• All predictions were confirmed
• Results for the directional similarity and directional duration
comparative judgments mirrored RealityFirst
• Results for the segmentation and commonalities and differences
mirrored FantasyFirst
• First-read narrative source for commonalities/differences
• Regression analysis

58. Take Home
• RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read
fantasy-based narrative

59. Take Home
• RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read
fantasy-based narrative
• Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3
– Segmentation & commonalities and differences

60. Take Home
• RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read
fantasy-based narrative
• Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3
– Segmentation & commonalities and differences
• Source for commonalities/differences
– Studies 2 and 3 first-read narrative
– Study 1 reality-based narrative

61. Take Home
• RealityFirst reduced “processing demands” for second-read
fantasy-based narrative
• Structure lending has its limits for Studies 3
– Segmentation & commonalities and differences
• Source for commonalities/differences
– Studies 2 and 3 first-read narrative
– Study 1 reality-based narrative
• Highly similar narratives – but different situation models
– Situation model as crucial for representation of narrative (Kintsch, 1983)

62. Implications
• Original research on relationship between dependent variables
– First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated
segmentation and duration
– First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries
and commonalities/differences

63. Implications
• Original research on relationship between dependent variables
– First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated
segmentation and duration
– First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries
and commonalities/differences
• Systematicity manipulated “representationally”
– Not typical removal of key causal links

64. Implications
• Original research on relationship between dependent variables
– First empirical demonstration correlation between participant generated
segmentation and duration
– First empirical demonstration of relations between similarity asymmetries
and commonalities/differences
• Systematicity manipulated “representationally”
– Not typical removal of key causal links
• LSA Analysis
– Unique use of LSA to determine the “grounding” of the
commonalities/differences statements

65. Limitations & Future Research
• Narrative considerations
– All narratives involved the transformation of the inanimate into fantastical
animate
– Where the transformation occurred in the narrative
– Participant generated coherency ratings for narratives

66. Limitations & Future Research
• Narrative considerations
– All narratives involved the transformation of the inanimate into fantastical
animate.
– Where the transformation occurred in the narrative
– Participant generated coherency ratings for narratives
• Dependent Variable considerations
– Believability
– Expected behaviors
– Imagined feature listing

67. The End
Thank
You

70. Structure Mapping, Systematicity and Similarity Asymmetries
Structure-Mapping
– Comparisons are the result of putting concepts into correspondence based
on the alignment of their structures
– One-to-one correspondences & parallel connectivity - Rutherford
“planetary model”
– Positive correlation between number of commonalities and the number of
alignable differences
Systematicity
– Refers to the mapping of systems of mutually constraining relations, such as
causal chains or chains of implication
Similarity Asymmetries
– North Korea is similar to Red China preferred Red China is similar to
North Korea
– Directional informativity hypothesis and base systematicity advantage

71. Retrospective Duration and Segmentation
Retrospective Duration Estimate
– Participants don’t know in advance that a temporal judgment will be made
– Participants use an availability heuristic, ie, the number segments that were
“passively” encoded during an interval to make a duration estimate
Segmentation
– Breakdown of events into chunks - automatic
– More segments during a new experience and this lengthens remembered
duration
– Less segments during a predictable experience and this shortens
remembered duration
– Less segmentation = shorter duration (Poynter, 1983)

72. Similarity and Duration
Similarity
• Similarity of the second story in relation to the first story
Duration
• Center vertical line = duration of the first story
• Draw a vertical line to = duration of the second story in relation
to the first story
• Greater distance from center vertical line = greater difference in
duration between two stories

73. Duration Comparison Coding
An Example
• Measure distance between existing vertical line and subject vertical line
• Subject distance/total distance + 1
• Eg, 12/120 + 1 = second story 90% duration of the first
• Two coders for each packet
12 mm
120 mm