Cognitive
Maps
Definition
- representations and processes that allow us to perform tasks involving spatial relations
- our cognitive maps can vary in size: includes classrooms, apartment lay-outs, neighborhoods, cities, countries, etc.
LAB DEMO: Draw a map of Epcot.
Systematic Distortions in Cognitive Maps
Definition:
- tendency to judge our environment as more regular and orderly than it really is
- tendency to “clean up” our mental image
Four Areas of Systematic Distortions
in Cognitive Maps:
- Distance estimates
- Shape
- Orientation / Relative Positions
Distance Estimates as Systematic Distortions:
3 factors that influence distance
estimates in cognitive maps:
1. Number of intervening cities (Thorndyke, 1981)
- Ss studied maps until they could say where all of the cities were
- varied distance between 4 base cities (100-400 mi)
- IV = # of intervening cities (0, 1, 2, or 3)
- DV = estimate distance between two given cities
- more intervening cities lead to larger distance estimates
|
Actual Distance
|
# Intervening Cities |
Estimated Distance |
|
300 mi
|
0 |
280 mi |
|
300 mi
|
3 |
350 mi |
2. Road-route distance (McNamara et al., 1984)
- Ss studied maps until they knew the locations
- shown city names and had to rapidly decide if that city was on the map (always a different city before a target city)
- priming -- a nearby city should prime your response
if Solona and Linville are stored as an equal distance from Calford, then they should produce equivalent decision times to Calford
- Results: Solona produced faster decision times than did Linville
|
|
Actual Distance to Calford
|
Decision Time |
|
Solona --> Calford
|
same |
faster RT |
|
Linville --> Calford
|
same |
slower RT |
3. Semantic categories (Hirtle & Mascolo, 1986)
- semantic clustering bias:
- when two places seem semantically close, we believe they are geographically close
- tendency to shift landmarks of the same cluster closer together geographically
Shape Estimates as Systematic Distortions
3 factors that influence shape
estimates in cognitive maps:
1. Angle estimates (Moar & Bower, 1983)
- cognitive maps of Cambridge, England
- experimenters selected intersections where the streets come together at
irregular angles
- task: estimate the angle at which streets come together
- results: Ss estimated closer to 90 degrees than what the intersections
really were
2. Curves and the symmetry heuristic
3. Spatial arrangement
Orientation / Relative Position Estimates as Systematic Distortions:
2 factors that influence distance estimates in cognitive maps:
1. Rotation heuristic
- tendency remember things as more vertical or horizontal than they really are
- Which is farther east: San Diego or Reno? --> vertical
- Which is farther north: Seattle or Montreal? --> horizontal
2. Alignment heuristic
- tendency to remember things as more lined up than they really are
- tendency to line up the United States and Europe
- Which is farther north: Philadelphia or Rome?
Conclusions about Cogntive Maps
- we store more “regular” representations than what is in the real world
- this helps us reduce the amount of material stored in memory
to top
of page
back
to cognitive notes page