|
Cognitive anthropologist Pascal Boyer argued that minimally counterintuitive concepts (MCI) i.e., concepts that violate a few ontological expectations of a category such as the category of an agent, are more memorable than intuitive and maximally counterintuitive (MXCI) concepts.〔Boyer, Pascal. ''The Naturalness of Religious Ideas'' University of California Press, 1994.〕 A number of experimental psychology studies have found support for Boyer's hypothesis. Upal 〔Upal, M. A. (2010). "An Alternative View of the Minimal Counterintuitiveness Effect", ''Journal of Cognitive Systems Research'', 11(2), 194-203.〕 labelled this as the minimal counterintuitiveness effect or the MCI-effect. Boyer originally did not precisely specify the number of expectation-violations that would render an idea maximally counterintuitive. Early empirical studies including those by Boyer himself 〔Boyer, P., & Ramble, C. (2001). "Cognitive templates for religious concepts". ''Cognitive Science'', 25, 535–564.〕 and others 〔Barrett, J. L., & Nyhof, M. (2001). "Spreading non-natural concepts: the role of intuitive conceptual structures in memory and transmission of cultural materials". Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 69–100.〕 did not study MXCI concepts. Both these studies only used concepts violating a single expectation (which were labeled as MCI concepts). Atran 〔Atran, S. (2002). "In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion", Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.〕 was the first to study memory for MXCI concepts and labeled concepts violating 2-expectations as maximally counterintuitive. Studies by the I-75 Cognition and Culture Group 〔Upal, M. A. (2005). "Role of context in memorability of intuitive and counterintuitive concepts". In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), ''Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society'', (pp. 2224–2229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.〕〔Gonce, L., Upal, M., Slone, J., & Tweney, R. (2006). "The role of context in the recall of counterintuitive concepts". ''Journal of Cognition and Culture'', 6(3–4), 521–547.〕〔Tweney, R. D., Upal, M. A., Gonce, L., Slone, D. J., & Edwards, K. (2006). "The creative structuring of counterintuitive worlds". ''Journal of Cognition and Culture'', 6, 483–498.〕〔Upal, M. A., Gonce, L., Tweney, R., et al. (2007). Contextualizing counterintuitiveness: How context affects comprehension and memorability of counterintuitive concepts. Cognitive Science, 31(3), 415–439.〕 also labeled ideas violating two expectations as maximally counterintuitive. Barrett 〔Barrett, J. L. (2008). "Coding and quantifying counterintuitiveness in religious concepts: Theoretical and methodological reflections". ''Method and Theory in the Study of Religion'', 20, 308–338.〕 argued that ideas violating 1 or 2 ontological expectations should be considered MCI and only ideas violating 3 or more expectations should be labeled MXCI. Subsequent studies 〔Harmon-Vukic, M., Upal, M. A., & Trainor, C. "Understanding the role of context in memory for maximally counterintuitive concepts", in ''Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society''.〕 of the MCI effect have followed this revised labeling scheme. Upal 〔Upal, M. A. (2010). "An Alternative View of the Minimal Counterintuitiveness Effect", ''Journal of Cognitive Systems Research'', 11(2), 194-203.〕 has divided the cognitive accounts that explain the MCI effect into two categories: the Context-based model of minimal counterintuiveness, and content-based view of minimal counterintuitiveness. The context-based view emphasizes the role played by context in making an idea counterintuitive whereas the content-based view igores the role of context. ==References== 〔 * * * * 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「The minimal counterintuitiveness effect」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|