Abstract
Everyday events, such as making a bed, can be segmented hierarchically, with the coarse level characterized by changes in the actor’s goals and the fine level by subgoals (Zacks, Tversky, & Iyer, 2001). Does hierarchical event perception depend on knowledge of actors’ intentions? This question was addressed by asking participants to segment films of abstract, schematic events. Films were novel or familiarized, viewed forward or backward, and simultaneously described or not. The participants interpreted familiar films as more intentional than novel films and forward films as more intentional than backward films. Regardless of experience and film direction, however, the participants identified similar event boundaries and organized them hierarchically. An analysis of the movements in each frame revealed that event segments corresponded to bursts of change in movement features, with greater bursts for coarse than for fine units. Perceiving event structure appears to enable event schemas, rather than resulting from them.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, V., Black, J. B., &Smith, E. E. (1985). The representation of scripts in memory.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 179–199.
Baldwin, D. A., &Baird, J. A. (1999). Action analysis: A gateway to intentional inference. In P. Rochat (Ed.),Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baldwin, D. A., Baird, J. A., Saylor, M. M., &Clark, M. A. (2001). Infants parse dynamic action.Child Development,72, 708–717.
Barker, R. G. (1963). The stream of behavior as an empirical problem. In R. G. Barker (Ed.),The stream of behavior: Explorations of its structure and content (pp. 1–22). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Barker, R. G., &Wright, H. F. (1955).Midwest and its children: The psychological ecology of an American town. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., &Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology,11, 177–220.
Byrne, R. W. (1999). Imitation without intentionality: Using string parsing to copy the organization of behaviour.Animal Cognition,2, 63–72.
Byrne, R. W. (2002). Seeing actions as hierarchically organized structures: Great ape manual skills. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.),The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases (pp. 122–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Casati, R., &Varzi, A. C. (Eds.) (1996).Events. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
Clearfield, M. (2004). Infants’ enumeration of dynamic displays.Cognitive Development,19, 309–324.
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.
Dickman, H. R. (1963). The perception of behavioral units. In R. G. Barker (Ed.),The stream of behavior: Explorations of its structure and content (pp. 23–41). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Dowell, R. E., Martin, B. A., &Tversky, B. (2004). Segmenting everyday actions: An object bias? In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1553). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J., &Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment?Psychological Review,62, 32–41.
Hard, B. M., Lozano, S. C., &Tversky, B. (2006). Hierarchical encoding of behavior: Translating perception into action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,135, 588–608.
Heider, F., &Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior.American Journal of Psychology,57, 243–259.
Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition.Cognition,18, 65–96.
Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.),Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.
Lozano, S. C., Hard, B. M., & Tversky, B. (in press). Perspective-taking promotes action understanding and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Markus, H. [R.], Smith, J., &Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-concept in perception of others.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,49, 1494–1512.
Neisser, U. (1976).Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,28, 28–38.
Newtson, D., &Engquist, G. (1976). The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,12, 436–450.
Newtson, D., Engquist, G., &Bois, J. (1977). The objective basis of behavior units.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,35, 847–862.
Oatley, K., &Yuill, N. (1985). Perception of personal and interpersonal action in a cartoon film.British Journal of Social Psychology,24, 115–124.
Sharon, T., &Wynn, K. (1998). Individuation of actions from continuous motion.Psychological Science,9, 357–362.
Tversky, B., &Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 169–193.
Vallacher, R. R., &Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior.Psychological Review,94, 3–15.
Wagner, L., &Carey, S. (2003). Individuation of objects and events: A developmental study.Cognition,90, 163–191.
Wilder, D. A. (1978a). Effect of predictability on units of perception and attribution.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,4, 281–284.
Wilder, D. A. (1978b). Predictability of behaviors, goals, and unit of perception.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,4, 604–607.
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach.Cognition,69, 1–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Office of Naval Research Grants NOOO14-PP-1-O649, N000140110717, and N000140210534 to Stanford University.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hard, B.M., Tversky, B. & Lang, D.S. Making sense of abstract events: Building event schemas. Memory & Cognition 34, 1221–1235 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193267
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193267