Abstract
Rips and Estin (1998) provided evidence that mental events such as dreaming are more homogeneous than physical events such as checking out a book; that is, their parts are more difficult to distinguish. In their experiment, participants listed more distinctive properties for the parts of physical events than for the parts of mental events. However, the physicality of stimuli was confounded with temporal aspects. Mental stimuli tended to be processes, and physical stimuli, events. This study tested homogeneity with new stimuli separating out the factors of physicality and aspect. Consistently, both physicality and aspect had significant effects on the perceived homogeneity of activities, as measured by the number of listed parts, the number of distinctive properties of each part, and homogeneity ratings. The study shows that homogeneity is strongly influenced by aspect but that physicality remains a robust factor for homogeneity, even after taking aspect into account. Some of the data reported in this article were collected as part of the Master’s thesis of the first author.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Boltz, M. G. (1998). The processing of temporal and nontemporal information in the remembering of event durations and musical structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1087–1104.
Bush, R. R., &Mosteller, F. (1951). A model for stimulus generalization and discrimination.Psychological Review,58, 413–423.
Comrie, B. (1976).Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregson, R. A. M. (1975).Psychometrics of similarity. New York: Academic Press.
Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., &Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding.Applied Cognitive Psychology,15, 533–545.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.
Morris, M. W., &Murphy, G. L. (1990). Converging operations on a basic level in event taxonomies.Memory & Cognition,18, 407–418.
Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,28, 28–38.
Rips, L. J., &Estin, P. A. (1998). Components of objects and events.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 309–330.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., &Zacks, J. (2002). On bodies and events. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.),The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases (pp. 221–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, B., Zacks, J. M., &Lee, P. (2004). Events by hands and feet.Spatial Cognition & Computation,4, 5–14.
Vendler, Z. (1967).Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zacks, J. M., &Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception.Psychological Bulletin,127, 3–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, X., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Magliano, J.P. et al. Components of events and processes. Memory & Cognition 35, 317–325 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193452
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193452