Top-Down Approach

D E V I K A V I J AYA N
MSC CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
 Introduction

 Top-down approach:
 Richard Gregory introduced the concept of top-down
processing in 1970.
 In this approach, perceptions begin with the most general
and move toward the more specific.
 There perceptions are heavily influenced by our
expectations and prior knowledge.
 Simply saying, our brain applies what it knows to fill in the
blanks and anticipate what it knows.
 Introduction Continues…

Processing information from the top down allows us to

make sense of information that has already been brought
in by the senses, working downward from initial
impressions down to practical details.
Example; if half of a tree is covered, you usually have
an idea what it looks like, even though half is not being
shown. This is because you know what trees look like
from prior knowledge.
 Introduction Continues…

Top-down processing is a constructive approach, the perceiver

builds a cognitive understanding of stimulus.
He or she uses sensory information to build the perceptions.
This viewpoint also known as intelligent perception because it
states that higher order thinking plays an important role in
perception.
According to constructive approach we form hypothesis based on
3 things:
 What we sense
 What we know
 what we can infer
 Introduction continues…

 According to constructivist, we usually make the correct

attributions regarding our visual sensations.
 The reason is that we perform unconscious interference, the
process by which we consciously assimilate information from a
number of sources to create a perception.
 Examples :
 blind interaction- ST-P
 Car approaching-retina bigger
 Color perception-light changes-perceive same
 Why we use Top-Down processing

Since we are surrounded by virtually limitless sensory

experiences and information, top-down processing can help us
quickly make sense of the environment.
Top-down processing helps simplify our understanding of the
world.
It allows us to make sense of all the information our senses
bring in.
This type of processing can be useful when we are looking for
patterns in our environment, but these predispositions can also
hinder our ability to perceive things in new and different way.
 Influences on this process

A number of things can influence top-down processing,

including context and motivation.
The context, or circumstances, in which an event or object
is perceived can influence what we expect to find in that
particular situation.
Motivation can also make you more likely to interpret
something in a particular way.
 Examples

The Stroop Effect:

 In this task, people are shown a list of words printed in different
colors.
 They are then asked to name the ink color, rather than the word
itself.
 People are much more slower and make more mistakes when the
meaning of the word and the ink color doesn’t match.
 Explanation: People automatically recognize the word before
they think about the specific features of that word. This make it
easier to read the word aloud rather than to say the color of the
word.
Typos:
 You type a message to your boss, proofread it, and hit “Send”.
Only after the message has gone into the neither sphere do you
spot three typos in the first few sentences.
 Because writing is such a high-level task, your brain tricks you
into reading what you should see on the page.
 It fills in missing details and corrects errors without you even
noticing.
 This allows you to focus on the more complex task of turning
sentences into complex ideas.
 David Navon

In general, reaction time for identifying the larger

letter is faster than for the smaller letters that make
up the shape.
Navon directed participants to focus either globally
or locally to stimuli that were consistent, neutral, or
conflicting on the global and local levels.
Reaction time for global identification was much
faster than for local identification, showing global
precedence. 
 David Navon

Additionally, global interference effect, which occurs

when the global aspect is automatically processed
even when attention is directed locally, causes slow
reaction time.
Navon's study global precedence and his stimuli, or
variations of it, are still used in nearly all global
precedence experiments.
 Navon Effect

Reading Navon figures has been found to affect a range of

tasks.
 It has been shown that just 5 minutes reading out the small
letters of Navon figures has a detrimental effect on face
recognition.
 The size of the Navon effect has been found to be influenced
by the properties of the image.
 The effect is short lived (lasting less than a couple of minutes).
The Navon effects has also been found in other tasks such as
golf putting where reading the small Navon letters leads to
poorer putting performance.
 Context effects

It is the influence of the surrounding environment on

perception.
"THE CAT" is a classic example of context effect. We have
little trouble reading "H" and "A" in their appropriate
contexts, even though they take on the same form in each
word.
Context effects can impact our daily lives in many ways such
as word recognition, learning abilities, memory, and object
recognition.
 It can have an extensive effect on marketing and consumer
decisions.
 Context effects

 For example, research has shown that the comfort level

of the floor that shoppers are standing on while reviewing
products can affect their assessments of product's quality,
leading to higher assessments if the floor is comfortable
and lower ratings if it is uncomfortable.
Because of effects such as this, context effects are
currently studied predominantly in marketing.
 In reading difficult handwriting context effects are used
to determine what letters make up a word.
Perhaps the greatest amount of research concerning
context effects comes from marketing research.
There are three main context effects that are researched in
marketing.
 The first, the compromise effect, states that objects that
are priced in the middle of choice sets are looked on more
favourably.
 The middle choice seems like a good compromise
between choices that may be viewed as too extreme.
The attractiveness effect, the second contextual effect on
consumer behaviour, maintains that one item will increase
the attractiveness of another item that is similar, but
superior to it. By showing that an item is superior to a
similar one the likability and possible purchasing power of
the superior item increases.
The similarity effect, the third contextual effect on
consumers' behaviour, states that an item will hurt a similar
item more in sales than it will a dissimilar item. With two or
more similar items competing for attention they will only
detract from each other in the marketplace.
 Configural-Superiority Effect

A type of context effect by which objects presented in

certain configurations are easier to recognize than the
objects presented in isolation, even if the objects in the
configuration are more complex than those in isolation.
 Object superiority effect
In which a target line that forms a part of drawing of a 3-
D object is identified more accurately than a target that
forms a part of disconnected 2-D pattern.
Word superiority effect
When people are presented with strings of letters, it is
easier for them to identify a single letter if the string make
sense and forms a word instead of being just a nonsense
sequel of letters.
Picture superiority effect
The picture superiority effect refers to the phenomenon in
which pictures and images are more likely to be
remembered than words.
It is based on the notion that "human memory is
extremely sensitive to the symbolic modality of
presentation of event information".
Explanations for the picture superiority effect are not
concrete and are still being debated.
 References

Rooderkerk, Robert P., Van,H, Harald J., Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. (2011).
Incorporating Context Effects Into a Choice Mode. Journal of Marketing
Research. 48 (4): 767–780. 
 Simonson, Itamar (1989).Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction
and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research. 16 (2): 158. 
^Wernerfelt, Birger ( 1995). "A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise
Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities" . Journal of Consumer
Research. 21 (4): 627–33. 
Meyers.L, Joan.Z. (2010).Context Effects from Bodily Sensations:
Examining Bodily Sensations Induced by Flooring and the Moderating Role
of Product Viewing Distanc. Journal of Consumer Research. 37 (1): 1–14. 
Sternberg. J.R., Sternberg. K., (2009). Cognitive Psychology.6 th edition.
Wadsworth.Cengage Learning. Pg.107-110
 Matlin.M.W., (2009). Cognition.7th edition. John Wiley and sons
Wiley. Pg.44-45