Abstract

Free listing is a methodological tool that is widely used in various scientific disciplines. A typical assumption of this approach is that individual lists reflect a subset of total knowledge and that the first items listed are the most culturally important. However, little is known about how cognitive processes influence free lists. In this study, we assess how recent memory of use, autonoetic and anoetic memory, and long-term associative memory can affect the composition and order of items in free lists and evaluate whether free lists indicate the most important items. Based on a model of local knowledge about medicinal plants and their therapeutic targets, which was collected via individual semi-structured interviews, we classify each item recorded in free lists according to the last time that the item was used by the informant (recently or long ago), the type of relevant memory (autonoetic or anoetic memory) and the existing associations between therapeutic targets (similar or random). We find that individuals have a tendency to recall information about medicinal plants used during the preceding year and that the recalled plants were also the most important plants during this period. However, we find no trend in the recall of plants from long-term associative memory, although this phenomenon is well established in studies on cognitive psychology. We suggest that such evidence should be considered in studies that use lists of medicinal plants because this temporal cognitive limit on the retrieval of knowledge affects data interpretation.

Highlights

  • Among the data collection techniques used in different studies, free listing stands out because it provides objectivity and speed in the characterization of the local knowledge of variousPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0165838 November 4, 2016FREE-LIST and Cognitive Bias cultural domains [1,2]

  • Cultural domains are shared sets of terms that have the same degree of conceptual contrast [3], and their identification through free listing allows the development of studies in distinct scientific disciplines [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], including ethnobiology [1,12,13,14,15,16,17]

  • There was a strong correlation between the salience of the items listed during free listing and the salience obtained after the items were ranked by importance, according to the criteria of our informants (t = 18.7491, p < 0.0001, number of pairs = 117)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Among the data collection techniques used in different studies, free listing stands out because it provides objectivity and speed in the characterization of the local knowledge of variousPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0165838 November 4, 2016FREE-LIST and Cognitive Bias cultural domains [1,2]. Among the data collection techniques used in different studies, free listing stands out because it provides objectivity and speed in the characterization of the local knowledge of various. Free lists can be used to support different approaches and provide insights on local knowledge, when these approaches are based on the assumption that the first and most frequently mentioned items on the list are the most culturally significant [1,2,10,17], allowing the identification of the most salient items of a particular culture [19,20]. Given that ethnobiology uses data from free lists to compare knowledge regarding medicinal plants from different locations [13,15,21,22,23], characterize items with bioprospecting potential [12,16], evaluate the resilience of knowledge about local medical systems [14,24,25], study patterns of use relative to plants’ organoleptic properties [26], or characterize local knowledge about natural resources [27], an understanding of the nature of the information in free lists may allow for the identification of possible biases related to free listing

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call