1 / 1

Background The Self: Strongly influences cognition and behaviour [1,2,3]

Spontaneous But Not Effortless: The Ownership Effect in Recollective Recognition Is Affected by Divided Attention at Encoding. Mirjam Brady-Van den Bos ¹, Martin A. Conway², & David J. Turk ¹ , ¹ University of Aberdeen, UK ²University of Leeds, UK. Background The Self:

zofia
Download Presentation

Background The Self: Strongly influences cognition and behaviour [1,2,3]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Spontaneous But Not Effortless: The Ownership Effect in Recollective Recognition Is Affected by Divided Attention at Encoding. Mirjam Brady-Van den Bos¹, Martin A. Conway², & David J. Turk¹, ¹University of Aberdeen, UK ²University of Leeds, UK • Background • The Self: • Strongly influences cognition and behaviour [1,2,3] • Directs our attention [1] • Triggers elaboration of information[2,3] • Is this elaboration process effortful? • Results • 2 (Locus) x 3 (DA) x 2 (Ownership) mixed ANOVA for • Remember and Know responses • No significant effects for Know responses (all p’s > .1) • Remember responses (see graph): • Main effect of locus, F(1,54) = 5.323, p = .025, indicating • recollective recognition is more impaired by DA at study than • by DA at test • Interaction of locus x attention x ownership, F(2,54) = 4.950, • p = .011, reflecting: • Only self-owned item memory was negatively affected by • DA at study, but not memory for other-owned items • No DA: better memory for self-owned than for other- • owned items • Easy DA at study: ownership effect • Easy DA at test: no ownership effect ENCODING 0.5 s ISI 1.5 s 3 Ownership phase: 1.5 s to respond 8 • Shallower levels of processing (less semantic) are engaged • under Divided Attention (DA) conditions [4] • If elaboration in response to a self-cue is effortful, DA at • encoding may reduce self-memory biases • If self-memory biases are encoding-based, DA at retrieval • may leave self-memory biases intact TEST 2 s to respond 5 Yes or No If ‘yes’, RKG screen If ‘no’, next item appears R = Remember K = Know G = Guess • Current experiment • Participants: 60 undergraduate students (38 females, mean • age 18.9 years) • Stimuli: 144 pictures (72 targets, 72 distractors) of shopping • items for sale in large supermarket • Design • Ownership (within-subjects): Items were assigned either to • self or to another person • DA (between-subjects): • Easy DA: Report number of even digits after every 6th digit • Hard DA: Report sequence of last 6 digits • None: Ignore the digits • Locus: DA (Easy, Hard, None) either at encoding or at test • (between-subjects) • At both encoding and test, the DA task was linked to each • trial. A response deadline ensured similar conditions for • encoding and test. • Recognition Test • 2-step Remember-Know-Guess recognition task • Remember: recollective experience, elaborative memory • Know: strong sense of familiarity, intra-item memory Remember Hit rates (corrected for False-Alarm rate) • Discussion • DA mostly affects self-owned item memory at study: • self-cue induced elaboration requires effort • But elaboration still can take place with reduced resources • at study (ownership effect with Easy DA). Perhaps • self-elaboration is partially spontaneous? • What happens at test? Retrieval of the rich memory • representation of self-owned items requires effort References [1] Bredart et al. (2006). The Quarterly Journalof Experimental Psychology, 59, 46-52. [2] Symons & Johnson (1997) Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371-394. [3] Van den Bos et al. (2010). The Quarterly Journalof Experimental Psychology, 63, 1065-1071. [4] Anderson et al. (2000). Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 775-792. Contact: Mirjam Brady-Van den Bos, School of Psychology, Kings College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB24 8UB. Email m.van.den.bos@abdn.ac.uk

More Related