1 / 23

Ownership and memory: the ‘ Me ’ is in Remembering, not in Knowing

Ownership and memory: the ‘ Me ’ is in Remembering, not in Knowing. Mirjam van den Bos University of Aberdeen 2 nd September 2009. Self-reference effect. Memory advantage for information that has been encoded with reference to the self How can it be explained:

breanna-frye
Download Presentation

Ownership and memory: the ‘ Me ’ is in Remembering, not in Knowing

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. Ownership and memory: the ‘Me’ is in Remembering, not in Knowing Mirjam van den BosUniversity of Aberdeen2nd September 2009

  2. Self-reference effect • Memory advantage for information that has been encoded with reference to the self • How can it be explained: • - self as superordinate schema (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977) - ‘any well-differentiated person will do’ (Bower & Gilligan, 1979) - level of processing effect (Ferguson, Rule, & Carlson, 1983) - organization & elaboration (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986; Klein & Loftus, 1988; Symons & Johnson, 1997 )

  3. Conway and Dewhurst (1995) ‘self-relevant information is important and needs to be available for recollective experience’ ‘self-schemas enable integration with episodic memory’ Distinction between Remembering and Knowing (Tulving, 1985) Remembering and Knowing

  4. (Conway & Dewhurst, 1995) • Participants judge adjectives (self, other, valence) • Remember-Know paradigm • Self-Reference Recollection Effect (SRRE) Conway, Dewhurst, Pearson, & Sapute (2001)

  5. Activation of self-concept in a less explicit way • Association between Self and owned objects (Belk, 1988; Beggan, 1991) • Beggan (1992): owned objects more favourable • Shopping paradigm(Cunningham, Turk, Macdonald, & Macrae, 2008) • What does it tell us? What does it NOT tell us?

  6. Current experiment • Stimuli: 150 images: - 50 self-owned targets - 50 other-owned targets - 50 distractors at test • Single-factor (Ownership) within-subjects design

  7. Test: 2-step RKG • 1: ‘yes’ or ‘no’ • 2: Remember (specific memory, with details) Know (strong feeling of familiarity) Guess

  8. Prediction: ownership effect in recognition accompanied by recollective experience(similar to SRRE)

  9. Results Ownership: F(1,27) = 6.389, p = .018

  10. (Results) Ownership x Response Type F(1,27) = 11.422, p = .002 Remember: F(1,27) = 10.444, p = .003 Know: F(1,27) = 2.444, p = .130

  11. Discussion • How do the present data relate to Conway and Dewhurst’s SRRE? • How about other studies that only examined ‘overall’ data?

  12. (Discussion) • Spontaneous elaboration • Arousal? • Ecological function?

  13. Thank you

  14. References Beggan, J. K. (1991). Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation. [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 129-146. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229-237. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168. Bower, G. H., & Gilligan, S. G. (1979). Remembering information related to one's self. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 420-432. Conway, M. A.,& Dewhurst, S. A. (1995). The self and recollective experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1-19. Conway, M. A., Dewhurst, S. A., Pearson, N., & Sapute, A. (2001). The self and recollection reconsidered: How a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 673-686.

  15. (references) Cunningham, S. J., Turk, D. J., MacDonald, L. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Yours or Mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312–318. Ferguson, T. J,, Rule, G. R., & Carlson, D. ( 1983 ). Memory for personally relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 251-261. Klein, S. B., & Kihlstrom, J. E (1986). Elaboration, organization, and the self-reference effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115, 26-38. Klein, S. B., & Loftus, J. (1988). The nature of self-referent encoding: The contribution of elaborative and organizational processes. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 5-11. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N.A., & Kirker, W.S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394. Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 25, 1-12.

  16. Ownership Self Other Overall HTR X SD .781 .209 .746 .192 Remember HTR X SD .561 .221 .479 .235 Know HTR X SD .178 .128 .218 .178 Guess HTR X SD .042 .066 .050 .060 Raw data Means and Standard Deviations of Overall Recognition, Remember HitRate (HTR) and Know HTR, by Ownership Conditions.

  17. False-Alarm Rates Remember Know Guess X SD .009 .018 .042 .064 .026 .040 (Raw data) Means and Standard Deviations of Remember, Know and Guess False-Alarm Rates.

More Related