Literature DB >> 23702836

An unforgettable apple: memory and attention for forbidden objects.

Grace Truong1, David J Turk, Todd C Handy.   

Abstract

Are we humans drawn to the forbidden? From jumbo-sized soft drinks to illicit substances, the influence of prohibited ownership on subsequent demand has made this question a pressing one. We know that objects that we ourselves own have a heightened psychological saliency, relative to comparable objects that are owned by others, but do these kinds of effects extend from self-owned to "forbidden" objects? To address this question, we developed a modified version of the Turk shopping paradigm in which "purchased" items were assigned to various recipients. Participants sorted everyday objects labeled as "self-owned", "other-owned," and either "forbidden to oneself" (Experiment 1) or "forbidden to everyone" (Experiment 2). Subsequent surprise recognition memory tests revealed that forbidden objects with high (Experiment 1) but not with low (Experiment 2) self-relevance were recognized as well as were self-owned objects, and better than other-owned objects. In a third and final experiment, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to determine whether self-owned and self-forbidden objects, which showed a common memory advantage, are in fact treated the same at a neurocognitive-affective level. We found that both object types were associated with enhanced cognitive analysis, relative to other-owned objects, as measured by the P300 ERP component. However, we also found that self-forbidden objects uniquely triggered an enhanced response preceding the P300, in an ERP component (the N2) that is sensitive to more rapid, affect-related processing. Our findings thus suggest that, whereas self-forbidden objects share a common cognitive signature with self-owned objects, they are unique in being identified more quickly at a neurocognitive level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23702836     DOI: 10.3758/s13415-013-0174-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci        ISSN: 1530-7026            Impact factor:   3.526


  36 in total

1.  P300 in response to the subject's own face.

Authors:  H Ninomiya; T Onitsuka; C H Chen; E Sato; N Tashiro
Journal:  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.188

2.  Mine to remember: the impact of ownership on recollective experience.

Authors:  Mirjam van den Bos; Sheila J Cunningham; Martin A Conway; David J Turk
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 2.143

3.  Processing social participation: an event-related brain potential study.

Authors:  Lea Gutz; Charlotte Küpper; Babette Renneberg; Michael Niedeggen
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 1.837

4.  The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  C S Symons; B T Johnson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Self-reference and the encoding of personal information.

Authors:  T B Rogers; N A Kuiper; W S Kirker
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1977-09

6.  Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping.

Authors:  F Perrin; J Pernier; O Bertrand; J F Echallier
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1989-02

7.  P300 in response to the subject's own name.

Authors:  I Berlad; H Pratt
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-09

8.  Effects of warning and information labels on consumption of full-fat, reduced-fat, and no-fat products.

Authors:  B J Bushman
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1998-02

9.  Emotion and attention in visual word processing: an ERP study.

Authors:  Johanna Kissler; Cornelia Herbert; Irene Winkler; Markus Junghofer
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 3.251

10.  Age and violent-content labels make video games forbidden fruits for youth.

Authors:  Marije Nije Bijvank; Elly A Konijn; Brad J Bushman; Peter H M P Roelofsma
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.124

View more
  1 in total

1.  Social modulation of object-directed but not image-directed actions.

Authors:  Jill A Dosso; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.