Literature DB >> 27527533

The influences of valence and arousal on judgments of learning and on recall.

Kathleen L Hourihan1, Scott H Fraundorf2, Aaron S Benjamin3.   

Abstract

Much is known about how the emotional content of words affects memory for those words, but only recently have researchers begun to investigate whether emotional content influences metamemory-that is, learners' assessments of what is or is not memorable. The present study replicated recent work demonstrating that judgments of learning (JOLs) do indeed reflect the superior memorability of words with emotional content. We further contrasted two hypotheses regarding this effect: a physiological account in which emotional words are judged to be more memorable because of their arousing properties, versus a cognitive account in which emotional words are judged to be more memorable because of their cognitive distinctiveness. Two results supported the latter account. First, both normed arousal (Exp. 1) and normed valence (Exp. 2) independently influenced JOLs, even though only an effect of arousal would be expected under a physiological account. Second, emotional content no longer influenced JOLs in a design (Exp. 3) that reduced the primary distinctiveness of emotional words by using a single list of words in which normed valence and arousal were varied continuously. These results suggest that the metamnemonic benefit of emotional words likely stems from cognitive factors.

Keywords:  Emotion; Metamemory; Recall

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27527533     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0646-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  34 in total

1.  Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory.

Authors:  S Hamann
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2001-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories.

Authors:  Jennifer M Talarico; David C Rubin
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2003-09

3.  Memory enhancement for emotional words: are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words?

Authors:  Elizabeth A Kensinger; Suzanne Corkin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-12

4.  Predicting one's own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes.

Authors:  Asher Koriat; Robert A Bjork; Limor Sheffer; Sarah K Bar
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-12

Review 5.  Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?

Authors:  S R Schmidt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1991-11

6.  Personal relevance modulates the positivity bias in recall of emotional pictures in older adults.

Authors:  Jennifer C Tomaszczyk; Myra A Fernandes; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-02

7.  Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: implications for studies of metacognitive processes.

Authors:  Michael E J Masson; Caren M Rotello
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

9.  Investigating the role of emotion during the search process in free recall.

Authors:  Aisha P Siddiqui; Nash Unsworth
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-11

10.  Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is.

Authors:  Scott H Fraundorf; Duane G Watson; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.059

View more
  2 in total

1.  Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Anke Söllner; Arndt Bröder
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

2.  Remembering specific features of emotional events across time: The role of REM sleep and prefrontal theta oscillations.

Authors:  Marie Roxanne Sopp; Tanja Michael; Hans-Günter Weeß; Axel Mecklinger
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.282

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.