PDF (PhD Thesis Susan Chipchase) - Nottingham eTheses ...

were not sure if there was going to be a memory test was comparable to that of
the rest of the group.
Section 2.3. Results
The data for this experiment are presented in table 4.1 with the
proportion of items given a ‘same’, ‘similar’ or ‘new’ response reported as a
function of item type (same, similar or new) and emotion of object (negative,
neutral or positive) 1 . Memory for specific visual detail was analysed in line
with Kensinger et al. (2006) by calculating specific recognition defined as
‘same’ responses and general recognition defined as ‘same’ + ‘similar’
responses to items that were the same at study and test (See Figure 4.2).
Analyses of Variance were conducted to examine whether the emotion of the
items influenced specific recognition and general recognition. When
assumptions for sphericity are not met this is shown by degrees of freedom
with decimal places. In these instances the Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted p
values are reported. Planned contrasts were conducted to compare recognition
for emotional vs. neutral stimuli and then negative vs. positive stimuli.
1 The level of chance for correct recognition performance was 40% for same and similar items.
i.e. 40% chance of giving ‘same’ response to same item. It was 20%for new items. There were
114 same items, 114 similar items and 57 new items.
139