- Page 1 and 2:
THE EMOTIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF MEMORY
- Page 3 and 4:
the memory effects. Surprisingly, t
- Page 5 and 6:
and motivation was waning. Most imp
- Page 7 and 8:
Meta-analysis: Experiments 6-10…
- Page 9 and 10: negative, neutral or positive objec
- Page 11 and 12: Figure 6.2. Summary of findings fro
- Page 13 and 14: Table 3.5. Criteria for giving resp
- Page 15 and 16: avoidance task ………………
- Page 17 and 18: loved one could block their ability
- Page 19 and 20: eport, physiological response and c
- Page 21 and 22: Section 1.2. What effects do emotio
- Page 23 and 24: due to external influences. In cont
- Page 25 and 26: of naturally occurring emotions or
- Page 27 and 28: ecause mood inductions generally re
- Page 29 and 30: (e.g. Conway et al., 1994). Memory
- Page 31 and 32: alternatives (Lockhart, 2000). The
- Page 33 and 34: equired participants to distinguish
- Page 35 and 36: een found when memory is assessed b
- Page 37 and 38: peripheral elements of emotional an
- Page 39 and 40: processing of the specific content
- Page 41 and 42: failure to retrieve episodic memori
- Page 43 and 44: effects on cognitive processes, eve
- Page 45 and 46: ecollection and familiarity within
- Page 47 and 48: emotional influence on memory. In t
- Page 49 and 50: year (Dolcos et al., 2005). There a
- Page 51 and 52: e suitable for investigating memory
- Page 53 and 54: possible that having to distinguish
- Page 55 and 56: of photographs of people, animals a
- Page 57 and 58: Retrieval phase: Participants then
- Page 59: y the ANOVA’s. These are only rep
- Page 63 and 64: Analytic 2.31, p = .94, f = Recogni
- Page 65 and 66: eported the response given in Exper
- Page 67 and 68: In this experiment we investigated
- Page 69 and 70: ecognition task results are consist
- Page 71 and 72: five times were not significantly m
- Page 73 and 74: Three: t(11) = 1.53, p = .16, d = -
- Page 75 and 76: We analysed the Remember / Know / G
- Page 77 and 78: Table 2.3. Experiment 2: Probabilit
- Page 79 and 80: Table 2.5. Experiment 2: Separate A
- Page 81 and 82: depend on nonanalytic processing. T
- Page 83 and 84: etrieval. It is possible that parti
- Page 85 and 86: etrieval conditions. It may be that
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 3. Methodologies to investi
- Page 89 and 90: performance for negative, than posi
- Page 91 and 92: In this experiment the effects of a
- Page 93 and 94: Table 3.1: Low-level visual propert
- Page 95 and 96: followed by a RKG judgement partici
- Page 97 and 98: 0.28, p = .60], but did reveal sign
- Page 99 and 100: Table 3.2. Proportion of each emoti
- Page 101 and 102: confidence ratings were given to po
- Page 103 and 104: orthogonal comparisons of different
- Page 105 and 106: Section 2. Experiment 4: What is an
- Page 107 and 108: memory retrieval and reflect the op
- Page 109 and 110: (Kensinger et al., 2006; Kensinger,
- Page 111 and 112:
Table 3.5. Criteria for giving resp
- Page 113 and 114:
We predict that emotion would affec
- Page 115 and 116:
There were 540 photographs of objec
- Page 117 and 118:
University of Nottingham student. M
- Page 119 and 120:
that you recognise, as when, for ex
- Page 121 and 122:
(negative, neutral) and response ty
- Page 123 and 124:
Table 3.6. Mean average proportion
- Page 125 and 126:
Table 3.8. Same/Similar/New task: S
- Page 127 and 128:
There was a significant main effect
- Page 129 and 130:
emotional content of same items did
- Page 131 and 132:
Table 3.12. Remember/Know/New task:
- Page 133 and 134:
Figure 3.4. Responses to Same items
- Page 135 and 136:
Figure 3.5: Relationship between Sa
- Page 137 and 138:
Chapter 4. The influence of emotion
- Page 139 and 140:
Participants Twenty-four participan
- Page 141 and 142:
positive object pairs with item mea
- Page 143 and 144:
that, with the short presentation t
- Page 145 and 146:
Figure 4.2. Mean average specific a
- Page 147 and 148:
ecognition of emotional and non-emo
- Page 149 and 150:
impaired (Christianson & Loftus, 19
- Page 151 and 152:
years, SD = 3.07). Participants rec
- Page 153 and 154:
congruent with a pair of negative,
- Page 155 and 156:
memory test participants were prese
- Page 157 and 158:
Table 4.2. Mean responses (SE) for
- Page 159 and 160:
(F(1,17) = 81.94, MSE = 4.79, p
- Page 161 and 162:
was used between the study and test
- Page 163 and 164:
viewing stimuli and examine how the
- Page 165 and 166:
et al., 2008; Kensinger et al., 200
- Page 167 and 168:
used to measure eye movements. Eye-
- Page 169 and 170:
= .05, p 2 = .159]. Planned contras
- Page 171 and 172:
Figure 4.5. Mean average specific a
- Page 173 and 174:
participant averages across items f
- Page 175 and 176:
greater number of fixations on the
- Page 177 and 178:
Figure 4.6 Average total gaze durat
- Page 179 and 180:
these backgrounds should be less co
- Page 181 and 182:
positive or neutral objects. These
- Page 183 and 184:
the experiment and these clearly sh
- Page 185 and 186:
the positive objects, these could h
- Page 187 and 188:
Chapter 5 - Which alternatives to a
- Page 189 and 190:
counterbalancing of presentation of
- Page 191 and 192:
exposure paradigm. In chapter 2 we
- Page 193 and 194:
less than one second, whereas mood
- Page 195 and 196:
emembered than neutral objects. The
- Page 197 and 198:
distinctiveness of emotional stimul
- Page 199 and 200:
English speaking University of Nott
- Page 201 and 202:
Table 5.1: Mean proportion of respo
- Page 203 and 204:
Figure 5.1: Specific and General Re
- Page 205 and 206:
Data were extracted and analysed in
- Page 207 and 208:
Table 5.2: Eye measurements on obje
- Page 209 and 210:
Figure 5.2. Average total gaze dura
- Page 211 and 212:
consistent experimental findings fr
- Page 213 and 214:
distinctiveness of positive emotion
- Page 215 and 216:
Participants 18 participants (12 fe
- Page 217 and 218:
Table 5.3: Mean responses (SE) for
- Page 219 and 220:
Figure 5.3. Specific and general re
- Page 221 and 222:
The number of fixations made onto a
- Page 223 and 224:
Figure 5.4. Average gaze duration o
- Page 225 and 226:
mixed lists of stimuli were used. I
- Page 227 and 228:
Section 3.1. Introduction Section 3
- Page 229 and 230:
Materials The same materials were u
- Page 231 and 232:
Memory for the separate elements of
- Page 233 and 234:
Figure 5.5. Specific and General Re
- Page 235 and 236:
significantly greater for scenes wi
- Page 237 and 238:
Figure 5.6. Average gaze duration o
- Page 239 and 240:
Section 4. Chapter Discussion The p
- Page 241 and 242:
Section 5. Comparison of encoding r
- Page 243 and 244:
A meta-analysis analysis was conduc
- Page 245 and 246:
(F(1,85) = 220.26, MSe = 15.63, p <
- Page 247 and 248:
A 3 x 2 x 5 ANOVA with the repeated
- Page 249 and 250:
found enhanced specific and general
- Page 251 and 252:
Figure 5.10. Specific and General R
- Page 253 and 254:
116.20, MSe = 154.82, p < .001, par
- Page 255 and 256:
Figure 5.11. Experiments 7- 10: Ave
- Page 257 and 258:
Figure 5.13. Proportion of number o
- Page 259 and 260:
emotional than neutral object (F(1,
- Page 261 and 262:
and scene component and the between
- Page 263 and 264:
visual search strategies used by pa
- Page 265 and 266:
emotional groups in Experiment 9 th
- Page 267 and 268:
In chapter 3 I addressed two resear
- Page 269 and 270:
esponsible for the emotional effect
- Page 271 and 272:
Section 6.2. Ideas for further rese
- Page 273 and 274:
stimuli. One way to answer the ques
- Page 275 and 276:
data. These ideas discussed above m
- Page 277 and 278:
American this can lead to difficult
- Page 279 and 280:
The nature of individual difference
- Page 281 and 282:
tasks, one reason for this may be t
- Page 283 and 284:
phase, only a small proportion of t
- Page 285 and 286:
causation could not be implied. How
- Page 287 and 288:
memory for specific visual details
- Page 289 and 290:
Berntsen, D. (2002). Tunnel memorie
- Page 291 and 292:
Clark-Foos, A., & Marsh, R. L. (200
- Page 293 and 294:
Eldridge, L. L., Sarfatti, S., & Kn
- Page 295 and 296:
differences approaches. Personality
- Page 297 and 298:
Kitayama, S. (1990). Interaction be
- Page 299 and 300:
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D.
- Page 301 and 302:
Phaf, R. H., & Rotteveel, M. (2005)
- Page 303 and 304:
Smith, A. P. R., Dolan, R. J., & Ru
- Page 305 and 306:
Wessel, I., van der Kooy, P., & Mer
- Page 307 and 308:
Appendix 2.1. IAPS numbers for the
- Page 309 and 310:
Table 2.2.2. Experiment 1: Probabil
- Page 311 and 312:
Appendix 3.1 Table 3.1. Low-level v
- Page 313 and 314:
1.66, MSE = 1.32, p < .21, partial
- Page 315 and 316:
Table 4.1.1. Results of ANOVAs on S
- Page 317 and 318:
esponse F(1,17) = 0.62, New respons
- Page 319 and 320:
Scene component* Response type .69
- Page 321 and 322:
Same response Similar response New
- Page 323 and 324:
Appendix 5.1. Analysis of Same, Sim
- Page 325 and 326:
Scene component* emotion* response
- Page 327 and 328:
New response p = .34 p = .55 p = .8
- Page 329 and 330:
Backgrounds: q = 4.80, p < .01 resp
- Page 331 and 332:
esponse F(1,17) = 0.95, p = .34 F(1
- Page 333 and 334:
Scene component* Response type Simi
- Page 335:
Appendix 5.2. Analysis of Variance