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

Analytic 2.31, p = .94, f =
Recognition –
Nonanalytic
Recognition –
RKG
0.08
F(2,22) = 7.48, MSe =
1.50, p < .01, f =
0.82
F(2,22) = 0.16, MSe =
1.83, p = .86, f =
0.12
Section 1.4. Discussion
3.57, p = .25, f = 0.37 = 3.50, p = .13, f =
F(2,22) = 2.26, MSe =
1.56, p = .13, f = 0.45
F(2,22) = 1.28, MSe =
2.64, p = .30, f = 0.34
0.44
F(4,44) = 0.45, MSe =
2.64, p = .78, f = 0.20
F(4,44) = 1.27, MSe =
2.54, p = .30, f = 0.34
In experiment 1A we found no evidence for preference of items seen
previously. In experiment 1B there was evidence of recognition memory with
photos presented 3 or 5 times, although this was at a low level with
performance about 7% above chance levels. There was no emotional
enhancement in the preference task but in the recognition task performance
was better for positive than neutral pictures.
Section 2. Experiments 1C and 1D: Analytic and Nonanalytic Recognition
Section 2.1. Introduction
We predict that an emotional enhancement of memory will be seen with
a nonanalytic recognition style, but not with analytic recognition style. We also
predict that in line with Whittlesea and Price (2001) overall recognition will be
greater for nonanalytic than analytic recognition style.
Section 2.2 Method
Design
58