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

eported the response given in Experiment 1C would indicate the photograph
participants did not remember seeing before and therefore the scores were
reversed. In Experiment 1D (nonanalytic recognition) participants were told
that neither photo, from each pair, had been shown previously but a photo from
the same category as each of the test photos had been shown previously (e.g.
another bird). They should select the photo that was globally similar to the
photo of the same category that was shown earlier (by pressing ‘1’ or ‘9’).
Section 2.3. Results
For analytic recognition, in none of the conditions were the ‘old’ items
selected significantly more often than chance would predict [One: t(11) = 1.10,
p = .29, d = -0.32; Three: t(11) = 0.84, p = .42, d = -0.24; Five: t(11) = 0.60, p
= .56, d = 0.17]. For nonanalytic recognition, items presented five times were
selected about 6% more often than would be predicted by chance (t(11) = 2.64,
p < .05, d = 0.76). Items presented once or 3 times were not selected
significantly more often than chance would predict [Once: t(11) = 0.12, p =
.91, d = 0.03; Three: t(11) = 1.39, p = .19, d = 0.40].
For the analytic recognition test and the nonanalytic recognition test,
the 3 (emotion) x 3 (repetitions) repeated measures ANOVAs found no
significant main effects of emotion block or repetitions and the interaction
between emotion block and repetitions was not significant (See Table 2.1 for
ANOVA results).
Section 2.4. Discussion
60