Advertisement

Merely presenting one’s own name along with target items is insufficient to produce a memory advantage for the items: A critical role of relational processing

  • Kyungmi Kim
  • Jenne D. Johnson
  • Danielle J. Rothschild
  • Marcia K. Johnson
Brief Report
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Using the self as a reference point at encoding produces a memory advantage over other types of encoding activities. Even simply co-presenting a target item with self-relevant versus other-relevant information can produce an “incidental” self-memory advantage in the absence of any explicit task demand to evaluate the item’s self-relevancy. In the present study, we asked whether an incidental self-memory advantage results from (a) the mere co-presentation of a target item with self-relevant information at encoding or (b) relational processing between a target item and self-relevant information at encoding. During incidental encoding, words were presented in two different colors either above or below a name (the participant’s own or another person’s). Participants judged either the location of each word in relation to the name (“Is the word above or below the name?”) or the color of each word to which the name had no relevance (“Is the word in red or green?”). In a subsequent memory test, we found a self-memory advantage for both items and their associated source features in the location judgment task but not in the color judgment task. Our findings show that a memory advantage for a target item presented with self-relevant versus other-relevant information is more likely when a task agenda places, via relational processing demands, the self-relevant/other-relevant information in the focus of attention along with the target item. Potential processes that mediate this attention-dependent effect are discussed.

Keywords

Self-reference effect Relational encoding Attention Self-related processing Self 

Notes

Author Note

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health under Grant R37AG009253 and a Grant in Support of Scholarship (GISOS) from Wesleyan University.

References

  1. Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., Ric, F., & Marendaz, C. (2012). I, me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self-related stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 770-779.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272-9.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907
  3. Bundesen, C., Kyllingsbaek, S., Houmann, K. J., & Jensen, R. M. (1997). Is visual attention automatically attracted to one’s own name? Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 714-720.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castel, A. D., & Craik, F. I. M. (2003). The effects of aging and divided attention on memory for item and associative information. Psychology and Aging, 18, 873-885.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.873 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chun, M. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Memory: Enduring traces of perceptual and reflective attention. Neuron, 72, 520-535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331-335.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway, M. A., & Dewhurst, S. A. (1995). The self and recollective experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1-19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunningham, S. J., Brebner, J. L., Quinn, F., & Turk, D. J. (2014). The self-reference effect on memory in early childhood. Child Development, 85, 808-823.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12144 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham, S. J., & Turk, D. J. (2017). A review of self-processing biases in cognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 987-995.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1276609 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunningham, S. J., Turk, D. J., MacDonald, L. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312-318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Devue, C., Van der Stigchel, S., Brédart, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). You do not find your own face faster; you just look at it longer. Cognition, 111, 114-112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Durbin, K. A., Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2017). Source memory that encoding was self-referential: The influence of stimulus characteristics. Memory, 25, 1191-1200.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1282517 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gronau, N., Cohen, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2003). Dissociations of personally significant and task-relevant distractors inside and outside the focus of attention: A combined behavioral and psychophysiological study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 512-529.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.512
  14. Harris, C. R., Pashler, H. E., & Coburn, N. (2004). Moray revisited: High-priority affective stimuli and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 1-31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, G. W., & Sui, J. (2016). Attentional control and the self: The Self-Attention Network (SAN). Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 5-17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1044427 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.6). [Computer software] Available from https://jasp-stats.org
  17. Jeffreys, J. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, M. K., & Hirst, W. (1993). MEM: Memory subsystems as processes. In A.F. Collins, S.E. Gathercole, M.A. Conway, & P.E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 241-286). East Sussex, England: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes Factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773-795.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawahara, J., & Yamada, Y. (2004). Does one’s name attract visual attention? Visual Cognition, 11, 997-1017.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000049a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). Encoding of personal information: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 499-514.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.4.499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laarni, J., Koljonen, M., Kuistio, A. M., Kyröläinen, S., Lempiäinen, J., & Lepistö, T. (2000). Images of a familiar face do not capture attention under conditions of inattention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1216-1218.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.90.3c.1216 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lui, M., & Sui, J. (2016). The interaction between social saliency and perceptual saliency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2419–2430.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1120330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Maki, R. H., & McCaul, K. D. (1985). The effects of self-reference versus other reference on the recall of traits and nouns. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 169-172.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 55-60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Verhagen, J., Swagman, A. R., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). Bayesian analysis of factorial designs. Psychological Methods, 22, 304-321.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shapiro, K. L., Caldwell, J., & Sorensen, R. E. (1997). Personal names and the attentional blink: A visual “cocktail party” effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 504-514.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.2.504 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shi, Y., Sedikides, C., Cai, H., Liu, Y., & Yang, Z. (2017). Dis-owning the self: The cultural value of modesty can attenuate self-positivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1023-1032.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1099711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Troyer, A. K., Winocur, G., Craik, F. I. M., & Moscovitch, M. (1999). Source memory and divided attention: Reciprocal costs to primary and secondary tasks. Neuropsychology, 13, 467-474.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.13.4.467 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Turk, D. J., Cunningham, S. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Self-memory biases in explicit and incidental encoding of trait adjectives. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1040-1045.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyungmi Kim
    • 1
  • Jenne D. Johnson
    • 1
  • Danielle J. Rothschild
    • 1
  • Marcia K. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations