Scholarly Work - Psychology
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/3455
Browse
5 results
Search Results
Item Examining the time course of post collaborative benefits across word lists and prose passages(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-07) Wei, Yunfeng; Charbonneau, Brooke Z.; Meade, Michelle L.; Hutchison, Keith A.In the current study, we investigated how long the effects of one single collaboration session continue to influence individual memory. Participants learned categorized word lists and prose passages individually, and then they were instructed to recall learned materials either collaboratively or individually. Following initial recall, participants completed an individual recall test after a delay of 5 min, 48 h, or 1 week. On the initial recall test, we found that collaboration reduced recall of correct items on both word lists and prose passages (collaborative inhibition), and that collaboration reduced false recall on both word lists and prose passages (error correction). However, on the subsequent individual memory test after a delay, the pattern of post collaborative effects differed across veridical and false recall. For both word lists and prose passages, post collaborative benefits on correct recall lasted 1 week. However, there were no lasting effects of error correction on subsequent false recall. These results suggest that the time course of post collaborative benefits can be long lasting, but they are selective to veridical recall. The results are explained by theories of reexposure and error correction.Item Once established, goal reminders provide long-lasting and cumulative benefits for lower working memory capacity individuals.(American Psychological Association, 2022-12) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Charbonneau, Brooke; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that Stroop effects interact with working memory capacity (WMC) more strongly with lists of mostly congruent items. Although the predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance, some research has challenged whether listwide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. The current study improved upon previous methodology by using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of goal reminder, increasing both the number of trials between reminders and the total length of the task to allow for greater goal neglect, and more precisely maintaining congruency proportion within each block. Participants completed the Automated Operation Span followed by a Stroop task in which they stopped every 24 trials to vocalize either a goal-reminder statement (“name the color not the word”) or a nongoal statement (“This is part of my intro to psychology class”). In the within-subject manipulation (Experiment 1), there was no consistent benefit for goal reminders over nongoal statements. However, in the between-subjects manipulation (Experiment 2), results demonstrated a strong benefit of goal reminders, such that goal reminders eliminated the relation between WMC and Stroop effects, whereas that relation was robust following nongoal statements. Moreover, the benefit of receiving goal reminders lasted for at least 24 trials and accumulated across the course of the experiment. These data provide strong evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop errors and suggest goal reminders can be a useful intervention for those suffering from lapses in controlled attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)Item Patience is a virtue: Individual differences in cue-evoked pupil responses under temporal certainty(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022-04) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Hart, Katherine M.; Marchak, Frank M.; Hutchison, Keith A.Attention control is often examined behaviorally by measuring task performance and self-reported mind wandering. However, recent studies have also used pupillometry to measure task engagement versus task disengagement/mind wandering. In the current study, we investigated participants’ ability to engage versus relax attention control in anticipation of hard (antisaccade) versus easy (prosaccade) trials within a saccade task, creating a “Cue-Evoked” Pupillary Response (CEPR). Participants completed the Automated OSPAN as a measure of working memory capacity (WMC) followed by a saccade task with a constant 5000 ms delay between cue and stimulus. Occasional thought-probes were included to gauge on- versus off-task attentional state. Consistent with recent findings (Hutchison et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2015), we found better performance and more Task-Unrelated Thoughts (TUTs) on prosaccade trials, larger pupil diameters when preparing for antisaccade trials, and larger pupil diameters when on-task. Further, lower WMC individuals showed pupil dilation throughout the fixation delay for both types of trials, whereas higher WMC individuals only showed dilation immediately before stimulus onset when expecting an antisaccade trial. Saccade accuracy was predicted by WMC, smaller early CEPR, larger late CEPR, and less CEPR variability, but not self-reported TUTs. These findings demonstrate that, under temporal certainty, higher WMC individuals may be more efficient in their exertion of attention control. Further, they indicate that physiological measures can not only validate self-report measures, but also help identify situations in which self-report may be.Item Does collaboration help or hurt recall? The answer depends on working memory capacity.(American Psychological Association, 2022-08) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Whillock, Summer R.; Meade, Michelle L.; Hutchison, Keith A.Collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative versus nominal, or individual, groups) is a robust phenomenon. However, it is possible that not everyone is as susceptible to collaborative inhibition, such as those higher in working memory capacity (WMC). In the current study, we examined the relationship between WMC and collaborative inhibition. Participants completed three shortened span tasks (AOSPAN, RSPAN, SSPAN). They then viewed categorized word lists individually and then recalled the word lists alone or with a partner (Test 1), followed by an individual recall (Test 2). For correct recall, collaborative inhibition was greater among lower WMC individuals and they showed no post collaborative benefits. Only higher WMC individuals benefited from prior collaboration. For false recall, higher WMC individuals had less false recall on Test 1 and 2 and collaboration reduced errors on Test 1 for both lower and higher WMC individuals. There were no lasting effects of collaboration on Test 2 errors. Furthermore, partner WMC appeared to influence recall, although this tentative finding is based on a smaller sample size. Specifically, on Test 2, participants had less false recall when their partner was higher in WMC and greater correct recall when both they and their partner were higher in WMC. We conclude that collaboration is relatively more harmful for lower WMC individuals and more beneficial for higher WMC individuals. These results inform theories of collaborative inhibition by identifying attentional control and working memory capacity as mechanisms that moderate the magnitude of the effect.Item Once established, goal reminders provide long-lasting and cumulative benefits for lower working memory capacity individuals.(American Psychological Association, 2022-10) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Charbonneau, Brooke; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that Stroop effects interact with working memory capacity (WMC) more strongly with lists of mostly congruent items. Although the predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance, some research has challenged whether listwide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. The current study improved upon previous methodology by using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of goal reminder, increasing both the number of trials between reminders and the total length of the task to allow for greater goal neglect, and more precisely maintaining congruency proportion within each block. Participants completed the Automated Operation Span followed by a Stroop task in which they stopped every 24 trials to vocalize either a goal-reminder statement (“name the color not the word”) or a nongoal statement (“This is part of my intro to psychology class”). In the within-subject manipulation (Experiment 1), there was no consistent benefit for goal reminders over nongoal statements. However, in the between-subjects manipulation (Experiment 2), results demonstrated a strong benefit of goal reminders, such that goal reminders eliminated the relation between WMC and Stroop effects, whereas that relation was robust following nongoal statements. Moreover, the benefit of receiving goal reminders lasted for at least 24 trials and accumulated across the course of the experiment. These data provide strong evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop errors and suggest goal reminders can be a useful intervention for those suffering from lapses in controlled attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)