Publications by Colleges and Departments (MSU - Bozeman)
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/3
Browse
4 results
Search Results
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 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)Item Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-11) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that list-wide effects in the Stroop task interact with working memory capacity (WMC). The predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance. However, some researchers have challenged whether list-wide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. In the current study, we examined whether goal maintenance explains higher WMC individuals’ better performance within mostly congruent (MC) Stroop lists by providing periodic goal reminders to some of the participants. Two hundred and twelve participants from Montana State University first completed the Automated Operation Span and were then assigned to either a true control, goal reminder, or nongoal reminder condition. During the Stroop task, the true control condition received rest breaks every 60 trials, whereas the goal reminder and nongoal reminder conditions stopped every 12 trials to vocalize either the task goal or a rehearsed statement, respectively. We regressed Stroop errors on reminder condition and WMC, comparing each group to the true control. For the Goal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was an interaction, such that WMC negatively correlated with Stroop errors in the true control, but not in the goal reminder condition. In contrast, for the Nongoal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was only an overall effect of WMC, with greater Stroop errors for those lower in WMC. These data provide evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop interference.