Psychology
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/54
The Department of Psychology will provide a collaborative environment for innovation and scientific discovery in psychological science and for attainment of psychological literacy.
Browse
9 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)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.Item Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2021-01) 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.Item How do associative and phonemic overlap interact to boost illusory recollection?(2018-10) Hutchison, Keith A.; Meade, Michelle L.; Williams, Nikolas S.; Manley, Krista D.; McNabb, Jaimie C.This project investigated the underlying mechanisms that boost false remember responses when participants receive study words that are both semantically and phonologically similar to a critical lure. Participants completed a memory task in which they were presented with a list of words all associated with a critical lure. Included within the list of semantic associates was a target that was either semantically associated (e.g., yawn) to the critical lure (e.g., sleep) or shared the initial (e.g., slam) or final (e.g., beep) phoneme(s) with the critical lure. After hearing the list, participants recalled each list item and indicated whether they just knew it was on the list or if they instead recollected specific contextual details of that item\'s presentation. We found that inserting an initial phonemic overlap target boosted experiences of recollection, but only when semantically related associates were presented beforehand. The results are consistent with models of spoken word recognition and show that established semantic context plus initial phonemic overlap play important roles in boosting false recollection.Item The Influence of Working Memory Load on Semantic Priming(2015-05) Heyman, Tom; Van Rensbergen, Bram; Storms, Gert; Hutchison, Keith A.; De Deyne, SimonThe present research examines the nature of the different processes that have been proposed to underlie semantic priming. Specifically, it has been argued that priming arises as a result of automatic target activation and/or the use of strategies like prospective expectancy generation and retrospective semantic matching. This article investigates the extent that these processes rely on cognitive resources by experimentally manipulating working memory load. To disentangle prospective and retrospective processes, prime-target pairs were selected such that they were symmetrically associated (e.g., answer-question; SYM) or asymmetrically associated in either the forward direction (e.g., panda-bear; FA) or the backward direction (e.g., ball-catch; BA). The results showed that priming for FA pairs completely evaporated under a high working memory load but that it remained stable for BA and SYM pairs. This was taken to mean that prospective processes, which are assumed to cause FA priming, require cognitive resources, whereas retrospective processes, which lead to BA priming, are relatively effortless.