No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Research has shown that emotional events are remembered better than neutral events, but might also elicit an increase in false memories. The present study was designed to disentangle the influences of valence and arousal on event memory in the misinformation paradigm. Participants were shown six types of photographs (positive with high/low arousal, negative with high/low arousal, ambiguous, neutral), after which half of them were exposed to misleading information. A recognition test assessed memory for both correct and false central and peripheral details. Negative and ambiguous events elicited fewer correct and more false memories for peripheral details than positive and neutral events, regardless of previous exposure to misinformation. Arousal improved memory for correct central details, and both negative valence and arousal inhibited control participants' tendency to endorse false central details. The power of emotion was overruled by the power of suggestion, however, as the latter effect disappeared with previous exposure to misinformation. Results are discussed in the light of earlier research on emotion and cognition, recent motivational theories, and implications for forensic practice.

Performance in a non-symbolic comparison task in which participants are asked to indicate the larger numerosity of two dot arrays, is assumed to be supported by the Approximate Number System (ANS). This system allows participants to judge numerosity independently from other visual cues. Supporting this idea, previous studies indicated that numerosity can be processed when visual cues are controlled for. Consequently, distinct types of visual cue control are assumed to be interchangeable. However, a previous study showed that the type of visual cue control affected performance using a simultaneous presentation of the stimuli in numerosity comparison. In the current study, we explored whether the influence of the type of visual cue control on performance disappeared when sequentially presenting each stimulus in numerosity comparison. While the influence of the applied type of visual cue control was significantly more evident in the simultaneous condition, sequentially presenting the stimuli did not completely exclude the influence of distinct types of visual cue control. Altogether, these results indicate that the implicit assumption that it is possible to compare performances across studies with a differential visual cue control is unwarranted and that the influence of the type of visual cue control partly depends on the presentation format of the stimuli.