Effects of introversion-extraversion on continuous recognition memory

Gillespie, Chris R.; Eysenck, Michael W.

doi:10.3758/bf03334517

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assumed that the personality groups would have similar false-alarm rates for the neutral list. That assumption may be questioned, however, because there are data suggesting that decision criteria for these personality types vary (e.g., Danzinger & Larsen, 1989;Gillespie & Eysenck, 1980). Also, we investigated presentation rate at input and output.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Individual Differences in Arousal and Accessibility to Information in Memory

Libkuman

Griffith²,

Wines³

et al. 1998

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors conducted 9 experiments to test the hypothesis (S. Schwartz, 1975) that arousal influences the accessibility of information stored in memory. They investigated the relationship between arousal levels (as indexed by personality types) and the type of stimuli or cues presented during study or test. They predicted that low-arousal individuals (stable extraverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and high-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by semantic stimuli, whereas high-arousal individuals (neurotic introverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and low-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by physical (i.e., graphic, phonetic, or both) stimuli. They tested the arousal-accessibility hypothesis by using a variety of tasks including verbal discrimination, false recognition, cued recall, and paired associates. With the exception of the finding that stable extraverted participants performed better than neurotic introverted participants on an incidental associative-matching task (Experiment 3), the results from the verbal discrimination studies (1-5) did not support the hypothesis. In Experiment 6, the authors tested the hypothesis by using a false-recognition task. False alarms varied as a function of phonetic and semantic stimuli, but personality types were not differentially sensitive to the manipulation. The same was true for the cued-recall studies (Experiments 7 and 8); personality types were not differentially sensitive to the semantic and phonetic stimuli. Experiment 9 (paired-associate learning) was a replication of Schwartz's study. The authors found some support for the Schwartz hypothesis: Extraverted participants were adversely affected by semantic similarity. Overall, the findings did not provide much support for the arousal-accessibility hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Individual Differences in Arousal and Accessibility to Information in Memory

Libkuman

Griffith²,

Wines³

et al. 1998

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It follows that introverts are more cautious than extraverts. For example, introverts use more stringent response criteria than do extraverts in signaldetection paradigms (e.g., Gillespie & Eysenck, 1980;Harkins & Geen, 1975). Moreover, extraverts tend to commit more false alarms on tasks requiring vigilance (M. W. Newman et al, 1985;, and vigilance correlates positively with EDA (Gange, Geen, & Harkins, 1979;Krupski, Raskin, & Bakan, 1971).…”

Section: Memory and Affective Response Dispositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition.

Patterson

Newman²

1993

Psychological Review

607

518

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gorenstein and Newman (1980) proposed that poorly modulated responding for reward is the common diathesis underlying disinhibited behavior in several traditionally distinct person categories: psychopathy, hysteria, early onset alcoholism, childhood hyperactivity, and nonpathological impulsivity (e.g., extraversion). The authors extend this proposal by theorizing a psychological mechanism that highlights relations among disinhibition, reflection, and failures to learn from aversive feedback. The hypothesized mechanism is presented as 4 generic stages of response modulation: the dominant response set, the reaction to an aversive event, the subsequent behavioral adaptation, and the immediate and long-term consequences of reflection, or the lack thereof. The mechanism has implications for disinhibited individuals' impulsivity and provides a point of departure to study factors responsible for similarities and differences among these syndromes.

show abstract

“…Thus, conservative recognizers should exercise report option significantly more often. This task is particularly appealing, given the goals of this experiment, in that risk-taking behaviors have been associated with extraversion (Patterson & Newman, 1993), and extraversion, in turn, has been associated with a liberal recognition bias (Gillespie & Eysenck, 1980).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among these measures, inhibition (indexed via a Stroop task) was the only significant predictor of response bias (r 0 .31, estimated from the reported beta values); Huh et al declared the analysis inconclusive. In a study of 28 undergraduates, Gillespie and Eysenck (1980) found that introverts used a more conservative recognition criterion than extraverts, and described introverts as exercising greater "response cautiousness." This finding is consistent with the possibility that response bias may arise from a trait corresponding to a required level of evidence before action is taken-a trait that, like introversion/extraversion, is stable within an individual.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%