Expectancy effects in source memory: how moving to a bad neighborhood can change your memory

Kroneisen, Meike; Woehe, Larissa; Rausch, Leonie Sophie

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0655-9

Cited by 34 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A multinomial model was used to distinguish among old–new recognition, source memory, and guessing processes. Given α = 0.05, a sample size of N = 112, and 80 responses in the source memory test, it was possible to detect an effect of size w = 0.04 (comparable to the effect sizes observed by Buchner et al, 2009; Küppers and Bayen, 2014; Bell et al, 2015; Kroneisen et al, 2015) for the comparison between source memory for cheaters and cooperators with a statistical power (1 – β) of 0.97. The power calculation was performed using G ∗ Power (Faul et al, 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Cognitive Load Does Not Affect the Behavioral and Cognitive Foundations of Social Cooperation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study serves to test whether the cognitive mechanisms underlying social cooperation are affected by cognitive load. Participants interacted with trustworthy-looking and untrustworthy-looking partners in a sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Facial trustworthiness was manipulated to stimulate expectations about the future behavior of the partners which were either violated or confirmed by the partners’ cheating or cooperation during the game. In a source memory test, participants were required to recognize the partners and to classify them as cheaters or cooperators. A multinomial model was used to disentangle item memory, source memory and guessing processes. We found an expectancy-congruent bias toward guessing that trustworthy-looking partners were more likely to be associated with cooperation than untrustworthy-looking partners. Source memory was enhanced for cheating that violated the participants’ positive expectations about trustworthy-looking partners. We were interested in whether or not this expectancy-violation effect—that helps to revise unjustified expectations about trustworthy-looking partners—depends on cognitive load induced via a secondary continuous reaction time task. Although this secondary task interfered with working memory processes in a validation study, both the expectancy-congruent guessing bias as well as the expectancy-violation effect were obtained with and without cognitive load. These findings support the hypothesis that the expectancy-violation effect is due to a simple mechanism that does not rely on demanding elaborative processes. We conclude that most cognitive mechanisms underlying social cooperation presumably operate automatically so that they remain unaffected by cognitive load.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Cognitive Load Does Not Affect the Behavioral and Cognitive Foundations of Social Cooperation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, there is no consistent evidence of enhanced memory for cheating over cooperative behaviours. Although such findings have been reported (Buchner et al, 2009), more recent studies show context-dependent preferences for attending both to cooperators and to cheaters (Barclay, 2008;Bell, Buchner, & Musch, 2010;Kroneisen, Woehe, & Rausch, 2015;Volstorf, Rieskamp, & Stevens, 2011). For instance, when players in a dilemma game encounter an equal number of cooperative partners and cheaters, they show a memory advantage for socially relevant information (cooperation and cheating) in comparison to a control condition, but no memory advantage for cheating in comparison to cooperation (Bell et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

The implicit cognition of reciprocal exchange: automatic retrieval of positive and negative experiences with partners in a prisoner's dilemma game

Bell

Koranyi

Buchner

et al. 2016

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of reciprocity imply that cheater detection is an important prerequisite for successful social exchange. Considering the fundamental role of memory in reciprocal exchange, these theories lead to the prediction that memory for cheaters should be preferentially enhanced. Here, we examine whether information of a partner's previous behaviour in an interaction is automatically retrieved when encountering the face of a partner who previously cheated or cooperated. In two studies, participants played a sequential prisoner's dilemma game with cheaters and cooperative partners. Alternating with the game blocks, participants were asked to classify the smiling or angry facial expressions of cooperators and cheaters. Both experiments revealed congruence effects, reflecting faster identification of the smiles of cooperators (Experiments 1 and 2) and faster identification of the angry facial expressions of cheaters (Experiment 2). Our study provides evidence for the automatic retrieval of the partner's behaviour in the game, regardless of whether partners cheated or cooperated, and thus provides further evidence against the cheater detection hypothesis.

show abstract

“…There are a few possible explanations for this. One is that people with these values have a stronger expectation that others will act positively, and so when they do not this violates their expectations to a greater extent, and results in better memory for those acts (e.g., Kroneisen et al, 2015). Another possibility is that people who value being benevolent remember more of other's negative acts in order to feel good about themselves in comparison (for similar arguments regarding self-esteem, see Ritchie et al, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But more recent research has extended these findings to other positively and negatively valenced domains, showing that adult memory for other people's disgusting behavior is better than for their pleasant behavior (Bell & Buchner, 2010), and memory for other people's aggressive behavior is better than for their prosocial behavior (Kroneisen, Woehe, & Rausch, 2015). For example, in Kroneisen et al (2015), participants read descriptions of people who were aggressive (e.g., "Q.P.…”

Section: Negativity In Memory Of Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, when someone is said to behave in an unconventional manner, this leads to an emotional reaction that results in the participant paying greater attention at encoding. Support for this explanation comes from two sets of studies.The first manipulates expectancy and shows that participants have better source memory for prosocial behaviors when they are led to believe that antisocial behaviors are the ones to be expected (Kroneisen et al, 2015). For example, adults are better able to remember that someone who helped the homeless did something prosocial when they are asked to imagine being in a neighborhood with mainly aggressive people compared to when they receive no such instructions and presumably expect people to behave positively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

I remember Being Nice: Self-Enhancement Memory Bias in Adults and Children

Rowell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults tend to remember themselves in a positive way. For example, they are more likely to remember their past good deeds rather than their bad deeds, which may help them to maintain good mental health and high self-esteem. In contrast, adults tend to have a negativity bias in memory for other people's actions, remembering more of their bad deeds than their good ones. This is also adaptive in that it may help them avoid harmful individuals in the future. In the studies presented here, I ask whether children are also biased to remember their own good deeds better than their bad deeds. I additionally address whether this bias is linked to children's developing self-concepts and to socialization practices during parent-child conversations about the past.Study 1 showed that a well-known memory paradigm can be used to address questions about how well children and adults remember positively and negatively valenced material encoded in relation to themselves and others. Study 1a found that adults remembered nice verbs encoded with reference to themselves better than mean verbs encoded with reference to themselves or mean verbs encoded with reference to someone else. These memory differences were present even when statistical models were used that separated actual remembering from guessing strategies. Study 2 then found this same bias in 8-to 10-year-old children, providing some of the first experimental evidence for self-enhancement in children's memory. Study 3 replicated the findings of Study 1a and sought to address potential mechanisms of selfenhancement bias. Imagine that you get angry and yell at a friend, insulting her and bringing her to tears. Now imagine instead that this friend does the very same thing to you. Will your memory be similarly accurate for both events? Will you be just as likely to recall either event later on? There are many influences on memory that could help predict how well you would remember either event, such as emotional content or distinctiveness. Importantly, there are also factors that only apply to one scenario or the other-functional aspects of memory that lead to a divergence in how well these two events would be remembered. Table of ContentsIn the first scenario, you are the perpetrator of a transgression and because of this, your self-concept will have an important influence on how you remember what happens. Adults generally have a positive view of themselves which leads them to remember themselves in a positive way (Greenwald, 1980). Thus, you are more likely to remember nice things you have done than neutral or mean things. Remembering more of our positive past actions is beneficial in that it may contribute to good mental health (see Taylor & Brown, 1988) and help people in Western cultures live up to the standards of their culture by maintaining high self-esteem , which then continues to perpetuate memory bias.In the second scenario, your friend is the perpetrator of the transgression and you are merely the recipient of their actions. Thus, your self-concept is less o...

show abstract

Expectancy effects in source memory: how moving to a bad neighborhood can change your memory

Cited by 34 publications

References 42 publications

Cognitive Load Does Not Affect the Behavioral and Cognitive Foundations of Social Cooperation

Cognitive Load Does Not Affect the Behavioral and Cognitive Foundations of Social Cooperation

The implicit cognition of reciprocal exchange: automatic retrieval of positive and negative experiences with partners in a prisoner's dilemma game

I remember Being Nice: Self-Enhancement Memory Bias in Adults and Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About