Task difficulty moderates the revelation effect

Abstract

Tasks that precede a recognition probe induce a more liberal response criterion than do probes without tasks-the "revelation effect." For example, participants are more likely to claim that a stimulus is familiar directly after solving an anagram, relative to a condition without an anagram. Revelation effect hypotheses disagree whether hard preceding tasks should produce a larger revelation effect than easy preceding tasks. Although some studies have shown that hard tasks increase the revelation effect as compared to easy tasks, these studies suffered from a confound of task difficulty and task presence. Conversely, other studies have shown that the revelation effect is independent of task difficulty. In the present study, we used new task difficulty manipulations to test whether hard tasks produce larger revelation effects than easy tasks. Participants (N = 464) completed hard or easy preceding tasks, including anagrams (Exps. 1 and 2) and the typing of specific arrow key sequences (Exps. 3-6). With sample sizes typical of revelation effect experiments, the effect sizes of task difficulty on the revelation effect varied considerably across experiments. Despite this variability, a consistent data pattern emerged: Hard tasks produced larger revelation effects than easy tasks. Although the present study falsifies certain revelation effect hypotheses, the general vagueness of revelation effect hypotheses remains.

The Revelation Effect Occurs Whether or Not Working Memory Is Occupied

“…After Westerman and Greene (1996) showed the indirect effect, many researchers confirmed the effect using various cognitive tasks: letter-counting tasks, memory span tests, synonym-generation tasks (Westerman & Greene, 1998), tasks of determining attractiveness ratings for inverted faces (Bornstein & Wilson, 2004), articulatory suppression tasks (Miura & Itoh, 2016), tasks of pressing arrow keys (Aßfalg, Currie, & Bernstein, 2017), revealed tasks (Bornstein & Neely, 2001;Westerman & Greene, 1998), numerical addition tasks (Leynes, Landau, Walker, & Addante, 2005;, and anagram tasks (Aßfalg, Currie et al, 2017;Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015;Azimian-Faridani & Wilding, 2004;Bernstein, Rudd, Erdfelder, Godfrey, & Loftus, 2009;Bernstein, Whittlesea, & Loftus, 2002;Cameron & Hockley, 2000;Kronlund & Bernstein, 2006;Major & Hockley, 2007;Miura & Itoh, 2016;Verde & Rotello, 2003Westerman, 2000;Westerman, Miller, & Lloyd, 2017;Young, Peynircioğlu, & Hohman, 2009). While it has been shown that various cognitive tasks cause the revelation effect, few studies have found tasks that do not cause the effect.…”

A motor task, not working memory, causes the revelation effect.

“…In the global matching theory, Westerman and Greene (1998) proposed that a cognitive task activates a verbal memory trace, and this activation induces old responses in subsequent recognition judgments. The theory is inconsistent with the fact that low-verbal cognitive tasks such as numerical addition tasks (Leynes et al, 2005; Niewiadomski & Hockley, 2001) or typing specific arrow key sequences (Aßfalg, Currie, & Bernstein, 2017) caused the revelation effect. In the decrement to familiarity theory, Hicks and Marsh (1998) proposed that the revelation effect occurs because a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio and a decrement of familiarity in recognition judgments due to a preceding cognitive task, cause a liberal shift of the criterion for recognition judgments.…”

“…Past studies have shown the indirect effect was caused by various cognitive tasks: anagrams (Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015; Aßfalg, Currie, & Bernstein, 2017; Azimian-Faridani & Wilding, 2004; Bernstein et al, 2002, 2009; Cameron & Hockley, 2000; Dougal & Schooler, 2007; Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001; Kronlund & Bernstein, 2006; Miura & Itoh, 2016; Niewiadomski & Hockley, 2001; Verde & Rotello, 2003, 2004; Westerman, 2000; Westerman et al, 2017; Westerman & Greene, 1996, 1998; Young et al, 2009), articulatory suppression (Miura & Itoh, 2016), letter-counting (Westerman & Greene, 1998), memory span tests (Miura & Itoh, 2018; Westerman & Greene, 1998), numerical addition (Leynes et al, 2005; Niewiadomski & Hockley, 2001), revealed tasks (Bornstein & Neely, 2001; Westerman & Greene, 1998), synonym-generation (Westerman & Greene, 1998), rating attractiveness of an inverted face (Bornstein & Wilson, 2004), and typing specific arrow key sequences (Aßfalg, Currie, & Bernstein, 2017). Some tasks (e.g., anagrams and numerical addition) require thinking, others (e.g., articulatory suppression and memory span tests) are verbal, and some (e.g., rating attractiveness of an inverted face and typing specific arrow key sequences) are perceptual.…”