Valence does not affect recognition.

MacMillan, Molly B; Field, Haylee R; Neath, Ian; Surprenant, Aimée M.

doi:10.1037/cep0000275

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We were able to replicate reports that more emotional words are better remembered regardless of polarity (i.e., extremity of valence; e.g., Adelman & Estes, 2013; Cortese & Khanna, 2022; see Phelps & Sharot, 2008), explaining 3.3% of variance. Consistent with many previous reports, valence did not significantly predict whether words were recognized or not (see MacMillan et al, 2022; cf., Bowen et al, 2018). Form typicality for valence significantly predicted memory performance, with more typical forms being better remembered, explaining an additional 1.3% of variance, while typicality for extremity of valence did not contribute significantly.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Combined, the control variables predicted 27.8% of the variance in corrected hit probability. Of the two valence variables, only extremity of valence significantly predicted an additional 3%–3.3% of variance, with more emotional words being better remembered (see Figure 11), replicating prior work (e.g., Adelman & Estes, 2013; Cortese & Khanna, 2022; MacMillan et al, 2022). Neither valence variable interacted significantly with frequency.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Others propose an overall memory advantage for emotional compared to neutral stimuli (e.g., Phelps & Sharot, 2008). The empirical literature on recognition memory and emotional valence is mixed, with almost as many studies reporting null results as those reporting an advantage over neutral words (for a review, see MacMillan et al, 2022). Adelman and Estes (2013) reported a recognition memory advantage for a measure of extremity of valence (i.e., the absolute distance from the midpoint of the valence rating scale, regardless of polarity, corresponding to the quadratic term for valence), but no effect for either positive or negative valenced words compared to neutral words once a range of lexical variables and arousal were controlled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Emotion from the sound of a word: Statistical relationships between surface form and valence of English words influence lexical access and memory.

de Zubicaray,

McMahon,

Arciuli

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally accepted that a word's emotional valence (i.e., whether a word is perceived as positive, negative, or neutral) influences how it is accessed and remembered. There is also evidence that the affective content of some words is represented in nonarbitrary sound-meaning associations (i.e., emotional sound symbolism). We investigated whether more extensive statistical relationships exist between the surface form properties of English words and ratings of their emotional valence, that is, form typicality. We found significant form typicality for both valence and extremity of valence (the absolute distance from the midpoint of the rating scale, regardless of polarity). Next, using behavioral megastudy data sets, we show that measures of emotional form typicality are significant predictors of lexical access during written and auditory lexical decision and reading aloud tasks in addition to recognition memory performance. These findings show nonarbitrary form-valence mappings in English are accessed automatically during language and verbal memory processing. We discuss how these findings might be incorporated into theoretical accounts that implement Bayesian statistical inference. Public Significance StatementFor over a century, language researchers have generally assumed that the relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning is entirely arbitrary. Our study shows there are systematic associations between the emotional valence of English words and their sound features. We also show that these emotional sound-meaning associations influence language processing and memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emotion from the sound of a word: Statistical relationships between surface form and valence of English words influence lexical access and memory.

de Zubicaray,

McMahon,

Arciuli

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3. However, it should be noted that contrary to the prediction of the two-factor account, MacMillan et al (2022) found no difference between positive, negative, and neutral words on a recognition test.…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestscontrasting

confidence: 88%

Additional evidence that valence does not affect serial recall

Guitard

Saint‐Aubin

Neath

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In immediate serial recall, a canonical short-term memory task, it is well established that performance is affected by several sublexical, lexical and semantic factors. One factor that receives a growing interest is valence, whether a word is categorized as positive (e.g., happy) or as negative (e.g., pain). However, contradictory findings have recently emerged. Tse and Altarriba (2022) in two experiments with one set of stimuli and fixed lists concluded that valence affects serial recall performance while Bireta et al. (2021) in three experiments with three sets of stimuli and randomized lists concluded that valence does not affect serial recall performance. Two experiments assessed the experimental discrepancy between Tse and Altarriba and Bireta et al. For both experiments, in one block every participant saw the exact same lists as those used in Tse and Altarriba and in the other block, each list was randomly constructed for each participant, as was done in Bireta et al. In Experiment 1, with concrete words varying in valence, we replicated the results of Tse and Altarriba with fixed lists and the results of Bireta et al. with randomized lists. In Experiment 2, with abstract words with both fixed and randomized lists we replicate the absence of effect valence like Tse and Altarriba and Bireta et al. Overall, we conclude that valence does not affect serial recall and the discrepancy was attributed to the peculiarity of the fixed lists used by Tse and Altarriba.

show abstract

“…The contextual diversity and frequency manipulations affected only the false alarm rate, whereas the concreteness manipulation affected only the hit rate. Neath et al noted that of the very few articles that provide their stimuli, those that had confounded stimuli showed mirror effects (e.g., Cook et al, 2006; Glanc & Greene, 2007; Heathcote et al, 2006; Steyvers & Malmberg, 2003), whereas those that used more highly controlled stimuli did not observe a mirror effect (Macmillan et al, 2021; MacMillan et al, in press). This pattern of results suggests that mirror effects will be observed in recognition tests only when the stimuli vary systematically on two (or more) dimensions, one of which affects the hit rate (such as concreteness) and one of which affects the false alarm rate (such as frequency).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-based mirror effects in associative recognition revisited.

MacMillan¹,

Ensor²,

Surprenant³

et al. 2022

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mirror effect, the finding that a manipulation which increases the hit rate in recognition tests also decreases the false alarm rate, is held to be a regularity of memory. Neath et al. (in press) took advantage of the recent increase in the number of linguistic databases to create sets of stimuli that differed on one dimension but were more fully equated on other dimensions known to affect memory. Using these highly controlled stimulus sets, no mirror effects were observed; in contrast, using stimulus sets that had confounds resulted in mirror effects. In this article, we use their stimulus sets to examine associative recognition. Using confounded stimuli, Experiment 2 found a lower false alarm rate for high-compared to low-frequency words, replicating previous results, and Experiment 4 found a mirror effect when manipulating concreteness, also replicating previous results. Using highly controlled stimuli, Experiment 1 found no evidence that frequency affected associative recognition, and Experiment 3 found concreteness affected only the hit rate, not the false alarm rate. When highly controlled stimuli are used, frequency affects only the false alarm rate in item recognition and has no effect in associative recognition, whereas concreteness affects hit rates in both item and associative recognition. Implications for theoretical accounts are discussed. Public Significance StatementIn an associative recognition test, people are asked to indicate which words were paired together on the study list. We equated high-and low-frequency words on more dimensions known to affect memory than previous researchers and found, contrary to previous articles, frequency does not affect associative recognition.

show abstract

Valence does not affect recognition.

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Emotion from the sound of a word: Statistical relationships between surface form and valence of English words influence lexical access and memory.

Emotion from the sound of a word: Statistical relationships between surface form and valence of English words influence lexical access and memory.

Additional evidence that valence does not affect serial recall

Stimulus-based mirror effects in associative recognition revisited.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About