X hits on this document

67 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 25

384

Between- class effect (QB)

Mean weighted effect size (d+)

95% CI for d÷

Within-class homogeneity (Qwi)a

k

Lower Upper

42.70***

60 69

0.65 0.35

0.58 0.29

0.71 0.42

178.30"** 230.40***

21.29"**

37 67

0.51~ 0.56a

0.43 0.50

0.59 0.62

115.68"** 282.92***

25

0.2%

0.19

0.39

31.50

SYMONS AND JOHNSON

Table 3 Cross-Literature Models for SRE Magnitude

Note. Mean effect sizes not sharing the same subscript significantly differed (p < .05, a priori). CI = confidence interval; OR = other reference; SR = self-reference; SRE = self-reference effect. a Significance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. *** p < .001.

Variable and class

Manipulation class SR vs. semantic SR vs. OR

Type of processing indu by comparison task Relational Item specific Both relational and item specific

ced

Several models emerge that implicate task restrictions used in SRE studies that mediate the SRE. It is interesting that these restrictions were not found to affect the magnitude of SREs in the SR-semantic manipulation class. First, results show that the magnitude of the SRE was related to the use of distractor tasks. Specifically, within both the distractor-present and the distractor-absent classes, significant mean SREs resulted. How- ever, the mean SRE for the distractor-present class was signifi- cantly larger than the mean SRE for the distractor-absent class. Further analyses reveal that distractor tasks had no influence on the magnitude of the SRE for studies that used high-intimacy targets (but did for low-intimacy targets). Second, results show that for studies in which participants did not expect a memory test, there was a significantly larger mean SRE than for studies in which participants did expect a test. Moreover, the mean SRE for studies in which participants expected a test was not significant. Further analyses reveal that an expectation of a test had no effect on the magnitude of the SRE for studies that used high-intimacy targets (but it did for low-intimacy targets).

Finally, two other exploratory models were significant for this manipulation class. The model test for mode of stimulus

presentation shows that when researchers used a projector to present stimulus materials, they obtained a significantly smaller mean SRE than those who used monitors or presented stimuli orally. Moreover, studies in the projector class obtained a non- significant mean SRE. In each case, study findings were heterogeneous.

The model test for participant population reveals that studies that tested undergraduates as participants obtained a smaller mean SRE than studies that tested other populations. (Note that this pattern is opposite of that found for SR-semantic studies.) However, both mean SREs were significant; in both cases, study findings are inconsistent.

Discussion

The SRE has been of interest to researchers because of the assumption that it could tell them something about the self in memory and its relationship to other kinds of encoding pro- cesses. Most of the researchers cited in the literature have at- tempted to investigate this relationship through manipulation of various task parameters or with various populations. Judging by

memory task

.0160"**

.16

.0135"

.16

.0240**

.21

Length of stimulus presentation

-.0667***

-.64

-.1060"**

-.60

-.0545***

-.66

Predictor

b

/3

b

/3

b

/3

Memory load Time between encoding and

-.0004

-.03

.0041"

.25

-.0009

-.07

All

SR- semantic

SR-OR

(k = 129)

(k = 60)

(k = 69)

Table 4 Continuous Models for Study Effect Sizes Across the Literature and Within Manipulation Class

Note. Models are least-square regressions with weights equivalent to

of

each effect *p < .05.

variance

size. k was smaller for some models.

**p

<

.01.

***p

<.001.

OR

=

other

reference;

the SR

reciprocal of the = self-reference.

Document info
Document views67
Page views67
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 11:49:44 UTC 2016
Pages25
Paragraphs1482
Words20141

Comments