X hits on this document

56 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 25

MNEMONIC ADVANTAGES OF THE SELF

385

Table 5 Effect Sizes as a Function of Task for SR-Semantic Manipulation

Variable and class

Mean weighted

95% CI for d÷

Within-class

effect size

homogeneity

(d,)

Lower Upper

(Qwi)~

Between- class effect (QB)

k

17.33"**

9

0.20

12.79"*

51

0.69

44.54***

47 11 2

0.67, 0.40b 1.68c

13.41"**

16 9 4 7 12 3 5 4

0.72~d 1.04cd 0.32ab 0.45ab¢ 0.62,~ 0.57~ 0.16, 0.81,~

9.09*

57 3

0.69 0.34

16.79"**

42 11 4 3

0.66a 0.74~ 0.14b 0.61,

34.92***

54 2 4

0.69, 0.60ab 0.21b

11.16"*

11 23 8 10 4 4

0.73~ 0.57~ 1.05, 0.55t~ 0.43b 0.98~c

3.08

54 6

0.69 0.39

32 28

0.68 0.57

Relatedness of stimuli High Low Stimulus type Traits Nouns Other Type of semantic task Synonym judgment Generate definition Fits sentence Fits category Meaningful Familiar Desirable Other Age of participants Adult Child Type of SR task Self-descriptiveness Autobiographical Association with nouns Other Dependent variable Free recall Cued recall Recognition Mode of stimulus presentation Index cards Monitor Projector Read by experimenter Tachistoscope Booklet Participant population Undergraduates Other Experimental design Within subjects Between subjects

0.59

0.72

13.81"**

0.54

0.94

52.28***

-0.22

0.49

1.00

0.28

0.94

2.12

0.63

0.82

39.16"*

0.84

1.24

37.74***

0.01

0.63

0.97

0.19

0.72

22.31"*

0.49

0.75

15.15

0.28

0.86

3.96

-0.06

0.37

11.86"

0.58

1.19

2.61

0.56

0.90

43.81"**

0.47

0.67

76.10"**

0.86

1.24

12.92

0.41

0.68

7.63

0.25

0.61

2.19

0.74

1.22

0.74

0.60

0.73

119.72"**

0.21

0.59

42.79***

0.86

2.51

3.00

0.62

0.76

164.30"**

0.17

0.52

0.58

0.62

0.75

151.78"**

0.02

1.18

1.30

0.00

0.43

8.42

0.61

0.76

60.66**

0.46

0.67

114.56"**

-0.01

0.42

11.55

0.62

0.75

149.41"**

0.62

0.76

159.79"**

0.23

0.55

7.34

Note. Mean effect sizes sharing the s interval; SR = Self-reference. a Significance indicates rejection of the

*p

<

.05.

**p

<.01.

***p

<

.00

ame subscript do not differ (p > .05, post hoc). CI = confidence

hypothesis of homogeneity. 1.

the relatively small number of new SRE studies in the last few years, we could easily conclude that the field has reached an impasse in terms of explaining why the SRE occurs. There is, of course, more recent work (e.g., Klein & Loftus, 1993; Klein, Loftus, & Burton, 1989) that focuses specifically on the poten- tial causal cognitive mechanisms that underlie the SRE. This review represents an important empirical contribution to the SRE literature because, in addition to answering questions about the robustness of the SRE, it (a) clarifies the roles of most of the important moderators of the effect and suggests some more that ought to be investigated, (b) confirms most of the theoreti- cal expectations that the SRE results because of elaborative and organized processing, and (c) suggests some important avenues

that should be investigated that have not yet been explored in primary-level research.

We approach our discussion from the theoretical perspective that many of our findings may be explained by two aspects of processing tasks that may play important roles in determining the magnitude of the SRE: (a) the degree to which the task promotes organization and elaboration and (b) the nature of the referenced memory domain and the particular type of informa- tion being processed and how they may interact with these processes. We begin by reviewing our general findings of an overall SRE and the results of the models for the comparison class and nature of processing induced by the task. Then, we discuss pragmatic concerns for the design of SRE studies, re-

Document info
Document views56
Page views56
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 19:00:00 UTC 2016
Pages25
Paragraphs1482
Words20141

Comments