Negative affect varying in motivational intensity influences scope of memory

ABSTRACT

Emotions influence cognitive processes involved in memory. While some research has suggested that cognitive scope is determined by affective valence, recent models of emotion–cognition interactions suggest that motivational intensity, rather than valence, influences these processes. The present research was designed to clarify how negative affects differing in motivational intensity impact memory for centrally or peripherally presented information. Experiments 1 & 2 found that, relative to a neutral condition, high intensity negative affect (anger) enhances memory for centrally presented information. Experiment 3 replicated this effect using another high intensity negative affect (threat). Experiment 4 extended this by finding that, relative to a neutral condition, low intensity negative affect (sadness) enhanced memory for peripherally presented information. Finally, in Experiment 5, the effects of sadness and threat on scope of memory were directly compared, finding that threat narrowed scope of memory, while sadness broadened scope of memory. Together, these results provide additional support for the motivational dimensional model of cognitive scope, in that high intensity emotions narrow cognitive scope, while low intensity emotions broaden cognitive scope.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotion
• motivation
• negative affect
• memory
• intensity
• cognitive scope

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

A. Hunter Threadgill http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3620-5959

Notes

1. Neutral IAPS picture numbers: 2190, 2215, 2393, 2506, 2513, 2516, 2620, 2850, 5535, 5731, 5740, 7090, 7140, 7187, 7233, and 7493.

2. All pictorial stimuli and memory words used across all studies are provided in an online supplementary file.

3. On a scale of 1 (no feeling) to 9 (strongest feeling), pilot testing in a sample of 28 participants revealed that anger pictures (M = 4.84, SD = 2.27) elicited more anger than neutral pictures (M = 1.24, SD = 0.30), t(27) = 9.12, p < .001. In a separate sample of 65 participants, further testing also revealed that anger pictures elicited more anger (M = 6.31, SD = 2.21) than feelings of threat (M = 6.07, SD = 2.15; t(64) = 2.54, p = .013) and down (M = 5.86, SD = 2.11; t(64) = 4.36, p < .001).

4. The spreadsheets containing the data used for statistical analyses for all studies are available online at https://osf.io/q6uke/ (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/Q6UKE).

5. We wanted to see if the same pattern of results as the flankers task reaction times analyses occurred when examining error rates for the flankers task. Error rates were calculated for each trial type by dividing the number of trials correctly answered by the total number of trials for that trial type (congruent and incongruent flankers following anger pictures and congruent and incongruent flankers following neutral pictures). A 2 (picture type: anger vs. neutral) × 2 (flanker: congruent vs. incongruent) ANOVA examining flankers task error rates did not reveal a significant interaction, F(1, 66) = 0.52, p = .473, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .008.

6. A 2 (picture type: anger vs. neutral) × 2 (direction: left vs. right) ANOVA examining arrows task error rates did not reveal a significant interaction, F(1, 80) = 0.54, p = .465, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .007.

7. IAPS picture numbers: threat pictures (1300, 2811, 3005, 3051, 3150, 3250, 3400, 3550, 6260, 6360, 6510, 6560, 9300, 9400, 9430, 9902); neutral pictures (2397, 2880, 5390, 5534, 7035, 7039, 7150, 7161, 7179, 7192; additionally, six pictures were used from the internet and were chosen from a larger collection of images because pilot testing showed they evoked no emotion).

8. A 2 (picture type: threat vs. neutral) × 2 (flanker: congruent vs. incongruent) ANOVA examining flankers task error rates did not reveal a significant interaction, F(1, 56) = 0.97, p = .329, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .02.

9. Analyses including all participants revealed that the interaction was still significant, F(1, 133) = 4.35, p = .039, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .03.

10. Sadness IAPS picture numbers: 2205, 2455, 2490, 2590, 2700, 2795, 3300, 9000, 9001, 9190, 9220, 9331, 9341, 9390, 9471, and 9912.

11. A 2 (picture type: sadness vs. neutral) × 2 (direction: left vs. right) ANOVA examining arrows task error rates did not reveal a significant interaction, F(1, 92) = 0.11, p = .746, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .001.

12. Analyses including all participants revealed that the 2 (picture type: target emotion vs. neutral) × 2 (word presentation: central vs. peripheral) ANOVA interaction was significant in the threat condition, F(1, 93) = 6.73, p = .011, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .07. However, the interaction in the sadness condition was not significant, F(1, 103) = 1.53, p = .219, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .01. This likely occurred because not all of the participants were experiencing the target emotion.

13. A 2 (affect: sadness vs. threat) × 2 (picture type: affect vs. neutral) × 2 (direction: left vs. right) ANOVA examining arrow task error rates revealed a marginally significant interaction, F(1, 124) = 2.96, p = .088, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .02.