Enhanced source memory for emotionally valenced sources: does an affective orienting task make the difference?

ABSTRACT

Previous research on whether source memory is enhanced for emotionally valenced sources yielded inconclusive results. To identify potential boundary conditions, we tested whether encoding instructions that promote affective versus different types of non-affective item-source-processing foster versus hamper source-valence effects. In both experiments, we used neutral words as items superimposed on emotional (positive & negative) or neutral pictures as sources. Source pictures were selected based on valence and arousal ratings collected in a pre-study such that only valence varied across sources. Source memory was measured via multinomial modelling. In Experiment 1, we applied an affective, item-focused orienting task (OT; i.e. word-pleasantness ratings) during item-source encoding and found enhanced source memory for emotionally valenced (positive & negative) compared to neutral sources. In Experiment 2, we systematically manipulated encoding instructions and again found enhanced source memory for emotionally valenced sources with an affective OT. No such effects occurred in the non-affective conditions, where participants were instructed to integrate item and source (item-source-fit judgments), to focus on the item (living-non-living judgments), or to encode the items only, respectively. With intentional item encoding, however, source memory was surprisingly better for positive than negative sources. We conclude that source-valence effects might unfold only under affective processing.

KEYWORDS:

• Source memory
• emotion-enhanced memory
• orienting task
• multinomial modelling

Acknowledgments

We thank Arndt Bröder and Monika Undorf for their helpful comments on the interpretation and discussion of the obtained results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data of both pre-studies and the data supporting the results reported in this manuscript are publicly available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository at https://osf.io/8dhmj/?view_only=de8bb8c733a74b549ec5dcc436b9af1d. The repository also contains the word list used in both experiments. The preregistration of Experiment 2 can be accessed via https://osf.io/g56ec/?view_only=98bae34f4bfa47bfb614a49f5dcb921f.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 All reported p-values for the pairwise comparisons of MPT-model parameters in both experiments were Bonferroni-Holm adjusted.

2 We dropped student status (enrolled at university) as eligibility criterion because it considerably reduced the already sparse number of German native speakers on Prolific. With the student status criterion, we originally aimed at maximising demographic similarity to our previous (lab) studies, but do not perceive this criterion as crucial for the research question at hand.

3 As the time interval for two-part studies on Prolific is limited to three weeks and recruitment for part 1 was rather slow (due to the German sample), we conducted two recruitment waves to achieve our desired N. In the first wave, 117 eligible participants completed both parts, and in the second wave 99 participants. Notably, we selected the source pictures based on the first wave of participants and used these pictures for the second wave as well. However, we first carefully inspected whether the second wave of participants rated the three source pictures comparable to the first wave in terms of valence and arousal, which was the case. Also, as apparent from Table 1, the selected sources continue to fully meet our valence and arousal criteria in the final sample.

4 To adopt a reasonable pace, we analyzed participants rating times in Experiment 1. This analysis yielded that only 1 (out of 68) participants needed on average more than 5 s for their rating. Also, trial-based analysis indicated that all but three participants completed at least 75% trials in less than 5 s. We thus opted for a 5 s deadline.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) grants GRK 2277 “Statistical Modeling in Psychology” and KU 3329/1-1.