1 / 18

Forever young?

Forever young?. Self-memory biases are impervious to ageing. Mirjam Brady-Van den Bos University of Aberdeen. Self and Memory. Does this trait describe you? Does this trait describe Person X? Memory advantage for information linked to self: Self Reference Effect (SRE). intelligent.

donnica-taurus
Download Presentation

Forever young?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Forever young? Self-memory biases are impervious to ageing Mirjam Brady-Van den BosUniversity of Aberdeen

  2. Self and Memory • Does this trait describe you? • Does this trait describe Person X? • Memory advantage for information linked to self: Self Reference Effect (SRE) intelligent reliable

  3. ‘You are what you own’ • Objects used to define, extend or compensate self(Belk, 1988; Beggan, 1991; James, 1890) • Better memory for self-owned objects?

  4. Shopping paradigm(Cunningham, Turk, Macdonald, & Macrae, 2008) Study: 72 self-owned targets, 72 other-owned targets Test: 144 targets + 72 distractors F(1,29) = 8.56, p = .007 Ownership effect: Self > Other

  5. Conway and Dewhurst (1995): ‘self-relevant information is important and needs to be available for recollective experience’ ‘information about others may not be as important’ Remember-Know paradigm (Tulving, 1985) Self-Reference Recollection Effect (SRRE)Conway, Dewhurst, Pearson, & Sapute (2001) Remembering and Knowing

  6. So… would we find the Ownership Effect only in the Remember responses?

  7. Testing older participants (65+) • Episodic memory (esp. recall) declines dramatically (reviews: Glisky, 2007; Kester, Benjamin, Castel, & Craik, 2002; Zacks, Hasher, & Li, 2000) • Certain processes remain relatively unaffected by even advanced ageing • Glisky and Marquine (2009): elaborative processing ‘pure’ self-processing + Self-referencing = Decline esp. in 75+

  8. Ageing Experiment • Subjects: young-old (65-74) and old-old (75+) • Psychometric test: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)(Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) • Shopping paradigm with yes-no, followed by Remember-Know-Guess: • 1: ‘yes’ or ‘no’ • 2: Remember (specific memory, with details) Know (strong feeling of familiarity, no details) Guess

  9. Predictions • Young-Old: ownership effect in R, but not in K • Old-Old: ownership effect in K, but not in R

  10. Young-old participants Ownership effect in R responses F(1,9) = 7.721, p = .021 but not in K responses F(1,9) = 1.385, p = ns

  11. Old-old participants Ownership effect only in K responses F(1,9) = 5.803, p = .039, but not in R responses F(1,9) = 0.225, p = ns

  12. Conclusions • The nature of the Ownership Effect - self affects cognition through indirect ways • Effects based on: 1. elaboration 2. affect, arousal • Self-memory bias preserved with ageing Thank you!

  13. References Beggan, J. K. (1991). Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation. [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 129-146. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229-237. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168. Bower, G. H., & Gilligan, S. G. (1979). Remembering information related to one's self. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 420-432. Conway, M. A.,& Dewhurst, S. A. (1995). The self and recollective experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1-19. Conway, M. A., Dewhurst, S. A., Pearson, N., & Sapute, A. (2001). The self and recollection reconsidered: How a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 673-686. Cunningham, S. J., Turk, D. J., MacDonald, L. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Yours or Mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312–318. Glisky, E. L., & Marquine, M. J. (2009). Semantic and self-referential processing of positive and negative trait adjectives in older adults. Memory, 17, 144–157. Grady, C. L., & Craik, F. I. M. (2000). Changes in memory processing with age. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 10, 224-231.

  14. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vol 1. New York: Holt. Ferguson, T. J,, Rule, G. R., & Carlson, D. (1983). Memory for personally relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 251-261. Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198. Klein, S. B., & Kihlstrom, J. E (1986). Elaboration, organization, and the self-reference effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115, 26-38. LeDoux, J. (2003). The emotional brain, fear and the amygdala. Cellular and molecular Neurobiology, 23, 227-238. Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2000). Adult Age Differences in Memory Performance: Tests of an Associative Deficit Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognilion, 26(5), 1170- 1187. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N.A., & Kirker, W.S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394. Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 25, 1-12.

  15. EXPLICIT SYSTEM INCIDENTAL SYSTEM Explicit self-relevant instruction e.g. ‘are you …?’ Incidental self cuee.g. own name, image, possession Activation of self concept COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES cue of threat / danger stereotype activated during encoding Conscious evaluations of self Attention capture Affective response / arousal deep processing with organisational strategy cue of action required Enriched encoding Increased recollective experience Model of Self-Referential Cognition automatic elaboration organization (Remember)

  16. EXPLICIT SYSTEM INCIDENTAL SYSTEM Explicit self-relevant instruction e.g. ‘are you …?’ Incidental self cuee.g. own name, image, possession Activation of self concept COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES cue of threat / danger stereotype activated during encoding Conscious evaluations of self Attention capture Affective response / arousal deep processing with organisational strategy cue of action required Enriched encoding Increased recollective experience Model of Self-Referential Cognition Not automatic ??? elaboration organization (Remember)

  17. EXPLICIT SYSTEM INCIDENTAL SYSTEM Explicit self-relevant instruction e.g. ‘are you …?’ Incidental self cuee.g. own name, image, possession Activation of self concept COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES COMPARABLE NON-SELF PROCESSES cue of threat / danger stereotype activated during encoding Conscious evaluations of self Attention capture Affective response / arousal deep processing with organisational strategy cue of action required Enriched encoding Increased recollective experience Model of Self-Referential Cognition – Older Participants Preserved Impaired elaboration organization If no elaboration, then Ownership effect in Know responses? Increased feelings of familiarity (Know) (Remember)

  18. Outline • Self-reference effect • Creating self-effects with less explicit methods: Shopping Paradigm • Experiment with older (65+) adults • Conclusion

More Related