Higher judgements of learning for emotional words: processing fluency or memory beliefs?

Previous research has shown that emotionally-valenced words are given higher judgements of learning (JOLs) than are neutral words. The current study examined potential explanations for this emotional salience effect on JOLs. Experiment 1 replicated the basic emotionality/JOL effect. In Experiments 2A and 2B, we used pre-study JOLs and assessed memory beliefs qualitatively, finding that, on average, participants believed that positive and negative words were more memorable than neutral words. Experiment 3 utilised a lexical decision task, resulting in lower reaction times (RTs) for positive words than for neutral words, but equivalent RTs for negative and neutral words, suggesting that processing fluency may partially account for higher JOLs for positive words, but not for negative words. Finally, we conducted a series of moderation analyses in Experiment 4 which assessed the relative contributions of fluency and beliefs to JOLs by measuring both factors in the same participants, showing that RTs made no significant contribution to JOLs for either positive or negative words. Our findings suggest that although positive words may be more fluently processed than neutral words, memory beliefs are the primary factor underlying higher JOLs for both positive and negative words.

Reduced interference from memory testing: A postretrieval monitoring account.

Initial learning can interfere with subsequent learning (proactive interference [PI]), but recent work indicates initial testing can reduce PI. Here, we tested 2 alternative hypotheses of this effect: Does testing reduce PI by constraining retrieval to the target list, or by facilitating a postretrieval monitoring process? Participants first studied 4 lists of unrelated words. The study-only group performed a distractor task following each list, whereas the tested group recalled each list. After these initial lists, both groups studied and were tested on a final list. Replicating prior work, the tested group recalled more of the final list items and had fewer prior-list intrusions than the study-only group (i.e., initial testing reduced subsequent PI). To test the 2-alternative hypotheses, Experiment 1 used a modified recall test for the final list, whereby participants were asked to recall the final list of words and also report any items from prior lists that inadvertently came to mind. Contrary to the constrained retrieval hypothesis, initial testing did not reduce the number of prior list items that came to mind, but consistent with the postretrieval monitoring hypothesis, testing increased the likelihood that the intrusions would be correctly attributed to prior lists. Experiments 2 and 3 further tested the postretrieval monitoring hypothesis by testing the final list twice. According to the hypothesis, testing all of the lists should render prior testing nondiagnostic of list membership, thereby impairing retrieval monitoring in the test group and minimizing its ability to reduce PI. This prediction was confirmed. (PsycINFO Database Record