Psychology Methods II Assignment
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 13
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 13
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 13
The Role of the Self-Referencing Effect and Primacy on Memory and Confidence in Recall
First M. Last
Florida International University
Abstract
Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second
page. As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract!
Read over the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking
Research Methods and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester.
Review the studies in this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables,
participants, results, and implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 250 words
maximum). Make sure to include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that
researchers use when searching through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be
descriptive of the paper, so come up with three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!
Keywords: methods, paper, abstract, assignment, preview
(note: Keywords should be words that summarize the key meaning of the paper, words you might use in a google search about that paper’s topic)
The Role of the Self-Referencing Effect and Primacy on Memory and Confidence in Recall
The self-referencing effect describes the increased recollection of information that is related to the individual themself compared to information related to others (Sweatman et al., 2022). This effect has important implications for learning, memory, and cognitive processes, and has been the subject of numerous studies in the field of psychology. The following literature review examines several peer-reviewed articles that investigate the self-referencing effect with a focus on the role of self-relevance in memory retention and recall. The analysis of previous studies provides support for study one that will be outlined in this paper.
Serbun et al. (2011) analyzed the effectiveness of the self-referencing effect for memorizing specific details. In a series of three experiments, the researchers found that referencing themselves or a close loved one enhanced general and specific memory. More specifically, results indicated that the self-referencing effect heavily improves source memory. Their findings demonstrated that this effect not only improves both types of memory, but it enhances the recollective process of retrieving the memory themselves. They concluded that self-referencing can be used to improve memory for details and mental operations behind memorization. One inconsistency they found that requires further research is that similar results were found between referencing one’s self and a close loved one. Study one serves to examine this detail further by implementing the conditions of one’s own self, a close loved one, and the president. It hypothesizes that information relating back to the self will be much better remembered than even relating it back to a close loved one. Overall, the findings of Serbun et al.
support the idea that relating ideas back to one’s own self improved memorization of details.
Zhang et al. (2020) investigated the strength of the self-referencing effect across different cultural backgrounds and age groups. The results showed that individuals from Western cultures are more likely to remember self-referential information compared to Eastern and Indigenous participants. Additionally, within the Western culture, the researchers found evidence of the self-referencing effect between different age groups. Specifically, the results found that older adults were more likely to remember information when it was related to themselves than younger adults. These findings provide support for the existence of the self-referencing effect by suggesting the effect may vary based on age and cultural background. It also implies that the self-referencing effect plays an important role in memory processes throughout their lifespan. This provides support for the hypothesis of study one, which serves to identify whether people really remember information better if it is self-referential. Overall, Zhang et al. (2020) demonstrated that the self-referencing effect is not only an observable phenomenon, but that its utility can vary amongst different contexts and populations.
Sweatman et al. (2022) provided evidence for the self-referencing effect through their study involving memory recollection in children. Their results indicated that the self-referencing effect was present in children aged 9-10 years old, but not in children aged 7-8 years old, suggesting that the effect develops with age. These findings support the notion that the self-referencing effect exists and is an observable phenomenon. Additionally, these researchers found that children were able to identify the information more accurately when they used self-encoding compared to other methods of memorization. These results help provide a basis for the hypotheses of study one, which analyzes the relationship between correctly identified information and the confidence in recall in relation to the self-reference effect. Overall, Sweatman et al. (2022) provided evidence for the idea that people remember more information with higher accuracy when encoding information back to the self rather than others.
Feng et al. (2019) investigated the role of the self-referencing effect on brand preferences for consumers. These researchers concluded that brand information that was self-referential was more easily remembered and had a stronger impact on brand preference than information that was not self-referential. Participants who preferred a brand and saw the brand in a self-relevant context were more likely to remember the brand and its attributes than participants who saw the brand in a non-self-relevant context. This supports the concept of the self-referencing effect, since the participants tended to remember and process information that is related to themselves more effectively. Their findings support the notion that the self-referencing effect leads to higher recall in encoded information because it relates back to one’s own self. It also provides a basis for study one, which hypothesizes that the more a person relates information to one’s own self, the more likely they are to remember it. Overall, Feng et al. demonstrated that the self-referencing effect can be observed and remains a strong predictor of memory recall.
Leshikar et al. (2014) analyzed how self-referencing improves item recognition and recollection memory in both young and older adults. In two experiments, participants processed positive and negative adjectives for either self-related or semantic meaning. The results showed that self-referencing, compared to semantic processing, improved recollection memory for both age groups. Additionally, older adults showed greater improvements in recall performance when information was self-referenced compared to young adults. The second experiment showed that self-referencing also leads to a higher quality and quantity of details in recollection. Both young and older adults showed positivity effects for self-referentially processed items and negativity effects for semantically processed items. The findings suggest that self-referencing leads to better memory in both age groups. These results also help support the hypothesis in study one, since it suggests self-referencing may indeed have an impact on memory recall accuracy. Overall, Leshikar et al. demonstrated that using the self-referencing effect can improve the recollection of information regardless of the different conditions.
Data from these findings all seem to converge on one idea: the self-referencing effect plays a big role in how much information is recalled. These researchers have all found evidence that generally supports the existence and relevance of this effect. Most of them have conducted experiments that have found that referring information back to one’s own self improves memory recall than if they were to relate it to someone else. This general consensus provides a pillar for study one, which analyzes both the self-referencing effect and how confident participants feel in their recollection of the information. We have two predictions in this study. First, people will remember information better when it is related to themselves than others. Second, if people engage in self-rating, they will feel more confident in their recall than those engaging in other people’s ratings.
Study One
Method
Participants
Two-hundred and eighteen participants were selected to participate in this study. Out of the total 218 students, 51.8% were male ( n = 113) and 48.2% were female ( n = 105). The participants’ races consisted of 43.1% Latino/a ( n = 94), 30.3% White ( n = 66), 13.3% Black ( n
= 29), 6.4% MENA ( n = 14), 5.5% Asian ( n = 12), 5.0% mixed races ( n = 11), 1.4% Indigenous ( n = 3), and 1.4% Pacific Islander ( n = 3). The sample size had an age range of 42, with the youngest being 17 and the oldest being 59 ( M = 24.15, SD = 7.26).
Materials and Procedure
The materials for this experiment included three separate surveys with five parts each, as well as pens for the participants to write with. To begin the procedure, 218 randomly selected people were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained before the participants began. Potential candidates were asked if they were willing to participate in a study. They were told it would take between five to ten minutes, there were no risks involved in their participation, and the benefit was being able to complete this study. An oral agreement was necessary to continue on. One of the three surveys with the conditions self-rating (SR), friend-rating (FR), and president rating (PR) were randomly assigned to each participant. This is a single-blind study, so the researcher knows which condition the participant is in, but the participant does not.
The different ratings have the exact same questions, except part #1 of the survey. In this part, participants are asked to imagine their best friend sent them a message with a list of words. They are asked to rate the extent to which they think the word describes themselves (self-rating condition), their best friend (friend-rating), or the U.S. president (president rating). A total of 12 positive and negative adjectives are given. They are asked to use a 1 to 7 rating, where 1 represents that the word does not describe the person in their condition and 7 describes the person in their condition extremely well.
In part #2, participants are given the task of converting numbers to their respective letters in the alphabet to spell out words. For example, 1 would equal A, 2 would equal B, etc. This is designed to be a distraction from the ratings in the previous section. In Part A recall, participants circle all of the words they remember seeing in social media post #1. They are asked to circle ones they are definitely sure about seeing and not to guess. Their total word score is calculated by how many correct words are circled. In part B ratings, they are asked 3 questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questions ask their confidence level in their recall, how they believe their recall compares to the average participant, and if they remember things better when they relate it to themselves.
The final part includes demographic information and the manipulation check. Participants are asked for their gender, age, race/ethnicity, and if English is their first language. The final question checks to see if the participants paid attention to their manipulation. They are asked to remember who they rated words for in post #1, which is where they can select the condition they received (self, friend, or president). This study aims to investigate the self-referencing effect. The dependent variables analyzed in this study include the manipulation check, total word score in part A, and their confidence level in their recall in part B.
The experiment ends with the researcher debriefing the participant. This includes explaining the effect, study conditions, and hypotheses regarding the self-referencing effect. The definition of this phenomenon is explained in detail. The general purpose of the study was to understand how this effect influences a person’s recall and their confidence level in their recall. The researcher tells them that there were three independent variable conditions where participants rate the extent to which each word describes either themselves (self-rating), their best friend (friend-rating), or the U.S. President (president-rating). The dependent variables being analyzed were the number of words they correctly recalled seeing in post #1 from a series of possible words and their confidence level in their recall in part B. If the self-referencing effect is present in the study, it would be expected to see significantly more words recalled from post #1 in the self-rating condition compared to the friend or president-rating conditions. The hypotheses were also explained.
Results
The first dependent variable of the number of correctly recalled words from post #1 was measured with rating conditions (SR, FR, PR) as the independent variable. A one-way ANOVA was performed. The results were found to be significant, F(2, 215) = 25.52, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test was performed. The results showed that participants in the self-rating condition correctly remembered more of the words from post #1 ( M = 9.85, SD = 1.04) than participants in the friend-rating condition ( M = 8.88, SD = 0.78) and participants in the president-rating condition ( M = 8.63, SD = 1.38). These statistics support the hypothesis that participants are better at remembering information (words) when they relate it back to themselves than if they related it to other people.
The second dependent variable of the confidence level in their recall of the words was measured with rating conditions (SR, FR, PR) as the independent variable. A one-way ANOVA was performed. The results were found to be significant, F(2, 215) = 49.20, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test was performed. The results showed that all three conditions significantly differed from each other. Participants in the self-rating condition were significantly more confident in their recall of the words from post #1 ( M = 5.97, SD = 0.94) than participants in the friend-rating condition ( M = 5.21, SD = 0.82) and the president-rating condition ( M = 4.40, SD = 1.08). The results support the idea that people are more confident in their recall of information when it is related to themselves rather than others.
Discussion
This study focused on two different hypotheses regarding the self-referencing effect. First, it was predicted that people would remember information more accurately if they were to relate it back to themselves. These results were supported. Participants in the self-rating remembered a significantly higher number of correct words than if they related it to others (friends or president). One possible explanation for this result is that self-referencing is beneficial for memory. When individuals encounter information that is self-relevant, they are more likely to connect it to their own experiences, beliefs, or goals, which enhances the encoding of the information in memory. This deeper level of processing results in better encoding of the information, which in turn leads to better recall.
The second hypothesis was regarding the confidence level in the recall of the words in post #1. It was predicted that people would be more confident in their recollection if they related the information back to themselves, rather than others. These results were supported. Participants in the self-rating reported a significantly higher confidence level than if they related it to others (friends or president). Results from the Tukey post hoc tests support the hypothesis that participants in the self-rating condition were more confident in their memory than if they related it to others. One possible explanation for this result is that self-referencing also plays a role in confidence levels of memorizing words. When individuals process information in a self-referential way, they are more likely to feel a sense of personal ownership and attachment to it, which can increase their confidence in their memory of it. This is because when people can relate information to themselves, they perceive the information to be more important and relevant to them. This can increase their confidence in their ability to recall it. Additionally, the self-referencing effect involves deeper processing of information, which can lead to stronger encoding of the information, and subsequently, greater confidence in recall. However, relating information back to one’s own self isn’t the only factor that plays a role in recollection. Additional factors, like the primacy effect and the emotional value behind the words, is the focus of study two.
Study Two
Memory recall is a complex process that can be influenced by a variety of factors such as the order in which information is presented, the emotional valence of the information, and the individual's self-referencing tendencies. For the literature review for study one, researchers investigated the self-referencing effect and its impact on memory recall. Specifically, they found that individuals tend to remember information that relates to themselves better than others, and that this effect is linked to greater confidence in recall. In study two, this research is extended by investigating how the primacy effect is influenced by the valence of the information presented. The primacy effect is the tendency to remember information that is presented first in a series better than information presented later in the series (Li, 2010). By exploring the interplay between the primacy effect, valence, and self-referencing tendencies, this review aims to deepen the understanding of how different factors contribute to memory recall.
Li (2010) investigated the primacy effect and the recency effect in long-term memory for
Super Bowl commercials. His experiment found supportive evidence for both the primacy effect and the recency effect, with participants recalling the first and last commercials more accurately than the middle commercials. He also concludes that the emotional content of the first and last commercials may have enhanced the primacy effect, as participants were more likely to remember those commercials compared to the middle commercials. While this article does not discuss the self-referencing effect, it provides further evidence for the existence of the primacy effect for real-world stimuli. This provides a basis for the hypotheses in study two, which focus on the primacy effect for positive and negative words. Overall, while Li (2010) also provided evidence for the recency effect, he supported the effectiveness of the primacy effect and implied that emotional valence plays a role in this phenomenon.
Toglia and Kimble (1976) investigated the primacy effect and its impact on recall and use of information in memory. This article found that participants were more likely to recall items from the beginning of the list compared to items from the middle or end of the list, providing evidence for the existence of the primacy effect. It also found that participants were more likely to use information from the beginning of the list to make decisions than information from the middle or end of the list. This suggests that the primacy effect also significantly affects recall of words. Within the experiment, participants were presented with lists of words and asked to recall as many words as possible in any order. After recollection, participants were given a decision-making task where they had to choose between two objects based on the information they recalled from the list. Their results found that participants were more likely to choose the object associated with words from the beginning of the list, providing further evidence for the primacy effect. These researchers also measured confidence in recall when participants were asked to recall words from the list. The results showed that participants were more confident in recalling words from the beginning of the list compared to words from the middle or end of the
list, which is consistent with the primacy effect. This article provides support for the basis of study two, which looks into how the primacy effect is related to the confidence levels in recalling words. Overall, Toglia and Kimble (1976) provided solid evidence for the existence of the primacy effect and how this affects participant’s confidence levels in their memory.
Demaree et al. (2004) investigated the existence of the primacy and recency effects in the recall of affective words. Their research found that both the primacy and recency effects were present in the recall of affective words. Participants remembered words from the beginning of the list better than those in the middle, which is consistent with the primacy effect. However, they also remembered words from the end of the list better than those in the middle, which is consistent with the recency effect. This experiment specifically measured the recall of affective words, which are words that evoke an emotional response. These researchers found that the primacy effect was present for both positive and negative affective words. In other words, participants remembered affective words at the beginning of the list better than those in the middle. This suggests that the emotional impact of the words plays a role in the primacy effect. This experiment found that both positive and negative affective words showed a primacy effect, but did not find any significant difference in recall between positive and negative words. This article also partially provided support for study two, since it found evidence for the primacy effect, but also the recency effect. Overall, Demaree et al. (2004) demonstrated that the primacy effect can be observable and words with emotional valence are more likely to be recalled.
Glisky and Marquine (2009) investigated the primacy effect in relation to semantic and self-referential processing of positive and negative trait adjectives. They aimed to find whether positive or negative traits are better remembered and whether the self-referential processing of the trait adjectives affects recall. Their experiment used a list of positive and negative trait adjectives and presented them different orders. The participants were asked to rate how well each adjective described them, and then recall the adjectives they had seen. The results showed a significant primacy effect, where participants had better recall of the words presented at the beginning of the list. However, there was no significant difference in recall between positive and negative words. The study also found that self-referential processing improved recall for both positive and negative trait adjectives, but this effect was stronger for negative words. This article partially provides support for the basis of study two, since study two focuses on the primacy effect and valence of words, but actually hypothesizes the effect will be stronger for positive words. Overall, the findings of Glisky and Marquine (2009) provided supportive evidence for the existence of the primacy effect and concluded that the self-referencing effect and emotional valence of the words significantly influences recollection.
Tetlock (1983) investigated the relationship between accountability, the primacy effect, and the self-referencing effect in memory recall. This article presents a study where participants were presented with either a positive or negative list of words, with half of the participants being told that they would have to recall the list later. His research found that the primacy effect was stronger for participants who were told they would have to recall the list later, indicating that accountability increased the impact of the primacy effect. Additionally, participants were more likely to remember words that related to themselves, supporting the existence of the self-referencing effect. He also mentions the individuals report higher confidence levels in recalling information that relates to themselves. This experiment even finds that the confidence in recall was stronger for words presented earlier in the list, which is consistent with the idea of the primacy effect. This article provides a very solid foundation for study two, which hypothesizes that the self-referencing effect and primacy effect of positive-first words should lead to the highest levels of confidence in recall of words. Overall, the findings of Tetlock (1983) support the existence of the primacy effect and self-referencing in memory recall through the emotional valence of words and reported confidence levels.
Data from these findings generally converge on one idea: the primacy effect and emotional valence of words play a big role in how much information is recalled. These researchers have all found evidence that generally supports the existence and relevance of the primacy effect in relation to the self-reference effect.. Most of them have conducted experiments that have found that the primacy effect leads to higher recall of words and confidence in recall, especially if the information is linked to a positive or negative emotion. This general consensus provides a pillar for study two, which analyzes the connection between several factors.
The hypotheses in study two aim to study the impact of the primacy effect and interactions between the self-reference effect and primacy on memory and how confident they are. Participants will remember more words if it is self-referential compared to related to others. Participants will also remember more words when positive words are listed first than if negative words are listed first. Therefore, they will remember the most information when it is self-referential and positive-first. This is followed by relating to others and positive-first, and self-referential and negative-first after that. They will remember the least information when it is related to others and negative-first. Regarding confidence in recall, participants will report higher levels in positive-first compared to negative first. The highest level of confidence will be found in self-referential and positive-first. The lowest level of confidence will be found in relating to others and negative-first. In summary, participants will remember the most words if it is self-referential and positive-first, as well as report the highest confidence levels in recall.
Participants will remember the least words if it is relating to others and negative-first, as well as report the lowest confidence levels in recall.
Method
Participants
A total of two-hundred and sixteen people participated in this study. Out of the total 216 participants, 36.6% were male ( n = 79) and 59.7% were female ( n = 129). The participants’ races consisted of 63.4% Latino/a ( n = 137), 21.3% White ( n = 46), 9.3% Black ( n = 20), 3.2% Asian ( n = 7), 0.9% MENA ( n = 2), 1.4% Others ( n = 3), and 0.5% did not answer with their race/ethnicity ( n = 1).The sample size had an age range of 68, with the youngest being 12 and the oldest being 80 ( M = 24.31, SD = 10.23). However, 4 participants did not answer with their age.
Materials and Procedure
The materials for this experiment include a survey with 4 different conditions and computers for the participants to be able to complete the survey. To begin the survey, the 216 participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained before the participants began. Potential candidates were asked if they were willing to participate in a study. They were told it should take less than 15 minutes. The risks involved were very minor but temporary discomfort with personal questions that involve looking at social media. The main benefit was that it would contribute useful data for the study and therefore the advancement of knowledge within this field. An oral agreement was necessary to continue. Participants were asked if they consented to participating and were given the choice to answer yes or no.
There were 4 total conditions the participants could have received. The condition was randomly assigned. In this study, a new variable of primacy was introduced. Primacy in this case referred to whether lists of words began positively (positive-first) or negatively (negative-first). This study combines the self-referencing effect from study one and the idea of primacy.
The different conditions have the same questions, except for social post #1. In this part, participants were asked to imagine their best friend sent them a message with a list of words. In condition one, they were asked to rate the extent to which they think the word describes themselves and lists the positive attributes first (self-rating and positive-first). In condition two, they were asked to rate the extent to which they think the word describes themselves and lists the negative attributes first (self-rating and negative-first). In condition three, they were asked to rate the extent to which they think the word describes their best friend and lists the positive attributes first (friend-rating and positive-first). In condition four, they were asked to rate the extent to which they think the word describes their best friend and lists the negative attributes first
(friend-rating and negative-first). A total of 14 positive and negative attributes were given. Participants are asked to rate the words on a scale of 1 (does not describe the person at all) to 7 (describes the person extremely well).
In social media post #2, participants are given the task of converting numbers to their respective letters in the alphabet to spell out words. For example, 1 would equal A, 2 would equal B, etc. This is designed to be a distraction from the ratings in the previous section. In Part A recall, participants circle all of the words they remember seeing in social media post #1. They are asked to circle ones they are definitely sure about seeing and not to guess. Their total word score is calculated by how many correct words are circled. In part B ratings, they are asked 3 questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questions ask their confidence level in their recall, how they believe their recall compares to the average participant, and if they believe they remember things better when they relate it to themselves.
The final part includes demographic information and the manipulation checks.
Participants are asked for their gender, age, race/ethnicity, and if English is their first language. The final questions check to see if the participants paid attention to their manipulations. They are asked to remember who they rated words for in post #1, which is where they can select the self-referencing condition they received (self or friend-rating). They are also asked what the valence of words were in post #1, which is where they can select the primacy condition they received (positive or negative-first).
This study aims to investigate the self-referencing effect, the primacy effect, and the interaction between these two variables. The dependent variables analyzed in this study include both manipulation checks, total word score in part A, and their confidence level in their recall.
The experiment ends with the researcher debriefing the participant. This includes explaining the effect, study conditions, and hypotheses regarding the self-referencing and primacy effects. The definitions of these phenomena were explained in detail. The general purpose of the study was to understand how the primacy effect influences a person’s recall and their confidence level in their recall. The main purpose is to understand the interaction between the self-referencing effect and the primacy effect. The researcher informs the participant that there were two independent variables with two levels each. The first independent variable is who the rating refers to, which includes the levels of self-rating (SR) and friend-rating (FR). The second independent variable is the valence of the list of words, which includes the levels of positive-first (PF) and negative-first (NF). The dependent variables being analyzed were the number of words they correctly recalled seeing in post #1 from a series of possible words and their confidence level in their recall in part B. If the self-referencing and primacy effects were present in the study, it would be expected to see significantly more words recalled in the
self-rating and positive-first condition than any of the others. The hypotheses were also debriefed to the participants.
Results
A two-way ANOVA was analyzed using the rating condition (self-rating vs.
friend-rating) and primacy condition (positive-first vs. negative-first) as independent variables and number of words correctly recalled as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect for the rating condition, F(3, 212) = 5.46, p = 0.02. Participants recalled more words in the self-rating condition ( M = 7.24, SD = 0.25) than in the friend-rating ( M = 6.42, SD = 0.25). There was no significant main effect for primacy, F(3, 212) = 1.10, p = 0.30. The number of words correctly recalled by participants did not significantly differ in the positive-first ( M = 6.65, SD = 0.25) versus the negative-first ( M = 7.02, SD = 0.25). There was no significant interaction effect between the rating and primacy conditions in terms of words recalled, F(3, 212) = 1.87, p = 0.17.
Table 3
2x2 ANOVA on Total Word Recall
_______________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of df Mean F p
Square Square
_______________________________________________________________________
|
Corrected model |
57.138 |
3 |
19.046 |
2.884 |
.037 |
|
Intercept |
10074.876 |
1 |
10074.876 |
1525.432 |
<.001 |
|
IVSRE |
36.078 |
1 |
36.078 |
5.463 |
.020 |
|
IVPrimacy |
7.289 |
1 |
7.289 |
1.104 |
.295 |
|
IVSRE * IVPrimacy |
12.362 |
1 |
12.362 |
1.872 |
.173 |
|
Error |
1400.177 |
212 |
6.605 |
|
|
|
Total |
11516.000 |
216 |
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
Another two-way ANOVA was analyzed using the rating condition (self-rating vs.
friend-rating) and primacy condition (positive-first vs. negative-first) as independent variables and confidence in their recall of the words as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect for the rating condition, F(3, 212) = 16.27, p < .001. Participants in the self-rating condition were significantly more confident in their recall of the words ( M = 5.91, SD = 0.06)
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 19
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 19
ROLE OF SELF-REFERENCE AND PRIMACY ON MEMORY 13
than those in the friend-rating condition ( M = 5.58, SD = 0.06). There was no significant main effect for primacy, F(3, 212) = 0.51, p = 0.48. The confidence in recall of words by participants did not significantly differ in the positive-first ( M = 5.71, SD = 0.06) versus the negative-first ( M = 5.77, SD = 0.06). There was no significant interaction effect between the rating and primacy conditions in terms of confidence in recall, F(3, 212) = 0.51, p = 0.48.
Table 4
2x2 ANOVA on Confidence in Word Recall
_________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of df Mean F p
Square Square
_________________________________________________________________________
|
Corrected model |
6.368 |
3 |
2.123 |
5.835 |
<.001 |
|
Intercept |
7116.312 |
1 |
7116.312 |
19564.022 |
<.001 |
|
IVSRE |
5.918 |
1 |
5.918 |
16.271 |
<.001 |
|
IVPrimacy |
.184 |
1 |
.184 |
.506 |
.478 |
|
IVSRE * IVPrimacy |
.184 |
1 |
.184 |
.506 |
.478 |
|
Error |
77.114 |
212 |
.364 |
|
|
|
Total |
7202.000 |
216 |
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
This study focused on several different hypotheses regarding the self-referencing effect and the primacy effect. For the first dependent variable, it was predicted that participants in the self-rating condition would recall more words than those in the friend-rating condition. This hypothesis was supported by the results. It was also predicted that participants in positive-first condition would recall more words than those in negative-first condition. However, the results failed to support this hypothesis. This indicates that primacy does not have a significant impact on remembering information, regardless of whether positive or negative words appeared first. It was predicted that there would be an interaction between the referencing and primacy effect where participants in the SR and PF condition recalled the most words, while participants in the FR and NF condition recalled the least amount of words. However, the results failed to support the hypothesis of this interaction. This indicates that the self-reference and primacy effects do not significantly interact with each other to influence how much information a person recalls.
For the second dependent variable, it was predicted that participants in the self-rating condition would be more confident in their recollection of the words than those in the friend-rating. The results supported this hypothesis. It was also predicted that participants in positive-first condition would report higher confidence levels in their recollection than those in the negative-first condition. However, the results failed to support this hypothesis. This indicates that primacy does not have a significant impact on the confidence levels of remembering certain information, regardless of whether positive or negative words appeared first. Finally, it was predicted that there would be an interaction between the variables where participants in the SR and PF condition would report the highest confidence levels in their recall, while participants in the FR and NF condition would have the lowest. However, the results failed to support this hypothesis. This indicates that the self-reference and primacy effects do not significantly interact with each other to influence the reported confidence levels of recalling specific information.
General Discussion
Results from study 1 supported the hypotheses because relating information back to one’s own self led to higher levels of word recall and confidence in recollection. This finding is supported by the works of several researchers. For example, the study conducted by Serbun et al. (2011) found that referencing oneself enhanced general and specific memory. Another study conducted by Feng et al. (2019) investigated the role of the self-referencing effect on brand preferences in which they concluded that self-referential brand information was more easily remembered. These findings support the idea that relating ideas back to one's own self can improve memory recall. Results from study 2 similarly supported the existence of the self-referencing effect, but failed to provide support for the primacy effect. Recall of words and confidence in recall did not significantly differ whether positive or negative words were listed first. This could be explained by the recency effect. The study conducted by Demaree et al. (2004) found that participants remembered more words from the beginning of a list, but they also remembered more words from the end. They concluded that both the primacy effect and recency effect were demonstrated, which indicates that the validity of the primacy effect over other effects still remains to be determined.
There are a few limitations in both study 1 and 2 that could have affected the results. One limitation is that the sample of participants may not be representative of the larger population.
The sample sizes of both studies were relatively small as study 1 had 218 participants and study 2 had 216 participants. The small sample size in both studies may limit the generalizability of the findings to larger populations. Also, the participants were predominantly Latino/a. This limits the applicability of this study because it is not proportional to the demographic makeup of the general population. The overrepresentation of one group may also limit the extent to which the study can be applied to populations with different racial/ethnic backgrounds. The ages of the participants are skewed in favor of younger participants, since the mean age of both studies was around 24 years old. This also limits the applicability of these studies because these findings may not generalize to older populations.
Another limitation is that English was not the first language for several participants. Participants who are not fluent in English may have difficulty understanding the instructions or the tasks, leading to differences in performance that are not related to the variable of interest. This could impact the validity of the results, especially because it involves reading and recollection of English words. Moreover, they may have had difficulty understanding the instructions or questions, which could lead to inaccurate responses.
The studies did not control for participants’ emotional states or motivations, which could have confounded the results. The recall of words and their confidence in recall could have been affected by the emotional state of participants at the time of the study or their motivation to perform well. For example, individuals who are in a negative emotional state may have impaired memory retrieval. This can make it difficult to determine whether performance was due to their emotional state or the impact of the self-referencing or primacy effect. Motivation can also influence performance with high levels of motivation leading to better performance. Similarly, this can make it difficult to distinguish what really accounts for a participant’s ability to recall words and/or their confidence in their recall.
For future studies, controlling for the limitation of English as a first language would improve the reliability of these results. Limiting the study to only include participants with English as their first language would reduce the potential confounding effect of misunderstanding the task instructions. Additionally, efforts could be made to recruit a more diverse sample in terms of race/ethnicity and age. This will help improve the generalizability of the findings so that it could be applied to the whole population.
In conclusion, the two studies provide evidence for the existence of the self-referencing effect in memory recall and confidence levels. The first study showed that relating information back to oneself leads to better memory recall and higher confidence in recollection. The second study further supported these findings. However, it failed to provide evidence for the primacy effect in terms of valence of words and its impact on memory recall and confidence levels. Overall, the studies contribute to the understanding of how the self-referencing effect influences memory and provide insights into potential factors that may impact memory recall and confidence levels. Further research is needed to confirm and expand on these findings, including studies with larger and more diverse samples.
References
Demaree, H. A., Shenal, B. V., Everhart, D. E., & Robinson, J. L. Primacy and recency effects found using affective word lists. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 17(2), 102-108. (2004).
Feng, Ma, W., Liu, R., Zhang, M., Zheng, Z., Qing, T., Xi, J., Lai, X., & Qian, C. How preferred brands relate to the self: The effect of brand preference, product involvement, and information valence on brand-related memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 783–783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00783. (2019).
Glisky, & Marquine, M. J. Semantic and self-referential processing of positive and negative trait adjectives in older adults. Memory (Hove), 17(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802077405 (2009).
Leshikar, E. D., Dulas, M. R., & Duarte, A. Self-referencing enhances recollection in both young and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(4), 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2014.957150. (2014).
Li, C. (2010). Primacy effect or recency effect? A long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.291
Serbun, S. J., Shih, J. Y., & Gutchess, A. H. (2011). Memory for details with self-referencing.
Memory, 19(8), 1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.626429
Sweatman, H., Lawrence, R., & Chai, X. J. (2022). Development of self-referential effect on memory recollection. Child Development, 93(6), 1848–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13826
Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 46(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033716
Toglia, & Kimble, G. A. (1976). Recall and use of serial position information. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Human Learning and Memory, 2(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.4.431
Zhang, Hung, I.-T., Jackson, J. D., Tai, T.-L., Goh, J. O. S., & Gutchess, A. (2020). Influence of culture and age on the self-reference effect. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition,
27(3), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1620913