编码和检索阶段的异质情境流畅性对再认的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2019.02.02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究采用经典的R/K范式，通过两个实验分别探讨编码阶段和检索阶段的异质情境流畅性对再认的影响。实验1为2（异质情境：高流畅性预期情境和低流畅性预期情境）×2（测试词类型：目标词和分心词）的混合实验设计，异质情境发生在编码阶段；实验2与实验1设计相同，不同之处在于异质情境发生在检索阶段。结果发现：异质情境发生在检索阶段时只对K反应产生影响，目标词在高流畅性情境中比低流畅性情境中的K反应率更高，而分心词在低流畅性情境中比高流畅性情境中的K反应率更高。研究表明，检索阶段的异质情境流畅性只影响熟悉性再认，支持双系统加工理论。

关键词: 熟悉性再认, 回想再认, 异质情境流畅性, 清晰度, 检索阶段

Abstract: The present study adopted the classical R/K paradigm to explore the impact of fluency of heterogeneity context in the coding phase and the retrieval phase on recognition via two experiments. Experiment 1 was 2 (fluency of heterogeneous context:high fluency context and low fluency context)×2 (test word type:target word and distraction word) mixed factorial design to explore how fluency of different heterogeneous contexts affect recognition in the coding phase, while in Experiment 2, the heterogeneous context occurred in the retrieval phase. The results showed that the fluency of heterogeneous context affected the K response only in the retrieval phase. Meanwhile, the K response rate of the target words was higher in the high fluency context than that in the low fluency context, while the K response rate of the distractor words was higher than that in the low fluency context. Therefore, these results suggested that the fluency of heterogeneous context in retrieval phase only affects familiarity recognition, which supports the dual-process theories.

Key words: familiarity recognition, recollection recognition, fluency of heterogeneous context, clarity, retrieval phase

余玉荣, 张婉璐, 邢强. 编码和检索阶段的异质情境流畅性对再认的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(2): 138-145.

YU Yurong, ZHANG Wanlu, XING Qiang. The Influence of the Fluency of Heterogeneous Context on Recognition in the Phase of Coding and Retrieval[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(2): 138-145.

参考文献

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality & Social Psychology Review An Official Journal of the Society for Personality & Social Psychology Inc, 13(3), 219-235.
Brown, M. W., & Aggleton, J. P. (2001). Recognition memory:what are the roles of the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(1), 51-61.
Brown, A. A., & Bodner, G. E. (2011). Re-examining dissociations between remembering and knowing:binary judgments vs. independent ratings. Journal of Memory & Language, 65(2), 98-108.
Cleary, A. M. (2004). Orthography, phonology, and meaning:Word features that give rise to feelings of familiarity in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 446-451.
Cleary, A. M. (2006). Relating familiarity-based recognition and the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon:Detecting a word's recency in the absence of access to the word. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 804-816.
Cleary, A. M. (2010). Recognition memory, familiarity, and déjà vu experiences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 353-357.
Cleary, A. M., & Specker, L. E. (2007). Recognition without face identification. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1610-1619.
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2009). Mix me a list:Context moderates the truth effect and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1117-1122.
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth:A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238-257.
Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It Felt Fluent, and I Liked It:Subjective Feeling of Fluency Rather Than Objective Fluency Determines Liking. Emotion, 13(2), 280-289.
Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H.(2015). Everything's Relative? Relative Differences in Processing Fluency and the Effects on Liking. Plos One, 10(8), e0135944.
Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2013). Fluency in context:discrepancy makes processing experiences informative. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking:How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behavior (pp. 70-84). New York, NY:Psychology Press.
Higham, P. A., & Vokey, J. R. (2004). Illusory recollection and dual-process models of recognition memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A Human Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 714-744.
Huber,D.E.,Clark,T.F.,Curran,T.,& Winkielman,P. (2008). Effects of repetition priming on recognition memory:testing a perceptual fluency-disfluency model. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1305-1324.
Ingram, K. M., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Recollection can be weak and familiarity can be strong. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 38(2), 325-339.
Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory:false recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 118(2), 126-135.
Lanska, M., Olds, J. M., & Westerman, D. L. (2014). Fluency effects in recognition memory:are perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency interchangeable?. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 40(1), 1-11.
Leynes, P.A., & Zish, K.(2012). Event-related potential(ERP) evidence for fluency-based recognition memory. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3240-3249.
McCabe, D.P., & Balota, D.A. (2007). Context Effects on Remembering and Knowing:The Expectancy Heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 536-549.
Miller, J. K., Lloyd, M. E., & Westerman, D. L. (2008). When does modality matter? perceptual versus conceptual fluency-based illusions in recognition memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 58(4), 1080-1094.
Rajaram, S., & Geraci, L. (2000). Conceptual fluency selectively influences knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(4), 1070-1074.
Ryals, A. J., & Cleary, A. M. (2012). The recognition without cued recall phenomenon:support for a feature-matching theory over a partial recollection account. Journal of Memory & Language, 66(4), 747-762.
Taylor, J. R., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Could masked conceptual primes increase recollection? the subtleties of measuring recollection and familiarity in recognition memory. Neuropsychologia, 50(13), 3027-3040.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory:evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory & Language, 29(6), 716-732.
Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Williams, L.D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98(2-3), 141-165.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity:a review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory & Language, 46(3), 441-517.
Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is-and is not-a desirable difficulty:the influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 229-241.
郭秀艳. (2002). 再认中意识和无意识的贡献大小——兼论内隐记忆的抗老化现象.心理科学, 25(5), 535-537.
李兵兵, 郭春彦. (2015). 流畅性对再认的影响:实验证据及理论解释. 心理科学(1), 68-74.
赵广平, 郭秀艳. (2014). 熟悉性与回想分离的新证据. 心理科学进展, 22(7), 1122-1128.
赵广平, 周楚, 郭秀艳. (2015). 基于熟悉性的项目间语义关系再认. 心理发展与教育, 31(4), 385-392.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	徐嘉, 谢宝国. 大学生的职业自我概念清晰度与抑郁的关系:性别与性别平等观的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 584-591.
[2]	叶宝娟, 郑清, 董圣鸿, 方小婷, 刘林林. 职业使命感对大学生可就业能力的影响:求职清晰度与求职效能感的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(1): 37-44.
[3]	谭华玉, 刘鸣. 表象对初中一年级学生成语理解影响的实验研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2008, 24(4): 45-49.