加工焦点性和任务负荷对不同认知方式大学生前瞻记忆的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.02.03

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用双任务范式,探讨了加工焦点性和进行中任务负荷对不同认知方式大学生前瞻记忆的影响。包括两个实验:实验一探讨进行中任务与前瞻记忆任务加工的焦点性和加工类型的一致性对不同认知方式大学生前瞻记忆的影响;实验二探讨进行中任务负荷对不同认知方式大学生在在焦点加工和非焦点加工条件下前瞻记忆的影响。结果显示:焦点加工条件下的前瞻记忆成绩高于非焦点加工,且不受进行中任务负荷的影响;不管进行中任务与前瞻记忆任务的加工类型是否一致,在进行中任务负荷较高且非焦点加工条件下,场独立大学生的前瞻记忆成绩高于场依存大学生。本研究结果支持多重加工理论。

关键词: 认知方式, 焦点加工, 进行中任务负荷, 基于事件前瞻记忆, TAP效应

Abstract: The present study aimed to investigate how the focality of processing and ongoing task load affect the event-based prospective memory (EBPM) for undergraduates with different cognitive styles. This study contained two experiments. Experiment 1 examined the effect of the focality of processing and the matching in the types of processing between the prospective memory task and ongoing task on EBPM for field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) undergraduates. Experiment 2 investigated how ongoing task load and the focality of processing affected the EBPM for FI and FD undergraduates. The results showed that, (1) the performance in focal processing condition was better than that in nonfocal processing condition, which was not affected by the change of the ongoing task load; (2) under conditions of high ongoing task load and nonfocal processing, the performance for FI undergraduates was significantly better than that for FD ones, which was not affected by the matching in the types of processing between the prospective memory task and ongoing task. The present study supports the multiprocess theory.

Key words: cognitive style, focal processing, ongoing task load, event-based prospective memory, TAP effect

中图分类号:

B844

王丽, 李寿欣, 张倩. 加工焦点性和任务负荷对不同认知方式大学生前瞻记忆的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(2): 149-157.

WANG Li, LI Shouxin, ZHANG Qian. The Effect of the Focality of Processing and Ongoing Task Load on Prospective Memory for Undergraduates with Different Cognitive Styles[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(2): 149-157.

参考文献

Abney, D. H., McBride, D. M., & Petrella, S. N. (2013). Interactive effects in transfer-appropriate processing for evented-based prospective memory:The roles of efforts, ongoing task, and PM cue properties. Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 1032-1045.
Blowers, G. H., & O'CONNOR, K. (1978). Relation of eye movements to errors on the rod-and-frame test. Perceptual and motor skills, 46(3), 719-725.
Brewer, G. A., Knight, J. B., Marsh, R. L., & Unsworth, N. (2010). Individual differences in event-based prospective memory:Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 304-311.
Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & cognition, 36(1), 149-156.
Cona, G., Bisiacchi, P. S., & Moscovitch, M. (2013). The effects of focal and nonfocal cues on the neural correlates of prospective memory:insights from ERPs. Cerebral Cortex, 24(10), 2630-2646.
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. 5th ed. New York:happer and Row publishers, 206-218.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory:multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286-290.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., & Breneiser, J. (2005). Mulitiple processes in prospective memory retrieval:Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 134(3), 327-342.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Williford, C. L., Pagan, J. L., & Dismukes, R. (2003). Forgetting of intentions in demanding situations is rapid. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 9(3), 147-162.
Goode, P. E., Goddard, P. H., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2002). Event-related potentials index cognitive style differences during a serial order recall task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 43(2), 123-140.
Jia, S., Zhang, Q., & Li, S. (2014). Field dependence-independence modulates the efficiency of filtering out irrelevant information in a visual working memory task. Neuroscience, 278, 136-143.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2004). Importance effects on performance in event-based prospective memory tasks. Memory, 12(5), 553-561.
Kliegel, M., & Jäger, T. (2006). The influence of negative emotions on prospective memory:A review and new data. International Journal of Computational Cognition, 4(1), 1-17.
Loft, S., & Yeo, G. (2007). An investigation into the resource requirements of event-based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 263-264.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Hancock, T. W. (2000). On the interaction of ongoing cognitive activity and the nature of an event-based intention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S29-S41.
Maylor, E. A. (1996). Age-related impairment in an event-based prospective-memory task. Psychology and Aging, 11(1), 74-78.
McBride, D. M., & Abney, D. H. (2012). A comparison of transferappropriate processing and multiprocess frameworks for prospective memory performance. Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 190-198.
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval:A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), 127-144.
McGann, D., Ellis, J., & Milne, A. (2003). Conceptual and perceptual processing in prospective remembering. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,15(1), 19-42.
McNerney, M. W., & West, R. (2007). An imperfect relationship between prospective memory and the prospective interference effect. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 275-282.
Meier, B., & Graf, P. (2000). Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), 11-27.
Meier, B., Zimmermann, T. D., & Perrig, W. J. (2006). Retrieval experience in prospective memory:Strategic monitoring and spontaneous retrieval. Memory, 14(7), 872-889.
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive psychology, 7(1), 44-64.
Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Control of cost in prospective memory:Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition,36(1), 190-203.
Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory:Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 736-749.
West, R., & Craik, F. I. M. (2001). Influences on the efficiency of prospective memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 682-696.
Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. Multiple-task performance, 3-34.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles, essence and origins:Field dependence and field independence. New York:International Universities Press.
贾文华. (2009). 问题解决模式与场依存性认知方式的相关研究. 宁波大学学报, 31(4), 60-64.
李寿欣, 丁兆叶, 张利增. (2005). 认知方式与线索特征对前瞻记忆的影响. 心理学报,37(3), 320-327.
李寿欣, 董立达, 宫大志. (2008). 注意状态, 认知方式与前瞻记忆的 TAP 效应. 心理学报, 40(11), 1149-1157.
李寿欣, 宋艳春. (2006). 不同认知方式中小学生的前瞻记忆的研究. 心理发展与教育, 2, 18-22.
李寿欣, 周颖萍. (2006). 个体认知方式与材料复杂性对视空间工作记忆的影响. 心理学报, 38(4), 523-531.
孟庆茂, 常建华. (1988). 关于《镶嵌图形测验》评分方法及部分常模的修订. 见:谢斯骏, 张厚粲, 认知方式——一个人格维度的实验研究. 北京:北京师范大学出版社, 278-280.
王丽娟, 吴韬, 邱文威, 叶媛, 马薇薇, 李霓. (2010). 青少年基于事件的前瞻记忆:认知方式和情绪. 心理科学, 33(5), 1244-1247.
王永跃, 葛列众, 王健. (2010). 不同难度背景条件下前瞻记忆任务的实验研究. 心理科学, 33(3), 612-615.
闫春平, 孙丽君, 杨世昌, 杜卫, 周丹丹. (2013). 认知闭合需要对个体前瞻记忆的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 21(3), 360-362.
张斌. (2013). 不同工作记忆负荷对形状干扰子注意捕获的影响. 山东师范大学学报, 58(4), 120-124.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	李寿欣, 宋艳春. 不同认知方式中小学生的前瞻记忆的研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2006, 22(2): 18-22.
[2]	李寿欣, 陈红敏. 高一学生认知方式与学科内容对文章阅读迁移的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2002, 18(4): 52-55.
[3]	宋广文, 李寿欣, 王新波. 学生认知方式影响文章阅读理解的实验研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2001, 17(2): 31-35.
[4]	李明振. 认知方式及其与学生数学思维灵活性的关系研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 1994, 10(3): 16-20.