Lily Lin
Research Mentor: Robin Edelstein
Mentor Department: Psychology, LSA
Author(s): Lily Lin, Robin Edelstein
Session: Session 4 (1:00 PM – 1:50 PM)
Presentation Type: Poster 38
Abstract
A growing body of literature provides robust behavioural evidence that the recall of information is moderated by emotion. Yet, extant research has yielded diverse findings regarding whether the emotional valence of information differentially impacts the accuracy of human memory, specifically with respect to whether emotional bias can be observed symmetrically in the recall of both positive and negative stimuli. The effort to answer such questions is complicated further by disparate methodologies employed in emotional memory research. In this study, we seek to address these gaps by conducting a meta-analysis of empirical studies that assess memory of both positive and negative emotional stimuli in non-clinical samples. Specifically, our analysis is interested in identifying potential moderators of emotional memory effects, including participant attributes, stimulus characteristics, and information processing strategies. Through an extensive literature search, we compiled a collection of relevant empirical studies, which were then coded by a team of trained judges for participant, stimulus, and methodological characteristics. Among these were the age and sex of participants, the matching of stimuli on emotional intensity, the inclusion of self-relevant information, and the types of encoding and retrieval processes evoked. We anticipate that quantitative analysis will demonstrate that the positivity bias of emotional memory is more pronounced for self-relevant material and among older adults, and that reports of sex differences in emotional memory will not be supported by empirical data. Overall, it is predicted that because positivity and negativity effects are highly contingent on moderators, discrepancies between the strength of emotional biases will be constrained by controlling for these variables. The present meta-analysis constitutes a systematic attempt to integrate a pool of rich yet heterogeneous research, allowing trends and moderator effects to be distinguished from the ambiguity between individual studies. By testing predictions from competing theoretical frameworks against cumulative findings from a large dataset, it provides valuable insight to support future endeavours in emotion and cognition research.
