Given that the worse destination memory when participants transmitted personal facts was always compared with the transmission of interesting facts, in Experiment 1, we wanted to observe if the same pattern of results was obtained when using familiar proverbs – a type of stimulus widely used in the destination memory research. No studies have investigated the impact of the transmission of personal facts compared with another set of facts.
We replicated the study of Gopie and MacLeod (2009), where the authors compared the transmission of personal facts with the transmission of interesting facts in a between-participants design. The only difference in this experiment was the material utilized in the control condition (i.e., instead of using interesting facts, familiar proverbs were used). The option to choose familiar proverbs instead of another type of facts, like general knowledge information, was made based on the assumption that when information is more familiar, participants can allocate more cognitive resources to memorize the association between fact-face (El Haj et al., 2015). In this way, we were able to contrast the comparative conditions, where on the condition of personal facts, we are decreasing available attentional resources (since higher internal attentional focus results in less attentional recourses), and on the condition of familiar proverbs, we intend to increase available attentional resources. Also, choosing familiar proverbs allowed us to present knowledgeable information in both conditions. Despite personal facts being familiar information for the participants, this type of fact directs the attentional focus on self (i.e., a higher internal attentional focus).
We thus expect to replicate the previously observed results (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009; Johnson & Jefferson, 2018) - worse destination memory in the personal facts transmission. With this experiment, we may conclude that a worse destination memory when participants transmitted personal facts is observed even when presented with another type of information in the control condition, namely, familiar proverbs.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 41 undergraduate students (37 females) aged between 18 and 26 years (Mage = 20, SD = 1.30). The sample size was calculated a priori through G*Power (Faul et al., 2007), targeting an independent samples t-test and using an alpha (α) of .05, a large effect size (Cohen's d = .80), and a statistical power of .80. The effect size was chosen considering the literature on destination memory, more specifically in Gopie and MacLeod’s Experiment 2, where the authors compared the transmission of personal facts with the transmission of interesting facts (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009). Participants were native Portuguese speakers and had a normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Written consent was obtained from all participants, who received course credits for their participation. The local Ethics Committee approved this experiment.
Materials
Facts
Familiar Proverbs. Sixty Portuguese proverbs with 4 to 10 words (e.g., "A pressa é inimiga da perfeição"[1]) were selected from a previous study (Barros et al., 2021). Proverbs were selected to have an average familiarity above 4 in a 5-point Likert scale (M = 4.65, SD = 0.27) that varied between 1 to 5 (1 = very unfamiliar proverb; 2 = unfamiliar proverb; 3 = neutral proverb; 4 = familiar proverb; 5 = very familiar proverb). Additionally, to ensure that proverbs’ emotionality did not influence the results, we selected proverbs with neutral emotional valence (M = 3.12, SD = 0.44), with values between 2.75 and 3.80 on a Likert scale that ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = very negative proverb; 2 = negative proverb; 3 = neutral proverb; 4 = positive proverb; 5 = very positive proverb). The proverbs were presented in 14-point lowercase white font against a black background.
Personal Facts. Sixty personal facts with 4 to 12 words (e.g., "A minha cor favorita é…"[2]) were translated and adapted to European Portuguese from the study of Gopie & MacLeod (2009), each with a blank at the end for participants to complete with their answer. The personal facts were presented in 14-point lowercase white font against a black background.
Faces
Sixty celebrity pictures (e.g., Barack Obama) were selected from a celebrity database validated for the Portuguese population using the same age group – young adults (Lima et al., 2021). All the 60 celebrity pictures selected had over an 80% recognition (M = 97.17; SD = 3.61) and 75% naming accuracy (M = 91.69; SD = 5.34). The images selected were also controlled regarding background (i.e., 30 Portuguese and 30 international) and gender (i.e., 30 male and 30 female), with all these variables being presented proportionally. All images were presented in color against a black background and had a dimension of 9 × 9 cm.
Design
The independent variables manipulated were the Type of Facts (personal facts vs familiar proverbs) and the Type of Stimuli (facts vs faces). Like Gopie and Macleod (2009), the first variable was manipulated through a between-participants design. Half of the participants transmitted personal facts, and the other half transmitted familiar proverbs to celebrity faces. The Type of Stimuli was manipulated through a within-participants design. To measure our dependent variable, the memory recognition, the sensitivity (d') score [z(P(hits)) – z(P(false alarms))] and the response bias (B’D) score [- (z (Hits) + z (False Alarms))/2] were calculated for both memory tests (item memory and destination memory). Hits refer to “yes” responses to the face-fact pairs, facts, and faces that were presented in the study phase (correct “yes” answer). False alarms refer to “yes” responses to face-fact pairs, facts, and faces that were not presented in the study phase (incorrect “yes” answers).
Procedure
All the three experiments in this article were conducted online, through a video call, using the software Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc, 2020), and stimuli presentation and response recording were controlled with the software E-Prime 3.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Inc, 2016).
First, informed consent was obtained from participants, and a sociodemographic questionnaire was completed. The main procedure included two phases: the study and the test phases. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: transmission of personal facts or transmission of familiar proverbs. In the condition of familiar proverbs, participants told 50 proverbs to 50 celebrity faces - the 50 proverbs were randomly paired with the 50 faces. They were not told that their memory would be tested later. Each study trial started with a white fixation cross on a black background for 1000 ms, and then a proverb was presented. After reading silently and memorizing the proverb, participants were instructed to press the keyboard spacebar, which resulted in a blank screen presented for 250 ms, followed by a color picture of a celebrity face. Here, participants had to say aloud to the face the proverb they had just read and then press the spacebar again, resulting in another blank screen for 250 ms. This procedure was repeated until the participant had told all the 50 proverbs to the 50 faces (see Figure 1).
Considering the transmission of personal facts, the procedure was the same. Still, instead of transmitting familiar proverbs, the participants told 50 personal facts to 50 celebrity faces - the 50 personal facts were randomly paired with the 50 faces. Each study trial started with a white fixation cross on a black background for 1000 ms, and then a personal fact was presented. After reading silently, completing and memorizing the personal fact, participants were instructed to press the keyboard spacebar, which resulted in a blank screen presented for 250 ms, followed by a color picture of a celebrity face. Here, participants had to say aloud to the face the complete personal fact and then press the spacebar again, resulting in another blank screen for 250 ms. This procedure was repeated until the participant had told all the 50 personal facts to the 50 faces.
After the study phase, all participants completed two recognition memory tests presented in a counterbalanced order: the item and the associative memory tests. These two tests used entirely nonoverlapping sets of stimuli to prevent cross-test contamination. The item memory test randomly presented 20 faces and 20 facts (20 familiar proverbs or 20 personal facts, depending on the participant's condition). Half of the items were stimuli previously presented in the study phase, and the other half were not. The participant had to indicate whether that item had appeared during the study phase. The participant responded ‘‘yes’’ by pressing the ‘‘c’’ key on the computer keyboard and ‘‘no’’ by pressing the ‘‘m’’ key. Once a response was made, a blank screen was displayed for 250 ms, and the subsequent test trial followed.
On the associative memory test, 40 face-familiar proverb pairs or 40 face-personal fact pairs, depending on the participant's condition, were shown in random order: Twenty pairs were presented during the study phase, and the other 20 were presented with random re-pairings of previously studied facts and faces. Participants reported whether they had once told that fact to that face. “Yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ responses were made by pressing the same keys as in the item memory test. Each pair remained visible until the participant responded. After each response, a blank screen was displayed for 250 ms, and then the subsequent test trial was presented. The entire procedure took approximately 20-30 minutes.
Results
The mean proportions of hits, false alarms, d' and B’D values are shown in Table 1. The software used for the data analysis was JASP 0.11.1 (JASP Team, 2021).
Table 1 Mean proportion of hits, false alarms, d´ and B´D to item memory and destination memory in Experiment 1 as a function of condition.
|
Hits
|
False Alarms
|
d'
|
B’D
|
Personal Facts
|
|
|
|
|
Item Memory: Facts
|
.97 (.07)
|
.04 (.07)
|
3.09 (.43)
|
0.00 (.31)
|
Item Memory: Faces
|
.80 (.21)
|
.11 (.10)
|
2.18 (.77)
|
0.13 (.56)
|
Destination Memory
|
.64 (.15)
|
.44 (.20)
|
0.57 (.73)
|
-0.14 (.44)
|
Familiar Proverbs
|
|
|
|
|
Item Memory: Facts
|
.86 (.17)
|
.03 (.04)
|
2.73 (.56)
|
0.29 (.43)
|
Item Memory: Faces
|
.85 (.15)
|
.07 (.08)
|
2.49 (.56)
|
0.22 (.51)
|
Destination Memory
|
.69 (.12)
|
.32 (.15)
|
1.07 (.59)
|
-0.01 (.42)
|
Note: Standard deviation of the mean is reported in parenthesis.
To understand whether the Type of Fact and the Type of Stimuli influenced item memory, we used a 2 (Type of Fact: familiar proverbs vs personal facts) × 2 (Type of Stimuli: facts vs faces) mixed ANOVA, performed on the d' data, with the Type of Fact as the between-participants factor and Type of Stimuli as the within-participants factor. It was found a main effect of Type of Stimuli, F(1, 39) = 22.79, p < .001, ηp2 = .37, showing that item memory was higher for the facts (M = 2.91, SD = .50) than for faces (M = 2.33, SD = .67). Also, was observed an interaction between the Type of Fact and the Type of Stimuli, F(1, 39) = 7.63, p < .05, ηp2 = .16, indicating a better memory for the fact (M = 3.09, SD = .43) than the faces (M = 2.18, SD = .77), only when participants transmitted personal facts. Since there was no main effect of Type of Fact (personal facts vs familiar proverbs), we can conclude that the type of information transmitted to the celebrities did not influence the participants' item memory. Additionally, using B’D criteria, we ran a mixed 2×2 ANOVA considering the same variables and were not observed main effects or interactions (p > .05).
To understand if the Type of Fact could influence destination memory, an independent samples t-test was performed on d' data. We compared participants' performances when transmitting personal facts with participants that conveyed familiar proverbs. The analysis revealed that destination memory was worse when participants shared personal facts (M = 0.57, SD = .73) compared with the transmission of familiar proverbs (M = 1.07, SD = .59), t(39) = 2.40, p = .02, Cohen's d = .75, 95 % CI [0.11, 1.38], replicating the results previously found (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009; Johnson & Jefferson, 2018). Finally, the t-test applied to the response bias (B’D) showed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, t(39) = 0.93, p = .35, Cohen's d = .29, 95 % CI [-0.33, 0.91].
Discussion
In previous studies (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009; Johnson & Jefferson, 2018), when participants were asked to transmit personal facts (e.g., my favourite colour is…), a worse destination memory performance occurred compared to the condition where interesting facts were conveyed (e.g., a shrimp's heart is in its head). The authors explained that the transmission of personal facts increases participants´ self-focus. An internal attentional focus leaves fewer attentional resources to associate facts and faces, and consequently, destination memory decreases (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009).
However, it is essential to note that a worse destination memory was observed when the participants transmitted personal facts than when they were asked to share interesting facts. Therefore, the goal of Experiment 1 was to observe if a worse destination memory for personal facts is also observed when participants convey familiar proverbs in the control condition. The option to choose familiar proverbs was made based on the assumption that participants can allocate more cognitive resources to memorize the association between fact-face pairs when information is more familiar (El Haj et al., 2015). Also, choosing familiar proverbs allowed us to present knowledgeable information in both conditions.
The results support the hypothesis that when people’s self-focus was increased by telling personal facts to celebrity faces, their destination memory performance decreased regardless of whether the participants conveyed familiar proverbs or interesting facts in the control condition. This is an expected result (i.e., better destination memory for familiar proverbs than personal facts) since it was previously observed that transmitting familiar proverbs leaves more attentional resources to memorize the association between fact-face than transmitting unfamiliar proverbs (El Haj et al., 2015). On the other hand, transmitting personal facts result in less attentional resources (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009; Johnson & Jefferson, 2018). Despite personal facts being also familiar information for the participants, this type of fact drives the attention to the self (i.e., a higher internal attentional focus), which in turn results in less attentional recourses available to associate the information with the destination person.
Regarding item memory, better memory for the facts than the faces was observed in the personal facts condition. Despite being two different types of material (facts - verbal vs faces – visual) and comparisons between them should be made with caution, better memory for facts than faces when participants transmitted personal facts can support the idea that when participants convey personal information, the attentional focus is on the information. In the condition of familiar proverbs, were no observed differences between the memory for the facts and the faces.
[1] An approximate English translation of the Portuguese proverb is “Haste is the enemy of perfection”.
[2] An approximate English translation of the personal fact is “My favorite color is…”.