Abstract

Emotion plays important roles in learning, memory, and other cognitive processes; it does so not only in the form of macro-level emotion (e.g., salient affective states and self-reportable motivational currents) but also in the form of micro-level emotion (e.g., subtle feelings and linguistic attributes that are usually processed subconsciously without special attention). According to the Emotion-Involved Processing Hypothesis (EIPH), processing that draws attention to emotional aspects (EmInvProc+) is postulated as a deeper version of semantic processing which has cognitive advantage to facilitate linguistic processing and retention more than non-emotional semantic processing (EmInvProc−). This study empirically investigated whether the EIPH can be experimentally corroborated for learners of a distant foreign language (viz., Japanese learners of English). In the experiment, participants processed visually presented English words that were either positively or negatively valenced under different conditions, followed by the test session in which they engaged in memory tests. Two processing modes were compared (EmInvProc+ vs. EmInvProc−). The dependent variables were correct recall frequency, correct recognition frequency, and correct recognition reaction time. It was revealed that EmInvProc+ was more cognitively facilitatory in making stronger foreign language lexical memory traces than EmInvProc− for all the measures employed in the experiment, regarding both accuracy (correct response frequency) and fluency (correct response reaction time). Therefore, it is implied that EmInvProc+ can be regarded as a sui generis deeper level of processing that is qualitatively distinguishable from mere semantic processing, supporting the Emotion-Involved Processing Hypothesis.

Highlights

  • ObjectivesObjectives and HypothesesThe main purpose of the study was to investigate whether the deep/semantic processing which intrinsically induces dynamic micro-level emotional reference (i.e., EmotionInvolved Processing; EmInvProc+) had a cognitive benefit on incidental foreign language lexical memory compared with semantic processing devoid of emotion (EmInvProc−) for users of a distant foreign language under the laboratory setting

  • The inferential statistical analysis using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant main effect in processing mode, that there was a significant difference between EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, F (1, 35) = 15.16, p = .00, partial η2 =

  • For Hypothesis 1, it was revealed that EmInvProc+ was more cognitively facilitatory in making stronger foreign language lexical memory traces than nonemotional semantic processing (EmInvProc−) for all the measures employed in the experiment, regarding both accuracy and fluency

Read more

Summary

Objectives

Objectives and HypothesesThe main purpose of the study was to investigate whether the deep/semantic processing which intrinsically induces dynamic micro-level emotional reference (i.e., EmotionInvolved Processing; EmInvProc+) had a cognitive benefit on incidental foreign language lexical memory compared with semantic processing devoid of emotion (EmInvProc−) for users of a distant foreign language under the laboratory setting. The subsidiary purpose of the study was to confirm whether positive lexical valence (valence+) had a cognitive benefit on incidental foreign language lexical memory compared with negative lexical valence (valence−). Smaller in number compared with recall tests, recognition tests have been used in both first language and foreign language lexical memory studies (e.g., Ayçiçeği & Harris, 2004). The research questions were as follows: Research Question 1 (RQ1): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recognition frequency? Research Question 2 (RQ2): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recognition speed? Research Question 3 (RQ3): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recall frequency?6 The research questions were as follows: Research Question 1 (RQ1): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recognition frequency? Research Question 2 (RQ2): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recognition speed? Research Question 3 (RQ3): What differences are there between (a) EmInvProc+ and EmInvProc−, and (b) valence+ and valence− regarding incidental recall frequency?6

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call