正面和负面触觉对情绪刺激的元认知记忆判断有不同的调节作用

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY British journal of psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1111/bjop.12733
Gianmarco Convertino, Jessica Talbot, Mara Stockner, Daniele Gatti, Michela Marchetti, Danilo Mitaritonna, Giuliana Mazzoni
{"title":"正面和负面触觉对情绪刺激的元认知记忆判断有不同的调节作用","authors":"Gianmarco Convertino, Jessica Talbot, Mara Stockner, Daniele Gatti, Michela Marchetti, Danilo Mitaritonna, Giuliana Mazzoni","doi":"10.1111/bjop.12733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Touch plays a crucial role in providing humans with information from the external environment and can be perceived by humans as positively or negatively valenced. It is well documented that touch can differentially influence social functions, but very little is known about how touch can modulate (meta)cognition. Utilizing a within‐subject design, participants were exposed to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) no touch, alongside encoding of emotionally valenced (positive and negative) images. After a 20‐minute delay, participants completed a Yes/No recognition task to investigate how touch influenced memory‐related decision components (e.g. criterion, confidence). Results showed that, compared to the control condition, both positive and negative touch were associated with overall lower confidence ratings, a less liberal response bias and slower response times. Interestingly, for correct recognitions, only negative touch (vs. no touch) led to inappropriately lower confidence and slower response times while both confidence and response time remained unaltered in positive touch. Our findings provide the first evidence that positive and negative touch differentially interact with metacognitive memory‐related decisions. Altered metacognitive judgements after being touched could have significant consequences in applied settings, such as situations of eyewitness testimony.","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Positive and negative touch differentially modulate metacognitive memory judgements for emotional stimuli\",\"authors\":\"Gianmarco Convertino, Jessica Talbot, Mara Stockner, Daniele Gatti, Michela Marchetti, Danilo Mitaritonna, Giuliana Mazzoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjop.12733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Touch plays a crucial role in providing humans with information from the external environment and can be perceived by humans as positively or negatively valenced. It is well documented that touch can differentially influence social functions, but very little is known about how touch can modulate (meta)cognition. Utilizing a within‐subject design, participants were exposed to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) no touch, alongside encoding of emotionally valenced (positive and negative) images. After a 20‐minute delay, participants completed a Yes/No recognition task to investigate how touch influenced memory‐related decision components (e.g. criterion, confidence). Results showed that, compared to the control condition, both positive and negative touch were associated with overall lower confidence ratings, a less liberal response bias and slower response times. Interestingly, for correct recognitions, only negative touch (vs. no touch) led to inappropriately lower confidence and slower response times while both confidence and response time remained unaltered in positive touch. Our findings provide the first evidence that positive and negative touch differentially interact with metacognitive memory‐related decisions. Altered metacognitive judgements after being touched could have significant consequences in applied settings, such as situations of eyewitness testimony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12733\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12733","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

触觉在为人类提供来自外部环境的信息方面起着至关重要的作用,人类可以将触觉感知为积极或消极的情绪。触觉可以对社会功能产生不同的影响,这一点已经有很多文献记载,但人们对触觉如何调节(元)认知却知之甚少。采用受试者内设计,让受试者接触(a)积极、(b)消极和(c)无触摸,同时对有情绪价值(积极和消极)的图像进行编码。延迟20分钟后,参与者完成 "是/否 "识别任务,以研究触摸如何影响与记忆相关的决策成分(如标准、信心)。结果表明,与对照组相比,正面和负面触觉都与总体较低的信心评级、较宽松的反应偏差和较慢的反应时间有关。有趣的是,在正确识别方面,只有负面触摸(与无触摸相比)会导致不适当的信心降低和反应时间变慢,而在正面触摸中,信心和反应时间都保持不变。我们的研究结果首次证明了正性触摸和负性触摸会对元认知记忆相关决策产生不同程度的影响。被触摸后元认知判断的改变可能会在应用环境中产生重大影响,例如在目击证人作证的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Positive and negative touch differentially modulate metacognitive memory judgements for emotional stimuli
Touch plays a crucial role in providing humans with information from the external environment and can be perceived by humans as positively or negatively valenced. It is well documented that touch can differentially influence social functions, but very little is known about how touch can modulate (meta)cognition. Utilizing a within‐subject design, participants were exposed to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) no touch, alongside encoding of emotionally valenced (positive and negative) images. After a 20‐minute delay, participants completed a Yes/No recognition task to investigate how touch influenced memory‐related decision components (e.g. criterion, confidence). Results showed that, compared to the control condition, both positive and negative touch were associated with overall lower confidence ratings, a less liberal response bias and slower response times. Interestingly, for correct recognitions, only negative touch (vs. no touch) led to inappropriately lower confidence and slower response times while both confidence and response time remained unaltered in positive touch. Our findings provide the first evidence that positive and negative touch differentially interact with metacognitive memory‐related decisions. Altered metacognitive judgements after being touched could have significant consequences in applied settings, such as situations of eyewitness testimony.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
期刊最新文献
Daily effects of a brief compassion-focused intervention for self-compassion. Inter-brain synchrony is associated with greater shared identity within naturalistic conversational pairs. The differences in essential facial areas for impressions between humans and deep learning models: An eye-tracking and explainable AI approach. Explainability increases trust resilience in intelligent agents. A new way to conceptualize intolerance of uncertainty among adolescents: Embracing the network perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1