UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The eye of the beholder : discrepancy reactions and prospective memory retrieval Pestonji, Natasha 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_pestonji_natasha.pdf [ 866.78kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074152.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074152-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074152-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074152-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074152-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074152-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074152-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074152-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074152.ris

Full Text

     THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: DISCREPANCY REACTIONS AND PROSPECTIVE MEMORY RETRIEVAL  by  NATASHA PESTONJI  B.A., McGill University, 2011    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Psychology)              THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   August 2013  ? Natasha Pestonji, 2013 	 ? ii	 ?Abstract How do we react to cues that we process differently than expected? Discrepancy-attribution theory posits that cognitively processing targets with differing quality generates a discrepancy response that influences cognitive decisions. To test this assertion, I conducted a series of four experiments designed to investigate the role of a discrepancy-attribution mechanism in making rating judgments on abstract stimuli that differed in colour saturation.  Studies I and II required students to discriminate between pairs of virtual grid patterns displayed in red, blue and green. Results on a same-different judgment task revealed very similar patterns of speed and task accuracy across colours, with poor performance on paired displays with only a small saturation difference but excellent performance when paired displays differed by larger increments of saturation scale points. These two studies provided a saturation discrimination curve, which could be used to find appropriate standard and discrepant stimuli for future work.  In Experiments III and IV, I used this pilot data to then induce discrepancy reactions by first creating and then violating either strong or weak cognitive expectancies of the perceptual processing of grid patterns. Students were then required to make beauty judgments of these patterns.  Results of Experiment III and IV revealed that discrepancy reactions caused faster response times when discrepant stimuli differed in a positive direction. Taken together, these findings can shed new light on the role of discrepancy reactions in cognitive judgments, and prospective memory.  	 ? iii	 ?Discrepancy Attribution Theory has been proposed as the primary mechanism underlying prospective memory (ProM) retrieval, and these new results have implications for ProM cue retrieval as well as far-reaching applications for decision-making, advertising, and consumer behaviour.                                     	 ? iv	 ?Preface  This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Natasha Pestonji. These studies were approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board.  Project Title: ?Individual Differences in Memory? Certificate number: H03-80566                                    	 ? v	 ?Table of Contents  Abstract	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?ii	 ?Preface	 ?........................................................................................................................................	 ?iv	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?v	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Tables	 ?..........................................................................................................................	 ?vii	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Figures	 ?........................................................................................................................	 ?viii	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?................................................................................................................	 ?ix	 ?CHAPTER	 ?1	 ?-??	 ?DISCREPANCY	 ?REACTIONS	 ?AND	 ?PROSPECTIVE	 ?MEMORY	 ?RETRIEVAL	 ?.................................................................................................................................	 ?1	 ?1.1	 ??	 ?Overview	 ?of	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Attribution	 ?Theory	 ?and	 ?Prospective	 ?Memory	 ?............	 ?1	 ?1.2	 ?-??	 ?Processing	 ?Fluency	 ?and	 ?Preference	 ?Judgments	 ?............................................................	 ?1	 ?The	 ?Mere	 ?Exposure	 ?Effect	 ?...........................................................................................................................	 ?1	 ?The	 ?Mere	 ?Exposure	 ?Effect	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Role	 ?of	 ?Fluency	 ?..........................................................................	 ?2	 ?1.3	 ??	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Attribution	 ?Theory	 ?(DAT)	 ?..........................................................................	 ?3	 ?1.4	 ??	 ?Interpretations	 ?of	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Reactions	 ?.....................................................................	 ?5	 ?1.5?	 ?Prospective	 ?Memory	 ?..............................................................................................................	 ?6	 ?1.6	 ??	 ?Underlying	 ?Mechanisms	 ?of	 ?ProM	 ?Retrieval	 ?...................................................................	 ?7	 ?1.7	 ??	 ?Discrepancy-??Attribution	 ?Theory	 ?and	 ?Prospective	 ?Memory	 ?Retrieval	 ?.................	 ?8	 ?1.8	 ??	 ?The	 ?matter	 ?of	 ?consciousness	 ?..............................................................................................	 ?9	 ?1.9	 ?-??	 ?Purpose	 ?of	 ?Current	 ?Work	 ?...................................................................................................	 ?10	 ?1.10	 ?-??	 ?Study	 ?Outline	 ?........................................................................................................................	 ?10	 ?CHAPTER	 ?2	 ??	 ?EXPERIMENT	 ?I	 ?.............................................................................................	 ?12	 ?2.1	 ??	 ?Methods	 ?...................................................................................................................................	 ?13	 ?Participants	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?13	 ?Apparatus	 ?and	 ?Stimuli	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?13	 ?Procedure	 ?........................................................................................................................................................	 ?15	 ?2.2	 ??	 ?Results	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?18	 ?Data	 ?Preparation	 ?..........................................................................................................................................	 ?18	 ?Analyses	 ?...........................................................................................................................................................	 ?18	 ?2.3	 ??	 ?Discussion	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?20	 ?CHAPTER	 ?3	 ??	 ?EXPERIMENT	 ?II	 ?...........................................................................................	 ?21	 ?3.1	 ?-??	 ?Methods	 ?....................................................................................................................................	 ?21	 ?Participants	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?21	 ?Apparatus,	 ?Stimuli	 ?and	 ?Procedure	 ?........................................................................................................	 ?21	 ?3.2	 ??	 ?Results	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?23	 ?Data	 ?Preparation	 ?..........................................................................................................................................	 ?23	 ?Analyses	 ?...........................................................................................................................................................	 ?24	 ?3.3	 ??	 ?Discussion	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?25	 ?CHAPTER	 ?	 ?4	 ??	 ?EXPERIMENT	 ?III	 ?.........................................................................................	 ?27	 ?4.1	 ??	 ?Methods	 ?...................................................................................................................................	 ?28	 ?Participants	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?28	 ?Apparatus	 ?and	 ?Stimuli	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?29	 ?Procedure	 ?........................................................................................................................................................	 ?29	 ?	 ? vi	 ?4.2	 ??	 ?Results	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?31	 ?Data	 ?Preparation	 ?..........................................................................................................................................	 ?31	 ?Analyses	 ?...........................................................................................................................................................	 ?31	 ?4.3	 ??	 ?Discussion	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?33	 ?CHAPTER	 ?5	 ??	 ?EXPERIMENT	 ?IV	 ?..........................................................................................	 ?35	 ?5.1	 ??	 ?Methods	 ?...................................................................................................................................	 ?35	 ?Participants	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?35	 ?Apparatus,	 ?Stimuli	 ?and	 ?Procedure	 ?........................................................................................................	 ?35	 ?5.2	 ??	 ?Results	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?36	 ?Data	 ?Preparation	 ?..........................................................................................................................................	 ?36	 ?Analyses	 ?...........................................................................................................................................................	 ?36	 ?5.3	 ??	 ?Discussion	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?38	 ?CHAPTER	 ?6	 ??	 ?GENERAL	 ?DISCUSSION	 ?..............................................................................	 ?40	 ?6.1	 ??	 ?Overview	 ?of	 ?Findings	 ?...........................................................................................................	 ?40	 ?6.2	 ??	 ?Studies	 ?I	 ?and	 ?II:	 ?Colour	 ?Saturation	 ?..................................................................................	 ?41	 ?6.3	 ??	 ?Studies	 ?III	 ?and	 ?IV:	 ?Induction	 ?of	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Reactions	 ?and	 ?Strength	 ?of	 ?Expectation	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?42	 ?6.4	 ??	 ?Future	 ?Directions	 ?.................................................................................................................	 ?43	 ?6.5	 ?-??	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Attribution	 ?Theory	 ?and	 ?ProM	 ?Applications	 ?........................................	 ?46	 ?6.6	 ?-??	 ?Discrepancy	 ?Attribution	 ?Theory	 ?and	 ?General	 ?Applications	 ?...................................	 ?46	 ?6.7	 ?-??	 ?Conclusion	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?48	 ?References	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?49	 ?                      	 ? vii	 ?List of Tables  Table 2.1. Experiment I: Stimuli displays.........................................................................16 Table 3.1. Experiment II: Stimuli displays........................................................................23                                        	 ? viii	 ?List of Figures Figure 2.1. Experimental Paradigm for Experiments I and II............................................14 Figure 2.2. Experiment I: Accuracy by Saturation Increment...........................................19 Figure 3.2. Experiment II: Accuracy by Saturation Increment..........................................25 Figure 4.1. Experimental Paradigm for Experiments III and IV.......................................28 Figure 4.2. Experiment III: Main Effect of Response Time by Saturation Value.............33 Figure 5.2. Experiment IV: Main Effect of Response Time by Saturation Value.............38                      	 ? ix	 ?Acknowledgements   I would like to express sincerest gratitude to Dr. Peter Graf for his mentorship, helpful supervision, indispensable suggestions and encouragement throughout the past two years. Thank you also to my committee members, Dr. Todd Handy and Dr. Lawrence Ward, for their insight and valuable comments.  I am also incredibly grateful to my helpful labmates, particularly Michelle Crease and Janel Fergusson, for their patience and guidance, as well as my undergraduate research assistants, Thayalini Vithya and Francine de los Reyes, without whom the collection of this data would not have been possible.  I would like to thank my parents for teaching me to always work hard and follow my dreams, whatever they may be.  Finally, I?d like to thank my housemates and friends ? for their motivation, their encouragement, and their constant supply of chocolate.  The ideas and hypotheses behind this work would have remained just those without funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of British Columbia?s Graduate Entrance Fellowship, as well as financial support from Dr. Graf.     	 ? 1	 ?CHAPTER 1 - DISCREPANCY REACTIONS AND PROSPECTIVE MEMORY RETRIEVAL 1.1 ? Overview of Discrepancy Attribution Theory and Prospective Memory   Discrepancy Attribution Theory (DAT) is one of the most promising theories that has the potential to explain aspects of a plethora of cognitive phenomena, including preference decisions, false memories, prospective memory, and others. This theory describes how a discrepancy between the expected and experienced quality of processing of a stimulus or event generates a discrepancy response, which in turn influences cognitive judgments. However, the crucial underlying assumptions of DAT have not yet received extensive study. This work seeks to provide a more comprehensive investigation of the critical assumptions of DAT. Specifically, I explored the underlying assumptions of DAT in a beauty-rating task.   This will allow for examination of DAT as a potential candidate to explain prospective memory (ProM) retrieval processes. While suggestions have been made to explicate aspects of the underlying mechanisms of ProM retrieval, there is no cohesive account that clearly outlines how this process might occur. DAT can provide a new, effective explanation for ProM retrieval mechanisms.   1.2 - Processing Fluency and Preference Judgments The Mere Exposure Effect Zajonc (1968) initially proposed the notion that our attitude towards a stimulus is enhanced by a ?mere? exposure to it. In a classic experiment, he showed participants photographs of undergraduate students. While some photos were only shown once, others 	 ? 2	 ?were shown numerous times (up to twenty-five times). Participants were then asked to provide a ?liking? rating of the individual in the photo. His results demonstrated that the photos shown more often were more ?liked?. Mere exposure effects have since been reported with numerous stimuli categories (e.g. Chinese characters, abstract line drawings). In the literature, mere exposure effects have been indexed by means of different rating scales and on different dependent variables (e.g. liking ratings, preference judgments). This effect has often been explained as a result of priming, a term used to describe the increased processing fluency that occurs due to previous exposure to a given item (e.g. Jacoby, Kelley & Dywan, 1989; Whittlesea, 1993).   The Mere Exposure Effect and the Role of Fluency Jacoby and colleagues have discussed how the mere exposure effect may be a result of misattribution of past experience (Jacoby, Kelley & Dywan, 1989). Items that were previously seen were thought to be processed more fluently. In their view, because subjects were asked to make preference judgments, this increased fluency that is really a result of past exposure may have been misattributed to some increased aesthetic appeal of a given item. This misattribution led to a higher preference rating for previously seen items. Kelley & Jacoby (1998) proposed a fluency/attribution account, in which there is an unconscious designation of stimulus fluency, and a conscious attribution of familiarity. They suggested a fluency heuristic, in which they proposed that subjects utilized fluency of processing of a given item to make judgments ? of preference, of memory recognition and familiarity, etc. This fluency explanation is commonly applied to the mere exposure effect.  	 ? 3	 ?Several researchers have demonstrated that increased preference for old stimuli is maintained regardless of recognition. Correlational analyses by Moreland & Zajonc (1977) found that while holding recognition of stimuli constant, increased exposure to these stimuli led to increased preference. Using a dichotic listening paradigm to reduce recognition performance on an auditory task, Wilson (1977) demonstrated a similar increase. Based on this data, Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc (1980) performed a study in which they reduced recognition performance to chance level and then obtained judgments of attractiveness for both previously seen and novel stimuli. The results demonstrated that this preference for old stimuli was maintained even when precluding recognition.   1.3 ? Discrepancy Attribution Theory (DAT) Whittlesea and Williams have proposed the underlying ideas and assumptions of DAT, and put together a cohesive framework of the theory (2001a; 2001b). DAT makes several crucial assumptions. The theory states that the cognitive system has something like an expectation about the quality and coherence of processing of events and experiences; that we constantly evaluate this quality of processing of events and experiences; and that a reaction ? called a discrepancy reaction (DR) ? occurs when there is a difference between the expected and current quality of processing. This discrepancy reaction is then interpreted in line with current processing, or with the task at hand, provided that the difference in expected and current quality of processing remains below conscious threshold, and only when one is unaware of the factors that caused the reaction. If the difference in quality of processing is too large, it becomes consciously noticeable. In this case, the interpretation of the DR changes, because the factors that caused it are 	 ? 4	 ?evident. Thus, the DR is then attributed to these consciously noticeable factors. If the difference in quality of processing is too small, then a DR should not be induced. However, one of the challenges of the theory is determining where these thresholds lie. The theory itself does not provide an answer to the question of how big a difference between expected and current quality of processing is necessary for the occurrence of a DR.  A discrepancy reaction also occurs regardless of whether the difference between expected and current quality of processing is positive or negative. This is a fundamental difference between DAT and fluency theories. Fluency heuristics focus on increased speed/fluency only in one direction. DAT asserts that the directionality of difference in quality of processing should not make a difference in the discrepancy reaction produced. Whittlesea (2003) discussed how this continuous registration of cognitive and perceptual processing leads to three possible outcomes: the current processing is coherent, discrepant or incongruous. The first occurs when all aspects of current events or experience seem cohesive and consistent. Processing is coherent when there is no difference ? or a very minute difference ? between the expected and current quality of processing. The latter occurs when there is a discrepancy between expected and current quality of processing, but with explicit factors that caused this discrepancy - for example, semantic inconsistencies in a sentence, or the production of a speech error. Incongruous processing occurs when there is a discrepancy reaction induced, but it is attributed to the noticeable factors that caused the DR. The vital outcome is that of a discrepancy ? in which processing is interrupted to search for the inconsistency. A discrepancy reaction occurs, but the underlying causes of the DR are below conscious threshold. Unlike 	 ? 5	 ?incongruous processing, a source of the discrepancy is not identifiable within the stimulus or experience. The essential factor here is that the actual perceived quality of processing differs in some way from the quality of processing expected for that stimulus or class of stimuli. This results in an attribution process in line with a current task or activity. For example, seeing one?s favourite barista at Starbucks does not generate this feeling of familiarity, but seeing the same barista at the beach (in an unexpected context) might. The feeling of familiarity is crucially dependent on unexpected quality of current processing and how it differs from that expected.   1.4 ? Interpretations of Discrepancy Reactions The findings from a false memory study by Jacoby et al. highlight how discrepancy reactions are interpreted in line with an ongoing task (Jacoby, Kelley, Brown, & Jasechko, 1989). Participants were shown a list of randomly selected names and asked to read them in a study phase. In two test phases given immediately after and then the following day, participants were shown a long list of names ? half of them famous, and half not ? and asked to make fame ratings. Of the non-famous names, 50% had been previously shown to participants. The results demonstrated a significant difference in the analysis of time to correctly reject nonfamous names. Upon immediate test, previously seen old nonfamous names were rejected faster than new nonfamous names. However, the opposite pattern was found for the delayed test: old nonfamous names were rejected slower than new nonfamous names. This pattern of results points towards interpretation of discrepancy reactions. Upon viewing old nonfamous names, there was a discrepancy between expected and current quality of processing. Nonfamous 	 ? 6	 ?names should not have been processed with particularly high quality, as there was nothing special about them. However, quality of processing was facilitated when viewing these names at test, because they had been previously seen. This then led to a discrepancy response (DR). When tested immediately after study, it was possible to attribute this DR to the prior presentation of this nonfamous name, as it was just seen. However, the source of the feeling of familiarity that resulted for old nonfamous names during the delayed test could not be determined. This resulted in attributions of fame to the nonfamous names, in line with the current task.   1.5? Prospective Memory DAT has the potential to illuminate the one process that constitutes the critical difference between prospective memory and retrospective memory. ProM is the ability to create intentions, to retain them over a period of time and to then implement them at the appropriate time or in the appropriate context (Graf & Uttl, 2001; Einstein & McDaniel, 1990; Meacham & Dumitru, 1976). ProM tasks are everywhere in daily life ? from simple, mundane tasks such as picking up groceries on the way home from work, to more crucial tasks such as remembering to take life-saving medication each day. DAT can be applied to help elucidate the processes underlying prospective memory retrieval and identify the mechanism responsible for the conscious retrieval of an intended action (e.g. to pick up groceries) triggered by a plan-relevant cue (e.g. seeing the grocery store).   	 ? 7	 ?1.6 ? Underlying Mechanisms of ProM Retrieval  ProM tasks are ubiquitous in daily life, and the study of retrieval processes of this cognitive skill is crucial. Whereas both prospective and retrospective memory tasks involve cues, there is a vital difference in the recognition of these cues between these two functions of memory (Graf & Uttl, 2001). When retrospectively recovering a memory, we are aware of these cues, which allow us to use them to recollect the past. This is particularly salient in experimental paradigms ? there are always external prompts to recall or remember material previously presented (Einstein & McDaniel, 2005). On the other hand, ProM cues must be picked out of a context and recognized as important by the individual in order to retrieve the necessary plan or memory.   An additional consideration is that ProM cues always occur in the context of some ongoing task. The cue must disrupt the current task and bring the ProM plan back into conscious awareness. Without external reminders, how is retrieval of ProM plans possible? Various theoretical frameworks have been put forth to account for how we are able to appropriately respond to ProM cues and carry out ProM plans. Smith (2003) proposed that the only way this is possible is through continuous monitoring processes. When a ProM plan is created, people are then placed in a constant retrieval mode and remain in this monitoring state until the ProM cue is encountered and the plan is brought to completion. Proponents of this view assert that this monitoring process crucially utilizes attentional or working memory resources, regardless of whether this monitoring is thought to be conscious or unconscious. Support for this idea comes from studies that demonstrate that holding ProM intentions leads to a 300ms deficit in speed on an ongoing lexical-decision task (Smith, 2003). Additionally, a positive relationship was found 	 ? 8	 ?between load of ProM intentions and this cost to the ongoing task.  Einstein and McDaniel (2005) proposed a multiprocess theory in which the retrieval process used differs from situation to situation, with a tendency towards the usage of spontaneous retrieval. They suggested that the creation of a ProM plan also leads to the creation of an association between the target cue and planned action. This association is encoded, and the ProM plan is then automatically brought into awareness upon processing of the cue. This suggests a type of reflexive retrieval that occurs provided that the target cue is fully processed and that the association was encoded strongly enough.    1.7 ? Discrepancy-Attribution Theory and Prospective Memory Retrieval  While not developed in the framework of ProM, DAT has the potential to be very applicable to prospective memory task retrieval (Einstein & McDaniel, 1996; McDaniel, Guynn, Einstein & Breneiser, 2004). Past research has largely focused on attentional demands of the ongoing task in ProM paradigms, or on focality of the ProM cue. However, none of this research has provided suggestions for the underlying mechanism of ProM retrieval. DAT can potentially provide the mechanism by which a ProM cue can serve its purpose of disrupting a current ongoing task to bring a ProM plan back into conscious awareness. Using the framework of DAT, when we make a ProM plan, it encodes and primes the necessary target cues in our mind (e.g. making a plan to mail a letter primes a mailbox). When that target (the cue that signals that we can now carry out our intended plan) is then processed, it may be processed differently than expected. This discrepant 	 ? 9	 ?processing then leads to a significance attribution, which informs us of a necessary action or plan. Since DAT proposes that people are constantly evaluating the quality of processing, this continual process provides the means for prospective memory plan priming.   1.8 ? The matter of consciousness   The predictions made by DAT are based on assumptions of cognitive expectations (and violation of said expectations) at a level that is below conscious threshold. Indeed, Whittlesea and Williams (2001a) asserted that the ?the perceived discrepancy is unconsciously attributed to a prior experience of the stimulus; this attribution is experienced consciously as a feeling of familiarity.? A part of the DAT framework is the notion that we are continuously building percepts and cognitions about the world around us and our interactions with it. As a result of this subconscious process, we then also develop subconscious evaluations of the quality of our processing of the world and everything in it. When this quality of processing is discrepant to our expectations, it results in a discrepancy reaction. The eventual attribution that results from an unconscious expectancy violation is the only conscious component of this framework.  Unconscious information processing is, by definition, not verbalizable; it is expressed through procedure or performance rather than declaration (Augusto, 2010). Thus, the tasks used to elicit and examine discrepancy reactions themselves must be implicit-type tasks that require quick responses and contain stimuli within a narrow range of difference. That is, stimuli must be just different enough to induce a reaction, but this difference must remain below conscious perceptual threshold.  	 ? 10	 ?Once a discrepancy reaction occurs, the attribution that is made is above a conscious threshold ? it is something that occurs with awareness, and that can be verbally reported. The underlying unconscious cognitive processes at the heart of continuous processing can be thought of as simple, unconscious ?registration,? which describes an unconscious process in which information hitting the retina can have an implicit effect on cognition. However, when the difference in processing of the stimulus is so great that it is consciously noticeable, there is no longer a discrepancy reaction that takes place. If the difference is too great, then there is no subconscious process that needs to occur, and thus, this whole process is no longer triggered.  1.9 - Purpose of Current Work My Master?s research particularly focuses on a critical assumption of DAT ? the idea that a discrepancy reaction occurs whenever there is a difference between the expected and current quality of processing. The theory predicts that a discrepancy reaction will occur regardless of whether the difference between expected and current quality of processing is in a positive or negative direction. The attribution of the discrepancy reaction should occur in line with the task at hand, provided that the difference between the expected and current processing is large enough to produce a discrepancy response, and not large enough to alert subjects to the factors that cause the discrepancy response.  1.10 - Study Outline    Past ProM retrieval research has largely focused on resource allocation (e.g. 	 ? 11	 ?Craik, 1986), without providing detailed retrieval mechanisms that explain how ProM cues may be used to retrieve prior plans. Discrepancy-Attribution Theory provides a complete framework of a retrieval mechanism that allows for research to be done through studying discrepancy reactions. In order to further explore the possible role of DRs in ProM research, it is necessary to first create stimuli and establish a solid method that can consistently induce discrepancy reactions. The current research seeks to set up and establish these methods and stimuli. The methods set up here can later be used in ProM tasks. Using stimuli that should and should not induce DRs allows for testing potentially differential ProM retrieval success across trials.   With this goal in mind, I conducted four experiments. Establishing stimuli was a crucial first step in setting up a paradigm that can consistently induce DRs. I chose to use abstract stimuli, which are often used in the field, and to manipulate colour saturation of these stimuli to induce discrepancy responses. To that end, the first two experiments were designed as preliminary work to find appropriate colour saturation values that should be different enough from a standard value to induce a discrepancy reaction, but not different enough to be consciously noticeable. Following this, it was necessary to set up a methodology that could induce DRs to examine how and whether these DRs were attributed to the task at hand. The last two experiments then used the stimuli from the first two studies to set up a rating judgment to test how subjects? responses changed on trials designed to induce DRs.  	 ? 12	 ?CHAPTER 2 ? EXPERIMENT I   The purpose of the following four experiments was to create stimuli and establish methods that allowed for consistent induction of discrepancy responses. In order to do so, I chose a paradigm using abstract stimuli in order to attempt to induce discrepancy reactions under these circumstances. The abstract stimuli chosen were random virtual dot patterns, similar to a chessboard with a number of dots filled in. The advantage of such stimuli was that it was possible to create large databases of random patterns, while controlling all the properties of the stimuli ? colour, size, dimension, number of dots, etc. Such abstract stimuli were necessary in order to design experiments in which it was possible to manipulate and create an expectation of processing of a specific type of stimulus. Using non-real-world stimuli allowed for this, as there should have been no prior expectation of how such randomized grid patterns were processed. To induce a discrepancy response, it is necessary to first present a ?standard? set of stimuli that establish an expectation of how such items are processed. Discrepant stimuli can then be presented, and discrepancy responses to these stimuli can be examined. In order to create both standard and discrepant stimuli, I chose to manipulate the colour saturation value of the dots in the grid patterns (example stimuli can be seen in Figure 2.1).  The aim of Experiment I was to identify a range of colour saturation differences that people are able to respond to appropriately. This experiment sought to determine how much of a difference in colour saturation of two virtual grid patterns is necessary for people to notice that there is in fact a difference. The procedure displayed two virtual grid patterns simultaneously and asked participants to make same-difference judgments. Establishing the appropriate range of colour saturation difference needed between two 	 ? 13	 ?stimuli then allowed me to determine saturation values of both standard and discrepant stimuli for future studies.   2.1 ? Methods Participants  Fifty-three undergraduate students (46 female, 7 male) participated in this study. Participants were University of British Columbia students recruited through the Psychology department subject pool, and they participated for extra academic course credit.  Apparatus and Stimuli Materials and Instruments Tasks were run on a desktop computer equipped with a 1440 X 900 LCD monitor using E-Prime V2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012). Stimuli were presented on the monitor, set to a light grey background, and responses were made using the left and right arrow keys on a standard computer keyboard. All other keys on the keyboard were locked, except the Windows key.  Stimuli Virtual grid patterns used for the study were created using DotGenerator.exe, an in-house Windows program that generates grid patterns according to specifications. This program allows for control of a number of parameters. The dimensions of the grid, the number of fields that are occupied by dots and the size, hue, brightness, and saturation properties of the dots within the grid pattern can all be controlled. This program can then generate hundreds of randomized patterns with the desired properties. The program 	 ? 14	 ?randomly generated the configuration of the dots of each pattern. Figure 2.1 illustrates two trial examples, with the stimuli created by DotGenerator.    Figure 2.1: Experimental Paradigm for Experiments I and II ? Two example displays presented to participants in the course of the experiment. The left screen contains patterns with saturation values of 70 and 120, respectively. The right screen contains patterns with saturation values of 120. The correct response on the left would be ?Yes? or the left arrow key, and on the right would be ?No? or the right arrow key.    I created a large compilation of grid stimuli. The grids were 7X7, with squares that were 1.39 cm by 1.39 cm. The grid displays on the monitor were 9.7 cm by 9.7 cm. Of the 49 squares of each grid, 36 were randomly filled with dots by the program. Each dot was approximately 1 cm in diameter. Maintaining constant brightness levels, and three hue levels (for red, blue and green), saturation values were manipulated. Saturation level in this program is provided on a scale from 0-240. I chose the midpoint of 120 as the saturation value against which to compare other saturation values. In order to test the properties of both positive and negative changes in saturation, I chose five saturation values above and five below this midpoint 120 value, in increments of 10. Thus, the lowest saturation value was 70 (with other categories of saturation values at 80, 90, 100, 	 ? 15	 ?and 110), and the highest was 170 (with other categories of saturation values at 130, 140, 150, and 160) on this scale. For each of these 11 saturation values of each of the three colours, 200 coloured grid patterns were created and compiled, for a total of 2200 stimuli per colour, and 6600 stimuli total.   Procedure  Using these large compilations of stimuli, I created a database of stimuli pairs, for each of the possible pairings listed in Table 2.1. The database contained a large number of pairs of patterns with each of these saturation pairings. The display consisted of two patterns of the same colour 50% of the time, and the display contained two different coloured patterns 50% of the time, in order not to bias response. On displays where both patterns were the same colour, pairs of each saturation value (ranging from 70-170) appeared equally. On displays where both patterns differed in colour, one pattern remained at a standard saturation value of 120, and the other pattern differed equally (from 70-170). The display position of the standard was randomized to appear in both the right and left positions. These databases for each colour were then programmed into E-Prime, and the program randomly selected one pair of patterns for each presentation.       	 ? 16	 ?  Table 2.1: Stimuli Displays ? This table illustrates all possible pairs of displays for each colour. The left column shows all possible ?same? displays, where both patterns displayed simultaneously were of the same saturation. The right column shows all possible ?different? displays, where both patterns displayed simultaneously were of the different saturations. For the ?different? displays, there is always a midpoint 120 pattern, and a different saturation pattern.  Each participant was individually tested in a one-hour session in the lab. Upon arrival, participants were seated at a desk approximately 18-24? in front of a PC monitor. They were provided with consent forms containing basic information about the study and the tasks to be performed. After giving consent, they were given spoken instructions that also appeared in writing on the monitor at the start of the task. They were told that they would be performing a simple decision-making task for the duration of the study, and that the task had many trials. They were instructed that each trial would consist of the simultaneous presentation of two coloured grid patterns, and that their task for each display was to quickly and accurately decide whether the grid patterns were exactly the same in colour or different in colour. They were told to press the left-arrow key on the keyboard in front of them (marked "Yes") if the patterns were the same in colour, and the right-arrow key (marked "No") if the patterns were different in colour, with their dominant hand. Each display was subject-paced, and stayed on the screen until a response ?Same? Displays ?Different? Displays 70/70 70/120 80/80 80/120 90/90 90/120 100/100 100/120 110/110 110/120 120/120  130/130 130/120 140/140 140/120 150/150 150/120 160/160 160/120 170/170 170/120 	 ? 17	 ?was made. Additionally, the importance of the colour of the patterns was emphasized, and participants were told not to pay attention to the arrangement of the dots. They were also informed that the patterns would appear in three different colours - red, green and blue. In order to ensure instructions were understood, participants were shown two printed examples of displays and asked to say whether the two displayed patterns were the same in colour or not (one example contained two patterns of the same colour, the other of two different colours). Examples of paired patterns in all three colours were also shown to participants as instructions were being given.  Following instructions, participants were asked if they had any questions. Once their questions had been addressed, they completed 10 practice trials. Upon completion of these trials, they were told about the auditory feedback - a tone that sounded whenever an incorrect decision was made. Finally, they were instructed once more to continuously make decisions as quickly and accurately as possible.  The experimental task consisted of 1260 trials completed by each participant - 420 trials each of red, green and blue paired patterns. Colour of the paired patterns displayed was blocked and subjects were pseudo-randomly assigned to one of three colour order conditions: Red-Green-Blue, Blue-Red-Green, or Green-Blue-Red. The RGB condition had 16 subjects, the BRG condition had 18 subjects and the GBR condition had 19 subjects.    Following completion of the task, participants were fully debriefed and informed of the hypotheses being tested, the purpose of the task, and future applications of the research. They were also given a chance to ask any questions or raise any issues with the study.  	 ? 18	 ?2.2 ? Results Data Preparation  Using E-DataAid, I checked for outliers for both accuracy and response time. Eleven participants were excluded due to median response times 3 standard deviations over the mean. Thus, forty-two participants (39 female, 3 male) were included in the analyses. Analyses The dependent variables in this experiment were accuracy and speed of response time on the same-different judgment task. The same-different task is set up so that 50% of the time, the correct response is ?same,? and the other 50% of the time, the correct response is ?different?. Therefore, chance performance on accuracy for this task is 50% (i.e. if responses were made randomly, the results would show accuracy performance at 50%). Figure 2.2 illustrates the accuracy data for this study, organized by saturation increments. These increments represent the amount of saturation point difference between the two simultaneously presented patterns. Saturation increment difference between the saturation values of the two simultaneously presented patterns is plotted on the X-axis, and accuracy (out of 1) is plotted on the Y-axis. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. The bar in the middle represents all trials with two simultaneously presented patterns that did not differ in saturation at all ? i.e. all pairs of patterns with saturation values of 70/70, 80/80, 120/20, etc. Thus, higher accuracy on this middle bar is a result of correct ?Same? responses. Higher accuracy on all other bars is a result of correct ?Different? responses. 	 ? 19	 ?The results clearly demonstrated that accuracy performance on the same-different judgment task was influenced by the saturation manipulation. Even miniscule differences in saturation, within a narrow band of the saturation spectrum, have a large impact on accuracy. There is a rapid increase in accuracy within a limited range of saturation differences. Not only did the saturation manipulation have an effect, a very similar pattern of responses is also seen for saturation manipulation in both positive and negative directions. However, there are also floor and ceiling effects present in the current data. Performance on trials with saturation differences in patterns that are +/- 40 points different is above 90%. Performance on trials with -10 points different is significantly below chance (M = 0.34, SE = 0.013, 95% CI [0.315, 0.366]), as is performance on trials with +10 point different (M = 0.34, SE = 0.013, 95% CI [0.267, 0.317]). As a result, the relationship between saturation difference increment and performance on same-different discriminations appears as a curvilinear relationship.  Figure 2.2: Accuracy by Saturation Increment ? This graph shows the relationship between the saturation increments of the simulataneously presented patterns (on the X-axis), and correct performance out of 1 on same-different discrimination judgments (on the Y-axis). Higher performance means correctly selecting ?different? when patterns were different and correctly indicating ?same? when patterns were the same.  0.2	 ?0.3	 ?0.4	 ?0.5	 ?0.6	 ?0.7	 ?0.8	 ?0.9	 ?1	 ?-??50	 ? -??40	 ? -??30	 ? -??20	 ? -??10	 ? 0	 ? 10	 ? 20	 ? 30	 ? 40	 ? 50	 ?Accuracy	 ?(/1)	 ?Saturation	 ?Increment	 ?Accuracy	 ?by	 ?Saturation	 ?Increment	 ?	 ? 20	 ?2.3 ? Discussion   The results from Experiment I provide a good first step towards creating an effective paradigm within which to induce and test discrepancy reactions. The primary results demonstrated a strong relationship between saturation difference and discrimination performance. Although the current results provide evidence for a successful saturation manipulation and the effect that that manipulation has on accuracy performance, the performance gradient is quite broad, with large increments between each saturation value on the scale. In order to further delineate this relationship, I carried out Experiment II.   In order to determine the best saturation values to utilize for the next study, to determine precise levels of performance, I performed analyses in Microsoft Excel. The Solver function was used to determine the equation of the line that best fit the curve of the data in the results reported above. Using this equation, new saturation values were interpolated based on predicted performance in five-percent increments from 50-90% accuracy on the current task. Thus, I determined values that should result in 50% accuracy, 55% accuracy, 60% accuracy, etc. based on current data.         	 ? 21	 ?CHAPTER 3 ? EXPERIMENT II   The overall aim of my thesis work is to establish stimuli and methods that allow for consistent induction of discrepancy responses. To this end, it is necessary to create standard and discrepant stimuli, which I have chosen to do by manipulating the saturation value of virtual grid patterns. The purpose of Experiment I was to determine how much of a difference in colour saturation of two patterns is necessary for people to notice that there is a difference. The results showed a very rapid increase in accuracy on a same-different judgment task in a very narrow band of saturation differences of two simultaneously presented grid patterns.    Experiment II seeks to develop a finer-grained performance curve in this narrow band of rapid improvement in performance, which Experiment I found to be from approximately 40% to >85% accuracy in 40 saturation points. The current study will allow for a more precise answer to the query of how much of a saturation difference is needed between two patterns to be judged noticeably different.  3.1 - Methods Participants   Twenty-eight undergraduate students (16 female, 12 male) from the University of British Columbia were recruited through the Psychology department subject pool, and participated for extra academic course credit.  Apparatus, Stimuli and Procedure Apparatus and procedure were the same as Experiment I. However, new sets of stimuli were created for Experiment II. In order to create stimuli that should result in 	 ? 22	 ?accuracy levels at desired smaller intervals, I chose to interpolate from Experiment I?s results. I used the Solver function in Microsoft Excel to determine the best-fitting function for the data. Using this method, a cubic function to best fit the data was derived.  This function allowed me to estimate the approximate saturation values at which performance levels for accuracy were between 40-80%, in 5% intervals. This led to a total of 19 saturation values - 9 above the 120 midpoint, 9 below, and the midpoint. Saturation values used were 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 30 points above and below the midpoint, and are illustrated in Table 3.1. The experimental task consisted of 2220 trials completed by each participant - 740 trials each of red, green and blue paired patterns. Once again, 50% of the time, the display consisted of two patterns of the same colour, and 50% of the time, the display contained two different coloured patterns, and participants? task was to make same-different judgments based solely on the colour saturation values of simultaneously-presented patterns.          	 ? 23	 ??Same? Displays ?Different? Displays 150/150 150/120 148/148 148/120 144/144 144/120 142/142 142/120 140/140 140/120 137/137 137/120 134/134 134/120 132/132 132/120 130/130 130/120 120/120  110/110 110/120 108/108 108/120 106/106 106/120 103/103 103/120 100/100 100/120 98/98 98/120 96/96 96/120 92/92 92/120 90/90 90/120  Table 3.1: Stimuli Displays ? This table illustrates all possible pairs of displays for each colour. The left column shows all possible ?same? displays, where both patterns displayed simultaneously were of the same saturation. The right column shows all possible ?different? displays, where both patterns displayed simultaneously were of the different saturations. For the ?different? displays, there is always a midpoint 120 pattern, and a different saturation pattern.  3.2 ? Results Data Preparation  Using E-DataAid, I checked for outliers for both performance and response time. Six participants were excluded due to computer malfunction/illness leading to incomplete experiments. No participants were excluded due to being over/under three standard deviations from the mean in either performance or response time. Thus, analyses were conducted with twenty-two (13 female, 9 male) participants.  	 ? 24	 ?Analyses   Once again, the analysis sought to determine an appropriate finer-grained relationship between saturation value differences of simultaneously presented patterns and performance on the same-different judgment task. Using a larger number of much smaller increments, I expected to find a more detailed linear relationship.    The results are illustrated in Figure 3.2. Saturation increment difference between the saturation values of the two simultaneously presented patterns is plotted on the X-axis, and accuracy (out of 1) is plotted on the Y-axis. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. The results established that saturation manipulation had an impact on accuracy performance on the same-different judgment task. The rapid increase within a narrow band of saturation values from Experiment I was teased apart here, with a more gradual, linear gradient. There was only one saturation increment that was significantly below chance performance of 50%, which was the -10 point increment. Once again, the central bar contained all pairs of simultaneously presented patterns with the same saturation values, and had fairly high performance. Performance accuracy on the task improved as saturation increments increased.  	 ? 25	 ? Figure 3.2: Accuracy by Saturation Increment ? This graph shows the relationship between the saturation increments of the simultaneously presented patterns (on the X-axis), and correct performance out of 1 on same-different discrimination judgments (on the Y-axis). Higher performance means correctly selecting ?different? when patterns were different and correctly indicating ?same? when patterns were the same.   3.3 ? Discussion   The results provided a complete, detailed analysis of discrimination of various saturation difference increments. These data provide the opportunity to choose an appropriate standard saturation value and discrepant values for the next step ? creating a paradigm of expectation and then violating that expectation to examine discrepancy reactions.  Using results from Experiment II, I chose 137 as an appropriate standard saturation value. Based on the accuracy performance data, I found a 66% accurate response rate to stimuli with a value of 137. There was slightly lower accuracy performance (58% accurate) for stimuli with a saturation value of 134, and slightly higher 0.3	 ?0.4	 ?0.5	 ?0.6	 ?0.7	 ?0.8	 ?0.9	 ?1	 ?-??30	 ? -??28	 ? -??24	 ? -??22	 ? -??20	 ? -??17	 ? -??14	 ? -??12	 ? -??10	 ? 0	 ? 10	 ? 12	 ? 14	 ? 17	 ? 20	 ? 22	 ? 24	 ? 28	 ? 30	 ?Accuracy	 ?(/1)	 ?Saturation	 ?Increment	 ?Accuracy	 ?by	 ?Saturation	 ?Increment	 ?	 ? 26	 ?performance (74% accurate) for stimuli with a saturation value of 140. Thus, I chose to utilize these values in order to establish stimuli that were different enough to induce discrepancy responses, but yet similar enough to remain below consciously noticeable threshold.                    	 ? 27	 ?CHAPTER  4 ? EXPERIMENT III  The overall goal for Experiments III and IV is to use the stimuli developed in earlier studies to establish methods that can consistently induce discrepancy responses.  In order to induce discrepancy responses, ?standard? stimuli are first presented to create an expectation of quality of processing of these types of stimuli. Presenting stimuli that differ slightly in some aspect (?discrepant? stimuli) can then violate this expectation. Discrepancy responses to these stimuli can be examined. In order to do this, I used virtual grid patterns of a set saturation value (standard stimuli), as well as grid patterns that contained dots with slightly lower or slightly higher saturation values (discrepant stimuli). The saturation values were chosen based on preliminary work in Experiments I and II. I also specifically tested a crucial assumption of Discrepancy-Attribution Theory: the hypothesis that the same discrepancy reactions occur regardless of whether the difference in quality of processing is positive or negative. In order to do so, discrepant stimuli that had both slightly higher and slightly lower saturation values were created.  The experiment was set up as a beauty-rating task of these grid patterns. Participants were asked to make judgments of individually presented patterns on a 6-point beauty rating scale (see Figure 4.1 for an example display). The first part of the experiment was designed to establish a cognitive expectation of the processing of these grid patterns. This was done by presenting a long series of patterns with the same properties (the standard stimuli, which all had the same number/size/colour saturation of dots). This first half of the experiment was the ?expectation? phase. The second component of the study sought to induce discrepancy reactions by presenting trials of standard stimuli, with a small number of interspersed trials of the discrepant stimuli. This 	 ? 28	 ?second half of the experiment was the ?discrepancy? phase. Discrepancy reactions induced should then be interpreted in line with the task at hand. This would be evident through a differential response pattern (more extreme ratings) on the beauty rating scale to the standard and discrepant stimuli, and/or through quicker response times to the discrepant stimuli than the standard stimuli.           Figure 4.1: Experimental Paradigm for Experiments I and II ? The question and scale on the bottom of the screen remained across displays, and the pattern changed for each trial. Patterns remained on the screen until participants responded using the keyboard.   4.1 ? Methods   Participants  Forty-three undergraduate students (33 female, 10 male) from the University of British Columbia participated in the current study. Participants were recruited through the Psychology department subject pool, and participated for academic course credit.  	 ? 29	 ?Apparatus and Stimuli Materials and Instruments Tasks were run on a desktop computer equipped with a 1440 X 900 LCD monitor using E-Prime V2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, 2012). Stimuli were presented on the monitor, set to a light grey background, and responses were made using the 1-6 number keys on top of a standard computer keyboard. All other keys on the keyboard were locked, except the Windows key.  Stimuli The virtual grid patterns used for the study were grid patterns from the previous study, created using DotGenerator.exe. Preliminary work demonstrated no significant differences in accuracy or response time performance due to colour of grid patterns. Based on this finding, I chose to utilize only one colour (blue) for stimuli for the current studies. Brightness and hue were again held constant, and saturation was manipulated. Saturation level in this program is provided on a scale from 0-240. Using results from Experiment II, I chose 137 as an appropriate standard saturation value, and 134 and 140 as appropriate discrepant values.  Procedure  Using these values, I created a database of large compilations of randomly generated grid stimuli. The grids were 7X7, with individual squares that were 1.24 cm by 1.24 cm. The grid displays on the monitor were 8.7 cm by 8.7 cm. Of the 49 squares of each grid, 36 were randomly filled with dots by the program. Each dot was approximately 1 cm in diameter. I then generated databases for each of these three categories of stimuli. 	 ? 30	 ?Each database was then programmed into E-Prime, and the program randomly selected one pattern from each necessary category for each presentation.  I also wanted to examine whether the strength of the cognitive expectation created had any effect on discrepancy reactions. To this end, there were two between-subjects conditions of number of trials seen in the expectation component of the study (either 120 or 240 patterns were shown during the expectation phase), in order to create either a weak or strong cognitive expectation. In order to manipulate this, two versions of the computer program were created. Upon arrival, participants were seated at a desk approximately 18-24? in front of a PC monitor. They were provided with consent forms containing basic information about the study and the tasks to be performed. After giving consent, they were given spoken instructions that also appeared in writing on the monitor at the start of the task. They were told that they would be performing a simple judgment task for the duration of the study, and that the task had many trials. They were instructed that each trial would consist of the presentation of a single coloured grid pattern, and that their task for each display was to examine the grids carefully and make a beauty judgment of each one on a scale of one to six (1-6), with one representing ?not beautiful at all,? three as ?somewhat beautiful,? and six meaning ?very beautiful.? (See Figure 4.1a for an example display.) Participants were asked to indicate their responses using the corresponding number keys on the top of a standard keyboard, using their dominant hand.  Following instructions, participants were asked if they had any questions. Once any questions had been addressed, they completed 10 practice trials. Upon completion of 	 ? 31	 ?practice, they were asked once more if they had any questions, and then told to continuously make decisions as accurately as possible. The experimental task consisted of either 480 or 600 trials completed by each participant, depending on which condition they were in.    Following completion of the task, participants were fully debriefed and informed of the hypotheses being tested, the purpose of the task, and future applications of the research. They were also given a chance to ask any questions or raise any issues with the study.   4.2 ? Results Data Preparation  Using E-DataAid, I checked for outliers for both responses and response time. Two participants were excluded from analyses due to median response times that were three standard deviations over the mean. Thus, the analyses were completed with forty-one participants (32 female, 9 male). Analyses were performed on the median response time for each individual for each saturation level, and on the mean beauty rating for each individual for each saturation level. Analyses  The key manipulated variables in this study were the saturation values of the patterns and the number of trials seen during the expectation phase of the study. There were two critical dependent variables as well: response on the 6-point beauty scale and response time (in milliseconds). All analyses were performed using SPSS 21 software. 	 ? 32	 ?Response Time  A two-way mixed analysis of variance of response time (in ms) analyzing group (defined as 120 vs. 240 expectation trials) and saturation level (137 standard and 132/142 discrepant) was performed. Mauchly?s Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, ?2(2) = 5.47, p > .05, and therefore, no correction was used. The ANOVA found a significant main effect of saturation level, F(2,76) = 3.39, p < .05. No other significant main effects or interactions were found. The main effect of saturation level is illustrated below in Figure 4.2. Error bars on all graphs represent standard error of the mean. Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction indicated significantly faster response times to the 142 saturation stimuli (M = 1164, SE = 79.4, 95% CI [1003, 1325]) than the 137 standard stimuli (M = 1268, SE = 73.3, 95% CI [1120, 1417]) stimuli, p < .05. No significant differences were found between the 132 (M = 1198.6, SE = 70.7, 95% CI [1055, 1342]) and 142 conditions, p > .1 or 132 and 137 conditions, p > .1.       	 ? 33	 ?  Figure 4.2: Main Effect of Response Time by Saturation Value ? This graph illustrates the main effect of response time by saturation value. The 142 discrepant-saturation stimuli had significantly faster response times than the standard 137 stimuli, demonstrating a discrepancy reaction.    Beauty Scale Ratings  A mixed ANOVA of response on the beauty scale response (1-7) analyzing group and saturation level found no significant main effects or interactions.   4.3 ? Discussion   The results of this study demonstrated significantly faster response times to the 142 discrepant stimuli than to the standard stimuli. This differential pattern of responses provides evidence of successful induction of discrepancy reactions. This helps to establish the current methodology as a promising paradigm in which discrepancy reactions can be successfully induced. Results showed only positively discrepant stimuli differed significantly from the standard, but not the negatively discrepant stimuli. This demonstrates that discrepancy reactions in this study did not occur regardless of the 1000	 ?1050	 ?1100	 ?1150	 ?1200	 ?1250	 ?1300	 ?1350	 ?1400	 ?Sat	 ?132	 ? Sat	 ?137	 ? Sat	 ?142	 ?Response	 ?time	 ?(ms)	 ?Saturation	 ?Level	 ?Response	 ?Time	 ?(ms)	 ?by	 ?Saturation	 ?Level	 ?	 ? 34	 ?directionality of difference in quality of processing ? whether the difference is positive or negative.  The current results did not find a significant influence of the strength of the expectation initially created on both dependent variables. The first part of the experiment was designed to create a cognitive expectation of the quality of processing of the grid patterns presented, by presenting a long series of patterns with identical properties, other than the randomization of the pattern itself. The results showed that the number of patterns presented during this phase did not impact response time or beauty scale ratings. Additionally, there is no significant interaction of expectation group and saturation level. Thus, the expectation group did not significantly change the pattern of discrepancy reactions induced.             	 ? 35	 ?CHAPTER 5 ? EXPERIMENT IV  The purpose of Experiment IV is to once more establish a methodology to consistently induce discrepancy responses, and test whether these DRs are interpreted in line with the task at hand. The task is once more a beauty rating judgment task of virtual grid patterns. One further purpose of Experiment IV is to elucidate whether participants were consciously aware of any differences in the patterns by administering a manipulation check. Once again, if discrepancy responses are induced, there should be a difference between standard and discrepant stimuli on beauty ratings and/or response time.    5.1 ? Methods  Participants  Fifty-four undergraduate students (41 female, 13 male) from the University of British Columbia participated in the current study. Participants were recruited through the Psychology department subject pool, and participated for extra academic course credit. Apparatus, Stimuli and Procedure  Apparatus, stimuli and procedure were the same as experiment III. However, during the instructions of this study, participants were instructed to continuously make decisions as accurately and as quickly as possible. In the previous study, participants were instructed to look carefully at each pattern. Additionally, just prior to debriefing, participants were given a manipulation check sheet that asked them whether they noticed any differences among the dot patterns, in terms of dot size, layout, number, etc. Embedded within this was a question about the colour of the dots as well.  	 ? 36	 ?5.2 ? Results Data Preparation  Using E-DataAid, I checked for outliers for both responses and response time. No participants were excluded due to being over/under three standard deviations from the mean in either performance or response time. Analyses were performed on the median response time for each individual for each saturation level, and on the mean beauty rating for each individual for each saturation level. Manipulation Check  The post-test questionnaire contained numerous questions about the task and the pattern stimuli. Participants were asked whether the size, colour and density of the dots seemed to be the same across all the patterns, and asked to indicate confidence in their answer on a 4-point scale from ?1-not at all? to ?4-very sure?. Results demonstrated that three individuals responded ?No? to the question ?Did all the patterns seem to be the same colour?? Two of these individuals said they were ?3-pretty sure,? and the third indicated that the answer was ?2-guessing.? The same two individuals who were quite confident also answered ?No? to other questions asking whether the size and density of the dots were the same, with less confidence in these answers. All three of these individuals were removed from the analyses. Thus, analyses were conducted with fifty-one individuals (38 female, 13 male).  Analyses The key manipulated variables in this study were again the saturation values of the patterns and the number of trials seen during the expectation phase of the study. The 	 ? 37	 ?two critical variables were the same as the previous experiment: response on the 6-point beauty scale and response time (in milliseconds). All analyses were performed using SPSS 21 software.    The initial hypotheses for this study were generally a different pattern of responses in line with the task at hand for discrepant stimuli than standard stimuli. Specifically, I expected to see more extreme beauty ratings and/or quicker response times for discrepant stimuli when compared to standard stimuli.  Response Time An analysis of variance of response time (in ms) analyzing group (defined as 120 vs. 240 expectation trials) and saturation level (137 standard and 130/144 discrepant) was performed. Mauchly?s Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, ?2(2) = 1.47, p > .1, and therefore, no correction was used. The ANOVA found a significant main effect of saturation level, F(2, 98) = 3.80, p < .05 This significant main effect is illustrated below in Figure 5.2. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction indicated significantly faster response times to the 144 saturation stimuli (M = 1252, SE = 78.8, 95% CI [1093, 1410]) than the 137 standard stimuli (M = 1344, SE = 74.0, 95% CI [1196, 1493]) stimuli, p < .05. No significant differences were found between the 130 (M = 1198.6, SE = 70.7, 95% CI [1055, 1342]), and 144 conditions, p = .09, or 130 and 137 conditions, p > .1.     	 ? 38	 ? Figure 5.2a: Main Effect of Response Time by Saturation Value ? This graph illustrates the significant main effect of saturation value on response time. The 144 discrepant-saturation stimuli had significantly faster response times than the standard 137 stimuli, demonstrating a discrepancy reaction.  Beauty Scale Ratings An ANOVA of response on the beauty scale response (1-7) analyzing group and saturation level found no significant main effects or interactions.   5.3 ? Discussion   The current study found a significant effect of saturation value on median response time, with significantly faster response times to the 144 stimuli than the 137 standard stimuli. This differential pattern of responses provides evidence of successful induction of discrepancy reactions, and replicates Study III. However, in this study, the difference between the 130 and 137 stimuli demonstrated a trend approaching significance as well. Thus, discrepancy reactions in this study did not occur regardless of 1100	 ?1150	 ?1200	 ?1250	 ?1300	 ?1350	 ?1400	 ?1450	 ?Sat	 ?130	 ? Sat	 ?137	 ? Sat	 ?144	 ?Response	 ?time	 ?(ms)	 ?Saturation	 ?Level	 ?Response	 ?Time	 ?(ms)	 ?by	 ?Saturation	 ?Level	 ?	 ? 39	 ?the directionality of difference in quality of processing, though there is marginal significance to indicate that this is a possibility.                     	 ? 40	 ?CHAPTER 6 ? GENERAL DISCUSSION  The current series of experiments aimed to operationalize a promising theory in an effective and quantifiable manner. To do this, I chose to examine fundamental assertions of DAT ? that discrepancy reactions occur in line with whatever task subjects are given, and that they occur regardless of the directionality of difference of discrepant stimuli. As such, preliminary work was needed (Studies I and II) before even basic research (Studies III and IV) could be done. To my knowledge, this is the first research done examining discrepancy reactions in a task with simple abstract stimuli, and no previous work has focused on manipulating discrepant stimuli to be different in both positive and negative directions from the standard.   Not only did my research address the initial questions I sought to answer, Study I and II also provided interesting results in and of themselves on colour saturation discrimination and perceptual decision-making. Studies III and IV provide new insights into discrepancy reactions, and how they can impact response time. This body of work also provides evidence that the strength of an expectation can influence responses.    6.1 ? Overview of Findings  The overall purpose of this work was to further research discrepancy responses, and to further elucidate the underlying assumptions of DAT. I specifically sought to and to examine whether the same discrepancy reactions occurred regardless of directionality of difference of the discrepancy and in line with the current beauty-rating task. To allow for further research to be done on the induction of discrepancy responses, it was 	 ? 41	 ?necessary to first create stimuli and establish a solid method to consistently induce discrepancy reactions.   The first two pilot studies illustrated a consistent relationship between increasing saturation difference increments between two simultaneously-presented virtual grid patterns and accuracy performance on a same-different judgment task. The results of these two studies provided evidence for a successful saturation manipulation, as the manipulation influenced accuracy performance. Experiment I showed that as saturation increments increased, performance rapidly increased within a narrow band of saturation difference increments. Experiment II helped to further delineate this relationship and provided appropriate standard and discrepant stimuli for the next two studies.  The latter two experiments sought to induce discrepancy reactions using this preliminary colour saturation data. Experiments III and IV showed that participants responded significantly faster to positively discrepant stimuli than to standard stimuli. This pattern of responses provided some evidence of successful induction of discrepancy reactions, and helps to establish the current methodology as a way to induce consistent discrepancy responses. Future research can aim to further elucidate the number of exposures necessary to develop an effective expectation of quality of processing of a certain type of stimuli.    6.2 ? Studies I and II: Colour Saturation   Colour perception has been long studied in the field of perceptual and cognitive psychology. Early work on colour saturation attempted to bridge together Weber?s law and component colours (Warburton, 1935). Weber?s law (also often referred to as the 	 ? 42	 ?Weber-Fechner law) asserts that there is a constant, proportional ratio between increment threshold of a just-noticeable difference and background intensity (Weber, 1846). For example, the difference between a 3kg and a 4kg weight is quite noticeable, whereas the same 1kg difference is not perceivable when the weights are 100kg and 101kg in weight. This general effect has since been applied to numerous perceptual domains, including visual colour sensation (Haldane, 1933). Weber?s law can speak to the pattern of the saturation curves established in experiments I and II. In both experiments, there is a constant incremental difference in saturation values of the stimuli, and a gradual decrease in perceptual detection.   6.3 ? Studies III and IV: Induction of Discrepancy Reactions and Strength of Expectation  Discrepancy Attribution Theory makes a number of assumptions. The theory is based on the idea that the cognitive system has expectations about the quality of processing of the world around us; that this quality of processing is constantly being evaluated; and that a discrepancy reaction occurs when there is a difference between expected and current quality of processing. Provided that this difference remains below conscious threshold, the discrepancy reaction is then interpreted in line with current processing. Finally, the same discrepancy reaction should occur regardless of whether the difference between expected and current quality of processing is positive or negative.  Studies III and IV attempted to create expectations of the quality of processing of novel abstract stimuli. These expectations were then violated by discrepant stimuli that differed in both a positive and negative direction. There was successful induction of discrepancy 	 ? 43	 ?responses, as evidenced by significantly faster response times to positively discrepant stimuli in Studes III and IV. The current research serves provide new insight into this assumption of DAT that had not been previously examined.   The DAT framework (established by Whittlesea and Williams, 2001a; 2001b) does not provide any information on how many exposures to a stimulus are necessary to establish an expectation. Studies III and IV may provide some insight into this. The discrepancy reactions induction effect would likely be stronger if a stronger initial expectation were established. Thus, it seems that 120 or 240 trials may be enough to create a weak cognitive expectation, but more trials may be needed to create a strong cognitive expectation of the grid patterns presented. Future work can continue to examine how many trials are necessary to establish a cognitive expectation of quality of processing.  6.4 ? Future Directions  Due to the preliminary nature of the current work, and the difficulty of obtaining discrepancy reactions, there were no restrictions provided on participants for the current studies. Though it is not likely to be a major factor, screening participants for normal or corrected-to-normal vision ? particularly with regards to colour blindness, for example ? is a factor worth considering in future research.   Based on this current body of work, there are several avenues for potential future research. Primarily, it is critical to continue examining the induction of robust discrepancy responses in this novel paradigm, and to replicate the results of Study III and IV, and examine further whether the same discrepancy response occurs regardless of 	 ? 44	 ?directionality of difference. Further useful preliminary work can examine cognitive expectations and their influence on discrepancy reactions. In the current studies, the numbers of trials shown during the expectation phase of the experiment were primarily chosen based on time constraints and reasonable experiment lengths. Due to the primary nature of the research, the research focus was primarily on inducing discrepancy reactions. Additionally, longer series of trials come with their own set of problems ? fatigue effects, time length, etc. A next study can examine how many presentations of a visual stimulus are necessary to establish a robust cognitive expectation. This proposed study could allow for further investigation of how much exposure to a stimulus is needed to develop an expectation of how it is processed, and how the strength of the expectation makes a difference in the discrepancy reaction produced. While the idea of cognitive expectations is a central construct to DAT, the theory does not provide a framework of what is necessary to constitute an expectation. The current work sought to begin addressing this question, and future work will aid in creating a metric for what constitutes an expectation. Whereas the present results demonstrated the induction of discrepancy reactions as evidenced by faster response times, there was no attribution of these discrepancy reactions in line with the beauty-rating task in Experiment III or IV. One primary influence is way the judgment is being made ? heuristically or analytically. This type of effect is only found with heuristic, intuitive decision-making. Thus, it is possible ? particularly in Experiment III in which participants were not instructed to respond as fast as possible ? that participants were making the beauty judgments using more analytical methods. There may have also been other factors that impacted beauty ratings, such as 	 ? 45	 ?symmetry or complexity of the patterns, and other factors inherent to the stimuli themselves. Research has shown that symmetry is highly correlated with aesthetic beauty judgments on novel graphic patterns (Jacobsen & H?fel, 2002). Stimulus complexity has been found to be the second-highest correlate with positive judgments (Jacobsen & H?fel, 2002). Additional considerations include the number of points on the scale used, and the limited labels placed on the scale. Future work can utilize a scale with more points, and label each point clearly.   The present set of studies provides methodology and stimuli that can be used to combine discrepancy reaction tasks and prospective memory tasks. Using a basic ProM computer task, it is possible to set up an experiment with a number of trials that induce discrepancy responses, and a number of trials that do not. This allows for direct testing of the hypothesis that discrepancy reaction-inducing stimuli will facilitate ProM performance. Past research has shown that unconscious priming manipulations facilitate performance on lexical ProM tasks, improving speed of response on simple tasks and accuracy of response on more difficult anagram-solving tasks (Gao, 2005). Continuing this investigation into the role of discrepancy responses on ProM retrieval is crucial to investigate, as cue-based memory retrieval nearly always occurs when we are engaged in other tasks. For example, we may pass a mailbox while engaged in a conversation; do we still remember to mail the letter in our backpack? Building on the lessons learned from the current work, it is possible to examine how insertion of discrepant stimuli can facilitate prospective memory performance.  	 ? 46	 ?6.5 - Discrepancy Attribution Theory and ProM Applications  DAT has the potential to explain how a cue can disrupt current ongoing tasks and lead to the recollection of a ProM plan. Einstein and McDaniel (1996) first proposed the notion that DAT can be applied to underlying mechanisms of ProM retrieval, and this idea has since been developed (e.g. Gao, 2005). When a ProM plan is made, it has a priming effect on the cognitive system of the cue or context associated with the plan. When this cue is then next encountered, its processing is facilitated, leading to a difference between expected and actual quality of processing of the cue. This induces a discrepancy reaction, which then causes an attribution to be made to the ProM plan to be remembered.   In discrepancy-reaction-induction paradigms, such as the one used here, stimuli are physically manipulated in some way to create the discrepant processing, whereas in the real world, ProM cues are no physically different than expected. Though this may raise the question of the use of experimental paradigms such as the current one, it is important to note that DAT simply addresses a difference in quality of processing. This difference can be due to physical differences in stimuli (shape, colour, mask intensity, etc.), due to priming, or various other factors ? the idea is the same and applies the same way regardless of the cause of the difference in cognitive fluency.   6.6 - Discrepancy Attribution Theory and General Applications  DAT has numerous, far-reaching applications, with implications for everything from ProM to decision-making, providing an explanation for how we process the world around us, and what may influence liking judgments, false memories, and consumer 	 ? 47	 ?choices. Using Whittlesea and Williams? (2001a, 2001b) paradigm of displaying a probe and then sentence completion items, either with or without a brief time delay, researchers have found interesting insights into practical consumer behaviour. For example, Mantonakis (2011) hypothesized that providing a meaningful conceptual prime of a commercial brand?s slogan or tagline and a pause before presenting the name of the brand in isolation would lead to increased memory for the brand. In contrast, a condition in which there is no delay would not provide the discrepancy, and thus, not lead to increased attention to the completion of the sentence or to increased recognition memory at test. The results of three experiments demonstrated increased memory and preference for brands presented after a short time delay. DAT can provide critical insights into consumer behaviour, playing a particularly salient role in advertising and branding.   Other avenues of research have shown that various types of judgments can be influenced by metacognitive experience. Based on Whittlesea and Williams? (2001a, 2001b) assertion that familiarity judgments are interpreted based on context, and have no underlying affective sway, Thomas, Lindsey, and Lakshmanan (2009) sought to measure distance judgments for proximal and distant cities. They state that people expect nearby locations to be familiar, and thus, unfamiliarity for these cities will be discrepant. The results of the study supported this notion that a discrepancy-attribution mechanism may even underlie distance judgments. Others have examined how discrepant fluency can influence moral judments. Research has shown that vignettes with examples of moral violations are rated less morally wrong when processed with discrepant fluency (Laham, Alter, & Goodwin, 2009). As such, it is evident that the applications of DAT are numerous and far-reaching. 	 ? 48	 ?6.7 - Conclusion  The current studies tested crucial underlying assumptions of DAT, and developed stimuli and created a methodology that can be used to induce discrepancy responses in the future.  This work continues to further elucidate the nature of prospective memory processes, and assess Discrepancy Attribution Theory. These studies strive to increase understanding of DAT as a promising explanatory hypothesis, and to provide new insight into a facet of prospective memory research that has not yet been well explored.                  	 ? 49	 ?References Augusto, L. M. (2010). Unconscious knowledge: A survey. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6, 116-141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0081-5 Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18 (2), 227-287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188  Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968?1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265?289. Ceci, S. J., & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). Don?t forget to take the cupcakes out of the oven: Prospective memory, timemonitoring and context. Child Development, 56, 152?164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000053 Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16(4), 717-726. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115?142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Multiple Retrieval Processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286-290.  Graf, P. (2005). Prospective memory retrieval revisited. In N. Ohta, C.M. MacLeod & B. Uttl (Eds.), Dynamic cognitive processes (pp. 305-332). Tokyo: Springer. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/4-431-27431-6_13 	 ? 50	 ?Graf, P., & Uttl, B. (2001). Prospective memory: A new focus for research. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 437-450.  doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0504 Haldene, J. S. (1933). The physiological significance of weber?s law and colour contrast in vision. Journal of Physiology, 79(2), 121-138.  Hurlbert, A. C., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology, 17. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022 Jacobsen, T. & H?fel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 95, 755-66. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Jacoby, L. L, & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 126-135. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.126 Jacoby, L. L, Kelley, C , Brown, J. & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality& Social Psychology, 56, 326-338. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.326 Kunst-Wilson, W.R. & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557-558. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7352271 	 ? 51	 ?Kvavilashvili, L. (1992). Remembering intentions: A critical review of existing experimental paradigms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 507-524. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060605 Laham, S.M., Alter, A.L., & Goodwin, G.P. (2009). Easy on the mind, easy on the wrongdoer: Discrepantly fluent violations are deemed less morally wrong. Cognition, 112, 462-466. Lyon, M.F. (1972). X-chromosome inactivation and developmental patterns in mammals. Biological Reviews, 47, 1-35. Mantonakis, A. (2011) A brief pause between a tagline and brand increases brand name recognition and preference. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 61-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1797 Marsh, R.L. & Hicks, J.L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 336-349.  McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O. & Breneiser, J. (2004). Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 605-614. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.605 Meacham, J. A., & Dumitru, J. (1976). Prospective remembering and external-retrieval cues. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6 no 65, 1-12. Meacham, J. A., & Leiman, B. (1982). Remembering to perform future actions. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts. San Francisco: Freeman. 	 ? 52	 ?Moreland, R.L. & Zajonc, R.B. (1997). Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 191-199. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.191 Nisbett, Richard, & Wilson, Timothy. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Nowaczyk, R. H. (1982). Sex-related differences in the color lexicon. Language & Speech, 25, 257?265. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002383098202500304 Psychology Software Tools. (2012). E-Prime (Version 2.0) [Software]. Available from: http://www.pstnet.com/eprime.cfm Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80 (609). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092976  Simpson, J., & Tarrant, A. W. (1991). Sex- and age-related differences in colour vocabulary. Language & Speech, 34, 57?62. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002383099103400104 Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. dournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 347-361. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347 Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of eventbased prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 756-777. 	 ? 53	 ?Thomas, M. Lindsey, C., & Lakshmanan, A. (2009). Why does familiarity affect distance judgments? The discrepany attribution hypothesis. Proceedings from North American Advances in Consumer Research, 37. Warburton, F.L. (1935). The discrimination of the saturation of colours. Proceedings of the Physical Society, 47. 38-48. Weber, E. H. (1846). Wagner?s Handw?rterbuch der Physiologie, 3(2).  Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235?1253. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2003). On the construction of behavior and subjective experience: The production and evaluation of performance. In C. J. Marsolek & J. S. Bowers (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory, pp. 239?260. London: Oxford University Press. Whittlesea B. W., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141-165. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1 Whittlesea B. W., & Williams, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Leaning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 3-13. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//O278-7393.27.1.3 Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 14-33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.14 	 ? 54	 ?Wilson, W.R. (1979). Feeling more than we can know: Exposure effects without learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 811-821. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.811 Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1-27.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0074152/manifest

Comment

Related Items