James D. Griffith

Source of arousal and memory for detail

Two questions about the relationship between arousal and memory were investigated: First, does the source of arousal influence memory, and, second, what impact does arousal have on memory for detail? In Experiment 1, physiological arousal (running or not running in place) was factorially combined with emotional arousal (viewing a neutral or an emotional slide sequence). Recognition memory was tested for gist, central detail, and background detail. Experiments 2 and 3 were similar to Experiment 1, with the exception that a cued recall task was used in Experiment 2 and physiological arousal was manipulated with stationary biking in Experiment 3. The results of these experiments indicated that physiological arousal had little impact on memory and that emotional arousal led to improvements in memory for both central and background detail. Overall, these results supported the notions that the source of arousal is an important determinant of an event’s memorability (Christianson, 1992a) and that emotional arousal serves to enhance the scope of memory (i.e., flashbulb memory; Brown & Kulik, 1977).

The Temporal Stability of the Tendency to Worship Celebrities

This study examined the test–retest and internal reliability of a scale used to measure celebrity worship. We administered the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) and several related items on two different occasions approximately 3 months apart to 248 participants from three universities and one college. We hypothesized that attitudes about celebrities would remain fairly stable over time. Results confirmed the hypothesis and were discussed in relation to previous research in which the CAS was used.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN AROUSAL AND ACCESSIBILITY TO INFORMATION IN MEMORY

The authors conducted 9 experiments to test the hypothesis (S. Schwartz, 1975) that arousal influences the accessibility of information stored in memory. They investigated the relationship between arousal levels (as indexed by personality types) and the type of stimuli or cues presented during study or test. They predicted that low-arousal individuals (stable extraverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and high-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by semantic stimuli, whereas high-arousal individuals (neurotic introverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and low-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by physical (i.e., graphic, phonetic, or both) stimuli. They tested the arousal-accessibility hypothesis by using a variety of tasks including verbal discrimination, false recognition, cued recall, and paired associates. With the exception of the finding that stable extraverted participants performed better than neurotic introverted participants on an incidental associative-matching task (Experiment 3), the results from the verbal discrimination studies (1-5) did not support the hypothesis. In Experiment 6, the authors tested the hypothesis by using a false-recognition task. False alarms varied as a function of phonetic and semantic stimuli, but personality types were not differentially sensitive to the manipulation. The same was true for the cued-recall studies (Experiments 7 and 8); personality types were not differentially sensitive to the semantic and phonetic stimuli. Experiment 9 (paired-associate learning) was a replication of Schwartzs study. The authors found some support for the Schwartz hypothesis: Extraverted participants were adversely affected by semantic similarity. Overall, the findings did not provide much support for the arousal-accessibility hypothesis.