Abstract
Precall represents improved memory for material practised after the recall test. Such behaviour has been suggested to serve the needs/motives of the individual. However, attempts to examine this have met with limited success, possibly reflecting the value of the reward.
The current pre-registered study took the original approach of identifying a motivating reward: a cash reward of £10. The main study then examined the effect of offering this reward contingent upon precall performance. Two confirmatory predictions were made: first, that post recall practise will lead to greater precall. Second, that a contingent reward will elicit greater precall. A repeated measures design had participants randomly presented with 20 arousing images, after which they were given a surprise recall task. Following this a sub-set of the images was presented twice allowing them to practice. Precall scores represented the number of correctly recalled images that were subsequently repeated and baseline scores the number of correctly recalled images not repeated. Analysis showed precall scores were significantly higher than baseline, however the contingent reward had no effect. This may indicate a Type I error or an anomalous precognitive effect. Hence, some speculative ideas are proposed in an attempt to account for the pattern of data.
The current pre-registered study took the original approach of identifying a motivating reward: a cash reward of £10. The main study then examined the effect of offering this reward contingent upon precall performance. Two confirmatory predictions were made: first, that post recall practise will lead to greater precall. Second, that a contingent reward will elicit greater precall. A repeated measures design had participants randomly presented with 20 arousing images, after which they were given a surprise recall task. Following this a sub-set of the images was presented twice allowing them to practice. Precall scores represented the number of correctly recalled images that were subsequently repeated and baseline scores the number of correctly recalled images not repeated. Analysis showed precall scores were significantly higher than baseline, however the contingent reward had no effect. This may indicate a Type I error or an anomalous precognitive effect. Hence, some speculative ideas are proposed in an attempt to account for the pattern of data.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 8-23 |
| Journal | Journal of Parapsychology |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2018 |
Keywords
- precall; precognition; contingent reward; arousing images
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver