Speed Matters: Relationship between Speed of Eye Movements and Modification of Aversive Autobiographical Memories

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is an efficacious treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. In EMDR, patients recall a distressing memory and simultaneously make eye movements (EM). Both tasks are considered to require limited working memory (WM) resources. Because this leaves fewer resources available for memory retrieval, the memory should become less vivid and less emotional during future recall. In EMDR analogue studies, a standardized procedure has been used, in which participants receive the same dual task manipulation of 1 EM cycle per second (1 Hz). From a WM perspective, the WM taxation of the dual task might be titrated to the WM taxation of the memory image. We hypothesized that highly vivid images are more affected by high WM taxation and less vivid images are more affected by low WM taxation. In study 1, 34 participants performed a reaction time task, and rated image vividness, and difficulty of retrieving an image, during five speeds of EM and no EM. Both a high WM taxing frequency (fast EM; 1.2 Hz) and a low WM taxing frequency (slow EM; 0.8 Hz) were selected. In study 2, 72 participants recalled three highly vivid aversive autobiographical memory images (n = 36) or three less vivid images (n = 36) under each of three conditions: recall + fast EM, recall + slow EM, or recall only. Multi-level modeling revealed a consistent pattern for all outcome measures: recall + fast EM led to less emotional, less vivid and more difficult to retrieve images than recall + slow EM and recall only, and the effects of recall + slow EM felt consistently in between the effects of recall + fast EM and recall only, but only differed significantly from recall + fast EM. Crucially, image vividness did not interact with condition on the decrease of emotionality over time, which was inconsistent with the prediction. Implications for understanding the mechanisms of action in memory modification and directions for future research are discussed

The psychological science accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

Exploring expectation effects in EMDR : does prior treatment knowledge affect the degrading effects of eye movements on memories?

Background: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective psychological treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Recalling a memory while simultaneously making eye movements (EM) decreases a memory's vividness and/or emotionality. It has been argued that non-specific factors, such as treatment expectancy and experimental demand, may contribute to the EMDR's effectiveness. Objective: The present study was designed to test whether expectations about the working mechanism of EMDR would alter the memory attenuating effects of EM. Two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, we examined the effects of pre-existing (non-manipulated) knowledge of EMDR in participants with and without prior knowledge. In Experiment 2, we experimentally manipulated prior knowledge by providing participants without prior knowledge with correct or incorrect information about EMDR's working mechanism. Method: Participants in both experiments recalled two aversive, autobiographical memories during brief sets of EM (Recall+EM) or keeping eyes stationary (Recall Only). Before and after the intervention, participants scored their memories on vividness and emotionality. A Bayesian approach was used to compare two competing hypotheses on the effects of (existing/given) prior knowledge: (1) Prior (correct) knowledge increases the effects of Recall+EM vs. Recall Only, vs. (2) prior knowledge does not affect the effects of Recall+EM. Results: Recall+EM caused greater reductions in memory vividness and emotionality than Recall Only in all groups, including the incorrect information group. In Experiment 1, both hypotheses were supported by the data: prior knowledge boosted the effects of EM, but only modestly. In Experiment 2, the second hypothesis was clearly supported over the first: providing knowledge of the underlying mechanism of EMDR did not alter the effects of EM. Conclusions: Recall+EM appears to be quite robust against the effects of prior expectations. As Recall+EM is the core component of EMDR, expectancy effects probably contribute little to the effectiveness of EMDR treatment

Exploring expectation effects in EMDR : does prior treatment knowledge affect the degrading effects of eye movements on memories?

Background: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective psychological treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Recalling a memory while simultaneously making eye movements (EM) decreases a memory's vividness and/or emotionality. It has been argued that non-specific factors, such as treatment expectancy and experimental demand, may contribute to the EMDR's effectiveness. Objective: The present study was designed to test whether expectations about the working mechanism of EMDR would alter the memory attenuating effects of EM. Two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, we examined the effects of pre-existing (non-manipulated) knowledge of EMDR in participants with and without prior knowledge. In Experiment 2, we experimentally manipulated prior knowledge by providing participants without prior knowledge with correct or incorrect information about EMDR's working mechanism. Method: Participants in both experiments recalled two aversive, autobiographical memories during brief sets of EM (Recall+EM) or keeping eyes stationary (Recall Only). Before and after the intervention, participants scored their memories on vividness and emotionality. A Bayesian approach was used to compare two competing hypotheses on the effects of (existing/given) prior knowledge: (1) Prior (correct) knowledge increases the effects of Recall+EM vs. Recall Only, vs. (2) prior knowledge does not affect the effects of Recall+EM. Results: Recall+EM caused greater reductions in memory vividness and emotionality than Recall Only in all groups, including the incorrect information group. In Experiment 1, both hypotheses were supported by the data: prior knowledge boosted the effects of EM, but only modestly. In Experiment 2, the second hypothesis was clearly supported over the first: providing knowledge of the underlying mechanism of EMDR did not alter the effects of EM. Conclusions: Recall+EM appears to be quite robust against the effects of prior expectations. As Recall+EM is the core component of EMDR, expectancy effects probably contribute little to the effectiveness of EMDR treatment

Taxing Working Memory during Retrieval of Emotional Memories Does Not Reduce Memory Accessibility When Cued with Reminders

Earlier studies have shown that when individuals recall an emotional memory while simultaneously doing a demanding dual-task [e.g., playing Tetris, mental arithmetic, making eye movements (EM)], this reduces self-reported vividness and emotionality of the memory. These effects have been found up to 1 week later, but have largely been confined to self-report ratings. This study examined whether this dual-tasking intervention reduces memory performance (i.e., accessibility of emotional memories). Undergraduates (N = 60) studied word-image pairs and rated the retrieved image on vividness and emotionality when cued with the word. Then they viewed the cues and recalled the images with or without making EM. Finally, they re-rated the images on vividness and emotionality. Additionally, fragments from images from all conditions were presented and participants identified which fragment was paired earlier with which cue. Findings showed no effect of the dual-task manipulation on self-reported ratings and latency responses. Several possible explanations for the lack of effects are discussed, but the cued recall procedure in our experiment seems to explain the absence of effects best. The study demonstrates boundaries to the effects of the "dual-tasking" procedure

Modification of episodic memories by novel learning : a failed replication study

Background: After reactivation, memories can become unstable and sensitive to modification before they are restored into long-term memory. Using behavioural manipulations, reactivated memories may be disrupted via the mechanism of interference (i.e. novel learning). In a laboratory study, Wichert et al. (2013a) showed that new learning after reactivation changed episodic memory, while new learning alone or reactivation alone did not. Objective: Given the potential clinical application of such a procedure in trauma-focused psychological treatments, such as CBT or EMDR, the aim of this study was to replicate Wichert et al. Method: On Day 1, participants (N = 96) viewed and recalled a series of emotional and non-emotional pictures. Then, participants were randomized to one of four groups. One week later, on Day 8, Group 1 reactivated the previously learned pictures and learned new pictures. To control for specific effects of reactivation or new learning, Group 2 only reactivated the previously learned pictures, and Group 3 only learned new pictures. Group 4 received no reactivation and no new learning. On Day 9, all groups indicated for each picture out of a series whether they had seen it on Day 1. Results: The data were analysed using Bayesian hypothesis testing, which allows for quantifying the evidence in favour of the alternative and the null hypothesis. In general, results showed that Group 1 recognized fewer pictures from Day 1 compared to Groups 2 and 4 on Day 9. However, the expected difference between new learning following reactivation (i.e. Group 1) and new learning alone (i.e. Group 3) was not substantially supported by the data for any of our dependent measures. Conclusions: We replicated some of the findings by Wichert et al., but did not find substantial support for the critical difference between new learning following reactivation and new learning alone

Modification of episodic memories by novel learning : a failed replication study

Background: After reactivation, memories can become unstable and sensitive to modification before they are restored into long-term memory. Using behavioural manipulations, reactivated memories may be disrupted via the mechanism of interference (i.e. novel learning). In a laboratory study, Wichert et al. (2013a) showed that new learning after reactivation changed episodic memory, while new learning alone or reactivation alone did not. Objective: Given the potential clinical application of such a procedure in trauma-focused psychological treatments, such as CBT or EMDR, the aim of this study was to replicate Wichert et al. Method: On Day 1, participants (N = 96) viewed and recalled a series of emotional and non-emotional pictures. Then, participants were randomized to one of four groups. One week later, on Day 8, Group 1 reactivated the previously learned pictures and learned new pictures. To control for specific effects of reactivation or new learning, Group 2 only reactivated the previously learned pictures, and Group 3 only learned new pictures. Group 4 received no reactivation and no new learning. On Day 9, all groups indicated for each picture out of a series whether they had seen it on Day 1. Results: The data were analysed using Bayesian hypothesis testing, which allows for quantifying the evidence in favour of the alternative and the null hypothesis. In general, results showed that Group 1 recognized fewer pictures from Day 1 compared to Groups 2 and 4 on Day 9. However, the expected difference between new learning following reactivation (i.e. Group 1) and new learning alone (i.e. Group 3) was not substantially supported by the data for any of our dependent measures. Conclusions: We replicated some of the findings by Wichert et al., but did not find substantial support for the critical difference between new learning following reactivation and new learning alone