CAJ | 학술논문

采用经典实验室研究范式，实验一探讨了前瞻记忆任务为知觉加工条件下，注意状态和前瞻记忆任务与进行中任务一致和不一致时对不同认知方式个体前瞻记忆成绩的影响；实验二探讨了前瞻记忆任务为语义加工条件下，注意状态和前瞻记忆任务与进行中任务一致和不一致时对不同认知方式个体前瞻记忆成绩的影响。结果表明，（1）在前瞻记忆任务加工类型是语义加工和知觉加工两种条件下，场依存与场独立个体均发现了TAP效应的存在，而且场依存个体表现出更明显的TAP效应；（2）当前瞻记忆任务与进行中任务的加工类型不一致时，场独立个体的前瞻记忆成绩明显高于场依存个体，而在两类任务加工类型一致情况下，场独立与场依存个体的前瞻记忆成绩不存在明显差异；（3）在前瞻记忆任务是知觉加工时，分心对前瞻记忆成绩有明显不利的影响；而在前瞻记忆任务是语义加工时，只有当前瞻记忆任务与进行中任务加工类型不一致时，分心对前瞻记忆才有明显不利的影响，而且在分心条件下的TAP效应更明显。
채용경전실험실연구범식，실험일탐토료전첨기억임무위지각가공조건하，주의상태화전첨기억임무여진행중임무일치화불일치시대불동인지방식개체전첨기억성적적영향；실험이탐토료전첨기억임무위어의가공조건하，주의상태화전첨기억임무여진행중임무일치화불일치시대불동인지방식개체전첨기억성적적영향。결과표명，（1）재전첨기억임무가공류형시어의가공화지각가공량충조건하，장의존여장독립개체균발현료TAP효응적존재，이차장의존개체표현출경명현적TAP효응；（2）당전첨기억임무여진행중임무적가공류형불일치시，장독립개체적전첨기억성적명현고우장의존개체，이재량류임무가공류형일치정황하，장독립여장의존개체적전첨기억성적불존재명현차이；（3）재전첨기억임무시지각가공시，분심대전첨기억성적유명현불리적영향；이재전첨기억임무시어의가공시，지유당전첨기억임무여진행중임무가공류형불일치시，분심대전첨기억재유명현불리적영향，이차재분심조건하적TAP효응경명현。
The mechanism of prospective memory （PM） is a hot topic in memory research area, among which the transfer appropriate processing （TAP） effect of PM has received much attention. Researchers have studied the influence of several individual variables, especially age, on TAP effect of PM. In the present study, we investigated whether there was difference in TAP effect of PM among individuals with different cognitive styles when attention was either focused or divided. This study included two experiments using the classical PM paradigm. Experiment 1：（1 ） Participants： one hundred and forty-six undergraduates participated in the Group Embedded Figure Test （GEFT）. Among them, top 30 high-score student were dubbed field-independent （FI）, and 30 lowest-score students were dubbed field-dependent （FD）. The final sample included 26 FI and 28 FD. （2） Experimental design： PM task was perceptual. The design was 2 （cognitive styles： FD or FI） 2 （attention： focused or divided） 2 （relationship between PM task and ongoing task： matched or mismatched） mixed factorial design. Experiment 2：（1） Participants： one hundred and fifty undergraduates participated in the GEFT. The method used was the same as that of experiment I .The final sample included 28 FI and 30 FD. （2） Experimental design was the same as that of experiment lexcept that PM task was semantic. We used SPSS10.0 to analyze the data. The results were as follows： Experiment 1： Multivariate analysis of variance （MANOVA） on PM scores showed the main effect of attention state was significant （p 〈 0.01 ）. PM score under the focused attention were significantly higher than that of divided attention. The interaction between cognitive style and relationship between PM task and ongoing task was significant （P 〈0.01）. When PM task mismatched ongoing tasks, PM score of FI subjects was significantly higher than that of FD subjects. Further analysis on the difference scores between matched condition and mismatched condition of PM task and ongoing task processing types showed significant main effect of cognitive style （p 〈0.05）. PM score of FD subjects were significantly higher than that of FI subjects, which meant TAP effect of PM was strengthened on FD subjects. Experiment 2： MANOVA test on PM scores showed that as experiment 1, the interaction between cognitive style and relationship between PM task and ongoing task was significant. The interaction between attention and relationship between PM task and ongoing task was also significant （p 〈 0.01 ）. Divided attention tasks showed a significantly impairing effect on PM score when the PM tasks mismatched ongoing tasks. Further analysis on the difference scores between matched condition and mismatched condition of PM task and ongoing task processing types again showed main effect of cognitive style （p 〈0.01）. PM score under divided attention was significantly higher than that under focused attention （p 〈0.01）, which indicated that TAP effect of PM was strengthened under divided attention. To sum up, the current study demonstrated that when PM tasks mismatched ongoing tasks, PM score of the FI subjects were significantly higher than the FD subjects; when the two tasks matched, however, PM scores of FI and FD subjects were comparable. For both semantic and perceptual processing in PM tasks, the TAP effect was found in both FI and FD subjects. Moreover, it is more salient for the FD. Divided attention tasks showed a significantly impairing effect on PM score in the perceptual PM tasks. But only when PM tasks mismatched with ongoing tasks, divided attention tasks showed a significantly harmful effect in semantic PM tasks with a more significant TAP effect.