EMOTION AND MEMORY 1

Running Head: EMOTION AND MEMORY

Emotion and memory:
A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal

James S. Adelmana,* and Zachary Estesb

Word Count (main text, excl. abstract/tables/figures): 2999

* Corresponding author.

a Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, COVENTRY, CV4

7AL, U.K. J.S.Adelman@warwick.ac.uk, +44 (0) 24 761 50233; Fax: +44 (0) 24 765
24225

b

Department of Marketing, Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 MILAN, Italy.

estes@unibocconi.it

EMOTION AND MEMORY 2
Abstract
Much evidence indicates that emotion enhances memory, but the precise effects of thetwo primary factors of arousal and valence remain at issue. Moreover, the current
knowledge of emotional memory enhancement is based mostly on small samples ofextremely emotive stimuli presented in unnaturally high proportions without adequate
affective, lexical, and semantic controls. To investigate how emotion affects memory
under conditions of natural variation, we tested whether arousal and valence predicted
recognition memory for over 2500 words that were not sampled for their emotionality,
and we controlled a large variety of lexical and semantic factors. Both negative andpositive stimuli were remembered better than neutral stimuli, whether arousing or
calming. Arousal failed to predict recognition memory, either independently orinteractively with valence. Results support models that posit a facilitative role of valencein memory. This study also highlights the importance of stimulus controls andexperimental designs in research on emotional memory.

Keywords: arousal; emotion; memory; recognition; valence.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 3
1. Introduction
Among the oldest psychological intuitions is that emotion enhances memory(James, 1890), and indeed much evidence now supports this hypothesis (Buchanan,
2007; Kensinger, 2009; Mather, 2007). Emotion influences memory at multiple levels,from perceptual recognition and identification (Estes & Adelman, 2008a; Zeelenberg,
Wagenmakers, & Rotteveel, 2006) to explicit recognition and recall of emotional stimuli
and their perceptual properties (Doerksen & Shimamura, 2001; Kensinger & Corkin,2003). Two basic dimensions of emotion are arousal and valence: Arousal describes
how exciting (“sex”) or calming (“sleep”) a stimulus is, whereas valence describes how
positive (“smile”) or negative (“frown”) it is. Our understanding of how emotion
enhances memory relies on the currently disputed effects of these factors.

Current theories largely attribute emotional memory enhancement to arousal. The
underlying assumption is that our limited memorial resources are preferentiallyallocated to behaviorally significant stimuli (Nairne, 2010), with arousal acting as a
primary index of behavioral significance (McGaugh, 2000). In contrast, valence ishypothesized to exert a lesser influence on memory, if any at all. For instance, someresearchers attribute the emotional memory enhancement entirely to arousal (Hamann,
2001; Mather, 2007; Phelps, 2006), with valence having little or no influence
independent of arousal (Mather & Sutherland, 2009). By this account, memory can beenhanced for both negative and positive stimuli, provided they are sufficiently arousing.
Others similarly emphasize the role of arousal in emotional memory, but additionallypropose that valence can facilitate memory in the absence of arousal (Kensinger &EMOTION AND MEMORY 4
Corkin, 2003, 2004; LaBar & Cabeza, 2006), or that valence influences memory forperceptual details of the stimulus (Kensinger, 2009; Kensinger & Schacter, 2008).

1.1 Limitations of Prior Research
Thus, there is consensus that emotion facilitates memory, but current theories are
based on experimental research that has several limitations:(i) Most prior experiments examine few stimuli per condition, and include
analyses by participants but not by items, thus providing limited evidence of generality
across stimuli.

(ii) Most prior experiments include only extreme cases of valence and/or arousal.
This overlooks the atypicality of extreme stimuli and the potential influence of
extremity.

(iii) Many prior experiments compare neutral stimuli to either negative or positive
stimuli, but not both, and results with a given valence (e.g., negativity) are often
overgeneralized to the other valence (e.g., positivity) without testing this assumed
generality.
(iv) Most prior experiments include a high proportion of emotional stimuli(typically 50 or 67%), which are relatively rare in natural language (see Whissell, 2009).
Such high proportions of emotional stimuli induce participants to attend to emotion
more than they would ordinarily (Everaert, Spruyt, & De Houwer, 2011). And critically,
when participants attend to emotion, their memory for emotional stimuli improvesEMOTION AND MEMORY 5(Greenberg, Tokarev, & Estes, 2012). Thus, the typical experiment with an unnaturallyhigh proportion of emotional stimuli inadvertently renders emotional factors more
likely to exert effects.

(v) Many prior experiments confound valence and arousal, because neutral stimuli
tend to be less arousing than negative and positive stimuli. Thus neutral stimuli often
differ from negative and positive stimuli in both valence and arousal. It is unclear
whether results from such studies are due to arousal, valence, or both (Mather &Sutherland, 2009).

(vi) Few prior experiments controlled important lexical and semantic variables
such as word length, word frequency, and imageability, which are known to influence
recognition memory (Cortese, Khanna, & Hacker, 2010). Emotional memory effects may
be partially or wholly attributable to such non-emotional factors.

Thus, the current knowledge of emotional memory enhancement is based mostly
on small samples of extremely emotive stimuli presented in unnaturally highproportions without adequate affective, lexical, and semantic controls. Although somestudies avoid some of these limitations, to our knowledge, no prior study avoids all ofthese limitations. By addressing these limitations, the present study was designed toprovide clearer evidence regarding emotional memory enhancement.

1.2 Current ResearchEMOTION AND MEMORY 6
We merged recognition memory scores for over 2500 words (Cortese et al., 2010)
with emotionality ratings for the same words (Adelman, Marquis, Sabatos-DeVito, &Estes, 2013), and tested whether arousal and/or valence predicted recognition memory
while controlling a large variety of lexical and semantic factors. This stimulus sample issubstantially larger than prior experiments on emotional memory, and rather than only
including extreme cases, it spans the full ranges of arousal and valence, as they naturally
occur in a sample unselected for emotional characteristics. This is the largest and mostwell-controlled study to date of emotional memory enhancement. Results of this study
will critically discriminate models that attribute the emotional memory enhancement
solely to arousal (Hamann, 2001; Mather, 2007; Phelps, 2006) from models that also
posit a contribution of valence to emotional memory (Kensinger, 2009; LaBar & Cabeza,2006).

EMOTION AND MEMORY 7

2. Method
2.1 Outcome variables
The outcome variables are from Cortese et al. (2010), in which 117
undergraduates each intentionally learned 15 lists of 50 words, with immediate
recognition tests (with 50 foils) after learning of each list. Note that because Cortese et
al. excluded 22 additional participants with accuracy below 60%, our results may not
generalize to individuals with relatively poor memory. The outcome variables were hit
rate, false alarm rate, hits minus false alarms, d' (sensitivity) and C (criterion). We
analyzed the 2507 words for which all predictor variables were available.

2.2 Predictor variables
First, the variables used by Cortese et al. (2010) were taken as control variables.
Objective word frequency was calculated as the log.-transformed frequency of occurrenceof a given word in a large corpus of text samples (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995).
Subjective word frequency was measured as participants' estimates of word frequency(Balota, Pilotti, & Cortese, 2001). Age of acquisition is the estimated age at which a wordis learned; ratings were obtained from Cortese and Khanna (2008). Imageability is theease with which a given word evokes a mental image; ratings were obtained from
Cortese and Fugett (2004). Orthographic similarity is the extent to which a given word issimilar in spelling to other words; it was calculated as the average Levenshtein distanceof spelling of the twenty closest words (Yarkoni, Balota, & Yap, 2008). Phonologicalsimilarity is the extent to which a given word is similar in pronunciation to other words;
it was calculated analogously with the phonemic transcription. Phonological-to-EMOTION AND MEMORY 8
orthographic rime neighborhood size is the number of words sharing both theorthographic and phonological rime (i.e., vowel and subsequent consonants) with thegiven word. Word length was measured as the number of letters in the given word.

To these we added arousal and valence measures (Adelman et al., 2013), on which
each word was rated by 40 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers (see Buhrmester, Kwang,& Gosling, 2011) with a mean age of 33.22 years (SD = 10.69). All participants had aregistered US postal address, completed the task on a computer with a US IP address,
and identified English as their first (native) language in a pre-screening test.
Instructions were based on Bradley and Lang (1999). The relevant part read as follows:“AROUSAL is the extent to which the word makes you feel calm (relaxed, bored) or
excited (stimulated, agitated), whereas VALENCE is the extent to which the word makes
you feel negative (sad, scared) or positive (happy, contented). For each word you mustchoose one response among 7 levels of arousal (from extremely calming to extremely
exciting) and one response among 7 levels of valence (from extremely negative toextremely positive).”

Because the valence scale is from 1 ("extremely negative") to 7 ("extremely
positive"), the valence variable tests for a difference between negative and positive
stimuli, whereas an extremity of valence variable (absolute distance from the scale
midpoint) tests whether both negative and positive stimuli are better remembered thanneutral stimuli. We also added the (centered, multiplicative) arousal × valenceinteraction. For each outcome variable a separate multiple regression was conducted,using all of these predictor variables.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 9

2.2.1 Validation of predictors
We cross-validated our measures of arousal and valence with the most commonlyused source of emotional word ratings, the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW;
Bradley & Lang, 1999). Of the 2820 words in our list, 300 are also in ANEW. Among
those 300 overlapping words, our arousal ratings (r = .76, p < .001) and valence ratings(r = .96, p < .001) were strongly positively correlated with the ANEW ratings. Thus, ourarousal and valence ratings were cross-validated.

2.2.2 Relationships among predictors
Although arousal correlated with both valence (r = -.31, p < .001) and extremity ofvalence (r = .24, p < .001), the strength of these correlations did not approach levels at
which problems of collinearity arise (|r| > .8; Field, 2009). Moreover, the observed
collinearity tolerances of arousal (.84), valence (.83), and extremity of valence (.91) all
far exceed the threshold (.10) below which collinearity is typically identified (Field,2009). Thus arousal, valence, and extremity of valence were not multicollinear, andhence regression analyses are appropriate.

We used split-halves to estimate the reliability of the measures as .93 forarousal, .98 for valence, and .94 for extremity of valence. According to Kristof's (1973)
method, the (absolute) correlation of the true scores for the different measures was
significantly less than 1 (ts > 85), implying that each contained unique non-noise
variance. These analyses confirm that arousal and extremity of valence are different
constructs.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 10
3. Results
Figure 1 summarizes the patterns of covariate-adjusted mean recognition. Table 1
presents regression coefficients for the control variables — whose pattern ofsignificance replicated Cortese et al. (2010) — and the emotion variables.

Figure 1. Adjusted mean recognition (d' and accuracy = proportion correct = .5 + (Hits FAs)/2) as a function of arousal, valence, and extremity of valence in bands.

Arousal showed no effect on recognition. The same result held in an analysis
excluding extremity of valence. Valence only exerted its influence via a criterion shift(change in C): Participants were more likely to report a negative word as old, regardlessof whether it was in fact old (a hit) or new (a false alarm). The arousal × valenceinteraction was not significant in any analysis. Extremity of valence affected accuracy(both d' and hits minus false alarms): Participants were more likely to report words of

EMOTION AND MEMORY 11
extreme valence as correctly old (hits) and less likely to report them as incorrectly old(false alarms). Accuracy was around 5% higher for extreme than for neutral items.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 12
Table 1.
Regression coefficients for the effects of control variables and emotion variables on measures of recognition memory and lexicaldecision times.
Predictor Hit Rate
Control Variables
Objective Frequency -0.316***
Subjective Frequency -0.115***
Age of Acquisition 0.218***
Imageability 0.387***
Phon.-Orth. Neigh. 0.001
Orthographic Similarity 0.187***
Phonological Similarity 0.013
Length -0.081***
Emotion Variables
Arousal 0.010
Valence -0.064***
Extremity of Valence 0.040*
A × V Interaction -0.012
R2 47.0%

FA rateHits minus
FAs

d'

C

LexicalDecision-0.081*-0.124***-0.161***-0.071**0.139***-0.135***0.075***
0.393***-0.201***-0.0060.293***
0.365***-0.098***0.250***-0.041-0.349***-0.155***0.043
0.308***
0.323***-0.109***0.267***-0.049*-0.384***0.234***
0.148***-0.052-0.200***-0.093***-0.019-0.056*-0.226***-0.199***-0.300***0.135***-0.229***0.012
0.093***
0.006-0.0290.003-0.123***-0.029
0.012
16.6%

0.006
0.037
0.054**-0.020
29.3%

0.013
0.042
0.051**-0.01423.8%-0.0150.120***-0.0090.003
33.2%-0.087***-0.035*-0.042**
0.010
48.5%

Note: FA = false alarm; Phon.-Orth. Neigh. = phonological-to-orthographic rime neighborhood size.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 13
Given that arousal failed to predict recognition memory, we sought to establish
predictive validity of these arousal ratings: We regressed lexical decision response times(RTs) from the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007) on the same predictor
variables as in the main analyses. As shown in Table 1, valence and extremity of valenceboth significantly predicted RTs: Positive and negative words elicited faster responses
than neutral words, with positive words eliciting the fastest responses. Valence andarousal did not interact. This pattern replicates prior results (Estes & Adelman, 2008b).
Notably, arousal significantly predicted RTs (see also Estes & Adelman, 2008a). Thus, thefailure of arousal to predict recognition memory was not attributable to an inadequacyof the arousal ratings.

Finally, we examined whether the most extremely negative items were recognized
better than the most extremely positive items — as Figure 1 appears to suggest — in
ANCOVAs comparing the 5% (or 10% or 20%) most negative items with the 5% (or 10%
or 20%) most positive in terms of d’ and hits minus false alarms, whilst partialing out
the control variables. None of these analyses reached significance, Fs < 1.4.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 14
4. Discussion
Our results revealed that negative and positive stimuli were remembered better
than neutral stimuli, even after controlling for arousal and several other lexical andsemantic factors. We found no evidence that memory for negative stimuli is superior tomemory for positive stimuli, nor that arousal enhances memory either independently orinteractively.

4.1 Valence
Extremity of valence clearly facilitated recognition memory accuracy, in terms ofhits (correct recognition), hits minus false alarms (recognition corrected for responsebias), and d’ (sensitivity). As the stimulus words became more extreme – that is, morenegative or positive – recognition improved.

In contrast, the valence factor ranging from negative to positive did not predict
recognition accuracy. That is, negative words were no better remembered than positive
words. However, negative words did elicit a significant criterion shift: Both hit rates
and false alarm rates were higher. Essentially, participants were prone to claim
recognition of negative words regardless of whether they had actually studied them.
This observation is consistent with prior evidence from the remember/know paradigm(e.g., Dougal & Rotello, 2007; Mickley & Kensinger, 2008; Ochsner, 2000), which reveals
a tendency toward overconfidence rather than superior memory for negative stimuli
over positive stimuli.

4.2 Arousal

EMOTION AND MEMORY 15
We found no evidence that arousal enhances memory, either independently orinteractively with valence. Whilst the absence of an arousal effect may seem
theoretically surprising, in fact several influential studies have also found no effect ofarousal on memory accuracy (e.g., Kensinger & Corkin, 2004; Ochsner, 2000; Sharot,
Delgado, & Phelps, 2004). One factor that might explain the null effect of arousal in thisstudy is the reliability of arousal ratings. Recall that our arousal ratings correlated lessstrongly (r = .76) than our valence ratings (r = .96) with the corresponding ratings in the
ANEW database (see also Kousta, Vinson, & Vigliocco, 2009). Thus, arousal ratings might
simply be less reliable than valence ratings, and hence statistical power is lower for
detecting arousal effects than valence effects. Notably however, these arousal ratings did
have a high split-half reliability, the large sample of items yielded very high statisticalpower, and the arousal ratings did significantly predict lexical decision times. Anotherfactor that might minimize the effect of arousal in this study is our use of word stimuli.
That is, words might be substantially less arousing than images, so that arousal levels
were generally too low or too restricted to exert effects. On the other hand, again, thesearousal ratings were sufficiently varied to predict lexical decision times. Moreover, manyprior demonstrations of arousal effects have used words as stimuli, and in a directcomparison of words and images, Kensinger and Schacter (2006) found highly similarlevels of neural activation by arousing words and pictures.

4.3 Theoretical Implications
Some models attribute emotional memory enhancement entirely to arousal(Hamann, 2001; Mather, 2007; Phelps, 2006). Because our analysis revealed no effect ofarousal on memory accuracy, these results contradict such arousal-based models.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 16
However, arousal may nevertheless influence other aspects of memory, such as
participants’ recollective experience (e.g., Kensinger & Schacter, 2008) and theirmemory for perceptual details (e.g., Mather, 2007). Further, arousal might only influence
memory under different research conditions, such as when participants are particularly
attentive to emotion (Everaert et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2012). That is, whilst
arousal showed no effect under these conditions with these stimuli and these measures,its effect may appear under other circumstances.

These results more directly support models of emotional memory that posit anindependent role for valence (Kensinger, 2009; Kensinger & Schacter, 2008). Somemodels posit a role for valence, but assume valence affects memory only when arousal islow (Kensinger & Corkin, 2003, 2004; LaBar & Cabeza, 2006). Such models therefore
predict an interaction of arousal and valence, but critically, our analyses found nointeraction. These results thus fail to support such interactive models. Other models
claim a role of valence that is independent of arousal. For example, Kensinger (2009)concludes that negative valence enhances memory for focal details of the stimulus but
hinders memory for contextual details, whereas positive valence elicits a general senseof familiarity without detailed recollection. The net result is that both negative andpositive valence enhance memory relative to neutral stimuli, but the precise nature ofthose memorial enhancements may differ (i.e., central versus peripheral details). These
results thus generally support such models that include valence as a critical,
independent factor of emotional memory.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 17
On the other hand, such models also posit an influential role of arousal inemotional memory (Kensinger, 2009; LaBar & Cabeza, 2006), but we found no evidence
for this claim. So ultimately our results indicate that valence is more important for
memory than any current model supposes: All current models emphasize arousal, but
our results show valence to be more influential. Below we suggest methodologicalexplanations why prior studies have found arousal effects that, according to our results,
do not emerge among a larger set of words that vary more naturally in emotionality.

4.4 Methodological Implications
The present results highlight three important limitations of previous studies. First,
some effects that were truly due to valence might have been misattributed to arousal, or
indeed vice versa. For instance, to investigate how emotion affects memory, Sharot et al.
(2004) compared neutral stimuli (i.e., low arousal, moderate valence) to emotional
stimuli (i.e., high arousal, negative valence) that differed in both arousal and valence. In
such designs, one cannot conclude whether observed differences are due to arousal or
to valence. And unfortunately, this confounding of arousal and valence has beencommon in prior research (Mather & Sutherland, 2009). Second, many lexical andsemantic factors that are rarely controlled in studies on emotional memory (see Table 1)
significantly predict recognition accuracy (see also Cortese et al., 2010). Emotion effects
observed in prior studies may be wholly or partly attributable to these confounding
factors. Third, the design of a typical emotional memory experiment may artificiallyinduce or inflate emotional memory effects. In a typical experiment, an unnaturally highproportion of the stimuli are extremely emotion-inducing. Such high proportions of
extremely emotional stimuli increase participants’ attention to emotion (Everaert et al.,

EMOTION AND MEMORY 18
2011), which in turn improves their memory for emotional stimuli (Greenberg et al.,2012).

Conversely, this research illustrates the utility of mega-study databases, whichallow novel and complex analyses of large datasets as new hypotheses and newmeasures emerge (see Balota, Yap, Hutchinson, & Cortese, 2012). Here, Cortese et al.’s(2010) mega-study of recognition memory allowed us to examine independent effects ofarousal and valence as they vary naturally across thousands of words, while also
controlling more lexical and semantic factors than prior studies. This analysis
demonstrates that valence, whether negative or positive and whether exciting or
calming, enhances recognition memory.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 19
References
Adelman, J. S., Marquis, S. J., Sabatos-DeVito, M. G., & Estes, Z. (2013). The unexplained
nature of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 39, 1037–1053.
Balota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,983
monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29, 639–647.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H.,
Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project.
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., & Cortese, M. J. (2012). Megastudies: What do
millions (or so) of trials tell us about lexical processing? In J. S. Adelman (Ed.) Visual
word recognition volume 1: Models and methods, orthography and phonology. Hove,
England: Psychology Press.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW):
Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1, The Center for
Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Buchanan, T. W. (2007). Retrieval of emotional memories. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
761–779.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A newsource of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6, 3–5.
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words.
Behavior Research Methods, 36, 384–387.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 20
Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic
words. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 791–794.
Cortese, M. J., Khanna, M. M., & Hacker, S. (2010). Recognition memory for 2578
monosyllabic words. Memory, 18, 595–609.
Doerksen, S., & Shimamura, A. P. (2001). Source memory enhancement for emotional
words. Emotion, 1, 5-11.
Dougal, S., & Rotello, C. M. (2007). “Remembering” emotional words is based on
response bias, not recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 423-429.
Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008a). Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexicaldecision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006). Emotion, 8,441-444.
Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008b). Automatic vigilance for negative words is categoricaland general. Emotion, 8, 453–457.
Everaert, T., Spruyt, A., & De Houwer, J. (2011). On the (un)conditionality of automatic
attitude activation: The valence proportion effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 65, 125-132.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed). London: Sage.
Greenberg, S. N., Tokarev, J., & Estes, Z. (2012). Affective orientation influences memory
for emotional and neutral words. American Journal of Psychology, 125, 71–80.
Hamann, S. (2001). Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 5, 394-400.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Holt.
Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 1,
99–113.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 21
Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2003). Memory enhancement for emotional words: Are
emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words? Memory &Cognition, 31, 1169–1180.
Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2004). Two routes to emotional memory: Distinct neuralprocesses for valence and arousal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
101, 3310-3315.
Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). Processing emotional pictures and words:
Effects of valence and arousal. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6,110-126.
Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). Neural processes supporting young and older
adults’ emotional memories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1161-1173.
Kristof, W. (1973). Testing a linear relation between true scores of two measures.
Psychometrika, 38, 101–111.
Kousta, S.-L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity,
have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112, 473-481
LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 54-64.
Mather, M. (2007). Emotional arousal and memory binding: An object-based framework.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 33-52.
Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. (2009). Disentangling the effects of arousal and valence on
memory for intrinsic details. Emotion Review, 1, 118–119.
McGaugh, J. L. (2000). Memory: A century of consolidation. Science, 287, 248-251.

EMOTION AND MEMORY 22
Mickley, K. R., & Kensinger, E. A. (2008). Emotional valence influences the neuralcorrelates associated with remembering and knowing. Cognitive, Affective, andBehavioral Neuroscience, 8, 143-152.
Nairne, J. (2010). Adaptive memory: Evolutionary constraints on remembering. In B. H.
Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 53 (pp. 1–32). Burlington,
VT: Academic Press.
Ochsner, K. N. (2000). Are affective events richly recollected or simply familiar? The
experience and process of recognizing feelings past. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 129, 242-261.
Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the humanamydala. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 27-53.
Sharot, T., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2004). How emotion enhances the feeling of
remembering. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1376-1380.
Whissell, C. (2009). Using the revised Dictionary of Affect in Language to quantify theemotional undertones of samples of natural language. Psychological Reports, 105,509-521.
Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure oforthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.
Zeelenberg, R., Wagenmakers, E-J., & Rotteveel, M. (2006). The impact of emotion on
perception: Bias or enhanced processing? Psychological Science, 17, 287-291.
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word
frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.