1. ARE WE SMARTER WITH OUR HANDS? Relations between Gesturing and Fluid Intelligence Carla R. Kuhl & Stephani Foraker born2bkuhl@gmail.com ; forakesm@buffalostate.edu We all struggle to remember things. In our everyday life, our schedule demands that we remember lists of things to ensure that all has been done, such as grocery lists, daily appointments, or items in a recipe. In addition, learning strategies that aid our ability to remember and recall can help children in grade school and students in college. This study looked at the effect of different encoding strategies on memory accuracy. It is well-known that mental imagery is superior to simple verbal repetition, likely because it provides a relational link between concepts (e.g., Barresi & Silbert, 1976; Bower, 1970; Paivio, 1971). More recently, research shows that gesturing at encoding also improves learning and memory recall over speech alone, likely through implicit pathways (Cook, Yip, & Goldin- Meadow, 2010; Goldin-Meadow, Cook, & Mitchell, 2009). Foraker and Ostrov (2011) recently compared the effectiveness of repetition, imagery, and gesturing directly, as explicit encoding strategies. They found that gesturing produced lower accuracy than imagery, which is surprising given the evidence that gesturing may be externalized mental imagery (e.g., Gestures as Simulated Action, Hostetter & Alibali, 2008; Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010). In this study, we attempted to find out why gesturing did not fare as well as imagery. We examined whether one’s spontaneous tendency to gesture modulated the effectiveness of gesturing as an explicit strategy. In addition, based on research showing that individuals with high fluid intelligence produce more representational gestures in problem-solving tasks (Wartenburger et al., 2010; Sassenberg et al., 2010), we assessed whether that connection generalized to a word associates task. Barresi, J., & Silbert, S.E. (1976). Selective interference in Memory: The imagery-repetition effect revisited. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 30, 221-227. Bower, G. H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 529-533. Cook, S. W., Yip, T., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesture makes memories that last. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 465-475. Foraker, S., & Ostrov, M. (2011). When words are not enough: Does gesturing facilitate learning more than imagery? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Cambridge, MA. Goldin-Meadow, S. & Beilock, S.I. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 5, 664-674. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20, 267-272. Hostetter, A., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495-514. Sassenberg, U., Foth, M., Wartenburger, I., & van der Meer, E. (2011). Show your hands – Are you really clever? Reasoning, gesture production and intelligence. Linguistics, 49, 105-134. Wartenburger, I., Kuhn, E., Sassenberg, U., Foth, M., Franz, E.A., & van der Meer, E. (2010). On the relationship between fluid intelligence, gesture production and brain structure. Intelligence, 38, 193-201. References Discussion Most of our hypotheses were supported, particularly the prediction that a gesturing strategy at encoding increases memory accuracy for those who have a higher spontaneous gesture rate. Our finding that a benefit for gesturing persists over time is consistent with past research (Cook et al., 2010; Goldin- Meadow et al., 2009), but this is the first evidence we know of where gesturing was employed as an explicit memory strategy. We replicated Foraker and Ostrov’s (2011) finding that in general an imagery strategy was more a effective encoding strategy than gesturing. Fluid intelligence had a significant facilitation effect overall on memory accuracy, but did not produce the same pattern as the gesture rate modulator. We did not find a positive correlation between spontaneous gesture rate and fluid intelligence. However, when calculating gesture rate based on the procedural task only (the actions of wrapping a gift), the relationship was marginal. consistent with Sassenburg et al. (2011) and Wartenburger et al. (2010): movement gestures were most highly related to fluid intelligence Future research should investigate further the circumstances under which gesturing helps versus hinders learning and memory. Several participants commented during debriefing that it was difficult to come up with gestures. Since gesturing was not the optimal strategy for the paired associates learning task, we propose that the type of material being learned may be critical when creating gestures explicitly, on demand. For example, one could vary the type of words being gestured. The present study used concrete nouns (which could be imagined or gestured), but based on the Gestures as Simulated Action framework, it is possible that gestures will work optimally for actions or objects that have a highly associated action. zipper, scissors, pencil, shovel High gesture rate facilitated memory accuracy, and more so for those assigned the gesture strategy. Also, this benefit persisted over time only for the gesture strategy group. F (1, 2756) = 19.03, p <.001 Thanks to Megan Delo, Paula Russo, Perry Kent, Jr., Kate Mosier, and Erin Baccari for help with data collection and coding. Funding from the Office of Undergraduate Research at Buffalo State College. Acknowledgements Background Hypotheses & Results 1.Participants with high gesture rate will have higher memory accuracy. supported: F (1, 2756) = 19.40, p <.001 2.Participants who use the imagery strategy will have higher memory accuracy overall. supported: F (1, 2756) = 191.94, p <.001 3.Participants will do better on immediate memory accuracy than delayed. supported: F (1, 2756) = 680.84, p <.001 4.For participants who are assigned the gesture strategy, those higher in gesture rate should have better memory accuracy. supported: two-way interaction F (1, 2756) = 8. 65, p =.003. 5.Participants who score higher in fluid intelligence will have higher memory accuracy. supported: F (1, 2756) = 155.75, p <.001 6.Positive correlation between gesture rate and fluid intelligence score. no support: Average of both narrations, r (91) = +.13, p =.223 marginal support: Gift wrapping action description, r (91) = +.19, p =.068 Method Participants: 91 college students (~80% female) Design: 2 x 2 x 2 mixed design Gesture Rate (between ss): High vs. Low OR Fluid Intelligence, High vs. Average Encoding Strategy (between ss): Gesturing vs. Imagery Time (within ss): Immediate vs. Delayed test Procedure Session 1: 1.Viewed a 2-minute cartoon and narrated it back (Sponge Bob) 2.Described a procedure (how to wrap a gift) 3.Learned 30 word pairs with assigned strategy Gesturing or Imagery used to associate the words Low associates, normed previously (M = 1.30, 1-7 scale) e.g., DONKEY – AIRPLANE, FORK – YARN, STATUE – ZIPPER 4.Immediate cued-recall memory test Session 2, two days later: 1.Delayed cued-recall memory test. 2.Raven’s Advanced Matrices Test, measuring Fluid Intelligence 19+ problems correctly solved = High; < 19 = Average Gesture Annotation: High vs. Low Gesture Rate Annotated gestures from videotapes of cartoon and procedure descriptions for each participant (two researchers, inter-rater reliability) Counted representational gestures: illustrates an object or action Calculated number of gestures per minute Median split of the sample based on average spontaneous gesture rate across the cartoon and procedure Fluid Intelligence facilitated memory accuracy. p <.001 p =.005 p =.002 p =.555 p <.001