Literature DB >> 33729559

Retrieval effort or intention: Which is more important for participants' classification of involuntary and voluntary memories?

Krystian Barzykowski1, Søren Risløv Staugaard2, Giuliana Mazzoni3.   

Abstract

Theories of autobiographical memory distinguish between involuntary and voluntary memories. While involuntary memories are retrieved with no conscious intention and are therefore unexpected, voluntary memories are both intended and expected. Recent research has shown that participants sometimes classify their memories as either involuntary or voluntary based on retrieval effort instead of intention. These findings question whether intention really is the defining difference between these two types of retrieval or whether retrieval effort is also an important determinant. In two experimental studies, we investigated the extent to which participants rely on retrieval effort while classifying their memories as involuntary or voluntary. We created experimental conditions that maximize the probability of one type of retrieval while minimizing the probability of another type. Participants reported autobiographical memories in each condition while the programme registered their retrieval time. They then classified their memories as either voluntary or involuntary and rated all memories on perceived retrieval effort. This gave us four categories of memories: experimentally defined voluntary and involuntary memories with an objective measure of effort (retrieval time) and subjectively classified involuntary and voluntary memories with a subjective measure of effort. This allowed us to investigate the relative contribution of intention and effort to involuntary and voluntary memories. We replicated and extended previous findings by showing that the majority of memories were classified as involuntary independently of whether they were retrieved in the experimentally defined voluntary or involuntary condition. This could indicate that subjective effort is more important than intention for the involuntary-voluntary distinction in contrast with existing theories. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications of this finding.
© 2021 The British Psychological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  autobiographical memory; fluency; involuntary memory; retrieval effort; threshold hypothesis; threshold model; voluntary memory

Year:  2021        PMID: 33729559     DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12498

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Psychol        ISSN: 0007-1269


  5 in total

1.  Subjective judgments on direct and generative retrieval of autobiographical memory: The role of interoceptive sensibility and emotion.

Authors:  Noboru Matsumoto; Lynn Ann Watson; Masahiro Fujino; Yuichi Ito; Masanori Kobayashi
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-03-16

2.  Semantic-to-autobiographical memory priming causes involuntary autobiographical memory production: The effects of single and multiple prime presentations.

Authors:  John H Mace; Emilee A Kruchten
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-07-14

3.  Could direct and generative retrieval be two flips of the same coin? A dual-task paradigm study.

Authors:  Daniele Gatti; Eszter Somos; Giuliana Mazzoni; Tjeerd Jellema
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2022-06-15

4.  Investigating the role of involuntary retrieval in music-evoked autobiographical memories.

Authors:  Amy M Belfi; Elena Bai; Ava Stroud; Raelynn Twohy; Janelle N Beadle
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2022-03-09

5.  Do intuitive ideas of the qualities that should characterize involuntary and voluntary memories affect their classification?

Authors:  Krystian Barzykowski; Giuliana Mazzoni
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-02-13
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.