Arguing that people are often in doubt concerning to whom they have presented what information, Gopie and MacLeod (2009) introduced a new memory component, destination memory: remembering the destination of output information (i.e., "Who did you tell this to?"). They investigated source (i.e., "Who told you that?") versus destination memory in computer-based imagined interactions. The present study investigated destination memory in real interaction situations. In 2 experiments with mixed-gender (N = 53) versus same-gender (N = 89) groups, source and destination memory were manipulated by creating a setup similar to speed dating. In dyads, participants completed phrase fragments with personal information, taking turns. At recognition, participants decided whether fragments were new or old and, if old, whether they were listened to or spoken and which depicted person was the source or the destination of the information. A multinomial model was used for analyses. Source memory significantly exceeded destination memory, whereas information itself was better remembered in the destination than in the source condition. These findings corroborate the trade-off hypothesis: Context is better remembered in input than in output events, but information itself is better remembered in output than in input events. We discuss the implications of these findings for real-world conversation situations.

According to common sense, things one has done are remembered better than things done by others that one has observed. On first sight, findings concerning memory for actions appear in line with that preconception: Performed actions (“subject-performed tasks”) appear to be remembered particularly well, and better than observed actions (“experimenter-performed tasks”). A closer look, however, reveals important exceptions regarding this enactment effect. The aim of the present paper is critically evaluating the literature that compares memory for performed and observed tasks. In recognition memory, an enactment effect has regularly been observed. In free recall, however, findings depended on the experimental design: When performed and observed actions were intermixed, an enactment effect was typically found. In contrast, in designs where actions were either all performed or all observed, this was rarely the case. We discuss underlying memory processes, potential moderator variables, open questions, and implications.

No abstract

The intention-superiority effect describes faster reaction times for stimuli related to an intention than for more neutral material during the retention interval. Some authors have interpreted the effect in terms of a more persistent activation of intention-related material. However, typically participants are instructed to realize the intention immediately after completing the task in which reaction times are assessed (e.g., a recognition task) in order to yield the intention-superiority effect. Thus, the reaction-time task is also associated with a retrieval context. We tested whether the proximity of a retrieval opportunity affects the intentionsuperiority effect by manipulating whether or not a recognition task indicated a retrieval opportunity. We observed an intention-superiority effect only if the task itself was a meaningful cue for a near retrieval opportunity. This finding indicates that even short-term-delayed intentions flexibly become more or less accessible, depending on the proximity of a retrieval opportunity. We further demonstrated that the intention-superiority effect is not restricted to motor tasks,