A comparison of involuntary autobiographical memory retrievals

Abstract

This study compared three different ways autobiographical memories are elicited involuntarily: (1) cued by an active goal common to memory and retrieval contexts in combination with sensory information associated with this goal-directed activity; (2) cued by sensory information that does not relate to goal-directed activity common to both memory and retrieval contexts; and (3) activated when no identifiable cue present in retrieval context. Two hundred and twenty eight participants recorded details of a single autobiographical memory that resulted naturally from a spontaneous, nondeliberate retrieval. Nearly all recorded memories described specific events (83%) with very few memories less than 7 days old (8%) and many memories more than 5 years old (44%). No significant differences resulted between the three retrieval types for the age, specificity or prior rehearsal of memories reported. However, the level of attention at retrieval was significantly more diffuse for retrievals without a clearly identifiable cue. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for current models of involuntary autobiographical memory retrieval.

Implementation intention encoding does not automatize prospective memory responding

“…Specifically, as secondary tasks are added to ongoing activities, thereby requiring more attentional resources, individuals may set a higher threshold for allowing cue-driven thoughts unrelated to the ongoing tasks to enter consciousness. This notion is consistent with the idea that spontaneously retrieved memories (memories that occur without a deliberate search) are more likely to reach consciousness when we are relaxed and our attention is not highly focused (Ball & Little, 2006;Kvavilashvili & Mandler, 2004). Even if retrieval were not challenged by demanding ongoing activities, demanding ongoing activities could compromise execution of the prospective memory intention by interfering with its maintenance in awareness until execution was possible (see Einstein et al, 2003).…”

The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition

“…To resolve the spontaneous familiarity in the "butcher-in-the-bus" example, consciously-controlled processing was necessary to identify the familiar person as being the butcher. In naturalistic settings, there are similar occasions wherein spontaneous familiarity is not resolved and one is left unable to identify why something seems familiar (Ball & Little, 2006;Berntsen, 2010;Kvavilashvili, & Mandler, 2004). In this article, our focus is on involuntary familiarity of the butcher-in-the-bus variety although more complete forms of involuntary memory might also contribute to our results.…”

“…For example, younger adults may spontaneously recognize distracting information when the target of the memory task frequently switches to the previously distracting stimulus type during test, making it more difficult to constrain retrieval processes. Further, involuntary memory in daily life has been reported to occur across a variety of contexts that vary in the extent to which memory is actively engaged in the ongoing task (e.g., Ball & Little, 2006). Another important question is whether spontaneous familiarity operates in a similar way when it occurs outside of a memory task.…”

Involuntary autobiographical memories in and outside the laboratory: How different are they from voluntary autobiographical memories?

“…second, the majority of memories are elicited by d easily identifiable cues, most of which correspond to and form central features of the memory content (Berntsen, 1998;Berntsen & Hall, 2004;Schlagman et al, 2007). Cues have also been found to be predominantly external (i.e., present in the environment), as opposed to internal thoughts (Ball & Little, 2006;Berntsen, 1998;Berntsen & Hall, 2004;Kvavilashvili & Mandler, 2004;Mace, 2004;Schlagman et al, 2007). Furthermore, Berntsen (2007) reported that the majority of external cues from her 1998 diary study (i.e., 66%) were peripheral aspects of the envit ronment-that is, aspects of the environment that were not directly related to the current activity of the rememberer.…”