When trying to recall our past, all roads lead to Rome: More evidence for the multi-process retrieval theory of autobiog
- PDF / 358,957 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 43 Downloads / 156 Views
When trying to recall our past, all roads lead to Rome: More evidence for the multi-process retrieval theory of autobiographical memory John H. Mace 1 & Bobbie Jo A. Staley 1 & McKenzie K. Sopoci 1 Accepted: 15 September 2020 # The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020
Abstract In this study, we tested elements of the multi-process retrieval account of autobiographical memory, retrieval multiplicity, and retrieval selectivity. The retrieval multiplicity states that multiple different retrieval strategies are used to recall autobiographical memories, while the retrieval selectivity states that such retrieval strategies will vary in accord with the cuing environment. We tested these hypotheses across two experiments with the retrieve-aloud procedure. In the retrieve-aloud procedure, participants were required to verbalize their thoughts while attempting to retrieve personal memories in response to phrase cues (e.g., listening to music). Experiments 1 and 2 found support for the retrieval multiplicity by showing that participants used a variety of different retrieval processes (eight different processes in total), while Experiment 1 found support for the retrieval selectivity by showing that retrieval strategies varied across different cue types. The implications of the findings are discussed with respect to autobiographical memory, as well as semantic memory. Keywords Autobiographical memory retrieval . Retrieval strategies . Multi-process retrieval theory . Direct and generative retrieval . Voluntary autobiographical memories . Autobiographical memory
Introduction Attempts to understand how we intentionally recall the past have a fairly long history in autobiographical memory research. Norman and Bobrow (1979) argued that retrieval from autobiographical memory was a cyclical process, where one cycles through stages of cue elaboration, memory search, and evaluation until the sought-after memory is found (see also Williams & Hollan, 1981). In more recent history, Conway and colleagues (e.g., Conway, 2005; Conway & PleydellPearce, 2000) proposed that two distinctly different types of retrieval processes are at work during intentional recall: direct retrieval – where cues appear to map directly onto to matching episodic memories without effort, and generative retrieval – where effortful searches proceed through the hierarchical layers of autobiographical memory (i.e., from lifetime periods to general events to ultimately episodic memories) (see Haque & Conway, 2001; Haque, Juliana, Khan, & Hasking, 2014;
* John H. Mace [email protected] 1
Psychology Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL 61920, USA
Williams, Chan, Crane, & Barnhofer, 2006). Uzer, Lee, and Brown (2012) present an alternative two-process account, where direct retrieval is viewed as the dominant form, and generative retrieval is viewed as processes where cues are generated in the service of retrieving memories. Mace, Clevinger, Delaney, Mendez, and Simpson (2017) proposed that intentional recall in autobiographical memory involves multiple retr
Data Loading...
