View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Involuntary Autobiographical Memories: The Question of Function

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Involuntary Autobiographical Memories: The Question of Function
Language: English
Authors: Mace, John H. (ORCID 0000-0002-4904-6865), Zhu, Jian, Kruchten, Emilee A., McNally, Kevin
Source: Applied Cognitive Psychology. May-Jun 2023 37(3):600-611.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Memory, Recall (Psychology), Autobiographies, Cognitive Processes, Responses, Informed Consent, Cognitive Objectives
DOI: 10.1002/acp.4069
ISSN: 0888-4080
1099-0720
Abstract: Research on involuntary autobiographical memories has made significant progress over the past two decades. One question in this area concerns whether involuntary memories are functional, or merely cognitive failures. Survey methods have been used to assess the question of involuntary memory functionality, but with mixed results, with some suggesting that most involuntary memories are functional, and others suggesting the opposite. In this study, we argued that the variable findings were due to differences in survey design. In Study 1, we showed that closed-ended questionnaires on function (where participants select from a number of function choices) produce significantly more positive function responses than open-ended questionnaires (where participants freely articulate perceived functions). Study 2 showed that allowing participants to select more than one function greatly inflated positive function responses. We used these findings to outline a number of possible answers to the question of involuntary memory functions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1377040
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGDVR36aiUpC33vTtOPHfTaAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJRY-v1XqJ2TN3-ZnAIBEICBmlKDqbzrDl46bd6-uGVYrkfmwFz_BMhEYJ-whq-jVgkbQ19pjWI6qOigIK2FgQD0U--0HBxy2KKTvcgr8pyRKyU7p4szZxPGS16DBAPrQv6waC1r5epWd0-SFSeuLlckZrYN2TctS0qFhB-m94sq4fjKFc4S9bW_5f9vaL2TcLgpYX2COsRB7C5rqLbvVJR1aa3nKTIMh36Jfao=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163704345;bu801may.23;2023May16.07:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163704345-1">Involuntary autobiographical memories: The question of function </title> <p>Research on involuntary autobiographical memories has made significant progress over the past two decades. One question in this area concerns whether involuntary memories are functional, or merely cognitive failures. Survey methods have been used to assess the question of involuntary memory functionality, but with mixed results, with some suggesting that most involuntary memories are functional, and others suggesting the opposite. In this study, we argued that the variable findings were due to differences in survey design. In Study 1, we showed that closed‐ended questionnaires on function (where participants select from a number of function choices) produce significantly more positive function responses than open‐ended questionnaires (where participants freely articulate perceived functions). Study 2 showed that allowing participants to select more than one function greatly inflated positive function responses. We used these findings to outline a number of possible answers to the question of involuntary memory functions.</p> <p>Keywords: involuntary autobiographical memories; involuntary memory functions; involuntary remembering</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Once a neglected topic, the study of involuntary autobiographical memories (spontaneous recollections of the past) has received considerable attention over the last two decades (see initial studies, Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>], and reviews, Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]). Involuntary memories have been studied as they occur naturally in everyday life (e.g., Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]; Kvavilashvili & Mandler, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]), as well as in the laboratory via tasks designed to elicit them (e.g., Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]; Barzykowski & Niedzwienska, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; Berntsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]; Schlagman & Kvavilashvili, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]). Considerable progress has been made in the understanding of involuntary memoires in everyday life (see reviews in Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]). However, there remains one important question on the nature of involuntary memories. That is, whether they are functional or merely cognitive failures? There have been a few empirical studies addressing this issue (e.g., Kamiya, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]), with somewhat varying results, as well as arguments being made on either side of the question (e.g., Mace & Unlu, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref22">32</reflink>]). In this study, we examined the main approach that has been used to investigate this question, the survey method. We attempted to ascertain the reasons for the varying results, as well as offer some criticisms and alternative methods and views. Before we outline the details of this study, we first review the views on involuntary memory function, as well as the studies that have examined it.</p> <p>It is generally accepted that autobiographical memory serves three distinct functions, the directive (guiding current and future behavior), self (providing the foundation for the construction of the self), and social (facilitating social bonding) functions (e.g., Baddeley, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]; Bluck & Alea, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]). Generally, the question of function in involuntary memories has been viewed from the perspective of these three functions, sometimes called the canonical functions (e.g., Kamiya, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]). Functional approaches in autobiographical memory have emphasized the notion of adaptivity (i.e., evolved mechanism) as well as use (i.e., how might memories be used apart from their theoretically defined functions, see Bluck et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). Theories and studies on involuntary memory function appear to mostly emphasize the adaptive side of functionality (e.g., Kamiya, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, Berntsen and colleagues (e.g., Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref35">32</reflink>]) have argued that involuntary memories form a basic mode of remembering that evolutionarily predates voluntary remembering and that they may serve directive and social functions, as well as provide individuals with a sense of continuity across time. Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]) also argued that involuntary memories may serve directive functions, as well as social and self‐functions. It has also been posited that involuntary remembering may provide emotional regulation (e.g., Rasmussen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]), play a role in cognition (Mace, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]), and facilitate voluntary recall (Baars et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]). Theorists have also argued that as an adaptive mechanism, involuntary remembering may be imperfect, as it may often function haphazardly, frequently providing the rememberer with unwanted or irrelevant memories (e.g., Mace, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref42">27</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]; Mace & Kruchten, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref44">29</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]). In contrast to these views, it has also been argued that involuntary remembering may be a purely non‐functional cognitive process, a by‐product of other cognitive processes (e.g., priming, Mace & Unlu, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Kamiya ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]), see details in Kamiya ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]) was among the first to examine involuntary memory function. In these studies, participants recorded various aspects of naturally occurring involuntary memories (e.g., content, triggers, etc.), as well as their immediate thoughts and actions after their retrieval. Judges subsequently compared memory content to thoughts and actions, and coded memories according to the directive, self, and social functions. The results of those analyses showed that in excess of 90% of involuntary memories were coded by the judges as fitting the directive, self, or social functions. However, in Kamiya ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]), involuntary memories were also found to correlate with cognitive failures (for similar cognitive failure findings, see Verwoerd & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies examining involuntary memory function also used self‐report methods. In these studies, participants kept diary records of their involuntary memories as they occurred in everyday life and they were asked open‐ or close‐ended questions on their perception of memory function (for reviews and examples of different diary methods, see Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]; Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]; Kvavilashvili & Mandler, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]). Using the open‐ended approach, Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]) had participants record a single involuntary memory (Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>]) for which they were asked if the involuntary memory was in any way useful to their current circumstance, explaining how in affirmative cases. The results showed that participants deemed about one‐third of their memories to serve some sort of immediate function. Studies using close‐ended questions report much higher rates of perceived function. Rasmussen and Berntsen ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref61">33</reflink>]) and Rasmussen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]) had participants select from a number of possible function responses (e.g., did it help you solve a problem or make a decision, achieve a goal, share with a person, provide entertainment, or no purpose or reason) after they had recorded involuntary memories over extended time periods. The results of these studies indicated that involuntary memories were deemed functional at relatively much higher rates than in Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]), ranging from 61% to 76% across three samples.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]</p> <p>The question that we attempted to answer here is: why do these studies show such discrepant outcomes, with one suggesting that most involuntary memories are not functional, the others suggesting that most are? It seems that differences in methodology is the most likely cause for different outcomes, and here there are a number of possibilities. One possibility concerns the data collection methods. Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref65">28</reflink>]) used the single memory entry recording approach (Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]), whereas Rasmussen and Berntsen ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref67">33</reflink>]) and Rasmussen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]) had participants record multiple memories over an extended period of time. Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]) had participants answer the function questions immediately after memory retrieval, whereas in the Rasmussen's studies participants answered their function questions retrospectively (at the end of the day). While it is possible that immediate versus delayed administration of the function questionnaire may have produced differences in the outcome, it is not entirely clear how that may have affected the results. Perhaps at times participants had forgotten many aspects of their immediate experience with memories, and were then more apt to select a positive function response ("it helped me feel better") at the end of the day than a no‐function response. Repeated testing may have had a larger and more certain influence. That is, participants may have been inclined to respond negatively initially (e.g., after the first few memories), but switched to a positive response posture as testing continued. If true, this difference in responding may have be due to gained insight with repeated experiences, or it could have been the function of some sort of response bias (e.g., participants grew weary of saying their memories had no function).</p> <p>However, the most salient difference between these studies was the actual questionnaire design. As noted, Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]) used an open‐ended question format (i.e., what did the memory do for you in your current circumstances?), whereas the Rasmussen studies used a close‐ended question format where participants could choose from multiple responses (e.g., it helped solve a problem or make a decision, achieve a goal, provide entertainment, or no purpose). If differences in the results were due to differences in questionnaire designs, then this could highlight a number problems with relying on such approaches to answer questions on memory functions.</p> <p>For example, on the negative side, the results from the open‐ended approach might show that individuals really do not know what the functions of their involuntary memories are, as at times they may be unable to properly articulate them, or they may not be cognizant of their real functions (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]). Alternatively, giving participants choices (e.g., did it help you solve a problem or make a decision, achieve a goal, share with a person) in the close‐ended approach might correct this short‐coming, but this approach may also induce a number of response biases. For example, individuals may generally be uncomfortable with selecting the "no purpose or reason" response and may be more inclined to select from positive response options (e.g., "it helped me make a decision", "think about a person"), a bias which may also occur in the open‐ended design. This tendency to respond affirmatively could be enhanced by having choices such as, "boredom", "daydreaming," or "entertaining" as possible functions. At another level, one could argue that asking the function question with so many answer choices sends the message that the experimenter thinks that involuntary memories might be functional (i.e., a classic demand effect, a problem which could also be attendant in the open‐ended approach). Apart from these possibilities, if the true function of involuntary memories is not accessible to the casual observer (trained or untrained individuals), then participants may be selecting possibilities that naturally (e.g., "it helped me remember a person") or coincidentally (e.g., "I shared it with someone else") occurred with their autobiographical memories. This possibility could be true in cases where involuntary memories had no function, or in cases where they served some esoteric cognitive function.</p> <p>To test if differences between studies using open‐ended and close‐ended questioning were a function of the questionnaire design, we conducted an involuntary memory diary study where all collection methods (i.e., recording method, questionnaire timing) were held constant, while only the questionnaire design was varied (open‐ended vs. close‐ended). For the recording method, we used the single‐entry recording method (Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]). The single‐entry recording approach was pioneered by Ball and Little ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]), who argued that the single‐entry diary approach should reduce response biases that may be associated with repeated, long‐term recordings (see their report which reviews supporting evidence). We chose it for this reason, and like in Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]) we were concerned that a repeated recording design might change response postures (in a positive or negative direction) on the memory function questionnaire. Accordingly, participants in this study recorded a single, naturally occurring involuntary memory and then they received either open‐ended (Study 1) or close‐ended questions (Studies 1 and 2) on their perceptions of involuntary memory function.</p> <p>Our primary objective in this study was to see if under these circumstances, significant differences in positive responses (indications of perceived purpose) were still found between the two questionnaire types. We reasoned that if significant differences were observed, such findings would rule out method of recording as the reason for differences found in involuntary memory function studies, leaving questionnaire design as the likely cause. We further reasoned that this outcome could point to potential problems with using survey methods to answer fundamental questions about the functions of involuntary memories. Accordingly, we performed a number of analyses apart from the main analysis (i.e., comparing positive responses across the two approaches) to help shed some light on these different possibilities (we fully address all issues in the General Discussion in light of all the data).</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-3">STUDY 1</hd> <p>In Study 1, we recruited a large sample of participants for a single recording involuntary memory study (Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]). As noted above, participants recorded a single, naturally occurring involuntary memory and then they received either open‐ended ("was the memory useful to your current circumstance") or close‐ended questions (e.g., "did the memory help you solve a problem, make a decision, achieve a goal, share with a person, provide entertainment, or no purpose") on their perceptions of functions. We performed a number of analyses on the data (discussed below), but the main analyses consisted of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) comparing the rates of positive function across the two design types, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>) comparing the rates of the three canonical (directive, social, and self) and other functions both within and across design types.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163704345-5">Participants</hd> <p>The participants were 271 undergraduate and graduate students from Eastern Illinois University, as well as members from the local community. Participants participated in exchange for course credit or a payment of $1.00. One‐hundred and ninety of the participants were females, whereas 81 were males, with an age range of 18–65 years (<emph>M</emph> = 22.14 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 7.74).</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-6">Diary and function questionnaire design</hd> <p>The diary record contained four basic items, as well as a number of questions (open‐ended or close‐ended) on memory function. The four basic items were one, a brief description of the involuntary memory; two, the participant's age in the memory; three, the current attentional state (daydreaming, not concentrating on a task, concentrating on a task, or very concentrating on a task); and four, a brief description of the current activity, along with the experience that was believed to have cued the memory. The function items were either two‐opened questions, or one close‐ended question with 11 possible responses. In the open‐ended version, the first item asked if the memory was useful to the immediate/current situation (defined as what they were thinking or doing when the memory came to mind), whereas the second question was a repetition of the first, worded differently ("was the memory in some other way useful"). We added the second question in the event that participants did not fully understand the first question, or if they found it to be too narrowly defined, thereby giving them another opportunity to respond. For both questions the responses were "yes" or "no," where "yes" responses required a written explanation. In the close‐ended version, the function question was identical to the first function question in the open‐ended version ("was the memory useful to the immediate situation"), but here there were 11 possible responses (e.g., "it helped me solve a problem or decide what to do," "it made me feel better," "I don't think the memory was particularly useful," see Table 1 for all 11 response options). The items in Table 1 were largely fashioned after the items in Rasmussen and Berntsen ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref80">33</reflink>]) and Rasmussen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref81">34</reflink>]), with a few minor modifications in language, and we did not include items for <emph>boredom</emph> or <emph>dreamin</emph>g. In addition, there are also slight differences in the categorizations of functions. We made these modifications because their studies also included voluntary memory conditions, and we felt that our changes better suited sole involuntary memory conditions. As in the Rasmussen studies, the close‐ended version of the questionnaire allowed for the selection of more than one response. In both the open‐ and close‐ended questionnaire, the wording of the main function question ("was the memory useful to the immediate situation") matched the wording used in Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]), while it differed from Rasmussen and Berntsen ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]) and Rasmussen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref84">34</reflink>]), who asked participants to indicate what they thought made the memory come to mind.</p> <p>1 TABLE Choices for the function question in the close‐ended questionnaire, with function type in parentheses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>It helped me solve a problem or decide what to do (directive function)</td></tr><tr><td>It helped me make a decision (directive function)</td></tr><tr><td>It allowed me to share a memory or other information with another person (social function)</td></tr><tr><td>It reminded me of a goal (self‐function)</td></tr><tr><td>It reminded me of my achievements (self‐function)</td></tr><tr><td>It reminded me of who I am as an individual (self‐function)</td></tr><tr><td>It reminded me of my beliefs and values (self‐function)</td></tr><tr><td>It helped made me feel better (other function)</td></tr><tr><td>It reminded me of another person (other function)</td></tr><tr><td>It helped me entertain myself (other function)</td></tr><tr><td>I do not think the memory was particularly useful (no function)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0163704345-7">Procedure</hd> <p>Prior to the start of the diary recording, participants were given written instructions that defined involuntary autobiographical memories, described the requirements for participating in the study, and listed some examples of the types of entries they would be required to make in the diary. The descriptions or examples made no reference to the function question. Once participants agreed to take part in the study, they were given a unique, private web link to the diary, and they were told that once they had their first involuntary memory, they were to access the link immediately and answer the questions about the memory. They were allowed to skip the first memory if it was private (i.e., unwilling to share) or if recording was inconvenient. In such cases they were instructed to wait until they had an involuntary memory that they were willing to share. The web link took participants to the diary entries and the questionnaire (open‐ended or close‐ended), administered via the Qualtrics survey program, which they could access in the manner that was most convenient for them (e.g., via a smartphone or PC). Once they accessed the diary/questionnaire, the diary items appeared as a single page where the four basic items appeared first, followed by the two function questions (open‐ended version), or the single function question (close‐ended version), along with the 11 choices. In the close‐ended condition, participants were instructed to read through all of the possible function choices before they selected any. Once participants completed all entries in either condition, the program closed and they were then unable to re‐access it.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-8">Coding</hd> <p>Independent judges (two) were given three coding tasks. One, they read the memory descriptions to confirm that they were indeed descriptions of autobiographical memories (i.e., referring to past events), and not random thoughts or future projections, prospective memories, or semantic memories. Two, they read the descriptions for the current activity and cuing item, looking for statements indicative of intentional recall (e.g., "I was trying to remember or think back to....", etc.).Three, they read the function explanations from the open‐ended version and they categorized them in accordance with the function choices used in the close‐ended version (Table 1). The judges were looking for exact or near exact wording (e.g., "it helped me make a decision," directive function; "it reminded me of my friend," other function), as well as conceptual overlap (e.g., "it reminded me how to," directive function; "I used this memory in conversation," social function). Cases that did not fit any of the selections in Table 1, literally, near literally, or conceptually, were categorized as "miscellaneous" (i.e., not fitting any of the canonical or other functions, but having some other stated purpose). Agreement between the judges was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-9">Results and discussion</hd> <p>None of the descriptions for the activity and cuing entry revealed statements that were indicative of intentional retrieval. However, examinations of the memory descriptions revealed that three of the 271 memories were other than autobiographical (e.g., prospective memories, two in the open‐ended, one in the close‐ended condition). These memories were discarded, leaving 268 for the analyses (134 for each version of the function questionnaire). Examinations of the age in memory and attentional state items revealed nothing remarkable or different between the two versions of the questionnaire, and therefore we do not report on these items.</p> <p>Turning to the main analyses, Figure 1 shows the percentage of participants who responded affirmatively to the function question in both the open‐ and close‐ended versions of the questionnaire. Affirmative responses in the open‐ended version are "yes" responses to the first ("was the memory useful to the immediate situation") or second function question ("was the memory in some other way useful"), whereas they are "yes" responses to one or more of the function choices in the close‐ended version (see Table 1). As can be seen in the figure, affirmative responses in the close‐ended version were substantially higher than in the open‐ended version (98% vs. 40%). Not surprisingly, a chi‐square confirmed that "yes" responses were significantly greater in the close‐ended questionnaire relative to the open‐ended, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 268) = 103.48, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>φ</emph> = 0.62.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BU8/01may23/acp4069-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="acp4069-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Percentage of participants who responded "yes" or "no" to memory function questions in the open‐ and close‐ended questionnaire groups" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Additionally, we also examined selection patterns for the function question in the close‐ended questionnaire (Table 2). Table 2 shows the percentages for all of the responses in the close‐ended questionnaire. As can be seen in Table 2, 47% of the participants (<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref86">63</reflink>) actually selected the no‐function option. With the exception of 3 participants (2% of total, Figure 1), who only selected the no‐function option, 60 participants (45% of total) selected the no‐function option, along with one or more of the function options. As these participants may have been ambivalent about choosing function options, we re‐analyzed the data across the two questionnaire types, treating their responses as "no‐function" responses. This resulted in a much lower affirmative rate for the close‐ended data (see Figure 2), but this still resulted in a significant difference between the two questionnaire types, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 268) = 4.33, <emph>p</emph> = .04, <emph>φ</emph> = 0.13.</p> <p>2 TABLE Responses (in percentages) to questions in the close‐ended questionnaire</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Question</th><th align="left">Percent of total memories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Solve a problem or decide what to do (directive)</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Make a decision (directive)</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Share a memory with another person (social)</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of a goal (self)</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my achievements (self)</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of who I am as an individual (self)</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my beliefs and values (self)</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Helped made me feel better (other)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of another person (other)</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Helped me entertain myself (other)</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I do not think the memory was particularly useful (no function)</td><td>47</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Percentages do not sum 100% as participants could choose more than one option.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BU8/01may23/acp4069-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="acp4069-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Percentage of participants who responded "yes" or "no" to memory function questions in the open‐ and close‐ended questionnaires, counting those who responded "yes" and "no" in the close‐ended questionnaire as "no" responses" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Table 3 shows the outcome of the affirmative function response coding in the open‐ended questionnaire. As we were interested in comparing the directive, social, self, and other functions data across questionnaire types, we combined all of the items within these classes for both questionnaire types and present their composite scores in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, there are stark differences in the function categories across the two questionnaire types. A series of statistical tests showed that the rates of the functions displayed in Table 4 were significantly higher in the close‐ended condition relative to the open‐ended for all of the function types, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>s (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 268) = 20.19–120.65, <emph>p</emph>s < .001, <emph>φ</emph>s = 0.27–0.67.</p> <p>3 TABLE Categorization of function explanations in the open‐ended questionnaire</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Question</th><th align="left">Percent of total memories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Solve a problem or decide what to do (directive)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Make a decision (directive)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Other directive functions (directive)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Share a memory with another person (social)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other social functions (social)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of a goal (self)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my achievements (self)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of who I am as an individual (self)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my beliefs and values (self)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other self‐functions (self)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Helped made me feel better (other)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of another person (other)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Helped me entertain myself (other)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Miscellaneous functions (other)</td><td>24</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 TABLE Comparison of function categories in the open‐ and close‐ended questionnaires</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Function</th><th align="left">Open‐ended (%)</th><th align="left">Close‐ended (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>φ</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Directive</td><td>6</td><td>26</td><td>20.19</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>3</td><td>59</td><td>94.95</td><td>.59</td></tr><tr><td>Self</td><td>7</td><td>64</td><td>96.68</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>24</td><td>90</td><td>120.65</td><td>.67</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In summary, the results of this study showed that individuals are far more likely to respond affirmatively to function questions when they are given a close‐ended question format with multiple choices than an open‐ended format where they must articulate a memory's function (98% vs. 40%). As we held the data collection methods constant, the results suggest that the differences observed here, as well as in the literature, are probably a function of the questionnaire design, and not differences in data collection or some other extraneous variable (e.g., participant selection). Thus, the relatively low rate of affirmative responses in the open‐ended condition suggests that individuals either think that their involuntary memories have no purpose most of the time, or they do not know the purpose of many of their involuntary memories. The high rate of affirmative responses in the close‐ended condition suggests that giving participants potential function choices either helps them recognize functions, or it induces response biases, which tilt the results toward affirmative responding. There are also potential problems with the open‐ended questionnaire. We explicate possible problems with the close‐ended first.</p> <p>In the close‐ended results, a good number of participants who selected function responses (46%) also selected the no‐function option. It is difficult to gleam true intentions in these cases, as selecting both the no‐purpose option as well as purpose options may mean that they were either conflicted about their response choices, or they really felt that their memories had no purpose and they were just selecting other options which could be true or were correlated with their memories (e.g., "it reminded me of who I am as an individual," "it made me feel better"). It is also possible that on occasions their selection of the no‐function option was a reflection of perceived strength (e.g., I think the memory served a purpose, but it wasn't that useful to me). Also, concerning the three canonical functions of autobiographical memory (directive, social, and self), many of the participants (53%) indicated that their memories fit two or all three of them simultaneously. While it is possible that memories may at times serve more than one function, it also seems that such scenarios might be somewhat rare, but how this may manifest in everyday life is an open question. Finally, the reported rate for the social function ("it allowed me to share a memory or other information with another person") seemed particularly high (60%). This finding suggests that more than one‐half of the time, involuntary memories occur in social contexts in which they are shared, ostensibly occurring to fulfill this function. Perhaps this is true, however, a post hoc examination of the "describe your current circumstances" item for these memories showed participants explicitly indicating social contexts (e.g., noting that they were in conversation or with other people) in only 30% of the cases, while the remaining 70% revealed no explicit or implicit indication of a social context, indeed many suggesting just the opposite (e.g., a report of having an involuntary memory while swimming).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>] Nevertheless, we cannot be certain from these data, as it is possible that the social function may have been work frequently, as indicated.</p> <p>Evidence of possible biased responses can also be found in the open‐ended results. A post hoc examination of the explanations for positive functions revealed some dubious explanations. That is, for 58% of the positive response explanations, participants wrote explanations that did not fit any of the three functions, the functions that were classified as other in Table 1 (e.g., the memory "made me feel better"), or any other known, imagined, or reasonable function (e.g., "I need to focus better", "It helped me pass time," "It was very funny," "It reminded me of good times," and "It provided me with the memory for this study"). These responses could be taken as evidence that participants felt compelled to indicate that their memories were functional, despite any obvious indications, perhaps because they believed that this was what the experimenter expected, or they held the personal, a priori belief that their memories were functional. It is also possible that participants may have frequently had a difficult time expressing what they thought the function of their memory was, in which case a close‐ended approach may have been more helpful.</p> <p>Thus, it is possible that both questionnaire types have some inherent problems. It is also possible that some of the design elements of the close‐ended questionnaire made it more prone to positive responses in cases where no real or apparent function was present. One feature of this design which may have amplified positive responses was the ability to select more than one response. Perhaps, this option caused some conflicted responding (i.e., indicating both "yes" and "no" to the function question), as well as contributing to the high rate of overlapping functions (e.g., indicating that a memory had two or more of the three functions). We address these possibilities with a design modification in the next study.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-12">STUDY 2</hd> <p>In Study 2, we employed the close‐ended questionnaire used in Study 1 with a few modifications. One, participants were only able to select one choice (i.e., either a single function choice or a no function choice). Two, we added an additional no‐function item, one which allowed participants to express uncertainty ("I don't know if the memory was useful in my current situation; maybe it was just random."). Three, regardless of the item selected (i.e., positive or negative expressions of function), participants were required to explain their choice. As in Study 1, this version of the questionnaire was administered following the recording of a single involuntary memory.</p> <p>In this study, we were interested in seeing if these design changes reduced the rate of reported positive function, and how they might change the patterns of responses for positive function selections. We reasoned that being required to explain your responses should reduce possible indiscriminate selections, and having only one possible response should make participants more careful about their choice, hopefully selecting the response that best fit their circumstances. Thus, we expected that selections of the social function item would be more in line with circumstances, as well as dramatic differences in the rates of canonical and other function selections, some of the latter as a function of the single response limitations. We had no firm hypothesis on how the canonical functions might compare to the other functions, but based on the results in Study 1, we expected that other functions would either outstrip the canonical functions or the two may not differ.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-13">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163704345-14">Participants</hd> <p>The participants were 131 undergraduate and graduate students from Eastern Illinois University, as well as members from the local community. Participants participated in exchange for course credit or a payment of $1.00. Eighty‐three of the participants were females, whereas 48 were males, with an age range of 18–52 years (<emph>M</emph> = 21.34 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.04).</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-15">Diary and function questionnaire design</hd> <p>The diary design was the same as in Study 1, a single‐entry memory recording method with four basic items (memory description, age in memory, attentional state, and current activity, see Study 1). The function items were the same as those used for the close‐ended condition in Study 1, with one additional no‐function option, and the requirement to explain all responses. We added an additional no‐function item to allow participants to express either "no function" or "uncertainty" (<emph>I do not know if the memory was useful in my current situation; maybe it was just random</emph>). As noted, we added the explanation requirement mainly in the hopes that it would reduce random item selection. Additionally, we also used this feature, along with the activity description, to make judgments about the presence (or absence) of a social context in cases where the social function was selected. We did not attempt to verify other responses (e.g., <emph>it helped me make a decision</emph>) with these features, as we believed that such a task would be too difficult to perform with reasonable accuracy.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-16">Procedure</hd> <p>The procedure was identical to that used for the close‐ended condition in Study 1, with the exception that participants were instructed to select only one option in the function questionnaire phase (i.e., the one that best fit their situation), and they were further instructed to explain their response.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-17">Coding</hd> <p>Independent judges (two) were given three coding tasks. One, as in Study 1, they read the memory descriptions to confirm that they were indeed descriptions of autobiographical memories (i.e., referring to past events), and not random thoughts or future projections, prospective memories, or semantic memories. Two, as in Study 1, they read the descriptions for the current activity and cuing item, looking for statements indicative of intentional recall (e.g., "I was trying to remember or think back to....", etc.). Three, for cases where the social function was selected (<emph>It allowed me to share a memory or other information with another person</emph>), the judges read the activity description and the function explanation and they made judgments on the presence of a social context. If participants reported that they were in conversation (either explicitly or implicitly), reported one or more people present in their current situations, or if they were in a situation where others were likely to be present, they marked these cases as social context present. Where none of these features were present, they were marked as no social context. Agreement between the judges was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-18">Results and discussion</hd> <p>None of the descriptions for the activity and cuing entry revealed statements that were indicative of intentional retrieval. However, examinations of the memory descriptions revealed that one memory may have been voluntary. This memory was discarded, leaving 130 for the analyses. Examinations of the age in memory and attentional state items revealed nothing remarkable or different, and therefore we do not report on these items.</p> <p>Turning to the main analyses, Table 5 shows the outcome of the function questionnaire by item. Table 6 shows the outcome combining the function items by category type, along with the combined no‐function items. As can be seen in Table 6, roughly one‐half of the participants selected a no‐function item, while the remaining half selected a function item (54%, combining all function categories). A chi‐square test confirmed that positive function responses did not differ from no‐function responses (i.e., 54%, positive function, vs. 46%, no function), <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 130) = 0.77, <emph>p</emph> = .38, <emph>φ</emph> = 0.05.</p> <p>5 TABLE Responses (in percentages) to questions in the close‐ended questionnaire in Study 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Question</th><th align="left">Percent of total memories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Solve a problem or decide what to do (directive)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Make a decision (directive)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Share a memory with another person (social)</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of a goal (self)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my achievements (self)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of who I am as an individual (self)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of my beliefs and values (self)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Helped made me feel better (other)</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Reminded me of another person (other)</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Helped me entertain myself (other)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>I do not think the memory was particularly useful (no function)</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>I do not know if the memory was useful in my current situation; maybe it was just random (uncertainty or no function)</td><td>23</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 TABLE Responses (in percentages) to questions in the close‐ended questionnaire in Study 2 combining the items according to function or no‐function categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Function category</th><th align="left">Percent of total memories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Directive function</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Social function</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐function</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Other function</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>No function</td><td>46</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We also analyzed the selection patterns for the positive function items (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>), as well as the activity descriptions and the reasons given for the social function selection (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>). In the first analysis, out of the total positive responses (<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref93">70</reflink>), we compared the total responses for the canonical functions items (34%, combining the directive, social, and self‐items) to the total responses for the other function items (66%). This analysis showed that as a group, the other function items were selected more frequently than the canonical function items (i.e., 66%, other functions, vs. 34%, canonical functions), <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 70) = 6.91, <emph>p</emph> < .01, <emph>φ</emph> = 0.31. In the second analysis, inspections of the activity descriptions and the reasons given for the social function selection showed that 11 out of 12 total social‐function responses (92%) were congruent with circumstances fitting social functions (e.g., "I was in conversation"), <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 12) = 8.33, <emph>p</emph> < .01, <emph>φ</emph> = 0.83.</p> <p>In summary, using a one‐choice option instead of a multiple‐choice option (Study 1), this study showed that participants were as likely to select a positive function item as they were a no‐function item, departing from Study 1 which showed only 2% of participants choosing the no‐function option alone. In addition, the rates of occurrences for the canonical functions items and the other function items were considerably lower than they were in Study 1 (e.g., the social function item reported here was 9% compared to 59% in Study 1, compare Table 6 to Table 4, and see Study 3). Therefore, the results of Study 2 suggest that questionnaire designs that only allow a single function response might produce more focused outcomes than designs which allow for multiple responses. However, it is also possible that the design used here restricted the range of possible responses. We discuss the full implications of these results in the General Discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-19">STUDY 3: COMPARING STUDIES 1 AND 2</hd> <p>The purpose of Study 3 was to directly compare the results of the close‐ended questionnaire from Study 2 to the close‐ended and open‐ended results of Study 1. We were interested in seeing how the results from the two close‐ended questionnaires might diverge, and how the results from Study 2's close‐ended might converge with Study 1's open‐ended. Accordingly, we conducted two main analyses, one, which compared the open‐ended results of Study 1 to the close‐ended results of Study 2, and two, which compared the close‐ended results of Study 1 to the close‐ended results of Study 2. In each of these we compared the results from the category types across questionnaires, as well as the no‐function selection rates.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-20">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Table 7 displays the positive‐ and no‐function results from the open‐ended questionnaire of Study 1, as well as the results from the close‐ended questionnaire of Study 2. As can be seen in the table, statistical analyses with chi‐square tests (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 264 for all) found no differences across questionnaire types among the three canonical functions, but with the social function approaching significance, while other‐function responses were statistically higher in the close‐ended questionnaire, and no‐function responses were statistically higher in the open‐ended questionnaire.</p> <p>7 TABLE Comparison of function responses in the open‐ended questionnaire from Study 1 to the close‐ended questionnaire from Study 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Response</th><th align="left">Open‐ended (study 1) %</th><th align="left">Close‐ended (study 2) %</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left">φ</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Directive function</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>.04</td><td>.01</td><td>.84</td></tr><tr><td>Social function</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>3.31</td><td>.11</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐function</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>.21</td><td>.02</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>Other function</td><td>24</td><td>35</td><td>4.74</td><td>.13</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>No function</td><td>60</td><td>46</td><td>4.86</td><td>.13</td><td>.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 8 shows the positive‐ and no‐function results from the close‐ended questionnaire of Study 1 along with the results from the close‐ended questionnaire of Study 2. As can be seen in Table 8, chi‐square tests (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 264 for all) showed significant differences in all of the comparisons, with all of the positive‐function responses favoring Study 1's version of the questionnaire, and no‐function responses favoring Study 2's version of the questionnaire, though it should be noted that 47% of Study 1's close‐ended participants selected the no‐function response along with one (or more) function responses, which is not reflected in this analysis.</p> <p>8 TABLE Comparison of function responses in the close‐ended questionnaire from Study 1 to the close‐ended questionnaire from Study 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Response</th><th align="left">Close‐ended (study 1) %</th><th align="left">Close‐ended (study 2) %</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>φ</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Directive function</td><td>26</td><td>5</td><td>21.21</td><td>.28</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Social function</td><td>59</td><td>9</td><td>72.83</td><td>.53</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐function</td><td>64</td><td>5</td><td>99.96</td><td>.62</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Other function</td><td>90</td><td>35</td><td>85.61</td><td>.57</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>No function</td><td>2</td><td>46</td><td>70.04</td><td>.51</td><td><.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In sum, these analyses confirm that responses on the two versions of the close‐ended questionnaire depart radically from one another. Perhaps most importantly, they also show that Study 2's revised version of the close‐ended questionnaire produced outcomes similar to Study 1's open‐ended design, with the exception being in higher response rates for other‐function items, which appears to be the major source of differences in their no‐function rates. This finding suggests that if participants are unable to identify the functions of involuntary memories on their own, then giving them the possible function choices does not appear to enhance their ability to identify the canonical functions, only the other functions. However, as alluded to earlier, the problem with other function items is that many of them naturally correlate with typical autobiographical memory content, and participants may only be selecting them for this reason.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-21">GENERAL DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Beginning last century (Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref98">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>]), autobiographical memory researchers began to turn their attention toward the study of a somewhat mysterious memory phenomenon, spontaneous recollections of the past. As with any form of involuntary memories (e.g., mind pops and involuntary musical memories, Kvavilashvili & Mandler, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref100">19</reflink>]; Liikkanen & Jakubowski, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref101">20</reflink>]), a looming question concerns their functionality. A handful of studies have used survey approaches to answer this question, showing somewhat mixed results (e.g., Kamiya, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref102">17</reflink>]; Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref103">28</reflink>]; Rasmussen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref104">34</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]). This study has shown that questionnaire design is a likely source of the mixed findings.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-22">Methodological implications</hd> <p>In Study 1, we compared the open‐ended questionnaire method to the close‐ended questionnaire method under the same set of circumstances, single‐memory reporting, and immediate function reporting. As reported in the literature (e.g., Mace & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref106">28</reflink>]; Rasmussen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref107">34</reflink>]; Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]), the results were mixed, with less than one‐half (40%) of the open‐ended participants reporting their memories as functional, and nearly all (98%) of the close‐ended participants reporting their memories as functional. As noted at the outset, these discrepant findings can be interpreted as either due to a lack of participant awareness about the function of their memories in the open‐ended condition, or the product of response biases in the close‐ended condition. Additionally, participants in the close‐ended condition, while selecting one (or more) of the function options, also selected the no‐function option. These findings may have reflected ambivalence about their positive function choices, or it may have been a statement of function strength (i.e., believing that a memory served a specific purpose, but it also may not have been seen as very useful), or perhaps both of these possibilities. Also in the close‐ended condition, many of the participants selected more than one of the three canonical functions, with nearly all of them (90%) selecting one or more of the other functions along with these (see Table 4). We argued that while memories may at times serve more than one function, the rates seemed to be quite high. Furthermore, a post hoc examination of participant reported activities frequently revealed circumstances which were incongruent with a social context (e.g., the memory came to mind while I was swimming), bringing the reported social function (sharing a memory with someone) into question. Thus, we reasoned that while multiple functions may be more common in everyday life than one might expect, having the ability to select more than one function choice may have revealed this, and it may have also artificially amplified such effects. Future studies will need to distinguish among these possibilities.</p> <p>In Study 2, the close‐ended questionnaire only allowed for a single selection among the choices. The results from this approach were dramatically different from the multiple selection version used in Study 1 (see Tables 2, 5, and 8). The results showed that participants were equally likely to select a no‐function option as they were a function option, in sharp contrast to the very high positive function results of Study 1. Furthermore, the rates for the canonical function items also dropped dramatically, with the social and self‐functions at 9% and 5% in Study 2, relative to 59% and 64% in Study 1 (see Tables 4, 6, and 8). Similarly, the rate for the other function items was only 35% in Study 2, while it was an astounding 90% in Study 1. Thus, the design modification employed in Study 2 may have reduced some inflated values, putting this version of the close‐ended questionnaire more on par with the open‐ended questionnaire, in both overall function versus no‐function responses, and the distribution of the positive function responses. The analyses performed in Study 3 appears to have confirmed that the revised version of the close‐ended questionnaire produced results similar to the open‐ended questionnaire (see Table 7). And, given this similarity, we reasoned that if participants are generally unaware of the functions of their involuntary memories, giving them the potential function choices does not appear to enhance their insight.</p> <p>Thus, in this study we have shown that an unrestricted close‐ended questionnaire (Study 1) produces high rates of positive responses, while a restricted close‐ended questionnaire (Study 2) produces much lower rates of positive responses, outcomes which were in line with the open‐ended design (Study 1). While these results might indicate that some form of an open‐ended design and some form of a restricted close‐ended may produce better outcomes, there still may be potential problems with these designs. As noted, some of the positive responses in the open‐ended condition appeared to be dubious (e.g., "it provided me the memory for this study"), whereas the other‐function responses in both questionnaire types may merely reflect typical autobiographical memory content and impact (e.g., "it reminded me of a person," or "it made me feel better"). Additionally, positive responses may also be the function of attributional biases. For example, participants who have preconceived notions that involuntary memories are functional may be more inclined to select or claim function responses even when none were apparent. On the flipside, participants who have preconceived notions that involuntary memories are not functional may be inclined to indicate "no function", without sufficient consideration being given to how they might be functional. Response biases like these may have affected any of the questionnaires used in this study, and therefore, future research should search for ways of controlling this potential factor.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-23">The question of involuntary memory functions</hd> <p>Thus, while possibly gaining greater insight into the discrepant findings reported in the literature, we do not believe that the data reported here offer firm conclusions on the question of involuntary memory functions, primarily because they are from an approach that lacks the rigor of experimentation, and consequently, they may be susceptible to bias. Reasoning from this perspective, we believe that there are at least three ways to interpret the data from this study, a case for function, a case for no function, and a use account (e.g., Bluck et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref109">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the case for function, one presumes that the data from the open‐ended and revised version of the close‐ended questionnaires has produced accurate or partially accurate findings. In a strong version of this view, one reads the data to say that involuntary memories are functional roughly one‐half of the time (e.g., Table 7). A more conservative, weak version, casts doubt on the other‐function data, only accepting the canonical functions data, thus reducing the functional rates to approximately 20% (i.e., the approximate sums of the canonical functions in Table 7). In either the strong or weak versions of this view, an additional burden for this account is to explain how an evolved adaptive mechanism functions with such a low hit rate (i.e., 20% or 50%).</p> <p>The no‐function account presumes that no‐function responses reflect the random, non‐functional nature of involuntary memories, and positive function responses are merely biases based on a combination of personal beliefs and demand characteristics. In addition, positive function responses may also occur as a result of a number of coincidences. For example, as noted, one can challenge the self‐function items and the other function items on the grounds that many autobiographical memories may naturally have these characteristics, and therefore when participants note one (or more) of them as a function (e.g., it reminded me of my achievements, or another person, or it made me feel better), they could just be expressing what was inherent in a memory or what impact it had. Similar arguments can be made about the social and directive function responses. While the selection of these items may coincide with congruent circumstances (e.g., in the case of social item selections in Study 2), we cannot be sure that when a social or directive function is indicated for a memory, that the memory was retrieved for this purpose. Finally, as in the function account, the no‐function account has an additional explanatory burden, which in this case is to explain why "random" memories occur. However, on this front, there are already a number of candidate variables (e.g., unique cues, Berntsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref110">11</reflink>]; and priming, Mace, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref111">22</reflink>]; Mace & Unlu, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref112">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>The use account ignores the question of evolutionally evolved adaptive function and just focuses on how memories might be used (e.g., Bluck et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]; Bluck et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref114">14</reflink>]). This account would not discount the other‐function responses, as they would not be viewed as suspect functions, but would be seen as part of the uses for involuntary memories. While this account does not need to explain the functional hit rate, or how and why involuntary memories come to mind, it does still need to contend with accurate measurement. That is, one cannot simply say that some one‐half of involuntary memories are used in a variety of difference ways, and therefore they serve such functions, as there still is the question of potential response biases which need to be controlled for. For example, at times survey participants may have indicated functions for memories only because they were asked to ponder them, while in everyday life they may be more inclined to give little thought to their involuntary memories, not using many (or most) of them in any way (e.g., the Hawthorne effect) Thus, accuracy might still be a challenge to be overcome in this approach.</p> <p>Answering the function question for involuntary remembering is important because there are a number of different implications for each possible answer. For example, should involuntary memories turn out to be cognitive failures, then apart from the pure scientific value of this conclusion, such a conclusion could also provide insights into the functional (or non‐functional) nature of other types of spontaneous cognition (e.g., involuntary semantic memories, Kvavilashvili & Mandler, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref115">19</reflink>]). On the flipside, determining that involuntary memories are functional may help to further support theories of autobiographical memory function (e.g., reinforcing views on the canonical functions), as well as possibly providing new insights into how autobiographical memories can be functional (e.g., serve an unforeseen role in concept comprehension, Mace & Unlu, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>], see further discussion in Rasmussen & Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref117">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, we should note that if involuntary memories are ultimately shown to be non‐functional, they should not be seen as random cognitive events, as decades of research has shown that they conform to many organizational principles (see earlier reviews in Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]; Mace, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref119">25</reflink>]). For example, the majority of involuntary memories have identifiable cues (e.g., Ball & Little, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref120">4</reflink>]; Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]), and such cues appear to conform well to the encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thomson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref122">36</reflink>]). At the very least, the study of involuntary memories has proved useful to the study of autobiographical memory, and it is likely to continue to do so in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-24">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>In this study we utilized the single memory recording procedure pioneered by Ball and Little ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref123">4</reflink>]), and used by Mace and Atkinson ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref124">28</reflink>]) in their study on involuntary memory function. We selected this design because, like those authors, we had concerns about potential negative impacts that could accompany repeated testing. Namely, in our case, that repeatedly asking participants if their involuntary memories were functional could cause some to switch from negative responding initially to positive responding, perhaps because they felt they needed to, or they grew weary of responding negatively. Though maybe less likely, repeated testing might possibly have the reverse effect (changing from positive to negative). However, while Ball and Little ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref125">4</reflink>]) reported results from their single‐memory‐recording method that were consistent with results from repeated, long‐term memory collection methods (e.g., Berntsen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref126">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref127">8</reflink>]), it is possible that there are downsides to collecting a single memory from participants. For example, repeated testing could confer a beneficial practice effect, in that participants might come to better understand and assess the questions being asked of them over time. Accordingly, future studies may wish to compare single and repeated testing design to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages to both designs with respect to the function question.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study has highlighted differences and potential problems in the survey approach to the question of involuntary memory function. Given the fundamental nature of survey methods, and the difficulty of the question of adaptive function (e.g., Downes, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref128">15</reflink>]), we have not answered the question of involuntary memory function, and did not expect to do so. Alternatively, we hope that we have demonstrated some of the potential problems with the survey designs, hopefully motivating ideas on better ways to proceed with survey approaches, as well as develop other means. Perhaps the best way forward is to adopt the use account, designing methods that can best circumvent some of the problems that we have highlighted.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-26">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This study did not receive funding.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-27">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>There are no known conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0163704345-28">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data are available upon request to the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0163704345-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref39" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> As participants in these studies could select more than one function choice, positive function rates were derived from the percentage of participants who indicated "no function," which ranged from 24% to 39%.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> One of the independent judges returned to the close‐ended data and used liberal criteria for determining social context. The judge read the current activity description, and memories were marked as occurring in a social context if participants indicated that they were in conversation (either explicitly or implicitly), reported one or more people present in their current situations, or if they were in a situation where others were likely to be present. Memories not fitting these criteria were marked as no social context.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0163704345-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Baars, B. J., Ramamurthy, U., & Franklin, S. (2007). How deliberate, spontaneous, and unwanted memories emerge in a computational model of consciousness. In J. H. Mace (Ed.), Involuntary memory (pp. 177 – 207). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. (1988). But what the hell is it for? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 3 – 18). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, C. T. (2007). Can we elicit involuntary autobiographical memories in the laboratory? In J. H. Mace (Ed.), Involuntary memory (pp. 127 – 152). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, C. T., & Little, J. C. (2006). A comparison of involuntary autobiographical memory retrievals. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1167 – 1179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barzykowski, K., & Niedzwienska, A. (2018). Priming involuntary autobiographical memories in the lab. Memory, 26, 277 – 289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berntsen, D. (1996). Involuntary autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 435 – 454.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berntsen, D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary access to autobiographical memory. Memory, 6, 113 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Berntsen, D. (2001). Involuntary memories of emotional events: Do memories of traumas and extremely happy events differ? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 135 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berntsen, D. (2009). Involuntary autobiographical memories: An introduction to the unbidden past. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berntsen, D. (2012). Spontaneous recollections: Involuntary autobiographical memories are a basic mode of remembering. In D. Berntsen & D. C. Rubin (Eds.), Understanding autobiographical memory (pp. 290 – 310). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berntsen, D., Staugaard, S. R., & Sørensen, L. M. T. (2013). Why am I remembering this now? Predicting the occurrence of involuntary (spontaneous) episodic memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 426 – 444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2002). Exploring the functions of autobiographical memory: Why do I remember the autumn? In J. D. Webster & B. K. Haight (Eds.), Critical advances in reminiscence work: From theory to application (pp. 61 – 75). Springer Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A TALE of three functions: The self‐ reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23, 97 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bluck, S., Alea, N., & Mroz, E. L. (2019). Form follows function: Autobiographical memory in ecological context. In J. H. Mace (Ed.), The organization and structure of autobiographical memory (pp. 93 – 110). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downes, S. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology, adaptation and design. In T. Heams, P. Huneman, G. Lecointre, & M. Silberstein (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences (pp. 659 – 673). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamiya, S. (2003). Some observations on the functions of involuntary memory: An analysis of the circumstances surrounding occurrence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 74, 444 – 451.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamiya, S. (2007). Self‐confirmative functions of involuntary autobiographical memories. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78, 260 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamiya, S. (2014). Relationship between frequency of involuntary autobiographical memories and cognitive failures. Memory, 22, 839 – 851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvavilashvili, L., & Mandler, G. (2004). Out of one's mind: A study of involuntary semantic memories. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 47 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liikkanen, L. A., & Jakubowski, K. (2020). Involuntary musical imagery as a component of ordinary music cognition: A review of empirical evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 1195 – 1217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2004). Involuntary autobiographical memories are highly dependent on abstract cuing: The Proustian view is incorrect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 893 – 899.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2005). Priming involuntary autobiographical memories. Memory, 13, 874 – 884.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2006). Episodic remembering creates access to involuntary conscious memory: Demonstrating involuntary recall on a voluntary recall task. Memory, 14, 917 – 924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2007a). Does involuntary remembering occur during voluntary remembering? In J. H. Mace (Ed.), Involuntary memory (pp. 50 – 67). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (Ed.). (2007b). Involuntary memory. Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2007c). Involuntary memory: Concept and theory. In J. H. Mace (Ed.), Involuntary memory (pp. 1 – 19). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H. (2018). Involuntary autobiographical memories: Spontaneous recollections of the past. In K. C. R. Fox & K. Christoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought: Mind‐wandering, dreaming, creativity, and clinical disorders. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H., & Atkinson, E. (2009). Can we determine the functions of everyday involuntary autobiographical memories? In M. Kelly (Ed.), Applied memory. Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H., & Kruchten, E. A. (2022). Involuntary memory production during voluntary memory production: Perceived usefulness, relevance, and intrusiveness. Memory, 30, 161 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, J. H., & Unlu, M. (2020). Semantic‐to‐autobiographical memory priming occurs across multiple sources: Implications for autobiographical remembering. Memory & Cognition, 48, 931 – 941.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2009). The possible functions of involuntary autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1137 – 1152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2011). The unpredictable past: Spontaneously retrieved autobiographical memories outnumber autobiographical memories retrieved strategically. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1842 – 1846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasmussen, A. S., Ramsgaard, S. B., & Berntsen, D. (2015). The frequency and functions of involuntary and voluntary autobiographical memories across the day. The Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 185 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlagman, S., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2008). Involuntary autobiographical memories in and outside the laboratory: How different are they from voluntary autobiographical memories? Memory & Cognition, 36, 920 – 932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352 – 373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verwoerd, J., & Wessel, I. (2007). Distractibility and individual differences in the experience of involuntary memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 325 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By John H. Mace; Jian Zhu; Emilee A. Kruchten and Kevin McNally</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1377040
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Involuntary Autobiographical Memories: The Question of Function
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mace%2C+John+H%2E%22">Mace, John H.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4904-6865">0000-0002-4904-6865</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhu%2C+Jian%22">Zhu, Jian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kruchten%2C+Emilee+A%2E%22">Kruchten, Emilee A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McNally%2C+Kevin%22">McNally, Kevin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22"><i>Applied Cognitive Psychology</i></searchLink>. May-Jun 2023 37(3):600-611.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recall+%28Psychology%29%22">Recall (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autobiographies%22">Autobiographies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Responses%22">Responses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Informed+Consent%22">Informed Consent</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Objectives%22">Cognitive Objectives</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/acp.4069
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0888-4080<br />1099-0720
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research on involuntary autobiographical memories has made significant progress over the past two decades. One question in this area concerns whether involuntary memories are functional, or merely cognitive failures. Survey methods have been used to assess the question of involuntary memory functionality, but with mixed results, with some suggesting that most involuntary memories are functional, and others suggesting the opposite. In this study, we argued that the variable findings were due to differences in survey design. In Study 1, we showed that closed-ended questionnaires on function (where participants select from a number of function choices) produce significantly more positive function responses than open-ended questionnaires (where participants freely articulate perceived functions). Study 2 showed that allowing participants to select more than one function greatly inflated positive function responses. We used these findings to outline a number of possible answers to the question of involuntary memory functions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1377040
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1377040
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/acp.4069
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 600
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recall (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autobiographies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Responses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Informed Consent
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Objectives
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Involuntary Autobiographical Memories: The Question of Function
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mace, John H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhu, Jian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kruchten, Emilee A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McNally, Kevin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0888-4080
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1099-0720
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1