Barzykowski Krystian, Niedźwieńska Agnieszka
Applied Memory Research Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 13;11(6):e0157121. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157121. eCollection 2016.
The present study investigated the effects of experimental instruction on the retrieval of involuntary autobiographical memories (IAMs). In previous studies of IAMs, participants were either instructed to record only memories (henceforth, the restricted group) or any thoughts (henceforth, the unrestricted group). However, it is unknown whether these two different types of instructions influence the retrieval of IAMs. The most recent study by Vannucci and her colleagues directly addressed this question and demonstrated that the frequency and phenomenological characteristics of IAMs strongly depended on the type of instruction received. The goal of the present study was to replicate these results while addressing some limitations of the Vannucci et al. study and to test three possible mechanisms proposed to explain the effect of instructions on the retrieval of IAMs. Our results accord well with the data presented by Vannucci et al. When participants were instructed to record only IAMs (the restricted group), they reported more memories and rated them as being retrieved in a more goal-oriented fashion. Their memories also were less clear, vivid, detailed and were less frequently accompanied by physiological reactions, compared to memories reported by the participants in the unrestricted group. In addition, the events to which the memories referred were rated as more unusual and personal by the restricted group. These results are consistent with the assumption that retrieval of IAMs depends on the type of instructions used in a study. In addition, our results suggest that one of the main mechanisms underlying the higher frequency of IAMs in the restricted group may be participants' ability to monitor the stream of consciousness and to extract autobiographical content from this flow. Further implications of the effect of instructions for IAMs research are discussed.
本研究调查了实验指导对非自愿自传体记忆(IAMs)提取的影响。在先前关于IAMs的研究中,参与者要么被指示只记录记忆(以下简称限制组),要么记录任何想法(以下简称非限制组)。然而,尚不清楚这两种不同类型的指导是否会影响IAMs的提取。Vannucci及其同事的最新研究直接解决了这个问题,并表明IAMs的频率和现象学特征在很大程度上取决于所接受的指导类型。本研究的目的是在解决Vannucci等人研究的一些局限性的同时复制这些结果,并测试为解释指导对IAMs提取的影响而提出的三种可能机制。我们的结果与Vannucci等人提供的数据非常吻合。当参与者被指示只记录IAMs(限制组)时,他们报告的记忆更多,并将其评定为以更具目标导向的方式被提取。与非限制组参与者报告的记忆相比,他们的记忆也不那么清晰、生动、详细,并且较少伴有生理反应。此外,限制组将记忆所涉及的事件评定为更不寻常和更具个人性。这些结果与IAMs的提取取决于研究中使用的指导类型这一假设一致。此外,我们的结果表明,限制组中IAMs频率较高的一个主要潜在机制可能是参与者监测意识流并从这一信息流中提取自传体内容的能力。本文还讨论了指导对IAMs研究影响的进一步意义。