4.2 Article

What do laypeople believe about the voluntary and involuntary retrieval of memories?

Journal

CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103491

Keywords

Autobiographical memory; Involuntary retrieval; Layperson beliefs; Voluntary retrieval

Ask authors/readers for more resources

People can remember past experiences either voluntarily or involuntarily. People's reports about their voluntary and involuntary memories can be biased or shaped by their lay beliefs. Therefore, we investigated laypeople's beliefs about the properties of their voluntary and involuntary memories and how well they align with the literature. Our findings suggest that researchers should consider how experimental conditions may influence participants' reports of voluntary and involuntary memories.
People can remember experiences from their past, either deliberately or spontaneously-that is, memories can be voluntarily or involuntarily retrieved. People tend to report that their voluntary and involuntary memories have different properties. But people's reports about their mental phenomena can be open to bias or mistaken, shaped in part by their lay beliefs about those phenomena. Therefore, we investigated what laypeople believe about the properties of their voluntarily-and involuntarily-retrieved memories-and how well those beliefs align with the literature. We adopted a funnelled approach, progressively giving subjects more information about the kinds of retrievals of interest and asking them about the typical properties of those retrievals. We found that laypeople have some beliefs that align well with the literature, and others that align less well. Our findings suggest that researchers should consider how their experimental conditions may shape their subjects' reports about voluntary and involuntary memories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available