No abstract

When cultures have different norms for the same situation, does culture affect memory by influencing the weight individuals assign to information or also by affecting the meaning of information itself, influencing memory via categorization? We present 4 experiments showing that, in relying on contrasting cultural norms of reciprocity (Studies 1 and 2) and spiritual purity (Studies 3 and 4), Indians and Americans differ in their interpretation of and memory for identical information. Studies 1 (N = 123) and 3 (N = 78), utilizing cued-recall, and Studies 2 (N = 143) and 4 (N = 79), utilizing multiple-choice incidental-memory tests, show cultural differences in memory and categorization in culturally relevant normative domains. In Studies 1 and 2 Americans, applying their own culture-specific reciprocity norms, were more likely than Indians to interpret gifts given after receiving help as implying reciprocity. Hence, Americans (and not Indians) tended to categorize information about gifts in terms of whether it was norm-consistent or inconsistent, evidenced by memory that reflected greater within-category confusions. In Studies 3 and 4 Indians, applying their own culture-specific norms of purity, were more likely than Americans to interpret images of shoes on sacred objects as implying spiritual impurity. Thus, Indians (and not Americans) tended to categorize information about shoes in terms of whether it was norm-violating or nonviolating, evidenced by memory that reflected greater within-category confusions. Applying culturally variable norms to the same situation leads to different understandings of the same behavior, resulting in memory that reflects norm-based spontaneous categorization. We highlight the role that culture-specific norms play in cognitively predisposing individuals to organize information in the environment.

The study of memory and remembering has traditionally either stripped meaning away from acts of remembering to reveal the “raw material of memory” or explored how meaning guides the reconstruction of the past. In reflecting on the contributions to this topic, there appears to be an emerging “third‐way,” which holds that there is an inextricable relation between conversations and remembering. The articles in this volume exemplify how conversing is often an act of remembering and represent approaches to memory that might not otherwise be taken if one were to study memory as a within‐individual phenomenon. The implications of this approach are far‐ranging and present the opportunity to pose new questions about the nature of remembering as it unfolds in conversation. The contributing articles have expanded the scope of what memory researchers can study by adopting a relatively straightforward assumption about the sociality of remembering and the role of the conversation in the social process.

Recent public testimony concerning sexual abuse on the part of celebrities raises the question of what happens to memories when they enter the public domain. The present paper reviews research on the effects of communication on memory and examines how the context of this communication affects its influence on memory, both in the short and long term. Specifically, we discuss how communication with the self, a small group, and the larger public affects the content and availability of different elements of both emotional and more mundane memories, in the short term and in the long term. Evidence suggests that, although forgetting is rapid in the first few years, it then levels off. Although this pattern would suggest that the effects conversational influences have on memory may be limited to the first few years, the present paper argues that the pattern will vary as the source changes.

The contribution of short-term fluctuations to the variance of the net intensity is shown to increase the variance above usual Poisson statistics and to be dependent upon two factors: the instrumental stability and the reflexion profile or time spent measuring a given data point. Simple formulae accounting for the increase in variance from normal Poisson statistics are presented.