Does retrieval intentionality really matter? Similarities and differences between involuntary memories and directly and generatively retrieved voluntary memories

Abstract

Theories of autobiographical memory distinguish between involuntary and voluntary retrieval as a consequence of conscious intention (i.e., wanting to remember). Another distinction can be made between direct and generative retrieval, which reflects the effort involved (i.e., trying to remember). However, it is unclear how intention and effort interacts. For example, involuntary memories and directly retrieved memories have been used interchangeably in the literature to refer to the same phenomenon of effortless, non-strategic retrieval. More recent theoretical advances suggest that they are separate types of retrieval, one unintentional (involuntary), another intentional and effortless (direct voluntary retrieval), and a third intentional and effortful (generative voluntary retrieval). Whether this also entails differing phenomenological characteristics, such as vividness, rehearsal, or emotional valence, has not been previously investigated. In the current study, participants reported memories in an experimental paradigm designed to elicit voluntary and involuntary memories and rated them on a number of characteristics. If intention affects the retrieval process, then we should expect differences between the characteristics of involuntary and directly retrieved memories. The results imply that retrieval intention seems to differentiate how a memory appears in a person's mind. Furthermore, we argue that these differences in part could result from differences in encoding and consolidation.

How intention and monitoring your thoughts influence characteristics of autobiographical memories

“…Finally, it is also worth noting that voluntary memories were much more frequent than involuntary memories despite much fewer cues. On the one hand, this difference reflects the nature of the instructions and replicates previous studies (e.g., Barzykowski & Staugaard, ; Berntsen et al ., ; Schlagman & Kvavilashvili, ). Participants in the voluntary conditions were required to report memories and thoughts, whereas participants in the involuntary conditions waited for memories and thoughts to spontaneously arise.…”

“…It supports the prediction that involuntary memories are more accessible than voluntary memories on average. As we argued above, this could be an important determinant for why they enter consciousness unintended, while other – less accessible – memories require effort, time, and strategic search to be retrieved (Barzykowski & Staugaard, ). Naturally, highly accessible memories are available to both voluntary and involuntary retrieval in this view.…”

“…The Involuntary Memories Program (IMP) is described elsewhere in detail (e.g., Barzykowski & Niedźwieńska, , pp. 5–6; Barzykowski & Staugaard, , p. 524). Participants in the two involuntary conditions performed a monotonous vigilance task where they were required to detect 15 slides featuring vertical lines in a stream of 785 slides featuring horizontal lines.…”

“…'s () design is that all memories were rated retrospectively in a separate phase, rather than ‘online’ during retrieval. The problem with retrospective ratings is that participants are asked to rate their memories in an intentional and effortful manner, consistent with being in retrieval mode (Barzykowski & Staugaard, ; see also Hintzman, , for a similar argument). Put differently, while the experimental manipulation leads participants to use different retrieval strategies during the online procedure, they all presumably use the same strategy during the post‐task rating procedure, namely voluntary retrieval.…”

Mind-wandering and task stimuli: Stimulus-dependent thoughts influence performance on memory tasks and are more often past- versus future-oriented

“…Thus, direct retrieval, involuntary retrieval, and SDTs all appear to be thoughts triggered in a relatively effortlessly manner by an external stimulus. Relevant to the current experiment, both direct retrieval and involuntary autobiographical memories have been described as being fairly to highly vivid (e.g., Barzykowski & Staugaard, 2016; Berntsen & Jacobsen, 2008). We hypothesised that this finding may extend to SDTs, which may be rated as more vivid than SITs.…”