Talk:Autobiographical memory

For our class project, we (Isling and Monelson) will be expanding the field vs. observer portion in the "types" section. We will explore the various factors that lead to the recall of memories in either the field or observer point of view. Some of the factors that affect memory perspective include culture, individualism, gender, and whether encoding of information was intentional or not. We will also be discussing how changes in these factors change the way people remember the same and different memories. Isling (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Sources: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Other Possible Sources:^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]} Monelson (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Isling and Monelson! I did not check all references you mentioned, but those I did check were all WP:primary sources, that is, results of single studies. However, Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah, I think if we wanted to combine any sections we could combine the Trauma Sections and then the Personal Identity from yours and the Sense of self from mine. These two seem to be the ones that are the closest, let me know what you think. Monelson (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FOR OUR PEER REVIEWERS: The time is approximately 8:09 PM and the date is March 22, 2013 to find our history. Thank you. Monelson (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In a few places the language is misleading, and implies that field memories are copies. They may be from a first-person perspective, but that does not guarantee an accurate memory. What is so interesting is that observer memories are almost always reconstructions as it is very rare that one has access to that perspective during encoding. I will make minor edits to make sure the language reflects these distinctions. Elizareader (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am moving the whole section here. Reason is that this films are as relevant to the topic as any film in which a character talks about past events. Moreover all films are unreferenced. Unless sources implying that such films have been specially relevant for the comprenhension or evaluation of memory, that is, that they have changed our vision about autobiographical memory the should have no place in the article.

--Garrondo (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I move here this section from the article: it was very large, and while it had some interesting sources there is no reason to think that any of them is specially relevant to "recommend" its reading over the potential thousands of possibles readins in the issue of autobiographical memory. If any of this is specially interesting it should be summarized and included as text in the article. I leave the section here so it can be used as a source of other sources not yet included in the article. --Garrondo (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Banaji, Mahzarin R. & Crowder, Robert G (September 1989), "The bankruptcy of everyday memory research" (PDF), American Psychologist, 44 (9): 1185–1193, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1185{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) A seminal article on two primary research methods (experimental and ecological) and issues associated with each.

• Banaji, M.R. & Crowder, R.G (1991), "Some everyday thoughts on ecologically valid methods" (PDF), American Psychologist, 46 (1): 78–79, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.1.78{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). A response to some commentary on their article, and their attempt to clarify some of their points.

• Brockmeier, Jens (2010). After the archive: Remapping memory. Culture & Psychology, 16 (1), 5-35

• Cohen, Gillian & Conway, Martin A., ed. (2008), Memory in the real world (3rd ed.), New York: Psychology Press, ISBN 978-1-84169-641-6{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

• Fivush, Robyn & Nelson, Katherine (2004). Culture and language in the emergence of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 15(9), 573-577.

• Fivush, Robyn, & Haden, Catherine A. (Eds.). (2003). Autobiographical memory and the construction of a narrative self: Developmental and cultural perspectives. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• The Autobiographical Memory Discussion Forum. "www.autobiographicalmemory.info".

• Neisser, Ulric and Winograd, Eugene, ed. (1995), Remembering reconsidered: ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory, Emory Symposia in Cognition, Cambridge, U.K.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-48500-2{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

• Tulving, Endel & Fergus I. M. Craik, ed. (2005), The Oxford Handbook of Memory, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-512265-7

In subsection Autobiographical_memory#Moderators_of_perspective there is contradictory (and also rather confusing) information:

1. High levels of emotionality are correlated with field memories, whereas memories that are based on concrete facts are correlated with observer memories.<ref name="Nigro"/>
2. Other data has shown that emotionality of the individual at the time of encoding will more often yield an observer perspective than the field perspective.<ref name = "Sutin">
3. The emotional charge also impacts whether a memory is perceived when memories are associated with either positive or negative emotions they will more likely be recalled from the field perspective rather than the observer perspective, whereas memories that are not emotionally charged (neutral) are associated with the observer perspective rather than the field perspective.<ref name=Sutin />

I only have access to the abstracts, so it is difficult for me to know exactly what the sources say. However, number 1 and number 3 basically state the same thing: emotions --> field, facts --> observer, whereas number 2 states the opposite: emotions --> observer. Now number 2 and 3 have the same source!
My guess here, is that number 2 is a mistake and number 1 and 3 are correct.
Could anybody with access to the source please check if my guess is correct? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 13:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved and my guess was wrong! Thanks to this source I can now see it is the other way around. I'll change this. Lova Falk talk 14:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed

1. This section should elaborate on other important mechanisms that could be included in this section such as "the role of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms". 2. Identify what "memory maintenance" looks like within the sensory revisions, and how they "observe patterns of activity". Anacvalle (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ana Valle