Elsevier

Consciousness and Cognition

Volume 74, September 2019, 102793
Consciousness and Cognition

Direct and generative autobiographical memory retrieval: How different are they?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102793Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Direct retrieval of autobiographical memories was common; higher for personal cues.

  • Directly retrieved memories were higher on clarity, significance, emotion, rehearsal.

  • Speed and phenomenology of retrieval was cue-dependent for both kinds of retrieval.

  • Direct and generative retrieval may rely on similar processes of memory construction.

Abstract

Theories of autobiographical memory have emphasised effortful generative retrieval, but recent research indicates that subjectively effortless direct retrieval is common. We compared the processes of direct and generative retrieval. Sixty-five participants retrieved 24 autobiographical memories across three cue types: concrete, emotional, and personal. We recorded retrieval latency, and participants judged direct versus generative retrieval and rated memory specificity, vividness, significance, rehearsal, and emotionality. Overall, direct retrieval was common, especially for personal cues. Directly retrieved memories were recalled faster, were less likely to be specific, and were rated more significant, rehearsed, and emotional than generatively retrieved memories. The speed of both direct and generative retrieval varied similarly according to cue type, suggesting they did not involve fundamentally different cognitive processes. These findings challenge theories that assume direct retrieval bypasses constructive processes. Instead we suggest that both direct and generative retrieval involve construction that is similarly affected by cue concreteness and relevance.

Introduction

Theoretical accounts of autobiographical memory retrieval often distinguish between “generative” versus “direct” retrieval (Addis et al., 2012, Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000, Haque and Conway, 2001, Harris et al., 2015, Uzer et al., 2012, Williams et al., 2006). Definitions and criteria for distinguishing between direct and generative retrieval vary. Generative retrieval is typically defined as involving a “top-down”, “goal-directed” (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000) “controlled and effortful” (Anderson, Dewhurst, & Dean, 2017, p. 163) search process, in which individuals search through increasingly specific autobiographical information in order to bring an event to mind. In contrast, direct retrieval is variously described as “automatic and effortless” (Uzer et al., 2012, p. 1296), “immediate” (Ros, Latorre, & Serrano, 2009, p. 91), or “spontaneous and unexpected” (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000, Williams et al., 2006). Traditionally, theories of autobiographical remembering, while acknowledging the possibility of direct retrieval, emphasise and prioritise generative retrieval as the default process by which memories are retrieved and suggest that direct retrieval is comparatively rare; e.g. “the retrieval of autobiographical memories, although occasionally spontaneous and apparently effortless, is more usually an effortful and protracted process” (Haque & Conway, 2001, p. 529).

However, there is recent evidence to suggest that subjectively effortless direct retrieval can be as common as effortful generative retrieval, at least in certain circumstances. Recent research by Uzer et al. (2012) was specifically designed to assess the prevalence of direct versus generative retrieval in laboratory-based intentional memory cuing paradigms. They asked participants to elicit memories in response to concrete nouns and emotional cue words presented on a computer screen, and to report for each memory whether it was retrieved directly or generatively. Uzer and colleagues found surprisingly high rates of direct retrieval: about half of the memories were reported to have been retrieved directly. They found that this was the case whether they asked participants to make this distinction in terms of retrieval time (“this memory came immediately to mind”), retrieval effort (“I did not have to actively search for this memory”), or the degree to which they brought additional information to mind (“I did not have to think of additional information from my life to help me recall this memory”). This study indicated that direct retrieval may be more common than previously assumed, and may be occurring in relatively high rates even in laboratory paradigms designed to assess generative retrieval (see also Barzykowski and Staugaard, 2016, Harris et al., 2015, Uzer and Brown, 2017).

Although Uzer et al. (2012) developed a new method of relying on participant self-report to distinguish direct and generative retrieval, other research has used different kinds of cues to vary retrieval type. In this methodology, high-imageability, concrete, or personalised cues are used to index direct retrieval and abstract, emotional, or more generic cues are used to index generative retrieval instead of participant self-report (e.g. Addis et al., 2012, Anderson et al., 2017, Williams et al., 2006). This cue-based approach has some consistency with self-report: both Uzer et al., 2012, Harris et al., 2015 found that concrete nouns led to higher rates of self-reported direct retrieval than emotion cues. However, neither cue type nor retrieval latency perfectly overlapped with self-reported retrieval type. Concrete nouns, assumed to index direct retrieval, resulted in self-reported direct retrieval for about half of trials, and emotion words, assumed to index generative retrieval, resulted in self-reported direct retrieval for about a third of trials (Uzer et al., 2012, Harris et al., 2015). Uzer and Brown (2017) found particularly high rates of self-reported direct retrieval – around 80% – with personally relevant cues that participants generated for themselves. Overall, while cue type does influence rates of direct retrieval, it far from accurately predicts self-reported retrieval type.

So far, relatively few studies have been conducted to compare self-reported direct versus generative retrieval, and the nature of the distinction – including what information participants rely on to judge the different retrieval types – remains poorly understood. As noted above, different operational definitions of direct retrieval have appeared in both theory and research, sometimes based on effort, sometimes based on retrieval time, and sometimes based on search. Thus, the distinction between direct and generative retrieval is not clearly defined, with debates about the relationship between multiple processes involved in memory retrieval such as cue generation, hierarchical memory search, and memory reconstruction in autobiographical memory retrieval (Harris et al., 2015, Uzer et al., 2012).

Uzer et al. (2012) argued that the prevalence of direct retrieval supports a “dual strategies” (p. 1297) interpretation of memory retrieval, according to which direct and generative retrieval represent distinct cognitive processes. Direct retrieval happens when a memory of a past event is immediately and effortlessly specified by the presence of a memory cue. Generative retrieval, on the other hand, involves a protracted search for, and/or generation of, relevant memory cues. According to Uzer et al. (2012), both processes arrive at the same database of “prestored event units”. Following this view, we should expect direct retrieval to be uniformly fast regardless of the nature of retrieval cue, because direct retrieval only happens when the cue is sufficiently strong to specify a memory with no further search or cuing. In contrast, we should expect the retrieval time of generative retrieval to be influenced by characteristics of the memory cues, for example, whether they are concrete or abstract, as chains of cues are generated to yield a cue that can trigger a memory. According to Uzer et al.'s (2012) account, once the two types of retrieval have arrived at a memory, there should be few, if any, differences regarding the subjective qualities of the memories retrieved, and memory qualities should not be influenced by the nature of the cues. This is because both types of retrieval are proposed to access the same database of prestored event representations and to differ only in the cue generation processes that precede retrieval of a memory.

In contrast, Haque and Conway (2001) distinguished between direct and generative retrieval by proposing that direct retrieval bypasses the top-down memory reconstruction that is involved in generative retrieval (also see Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). According to this view, we would expect both the retrieval time and the qualities of the memories to interact with the characteristics of the cues. Directly retrieved memories should show uniformly short retrieval times, and their subjective qualities should be unaffected by cue type, since there is no construction involved in their recall. Conversely, we would expect the retrieval time and the characteristics of the generatively retrieved memories to depend on cue type, since the nature of the cue should influence the top-down search and reconstruction processes involved in generative retrieval.

In short, both Uzer et al.'s (2012) account and Haque and Conway's (2001) account of memory retrieval processes predict that direct retrieval is always fast, regardless of the cue, albeit for different reasons. Both accounts imply that the nature of the retrieval cue might influence the frequency of direct retrieval, but in cases where direct retrieval is reported, retrieval time should not depend on cue characteristics. Conversely, both accounts imply that the speed of generative retrieval should be cue dependent, as the cue qualities may determine how much additional information needs to be generated, or how much hierarchical top-down search and generation is required, prior to successful retrieval of a specific event. The accounts differ with regards to the qualities of retrieved memories. Uzer et al.'s (2012) account suggests that direct and generatively retrieved memories should be similar in terms of their qualities. Haque and Conway's (2001) theory is more consistent with differences in the qualities of direct and generatively retrieved memories, and implies that the qualities of directly retrieved memories should be cue-independent, while the qualities of generatively retrieved memories may be cue-dependent, since only generative retrieval involves top-down constructive processes.

To examine these two different positions, we compared the retrieval latencies for memories that were directly retrieved versus generatively retrieved in response to three kinds of cues. We also examined the qualities of memories produced by these two retrieval types and the extent to which their retrieval latencies and phenomenology were cue-dependent. We adopted Uzer et al.'s (2012) methodology to distinguish between direct and generative retrieval; a self-report technique in which participants were asked to rate whether they had “searched” and used additional information to retrieve the memory. That is, the degree of search was given as the defining feature of direct retrieval. We aimed to compare directly retrieved memories and generatively retrieved memories, and to examine the extent to which prevalence, retrieval speed, and qualities of direct and generative retrieval varied depending on the nature of the retrieval cue.

Section snippets

Participants

Sixty-five (54 females and 11 males, mean age 22.95 years, SD = 3.65, range 20–46 years) psychology undergraduates from Aarhus University, Denmark, participated in this study in return for cinema tickets. All participants were informed that their responses were anonymous, that they should not elicit anything that was uncomfortable for them to disclose, and that they were free to withdraw at any point during the procedure. The design was fully within-subjects.

Materials

Participants elicited memories in

Analysis strategy and manipulation checks

Initial tests indicated that we could collapse across participants in the different counterbalancing conditions. For each participant, we scored the proportion of elicited memories that they rated as directly retrieved, and the proportion of memories they rated as specific. An independent samples t-test comparing rates of direct retrieval across counterbalancing conditions showed no significant difference, t(63) = 0.63, p = .532. Similarly, an independent samples t-test comparing rates of

Discussion

We replicated recent findings (Barzykowski and Staugaard, 2016, Harris et al., 2015, Mace et al., 2017, Uzer et al., 2012) indicating a high prevalence of self-reported direct retrieval in a laboratory autobiographical memory cuing paradigm. Direct retrieval was reported on approximately half of the trials. Direct retrieval was more common in response to concrete, highly imageable cues than to abstract, low imageable emotion cues (see also Anderson et al., 2017, Williams et al., 2006), but most

Author note

This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF89), the Danish Council for Independent Research: Humanities (FKK) and the MindLab UNIK initiative at Aarhus University, which is funded by the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology and Innovation. Celia Harris was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE150100396). We are grateful for this support.

References (27)

  • D. Berntsen

    Voluntary and involuntary access to autobiographical memory

    Memory

    (1998)
  • D. Berntsen

    The unbidden past: Involuntary autobiographical memories as a basic mode of remembering

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2010)
  • D. Berntsen et al.

    The episodic nature of involuntary autobiographical memories

    Memory & Cognition

    (2004)
  • Cited by (24)

    • Elucidating the mental processes underlying the direct retrieval of autobiographical memories

      2021, Consciousness and Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      Haque and Conway (2001) reported that direct retrieval was rare relative to generative retrieval, perhaps accounting for some 8–10% of all voluntary retrievals reported in their study. However, several studies have since shown that direct retrieval is at least as common as generative retrieval (e.g., Barzykowski & Staugaard, 2016; Harris et al., 2015; Harris & Berntsen, 2019; Mace et al., 2017; Uzer, 2016), if not more common than generative retrieval (Uzer et al., 2012; Uzer & Brown, 2017; but see Mace et al., 2017, Experiment 2; Wank, Andrews-Hanna, & Grilli, 2020, who report the opposite effect). These studies have presented an interesting picture of voluntary recall in autobiographical memory, as they suggest that a seemingly automatic retrieval process (direct retrieval) may be very common (or dominant) in a process that should be largely controlled and deliberative.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text