依恋视角下自传体记忆提取的差异

自传体记忆是关于个人生活的记忆, 依恋理论为自传体记忆的理解提供重要的理论框架。本文以个体依恋风格的差异为视角, 根据Conway和Pleydell-Pearce’s的自我记忆系统(Self-Memory System)总结出在自传体记忆提取的过程中, 依恋系统具有目标导向、防御排斥和情绪调节的作用。安全型相较于非安全型依恋的个体在自传体记忆提取的数量、具体性、准确性、通达性和情绪强度、情绪唤醒度上具有优势。未来研究可以从依恋系统的激活, 焦虑型、回避型依恋在记忆提取中具体成分的差异, 依恋与不随意自传体记忆提取的关系上来探讨。     

自发性自传体记忆：功能、特征及其理论解释

自发性自传体记忆是个体在日常生活中对自身经历的突发性回忆。作为一种普遍的基本记忆方式, 它具有指导功能和自我功能。与自觉性自传体记忆相比, 其特征是：提取方式为基于联想、自下而上加工的直接提取过程, 内容上更倾向于积极情绪事件且复述频率较低, 性质上更具体。相应的解释理论有情景记忆回想理论、线索-启动理论、直接提取理论及概念联想理论。未来研究应注意功能验证、研究系统化、理论整合与跨文化等问题。     

自传体记忆的研究

自传体记忆是人类记忆研究中的一个新领域．．本文介绍了有关自传体记忆的早期研究、自传体记忆的组织结构以及自传体信息的提取,并简评了自传体记忆的有关理论：复制理论、图式化理论、结构重建和部分重建理论。     

抑郁症的整合情绪记忆模型述评

多种早期情绪记忆模型尝试揭示抑郁症的认知致病原因和机制。但是,抑郁症的致病因素存在多样性,而各个模型只侧重于某个方面,难以全面、系统、准确对其进行的诠释。整合情绪记忆模型将记忆建构、自我图式、自传体记忆、内隐记忆等认知结构进行系统的整合,从编码和提取的角度对抑郁症的的发生、持续和治疗提供新的解释,为抑郁症的预防、治疗提供了新思路。     

自传体记忆中的时间组织

自传体记忆是指个体在日常生活中对自身经历事件的记忆,具有不随意性的特点。它既不同于是Ｔｕｌｖ－ｉｎｇ的情景记忆（ｅｐｉｓｏｄｉｃｍｅｍｏｒｙ）,也不同于偶然记忆（ｌｕｃｉｄｅｎｔａｌｍｅｍｏｒｙ）。时间维度通常被认为是自传体记忆组织的基本维度．个体所经历事件和行为的时间序列提供了一种记忆的自然顺序,也就是说在自传体记忆中保着类似年月顺序的时间结构。日常经验中,前、后或者同时发生的事件,在记忆提取或遗忘的过程中也常常表现为相同的时间序列。１传统时间记忆理论对自传体记忆的解释人们是如何判定一个事件是…     

压抑者对情绪和非情绪自传体记忆的提取诱发遗忘

该实验考察了压抑应对方式,高焦虑和低焦虑三组被试对不同情绪性自传体记忆的提取诱发遗忘的差异。结果表明,与情绪性自传体记忆比较,被试能回忆出更多非情绪性自传体记忆;正性,负性和非情绪性自传体记忆均能得到显著的提取诱发遗忘,但是提取练习对正性和非情绪性事件的回忆率的促进弱于负性事件。压抑者的提取诱发遗忘效应要小于另外两组,且对于负性自传体记忆,压抑者没有产生提取诱发遗忘。     

提问类型对自传体记忆概括化的影响

自传体记忆概括化程度较高是抑郁症产生与发展的重要影响因素, 探究降低自传体记忆概括化程度的方法以缓解抑郁症状、降低抑郁复发率是心理咨询与治疗中的一个重要研究课题。基于此, 本研究选取344名初中生进行实验, 实验1对比了问题状态组与正常状态组被试的自传体记忆概括化程度, 结果发现, 问题状态组被试的正性、负性自传体记忆得分均显著低于正常组, 两组在中性自传体记忆得分上差异不显著; 实验2对比了问题取向提问和解决取向提问对问题状态下人们自传体记忆概括化程度的影响, 结果发现, 解决取向提问组被试无论是在正性、负性自传体记忆得分上还是在中性自传体记忆得分上均显著高于问题取向提问组和控制组, 问题取向提问组和控制组在各类自传体记忆得分上差异均不显著; 实验3进一步考察了解决取向提问对问题状态下不同归因风格者自传体记忆概括化程度的影响, 结果发现, 内归因组被试的正性、负性自传体记忆得分均显著高于外归因组, 在中性自传体记忆得分上, 两组被试间差异不显著。结论:与抑郁症等精神障碍患者类似, 遭受一般心理困扰个体的自传体记忆概括化程度也较高; 相比问题取向提问, 解决取向提问能较好地降低一般心理困扰者的自传体记忆概括化程度; 对于一般心理困扰者而言, 解决取向提问对内归因者自传体记忆概括化程度改善效果优于外归因者。综上, 解决取向提问可以作为心理咨询师或治疗师降低个案自传体记忆概括化程度的一种有益尝试。     

抑郁症患者的自传体记忆特征及其应用自传体记忆测验的元分析

研究目的在于探讨抑郁症患者自传体记忆的特征以及自传体记忆测验(the autobiographical memory test, AMT)在该领域的应用情况。通过文献检索, 搜集了18篇应用AMT作为测评工具的抑郁症自传体记忆研究, 抑郁症患者566人, 正常对照组457人。元分析研究发现, 和正常对照组比较, 抑郁症组的具体性记忆减少, 概括化记忆增多, 反应迟缓。目前对这种现象的解释主要有功能性回避模型、认知执行受损模型和沉思模型; 年龄、抑郁情绪以及AMT测试程序对测试结果有明显影响; 发表偏倚和敏感性分析显示存在发表偏倚, 但稳定性较好。AMT在抑郁症研究存在灵敏度不足等局限, 作者从AMT程序、研究设计等方面提出了改善建议。     

自我、文化与记忆：自传体记忆的跨文化研究

自传体记忆不仅是对过去自我经验的加工和提取,还反映了特定的社会和文化背景。近年来,自传体记忆跨文化研究表明,东西方被试在最早记忆年龄、记忆容量和具体性、内部语言的使用、记忆取向等方面存在差异。文章从自我概念、亲子回忆和叙事方式、社会变迁和文化多元化等角度,探讨了文化自我观对于自传体记忆的核心意义。Nelson和Fivush的社会文化发展观则从发展的角度动态考察了内外因素对自传体记忆产生文化和个体差异的机制。文章还回顾了自传体记忆跨文化研究的主要方法。最后,文章探讨了自传体记忆跨文化及相关领域的研究前景和存在的问题     

自传体记忆的情绪对其相关信息内隐提取的影响

本研究主要考察自传体记忆本身的情绪是否影响该记忆相关信息的内隐提取过程。取大学生15人完成实验, 实验分为两部分：记忆提取和词汇判断。首先在记忆提取阶段, 要求被试根据词对(形容词-中性名词)提取积极、消极和中性情绪色彩的自传体记忆事件。接着在词汇判断任务中, 要求被试对包含提取过记忆的中性名词的词语进行词和非词的判断, 并且记录相应的脑电波。结果发现：(1)被试按要求成功提取了积极、消极和中性三类自传体记忆事件。词汇判断任务中, 内隐提取三类自传体记忆信息的反应时和正确率均无显著差异。(2)相比于积极、中性自传体记忆信息, 消极自传体记忆信息提取的过程中的ERP波幅更大, 更偏向于正向。这表明自传体记忆信息的内隐提取受到记忆本身情绪的影响, 消极自传体记忆信息提取需要付出更多资源。     

Autobiographical memory for trauma: update on four controversies

Empirical research since the year 2000 on trauma and autobiographical memory in adults is reviewed and related to four enduring controversies in the field: Whether traumatic memories are inherently different from other types of autobiographical memory; whether memory for trauma is better or worse than memory for non-traumatic events; whether traumas can be forgotten and then recalled later in life; and whether special mechanisms such as repression or dissociation are required to account for any such forgetting. The review concludes that trauma and non-trauma memories differ substantially, but only in clinical and not in healthy populations. Whereas involuntary memory is enhanced in clinical populations, voluntary memory is likely to be fragmented, disorganised, and incomplete. Progress in experimental and neuroimaging research will depend on analysing how task performance is affected by the interaction of voluntary and involuntary memory and by individual tendencies to respond to trauma with increased arousal versus dissociation.     

自传记忆的加工机制研究进展

自传记忆是关于个人生活经验的记忆,它有悖于Ehbinghaus的记忆研究传统。在国外．90年代以来自传记忆研究已成为继内隐记忆研究后．记忆领域的又一研究热点。自传记忆加工机制的研究是认知心理学对自传记忆研究的核心领域。本文主要评析了自传记忆的知识表征．自传记忆提取机制的研究进展。目前已有的研究结论是：（1）自传记忆是以个人生活片段知识、一般事件知识和具体事件知识三种方式表征的;（2）自传记忆的提取方式主要通过生成提取和直接提取方式来实现。     

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

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.     

Sampling the process of autobiographical memory construction

In three autobiographical memory retrieval experiments participants reported the contents of consciousness to a probe presented at early and late points during retrieval. Classification of the protocols according to the specificity of the reported knowledge found that early in retrieval abstract knowledge predominated whereas at the later point, close to generation or formation of a memory, knowledge related to specific events was more frequent. For some memories very fast and full retrieval was observed at the early point and this was independent of other concurrent processing demands. These findings show that generative retrieval entails iterative access of autobiographical knowledge but this is not observed in direct retrieval.     

Priming involuntary autobiographical memories in the lab

Involuntary autobiographical memories (IAMs) are recollections of personal past that frequently and spontaneously occur in daily life. Initial studies by Mace (2005) showed that deliberately reminiscing about a certain lifetime period (e.g., high school) significantly increased the number of different IAMs from the same period in subsequent days, suggesting that priming may play a significant role in the retrieval of IAMs in everyday life. In the present study, we used a modified experimental paradigm, originally used by Schlagman and Kvavilashvili (2008), to study IAMs under well-controlled laboratory conditions. Participants completed a monotonous vigilance task twice and reported the occurrence of any spontaneous thoughts that were later classed as IAMs or other thoughts. Priming was manipulated by having experimental participants reminiscing about high school period between the two vigilance tasks and control participants playing simple games. Results showed that participants in the experimental group reported IAMs relating to high school period more frequently during the second vigilance task than those in the control group. In the experimental group, the number of high school memories was marginally higher in the second vigilance task compared to the first vigilance task with the medium effect size, but this within subjects effect was not significant in the control group. Finally, priming also enhanced the retrieval of more remote IAMs in the experimental group compared to the control group. These results suggest that priming may play a significant role in the activation and recall of IAMs and open up interesting avenues for future research.     

Involuntary autobiographical memories in and outside the laboratory: How different are they from voluntary autobiographical memories?

In two studies, we compared the characteristics and retrieval times of involuntary and voluntary autobiographical memory under controlled laboratory conditions. A new laboratory task of involuntary autobiographical memories involved detecting vertical lines in a stream of stimuli with horizontal lines (an undemanding vigilance task) and recording any involuntary memories during the session. The majority of these memories were reported as being triggered by irrelevant cue phrases presented on the screen. Voluntary autobiographical memories were sampled via a standard word-cue method in Session 2. The results showed that involuntary memories were more specific and were retrieved significantly faster than voluntary memories. They were also more likely to be triggered by negative cues, whereas cue valence did not have any effect on the number of voluntary memories. Furthermore, laboratory involuntary memories did not differ from naturalistic involuntary memories recorded in a diary by the same participants (Study 2). Taken together, these results have important implications for current theories of autobiographical memory, and they open up interesting avenues for future research.     

Ways of sampling voluntary and involuntary autobiographical memories in daily life

Cognitive psychologists have often equaled retrieval of personal events with voluntary recall from autobiographical memory, but more recent research shows that autobiographical memories often come to mind involuntarily—that is, with no retrieval effort. Voluntary memories have been studied in numerous laboratory experiments in response to word-prompts, whereas involuntary memories primarily have been examined in an everyday living context, using a structured diary procedure. However, it remains unclear how voluntary memories sampled in the laboratory map onto self-prompted voluntary memories in daily life. Here, we used a structured diary procedure to compare different types of voluntary autobiographical memories to their involuntary counterparts. The results replicated previous findings with regard to differences between word-prompted voluntary and involuntary memories, whereas there were fewer differences between self-prompted voluntary and involuntary memories. The findings raise the question as to what is the best way of sampling voluntary memories and the best comparison for involuntary memories.