Search

People from the same country often hold shared, culturally-shaped memories about important events from that country's history, known as collective memories. Although empirical research has started to shed light on the properties of these memories, none has systematically examined the functions these memories. To what extent do collective memories serve functions? We hypothesised that collective memories serve functions for a collective similar to those that autobiographical memories serve for individuals-directive, identity, and social functions. We conducted two experiments using adapted versions of the Thinking About Life Experiences questionnaire (TALE) in which we asked people to rate the functions of their collective memories. Across both experiments, we found evidence that collective memories serve directive, identity, and social functions for the collective. These results suggest collective memories perform important roles in their collectives.

Autobiographical remembering is a dynamic process in which narrators construct their life story from single memories. What is included in or deleted from the life story depends on many factors. Here, we examined the functions, emotions and correspondence with the life script for the memories that people desire to save or erase from their past. We asked people to generate either the two memories they were most likely to save and erase or the two memories they regarded as their most positive and negative memories. Then everyone rated those memories on function, emotion and correspondence with the life script. Overall, we found save and erase memories corresponded less with the life script relative to most positive and most negative memories though they were similarly emotionally intense. Additionally, erase memories were more associated with shame and less with social functions than most negative memories, whereas most negative memories to a higher degree involved the death of significant others, albeit being similarly traumatic. These findings have important implications for theory about autobiographical memory, and possible clinical relevance.

People can come to "remember" experiences they never had, and these false memories-much like memories for real experiences-can serve a variety of helpful and harmful functions. Sometimes, though, people realize one of their memories is false, and retract their belief in it. These "retracted memories" continue to have many of the same phenomenological characteristics as their believed memories. But can they also continue to serve functions? Across four experiments, we asked subjects to rate the extent to which their retracted memories serve helpful and harmful functions and compared these functions with those served by "genuine" autobiographical memories. People rated their retracted memories as serving both helpful and harmful functions, much like their genuine memories. In addition, we found only weak relationships between people's belief in their memories and the extent to which those memories served perceived functions. These results suggest memories can serve functions even in the absence of belief and highlight the potential for false memories to affect people's thinking and behavior even after people have retracted them., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Autobiographical memories are said to serve at least three functions: they direct people's behaviour, inform their identity, and facilitate social bonding and communication. But much of the research on these three functions has not distinguished between memories that serve functions in adaptive ways from those that serve functions in maladaptive ways. Across two experiments, we asked subjects to provide either positive or negative memories. Then, to operationalise adaptive and maladaptive functions, we asked subjects to rate the extent to which those memories serve directive, self, and social functions in ways that "help" and in ways that "hurt". To investigate whether people believe the adaptive benefits of their memories outweigh any maladaptive effects, we also asked subjects how willing they would be to erase the memories if given the opportunity. We found that negative memories served functions in both helpful and hurtful ways, whereas positive memories were primarily helpful. Furthermore, the more helpful a memory was, the more reluctant subjects were to erase it. Conversely, the more hurtful a memory was, the more willing subjects were to erase it. These results suggest it is important to distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive functions when investigating the functions of autobiographical memory.