Elucidating the mental processes underlying the direct retrieval of autobiographical memories

Abstract

The literature on autobiographical memory retrieval has directed much attention to the concepts of direct retrieval (fast, automatic retrieval) and generative retrieval (slower, deliberative/strategic retrieval). Among the many findings reported on these phenomena, their relative prevalence has stood out as a central feature in many studies, with most studies reporting the frequency of direct retrieval as equal to or exceeding generative retrieval. In this study, we used the retrieve-aloud procedure (a method where participants verbalize their thoughts while retrieving) to delve more deeply into the nature of reports of ubiquitous direct retrieval. We hypothesized that much of the direct retrieval reported in literature is not bona fide direct retrieval (i.e., seemingly automatic retrieval), but is a combination of other retrieval processes, including generative-like retrieval processes. Our results supported this view, showing that less than one-half of all of the observed direct retrievals were bona fide direct retrieval, while the rest were a form of generative retrieval, or fell somewhere in between direct and generative retrieval. We argue that the results suggest that the prevalence of direct retrieval may be overestimated in the literature, and we further propose an alternative classification schema for direct retrievals.