The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Joint remembering: Constructing an account of shared experience through conversational discourse
Abstract
The object of study is the ways in which people construct a joint account, in conversational discourse, of a particular common experience. The data source is the recorded conversation of a group of eight people who are recalling together the substance and storyline of the feature film “E.T.,” which they had all recently seen. Conversational joint remembering is described in terms of three hierarchically related functions: (1) framing and orientation—the establishment of criteria for joint recall, and the ways in which individuals accordingly locate themselves vis‐à‐vis the unfolding account; (2) correspondence functions—including a “semantic function” through which experiences are put into words, and a “continuity function” which concerns the ordering of things recalled; and (3) validation function—a variety of means by which the joint account is constructed as a mnemonic consensus, jointly agreed. These three functions and their subcomponents are derived from a qualitative, content‐oriented treatment of raw dialogue. The discussion highlights the importance of studying remembering as a social activity governed by the settings in which it occurs, serving a potentially large set of personal and interpersonal functions in which the significance of past experiences for current purposes is generally of greater importance than accuracy and completeness, the usual criteria in psychological studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041
Cited by
Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639402000206 · Cited by 1,632
Bavelas, J. B., Chovil, N., Lawrie, D. A., & Wade, A. (1992) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539209544823 · Cited by 349
Script Formulations: An Analysis of Event Descriptions in Conversation
Edwards, D. (1994) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x94133001 · Cited by 284
Self-citationAre two heads better than one? Experimental investigations of the social facilitation of memory
Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Kirby, P. (1992) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350060606 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, D., & Middleton, D.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1986-10
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 423-459
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W1996550007
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.