CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 556Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyCognitive Functions and Memory

Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience

Open access
Talarico, Jennifer M., LaBar, Kevin S., Rubin, David C.·2004·Memory & Cognition
DOI 10.3758/bf03196886
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

College students generated autobiographical memories from distinct emotional categories that varied in valence (positive vs. negative) and intensity (high vs. low). They then rated various perceptual, cognitive, and emotional properties for each memory. The distribution of these emotional memories favored a vector model over a circumplex model. For memories of all specific emotions, intensity accounted for significantly more variance in autobiographical memory characteristics than did valence or age of the memory. In two additional experiments, we examined multiple memories of emotions of high intensity and positive or negative valence and of positive valence and high or low intensity. Intensity was a more consistent predictor of autobiographical memory properties than was valence or the age of the memory in these experiments as well. The general effects of emotion on autobiographical memory properties are due primarily to intensity differences in emotional experience, not to benefits or detriments associated with a specific valence.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across three experiments with Duke undergraduates, emotional intensity was a more consistent predictor of autobiographical memory phenomenology than valence or memory age. The distribution of emotional memories favored a vector model over a circumplex model.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1 (N = 71; 21 emotion categories), intensity significantly predicted every autobiographical memory property; for most properties at least one quarter of the variance was uniquely accounted for by intensity, except field/observer, where memory age accounted for more. Intensity was a significant predictor for 20/21 emotions for recollection, 21/21 for same emotion and same intensity, and 20/21 for visceral reactions.
  • In Experiment 2 (N = 78), happy and angry memories did not differ significantly in intensity (3.73 vs. 3.63, t = 1.06) or memory age (2.99 vs. 2.85, t = −0.88), but differed strongly in valence (6.34 vs. 2.14, t = 44.25, p < .01); intensity predicted more autobiographical memory properties than did age or valence.
  • In Experiment 3 (N = 78), excited and calm memories differed significantly in intensity (3.80 vs. 2.89, t = 8.49, p < .01) and memory age (2.28 vs. 1.87, t = 2.98, p < .01), but not on the positive valence scale (5.08 vs. 5.27, t = −1.17); intensity predicted as many autobiographical memory properties as memory age and valence combined.
  • The 21 emotions plotted by mean valence and intensity were better fit by a vector model than a circumplex model; the circumplex was centered at mean intensity 4.03 and valence 3.81 with radius 2.06, while the vector regression lines had R² = .22 for positive emotions and R² = .86 for negative emotions.

Methods

  • Experiment 1: Duke University undergraduates (N = 71, 22 male) generated autobiographical memories for 20 distinct emotions, with anxious split into positive-anxious and negative-anxious categories, yielding 21 emotion units; participants rated memories on the Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (AMQ), and multiple regressions used memory age, intensity, and valence as predictors.
  • Experiment 2: Duke University undergraduates (N = 78, 38 male, none from Experiment 1) generated their happiest and angriest memories for 10 important people in their lives and completed the same AMQ; analyses used matched-samples t tests and multiple regressions.
  • Experiment 3: Duke University undergraduates (N = 78, 24 male, none from Experiments 1 or 2) generated calm and excited memories for 10 individuals and completed the same AMQ; analyses used matched-samples t tests and multiple regressions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that low-intensity emotions need to be better represented and that further data are needed to test whether the vector model adequately describes autobiographical memory patterns or whether the circumplex can be supported.
  • The paper states that in Experiment 1 individual analyses, because regressions included only one memory per participant, memory properties and individual differences between participants were confounded.
  • The paper notes concern that the phrase “especially” may have biased results toward intensity; a follow-up with 37 new participants and potentially biasing phrases removed produced results not remarkably different. Evident from the text: all samples were Duke undergraduates, measures were self-report ratings, and the designs were correlational/regression-based, so causal claims about intensity are not established.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03196886

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The distribution of emotional memories favored a vector model over a circumplex model.

    “The distribution of these emotional memories favored a vector model over a circumplex model.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
      “This pattern is more consistent with the vector model of emotion and emotional memory.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · boosted
      “The vector model qualitatively fits the data much better than does the circumplex model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The circumplex model assumes that valence is a bipolar dimension with positive and negative anchors.
  • Findingown data

    In two additional experiments, intensity was a more consistent predictor of autobiographical memory properties than was valence or the age of the memory.

    “Intensity was a more consistent predictor of autobiographical memory properties than was valence or the age of the memory in these experiments as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For memories of all specific emotions, intensity accounted for significantly more variance in autobiographical memory characteristics than did valence or age of the memory.

    “For memories of all specific emotions, intensity accounted for significantly more variance in autobiographical memory characteristics than did valence or age of the memory.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “However, the most striking result shown in Table 3 is that intensity significantly predicted every autobiographical memory property.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “With the exception of field/observer (for which memory age uniquely accounted for a greater proportion of the variance), at least one quarter of the variance for each property was uniquely accounted for by intensity alone, and the proportion accounted for by intensity was greater than that accounted for by either of the other two predictor variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, overall there were more significant differences between high- and low-intensity emotions than between positive and negative emotions.

    “Overall, there were more significant differences between highand low-intensity emotions than between positive and negative emotions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, none of the individual emotions was more than one standard deviation greater than the predicted circumplex radius.

    “None of the individual emotions was more than one standard deviation greater than this predicted radius.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The circumplex model assumes that valence is a bipolar dimension with positive and negative anchors.
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, there was no significant difference between positive and negative emotions on intensity and no significant difference in valence between high- and low-intensity emotions.

    “Importantly, in this analysis, there was no significant difference between positive and negative emotions on intensity and no significant difference in valence between high-and low-intensity emotions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, with participants as the unit of analysis, there were more and greater differences between intensities than between valences, especially within autobiographical memory-specific properties.

    “The same pattern was true with participants as the unit of analysis: There were still more and greater differences between intensities than between valences, especially within the autobiographical memory-specific properties.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, the analyses resulted in fewer overall significant effects, but of these, only two were not produced by intensity.

    “The analyses in Experiment 2 resulted in fewer overall significant effects, but of these, only two were not produced by intensity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there were no significant differences between happy and angry memories in intensity or in memory age.

    “There were no significant differences between happy and angry memories in intensity or in memory age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Intensity significantly predicted more autobiographical memory properties than did the age of the memory or the valence for both happy and angry memories individually, just as it did for all the emotions in Experiment 1.

    “In addition, intensity significantly predicted more autobiographical memory properties than did the age of the memory or the valence for both happy and angry memories individually, just as it did for all the emotions in Experiment 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, more positive memories predicted a greater sense of recollection and more narrative but predicted less visceral reaction while the event was being remembered.

    “More positive memories predicted a greater sense of recollection and more narrative but predicted less visceral reaction while the event was being remembered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was a significant difference in valence between happy and angry memories, with angry memories rated as negative and happy memories as positive.

    “There was, predictably, a significant difference in valence between the two, with angry memories being rated as negative and happy memories as positive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, with the exception of field/observer, at least one quarter of the variance for each autobiographical memory property was uniquely accounted for by intensity alone, and the proportion accounted for by intensity was greater than that accounted for by either memory age or valence.

    “With the exception of field/observer (for which memory age uniquely accounted for a greater proportion of the variance), at least one quarter of the variance for each property was uniquely accounted for by intensity alone, and the proportion accounted for by intensity was greater than that accounted for by either of the other two predictor variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, more recent memories were more likely to be confidently held and more likely to elicit the same emotion now as when the event originally occurred.

    “More recent memories were also more likely to be confidently held and were more likely to elicit the same emotion now as when the event had originally occurred.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, the age of the memory significantly predicted field/observer perspective, with more recent memories more likely to be seen through one's own eyes.

    “The age of the memory significantly predicted field/ observer perspective, consistent with previous findings that more recent memories are more likely to be seen through one's own eyes (Nigro & Neisser, 1983).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nigro & Neisser, 1983 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, intensity significantly predicted more autobiographical memory properties across emotions than did memory age or valence.

    “As in Experiment 1, intensity significantly predicted more properties across emotions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Calm memories tended to be more specific than excited memories, although this difference was not significant in Experiment 3.

    “The only contradiction was that high-intensity memories were significantly more specific than low-intensity memories, whereas calm memories tended to be more specific than excited memories, although this difference was not significant in Experiment 3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As was seen in Experiment 2, the effects of intensity were more robust in the individual emotion analyses from Experiment 1, but the overall pattern was consistent.

    “As was seen in Experiment 2, the effects of intensity were more robust in the individual emotion analyses from Experiment 1, but the overall pattern was consistent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Valence significantly predicted a number of properties for calm memories, as well as the three emotion-specific properties for excited memories.

    “Valence significantly predicted a number of properties for calm memories, as well as the three emotion-specific properties for excited memories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although memory age and valence were better predictors of memory properties here than in Experiments 1 and 2, intensity still had greater and more consistent effects.

    “Although memory age and valence were better predictors of memory properties here than in Experiments 1 and 2, intensity still had greater and more consistent effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Holmes found that recall was greater for pleasant events than for unpleasant events and that memories for unpleasant events decreased in intensity more quickly than did memories for pleasant events.

    “Holmes (1970) systematically investigated the interaction between valence and intensity and found that recall was greater for pleasant events than for unpleasant events and that memories for unpleasant events decreased in intensity more quickly than did memories for pleasant events.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Holmes, 1970 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    There is inconsistent evidence for valence effects in the episodic and autobiographical memory literature.

    “There is inconsistent evidence for valence effects in the episodic and autobiographical memory literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An alternative view derived from studies of emotional language and supported by Russell and colleagues is that valence is a bipolar dimension bisected by intensity, with emotions distributed in a circumplex around a neutral valence point and moderate intensity.

    “One alternative view, derived from studies of emotional language and supported by Russell and colleagues (Russell, 1980;Russell & Carroll, 1999), is that valence is a bipolar dimension bisected by intensity.Emotions are then distributed in a circle, or circumplex, around a neutral valence point and moderate intensity”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Russell, 1980 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Russell & Carroll, 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Bradley, Lang, and colleagues consistently described a boomerang shape of independent lines for positive and negative emotions diverging with increasing intensity in memory for emotional words and pictures.

    “Bradley, Lang, and colleagues (Bradley et al., 2001;Bradley, Greenwald, Petry, & Lang, 1992) have examined memory for emotional words and pictures, consistently describing a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bradley et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradley et al., 1992 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli, therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.

    “Yet much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli (e.g., Banaji & Hardin, 1994;Bradley et al., 2001;Carter, 1936), therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Banaji & Hardin, 1994 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradley et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Carter, 1936 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a recent review, Baumeister et al. concluded that evidence for an unpleasantness bias coexists with a tendency to recall positive information and that valence does not appear to be the dominant force in the memory literature.

    “In a recent review of the literature supporting an unpleasantness bias, Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) concluded that such evidence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baumeister et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Others extended the two-dimensional model of emotion to emotional memory for images, facial expressions, language, and experiences.

    “Others have extended this model to emotional memory for images, facial expressions, language, and experiences (Bradley, Codispoti, Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001;Osgood, 1966;Robinson, 1980;Russell, 1980).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bradley et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Osgood, 1966 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Russell, 1980 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some of the earliest investigations described emotional experience as comprising two dimensions, valence and intensity.

    “Some of the earliest investigations have described emotional experience as comprising two dimensionsvalence and intensity (e.g., Duffy, 1934Duffy, , 1941;;Dunlap, 1932).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Duffy, 1934 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dunlap, 1932 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Waters and Leeper concluded that intensity was positively related to retention, whereas valence was unrelated.

    “Waters and Leeper (1936) were the first to include subject-rated intensity in their study of emotional effects on memory and concluded that intensity was positively related to retention, whereas valence was unrelated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Waters & Leeper, 1936 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This evidence suggests that it may be other features of the flashbulb memory event that lead to such confident recall, perhaps increased rehearsal or the desire to incorporate oneself into a larger historical context.

    “This evidence suggests that it may be other features of the flashbulb memory event that lead to such confident recall-perhaps increased rehearsal or the desire to incorporate oneself into a larger historical context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The most common explanation for persistent, confident flashbulb recall is that the memory event was highly intense and negative in valence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Thompson found no effect of valence on forgetting rates of personal events, but a strong effect of emotional intensity.

    “Thompson (1985) found no effect of valence on forgetting rates of personal events, but a strong effect of emotional intensity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thompson, 1985 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These intensity differences are not the result of a simple retention difference, because the age of the memory was also included in the analyses and it was less influential than intensity or valence.

    “These intensity differences are not the result of a simple retention difference, because the age of the memory was also included in the analyses and it was less influential than intensity or valence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    At this time, the vector model appears more promising.

    “At this time, the vector model appears more promising.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 3, no participant left more than one emotional memory request blank.

    “In this experiment, no participant left more than one emotional memory request blank.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Intensity had more consistent and larger effects than did valence in the three experiments, with the effects of intensity influencing a large and diverse group of autobiographical memory properties.

    “Intensity had more consistent and larger effects than did valence in our three experiments, with the effects of intensity influencing a large and diverse group of autobiographical memory properties.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Walker, Vogl, and Thompson found that the intensity of unpleasant events fades more quickly over time than that of pleasant events and that, because intensity predicts long-term recall, pleasant events are remembered better than unpleasant events in long-term, but not necessarily in short-term, recall.

    “Similarly, Walker, Vogl, and Thompson (1997) found that the intensity of unpleasant events fades more quickly over time than that of pleasant events and that, because intensity predicts long-term recall, pleasant events are remembered better than unpleasant events in long-term, but not necessarily in short-term, recall.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Walker, Vogl, & Thompson, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    The primary benefit of the present approach is the simultaneous examination of many autobiographical memory properties.

    “The primary benefit of the present approach is the simultaneous examination of many autobiographical memory properties.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings in Experiment 1 were extended from individual emotions from high- and low-intensity emotion categories to multiple memories from individual high- and low-intensity emotions, with mean differences between high- and low-intensity memories in Experiment 1 consistent with those between excited and calm memories.

    “In general, the findings in Experiment 1 were extended from individual emotions from high-and low-intensity emotion categories to multiple memories from individual high-and low-intensity emotions, with mean differences between high-and low-intensity memories in Experiment 1 consistent with those between excited and calm memories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationown data

    This is consistent with the literature reviewed earlier, which tended to investigate similar properties individually.

    “This is consistent with the literature reviewed earlier, which tended to investigate similar properties individually.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Beyond dissociating the effects of valence and intensity in support of a dimensional view of emotion, the present study also adds autobiographical memories to those stimuli that can be described by a vector model.

    “Beyond dissociating the effects of valence and intensity in support of a dimensional view of emotion, the present study also adds autobiographical memories to those stimuli that can be described by a vector model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Matlin and Stang stated the Intensity Principle: intense or highly polarized items are processed more efficiently than neutral or unpolarized items.

    “The Intensity Principle maintains that intense or highly polarized items are processed more efficiently than those which are neutral or unpolarized.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Matlin and Stang (1978)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Highly intense events will tend to be remembered longer and also with greater vividness, a greater sense of recollection, and so forth.

    “Therefore, not only will highly intense events tend to be remembered longer, but they will also tend to be remembered with greater vividness, a greater sense of recollection, and so forth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Due to concerns that phrasing may have biased results toward intensity, 37 new participants followed the same procedure with all potentially biasing phrases removed.

    “we had 37 new participants follow the same procedure, but with all potentially biasing phrases removed”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
38 of 38

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The circumplex model assumes that valence is a bipolar dimension with positive and negative anchors.

    “The circumplex model assumes that va-lence is a bipolar dimension with positive and negative anchors (Russell, 1980;Russell & Carroll, 1999).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The vector model requires individual scales for positive and negative valence.

    “The vector model (Bradley et al., 2001;Bradley et al., 1992;Lang, 1995) requires individual scales for positive and negative valence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The most common explanation for persistent, confident flashbulb recall is that the memory event was highly intense and negative in valence.

    “The most common explanation for such persistent, confident recall is that the memory event was highly intense and negative in valence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The robust effect of intensity has been conceded even by those who have argued for valence effects in retention and/or accessibility.

    “The robust effect of intensity has been conceded even by those who have argued for valence effects in retention and/or accessibility.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Memory-age t statistic has the wrong sign in Table 5

    Minor

    Happy memories have a higher mean memory age than angry memories (2.99 versus 2.85), yet their t statistic is negative. The table uses a positive t statistic for another row in which the happy mean is higher, indicating that the memory-age sign is reversed.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Barlow, J. A. (1955). Recall of experiences as a function of intensity as compared to quality (pleasantness or unpleasantness) of feeling tone.Journal of the Scientific Laboratories,43, Arts, pp. 9–12.
  2. Bradley, M. M., &Lang, P. J. (1999).Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Tech. Rep. C-1). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
  3. Conway, M. A., &Bekerian, D. A. (1988). Characteristics of vivid memories. In R. N. Sykes (Ed.),Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. Vol. 1: Memory in everyday life (pp. 519–524). New York: Wiley.
  4. Raspotnig, M. A. (1997). Subcomponents of imagery and their influence on emotional memories.Journal of Mental Imagery,21, 135–146.
  5. White, R. T. (1982). Memory for personal events.Human Learning,1, 171–183.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Talarico, J. M., LaBar, K. S., & Rubin, D. C.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Talarico, Jennifer M.
ORCID
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-10
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
1118-1132
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/bf03196886
OpenAlex
W1966850344
Cited by
556
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA014094, R01 DA14094)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
autobiographical memory, emotional intensity, emotional valence, circumplex model of emotion, memory vividness, memory age, university students
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Association Learning, Attention, Emotions, Humans, Imagination, Life Change Events, Mental Recall, Repression, Psychology, Set, Psychology

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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