| Title |
Facing the Language-Memory Problem in the Study of Autobiographical Memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12124-018-9434-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eleonora Bartoli, Andrea Smorti |
| Abstract |
This paper discusses the problem of the role of language in autobiographical memory, that is barely considered in studies on autobiographical memories and narratives. As a matter of fact, most of the current studies on autobiographical memory confounded memory and narrative together. The present paper focuses on two main issues. Firstly, it debates how narratives contribute to the construction of autobiographical memories through self-other communication. Secondly, it reflects on how language and communication should be manipulated in studies about autobiographical memory. This paper is made of three sections: the first section discusses the role of language, particularly in the form of narrative, as a social tool by which autobiographical memories can be organised in a life story; the second section examines previous methods of investigation used in the study of autobiographical memories; finally, the third section proposes different methodological alternatives to overcome the problems emerging from our analysis of literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 75% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#250
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,942
of 331,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#15
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.