The Effect of Collective Transitions on the Organization and Contents of Autobiographical Memory: A Transition Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we tirst outline a minimalist approach to the organization ot autobiographical memory called transition theory. This theory assumes that the content and organization of autobiographical memory mirror the structure of experience and reflect the operation of basic memory processes. Thus, this approach rests on an analysis of the environment that emphasizes repetition, co-occurrence, change, and distinctiveness. We then report a study that tested a set of predictions derived from transition theory. The predictions concerned both the temporal distribution of memorable personal events and the use of public events and historical periods to date those events. To test these predictions, we collected word-cued memories, event-dating protocols, and historical relatedness ratings from 2 groups of Bosnians; on average, people in the younger group were in their early 40s at the outset of the Siege of Sarajevo (1992); those in the older group were in their mid-50s when they experienced this collective transition. As predicted, participants in both groups produced a robust living-in-history effect, often (-25%) referring to the civil war or the Siege of Sarajevo when dating event memories. They also displayed an upheaval bump, recalling more events from the war years than from prewar and postwar years, and a reminiscence bump, recalling more events from late adolescence and early adulthood than from earlier or later periods. Finally, this study demonstrated, for the first time, the existence of a before/after effect. Specifically, participants often mentioned the war when dating historically unrelated events for the prewar and postwar years. We conclude by considering extensions of transition theory and the significance of our findings for existing models of autobiographical memory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".