Implicit Memory, Constructive Memory, and Imagining the Future: a Career Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691618803640SchacterMemory and Imagining the Future 803640research-article2018 ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Perspectives on Psychological Science 2019, Vol. 14(2) 256 –272 Implicit Memory, Constructive Memory, © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: and Imagining the Future: A Career sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618803640 10.1177/1745691618803640 Perspective www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS Daniel L. Schacter Department of Psychology, Harvard University Abstract In this article I discuss some of the major questions, findings, and ideas that have driven my research program, which has examined various aspects of human memory using a combination of cognitive, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging approaches. I do so from a career perspective that describes important scientific influences that have shaped my approach to the study of memory and discusses considerations that led to choosing specific research paths. After acknowledging key early influences, I briefly summarize a few of the main takeaways from research on implicit memory during the 1980s and 1990s and then move on to consider more recent ideas and findings concerning constructive memory, future imagining, and mental simulation that have motivated my approach for the past 2 decades. A main unifying theme of this research is that memory can affect psychological functions in ways that go beyond the simple everyday understanding of memory as a means of revisiting past experiences. Keywords priming, memory errors, episodic memory, episodic simulation, prospection For more than 40 years my work has focused on the connections have developed between the study of analysis of human memory. During this time, memory memory and investigations of such cognitive functions has increasingly become a multidisciplinary pursuit as as decision making (e.g., Redish & Mizumori, 2015; well as a central focus in numerous areas of psychology. Shohamy & Daw, 2015), theory of mind (e.g., Buckner When I entered the field in the 1970s, cognitive psy- & Carroll, 2007; Spreng, Mar, & Kim, 2009), and future chologists tested models of memory based on experi- thinking or prospection (e.g., Atance & O’Neill, 2001; mental studies of healthy individuals, neuropsychologists Gilbert & Wilson, 2007; Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, studied brain-damaged patients with memory problems, 2007, 2008; Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, and neuroscientists studied nonhuman animals in an 2013; Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007). attempt to specify the neural mechanisms that make I begin this article by stressing the broad relevance memory possible, but there was little interaction among of memory research across numerous areas of psychol- these researchers. During the 1980s, cognitive psychol- ogy because I believe that much of my work has been ogists, neuropsychologists, and neuroscientists inter- linked by an interest in the reach of memory across ested in memory began to interact (see, e.g., Cermak, multiple domains of mental life and, more specifically, 1982; LeDoux & Hirst, 1986; Weinberger, McGaugh, & how manifestations of memory affect psychological Lynch, 1985), ultimately providing the foundations for functions in ways that go beyond the everyday com- a cognitive neuroscience approach to memory that has monsense understanding of memory as a means of developed explosively over the past 2 decades (for an revisiting past experiences. I first pursued this interest overview, see Slotnick, 2017). At the same time, analy- in early work on what Graf and Schacter (1985) termed ses of memory started to occupy an increasingly promi- nent role in areas ranging from social cognition (e.g., Srull Corresponding Author: & Wyer, 1989) to developmental psychology (e.g., Daniel L. Schacter, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Brainerd & Pressley, 1985) and psychopathology (e.g., Kirkland St., Cambridge, MA 02138 Williams & Scott, 1988). More recently, promising new E-mail: [email protected] Memory and Imagining the Future 257 “implicit memory,” where recent experiences affect per- Herb Crovitz was also instrumental in the next step formance on subsequent tasks that do not require con- of my scientific journey: deciding to pursue graduate scious recollection of those experiences (Schacter, studies at the University of Toronto in 1976. Crovitz 1987a). More recently, I have focused on very different greatly admired Endel Tulving, the eminent memory ways in which memory affects performance on tasks researcher who had just returned to Toronto after sev- that are not typically thought of as “memory tasks” in eral years at Yale University. I was fortunate that Tulving the traditional sense of the term, but instead tap aspects took me on as a graduate student at a time when the of prospection, imagination, problem solving, and cre- environment at Toronto for studying human memory ativity (Schacter, Benoit, & Szpunar, 2017; Schacter & was unsurpassed and included numerous established Madore, 2016). I have approached these latter studies luminaries as well as up-and-coming young researchers in the context of a conceptual framework that charac- who provided broad exposure to a variety of method- terizes memory as a fundamentally constructive act (fol- ological and theoretical approaches. lowing Bartlett, 1932, and many others since) prone to These early experiences shaped my approach to the various kinds of errors and distortions that reveal the study of memory in many ways, but perhaps most operation of adaptive processes (Schacter, 1996, 2001b, important was the orientation toward memory research 2012; Schacter, Guerin, & St. Jacques, 2011). Linking in particular, and scientific research in general, that these two perspectives—the reach of memory into Crovitz and Tulving shared. Both stressed the value of “nonmnemonic” domains on the one hand and con- finding a question that could lead one to previously structive aspects of memory on the other—has occu- uncharted territory, where one could discover some- pied much of my theoretical and empirical attention for thing new, theoretically revealing, and hopefully sur- the past 2 decades. prising. Both had little time for experiments that This article considers some of the key findings, ideas, followed up incrementally on existing findings or used and questions produced by this approach from a career workmanlike procedures to make a small point that perspective, that is, placing my research program in the was unlikely to make much of a difference in the grand context of some important influences that led me down scheme of things. As anyone who has spent much time the main research paths I have chosen and reflecting with Endel Tulving knows, the first question one could on some of the scientific choices I have made. I first expect from him upon proposing a new project was consider formative experiences that were crucial in simple, predictable, and critically important: What will instilling a particular scientific mindset that has guided we know after you complete this project that we did my subsequent research and theorizing. Next, I briefly not know before and that is worth knowing? Tulving summarize some early work on implicit memory. I then set a high bar for what is “worth knowing,” so thinking turn to the empirical and theoretical issues concerning about this simple question with that high bar in mind constructive memory, imagination, and prospection that could help one to rule out paths that might be easy to have been central to my more recent work. pursue but were ultimately not worth pursuing. Note that this emphasis on novelty should not be at odds Early Career Influences with the equally important need to replicate one’s find- ings and take small steps to systematically characterize My path to a career in memory research began in 1974 a phenomenon; ideally one strives to combine novelty after completing an undergraduate psychology degree and rigor. Indeed, decades before the existence of the at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that recent replication crisis, Tulving often emphasized to was focused mainly on clinical psychology. I had the his students that replication is a necessary and critical good fortune to be hired as a research assistant by the part of science, and I have frequently taken the late Herbert Crovitz, an experimental psychologist at approach of attempting to replicate and explore the Duke University and the nearby Veterans Affairs Medi- characteristics of a new phenomenon. cal Center in Durham. I knew next to nothing about Crovitz and Tulving shared another interest that had memory, but Crovitz had just begun to study memory an impact on me: curiosity about, and respect for, the disorders that result from brain damage. In my capacity history of our field. Crovitz wrote a delightful (and in as a research assistant, I tested some intriguing cases my view underappreciated) book, Galton’s Walk (Crovitz, of amnesia—patients whose severe memory deficits 1970), that paid homage to the contributions of the contrasted with their relatively intact abilities in the great 19th-century psychologist Sir Francis Galton and domains of perception, language, and other nonmne- used them as a starting point for developing novel monic cognitive functions. Exposure to those patients, approaches to memory, thought, and creativity. Tulving and stimulating discussions about them with Crovitz, was an avid reader of history and philosophy of science sparked my interest in human memory.