Social Source Memory: How Do We Remember the People We Have Social Interaction with?

Abstract

Source memory is a type of memory that differentiates information from other information, where more contextual properties of that information are stored. Recently, researchers have shown increased attention in the effect of the information obtained from social interactions, which are a part of social life, on source memory. This paper aims to review recent researches into the underly-ing mechanisms of social source memory. In the first part of this review summarized the assumptions put forward about social interactions. In the next two chapters, the faces of which the behavior details are given and the social information obtained from the social cooperation game (or the prisoner’s dilemma) are viewed in terms of how they affect source memory performance. There seems to be a greater tendency towards negative information in the process of monitoring the source of social information. However, it would be a simple explanation. In general, source memory seems to be a categorical remembering process. The fact that the source memory does not point to a remembering process with all the details known causes memory biases. When memory is weak, it becomes difficult to trace the source of information. In such a case, the schemas, beliefs, expectations, or stereotypes are mostly effective in referring to the source of information. For this reason, it is essential to consider source memory biases in order to prevent false information. Understanding the underlying mechanism of source memory will shed light on eyewitnesses, mainly.

Keywords

• Memory,Interpersonal Relations,Social Interaction,Bais,Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

Sosyal Kaynak Belleği: Sosyal Etkileşimde Bulunduğumuz Kişileri Nasıl Hatırlıyoruz?

Öz

Kaynak belleği, bir bilgiyi diğer bilgilerden farklılaştıran, o bilginin daha çok bağlamsal özelliklerinin saklandığı bir bellek tü-rüdür. Sosyal hayatın bir parçası olan sosyal etkileşimlerden elde ettiğimiz bilgilerin kaynak belleği üzerindeki etkisi son zaman-larda araştırmacıların ilgisini çekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyal kaynak belleğinin temel mekanizmalarını açıklamaya yönelik olan çalışmaları derlemektir. Bu derlemenin ilk bölümünde sosyal etkileşim ilgili öne sürülen varsayımlar özetlenmiştir. Sonraki iki bölümde sırasıyla davranış detayları verilen yüzlerin ve sosyal işbirliği oyunundan (tutsak ikileminden) elde edilen sosyal bilginin kaynak belleği performansını nasıl etkilediği incelenmiştir. Sosyal bilgiye ilişkin kaynağın izlenmesi sürecinde negatif bilgiye daha çok eğilim gösterildiği görünmektedir. Ancak bu basit bir açıklama olacaktır. Genel olarak, kaynak belleği kategorik bir hatırlama sürecini gösteriyor gibi görünmektedir. Kaynak belleğinin bütün detayları bilinen bir hatırlama sürecine işaret etmemesi bellek yanlılıklarına sebep olmaktadır. Bellek bilgisinin zayıf olduğu durumlarda bilginin kaynağını takip ede-bilmek zorlaşır. Bu gibi bir durumda bilginin kaynağını atfederken daha çok kişinin sahip olduğu şemalar, inançlar, beklentiler veya kalıp yargılar etkili olur. Bu sebeple kaynak belleği yanlılıklarını araştırmak yanlış bilgi atfını önlemek için önemlidir. Kaynak belleğinin temel işleyiş mekanizmasını anlamak özellikle görgü tanıklığı konusuna ışık tutacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bellek,Kişilerarası İlişkiler,Sosyal Etkileşim,Yanlılık,Tutsak İkilemi Oyunu

Kaynakça

1. Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. New York, Basic Books.
2. Balliet D, Parks C, Joireman J (2009) Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4):533–547.
3. Barrett HC, Kurzban R (2006) Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. Psychol Rev, 113(3):628– 647.
4. Bayen UJ, Murnane, K, Erdfelder E (1996) Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 22(1):197-215.
5. Bell R, Buchner A (2010) Valence modulates source memory for faces. Mem Cognit, 38(1):29–41.
6. Bell R, Buchner A (2011) Source memory for faces is determined by their emotional evaluation. Emotion, 11(2):249–261.
7. Bell R, Buchner A, Erdfelder E, Giang T, Schain C, Riether N (2012a) How specific is source memory for faces of cheaters? Evidence for categorical emotional tagging. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 38(2):457–472.
8. Bell R, Buchner A, Kroneisen M, Giang T (2012b) On the flexibility of social source memory: A test of the emotional incongruity hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 38(6):1512–1529.

9. Bell R, Giang T, Buchner A (2012c) Partial and specific source memory for faces associated to other- and self-relevant negative contexts. Cogn Emot, 26(6):1036–1055.
10. Bell R, Mieth L, Buchner A (2015) Appearance-based first impressions and person memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 41(2):456–472.
11. Bell R, Mieth L, Buchner A (2017b) Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma game. PLoS One, 12(11):e0187952.
12. Blau PM (1968) Interaction: Social exchange. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol 7 (Ed DL Sills):452-457. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
13. Buchner A, Bell R., Mehl B, Musch J (2009) No enhanced recognition memory, but better source memory for faces of cheaters. Evol Hum Behav, 30(3):212-224.
14. Cassidy BS, Zebrowitz LA, Gutchess AH (2012) Appearance-based inferences bias source memory. Mem Cognit, 40(8):1214-1224.
15. Chiappe DL, Brown A, Dow B (2004) Cheaters are looked at longer and remember better than cooperators in social exchange situations. Evol Psychol, 2:108-120.
16. Cook GI, Marsh RL, Hicks JL (2003) Halo and devil effects demonstrate valenced-based influences on source-monitoring decisions. Conscious Cogn, 12(2):257–278.
17. Cosmides L, Tooby J (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In The adapted mind (Eds J Barkow, L Cosmides, J Tooby):163–228. New York, Oxford University Press.
18. Cosmides L, Tooby J (2015) Adaptations for reasoning about social exchange. In The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd ed. (Ed D Buss):625–668. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych225/full
19. Doerksen S, Shimamura AP (2001) Source memory enhancement for emotional words. Emotion, 1(1):5.
20. Duarte A, Henson RN, Graham KS (2011) Stimulus content and the neural correlates of source memory. Brain Res, 1373:110-123.
21. Durbin KA, Mitchell KJ, Johnson MK (2017) Source memory that encoding was self-referential: the influence of stimulus characteristics. Memory:1–10.
22. Erdfelder E, Kroneisen M (2014) Proximate cognitive mechanisms underlying the survival processing effect. In What is adaptive about adaptive memory? (Eds BL Schwarts, ML Howe, MP Toglia, H Otgaar):160-200. New York, Oxford University of Press.
23. Gallo DA (2010) False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Mem Cognit, 38(7):833-848.
24. Genon S, Bahri MA, Collette F, Angel L, D’Argembeau A, Clarys D et al. (2014). Cognitive and neuroimaging evidence of impaired interaction between self and memory in Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex, 51:11–24.
25. Giang T, Bell R, Buchner A (2012) Does facial resemblance enhance cooperation? PLoS One, 7(10):e47809.
26. Greenstein M, Franklin N, Klug J (2016) In-group versus out-group source memory: Spontaneously inferred features can both facilitate and impair source memory. Exp Psychol, 63(3):150-158.
27. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theor Biol, 7(1):17–52.
28. Hechler S, Neyer FJ, Kessler T (2016) The infamous among us: Enhanced reputational memory for uncooperative ingroup members. Cognition, 157:1-13.
29. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull, 114(1):3-28.
30. Kensinger EA (2004) Remembering emotional experiences: The contribution of valence and arousal. Rev Neurosci, 15(4):241-252.
31. Kensinger EA (2009) How emotion affects older adults’ memories for event details. Memory, 17(2):208–219.
32. Kleider HM, Cavrak SE, Knuycky LR (2012) Looking like a criminal: Stereotypical black facial features promote face source memory error. Mem Cognit, 40(8):1200-1213.
33. Kroneisen M (2017) Is he important to me? Source memory advantage for personally relevant cheaters. Psychon Bull Rev, 25(3):1129-1137.
34. Kroneisen M, Woehe L, Rausch LS (2015) Expectancy effects in source memory: How moving to a bad neighborhood can change your memory. Psychon Bull Rev, 22(1):179-189.
35. Kuhlmann BG, Bayen UJ, Meuser K, Kornadt AE (2016) The impact of age stereotypes on source monitoring in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging, 31(8):875-889.
36. Küppers V, Bayen UJ (2014) Inconsistency effects in source memory and compensatory schema-consistent guessing. Q J Exp Psychol, 67(10):2042-2059.
37. Leshikar ED, Duarte A (2012) Medial prefrontal cortex supports source memory accuracy for self-referenced items. Soc Neurosci, 7(2):126–145.
38. Mather M, Sutherland MR (2011) Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspect Psychol Sci, 6:114-133.
39. Mattarozzi K, Colonnello V, Russo PM, Todorov A (2018) Person information facilitates memory for face identity. Psychol Res, 83(3):181-1824.
40. May CP, Rahhal T, Berry EM, Leighton EA (2005) Aging, source memory, and emotion. Psychol Aging, 20(4):571–578.
41. Mealey L, Daood C, Krage M (1996) Enhanced memory for faces of cheaters. Ethol Sociobiol, 17:119-128.
42. Meyer MM, Bell R, Buchner A (2015) Remembering the snake in the grass: Threat enhances recognition but not source memory. Emotion, 15(6):721–730.
43. Mieth L, Bell R, Buchner A (2016a) Cognitive load does not affect the behavioral and cognitive foundations of social cooperation. Front Psychol, 7:1312.
44. Mieth L, Bell R, Buchner A (2016b) Facial likability and smiling enhance cooperation, but have no direct effect on moralistic punishment. Exp Psychol, 63(5):263-277.
45. Mieth L, Buchner A, Bell R (2017) Effects of gender on costly punishment: Gender and punishment. J Behav Decis Mak, 30(4):899-912.
46. Mitchell KJ, Johnson MK (2000) Source Monitoring: Attributing mental experiences. In The Oxford Handbook of Memory (Eds E Tulving, F Craik):179–195. New York, Oxford University Press.
47. Mitchell KJ, Johnson MK (2009) Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychol Bull, 135(4):638–677.
48. Nairne JS, Pandeirada JNS (2008) Adaptive memory: Remembering with a stone-age brain. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 17(4):239-243.
49. Nairne JS, Thompson SR, Pandeirada JNS (2007) Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 33(2):263–273.
50. Nowak MA, Sigmund K ( 2005 ) Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437:1291–1298.
51. Panksepp J, Panksepp JB (2000) The seven sins of evolutionary psychology. Evolution and cognition, 6(2):108-131.
52. Peters J, Koch B, Schwarz M, Daum I (2007) Domain-specific impairment of source memory following a right posterior medial temporal lobe lesion. Hippocampus, 17(7):505-509.
53. Reisberg, D. (2010). Cognition: exploring the science of the mind, 4th ed. New York, WW Norton.
54. Righi S, Gronchi G, Marzi T, Rebai M, Viggiano MP (2015) You are that smiling guy I met at the party! Socially positive signals foster memory for identities and contexts. Acta Psychol (Amst), 159:1–7.
55. Schacter DL (1999) The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Am Psychol, 54(3):182-203.
56. Schaper ML, Mieth L, Bell R (2019) Adaptive memory: Source memory is positively associated with adaptive social decision making. Cognition, 186:7-14.
57. Suzuki A, Suga S (2010). Enhanced memory for the wolf in sheep’s clothing: Facial trustworthiness modulates face-trait associative memory. Cognition, 117(2):224-229.
58. Tanyaş H, Mısırlısoy M (2018) Kaynak belleği: Derleme çalışması. DTCF Dergisi, 58(2):1436-1457.
59. Tooby J, Cosmides L (1996) Friendship and the banker’s paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88:119–143.
60. Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q R Biol, 46:35–57.
61. Van Lange PAM, Kuhlman DM (1994) Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. J Pers Soc Psychol, 67(1):126-141.
62. Van Lange PAM, Otten W, Joireman JA (1997) Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol, 73(4):733–746.
63. Zappa N (2012) Facial recognition of cheaters and cooperators in group projects. Sentience, 6:22–26.