APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
Published online 18 December 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1316
I’ll Keep You in Mind: The Intimacy Function
of Autobiographical Memory
NICOLE ALEA1* and SUSAN BLUCK2
1
University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA
2
University of Florida, USA
SUMMARY
An experimental study examined whether autobiographical memory serves the function of maintaining intimacy in romantic relationships. Young and older adults (N ¼ 129) recalled either
autobiographical relationship events or fictional relationship vignettes. Intimacy (warmth, closeness)
was measured before and after remembering. Warmth was enhanced after recalling autobiographical
events irrespective of individuals’ age and gender; women also experienced gains in closeness. The
role of memory characteristics (quality and content) in producing changes in intimacy was also
examined. Personal significance of the autobiographical memory was the best predictor of warmth
and closeness in the relationship, though how frequently the memory was thought or talked about, and
how intimate the memory was also predicted levels of closeness, particularly for women. Results are
discussed in terms of how autobiographical memories can be used to foster intimacy in romantic
relationships across adulthood. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nurturing intimacy in relationships is a fundamental human motivation (e.g. Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Speculation exists about mechanisms that promote
intimacy in relationships across adulthood; most notable are socio-emotional motivations
(Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) and interpersonal processes (Reis & Shaver,
1988). Memory mechanisms, however, have received comparatively little attention (c.f.,
Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004; Karney & Coombs, 2000; Pasupathi, 2001). Yet,
personal autobiographical memories of life experiences, such as remembering the day one
met their spouse (Belove, 1980), may serve the function of keeping loved-ones in mind,
and in turn, close in one’s heart.
The current study is the first to use an experimental method to investigate the intimacy
function of autobiographical memory (Alea & Bluck, 2003). The first aim of the study is to
examine whether self-reported intimacy in romantic relationships is enhanced after
remembering autobiographical relationship events, taking potential age and gender
differences into account. The second aim is to examine whether autobiographical memory
characteristics (i.e. quality and content) influence the extent to which the intimacy function
is served.
*Correspondence to: Nicole Alea, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601
South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, USA. E-mail: alean@uncw.edu
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1092
N. Alea and S. Bluck
A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY:
THE INTIMACY FUNCTION
The idea that autobiographical memory is used to enhance intimacy is rooted in the
ecological approach (Neisser, 1978) that emphasizes not only how well humans remember
the events of their life, but also why they remember. That is, what function does
autobiographical remembering serve (e.g. Bluck & Alea, 2002; Bruce, 1989)? The social
function has been theorized to be the most fundamental because autobiographical memory
may promote the social bonding necessary for species survival (Neisser, 1978; Nelson,
1993; Pillemer, 1998).
The intimacy function is one of several theorized social functions. A growing number of
studies substantiate the claim that remembering life events can foster intimacy (Bluck,
Alea, Habermas & Rubin, 2005; Hyman & Faries, 1992; Pasupathi, Lucas, & Coombs,
2002). These studies, however, mostly use self-report assessments and examine the relative
frequency of using autobiographical memory to serve an intimacy function as compared to
serving various other social and non-social functions. The current study goes beyond a
self-report methodology, using a pre-post control group design that moves closer to the way
autobiographical remembering occurs in every day life. We examine whether remembering
two autobiographical memories about one’s romantic partner results in immediate,
measurable increases in felt intimacy towards one’s partner (i.e. the person who is being
remembered). Does remembering someone (in their absence) keep them close? This is
different than Webster’s (1995) intimacy function of reminiscing which is grounded in a
psychodynamic reminiscence tradition, which primarily involves remembering loved ones
who have passed away in order to keep them close.
Autobiographical memory sharing may also serve an intimacy function (Alea & Bluck,
2003) in regards to the listener. People may feel closer to a conversational partner after
sharing an autobiographical memory with them due to personal disclosure processes
(Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). The current study, however, focuses on how
remembering relationship events enhances feelings of intimacy toward the person being
recalled (i.e. the person who is being remembered). Since participants first recalled a
memory, and then spoke it to the researcher, remembering and sharing are confounded in
the current study (as they often are in every day life). It is remembering the loved one, not
speaking that memory out loud, which we argue is serving an intimacy function.
The study has an experimental design, including a control condition in which half of the
participants remembered fictional relationship vignettes. These vignettes mirror the
structure, quality and content of autobiographical memories about relationship events
(Dixon, Hultsch, & Hertzog, 1989), but are non-autobiographical. As such, fictional
narratives are an appropriate control for examining whether autobiographical memories
serve an intimacy function. Demonstration of an intimacy function is apparent if ratings of
felt intimacy increase after participants remember autobiographical relationship events,
but not after remembering fictional vignettes. The purpose of the current study was to
experimentally demonstrate that such an effect exists, since such an effect has been widely
theorized, and suggested through self-reports.
THE REMEMBERER AND THE MEMORY
The extent to which autobiographical remembering enhances intimacy in romantic
relationships may depend both on who is remembering, and certain characteristics of the
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1093
memory. Alea and Bluck (2003) proposed a conceptual model outlining variables likely to
play a role when individuals use autobiographical memory to serve social functions, such
as fostering intimacy. Two variables discussed in the model are characteristics of the
rememberer (e.g. age and gender) and characteristics of the memory (e.g. emotionally rich
and vivid). The possible influence these variables have on the extent to which an intimacy
function is served are reviewed in the following sections, along with related study
hypotheses.
Characteristics of the rememberer: age and gender
Age
Lifespan theories (e.g. Erikson, 1980; Neugarten, 1979) suggest that at both ends of
adulthood, enhancing intimacy in relationships is a normative life-phase task. Tasks in
young adulthood revolve around developing intimate relationships (Erikson, 1980) and late
life goals involve sustaining a small number of highly meaningful relationships
(Carstensen, 1993; Carstensen et al., 1999; Lang, 2001). In short, maintaining intimacy
in relationships appears to be a normative life-phase task that guides the goals that both
young and older adults have when reflecting on their personal past (Bluck & Habermas,
2001; Staudinger, 2001). Further, few or no age differences in memory quality are found
when older adults remember personally significant events from their life (see Cohen, 1998
for a review). Normative age changes do appear in episodic memory (Zacks, Hasher, & Li,
2000) but do not always transfer to autobiographical events. Thus, we hypothesize that both
young and older adults will experience gains in intimacy after remembering relationship
events. The use of memory to enhance intimacy should show age continuity (Baltes,
Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999).
Gender
Men are clearly interested in intimate relationships (e.g. Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Fehr,
2004), but women focus more attention on fostering interpersonal connections (e.g. see
Reis, 1998 for a review). Emerging evidence shows that men and women tend to remember
life events differently. When asked about how they use autobiographical memory in daily
life, women report greater value in purposeful reminiscing (Pillemer, Wink, DiDonato, &
Sanborn, 2003). Women’s autobiographical memories also tend to be more specific
(Pillemer et al., 2003) and more emotional and vivid (Davis, 1999), particularly when
remembering relationship events (Ross & Holmberg, 1992). Thus, although not all studies
of autobiographical memory find gender differences (e.g. Rubin, Schulkind, & Rahhal,
1999), we expect that if gender differences are found, they would be in the direction
outlined above. Women are expected to show greater increases in intimacy after
autobiographical remembering than are men.
Characteristics of the memory: quality and content
Characteristics of a memory may also determine the extent to which its recall might
enhance intimacy (Alea & Bluck, 2003). Recalling dropping your partner off at work last
Thursday, for example, may not necessarily increase intimacy. Memories that have certain
qualities (e.g. vividness; Pillemer, 1998) or have particular content (e.g. intimate
relationship events) should be more likely to foster intimacy. No research has directly
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1094
N. Alea and S. Bluck
examined the memory characteristics that lead to enhanced intimacy; some indirect
evidence does exist.
Quality
Research on the quality of autobiographical memory has historically investigated the role
that memory vividness and personal significance play in recall. Personally significant
memories are often associated with better recall (see Winograd & Neisser, 1992 for a
review). It is likely that the vividness and significance of a remembered event not only
affects performance but also influences the extent to which autobiographical memory
serves important functions. Emotional re-experiencing during recall may also be related
to autobiographical memory serving an intimacy function. Feeling positive emotions
during recall that were felt at the time of the event are likely to affect current mood
(Fiedler, Nickel, Muehlfriedel, & Unkelbach, 2001). While remembering positive events
is likely to have a positive effect on current mood, however, it is unclear whether the
re-experiencing of positive emotions will also generalize to feelings and views about
one’s current level of relationship intimacy. Thus, though overall increases in positive
affect as a result of telling positive memories was expected, analyses concerning the
relation of positive re-experiencing to increased intimacy after autobiographical
remembering were exploratory. A final quality that has received attention for its role in
influencing memory performance is rehearsal. Memories that are thought and talked
about more often are sometimes remembered better (e.g. Anderson, Cohen, & Taylor,
2000; Bluck & Li, 2001; Bohannon, 1988), although, rehearsal can also lead to some
habituation of the memory’s emotional effect (Sloan, Marx, & Epstein, 2005). Thus, it is
unclear whether rehearsal should be expected to influence memory function. In sum, this
study examines several classic qualities of memory and how they relate to
autobiographical memory serving an intimacy function. The only clear hypothesis is
that memories that are personally meaningful are more likely to foster intimacy in
romantic relationships.
Content
The content of the remembered experience (e.g. McAdams, 1984; Woike, Gershkovich,
Piorkowski, & Polo, 1999) may also be relevant to enhancing intimacy. Do particularly
intimate events need to be remembered or can recalling generally positive events foster
intimacy? Individuals sometimes spontaneously express themes of communion (e.g. love
and caring–intimacy) in autobiographical narratives (McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, &
Day, 1996). Do autobiographical memory narratives that include more communal themes
foster greater intimacy? Memories that are rich in communal themes (i.e. more intimate
memories) are expected to result in greater gains in intimacy.
METHOD
Design
The study is a 2 (Age: young, old) 2 (Gender: men, women) 2 (Condition: autobiographical memory, fictional vignette) 2 (Time: pre, post) mixed design. Condition was a
between-subjects factor to avoid non-symmetrical carry-over effects (Heiman, 2001).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1095
Participants
Participants were 129 young (n ¼ 32 men, 32 women; M ¼ 27.94 years; SD ¼ 4.84) and
older adults (n ¼ 33 men, 32 women; M ¼ 74.66 years; SD ¼ 6.05). All participants were in
long-term relationships, operationally defined as a marriage or cohabitation that had been
ongoing for at least 2 years. The study focuses on intimacy in romantic relationships
because of their salience across the adult lifespan (e.g. Carstensen, Graff, Levenson, &
Gottman, 1995) and their potential impact on psychological well-being (e.g. Acitelli &
Antonucci, 1994). Only one partner participated; there were no couples in the study. Older
adults had been in their relationship longer (M ¼ 46.52 years; SD ¼ 13.33; 100% in
marriages) than younger adults (M ¼ 5.44 years, SD ¼ 2.79; 67% in marriages),
t (127) ¼ 24.64, p < 0.001. Participants reported being satisfied in their relationship on
a measure of global relationship satisfaction (Norton, 1983), M ¼ 39.62 out of a possible
45, SD ¼ 6.50. Younger adults were recruited through graduate programmes and paid $10.
Older adults were unpaid volunteers recruited through community organizations and
screened for cognitive impairment (Roccaforte, Burke, Bayer, & Wengel, 1992).
Recruitment materials did not mention long-term relationships or relationship memories in
order to avoid initial sample biases. Age differences in cognitive functioning were typical
(Schaie, 1994) with respect to vocabulary ability (Wechsler, 1981), reasoning ability
(Thurstone, 1962), and episodic memory (Rey, 1941).1
Participants spoke fluent English. Seventy per cent of the younger adults and 97% of the
older adults were Caucasian. Young adults had an average of 17.89 (SD ¼ 2.40) years of
education, and older adults 16.42 years (SD ¼ 3.20), t(126) ¼ 2.94, p < 0.05. Young and
older adults both reported (Maddox, 1962) being in good to very good health (young:
M ¼ 1.83, SD ¼ 0.78; old: M ¼1.80, SD ¼ 0.88), t (127) ¼ 0.19, p > 0.05.
Measures
Intimacy measures
Two reliable intimacy measures (e.g. Osgood, Suci, & Tennenbaum, 1957; Schaefer &
Olson, 1981) sensitive to change (e.g. Hickmon, Protinsky, & Singh, 1997; Karney &
Bradbury, 1997) and representative of distinct constructs, warmth and closeness, were
employed. Directions encouraged participants to tap current feelings of intimacy.
Warmth. A semantic differential scale (SMD, Osgood et al., 1957) was used to assess
relationship warmth, which is the aspect of intimacy that is emotion-based (i.e. measures
feelings about one’s relationship). Fifteen adjective-pairs are listed as oppositions (e.g.
lonely–satisfied) and rated on a 7-point Likert-scale positioned between the adjective pair
(Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.95 pre-memory and 0.97 post-memory).
Closeness. Relationship closeness was assessed with 24 items from the Personal
Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships questionnaire (PAIR, Schaefer & Olson, 1981)
using a Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (very strong disagreement) to 5 (very strong
agreement). Closeness is characterized by the interdependence of a couple, including how
1
Basic cognitive ability differences between young and older adults could potentially influence the extent to which
intimacy is enhanced after autobiographical remembering (e.g. if memory is poor, the intimacy function of
autobiographical memory may not be utilized). Major intimacy results do not change when cognitive ability
assessments are used as covariates.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1096
N. Alea and S. Bluck
they interact as a close unit and relate to one another (Mashek & Aron, 2004). Questions
ask about the couple’s emotional, intellectual, social and recreational connectedness. The
sexual intimacy subscale of the PAIR was not used in the current project. We report a single
global PAIR score (Schaefer & Olson, 1981). The PAIR had high internal consistency
(Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.90 at both times of measurement). The PAIR also has a Conventionality
subscale, which assesses the extent to which individuals are presenting their relationship in
socially desirable way. Participants fell below the cut-off for social desirability in
responding (M ¼ 21.24, cut-off criterion ¼ 30; Schaefer & Olson, 1981). A paired-sample
t-test also indicates that there was no significant increase on this scale from pre- to
post-remembering (M ¼ 22.32) regardless of condition. This suggests that any demand
characteristics (i.e. to portray one’s relationship in a positive light) were below criterion
levels and the same across conditions.
Memory characteristics
Memory quality. Memory quality was assessed with 10-items from the Memory Quality
Questionnaire (MQQ, adapted from Bluck, Levine, & Laulhere, 1999) completed for each
of the two memories. Responses were made on 5-point Likert-scales. Mean scores were
created for each item across the two autobiographical events remembered (n ¼ 65).
Exploratory factor analysis (Promax rotation; see Alea, 2004 for details) resulted in three
factors including positive re-experiencing, personal significance, and rehearsal. The
positive re-experiencing factor (32% variance, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.80), includes four items
regarding basic positive and negative emotions at the time of recall (e.g. ‘Did this memory
make you feel happy?’). The personal significance factor (25% variance, Cronbach’s
a ¼ 0.85), includes four items regarding how memorable, important, emotional (with no
regard to valence), and vivid the memory was (e.g. ‘How significant or important is this
memory to you?’). The rehearsal factor (10% variance; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.65), includes two
questions about the frequency of thinking and talking about the past.2
Memory content. Memory narratives were coded for themes of communion (see
McAdams, 2001 for coding scheme). Communal themes include love and friendship (‘how
lucky we are that we found each other’), dialogue (‘we reflected back on our marriage’),
caring and helping (‘I was watching to make sure that she was enjoying herself’), and unity
and togetherness (‘it was just fun to get everybody together’). Communal themes were
coded as either present or absent in the narrative. Two coders blind to study hypotheses
were trained to reliability on a subset of narratives (n ¼ 48) blinded for participant gender.
Percent agreement (with kappa in parentheses) were love and friendship ¼ 83% (0.65),
dialogue ¼ 92% (0.80), caring and helping ¼ 98% (kappa not computed, there was a
constant in the table of association), and unity and togetherness ¼ 92% (0.75). After
reliability was obtained, one coder proceeded to code the remaining narratives and any
questions were discussed. This coder’s scores were used in all analyses. A single
communal theme score was created which ranged from 0 (absent) to 8. Participant’s scores
were well below the scale median (M ¼ 2.70, SD ¼ 1.44). Individuals, in general, were not
recalling highly communal memories.
2
It is recognized that the N is small for a factor analysis. Despite this, the 3-factor solution accounted for 67% of
the variance (root mean square residual ¼ 0.04), using a > 0.50 factor loading criterion (Cliff & Hamburger, 1967;
Kaiser, 1960). It is also recognized that factors with fewer than four loadings are usually not interpreted (Gorsuch,
1983), but the rehearsal index was of theoretical significance.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1097
Control variable
Basic affect. Affect was measured with the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Scale
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) before and after remembering. Responses were
made on a 5-point Likert-scale (Cronbach’s a above 0.87 for both positive and negative
affect, pre and post memory). Basic affect was measured for use as a traditional covariate,
and concomitant variable (i.e. one that changes with the dependent variable; Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991).
Procedure
Interviewers were women in their early to mid 20s. Females were used to enhance the
likelihood that participants would disclose personal information (Shaffer, Pegalis, &
Bazzini, 1996). Debriefing questions suggest that interviewer age and gender did not
influence recall or sharing of memories. Interviewers followed a structured script for the
90-minute session, and responded to participants’ memories with interested expressions
but no verbal response. Attempts were made to represent a real life situation, where
memories were shared with an engaged listener in a quiet, comfortable, home-like
environment.
Participants completed the background and health questionnaire, the PANAS, the
intimacy measures, followed by the cognitive ability measures. Participants were then
randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Regardless of condition, participants were
asked to recall two positive event memories, a vacation and a romantic evening. The
fictional vignettes have been used in both memory and narrative text research (e.g., Dixon
et al., 1989; Ross & Holmberg, 1992). The order of recalling the two events was
counterbalanced, and there were no order effects.
Autobiographical memory condition
Participants were given 2 minutes to think about one autobiographical event (e.g. a
vacation). Specifically, they were instructed to, ‘think about a vacation that you had with
your partner. During this time try to remember where you were, what you did, and what you
were thinking and feeling. The story can be about something that happened years ago or
more recently, as long as the memory is memorable and positive for you’. This timeframe
was used to equate the memory conditions (the pre-recorded fictional vignettes took
approximately 2 minutes to play). Then participants were asked to, ‘tell me everything you
can remember about a positive (vacation) that you had with your partner. Tell me about
where you were, what you did, and what you were thinking and feeling’. They recalled all
that they could about the event. The participant’s memory was probed using standard
probes until 10 minutes had expired. The entire procedure was then repeated for the second
autobiographical event (e.g. romantic evening).
Fictional vignette condition
The vignettes were about a couple’s romantic evening, and vacation. These were an
appropriate control because they are analogous to autobiographical narratives in many
ways. The narratives are personal texts in colloquial style, describe a single event, involve
information about characters’ intentions, evaluations, behaviours and ruminations, are
moderately emotional stories that illicit positive feelings, and are interesting and
true-to-life (Dixon et al., 1989). They also require the use of open-ended free recall, contain
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1098
N. Alea and S. Bluck
narrative structure, and are about the same event. These vignettes were also appropriate
because of their obvious difference; they are non-autobiographical. Thus, this condition
provides a dimension on which the two memories should differ if autobiographical
memory, and not memories that people do not ‘own’, serve an intimacy function.
Participants listened for 2-minutes to one of the vignettes pre-recorded in a clear voice,
and played via audiotape. Specifically, they were asked to ‘listen to a story about a
vacation that a couple had together. During this time think about where they were, what
they did, and what they were thinking and feeling. The story is about an event that is
memorable and positive for the couple’. They were then asked to ‘tell me everything you
can remember about the positive vacation that the couple had together. Tell me about where
they were, what they did, and what they were thinking and feeling’. They were given
10-minutes to remember everything they could, followed by standard probes. The
procedure was then repeated for the other vignette. Memory interviews were audio taped
and transcribed verbatim (see Table 1 for examples).3
After remembering relationship events, participants were immediately given the warmth
(SMD) and closeness (PAIR) measures answered previously, with questionnaire order
counterbalanced across pre- and post-test, and with items on these questionnaires presented
in a different order than at the initial assessment. Instructions emphasized current
assessment of warmth and closeness in the relationship (regardless of initial levels). At
least 30 minutes (i.e. cognitive ability measures, remembering relationship events) had
elapsed since the first time the intimacy measures were completed. Participants were then
administered the MQQ (memory quality) and PANAS (affect).
Results
The results are in two sections. The first uses analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine
whether autobiographical memory fosters intimacy, and whether it varies by age and
gender (Aim 1). The second section uses hierarchical regression analysis to examine
whether particular autobiographical memory characteristics predict gains in intimacy
(Aim 2). Correlations among study variables are reported in Table 2.
Does memory serve an intimacy function? Does the rememberer affect intimacy gains?
Analyses were conducted separately for warmth and closeness, examining whether
intimacy increased after autobiographical remembering (i.e. the intimacy function), and if
so, whether such increases vary by characteristics of the rememberer. There were no age,
gender, or condition differences in intimacy at initial assessments. Initial intimacy (warmth
or closeness) levels were covaried in analyses to control for individual differences in
intimacy. As expected, preliminary analyses indicated increases in positive affect (but not
negative affect) from pre- to post-autobiographical remembering. Thus, analyses are
conducted without change in positive affect as a covariate, and then with change in positive
affect as a covariate, to examine whether intimacy changes were concomitant with or
independent of changes in positive affect. Means and standard deviations are presented in
Table 3.
3
We asked participants whether they thought of their own partner when recalling the fictional vignettes, 53% said
‘yes’. Despite this, analyses revealed that thought intrusions did not lead to enhanced intimacy after remembering
fictional relationship vignettes.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1099
Table 1. Example of a remembered event (romantic evening)
Autobiographical memory condition
Fictional vignette condition
‘It was the first time we went to
the Performing Arts Center together,
which we’ve done several times
since then. We went to see a dance
recital . . . but we went to dinner
ahead of time and had sushi: one
of our favorites . . . It was in the
winter time because we got to the
Performing Arts Center early but it
was dark already and we were just
milling around outside waiting.
It was a clear cool night, start out,
and we were just walking around the
outside and he started singing
to me. Some very old-fashioned
romantic song that he sings about
putting your arm in mine as we walk,
or something liked that. It was
very very romantic . . . it was early in
our relationship so I was very
much impressed and definitely falling
for him at that time. It made
a big impression’.
‘Jim and Theresa were a couple who
lived across the Potomac from
Washington. It was the 4th of July
and they were going to go to the
mall to have an evening to celebrate
their own relationship and also
to celebrate the 4th of July, with
the fireworks and the concert.
Jim packed a picnic lunch . . . and off
they went. They drove across
the bridge and they arrived and
it was terribly crowded so they
parked up away from the mall and they
presumably carried their
basket with them to a spot . . . And I can
just see them arranging a
nice little area for themselves.
And then there of course was the
pleasure of the concert, followed
by the fireworks over the
Washington Monument and they enjoyed
the whole evening so much.
They were surrounded by friendly people
and they decided that they
would make this an annual
celebration . . . Not only to honour the
4th of July but their own relationship’.
A 2 (Condition: autobiographical memory, fictional vignette) 2 (Age: young, old) 2
(Gender: male, female) ANCOVA was conducted to examine post remembering levels of
warmth in the relationship. The primary effect of interest, the Condition main effect, was
significant, F(1, 119) ¼ 6.12, MSE ¼ 353.79, p < 0.05, h2p ¼ 0.05. Individuals in the
autobiographical memory condition reported feeling more warmth in their relationship
after remembering than those recalling vignettes (see Figure 1). There was no age or gender
main effect, nor any interactions. The ANCOVA was conducted again including
concomitant pre-post change in positive affect as a covariate. The Condition main effect
became marginally significant, F(1, 118) ¼ 3.77, MSE ¼ 209.48, p ¼ 0.06, h2p ¼ 0.03. This
likely occurred because warmth in the relationship after autobiographical remembering
and change in positive affect from pre- to post-remembering share variance (r ¼ 0.21). An
age effect also emerged, F(1, 118) ¼ 5.43, MSE ¼ 302.44, p < 0.05, h2p ¼ 0.04. Older adults
reported more warmth in their relationship overall (M ¼ 93.04, SD ¼ 18.17) than younger
adults (M ¼ 89.92, SD ¼ 12.94).
A 2 (Condition: autobiographical memory, fictional vignette) 2 (Age: young, old) 2
(Gender: male, female) ANCOVA was conducted to examine levels of closeness after
remembering. The Condition main effect was not significant, F(1, 119) ¼ 2.08,
MSE ¼ 65.39, p > 0.05, and there was no main effect for age or gender. There was,
however, a Condition Gender interaction, F(1, 119) ¼ 3.83, MSE ¼ 120.07, p ¼ 0.05,
h2p ¼ 0.03. This interaction remained significant in an ANCOVA controlling for prepost changes in positive affect, F(1, 119) ¼ 4.62, MSE ¼ 144.72, p < 0.05, h2p ¼ 0.04
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
0.30
0.31
0.25
0.06
0.87
0.71
0.21
0.05
0.10
0.15
—
0.75
0.20
0.33
0.34
0.06
0.76
0.93
0.07
0.13
0.18
0.05
—
2
0.22
0.16
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.16
0.16
—
0.00
0.00
3
0.07
0.29
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.14
0.08
—
0.00
4
—
—
—
—
0.06
0.00
0.21
—
5
0.24
0.09
0.21
0.18
—
0.77
0.10
6
0.27
0.16
0.17
0.22
—
0.09
7
0.17
0.16
0.04
0.08
—
8
—
0.10
0.01
0.26
9
—
0.43
0.20
10
—
0.07
11
a
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.
Dummy codes for the independent variables include, age: 1 ¼ young, 2 ¼ old; gender: 1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female; condition: 1 ¼ autobiographical memory, 2 ¼ fictional vignette.
b
Correlations reported only for autobiographical memory condition, n ¼ 64; thus correlations not reported for predictors and condition.
Dependent variables
1. Post-memory warmth
2. Post-memory closeness
Independent variables
3. Age
4. Gender
5. Condition
Covariates
6. Initial levels of warmth
7. Initial levels of closeness
8. Change in positive affect
Predictorsb
9. Positive re-experiencing
10. Personal significance
11. Rehearsal
12. Themes of communion
1
Table 2. Correlations between study variablesa
—
12
1100
N. Alea and S. Bluck
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1101
Table 3. Cell means and standard deviations for warmth and closeness after remembering by age,
gender, and memory condition
Male
Condition
Young
Female
Old
Young
Old
a
Autobiographical memory
Fictional vignette
90.24 (16.99)
86.84 (17.83)
Autobiographical memory
Fictional vignette
94.30 (15.12)
94.43 (13.71)
Warmth
92.19 (9.21)
93.27
93.24 (12.17)
89.32
Closenessb
93.48 (14.07)
96.04
94.37 (16.40)
94.01
(4.85)
(24.75)
95.46 (13.82)
91.26 (16.32)
(14.36)
(14.87)
99.07 (10.04)
93.41 (19.08)
Note: Estimated marginal means are reported. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
a
Covariates in model: initial warmth, M ¼ 87.48 and change in positive affect, M ¼ 0.85. Scale ranges from 15 to
105.
b
Covariates in model: initial closeness, M ¼ 93.72 and change in positive affect, M ¼ 0.85. Scale ranges from 24 to
120.
(see Figure 2). A follow up ANCOVA revealed that women, but not men, report more
closeness after remembering autobiographical events compared to remembering vignettes,
F(1, 60) ¼ 6.44, MSE ¼ 236.91, p < 0.05, h2p ¼ 0.07. No other effects were significant.
Do autobiographical memory characteristics affect intimacy gains?
The second aim of the study was to explore whether an autobiographical memory must
have certain characteristics in order to foster intimacy. To begin this exploration, we
conducted an Age Gender MANOVA with the memory characteristics as the dependent
variables for the autobiographical memory group. The MANOVA was not significant. Next,
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted separately for warmth and closeness to
Figure 1. Warmth in the relationship after remembering by memory condition.
Note: Estimated marginal means are reported. Covariate in model is initial level of warmth,
M ¼ 87.48. Scale ranges from 15 to 105
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1102
N. Alea and S. Bluck
Figure 2. Closeness in the relationship after remembering by gender and memory condition.
Note: Estimated marginal means are reported. Covariates in model are initial levels of closeness,
M ¼ 93.72 and change in positive affect, M ¼ 0.85. Scale ranges from 24 to 120
examine what memory characteristics predict levels of intimacy after autobiographical
remembering. These analyses were conducted only for the autobiographical memory
condition (N ¼ 65) as it does not make conceptual sense when testing an intimacy function
of autobiographical memory to examine what characteristics of fictional vignette memories
predicts levels of intimacy after remembering non-autobiographical vignettes. Given that
there were gender differences in levels of closeness in the main intimacy analyses above,
we also examined whether memory characteristic interact with gender in predicting
post-autobiographical remembering feelings of closeness (and warmth, for consistency). It
seemed possible that women and men may be relying on different memory characteristics
to serve an intimacy function. Control variables entered in the model first were initial levels
of warmth or initial level of closeness, change in positive affect, and verbosity (i.e. a
control for word count, as memory content is coded from the narratives). In the next step,
main effects were entered in the model, which included gender and memory characteristics
(personal significance, positive emotional re-experiencing, rehearsal and themes of
communion). In the final step, interaction terms between each memory characteristic and
gender was entered. A forward selection procedure (entry criterion ¼ p < 0.05) was used to
provide the most parsimonious results (Stevens, 2002) due to the exploratory nature of
these analyses (Darlington, 1990).
Results for warmth are reported in Table 4. The first step includes variables that are
obvious and rather uninteresting predictors of levels of warmth after remembering (e.g.
initial levels of warmth). As expected, these control variables accounted for a large
percentage of variance, R2 ¼ 0.69, F(3, 59) ¼ 43.15, p < 0.001. Of interest was whether,
given that a majority of the variance was accounted for by control variables, memory
characteristics would still play a role. Personal significance of the event being remembered
was the only significant predictor of feelings of warmth in the relationship after
autobiographical remembering, R2 ¼ 0.74, F(1, 58) ¼ 12.96, p < 0.01. Personal significance of the remembered event increased the variance explained by 6%. Recalling more
personally significant events predicted higher levels of relationship warmth after
autobiographical remembering. None of the other memory characteristics (re-experiencing
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1103
Table 4. Summary of forward regression analyses for memory characteristics and interactions with
gender in predicting feelings of warmth after autobiographical remembering (N ¼ 64)
B
SEB
Beta
t
Warmth
Model 1
Initial level of warmth
Change in positive affect
Verbosity
Model 2
Initial level of warmth
Change in positive affect
Verbosity
Personal significance
0.65
0.27
0.00
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.81
0.10
0.06
10.94
1.39
0.86
0.65
0.16
0.00
6.35
0.05
0.18
0.00
1.76
0.80
0.06
0.01
0.25
11.92
0.93
0.10
3.60
Note: Warmth: R2 ¼ 0.69 for Model 1, DR2 ¼ 0.06 for Model 2. Variables statistically excluded from the model
were: gender, positive re-experiencing, rehearsal, themes of communion, and the interaction terms.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
positive emotion, rehearsal or communal themes) predicted levels of warmth after
remembering; neither did gender or any of the gender by memory characteristic
interactions.
Results for closeness are reported in Table 5. Control variables again accounted for a
large percentage of variance in the model, R2 ¼ 0.81, F(3, 60) ¼ 85.89, p < 0.001. Personal
significance was the strongest predictor of feelings of closeness after autobiographical
remembering, R2 ¼ 0.84, F(1, 59) ¼ 11.27, p < 0.01, accounting for an additional 3% of the
variance. Another memory characteristic, rehearsal, was also a significant predictor of
levels of closeness after remembering, R2 ¼ 0.85, F(1, 58) ¼ 4.52, p < 0.05, but accounted
for only 1% of the variance. Gender also explained 1% of the variance, R2 ¼ 0.86,
F(1, 57) ¼ 4.92, p < 0.05. Two of the interaction terms were significant in predicting levels
of closeness after autobiographical remembering. The gender by themes of communion
interaction term explained an additional 1% of the variance, R2 ¼ 0.87, F(1, 56) ¼ 5.68,
p < 0.05. The rehearsal and gender main effects were qualified by a significant interaction
between gender and rehearsal, R2 ¼ 0.88, F(1, 55) ¼ 4.28, p < 0.05, and accounted for 1%
of the variance in the model. To better interpret these interactions, follow-up partial
correlations (controlling for initial levels of closeness) between themes of communion and
rehearsal, and levels of closeness after remembering were conducted for each gender
separately. For men, there was no relation between communal themes (r ¼ 0.02, p > 0.05)
or rehearsal (r ¼ 0.03, p > 0.05) and levels of closeness after autobiographical
remembering. Women, however, who remembered events that were frequently thought
and talked about (r ¼ 0.65, p < 0.05), and had memories that were rich in intimate content
(i.e. communal themes; r ¼ 0.42, p < 0.05), were more likely to experience gains in
closeness after autobiographical remembering.4
4
Regression analyses were conducted to examine the possibility that rating one’s relationship intimacy created
post hoc effects on rating memory characteristics. Levels of warmth did not predict level of personal significance
of participants’ memories. Levels of closeness did not predict level of personal significance, amount of rehearsal or
communal themes in a participant’s memory.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1104
N. Alea and S. Bluck
Table 5. Summary of forward regression analyses for memory characteristics and interactions with
gender in predicting feelings of closeness after autobiographical remembering (N ¼ 64)
Model 1
Initial levels of closeness
Change in positive affect
Verbosity
Model 2a
Personal significance
Model 3
Personal significance
Rehearsal
Model 4
Personal significance
Rehearsal
Gender
Model 5
Personal significance
Rehearsal
Gender
Gender Communal themes
Model 6
Personal significance
Rehearsal
Gender
Gender Communal themes
Gender Rehearsal
B
SEB
Beta
t
0.88
0.10
0.00
0.06
0.16
0.00
0.89
0.04
0.07
15.78
0.63
1.16
5.10
1.52
0.19
3.36
3.68
2.59
1.62
1.22
0.14
0.12
2.27
2.13
2.69
2.87
3.15
1.63
1.19
1.42
0.10
0.13
0.12
1.65
2.42
2.22
2.12
2.72
1.11
0.72
1.59
1.14
1.61
0.30
0.07
0.13
0.04
0.14
1.34
2.38
0.69
2.38
1.79
3.48
10.63
0.65
4.19
1.55
3.20
5.88
0.29
2.02
0.07
0.16
0.39
0.13
0.54
1.16
1.09
1.81
2.22
2.07
Note: Closeness: R2 ¼ 0.81 for Model 1, DR2 ¼ 0.03 for Model 2, DR2 ¼ 0.01 for Model 3, DR2 ¼ 0.01 for Model 4,
DR2 ¼ 0.01 for Model 5, DR2 ¼ 0.01 for Model 6. Variables statistically excluded from the model were positive
re-experiencing, themes of communion, and the gender personal significance and gender positive
re-experiencing interactions.
a
Control variables are not presented throughout the table; initial levels of closeness was the only variable that
remained significant as each new predictor was selected for inclusion.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
DISCUSSION
Humans are inherently social, as having intimate romantic relationships is a goal most
people aspire toward (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Erikson, 1980). There are multiple
avenues for maintaining intimacy when couples are together (i.e. through mutual
conversation, touching etc.; Laurenceau et al., 1998). But, how is intimacy maintained
when couples are apart? Remembering good times spent with one’s partner is one way to
keep one’s partner close in their absence.
Though much theorized about, the current study is the first experimental evidence that
autobiographical remembering serves an intimacy function. Remembering only two
personally meaningful relationship events about one’s partner (in their absence) led to
increased feelings of warmth (marginally significant when concomitant changes in positive
affect are removed). Thus, autobiographical remembering fosters emotional warmth in the
relationship simultaneous with a general increase in positive affect. People feel better in
general, but also feel more warmth in their relationship. Enhanced relationship closeness as
a function of autobiographical remembering is evident in women, and, occurs
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1105
independently of changes in positive affect. Note that the control condition demonstrates
that it is the autobiographical component of memories that ‘makes the heart grow fonder’.
Remembering non-autobiographical relationship events that were similar in quality,
structure, and content (Dixon et al., 1989) did not enhance intimacy. The memory trace
(Larsen, 1998) needs to be autobiographical.
Further study findings are highlighted below with a focus on the role of the rememberer
and memory characteristics when using autobiographical memory to enhance intimacy.
Note that the pattern of findings does not suggest an unconditional role for memory in
serving an intimacy function. Instead, characteristics of both the rememberer and the
remembered episode itself are critical to such a function being served.
Age continuity in the intimacy function of autobiographical memory
One focus of this study was to examine whether the age of the person remembering would
affect the extent to which autobiographical remembering enhanced relationship intimacy.
We hypothesized that sustaining intimate romantic relationships may be consistent with
life phase tasks in both early and late life, and be so fundamental to socio-emotional
well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Carstensen et al., 1999), that the intimacy function
would be evident in young adulthood and preserved in late life. Results confirm this
hypothesis, as autobiographical remembering led to greater feelings of warmth regardless
of age, and enhanced feelings of closeness for young and old women. Remembering
specific relationship events, like the day one met their spouse, can foster intimacy in
relationships at 20 or 70. The power of the event does not seem to diminish over time, as
one might predict (i.e. affect fading effect; Walker, Skowronski, & Thompson, 2003).
Despite other age-related memory declines (see Zacks et al., 2000), autobiographical
memory maintains its functional role in the lives of older adults (Cohen, 1998). Age of the
person (and related age of the memory) does not diminish the impact that recall of special
relationship moments has for a person’s sense of intimacy. This result fits neatly within the
lifespan psychology framework (e.g. Baltes, 1987; Baltes et al., 1999) in that
understanding adult development, documenting stability (i.e. no age differences) is as
important as documenting change. Future work that includes middle-aged individual’s is
needed to examine whether autobiographical memory serves an intimacy function across
adulthood or only during particular stages (e.g. young adulthood, older adulthood) when
developmental tasks coincide with intimacy goals (Erikson, 1980; Neugarten, 1979). The
intimacy function of autobiographical memory may be less salient in midlife, at least for
romantic relationships, as developmental tasks such as having children and establishing a
career are at the forefront of psychosocial development (Staudinger & Bluck, 2001).
Gender differences in the intimacy function of autobiographical memory
After autobiographical remembering, both men and women reported enhanced warmth in
their relationship. As expected, however, women experienced broader gains, also reporting
enhanced closeness in their relationship. Thus, after autobiographical remembering
women not only experience increase in the momentary affective feelings about the
relationship, but also change their perception about how they function as an interdependent
(i.e. close) unit. Women’s view of their relationship appears to be more malleable, and
reliant on current perceptions. They are willing to reassess the relationship, so that
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1106
N. Alea and S. Bluck
remembering only two autobiographical relationship events can change their perceptions,
leading to increased feelings of closeness.
This finding bridges work demonstrating that women are more focused on actively
sustaining intimate ties (for a review see Reis, 1998) with results showing that women
sometimes (though not always; e.g. Rubin et al., 1999) place more emphasis on
remembering life events (e.g. Davis, 1999; de Vries & Watt, 1996; Niedzwienska, 2003;
Pillemer et al., 2003; Pohl, Bender, & Lachmann, 2005). For women, memories about
positive, meaningful relationship events may be a key mechanism that is utilized in
sustaining relationships. For example, remembering the first date with one’s husband may
be accessed during good times as evidence for relationship-continuity, and during difficult
times, as a way to remain hopeful about the relationship. Such memories may be accessed
when the husband is away, whether at work for the day, or at war for months or years. Thus,
women may be more motivated towards intimacy in a variety of contexts (Reis, 1998) and
autobiographical remembering is a tool or resource that they use to achieve their
intimacy-related goals.
Specific characteristics allow autobiographical memory
to serve an intimacy function
Most theorists agree that not every remembered experience serves important socioemotional functions (e.g. Alea & Bluck, 2003; Baddeley, 1987; Bruce, 1989). We
investigated whether certain memory characteristics (i.e. personal significance, rehearsal,
emotional re-experiencing, themes of communion) are related to greater gains in intimacy.
Emotional re-experiencing of an event was not necessary to foster intimacy in a
relationship. Consistent with study hypotheses, memories with greater personal
significance led to higher levels of both warmth and closeness after remembering.
Personal significance of an event has been related to memory performance in terms of how
completely and clearly a memory is recalled (e.g. Bluck et al., 1999; Cohen, Conway, &
Maylor, 1994). Remembering personally significant events is sufficient to foster feelings of
warmth in the relationship for men, and is relevant for women. The broader gains in
intimacy that women experience as a function of autobiographical remembering (i.e. both
warmth and closeness), rely on them recalling certain types of memories. Women may
have a set of ‘relationship-defining memories’ (N. Alea & J. A. Singer, personal
communication, 21 August 2005), a core set of meaningful memories about their
relationship (i.e. personally significant, high in communal themes) that they rehearse (i.e.
tell to themselves or others) that enhance closeness. For women to experience broad gains
in relationship closeness, it is these relationship-defining memories that they need to recall.
This research provides the first evidence to support the link between particular memory
characteristics and the socio-emotional functions that memory serves (Alea & Bluck, 2003;
Pillemer, 1998).
Study limitations and future directions
The experimental pre-post design used in the current research has several advantages over
previously used self-report measures (i.e. Bluck et al., 2005; Webster, 1995). It moves
closer to the way that the intimacy function may be served in everyday life, and it is a
conservative test of memory’s role in enhancing intimacy since it involves measuring
changes in intimacy after remembering only two brief relationship events. This design,
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1107
however, might be considered a drawback and leaves open questions for future research.
First, although we made every attempt to reduce demand characteristics (i.e. through
comparison condition, recruitment strategies, ordering of study measures), it is possible
that increases in intimacy after autobiographical remembering were due to demand. The
lack of differential increases across conditions from pre- to postremembering on the PAIR
Conventionality subscale reduces this concern, but it cannot be completely discounted.
Second, the study design does not allow claims about the generalizability of the intimacy
function across all types of relationship events. For example how might remembering
negative relationship events, like an argument with one’s spouse, influence feelings of
intimacy? Another direction for future work is to examine whether the accuracy of
autobiographical memory influences the extent to which an intimacy function is served. It
may be that enhancement biases in autobiographical memory are adaptive in meeting
fundamental socio-emotional goals, and remembering our relationships in a positive,
though inaccurate, light is related to relationship satisfaction (e.g. Karney & Coombs,
2000). Future research systematically varying the above-mentioned memory characteristics (e.g. emotional valence, content, accuracy), or other model variables (Alea & Bluck,
2003), such as the role of the listener (e.g. level of responsiveness), or who the listener is
(i.e. stranger vs. loved one, someone of same or different age or gender) will allow for a
deeper and broader understanding of how autobiographical memory is best used to foster
intimacy.
A final area for future work is to explore cognitive mechanisms that might be related to
feelings of intimacy as a function of autobiographical remembering. Finding that people
feel more intimate after remembering relationship events seems consistent with a loose
definition of associative priming (La Voie & Light, 1994) or use of a judgement heuristic
(Clore & Parrott, 1991). A transitory mental representation (memory about a person)
primes or biases a person to feel a particular way (more intimate). Both explanations have
been given for the mood-congruent memory effect (Fiedler et al., 2001). These cognitive
mechanisms, however, cannot completely explain our results. First, although emotional
re-experiencing at recall is related to memory vividness (Schaefer & Philippot, 2005), it did
not predict memory function (i.e. gains in intimacy), providing some preliminary evidence
that it is not the emotionality of a remembered relationship event that ‘primes’ (La Voie &
Light, 1994) individuals to feel more emotional in general and thus report greater intimacy.
Further, although participants recalled positive events, the events varied in level of
intimacy (e.g. honeymoons to family vacations). They were not laden with intimate content
(i.e. M ¼ 2.70 out of a possible score of 8), and intimate content only predicted
post-remembering closeness for women. Thus, priming cannot be the only basic cognitive
mechanism that accounts for our effects.
Conclusion: keeping loved ones in mind keeps them close in one’s heart
Humans do not remember everything, but they do recall huge amounts about their
experiences in important relationships with others. Memories of relationship events come
freely to mind. Memories of loved ones stay with us for years. What purpose or function
might memories of loved ones serve in keeping intimacy alive in relationships? Based on a
conceptual model of how and when autobiographical memory serves social functions, the
current research provides evidence that autobiographical memory can be used to foster
intimacy in relationships. Results suggest that using recall of autobiographical events to
foster intimacy is well-preserved across adulthood, and that the extent to which
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1108
N. Alea and S. Bluck
autobiographical memory fosters intimacy may depend on gender-related socio-emotional
goals. Not all types of memories, however, produce gains in intimacy. Personal significance
of the memory is critical to enhancing intimacy, and rehearsal and intimate content are
necessary for women. Our conceptual model provides a basis for further empirical
investigations of how, when, and by whom autobiographical memory is used to serve
important social goals in everyday life. Among other things, such research will provide
further understanding of how keeping loved ones in mind can keep them close in one’s
heart.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award
Predoctoral Minority Fellowship awarded to Nicole Alea from the National Institute on
Aging, grant number 1 F31 AG20505. The authors extend their appreciation the research
assistants at the Life Story Lab at the University of Florida.
REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1994). Gender differences in the link between marital support and
satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 688–698.
Alea, N. (2004). I’ll keep you in mind: The intimacy function of autobiographical memory across
adulthood. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptual model of the social function
of autobiographical memory. Memory, 11, 165–178.
Anderson, S. J., Cohen, G., & Taylor, S. (2000). Rewriting the past: Some factors affecting the
variability of personal memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 435–454.
Baddeley, A. (1987). But what the hell is it for? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes
(Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the
dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and
application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Belove, L. (1980). First encounters of the close kinds (FECK): The use of the story of the first
interaction as an early recollection of a marriage. Individual Psychologist, 36, 191–208.
Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2002). Exploring the functions of autobiographical memory: Why do I
remember the autumn. In J. D. Webster, & B. K. Haight (Eds.), Critical advances in reminiscence
theory: From theory to application (pp. 61–75). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A TALE of three functions: The
self-reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23, 91–117.
Bluck, S., & Habermas, T. (2001). Extending the study of autobiographical memory: Thinking back
about life across the life span. Review of General Psychology, 5, 135–147.
Bluck, S., Levine, L. J., & Laulhere, T. M. (1999). Autobiographical remembering and hypermnesia:
A comparison of older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 14, 671–682.
Bluck, S., & Li, K. Z. H. (2001). Predicting memory completeness and accuracy: Emotion and
exposure in repeated autobiographical recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 145–158.
Bohannon, J. N. (1988). Flashbulb memories for the space shuttle disaster: A tale of two theories.
Cognition, 29, 179–196.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1109
Bruce, D. (1989). Functional explanations of memory. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson
(Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life (pp. 44–58). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 209–254).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Carstensen, L. L., Graff, J. M., Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1995). Affect in intimate
relationships: The developmental course of marriage. In C. Magai, & S. H. McFadden (Eds.),
Handbook of emotion, adult development, and aging (pp. 227–247). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, Inc.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Cliff, N., & Hamburger, C. D. (1967). The study of sampling errors in factor analysis by means of
artificial experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 430–445.
Clore, G. L., & Parrott, W. G. (1991). Moods and their vicissitudes: Thoughts and feelings as
information. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 107–123). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, G. (1998). The effects of aging on autobiographical memory. In C. P. Thompson, D. J.
Herrmann, D. Bruce, D. J. Read, D. G. Payne, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Autobiographical memory:
Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 105–123). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Cohen, G., Conway, M., & Maylor, E. A. (1994). Flashbulb memories in older adults. Psychology &
Aging, 9, 454–463.
Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional
experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 498–510.
de Vries, B., & Watt, D. (1996). A lifetime of events: Age and gender variations in the life story.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 42, 81–102.
Dixon, R. A., Hultsch, D. R., & Hertzog, C. (1989). A manual of twenty-five three-tiered structurally
equivalent texts for use in aging research (Tech. Rep. No. 2). Collaborative Research Group on
Cognitive Aging, University of Victoria. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Fehr, B. (2004). A prototype model of intimacy interactions in same-sex friendships. In D. J. Mashek,
& A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Fiedler, K., Nickel, S., Muehlfriedel, T., & Unkelbach, C. (2001). Is mood congruency an effect
of genuine memory or response bias? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 201–
214.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. (2nd ed., pp. 291–309). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Heiman, G. W. (2001). Understanding research methods and statistics. An integrated introduction for
psychology. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hickmon, W. A., Protinsky, H. O., & Singh, K. (1997). Increasing marital intimacy: Lessons from
marital enrichment. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 19, 581–589.
Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their stories.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hyman, I. E., & Faries, J. M. (1992). The functions of autobiographical memory. In M. A. Conway,
D. C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, & J. W. A. Wagenar (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives on autobiographical
memory (pp. 207–221). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of the electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction and the trajectory of marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.
Karney, B. J., & Coombs, R. H. (2000). Memory bias in long-term close relationships: Consistency or
improvement? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 959–970.
La Voie, D., & Light, L. L. (1994). Adult age differences in repetition priming: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging, 9, 539–553.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
1110
N. Alea and S. Bluck
Lang, F. R. (2001). Regulation of social relationships in later adulthood. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 56, P321–P326.
Larsen, S. F. (1998). What is it like to remember? On phenomenal qualities of memory. In C. P.
Thompson, D. J. Herrmann, D. Bruce, D. J. Read, D. G. Payne, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.),
Autobiographical memory: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 163–190). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process:
The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in
interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.
Maddox, G. L. (1962). Some correlates of differences in self-assessment of health status among the
elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 17, 180–185.
Mashek, D. J., & Aron, A. (2004). Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
McAdams, D. P. (1984). Experiences of intimacy and power: Relationships between social motives
and autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 292–302.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). Coding autobiographical episodes for themes of agency and communion.
The Foley Center for the Study of Lives, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of agency and
communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64, 339–377.
Niedzwienska, A. (2003). Gender differences in vivid memories. Sex Roles, 49, 321–331.
Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. I. Morris, &
R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3–19). London: Academic Press.
Nelson, K. (1993). The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory. Psychological
Science, 4, 7–14.
Neugarten, B. L. (1979). Time, age, and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887–894.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL:
University Illinois Press.
Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of the personal past and its implication for adult
development. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 651–672.
Pasupathi, M., Lucas, S., & Combs, A. (2002). Function of autobiographical memory in discourse:
Long-married couples talk about conflicts and pleasant topics. Discourse Process, 34, 163–192.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pillemer, D. (1998). Momentous events: Vivid memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pillemer, D., Wink, P., DiDonato, T. E., & Sanborn, R. L. (2003). Gender differences in autobiographical memory styles of older adults. Memory, 11, 525–532.
Pohl, R. F., Bender, M., & Lachmann, G. (2005). Autobiographical memory and social skills of men
and women. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 745–759.
Reis, H. T. (1998). Gender differences in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and process. In D. J.
Canary, & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and
empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 203–231). Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of
personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie tramatique. Archives de
Psychologie, 28, 21.
Roccafort, W. H., Burke, W. J., Bayer, B. L., & Wengel, S. P. (1992). Validation of a telephone version
of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 40, 697–702.
Ross, M., & Holmberg, D. (1992). Are wives’ memories for events in relationships more vivid than
their husbands’ memories? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 585–604.
Rubin, D. C., Schulkind, M. D., & Rahhal, T. A. (1999). A study of gender differences in
autobiographical memory: Broken down by age and sex. Journal of Adult Development, 6, 61–71.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp
Intimacy function of memory
1111
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR Inventory. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 7, 47–60.
Schaefer, A., & Philippot, P. (2005). Selective effects of emotion on the phenomenal characteristics of
autobiographical memory. Memory, 13, 148–160.
Shaffer, D. R., Pegalis, L. J., & Bazzini, D. G. (1996). When boy meets girl: Gender, gender-role
orientation, and prospect of future interaction as determinants of self-disclosure among same and
opposite-sex acquaintances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 495–506.
Schaie, K. W. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist, 49,
304–313.
Sloan, D. M., Marx, B. P., & Epstein, E. M. (2005). Further examination of the exposure model
underlying the efficacy of written emotional disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 549–554.
Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Life reflection: A social-cognitive analysis of life review. Review of
General Psychology, 5, 148–160.
Staudinger, U. M., & Bluck, S. (2001). A view on midlife development from life-span theory. In M. E.
Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife development (pp. 3–39). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thurstone, T. G. (1962). Primary mental ability for Grades 9-12 (Rev. Ed.). Chicago IL: Science
Research Associates.
Walker, W. R., Skowronski, J. J., & Thompson, C. P. (2003). Life is pleasant-and memory helps keep
it that way. Review of General Psychology, 7, 203–210.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Webster, J. D. (1995). Adult age differences in reminiscence functions. In B. K. Haight, & J. D.
Webster (Eds.), The art and science of reminiscing: Theory, research, methods, and applications
(pp. 89–102). Washington, D.C: Taylor and Francis.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Psychological
Corporation: New York.
Winograd, E., & Neisser, U. (1992). Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of ‘flashbulb’ memories.
Cambridge University Press.
Woike, B., Gershkovich, I., Piorkowski, R., & Polo, M. (1999). The role of motives in the content and
structure of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 600–612.
Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Li, K. Z. H. (2000). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse
(Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 293–357). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 21: 1091–1111 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/acp