Autobiographical memory forms a network of memories about personal experiences that defines and supports well-being and effective functioning of the self in various ways. During the last three decades, there have been two characteristics of autobiographical memory that have received special interest regarding their role in psychological well-being and psychopathology, namely memory specificity and memory coherence. Memory specificity refers to the extent to which retrieved autobiographical memories are specific (i.e., memories about a particular experience that happened on a particular day). Difficulty retrieving specific memories interferes with effective functioning of the self and is related to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Memory coherence refers to the narrative expression of the overall structure of autobiographical memories. It has likewise been related to psychological well-being and the occurrence of psychopathology. Research on memory specificity and memory coherence has developed as two largely independent research domains, even though they show much overlap. This raises some important theoretical questions. How do these two characteristics of autobiographical memory relate to each other, both theoretically and empirically? Additionally, how can the integration of these two facilitate our understanding of the importance of autobiographical memory for the self? In this article, we give a critical overview of memory specificity and memory coherence and their relation to the self. We link both features of autobiographical memory by describing some important similarities and by formulating hypotheses about how they might relate to each other. By situating both memory specificity and memory coherence within Conway and Pleydell-Pearce's Self-Memory System, we make a first attempt at a theoretical integration. Finally, we suggest some new and exciting research possibilities and explain how both research fields could benefit from integration in future research.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,787,230
of 26,020,829 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,296
of 34,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,613
of 452,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#268
of 519 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,020,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 519 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
