Search

Prior research has suggested that an episodic specificity induction – brief training in recollecting the details of a past event – affects downstream performance on remembering past and imagining future events, solving problems, and thinking creatively. We have hypothesized that a process common to these tasks that the induction may target is event construction – assembling and maintaining a mental scenario filled with details related to settings, people, and actions. We test this hypothesis by having participants receive a memory specificity induction, imagination specificity induction, or control induction not requiring event construction prior to memory and imagination tasks that involve event construction, and a picture description task that involves describing but not mentally constructing an event. We predicted that induction effects would be specific to episodic detail production on subsequent memory and imagination because these details assay critical elements of a constructed event. In line with an event construction account, the two specificity inductions produced significant and indistinguishable increases in the number of episodic – but not semantic – details generated during memory and imagination relative to the control. Induction did not increase detail generation on picture description. The findings provide novel evidence that event construction is a key process targeted by specificity inductions.

Attachment theories and studies have shown that Internal Working Models (IWMs) can impact autobiographical memory and future-oriented information processing relevant to close relationships. According to the constructive episodic simulation hypothesis (CESH), both remembering the past and imagining the future rely on episodic memory. We hypothesised that one way IWMs may bridge past experiences and future adaptations is via episodic memory. The present study investigated the association between attachment and episodic specificity in attachment-relevant and attachment-irrelevant memory and imagination among young and older adults. We measured the attachment style of 37 young adults and 40 older adults, and then asked them to remember or imagine attachment-relevant and attachment-irrelevant events. Participants' narratives were coded for internal details (i.e., episodic) and external details (e.g., semantic, repetitions). The results showed that across age group, secure individuals generated more internal details and fewer external details in attachment-relevant tasks compared to attachment-irrelevant tasks; these differences were not observed in insecure individuals. These findings support the CESH and provide a new perspective to understand the function of IWMs.