FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 1

Neural, psychological, and social foundations of collective memory: Implications for

common mnemonic processes, agency, and identity

Vanesa Fischer and Shane M. O’Mara

School of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience

Trinity College Dublin – The University of Dublin

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Shane O’Mara, Trinity

College Dublin, D02 PN40, Ireland. Email: [email protected]

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 2

Abstract

Recent advances in memory research within psychology and neuroscience have

contributed to a shift from examining memory through an individualistic lens towards a growing

recognition of potential social and collective influences on mnemonic processes. This shift is

prominently illustrated by continuing research on collective memory. Through a scoping

literature review, we identify three crucial components defining collective memory: memories

held in common across individuals within a social group, which are centrally important to group

identity, and which impact significantly on perceived group agency. This review attempts to

distil and organise empirical evidence into (i) neural, (ii) psychological, and (iii) social

foundations of collective memory, while considering the reflexive relationship between common

memory, identity, and agency (‘CIA’). We conceptualise collective memory as based on

neuropsychological substrates, influenced by social processes, and extended to societal,

historical, and political domains, driven by human sociality. To engage the complexity of, and

shed light on, numerous remaining questions surrounding collective memory, future research

should embrace a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach focused on issues of common

memory, identity, and identity.

Keywords: collective memory; collective identity; collective agency; foundations of

memory; social influences on memory; shared reality

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 3

Neural, psychological, and social foundations of collective memory

Ever since Ebbinghaus (1885/1913), empirical investigations of memory within

psychology and neuroscience have examined the recall of individuals at variable intervals after

initial exposure to test material (Clark, 2018; Radvansky, 2020; Stone & Jay, 2019). This

methodology has enabled substantial progress in understanding human memory (e.g., Hirst &

Echterhoff, 2012; Roediger & Abel, 2015), and has provided a secure basis for investigations of

the neural bases of memory in humans and non-human animals (Aggleton & O’Mara, 2022;

Reber, 2013; Rugg et al., 2002). Research investigating mnemonic processes within psychology

and neuroscience has mostly focused on the individual, paying less attention to potential social

and collective influences on memory (Danziger, 2009). More recently, however, research

examining memory through a social lens (Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010; Weldon, 2000) has

promoted a shift to viewing rememberers and remembering as socially-situated (Roediger &

Abel, 2015) – invoking earlier tradition in psychology suggesting memory is, in part, socially-

moderated (Bartlett, 1932; Fraisse, 1957), and emphasised by other research traditions within

psychology (for example, on environmental (Gibson, 1966) and cultural affordances (Ramstead

et al. 2016), and grounded cognition (Barsalou, 2010)).

“Social frameworks” for memory

A different – and in some respects competing – approach to memory emerged in

disciplines such as sociology, history, and political science over the past century. Ideas regarding

‘collective memory’, drawing especially on the works of Durkheim (1971/1912) on ‘collective

consciousness’, and Halbwachs (1950/1926, 1992/1950) on ‘collective memory’ (Gensburger,

2016) animate this approach. Halbwachs, for example, suggested human memory was reliant on

frameworks provided by society, claiming “[…] our recollections depend on those of all our
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 4

fellows and on the great frameworks of the memory of society” (p. 42) – giving primacy to the

social circumstances of the rememberer. This way of thinking suggests collective memory acts as

a “schema” (Legrand et al., 2015; Wertsch, 2008; Wertsch & Roediger, 2008), or provides

“guiding narratives” (perhaps of a mythic or heroic past) widely shared among a population.

Rather than remembering fine details of events, individuals associate information with pre-

existing knowledge structures, easing recall of such information. Such ease facilitates telling and

retelling of narratives, shaping them into a simplified, easily-transmissible form through social

interactions.

Humans are innately social (Young, 2008), belonging to numerous social groups, ranging from

small (friend groups) to large (university members, or citizens of a country). Humans commonly

remember during social interactions, particularly in conversation with others (Hirst &

Echterhoff, 2012). We tell our co-workers about the traffic jam which caused us to be late in the

morning; we share what we learned on a podcast with our friends; we reminisce with our family

about our last shared holiday. Social interaction is a frequent setting for rehearsing and retrieving

memories (Kensinger et al., 2016). In a diary study where participants recorded events of their

daily lives, Pasupathi et al. (2009) found about two-thirds of events recorded were shared with

others by the evening of the day they occurred. Individuals belonging to the same social group

tend to share certain beliefs, attitudes, cultural norms and tools, which may impact their way of

remembering as a collective entity (Roediger & Abel, 2015; Wertsch, 2002, 2008). Wertsch

(2008) illustrated this claim with the example of civil unrest in the capital of Estonia in 2007.

Tallinn experienced two days of serious civil violence between two ethnic communities,

Russians and Estonians. The underlying reasons for the turmoil were different approaches to

remembering the history of World War II, sparked by a government decision to relocate a WWII
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 5

memorial (the “Bronze Soldier”). For ethnic Russians, the statue was a tribute to Soviet soldiers

who died during the liberation of Tallinn in 1944. For ethnic Estonians, by contrast, the statue

represented a reminder of their oppression. Wertsch (2008) concludes both communities had

been exposed to differing schematised narratives (e.g., through media and education), providing

them with unique “cultural tool kits” (Bruner, 1990) through which they perceive, reflect, and

remember their histories. These considerations offer an answer to the question of the importance

of collective memory: by collectively learning from past mistakes, we conclude which actions to

collectively avoid; by engaging in individual and collective MTT, we shape and make sense of

our lives in the present and future.

“History” and “culture wars”

The question of memory underpins much recent and current conflict – both hot (e.g., civil

strife), and cold (the ‘culture wars’ where disputes regarding history, identity, symbols, and

images loom large). How “collective memories” are guarded, revised, discarded, and altered by

new findings and interpretations are often flashpoints within contemporary societies; Fine,

2007), as the Estonian example illustrates. Understanding the dynamics of the “culture and

history wars” is of great relevance in many countries. The contextualising, preserving, or felling

of statues, for example, can be seen as an attempt to shape narratives around what should be

remembered, venerated, forgotten, or desacralized.

Memory studies and the collective memory research tradition

The ‘memory studies’ research tradition is concerned with diverse topics such as

commemorations of historical and political events (Gillis, 1994), international relations

(Langenbacher & Shain, 2010), collective memory and social media (Birkner & Donk, 2020),

war, genocide, and trauma (Paez & Liu, 2011; Stone, 2010), memory and identity politics (Liu &
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 6

Hilton, 2005), as well as how nations remember (Topcu & Hirst, 2020; Wertsch, 2021).

Moreover, ‘memory studies’ often subsumes ‘collective memory’ (Terdiman, 1993), focusing on

understanding memory as a ‘practice’ within society and the prevailing social order. Wertsch &

Roediger (2008) note collective memory does not fit “neatly within the confines of a single

academic discipline”. Olick (1999) suggests there are two cultures in respect of memory studies

– an individual one (identified with research traditions within psychology and neuroscience), and

a collective one (identified principally with research traditions in sociology, history, and political

science). Thus, the current intellectual state-of-the-art rests on uneasy and unreconciled tensions

between differing intellectual and empirical approaches to collective memory.

Defining collective memory

Collective memory has a complex definition within psychology and neuroscience,

embracing common memory, identity, and agency. Collective memories are currently defined as

memories held in common across individuals within a social group; they are centrally important

to the social identity of the group; and they loom large in the communal cognition, imagination,

and agency of the group (Barnier & Sutton, 2008; Gagnepain et al., 2020; Hirst & Coman, 2018;

Olick et al., 2011; O’Mara, 2023; Roediger & Abel, 2015; Wertsch & Roediger, 2008). As a

shorthand, we describe these components (common memory, identity, and agency) as the ‘CIA’

of collective memory.

Distinguishing between communicative and cultural memory

Collective memory can be distinguished into ‘communicative memory’ and ‘cultural

memory’ (Assmann, 2008). Communicative memory describes collective memories shaped by

communication with others, while cultural memory encompasses collective memories shaped by

cultural artefacts. This distinction is not merely semantic or pragmatic: when comparing
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 7

mnemonic features of ‘cultural’ and ‘communicative’ memory in Argentina (the coup d’état in

1976 as a cultural memory versus the economic and social crisis in 2001 as a communicative

memory), Muller et al. (2018) found cultural memory was less personal, less emotional, and

more contextualised, while communicative memory emerged as more emotional and more

personal.

Scope and purpose of this review

Here, we review empirical investigations within psychology and neuroscience regarding

collective memory, emphasising investigations embracing the ‘CIA’ components of collective

memory: common memory, identity, and agency. The definition of collective memory as

embracing all three components is relatively recent: many studies we discuss are often germane

to just a single element of this definition.

Psychology, Neuroscience, and Collective Memory

A reference search shows the phrase ‘collective memory’ is, comparatively speaking,

used or cited rarely within mainstream journals in psychology (see Table 1). It is reasonable to

assert collective memory has been relatively neglected by theory and empirical investigation

within psychology and neuroscience until recently (Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012; Roediger & Abel,

2015; Wertsch & Roediger, 2008). Possibly the first to use of ‘collective memory’ in a

mainstream psychology journal was Brown (1915), who examined incidental memory in a group

context. As some incidents are more easily remembered than others, Brown investigated how

factors influencing ease or difficulty of recall for an incidental past observation impact on

collective memories of large-sized groups. Participants were asked to produce lists of items

which mentioned various advertisements (for a total of 215 advertisements). Afterwards, they

were asked to recall as many advertisements as possible. On average, participants recalled five
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 8

advertisements, and each advertisement was mentioned around four times. Brown concluded the

strength of appeal of an advertisement is related to how well it is remembered by most people.

Brown’s early work attracted few citations and little direct follow-up.

Table 1

Scopus search for “collective memory” (1991 to 2022; on 31.03.2022)

Social Sciences 1,337 results

Arts and Humanities 865 results
Psychology 309 results

Neural foundations of collective memory

Contemporary models of the neural bases of memory emphasise a tripartite,

anatomically-interconnected brain network supporting memory (e.g., Aggleton and O’Mara,

2022). These models envisage time-limited roles for the hippocampal formation and anterior

thalamic nuclei, with the cortex being the final repository of memory. Damage limited to each of

these areas results in differing, but related, types of amnesia.

Neural systems development and collective memories

The first explicitly-encoded, articulable memories tend to emerge at around three years of

age, in line with the development of the brain’s memory and language systems, with few explicit

memories encoded under two years of age (preverbal period) (Fivush & Haden, 1997; Fivush et

al., 2011). Akhtar et al. (2018) asked participants to recall their first memory and indicate the age

they believe the event took place at. Some 40% of their sample reported first memories at two

years or younger. The authors suggest such early recall is improbable, but fictional first

memories might emerge because of attributions of wrong dates/times, as well as the tendency to
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 9

construct a “life story”. Theory and data suggest the emergence of the developing self-concept

and individual agency during this early developmental period (Bullock & Lütkenhaus, 1988;

Demo, 1992; Stipek et al., 1990). Thus, there may be a lower bound of about three years of age

for the emergence of collective memories, and especially ones embracing identity and agency.

Mnemonic schemas and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)

Schema memory (superordinate organising knowledge structures shaping subordinate

representations in memory) is supported by an anatomical network comprising the hippocampal

formation and cerebral cortex (specifically, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), angular

gyrus (AG), and unimodal association cortices; Gilboa & Marlatte, 2017; Spalding et al., 2015).

Several authors suggest collective memories are “schematised” – simplified and superordinate in

kind (Gagnepain et al., 2020; Legrand et al., 2015; Wertsch, 2008). One prediction is that

collective memories, as they are schematised, should engage ventromedial prefrontal cortex

(vmPFC), as vmPFC engagement supports mnemonic schemas. In a multicomponent

investigation combining archival analyses of French mass media coverage over a thirty-year

period on the Second World War, field studies of recall for elements present at a war memorial,

and functional brain imaging, Gagnepain et al. (2020) examined how collective memories of war

are schematised, abridged, and moulded. Participants toured the Caen Memorial Museum and

were asked to recall items and information displayed at the museum. During recall for elements

of the war memorial, fMRI was used to assess activity in vmPFC. Control models (contextual

and semantic memory) were used to predict the fMRI signal, and the collective memory schema.

The collective schema derived from mass media via archival analyses predicted the fMRI signal

more accurately than models derived from contextual and semantic memory. Thus, individual
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 10

memory may be organised through the schematisation, abridging, and simplification of historic

events in the mass media.

Conversation

Collective memories may derive in part from the social dispersion through conversation,

aligning memories in the conversation group. Schmälzle et al. (2013) examined possible neural

correlates of risk perception during real-life risk communication provided by mass media during

the H1N1 pandemic. Pre-study risk perceptions regarding H1N1 were assessed via questionnaire,

and participants were subsequently exposed to a television report on H1N1 while undergoing

fMRI. The similarity of participants’ neural responses was assessed via intersubject correlations

(ISC) of brain activity. ISCs among participants with high perceived risk (associated with

risk/threat appraisal) showed augmented anterior cingulate responses. There were no significant

differences reported for neural activity in perceptual-sensory brain regions between participants

with high versus low-risk perception. Thus, there was a correlation between individuals’ risk

perception and neural processing of information related to risk/threat (see also Hirsch et al.,

2021). More generally, information from mass media modulates individual risk perception via

activity in anterior cingulate brain regions typically associated with integrating information about

salience of threat and pain perception (Shackman, et al., 2011; Wiech et al., 2010).

Social networks and memory transmission

Transmission of memories within social networks facilitates memory dispersion between

individuals. Peer et al. (2021) examined participants’ real-life social networks and how they are

neurally-coded using fMRI. Social network distances were coded in the default mode network

(medial parietal and lateral parietal as well as medial prefrontal cortices). When controlling for

other potential influential factors (e.g., personality traits, subjectively-rated appearance), social
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 11

network distance was coded in retrosplenial cortex. Conversely, factors such as personality traits

were coded in medial parietal and prefrontal cortices, indicating a cortical division between

allocentric and egocentric representations of social distance and trait-related knowledge.

Amnesia and collective memory

A limiting case for collective memory is the amnestic syndrome: loss of individual

memory (e.g., through dementia or brain injury) surely impacts putative collective memory.

However, no systematic attempts to examine collective memory in amnestic populations have

been published to date. This is a striking omission, as variations in amnestic syndromes should

impair collective memory in differing ways. One prediction is that common memory, identity,

and agency (CIA) will be impaired in patients suffering from amnesia, but the CIA phenotype

will depend on the damage causing the mnemonic deficit. Impairments in episodic memory

should, for example, lead to decreased frequency and plausibility of collective episodic future

thoughts (Cole et al., 2016), whereas damage to brain regions supporting memory schema (in

particular, vmPFC; cf., Gagnepain et al., 2020) should impair collective memory schematization.

Psychological foundations of collective memory

Distinguishing collaborative remembering from collective memory

Remembering in collaboration with others happens daily for many people. A study group

in college may try to remember course content before an exam together. Friends may wish to

cook a certain dish and try recall the ingredients needed. Collective remembering is likely to be a

service for collective memory. What happens when people remember together? Do they

remember differently together than they would alone? Does joint effort lead to enhanced

performance? Remembering collaboratively may have benefits and costs. Collaborative

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 12

facilitation is a potential benefit of collective recall: group performance exceeds individual

performance in memory/recognition tasks (Clark et al., 2000; Weldon, 2000). While groups may

remember more than their members might on their own (collaborative facilitation), they also

might remember less than the pooled potential of all individuals combined (Hirst & Echterhoff,

2012). This cost of collaboration is called collaborative inhibition (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997;

Wright & Klumpp, 2004). Collaborative costs might arise from familiarity: as familiarity and

relational closeness increase, collaborative inhibition decreases. Thus, collaborative inhibition is

more likely to emerge between strangers than friends or romantic partners (Browning et al.,

2018). Collaborative recall performance might also depend on how cooperative efforts are

structured. Harris et al. (2012) instructed participants to recall collectively by taking turns or by

reaching a consensus; consensus groups demonstrated superior accuracy of recall compared to

turn-taking groups (potentially due to enhanced source-monitoring).

Collective autobiographical memory

Autobiographical memory encompasses memories of personally-experienced events

(Conway, 2001). A “collective autobiographical memory” refers to the notion that people can

experience the same events (disasters, celebrations, commemorations, sporting events, initiation

rites, etc.) both together and at the same time. Moreover, these events may come to have the

‘CIA’ characteristics of a collective memory – memories held in common with implications for

group identity and agency. Group members may discuss the event together and reach a

consensus regarding the significance and importance of the event being remembered. This

invokes selective recall of certain aspects of the “to-be-remembered” event, with the loss of other

aspects from memory. Collective memory necessarily requires memory conformity (or memory

alignment), which may happen as a result of group deliberation.

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 13

Children and adolescents regularly share selected experiences with friends and parents –

what happens to the unshared memories? Glynn et al. (2019) used the retrieval-induced

forgetting (RIF) paradigm with children (8-9 years old) and young adolescents (13-15 years old).

Selective discussion of certain memories led to an impairment in recalling memories similar to

those discussed, but not recalled. Specifically, not-talked-about memories were recalled less

frequently and with less detail than shared memories. Moreover, young children’s memories

were more malleable, and more likely to be forgotten when not talked about than adolescents.

Furthermore, memories were likely to be propagated onwards to others when discussed. This

social propagation of memories in turn facilitates the development of shared, aligned memories

held in common across individuals.

Memory conformity, collaborative inhibition, and collaborative facilitation

Collective memory requires memory conformity: we must remember approximately the

same things, and we need to align our memories with each other. Aligning individual memory

with the apparent overall memory of the group ensures memories can be synchronised across

members of the group. Group membership may inhibit recall, have no effect on recall, or

facilitate recall, depending on circumstances. Empirical approaches to memory conformity

typically expose individual participants to information other than the information provided to

other members of the group, and their recall is assessed explicitly or surreptitiously. Individual

participants are then informed of the group judgement, and the degree of memory conformity

between the individual and the group is measured. A variety of paradigms show individual

memory is moderated by the consensus the group forms regarding what has happened. Weldon

& Bellinger (1997), for example, compared individual and collaborative remembering.

Participants memorised pictures or words, subsequently recalling individually or collaboratively.

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 14

Collaborative groups remembered more than single individuals. However, there was also

evidence of collaborative inhibition, as collaborative groups also remembered less than their

pooled potential. A second recall block showed collaborative remembering was more consistent

over time than individual remembering. Additionally, some similarities between individual and

collaborative recall were found: hypermnesia (superiority of picture recall) and effects of cued

level of processing were present in both groups.

Allan et al. (2012) investigated if conforming to another person’s memory is based on a

strategic choice to balance memory accuracy of a personal account against someone else’s.

Participants were exposed to household scenes for varying durations of time (30s, 60s, 120s).

Half of participants were led to believe they would encode what they just watched for half the

time of their dyad partner, and the other half were told they would encode for double the amount

of time as their partner. Answers of partners were simulated (no response, accurate recall, errant

recall), and disclosed to participants before their own recall. Results showed that participants

were significantly more likely to conform to their virtual partners’ response for the short-

duration exposure (30s), compared to longer exposures (60 and 120s). Notably, this pattern of

conformity was only found for the group led to believe they had encoded for half the duration of

their partner. The authors conclude humans adjust their reliance on, and conformity to, other

people’s memories depending on the conditions under which they believe both parties have

obtained differing memories.

Memory conformity in dyads and groups has been widely observed across many different

paradigms. Andrews-Todd et al. (2021) examined if social pressure to perform impacts on

memory conformity. Participants memorised wordlists for later recall with a partner (who was

instructed to recall some words incorrectly). When participants were cued to act in a way that
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 15

communicates competence (individual-directed pressure), they were significantly more likely to

incorporate their partners’ errors into their own recall. When focusing on the accuracy of their

partner’s recall (goal-directed pressure), participants were significantly less likely to inaccurately

recall their partner’s inaccuracies. Thus, differing types of pressure in collaborative settings aid

or impede recall performance.

Relationships also matter: in a study by Roediger et al. (2001), participants viewed

household scenes and memorised present items for either 15 or 60s. During recall, participants

were assigned a stranger as partner. Both were instructed to recall items they had seen. On

occasion, the assigned partner falsely recalled items not actually present. Some of these items

were highly consistent with the scene, others were more unrelated. Subsequently, the participant

was asked to recall the items. Falsely-recalled items were more frequent in conditions where the

participant’s partner had falsely-recalled beforehand. In addition, false recall due to social

influence was more likely for shorter exposure (15s vs 60s), and when the intrusion was

consistent with the scene (e.g., a toaster in a kitchen setting). In a complementary investigation,

Browning et al. (2018) investigated prospective memory performance in dyads of strangers, and

intimate couples. For strangers, collaborative inhibition occurred, whereas for intimate couples

there was no evidence of collaborative inhibition (collaborative performances were similar to

those achieved apart). Altogether, the authors suggest collaboration may be costly for

prospective memory; however, intimate relationships may reduce or omit the usual collaborative

cost. In another example, Gates et al. (2017) examined large-scale collaborative recall:

collaborative inhibition was most visible in triads, but did not uniformly occur within larger

interactional groups.
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 16

Collaborative recall and subsequent memory performance

Collaborative remembering may have downstream effects on memory performance.

Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin (2007) examined collaboration effects on recognition performance in

individuals. Participants were asked to encode material and focus on either surface

characteristics or deeper meaning. Recognition memory performance was assessed after either

participating in a group discussion or not (collaboration vs. isolation). Individual recognition

memory performance was significantly increased for participants in the collaboration condition.

Further, although memory decreased over time, collaboration still impacted positively on

recognition memory. Thus, collaboration can boost recognition memory in individuals, and this

positive influence appears lasting (see also Hyman et al., 2014).

Collaborative Remembering in Older Adults

Collaborative memory has largely been investigated in younger populations. Henkel &

Rajaram (2011) asked younger and older adults to memorise a list of words for later recall.

Generally, older adults’ recall performance was poorer than young adults. However, the costs

and benefits of collaborative remembering appeared to be the same: collaborative remembering

reduced correct and errant recall, was linked to positive attitudes about its value, and generated

collective memories. Collaborative remembering within older adults may have implications for

providing additional support for recall in this population.

Bridging the past, present and future with collective memory

The content of memories is based in the past, but remembering itself is temporally

reversed, taking place in the present (Hall, 1998; Tulving, 1985). If how we collectively view the

past can shape who we feel we are in the present, could this be true for the future also?
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 17

Individually, the connection between remembering the past and imagining the future is well-

established (Merck et al., 2016). Episodic forethought is shaped by narratives regarding the past,

starting in early childhood (Shin et al., 2020). Conversely, deficits in remembering the past (as

seen in amnestic patients), frequently accompany difficulties in imagining the future (Hassabis et

al., 2007; Klein et al., 2002).

To test the possibility of past-future connections being present in collective memory, we

discuss the concept of agency. Agency can be defined as the subjective conviction of being able

to choose and control actions and outcomes (Potter & Mitchell, 2022). Subjective agency in the

past is connected to perceived agency in the future (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Merck et al.,

2016). As an example, consider Mary who successfully completed last year’s marathon because

she had trained consistently in the months beforehand. Consequently, Mary believes if she

decided to run another marathon in the future, she could achieve that goal. Although more

researched on an individual level, collectives might also express a sense of agency (Stollberg et

al., 2015; Topcu & Hirst, 2020). Notably, participants expected themselves and the nation as a

whole to have more control over the future than they believed they have had over the past. This

notion of increased agency in the future partially explains increased optimism for the future.

Although Topcu and Hirst’s (2020) study looked at nationhood as a collective, it is likely the

relation between past and future collective thinking also applies for other types of groups (Merck

et al., 2016).

Mental time travel

Mental time travel (MTT) allows us to revisit the past and imagine the future. Most

likely, MTT is facilitated by interactions between multiple cognitive mechanisms (Suddendorf et

al., 2009), including executive functioning, prospective and episodic memory, self-awareness,
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 18

temporal and spatial understanding, attention, imagination, and communicative language (Brocas

& Carrillo, 2018; Brüne & Brüne-Cohrs, 2007; Suddendorf & Corballis, 1997, 2007). MTT has

largely been investigated on an individual basis, but the notion of “collective MTT” has emerged

recently. To bridge the gap between individual and collective MTT, communication may be of

great importance: Corballis (2019) suggests our ability to communicate and share our mental

journeys is significantly more developed than is necessary for individual experience alone.

Communication via language may enhance MTT, evident in human storytelling, conversation,

and music production. If individual memory facilitates individual MTT, it seems reasonable to

surmise collective memory supports collective MTT, thereby allowing a group to collectively

revisit the past, and to (re-) imagine and envision possible and alternative collective futures

(Topcu & Hirst, 2020). A potential mechanism underlying collective MTT could be the

synchronisation of shared realities via communication, for instance, through conversational

remembering. While remembering in conversation may lead to a shared representation of the

past via concurrent retrieval and SS-RIF effects, imagining a future together may lead to

convergence of collective representations of the future (Michaelian & Sutton, 2017).

There have been few investigations of how collective memories might facilitate

collective mental time travel. How groups might collectively imagine the future together is more

than a matter of theoretical interest, for many problems we might face are future-located – they

might happen in the future, and require collective action in the present to forestall them.

Establishing people can recall significant events regarding their nation’s past is central to

showing that collective mental time travel is possible. Topcu and Hirst (2020) explore if

‘national mental time travel’ is possible in two experiments where they asked participants to

recall 15 significant national events from the past 50 years, and to imagine 15 significant national
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 19

events over the next 50 years. Participants rated each item’s sharpness, visual detail, sound

detail, vividness, detailedness, location clarity, time clarity, and comprehensibleness. They also

dated when the event happened, the emotional valence of the event for them, their agency (the

extent to which the self, others, or circumstances caused the events), and finally, the

“entitativity” of the group (the extent to which the group believes it has agency over the actions

of the group). Topcu and Hirst found participants believed agents affecting the past or future

most were impersonal institutions and organisations: institutions and organisations were regarded

as affecting the course of the past on about 60% of occasions, and on about 75% of occasions for

the future. Participants also displayed an ‘agency bias’ for their nation’s future, believing the

nation would be able to do more things in the future than in the past. The authors conclude there

is a strong relationship between how people remember their country’s past and how they imagine

their country’s future, because participants were more likely to “imagine specifically

phenomenally rich and positive future events if their memories of past national events had

corresponding levels of these attributes”.

Damage to the hippocampal region leads to significant impairments in remembering and

imagining the individual past and future (Hassabis et al. 2007; Buckner 2010), but does not

necessarily compromise the ability to recall and envision the collective past and future (Klein et

al. 2002; Szpunar et al. 2014). Understanding the neural substrates of future thinking will enrich

theories of collective memory. Collective MTT likely relies on the same mental systems and

structures as individual MTT (Szpunar & Szpunar, 2016). Investigations of patient populations

using functional brain imaging are of particular interest: Cole et al. (2016), for example,

examined episodic future thoughts in a patient (HCM) suffering from antero- and retrograde

amnesia. Compared to age-matched, neurologically-healthy controls, Patient HCM showed a

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 20

reduction in episodic future thinking, and a decline in the plausibility of reported episodic future

thoughts.

Social foundations of collective memory

Social contagion

Social contagion occurs when a memory spreads from one individual to one or multiple

others via social interaction (Roediger et al., 2001). This ‘mnemonic spread’ is not limited to

memories based on shared events, but may involve events and experiences only one party was

initially exposed to. Thus, individuals can be influenced by another person’s memory in a way

they come to believe is their own, leading to the creation of “false memories” (Meade &

Roediger, 2002). For instance, Hyman & Billings (1998) examined individual differences in

false childhood memories. Based on events recounted by parents on behalf of their children, the

children (now students) were asked about real childhood events, as well as one fictional event

(while being led to believe by their parents it was true). When participants failed to recall an

event (true or fictional), they were cued to use self-knowledge to imagine the event. Twenty-five

percent of the students developed false memories related to the fictional event presented; false

memories were more likely to be created by students who connected the fictional event to

relevant self-knowledge. Where memories are based on shared experiences, social contagion

may not lead to the creation of false memories, but to an alteration of the memory following the

social interaction (Roediger et al., 2001). Thus, individuals may not come to remember

something they never experienced themselves, but instead may remember what they experienced

differently.
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 21

Both false memories and altered memories resulting from social interactions may become

incorporated into a collectively-shared memory (e.g., between children and their parents). Social

contagion tends to be stronger in cases where (a) presented information is consistent with

expectations, stereotypes, and mental schemas (Kashima, 2000; Roediger et al., 2001), (b)

duration of exposure to and opportunity of encoding of stimuli is short rather than long (Allan et

al., 2012; Roediger et al., 2001), (c) information is conveyed by someone relationally-close (e.g.,

friends, partners) (Peker & Tekcan, 2009), (d) multiple individuals advocating for the same

information (Meade & Roediger, 2002), (e) information conveyed face-to-face (Meade &

Roediger, 2002), (f) the person sharing the information is perceived as more powerful

(Skagerberg & Wright, 2008) and dominant (Cuc et al., 2006) by the listener, (g) non-emotional

memories are concerned (Kensinger et al., 2016), and (h) the social influence between two

interaction partners is perceived as reciprocal (Mahmoodi et al., 2018).

Social reinforcement

Remembering in social settings can lead to reinforcement of memories. Reinforcement

takes place through repetition and practice effects when a memory is retrieved and re-affirmed

by an interactional partner (Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2007; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997).

Consequently, reinforced memories are more easily accessed and recalled than non-reinforced

memories (Blumen & Rajaram, 2008).

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF)

Since human beings remember selectively, some memories are retrieved, mentioned, and

reinforced, and others are not. Unretrieved and unmentioned memories are more likely to be

forgotten (Coman & Hirst, 2012; Cuc et al., 2006): from early in life, children and young
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 22

adolescents tend to recall autobiographical events less when they do not share them with peers or

family (Glynn, 2019). Equally, when certain details of a memory are retrieved, retrieval of

related, but unmentioned, details becomes less likely (Cuc et al., 2006; Hirst, 2010). These

effects are not exclusive to individuals actively recounting themselves, but also when being

exposed to a speaker selectively remembering aspects of a shared experience (Coman & Hirst,

2012, 2015).

Reinforcement and RIF effects appear quite robust. For instance, Coman & Hirst (2012)

found that (with the exception of extremes) speakers may influence listeners’ memories

regardless of whether they share similar attitudes. Nonetheless, moderating factors have been

found for reinforcement and RIF: for topics perceived as self-relevant by listeners, congruence of

attitude in relation to the speaker may indeed play a role (Mao et al., 2021). Additionally, the

magnitude of reinforcement and RIF effects is amplified when listener and speaker belong to the

same social group (Coman & Hirst, 2015; Yamashiro & Hirst, 2019). However, reinforcement

and RIF do not automatically occur when a speaker is retrieving and sharing a memory. Rather,

both effects appear to hinge on the condition of concurrent retrieval of the memory by the

listener (Coman & Hirst, 2015; Mao et al., 2021).

Although some evidence suggests impacts of practice and RIF effects are stronger for

speakers than listeners (e.g., Cuc et al., 2006), both speaker and listener are influenced by

collective retrieval (Cuc et al. 2007; Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012). Consequently, both parties are

subject to mnemonic convergence – the development of a shared version of the discussed

memory (Coman & Hirst, 2015; Hyman et al., 2014).

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 23

Multiple social exchanges

Human memory is not independent of the social context in which it is developed,

retrieved, and potentially rehearsed at a later point in time. However, most research investigating

effects of social interactions on subsequent memory focuses on single instances of interactions

(Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012). It seems unlikely such influences are limited to the initial exchange

(Bartlett, 1932). Coman and Hirst (2012) explored if and how mnemonic effects of social

interaction (particularly RIF and practice effects) spread across multiple social exchanges.

Conversational influence could propagate through social interactions, supporting the hypothesis

of the transitivity of mnemonic spread. Additionally, practice and retrieval-induced forgetting

traversed chains of interactions and accumulated across social exchanges (see also Yamashiro &

Hirst, 2019). Similarly, Yamashiro and Hirst (2014) studied mnemonic convergence in social

networks, and found memories converge within a social group depending on proximity of

individuals. An increase in relational proximity was associated with an increase in convergent

remembering for both directly- and indirectly-connected network members (but not unconnected

individuals).

Collective memory and shared realities

Social influences on human remembering may result in individuals developing a shared

rendering of the past (Hirst, 2010; Watts, 2003). Cooperation undergirds human sociality, which

is facilitated by the experience of a shared reality, an experience of “commonality of individuals’

inner states” (Echterhoff et al., 2009). Shared realities may encompass shared knowledge,

attitudes, attention, and/or memories. Echterhoff et al. (2009) propose two motives underpinning

the creation of shared realities: epistemic and relational. When driven by an epistemic motive,

we seek to develop an accurate understanding of the world around us (Higgins, 2012), whereas
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 24

relational intentions are fuelled by our need to connect and belong (Hirst, 2010). An example of

an epistemic motivation for shared reality (in this case, shared knowledge) is Wegner’s (1987;

Wegner et al., 1991) concept of transactive memory. Individual members of groups acquire

expertise in specific domains of knowledge, which represents an adaptive benefit, allowing the

group to “share the load” of knowledge and to know more collectively than they would

individually. Rossignac-Milon et al. (2021) examined shared reality in dyadic interactions,

finding an increase in shared reality was associated with an increase in subjective closeness

between interactional partners. When their shared reality was challenged experimentally,

relationally-close dyads (e.g., romantic partners) engaged in behaviours aimed at re-confirming

their sense of shared reality.

Social influences on memory may facilitate the creation of collective, shared memories,

allowing us to form social bonds, and thereby create collective identities (Hirst, 2010). By

definition, a shared memory becomes a collective memory only if it pertains to a collective’s

sense of identity and agency (Hirst & Manier, 2008). Much as autobiographical memory in

individuals is understood to be crucial in shaping a sense of personal identity (Conway &

Pleydell-Pearce, 2000), collective memory contributes to collective identity. In line with this

reasoning, Coman and Hirst (2015) concluded social mechanisms impacting our remembering

(e.g., SSRIF effects) may protect group affiliation and identity (see also Edy, 1999).

Collective memory in everyday life

Shared realities and memories may have practical implications such as facilitating

collective action (Langfield-Smith, 1992; Thomas et al., 2016; Willer, 2009). Thus, the social

malleability of memory is important (Brown et al., 2012; Hirst, 2010) for supporting and

fostering human sociality (Hirst, 2010; Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012), offering a potential
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 25

explanation for why social contagion and RIF have persisted through evolution (Gazzaniga,

1985; Hirst, 2010).

Traditional cultural artefacts

Cultural memories can be shaped, transmitted, and maintained through presented or

found cultural artefacts. Any symbol accessible to the public may be a catalyst for the creation

and perpetuation of cultural memory (Olick, 1999), ranging from education (e.g., textbooks),

museums, monuments, and memorials, to architectural creations. Humans have long recognised

the potential of harnessing collectively-shared representations. The U.S. Government, for

instance, introduced compulsory schooling during mass migration in the 19th and early 20th

century – in part as a way of nation-building (Bandiera et al., 2019). With education as an

important channel of knowledge transmission, it was possible to broadly convey U.S. civic

values to people with migrational – and thus culturally diverse – backgrounds.

A recent illustration of the use of education as a tool to collectively shape political beliefs

and attitudes is considered by Cantoni et al. (2017) in the context of China. A new school

curriculum was introduced across Chinese provinces in a staggered fashion from 2004 to 2010.

The authors identified alterations made to textbooks, linking them to desired outcomes of the

reform on part of the government. By assessing attitudes before and after the introduction of the

new curriculum, they found students developed more positive perspectives on the government of

China, greater distrust regarding free markets, and increased scepticism towards democracy.

Considering the extensive collective rehearsal and retrieval of school material, it is not surprising

educational policies are potent tools for shaping and perpetuating collective memories (Abel et

al., 2018).
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 26

Monuments and memorials are an important channel through which cultural memory is

created and sustained. Historically, memorials were predominantly erected to commemorate

remarkable individuals and significant achievements on a national level. However, the last

century saw a rise in commemoration attempts of darker aspects of history (Stone, 2004).

Holocaust memorialisation has taken place mainly throughout Europe (Germany, in particular)

and in Israel (Huyssen, 2012). A prominent example in Berlin is the “Memorial to the Murdered

Jews of Europe”. Some praised the memorial for its remembrance of the formerly-thriving

Jewish community in Berlin, while others criticised the appropriateness of its design, or

suggested there was no additional need for a memorial, given the presence of memorialisation of

numerous concentration camps in Berlin (Neumärker, 2012; “Press cool on Berlin memorial”,

2005).

Other cultural artefacts with potential impacts on collective remembering are museums.

Although part-purposed to convey ‘objective’ accounts of the historical past to educate the

public, there is an increasing recognition of museums as “sites of cultural contestation and

negotiation” (Huyssen, 2012; Stone, 2004). As such, passive collective remembrance may

transition to a more active and dynamic practice of collective remembering. One important

component of actively remembering the past can be seen in attempts of symbolic reparation.

With respect to historical wrongdoings, commemoration in memorials or museums can provide

an invitation and space for healing and repair (Sodaro, 2018). While there is a gap in the

literature regarding how precisely cultural artefacts shape collective memory, or why some

artefacts elicit a stronger response than others (Stone & Jay, 2019), there is little doubt regarding

their powerful function in shaping collective narratives of the past (Olick, 1999).
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 27

Newer cultural artefacts: Mass and social media

Mass media play a crucial role in shaping shared realities for communities and societies

(Neiger, 2007; Sturken, 2008), and have become the dominant means through which most

individuals make sense of the past (Kitch, 2006). Compared to traditional broadcast methods

(e.g., radio and newspaper), more recent channels of news transmission (e.g., television, online

newspapers) afford more dynamic, animated presentations with an increasingly powerful impact

on the creation and maintenance of collective memories (Edy, 1999; Matei & Ball-Rokeach,

2005).

One characteristic of news media as agents of collective memory is an implied “reverse

temporal process” where the past is reconstructed in the present (Gibson & Jones, 2012).

Journalism invokes history in light of current interests and concerns, and illustrates the transitory

nature of collective memory by evidencing how our narratives of the past change as we evolve as

societies (Wertsch, 2002; Wang, 2008). The media also engage with collective prospective

memory (Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2013), encompassing things yet to happen. Although news

reports have traditionally focused largely on recounting past events, there is a significant increase

in the use of the future tense in journalism (Jaworski et al., 2003, 2004). As such, the media

suggest what may happen in the future by invoking what happened in the past. Mediated

prospective memory may bridge collective memory and current public and political agendas

(Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2013). Indeed, numerous studies demonstrate a great influence of the

media agenda on the general public agenda (Coleman et al., 2009; Weaver et al., 2004). Wang

(2008) describes this as a ‘directive function’ of collective memory, by which communities

utilise information about the past to inform actions and decisions for the present and future.

Latterly, new social media may shape our collectively-held narratives of the present and past,
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 28

and consequently our sense of collective identity. As Wang (2008) put it, they are new

communication and memory channels, and “may introduce revolutionary changes to the

mnemonic processes and socialisation of our time”.

With the increasing digitalisation of many aspects of our lives, the concept of “memory

in a mediated world” (Hajek et al., 2016) is becoming more relevant. Our social networks are not

spatially-confined - we connect with “both dense and diffused social networks'' (Hoskins, 2011,

p. 271). We can interact with others regardless of physical location, nationality, socioeconomic

status, or ethnic group affiliation, in real time, allowing us to transcend physical and temporal

boundaries (Arthur, 2008). The Internet has progressively included voices of everyone with

online access to public discourse, allowing for sharing of information, ideas, and opinions which,

in turn, likely influences collective memory (Arthur, 2008).

Virtual space is a potential new realm for collectively-held memory narratives (Haskins,

2007; Hughes, 2012). Recent studies suggest the well-known online encyclopaedia “Wikipedia”

may be regarded as a global memory platform (Ferron & Massa, 2014; Pentzold, 2009).

Wikipedia allows entry editing but employs a rigorous fact-checking procedure in the editing

process (Keller, 2017). Consequently, Wikipedia is not a platform for unfounded claims or

propagation of individual opinions without evidential support. Twyman et al. (2017) investigated

collective memory in relation to social movements by tracking responses and edits to English

language Wikipedia following the recent “Black Lives Matter” movement. The authors identified

multiple processes taking place on the platform as events unfolded, one of which was a dynamic

re-appraisal of historic events. Readers actively sought out information and entries about past

events to develop an understanding of current events. A derived connection of present and past

events was also evident in editors' curation and synthesis of information in an attempt to provide
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 29

a coherent movement narrative. Dynamic re-appraisal may constitute an important online

memory-negotiating mechanism which affects collective memory.

Birkner and Donk (2020) examined the impact of social media by looking at a public

conflict centred around the renaming of a public square in Germany. The historical personality

Paul von Hindenburg (after whom the square was named) was involved in Adolf Hitler’s path to

becoming Chancellor; the square’s name was perceived to be somewhat inappropriate today.

Those opposed to renaming the square attempted to fight the change in part via the social media

platform, Facebook. The Facebook-located debate played an important role in shaping and

creating a new historical consciousness by drawing attention to the debate, providing an open

platform for all perspectives, and facilitating argumentative exchange. This inclusive opportunity

for participation in the “making of history” as it unfolds may influence our perceived individual

and collective agency: by actively engaging in negotiating narratives shaping our shared realities,

we may feel we have greater agency over our future paths. These possibilities, however, remain

to be investigated empirically.

Online platforms may shape collective memory, but in differing ways across nations and

cultures. Gustaffson (2019) investigated digital collective memory in China by examining online

encyclopaedia documentation and engagement relating to the Great Famine (1959 – 1961). The

results demonstrated that China relied more heavily on domestic alternatives such as “Weibo”,

than Wikipedia. Notably, Weibo’s influence in shaping collective memory in China was not

comparable to Wikipedia’s influence on English-speaking communities. In addition to general

cultural variance in practices of commemoration and online engagement, this finding can also be

understood in light of differing forms of government. It is likely different government

approaches lead to different mnemonic practices (Wertsch, 2021), and as such, authoritarian
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 30

states may attempt to shield themselves from memory narratives deviating from their desired

national image and political agenda.

The restrictiveness and fact-checking on Wikipedia is not common practice on other

platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, etc.) whose aim is not to provide a reliable source of

information, but to offer a means of self-expression and social connection. This relative freedom

may allow for spread of misinformation, with wide-reaching implications of such misinformation

(for instance during the Covid-19 pandemic), with a detrimental and significant impact on

vaccination acceptance and intent (Islam et al., 2021; Loomba et al., 2021).

Collective silence and forgetting

Collective remembering and collective memory are associated with talk, narration,

chronicling, and other forms of commemoration (Vinitzky-Seroussi & Teeger, 2010). What

happens in the absence thereof – what influence do omissions and silences have on collective

memory? Does talk lead to remembrance, and silence facilitate forgetting?

Mnemonic silence is a complex and nuanced phenomenon (Abel & Bäuml, 2015; Vinitzy-

Seroussi & Teeger, 2010). Taxonomies developed to unravel its consequences on memory

typically distinguish three main dimensions: intentionality, covertness, and relatedness (Stone et

al., 2012). Silence can be intentional or unintentional - a person may intentionally refuse, or

unintentionally fail, to remember something. Intentional silence without covert remembering can

enhance memory (“ironic processes” paradigm), or facilitate forgetting (“think/no-think”

paradigm; Stone et al., 2012). Although there is no definitive explanation for this ambiguity

within the literature, Stone et al. (2012) suggest the success of a suppression attempt may be a

deciding factor for subsequent memory performance. Further, it is vital to consider whether

silence is accompanied by covert remembering or not. Someone can choose not to talk about
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 31

certain memories overtly, but nonetheless be retrieving these memories covertly: when a silenced

memory is accompanied by covert retrieval, its accessibility is enhanced rather than weakened

(Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Roediger and Smith (2011) suggest covert retrieval may be

equally as impactful in strengthening a memory as overt retrieval. Lastly, relatedness matters:

silenced memories can be related or unrelated to what is being openly remembered. In accord

with findings for SS-RIF, the relationship between unmentioned and mentioned memories is

important. Collective forgetting is significantly more likely to occur when silenced aspects are

related to the overtly-remembered memories than when they are not (Stone et al., 2012; Stone &

Hirst, 2014).

The mnemonic consequences of silence and conversation are multifaceted and may

facilitate remembering or forgetting (Stone & Hirst, 2014). While some collective omissions and

silences are unintentional and benign, others are not. Instead, they can be attempts to mute

certain aspects of history, often in favour of those in power (Sturken, 1991, 1997). Depending on

context, silencing of memories can function as a trauma coping mechanism, an exercise of

power, or a denial of responsibility for involvement in unpleasant, widely condemned actions in

the past (Stone et al., 2012; Zerubavel, 2007).

Silence is commonly found in the realm of collective remembrance. Consider, for

instance, the pensive moment of silence reserved for the collective mourning of tragedies and

losses (Vinitzy-Seroussi & Teeger, 2010). This commemorative silence is accompanied by

collective remembering, not forgetting. Conversely, forgetting can be veiled in talk: phenomena

like SS-RIF demonstrate how talking can lead to selective forgetting of omitted, albeit related,

aspects of memories. Forgetting in the realm of collective memory does not necessarily mean

mnemonic erasure, but rather the inaccessibility of a certain memory at the time of remembering
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 32

(Habib & Nyberg, 2007; Singer & Conway, 2008). Cole (2001), for instance, investigated the

experience of the people of Madagascar in relation to a supposed failure to remember the

atrocities committed during French colonialism. Rather than having forgotten the conflict, people

merely did not access those memories spontaneously. Another example is the conflict over recall

of the ‘Young Turk’ movement’s attempted deportation of Armenians from the Turkish

population (Suny, 2015). Current Turkish legislation prohibits the use of the phrase “Armenian

genocide”, but Armenians residing in Turkey still recall these events (Akçam, 2006; Miller &

Miller, 1993).

Silence does not necessarily encourage forgetting, or it may do so in a complex, nuanced,

manner (Abel & Bäuml, 2015; Stone et al., 2012). Silence and talk are not exclusively confined

to remembering or forgetting (Vinitzy-Seroussi & Teeger, 2010). Collective memory

encompasses what is remembered and, paradoxically, what is not (overtly or covertly)

remembered. If collective identity is shaped by collective memory, what is not remembered or

silenced must also be important in the creation of a shared sense of identity within collectives

(Stone & Hirst, 2014). Equally, if collective remembrance can inform decisions, actions, and

attitudes on an individual and collective level, so can collective silence (Hirst et al., 2012) –

offering a conceptual and practical link between common memory, identity, and agency for

collectives.

General conclusions

A general, if unexceptional, conclusion is that although good progress has been made, the study

of collective memory is still in its infancy. There continues to be considerable variability in the

definition of ‘collective memory’, and few studies embrace the complexity of the ‘CIA’

components (common memory, identity, and agency) of collective memory – particularly as the
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 33

implications of CIA crosses interdisciplinary boundaries, especially in respect of the complexity

of the social and societal levels of analysis as they impact on memory, identity, and agency.

Another important implication of the CIA approach suggests thinking of memory as a discrete

psychological faculty is, paradoxically, holding back intellectual progress. The paradox arises

due to continuing research demonstrating the complexity and variety of individual human

memory – however, investigations founded on neuropsychological substrates but extended to

political and historical domains have only recently commenced. The intertwining of memory and

imagination also means there is a need to embrace the complexity of psychological processes –

especially in regard to how people imagine, collectively, their national futures. Since a single

discipline will only capture a part of the whole, a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort is needed

to account for the complexity of collective memory.

Further investigations of collective memory in psychology and neuroscience might profitably

embrace understanding the dispersion and consolidation of memories through conversational

networks. These processes necessarily engage memory and language systems, but may also reach

through to brain networks and psychological processes supporting identity formation. A

thorough understanding of how conversation and group identity intersect will assist in answering

important, yet unanswered, questions: does adapting a particular group identity facilitate the

common alignment of memories? Can a shift between adopting an “individual identity lens”

versus a “collective identity lens” explain how this might happen (Van Bavel and Packer, 2021)?

Is collective memory merely the alignment of individual memories through conversation and

group identification, synchronously expressed at the appropriate time? The underlying processes

are complex, and empirical investigations have not yet addressed them. In that respect, the digital

sphere may offer particular possibilities for investigating alignment of individual memory with
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 34

an apparent ‘collective memory’: the presence of online communities engaging in rituals with

online manifestations (e.g., ‘cosplaying’), as well as in negotiation and shaping of shared

memories on various online platforms (e.g., Wikipedia), may render collective memory

processes observable and traceable (Garcia-Gavilanes et al., 2017).

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 35

References

Press cool on Berlin memorial. (2005, May 10). BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4533463.stm

Abel, M., & Bäuml, K. H. (2015). Selective memory retrieval in social groups: When silence is

golden and when it is not. Cognition, 140, 40–48.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.009

Abel, M., Umanath, S., Wertsch, J. V., & Roediger, H. L. (2018). Collective memory: How

groups remember their past. In Collaborative Remembering: Theories, Research, and

Applications, Chapter 16. Oxford University Press.

Aggleton, J. P., & O'Mara, S. M. (2022). The anterior thalamic nuclei: core components of a

tripartite episodic memory system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10.1038/s41583-022-

00591-8. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00591-8

Akhtar, S., Justice, L. V., Morrison, C. M., & Conway, M. A. (2018). Fictional First Memories.

Psychological Science, 29(10), 1612–1619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618778831

Akçam, T., & Akçam, T. (2006). A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of

Turkish responsibility. Macmillan.

Allan, K., Midjord, J. P., Martin, D., & Gabbert, F. (2012). Memory conformity and the

perceived accuracy of self versus other. Memory and Cognition, 40(2), 280–286.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0141-9

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.

Verso Books.
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 36

Andrews-Todd, J., Salovich, N. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2021). Differential effects of pressure on

social contagion of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2), 258–275.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000346

Arthur, P. L. (2008). Pixelated memory: online commemoration of trauma and crisis. Interactive

Media, 4, 1–19.

Assmann, J. (2008). Communicative and cultural memory. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.),

Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (pp. 109 –

118). DeGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8945-8_2

Backer-Fulghum, L. M., & Sanford, K. (2015). The validity of retrospectively reported conflict

interactions in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 253–262.

https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000057

Bandiera, O., Mohnen, M., Rasul, I., & Viarengo, M. (2019). Nation-building through

compulsory schooling during the age of mass migration. Economic Journal, 129(617), 62–

109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12624

Barnier, A. J., Klein, L., & Harris, C. B. (2018). Transactive Memory in Small, Intimate Groups:

More Than the Sum of Their Parts. Small Group Research, 49(1), 62–97.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417712439

Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2008). From individual to collective memory: Theoretical and

empirical perspectives. Memory, 16(3), 177–182.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701828274

Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future. Topics in Cognitive

Science, 2(4), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 37

Bartlett, F. F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.

Cambridge University Press.

Birkner, T., & Donk, A. (2020). Collective memory and social media: Fostering a new historical

consciousness in the digital age? Memory Studies, 13(4), 367–383.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017750012

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(1), 91–117.

https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198

Blumen, H. M., & Rajaram, S. (2008). Influence of re-exposure and retrieval disruption during

group collaboration on later individual recall. Memory, 16(3), 231–244.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701804495

Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. D. (2018). A Neuroeconomic Theory of Mental Time Travel. Frontiers

in Neuroscience, 12, Art 658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00658

Brown, W. (1915). Incidental memory in a group of persons. Psychological Review, 22(1), 81–

85. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073959

Brown, A. D., Kouri, N., & Hirst, W. (2012). Memory’s malleability: its role in shaping

collective memory and social identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 257.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00257

Browning, C. A., Harris, C. B., Van Bergen, P., Barnier, A. J., & Rendell, P. G. (2018).

Collaboration and prospective memory: comparing nominal and collaborative group

performance in strangers and couples. Memory, 26(9), 1206–1219.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1433215

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 38

Brüne, M., & Brüne-Cohrs, U. (2007). The costs of mental time travel. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 30(3), 317–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07002026

Buckner, R. L. (2010). The role of the hippocampus in prediction and imagination. Annual

Review of Psychology, 61, 27–C8. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163508

Bullock, M., & Lütkenhaus, P. (1988). The development of volitional behavior in the toddler

years. Child Development, 59(3), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8624.1988.tb03225.x

Cantoni, D., Chen, Y., Yang, D. Y., Yuchtman, N., & Zhang, Y. J. (2017). Curriculum and

ideology. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 338-392. https://doi.org/10.1086/690951

Choi, H. Y., Kensinger, E. A., & Rajaram, S. (2017). Mnemonic transmission, social contagion,

and emergence of collective memory: Influence of emotional valence, group structure, and

information distribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(9), 1247–1265.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000327

Clark, R. E. (2018). A history and overview of the behavioral neuroscience of learning and

memory. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 37, 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2017_482

Clark, S. E., Hori, A., Putnam, A., & Martin, T. P. (2000). Group Collaboration in Recognition

Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26(6),

1578–1588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1578

Cole, J. (2001). Forget Colonialism? Sacrifice and the Art of Memory in Madagascar (Vol. 1).

University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520228467/forget-

colonialism
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 39

Cole, S. N., Morrison, C. M., Barak, O., Pauly-Takacs, K., & Conway, M. A. (2016). Amnesia

and future thinking: Exploring the role of memory in the quantity and quality of episodic

future thoughts. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 206–224.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12094

Coleman, R., McCombs, M., Shaw, D., & Weaver, D. (2009). Agenda setting. In The Handbook

of Journalism Studies (pp. 167-180). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877685-20

Coman, A., & Hirst, W. (2012). Cognition through a social network: The propagation of induced

forgetting and practice effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 321–

336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025247

Coman, A., & Hirst, W. (2015). Social identity and socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting:

The effects of group membership. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4),

717–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000077

Coman, A., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2009). Forgetting the unforgettable through conversation:

Socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting of September 11 memories. Psychological

Science, 20(5), 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02343.x

Connerton, P. (2008). Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies, 1(1), 59-71.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698007083889

Conway, M. A. (2001). Memory: Autobiographical. In International Encyclopedia of the Social

& Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9563–9567). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-

7/01495-9

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical

memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 40

Corballis, M. C. (2019). Language, memory, and mental time travel: An evolutionary

perspective. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, Article 217.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00217

Cuc, A., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2007). Silence is not golden: A case for socially shared

retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 18(8), 727–733.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01967.x

Cuc, A., Ozuru, Y., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2006). On the formation of collective memories:

The role of a dominant narrator. Memory and Cognition, 34(4), 752–762.

https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193423

Danziger, K. (2009). Marking the mind: A history of memory. Cambridge University Press.

Demo, D. H. (1992). The Self-Concept Over Time: Research Issues and Directions. Annual

Review of Sociology, 18(1), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001511

Duff, M. C., Hengst, J. A., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2007). Talking across time: Using

reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia. Aphasiology, 21(6–8), Article

702716. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030701192265

Durkheim, É. (1971). Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (J.W. Swain, Trans.). Free Press.

(Original work published 1912).

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. (H. A. Ruger & C.

E. Bussenius, Trans.). Teachers College Press. (Original work published

1885). https://doi.org/10.1037/10011-000

Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared Reality: Experiencing

Commonality with others’ Inner States about the World. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 4(5), 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 41

Edy, J. A. (1999). Journalistic uses of collective memory. Journal of Communication, 49(2), 71-

85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02794.x

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4),

962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294

Ferron, M., & Massa, P. (2014). Beyond the encyclopedia: Collective memories in Wikipedia.

Memory Studies, 7(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698013490590

Fine, G. A. (2007). Rumor, trust and civil society: Collective memory and cultures of judgment.

Diogenes, 54(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107073432

Fivush, R., Habermas, T., Waters, T. E. A., & Zaman, W. (2011). The making of

autobiographical memory: Intersections of culture, narratives and identity. International

Journal of Psychology, 46(5), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.596541

Fivush, R., & Haden, C. (1997). Narrating and representing experience: Preschoolers’

developing autobiographical recounts. In P. van den Broek, P.A. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.),

Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridging fictional and

actual events (pp. 169-198). Erlbaum.

Fraisse, P. (1957). Psychologie du temps. Presses Universitaires de France.

Gagnepain, P., Vallée, T., Heiden, S., Decorde, M., Gauvain, J. L., Laurent, A., Klein-

Peschanski, C., Viader, F., Peschanski, D., & Eustache, F. (2020). Collective memory

shapes the organization of individual memories in the medial prefrontal cortex. Nature

Human Behaviour, 4(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0779-z

García-Gavilanes, R., Mollgaard, A., Tsvetkova, M., & Yasseri, T. (2017). The memory remains:

Understanding collective memory in the digital age. Science Advances, 3(4), Article

e1602368. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602368
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 42

Gates, M. A., Suchow, J. W., & Griffiths, T. L. (2017). Empirical tests of large-scale

collaborative recall. Cognitive Science.

https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2017/papers/0084/paper0084.pdf

Gazzaniga, M. S. (1985). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks of the Mind. Basic Books.

Gensburger, S. (2016). Halbwachs’ studies in collective memory: A founding text for

contemporary ‘memory studies’? Journal of Classical Sociology, 16(4), 396-413.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X16656268

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The problem of temporal order in stimulation and perception. The Journal

of Psychology, 62(2), 141-149.

Gibson, P. L., & Jones, S. (2012). Remediation and Remembrance: “Dancing Auschwitz”

Collective Memory and new media. ESSACHESS - Journal for Communication Studies,

5(2), 107+.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A366866198/AONE?u=anon~72204870&sid=googleScholar

&xid=6884415e

Gilboa, A., & Marlatte, H. (2017). Neurobiology of Schemas and Schema-Mediated Memory.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 618-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.013

Gillis, J. R. (1994). The Politics of National Identity (J. R. Gillis (ed.)). Princeton University

Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv39x64g

Glynn, R., Salmon, K., & Low, J. (2019). Short- and longer-term effects of selective discussion

of adolescents’ autobiographical memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

184, 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.02.005

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 43

Gustafsson, K. (2019). Chinese collective memory on the Internet: Remembering the Great

Famine in online encyclopaedias. Memory Studies, 12(2), 184-197.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017714836

Habib, R., Nyberg, L., & Nilsson, L. G. (2007). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors contributing

to the longitudinal identification of successful older adults in the betula study.

Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and

cognition, 14(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580600582412

Hajek, A., Lohmeier, C., & Pentzold, C. (Eds.). (2016). Memory in a Mediated World. Palgrave

Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137470126

Halbwachs, M. (1950). The collective memory (F.J. Ditter & V.Y. Ditter, Trans.). Harper

Colophon. (Original work published 1926)

Halbwachs, M. (1992). The Reconstruction of the Past (L.A. Coser, Trans.). In L.A. Coser (Ed.),

On Collective Memory (pp. 46-52). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published

1950). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226774497.001.0001

Hall, J. D. (1998). “You Must Remember This”: Autobiography as Social Critique. The Journal

of American History, 85(2), 439-465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2567747

Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2012). Consensus collaboration enhances group and

individual recall accuracy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 179–194.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.608590

Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Vann, S. D., & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Patients with hippocampal

amnesia cannot imagine new experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America, 104(5), 1726-1731.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610561104
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 44

Henkel, L. A., & Rajaram, S. (2011). Collaborative Remembering in Older Adults: Age-

Invariant Outcomes in the Context of Episodic Recall Deficits. Psychology and Aging,

26(3), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023106

Higgins, E. T. (2012). Beyond Pleasure and Pain: How Motivation Works. Oxford University

Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199765829.001.0001

Hirsch, J., Tiede, M., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A., Salama-Manteau, A., & Biriotti, M. (2021).

Interpersonal Agreement and Disagreement During Face-to-Face Dialogue: An fNIRS

Investigation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, Article 606397.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.606397

Hirst, W. (2010). The Contribution of Malleability to Collective Memory. In P. A. Reuter-

Lorenz, K. Baynes, G. R. Mangun, & E. A. Phelps (Eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of

Mind: A Tribute to Michael S. Gazzaniga (pp. 139-153). MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014014.003.0100

Hirst, W., & Coman, A. (2018). Building a collective memory: the case for collective forgetting.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.002

Hirst, W., & Echterhoff, G. (2012). Remembering in conversations: The social sharing and

reshaping of memories. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 55-79.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100340

Hirst, W., & Manier, D. (2008). Towards a psychology of collective memory. Memory, 16(3),

183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701811912

Hirst, W., Phelps, E. A., Buckner, R. L., Budson, A. E., Cuc, A., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Johnson, M.

K., Lustig, C., Lyle, K. B., Mather, M., Meksin, R., Mitchell, K. J., Ochsner, K. N.,

Schacter, D. L., Simons, J. S., & Vaidya, C. J. (2009). Long-Term Memory for the Terrorist
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 45

Attack of September 11: Flashbulb Memories, Event Memories, and the Factors That

Influence Their Retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 161–176.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015527

Hirst, W., & Stone, C. B. (2015). Social Aspects of Memory. Emerging Trends in the Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0304

Hirst, W., & Yamashiro, J. (2018). Social aspects of forgetting. In Collaborative Remembering:

Theories, Research, and Applications, 76-99.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198737865.003.0005

Hirst, W., Yamashiro, J. K., & Coman, A. (2018). Collective Memory from a Psychological

Perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(5), 438–451.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.010

Hoskins, A. (2011). Media, memory, metaphor: Remembering and the connective turn. Parallax,

17(4), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2011.605573

Hughes, C. R. (2012). ICTs and Remembering the 200th Anniversary of the Abolition of the

Slave Trade in Britain: An Occasion for Celebration or Remorse? Journal of Historical

Sociology, 25(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6443.2012.01425.x

Huyssen, A. (2012). Twilight Memories. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203610213

Hyman, I. E., & James Billings, F. (1998). Individual Differences and the Creation of False

Childhood Memories. Memory, 6(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/741941598

Hyman, I. E., Roundhill, R. F., Werner, K. M., & Rabiroff, C. A. (2014). Collaboration inflation:

Egocentric source monitoring errors following collaborative remembering. Journal of

Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(4), 293–299.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.004
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 46

Islam, M. S., Kamal, A. H. M., Kabir, A., Southern, D. L., Khan, S. H., Murshid Hasan, S. M.,

Sarkar, T., Sharmin, S., Das, S., Roy, T., Harun, M. G. D., Chughtai, A. A., Homaira, N., &

Seale, H. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for

cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence. PLoS ONE, 16

(5 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251605

Jaworski, A., Fitzgerald, R., & Morris, D. (2003). Certainty and speculation in news reporting of

the future: The execution of Timothy McVeigh. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 33-48.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010201

Jaworski, A., Fitzgerald, R., & Morris, D. (2004). Radio leaks: Presenting and contesting leaks in

radio news broadcasts. Journalism, 5(2), 183-202.

https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490452003

Kashima, Y. (2000). Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of narratives.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 594-604.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200267007

Keller, J. (2017, June 14). How Wikipedia is cultivating an army of fact checkers to battle fake

news. Pacific Standard Magazine. https://psmag.com/news/how-wikipedia-is-cultivating-an-

army-of-fact-checkers-to-battle-fake-news

Kensinger, E. A., Choi, H. Y., Murray, B. D., & Rajaram, S. (2016). How social interactions

affect emotional memory accuracy: Evidence from collaborative retrieval and social

contagion paradigms. Memory and Cognition, 44(5), 706–716.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0597-8
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 47

Kitch, C. (2006). Useful Memory” in time inc. magazines: Summary journalism and the popular

construction of history. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 94-110.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500450384

Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002). Memory and temporal experience: The effects

of episodic memory loss on an amnesic patient’s ability to remember the past and imagine

the future. Social Cognition, 20(5), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.20.5.353.21125

Langenbacher, E., & Shain, Y. (2010). Power and the past: Collective memory and international

relations. Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306112438191f

Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. Journal of

Management Studies, 29(3), 349-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00669.x

Legrand, N., Gagnepain, P., Peschanski, D., & Eustache, F. (2015). Neurosciences et mémoires

collectives: les schémas entre cerveau, sociétés et cultures. Biologie Aujourd’hui, 209(3),

273–286. https://doi.org/10.1051/jbio/2015025

Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of

history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 537-

556. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X27162

Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the

impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA.

Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1

Mahmoodi, A., Bahrami, B., & Mehring, C. (2018). Reciprocity of social influence. Nature

Communications, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04925-y

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 48

Mao, W., An, S., Ji, F., & Li, Z. (2021). Who Will Influence Memories of Listeners: Evidence

from socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Applied Research in Memory

and Cognition, 10(3), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.01.005

Matei, S. A., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2005). Watts, the 1965 Los Angeles riots, and the

communicative construction of the fear epicenter of Los Angeles. Communication

Monographs, 72(3), 301-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500206557

Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory.

Memory and Cognition, 30(7), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194318

Merck, C., Topcu, M. N., & Hirst, W. (2016). Collective mental time travel: Creating a shared

future through our shared past. Memory Studies, 9(3), 284-294.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698016645236

Michaelian, K., & Sutton, J. (2017). Collective mental time travel: remembering the past and

imagining the future together. Synthese, 196(12), 4933-4960.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1449-1

Miller, D. E., & Miller, L. T. (1993). Survivors: An oral history of the Armenian genocide.

University of California Press.

Muller, F., Bermejo, F., & Hirst, W. (2018). Cultural and communicative memories: contrasting

Argentina’s 1976 coup d’état and the 2001 economic-political-social crisis. Memory, 26(7),

974–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1431283

Neiger, M. (2007). Media oracles: The cultural significance and political import of news

referring to future events. Journalism, 8(3), 309-321.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076464
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 49

Neumärker, U. (2012). Germany’s memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe: Debates and

reactions. Filozofija i Drustvo, 23(4), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.2298/fid1204139n

Olick, J. K. (1999). Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory, 17(3), 333-348.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00083

Olick, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Levy, D. (2011). The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford

University Press.

O’Mara, S. M. (2023). Conversations. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Paez, D. R., & Liu, J. H. F. (2011). Collective memory of conflicts. In Intergroup Conflicts and

Their Resolution: A Social Psychological Perspective, 105-124.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834091

Pasupathi, M., McLean, K. C., & Weeks, T. (2009). To tell or not to tell: Disclosure and the

narrative self. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 89–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2008.00539.x

Peer, M., Hayman, M., Tamir, B., & Arzy, S. (2021). Brain coding of social network structure.

Journal of Neuroscience, 41(22), 4897–4909. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2641-

20.2021

Peker, M., & Tekcan, A. I. (2009). The role of familiarity among groupmembers in collaborative

inhibition and social contagion. Social Psychology, 40(3), 111-118.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.3.111

Pentzold, C. (2009). Fixing the floating gap: The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia as a global

memory place. Memory Studies, 2(2), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698008102055

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 50

Potter, H. D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2022). Naturalising Agent Causation. Entropy, 24(4), Article

472. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24040472

Radvansky, G. A. (2020). Overview and History of Memory Research. In Human Memory (3rd

ed., pp. 102-120). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664996-5

Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2007). Collaboration can improve individual recognition

memory: Evidence from immediate and delayed tests. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,

14(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194034

Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and

theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388763

Ramstead, M. J. D., Veissière, S. P. L., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2016). Cultural affordances:

Scaffolding local worlds through shared intentionality and regimes of attention. Frontiers in

Psychology, 7, Article 1090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01090

Reber, P. J. (2013). The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: A review of

neuropsychological and neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia, 51(10), 2026–2042.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.019

Roediger, H. L., & Abel, M. (2015). Collective memory: A new arena of cognitive study. Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 19(7), 359-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.003

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests

improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 51

Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196174

Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their

applications to educational practice. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of

Learning and Motivation: Cognition in Education (pp. 1–36). Elsevier Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00001-6

Rossignac-Milon, M., Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Boothby, E. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2020). Merged

Minds: Generalized Shared Reality in Dyadic Relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 120(4), 882–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000266

Rugg, M. D., Otten, L. J., & Henson, R. N. A. (2002). The neural basis of episodic memory:

Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences, 357(1424), 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1102

Schmälzle, R., Häcker, F., Renner, B., Honey, C. J., & Schupp, H. T. (2013). Neural correlates

of risk perception during real-life risk communication. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(25),

10340–10347. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5323-12.2013

Schudson, M. (1995). Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory. Memory Distortion: How

Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past, 346-364.

Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J.

(2011). The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex.

In Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(3), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2994

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 52

Shin, S. Y., Leech, K. A., & Rowe, M. L. (2020). Examining relations between parent-child

narrative talk and children’s episodic foresight and theory of mind. Cognitive Development,

55, Article 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100910

Singer, J. A., & Conway, M. A. (2008). Should we forget forgetting?. Memory Studies, 1(3),

279-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698008093793

Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2008). Manipulating power can affect memory conformity.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1353

Sodaro, A. (2018). Exhibiting atrocity: Memorial museums and the politics of past violence.

Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2019.1555223

Spalding, K. N., Jones, S. H., Duff, M. C., Tranel, D., & Warren, D. E. (2015). Investigating the

neural correlates of schemas: Ventromedial prefrontal cortex is necessary for normal

schematic influence on memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(47), 15746–15751.

https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2767-15.2015

Stipek, D. J., Gralinski, J. H., & Kopp, C. B. (1990). Self-Concept Development in the Toddler

Years. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 972–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.26.6.972

Stollberg, J., Fritsche, I., & Bäcker, A. (2015). Striving for group agency: threat to personal

control increases the attractiveness of agentic groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article

649. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00649

Stone, C. B., Coman, A., Brown, A. D., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2012). Toward a Science of

Silence: The Consequences of Leaving a Memory Unsaid. Perspectives on Psychological

Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(1), 39–53.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427303
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 53

Stone, C. B., & Hirst, W. (2014). (Induced) Forgetting to form a collective memory. Memory

Studies, 7(3), 314-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698014530621

Stone, C. B., & Jay, A. C. V. (2019). From the individual to the collective: The emergence of a

psychological approach to collective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 504–

515. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3564

Stone, D. (2010). Genocide and memory. In D. Bloxham, & A.D. Moses (Eds.), The Holocaust,

Fascism and Memory (pp. 143-156). Oxford University Press.

https://10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232116.013.0006

Stone, D. (2004). Memory, memorials and museums. In The Historiography of the Holocaust

(pp. 508-532). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524507

Sturken, M. (1991). The Wall, the Screen, and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Representations, 35, 118-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928719

Sturken, M. (1997). Tangled memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS epidemic, and the politics of

remembering. University of California Press.

Sturken, M. (2008). Memory, consumerism and media: Reflections on the emergence of the

field. Memory Studies, 1(1), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698007083890

Suddendorf, T., Addis, D. R., & Corballis, M. C. (2009). Mental time travel and the shaping of

the human mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

364(1521), 1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0301

Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human

mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123(2), 133–167.

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 54

Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time

travel, and is it unique to humans?. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–351.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975

Suny, R. G. (2015). "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian

Genocide. Princeton University Press.

Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection:

Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(52), 18414-18421.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417144111

Szpunar, P. M., & Szpunar, K. K. (2016). Collective future thought: Concept, function, and

implications for collective memory studies. Memory Studies, 9(4), 376-389.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698015615660

Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2013). Bridging Collective Memories and Public Agendas: Toward a

Theory of Mediated Prospective Memory. Communication Theory, 23(2), 91-111.

https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12006

Terdiman, R. (1993). Present Past. Cornell University Press.

https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501717604

Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. (2016). Group interaction as the crucible of social

identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 137–151.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612217
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 55

Topcu, M. N., & Hirst, W. (2019, June 6-9). The role of perceived agency in episodic future

thinking [Poster Presentation]. SARMAC 2019, Cape Cod, MA, USA.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15227.98084

Topcu, M. N., & Hirst, W. (2020). Remembering a Nation’s Past to Imagine Its Future: The Role

of Event Specificity, Phenomenology, Valence, and Perceived Agency. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 46(3), 563–579.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000746

Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and Consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

Canadienne, 26(1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017

Twyman, M., Keegan, B. C., & Shaw, A. (2017). Black lives matter in Wikipedia: Collaboration

and collective memory around online social movements. Proceedings of the ACM

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’17). Association for

Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1400–1412.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998232

Van Bavel, J. J., & Packer, D. J. (2021). The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to

Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony. Little, Brown

Spark: New York.

Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Teeger, C. (2010). Unpacking the unspoken: Silence in collective

memory and forgetting. Social Forces, 88(3), 1103-1122.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40645884

Wang, Q. (2008). On the cultural constitution of collective memory. Memory, 16(3), 305–317.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701801467

Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: Science of a connected age. Norton.

FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 56

Weaver, D., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes,

and influences. Handbook of Political Communication Research, 275-300.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610584-19

Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. In

Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185-208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-

4634-3_9

Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.6.923

Weldon, M. S. (2000). Remembering as a social process. Psychology of Learning and Motivation

- Advances in Research and Theory, 40, 67-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-

7421(00)80018-3

Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual

processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and

Cognition, 23(5), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160

Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511613715

Wertsch, J. V. (2008). Collective memory and narrative templates. Social Research, 75(1), 133–

156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40972055

Wertsch, J. V. (2021). How Nations Remember: A narrative approach. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197551462.001.0001
FOUNDATIONS OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY 57

Wertsch, J. V., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Collective memory: Conceptual foundations and

theoretical approaches. Memory, 16(3), 318–326.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701801434

Wiech, K., Lin, C. S., Brodersen, K. H., Bingel, U., Ploner, M., & Tracey, I. (2010). Anterior

insula integrates information about salience into perceptual decisions about pain. Journal of

Neuroscience, 30(48), 16324–16331. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2087-10.2010

Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action

problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23-43.

https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102

Wright, D. B., & Klumpp, A. (2004). Collaborative inhibition is due to the product, not the

process, of recalling in groups. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(6), 1080–1083.

https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196740

Yamashiro, J. K., & Hirst, W. (2014). Mnemonic convergence in a social network: Collective

memory and extended influence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,

3(4), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.08.001

Yamashiro, J. K., & Hirst, W. (2019). Convergence on Collective Memories: Central Speakers

and Distributed Remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 461–

481. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000656

Young, S. N. (2008). The neurobiology of human social behaviour: An important but neglected

topic. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 33(5), 391–392.

Zerubavel, E. (2007). Generally speaking: The logic and mechanics of social pattern analysis.

Sociological Forum, 22(2), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00010.x