ABSTRACT
How we remember and relate events that have happened in our lives can sometimes have very serious consequences. One of the more obvious examples of this is eyewitness memory, where the accuracy and completeness of a witness’ account may be critical in the successful apprehension and/or conviction of a criminal. Much of applied memory research, particularly research on episodic memory (cf. Tulving, 1972), has focused on conditions that might improve or inhibit the accurate recall of event information. The extensive work done on interview techniques used in real investigations, for example, assesses the effects of mnemonic strategies such as context reinstatement on the accuracy of details that are reported (see Bekerian & Dennett, 1993; Geiselman & C Fisher, chap. 1, this volume). The findings that are reported here focus on another set of factors that heretofore has received little systematic attention in the experimental literature on episodic memory, but nontheless is likely to influence the nature and content of an episodic report. These factors have to do with the mode in which the report is being given. Here, we question whether the mode in which we communicate our experiences affects the way we report on a past event. Specifically, we ask whether speakers “remember” differently from writers, and what might underlie any differences.
