Remembering facts versus feelings in the wake of political events

ABSTRACT

Amid rising political polarisation, inaccurate memory for facts and exaggerated memories of grievances can drive individuals and groups further apart. We assessed whether people with more accurate memories of the facts concerning political events were less susceptible to bias when remembering how events made them feel. Study 1 assessed participants’ memories concerning the 2016 U.S. presidential election (N = 571), and included 33 individuals with Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM). Study 2 assessed participants’ memories concerning the 2018 referendum on abortion in Ireland (N = 733). Participants rated how happy, angry, and scared they felt days after these events. Six months later, they recalled their feelings and factual information. In both studies, participants overestimated how angry they had felt but underestimated happiness and fear. Adjusting for importance, no association was found between the accuracy of memory for facts and feelings. Accuracy in remembering facts was predicted by media exposure. Accuracy in remembering feelings was predicted by consistency over time in feelings and appraisals about past events. HSAM participants in Study 1 remembered election-related facts better than others, but not their feelings. Thus, having a good grasp of the facts did not protect against bias in remembering feelings about political events.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotion memory
• event memory
• politics
• Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 All but three of the 33 participants with HSAM were U.S. citizens. These three participants also rated the U.S. election as important, and omitting them did not change any findings in the paper, so all HSAM participants were included.

2 The questionnaires in Study 1 were brief and did not include attention check questions. However, as part of a larger project on affective forecasting (Levine et al., 2020), Study 1 participants had completed a 60-minute questionnaire weeks before the election which included two attention check questions. Attention check scores ranged from 0 to 2 correct (M = 1.78, SD = 0.59), and are reported for each subgroup of participants in Supplemental Table S1. Most participants (87%) passed both attention checks, and another 4% passed one check, suggesting that the overall quality of participation was high.

3 Fewer than 100 people with HSAM have been identified but the actual number of individuals with this ability is not known. A case study (Parker et al., 2006) and media reports sparked public awareness of HSAM. People who contacted the researchers claiming to have HSAM underwent two screening procedures (LePort et al., 2012). In the Public Events Quiz, they were asked to provide the date and day of the week when prompted with significant public events that occurred during their lifetime, and to provide the significant public event and day of the week when prompted with dates. Those who scored 50% correct or more were given the 10 Dates Quiz. They were asked to describe a verifiable public event, and an autobiographical event, that occurred within ± one month of 10 randomly generated dates, and to indicate the day of the week for all events. Researchers classified those who scored 65% or above as having HSAM (for a more detailed description of screening, see LePort et al., 2012).

4 In Study 1, we also conducted separate regression analyses assessing the predictors of overall memory accuracy for happiness, anger, and fear. Results were very similar to those reported in the text for the composite measure of emotion. Namely, the strongest predictor of overall memory accuracy for all three emotions was consistency over time in current feelings about the election. Appraised importance predicted overall memory accuracy for happiness and anger (as found for the composite measure) but not fear. Change in appraised importance predicted overall memory accuracy for happiness and fear (as found for the composite measure) but not anger. In addition, participants who voted for Trump remembered anger more accurately, likely because they experienced very little anger. Results for discrete emotions are available online at https://osf.io/er9hv/files/ in Supplemental Table S2.

5 In Study 2, we also conducted separate regression analyses assessing the predictors of overall memory accuracy for happiness, anger, and fear. Significant predictors were identical to those reported for the composite measure of emotion, except that overall accuracy in remembering happiness was not predicted by valence. Results are available online in Supplemental Table S3: https://osf.io/er9hv/files/.

Additional information

Funding

The National Science Foundation Award #1451214 to Linda J. Levine and Award #1451297 to Heather C. Lench supported collection of data concerning the U.S. Presidential election as part of a larger project on decision-making; Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences.