Memory's Malleability: Its Role in Shaping Collective Memory and Social Identity

memory, it is that it is fragile and error prone (Schacter, 2001; Loftus, 2005). Far from being a verbatim record of the past, memory is well understood as a reconstructive process replete with distortions, and at times, gross inaccuracies. Although often associated with negative consequences (Wells and Olson, 2003; McNally and Geraerts, 2009) there is growing evidence to suggest that memory’s imperfections may also be a virtue (Schacter, 2012; Schacter et al., 2011). The reconstructive nature of memory is believed to provide greater cognitive flexibility (Schacter and Addis, 2007), underlie mental time travel (Schacter et al., 2008; Szpunar, 2010), and support the construction and maintenance of self-identity and life-stories (Greenwald, 1980; Markus and Nurius, 1986; Bruner, 1991; Baerger and McAdams, 1999; Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Wilson and Ross, 2001). We argue here that memory’s malleability benefits more than just the self – the same attitudes, schemata, and social and physical environments that render an individual’s memory unique can also transform initially disparate memories into shared recollections. It is our proposition that autobiographical memories are simultaneously reconstructed to be distinct from that of another person and converge with it as a result of social interactions. Through this convergence, emerges collective memory that will in turn establish a collective identity and promote sociality. Our aim here is to bridge the gap between individual and collective memory by discussing several lines of research elucidating the processes by which the malleability of memory promotes the formation of shared memories. The psychological sTudy of collecTive memory Collective memories are a community’s shared renderings of the past that help shape its collective identity (Halbwachs, 1950). From this perspective, they are the collective variant of autobiographical memories, which are individually held memories that help shape personal identity. The identityconstructing function of collective memories implies that not all shared memories are collective memories. That is, a memory can only be considered collective if it is widely shared and if it helps to define and bind together a group (Assmann, 1995). For example, Americans are, to a degree, Americans because they possess shared renderings of the past, and Americans differ from Russians, in part, because the two hold different shared memories for similar historical events. For instance, these two nations remember War World II differently. Americans tend to remember D-Day as being the most important battle of the war; Russians remember the most important battle as the Battle of Leningrad (Wertsch, 2002). Their different memories help shape the way Russians and Americans see their place in the world and how they conceive of themselves as a nation. Whereas psychologists have largely remained on the sidelines of collective memory research, the last few years has evidenced a growing body of literature relevant to the psychological study of collective memory (Cuc et al., 2006; Barnier and Sutton, 2008; Stone et al., 2010; Coman and Hirst, 2012). It seeks to examine the cognitive mechanisms underlying how individual memories emerge, spread, and become shared across a community. These cognitive mechanisms often involve memory distortions, but as we shall see, these distortions are often shared across community memories, and as a result lead to shared memories. Probably the best understood mechanisms for creating shared memories has been discussed in a various ways since Bartlett (1932) first introduce the notion of schema. He suggested that shared memories may be formed through social interactions because community members, whom are raised together, attend the same school, read the same books, and generally share many of the same experiences, will possess similar schemata, and in turn will shape the way community members remember their past. Take, for example, Hastrof and Cantril’s (1954) study of Dartmouth and Princeton students’ memories of a critical football match between the two schools; within group memories were similar, whereas across the two populations, the memories were dissimilar. Despite these results, it is not always the case that a shared culture and shared schemata will dominate the shaping of one’s memory. Community members achieve their individuality, in part, because they possess unshared attitudes and schemata. The discrepancies, as such, can lead members of the same community to remember a shared event quite differently. Paradoxically, individually distinct memories can still become shared over time. What makes us claim that memory is well-designed for the formation of collective memory is that there are a variety of mechanisms and processes that will lead to mnemonic convergence, in spite of the dissonance that exists among rememberers. These mechanisms can shape and reshape memory through a variety of means. We focus here on conversational interactions. Although memory may have a number of functions (Bluck, 2003), the communicative Memory’s malleability: its role in shaping collective memory and social identity