Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41926364›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Episodic memory differences in social and non-social contexts.

Karina Grunewald, Susanne Schweizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karina GrunewaldSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1440-823X
Susanne SchweizerSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6153-8291

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans use existing knowledge to predict and recall events. As a social species, it has been argued that humans preferentially process and recall social information. Individuals then should be better at using prior knowledge of actors' character traits to predict and remember their behaviour in social contexts compared to predicting and remembering trait-consequence associations in non-social contexts. To test this hypothesised social episodic memory advantage, we modified a social episodic memory paradigm to include a social and non-social condition. 215 participants (18-65 years; 43% female) learnt social (people) and non-social (airports) actors' traits, predicting and remembering their subsequent actions across various fictional events. Participants showed better memory for social compared to non-social events. However, only in non-social contexts was recall aided by prior knowledge of the actors (i.e., recall was better for events that were consistent with previously learnt information). Participants also showed a positivity bias for both social (e.g., kind actions by others) and non-social (e.g., flights running efficiently) information recall. Social memory then is preferentially processed, and social information recalled better, regardless of whether it fits with individuals' prior knowledge or not. This may be particularly the case in situations where information about social actors is limited and all information is critical to inform whether an individual is safe to affiliate with or should be avoided. The findings also provide preliminary evidence that positive information may be preferentially recalled in these contexts. Together these findings support better memory for social over non-social information.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicSocial EnvironmentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID41926364
PMCPMC13046140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.