Causally defective remembering: a study on the folk concept of memory

The standard argument for the causal theory of memory relies on intuitions about scenarios in which subjects accurately represent events from their pasts but do so in a “causally defective” manner. Examples include representations based on suggestion and representations based on relearned information. According to causalists, these scenarios, intuitively, are not cases of remembering. This paper applies the methods of experimental philosophy to determine whether laypeople share causalist intuitions. We find that, in scenarios in which all of the causal theory’s requirements for remembering are fulfilled and in scenarios in which none of these requirements are fulfilled, laypeople’s intuitions align with the causal theory’s verdicts: they clearly ascribe remembering in the former scenarios and clearly deny remembering in the latter scenarios. In causally defective scenarios – scenarios in which some but not all of the requirements of the causal theory are fulfilled – a more complex pattern of responses is observed, with some participants ascribing remembering even in cases that do not satisfy causalist requirements. In particular, while many participants deny that remembering occurs in relearning, many do the opposite. These results suggest that folk ascriptions of remembering only partly align with the causal theory of memory.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophical Psychology
Published
2026-06-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2026.2681780
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Causally defective remembering: a study on the folk concept of memory

Kourken Michaelian, Vilius Dranseika, Christopher Jude McCarroll, Juan F. Álvarez
Philosophical Psychology
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
article

Causally defective remembering: a study on the folk concept of memory

Kourken Michaelian, Vilius Dranseika, Christopher Jude McCarroll, Juan F. Álvarez
article en

Abstract

The standard argument for the causal theory of memory relies on intuitions about scenarios in which subjects accurately represent events from their pasts but do so in a “causally defective” manner. Examples include representations based on suggestion and representations based on relearned information. According to causalists, these scenarios, intuitively, are not cases of remembering. This paper applies the methods of experimental philosophy to determine whether laypeople share causalist intuitions. We find that, in scenarios in which all of the causal theory’s requirements for remembering are fulfilled and in scenarios in which none of these requirements are fulfilled, laypeople’s intuitions align with the causal theory’s verdicts: they clearly ascribe remembering in the former scenarios and clearly deny remembering in the latter scenarios. In causally defective scenarios – scenarios in which some but not all of the requirements of the causal theory are fulfilled – a more complex pattern of responses is observed, with some participants ascribing remembering even in cases that do not satisfy causalist requirements. In particular, while many participants deny that remembering occurs in relearning, many do the opposite. These results suggest that folk ascriptions of remembering only partly align with the causal theory of memory.

Philosophical Psychology
Jagiellonian University (PL), National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (TW), Institut Universitaire de France (FR), Institut des langues et cultures d'Europe, Amérique, Afrique, Asie et Australie (FR), Université Grenoble Alpes (FR), Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
European Commission, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.