Manipulating the reported age in earliest memories in a Dutch community sample.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
01
02
2019
accepted:
09
05
2019
entrez:
1
6
2019
pubmed:
1
6
2019
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Childhood amnesia in adults can be defined as the relative paucity of autobiographical memories from the first years of life. An earlier study by Wessel, Schweig and Huntjens demonstrated that 'how' we ask for an earliest memory may bias adults' estimations of when the earliest childhood memory actually happened. They suggested that snapshot memories (i.e., mental pictures) were less sensitive to an age manipulation than event memories (i.e. narratives). We aimed at replicating and extending these findings using a Dutch community sample stratified for age, gender and educational level. Participants (N = 619) were randomized into one of three experimental conditions. Prior to recalling their earliest memory, participants in the early and late conditions were presented with examples referring to memories from age 1-2 or 5-6, respectively. The example memories in the control group did not contain any age cues. Participants reported the estimated age in their earliest memory and their strategy for arriving at this estimate. They also rated their memory's phenomenology (e.g. vividness). Independent judges rated memory type (e.g., snapshot memories). Compared to the control group, participants in the early condition estimated the age in their memory to be significantly earlier. The difference between the late and control conditions was too small to be of interest. We did not observe a statistically significant interaction between memory type and condition. Snapshot memories were from a younger age than event memories and showed differences with respect to phenomenology (e.g., emotional intensity). The results of this community study replicate earlier findings that instructions including age cues influence estimates of age in earliest memories. Although snapshot and event memories seem to be qualitatively different, the idea that they respond differently to an age manipulation could not be corroborated.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Childhood amnesia in adults can be defined as the relative paucity of autobiographical memories from the first years of life. An earlier study by Wessel, Schweig and Huntjens demonstrated that 'how' we ask for an earliest memory may bias adults' estimations of when the earliest childhood memory actually happened. They suggested that snapshot memories (i.e., mental pictures) were less sensitive to an age manipulation than event memories (i.e. narratives). We aimed at replicating and extending these findings using a Dutch community sample stratified for age, gender and educational level.
METHOD
Participants (N = 619) were randomized into one of three experimental conditions. Prior to recalling their earliest memory, participants in the early and late conditions were presented with examples referring to memories from age 1-2 or 5-6, respectively. The example memories in the control group did not contain any age cues. Participants reported the estimated age in their earliest memory and their strategy for arriving at this estimate. They also rated their memory's phenomenology (e.g. vividness). Independent judges rated memory type (e.g., snapshot memories).
RESULTS
Compared to the control group, participants in the early condition estimated the age in their memory to be significantly earlier. The difference between the late and control conditions was too small to be of interest. We did not observe a statistically significant interaction between memory type and condition. Snapshot memories were from a younger age than event memories and showed differences with respect to phenomenology (e.g., emotional intensity).
CONCLUSION
The results of this community study replicate earlier findings that instructions including age cues influence estimates of age in earliest memories. Although snapshot and event memories seem to be qualitatively different, the idea that they respond differently to an age manipulation could not be corroborated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31150431
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217436
pii: PONE-D-19-03215
pmc: PMC6544230
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0217436Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017 May;8(4):355-362
pubmed: 28736600
Psychol Aging. 2013 Sep;28(3):646-53
pubmed: 23421324
Memory. 2007 Aug;15(6):647-63
pubmed: 17654279
Memory. 2016;24(5):592-602
pubmed: 25894806
J Pers. 2004 Oct;72(5):911-38
pubmed: 15335332
Dev Psychol. 2010 Sep;46(5):1049-61
pubmed: 20822222
Memory. 2017 Feb;25(2):146-163
pubmed: 27892833
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:469-98
pubmed: 17716079
Psychol Sci. 2015 May;26(5):559-69
pubmed: 25800521
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1999 Oct;47(4):320-45
pubmed: 10553313
Memory. 2009 Apr;17(3):279-87
pubmed: 19132605
Mem Cognit. 2006 Jan;34(1):138-47
pubmed: 16686113
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Dec;14(12):869-76
pubmed: 24169901
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Apr;23(2):640-7
pubmed: 26374437
Memory. 1999 May;7(3):257-78
pubmed: 10659077
Front Psychol. 2016 Jan 12;6:2038
pubmed: 26793149
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
pubmed: 17835457
Dev Psychol. 2014 Jun;50(6):1680-6
pubmed: 24588518
Mem Cognit. 2005 Jun;33(4):567-76
pubmed: 16248322
Memory. 2019 Jan;27(1):6-18
pubmed: 29092667
Memory. 2013;21(2):280-4
pubmed: 23075281
Memory. 2014;22(8):907-24
pubmed: 24236647
Memory. 2000 Nov;8(6):365-76
pubmed: 11145068
Memory. 2017 Oct;25(9):1303-1308
pubmed: 28276976