a b s t r a c tThe reminiscence bump has generally been assessed through either (1) the cue word method, or (2) several related methods which we refer to under the umbrella of the important memories method. Here we provide a review of the literature demonstrating that the temporal location of the bump varies systematically according to cueing method, with the mean range of the bump located from 8.7 to 22.5 years of age for word-cued memories, versus 15.1 to 27.9 for important memories. This finding has hitherto been underacknowledged, as existing theoretical accounts of the bump generally hold its location to be stable across cueing methods. We therefore re-evaluate existing theoretical accounts of the bump in light of these varying locations, addressing each account's consistency with (1) the respective bumps found through each method taken individually, and (2) the sensitivity of the bump's location to cueing method.

The present research explored the effect of selective remembering and the resulting "silences" on memory. In particular, we examined whether unmentioned information is more likely to be forgotten by a listener if related information is recollected by the speaker than if related information is not recollected by the speaker. In a modification of the retrieval-induced forgetting paradigm, pairs of individuals studied material, but in the practice phase, only one member of each pair selectively recalled it, while the other listened. Experiment 1 employed paired associates, and Experiment 2 used stories. Experiment 3 involved not controlled practice, but free-flowing conversation. In each case, results from a final memory test established not only within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting, but also socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. The results demonstrate that listening to a speaker remember selectively can induce forgetting of related information in the listener.

The study of collective memory has burgeoned in the last 20 years, so much so that one can even detect a growing resistance to what some view as the imperialistic march of memory studies across the social sciences (e.g., Berliner 2005;Fabian 1999). Yet despite its clear advance, one area that has remained on the sidelines is psychology. On the one hand, this disinterest is surprising, since memory is of central concern to psychologists. On the other hand, the relative absence of the study of collective memory within the discipline of psychology seems to suit both psychology and other disciplines of the social sciences, for reasons that will be made clear. This paper explores how psychology might step from the sidelines and contribute meaningfully to discussions of collective memory. It reviews aspects of the small literature on the psychology of collective memory and connects this work to the larger scholarly community's interest in collective memory. General Comments Contextualizing the Study of Collective MemoryWhy not has psychology figured prominently in discussions of collective memory? For those in social science fields other than psychology, the methodological individualism of Int

No abstract

The reminiscence bump has been found for both autobiographical memories and memories of public events. However, there have been few comparisons of the bump across each type of event. In the current study, therefore, we compared the bump for autobiographical memories versus the bump for memories of public events. We did so between-subjects, through two cueing methods administered within-subjects, the cue word method and the important memories method. For word-cued memories, we found a similar bump from ages 5 to 19 for both types of memories. However, the bump was more pronounced for autobiographical memories. For most important memories, we found a bump from ages 20 to 29 in autobiographical memory, but little discernible age pattern for public events. Rather, specific public events (e.g., the Fall of the Berlin Wall) dominated recall, producing a chronological distribution characterised by spikes in citations according to the years these events occurred. Follow-up analyses suggested that the bump in most important autobiographical memories was a function of the cultural life script. Our findings did not yield support for any of the dominant existing accounts of the bump as underlying the bump in word-cued memories.