Abstract:Young adults recalled and dated their five earliest memories, and dates compared with independent parental dates. Participants also provided information about how they derived dates through a "thinking aloud" procedure. All participants were also asked if they had experienced various landmark events when young.One group, the Priming cohort, was asked about potential landmark events prior to memory retrieval while the other group, the No Priming cohort, was asked after memory retrieval. The most frequently used… Show more
“…A large literature demonstrates that people in general are poor at dating their memories, regardless of from which time period in their lives they are retrieving memories (Brewer, 1988; Friedman, 2004; Thompson et al, 1996; Zwartz & Sharman, 2013). Of course, some memories are dated accurately because they have known dates (e.g., birth of a sibling, graduating from high school, starting a new job), and others can be dated by using landmark events with known dates as reference points (Arbuthnott & Brown, 2009; Loftus & Marburger, 1983; Peterson et al, 2022; Sahin-Acar & Gülgöz, 2020; Zwartz & Sharman, 2013). But dating errors are common for many other memories.…”
Bauer (2023) has provided a timely reminder that psychological research findings must be able to be generalized beyond the samples, stimuli, and paradigms used. In this commentary, I illustrate how research in childhood amnesia falls short. Using Bauer's terminology, there are serious gremlins in this research area. Although we often use nonrepresentative samples and a broad-brush approach which does not account for variation within participant groups, progress is being made. But there are serious issues in terms of methodology. The task that has been widely used is to ask individuals to describe their (single) earliest memory. But simple variations in how people are asked for their earliest memory often lead to much earlier memories. Furthermore, researchers have almost always taken participants' identified age at the time of their first memory at face value. But these age estimates seem to be vulnerable to consistent errors. As a consequence, the long-standing belief of when earliest memories begin may be wrong, and memories may be much earlier than prior research suggests.
“…A large literature demonstrates that people in general are poor at dating their memories, regardless of from which time period in their lives they are retrieving memories (Brewer, 1988; Friedman, 2004; Thompson et al, 1996; Zwartz & Sharman, 2013). Of course, some memories are dated accurately because they have known dates (e.g., birth of a sibling, graduating from high school, starting a new job), and others can be dated by using landmark events with known dates as reference points (Arbuthnott & Brown, 2009; Loftus & Marburger, 1983; Peterson et al, 2022; Sahin-Acar & Gülgöz, 2020; Zwartz & Sharman, 2013). But dating errors are common for many other memories.…”
Bauer (2023) has provided a timely reminder that psychological research findings must be able to be generalized beyond the samples, stimuli, and paradigms used. In this commentary, I illustrate how research in childhood amnesia falls short. Using Bauer's terminology, there are serious gremlins in this research area. Although we often use nonrepresentative samples and a broad-brush approach which does not account for variation within participant groups, progress is being made. But there are serious issues in terms of methodology. The task that has been widely used is to ask individuals to describe their (single) earliest memory. But simple variations in how people are asked for their earliest memory often lead to much earlier memories. Furthermore, researchers have almost always taken participants' identified age at the time of their first memory at face value. But these age estimates seem to be vulnerable to consistent errors. As a consequence, the long-standing belief of when earliest memories begin may be wrong, and memories may be much earlier than prior research suggests.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.