Why does the adolescence bump differ from the emergent adulthood bump in autobiographical memories?

Abstract

We applaud Jonathan Koppel and Dorthe Berntsen for picking up a neglected finding (Rubin & Schulkind, 1997) on different temporal locations of the reminiscence bump depending on the kind of instructions used, providing empirical support by reviewing the evidence which has accumulated in the meantime. The reminiscence bump is one of the most stable findings on autobiographical memory in adults over age 40 (Rubin, Wetzler, & Nebes, 1986). The bump is relatively small compared to the recency effect when memories are elicited by cue-words, but rather large when memories that are significant for one's life or the self are elicited. In addition, cued recall produces a slightly earlier bump in adolescence compared to instructions asking for important memories, which lead to a bump in emerging adulthood. Despite the variation between studies, the trend is convincing and poses interesting questions. The authors discuss the explanatory power of five approaches to the bump. They basically conclude that none explains the different timing of the two bumps. However the authors advocate the life script as the best account, because it is contradicted least by the findings by virtue of not making any claims about encoding factors.We contribute three arguments, couching them in terms of theoretical elements needed to explain the differences in the temporal location of the bump. First we underline the need to model how differing instructions evoke different retrieval paths. Second we discuss the principal theoretical elements that need to be involved in a satisfactory explanation. Third we suggest ideas for explaining the adolescence bump produced by cue word-elicited memories

Beyond the distinction between word-cued versus important autobiographical memories: A reply.

“…Habermas et al (2015) specifically focus on our claims about the bump for important memories. They argue that this bump is best understood in terms of their account based on the life story schema, which shares many features with the life story account (Glück & Bluck, 2007) discussed in our article.…”

“…Second, it has difficulties explaining other cue-dependent variations in characteristics of the bump (some of which we do not discuss in our article), such as the absence of a bump when memories are retrieved in response to a request for negative events (Berntsen & Rubin, 2002; Rubin & Berntsen, 2003), and the apparently earlier bumps for odor-cued and vivid memories, which we return to later. Thus, like the life story account (Glück & Bluck, 2007), Habermas et al’s (2015) account is ill-suited for explaining how the bump can be moved (or removed) by varying the nature of the cues.…”

“…Another respect in which Habermas et al (2015) pick up on our discussion about the individual bumps for word-cued and important memories, and wherein they focus more on our contentions regarding the weaknesses of current accounts in explaining the bump in word-cued memories, is by putting forth a goal-based account of each bump. They suggest that, whereas conscious life goals are formed in adolescence and help structure the intentional recollection of important memories, implicit motives are formed in childhood and play a role in the more automatic process of which past events come to mind in association to external stimuli, such as word cues (Woike, 2008).…”

“…

We thank Habermas, Hatiboglu, and Köber (2015), Janssen Rubin (2015) for their thoughtful commentaries on our target article (Koppel & Berntsen, 2015). We would like to use this reply to follow up and elaborate upon a few of the points they raise, concerning, specifically, (1) the reminiscence bump in word-cued versus important memories, (2) the reminiscence bump outside of autobiographical memory, and (3) other effects of cueing on the temporal location of the bump in autobiographical memory.

…”

Recalling youth: Control over reminiscence bump events predicts life satisfaction in midlife.

“…Our postulate that perceived control over bump events may be uniquely related to the fact that how satisfied individuals feel with their lives is based on prior research concerning characteristics of the bump. There is evidence that compared with events from other past periods, reminiscence bump events are central to identity (for a review, see Habermas et al, 2015) and more likely to be normative milestones that follow societal life scripts (Berntsen & Rubin, 2002). Bump events are also self-rated as more biographically meaningful (Demiray et al, 2009) and identity relevant (Rathbone et al, 2008) than other past events, and stimuli from the bump years are judged as more desirable (Ju et al, 2016).…”