Child Development, November/December 2018, Volume 89, Number 6, Pages e520–e534

Childhood in Children: A Prospective Study Across Eight Years

Carole Peterson, Darcy Hallett, and Cassy Compton-Gillingham Memorial University of Newfoundland

This was a prospective study of earliest across 8 years for 37 children who were of age 4–9 years initially. In three interviews (initial and after 2 and 8 years) children provided their three earliest memories; those from earlier interviews that were not spontaneously provided later were cued. There was little consis- tency in the earliest or overlap across interviews in spontaneous memories. The youngest group also forgot over half their initial memories although few were forgotten by older children. For consistency of con- tent, 25%–32% of information by former 6- to 9-year-olds was the same after 8 years, but < 10% provided by the youngest children was the same and 22% was contradictory. Emotion and contextual coherence predicted memory retention.

Childhood amnesia (also called infantile amnesia) is prospectively studying childhood amnesia in chil- the absence or scarcity of memories from very early dren over an 8-year span. Our goals were fourfold: (a) life. The very earliest memories that adults typi- Was there consistency in which memory was identi- cally date from 3 to 4 years of age (Dudycha & Dudy- fied as the earliest? (b) How well did children recall cha, 1941; Rubin, 2000; but see Wang & Peterson, the small group of memories that they had identified 2014, 2016 for evidence that systematic misdating as their earliest three in interviews that took place at may distort estimates of age at earliest memory such ages 4–9 when they were reinterviewed 8 years later? that people’s earliest memories may actually be ear- (c) For memories generated in prior interviews, how lier). Adults continue to recall few memories that pre- consistent was their content after so many years? (d) date around age 7 (Bauer, 2014, 2015; Rubin, 2000). Could we predict which memories would be retained The importance of these very early memories is high- versus forgotten? lighted in theories of childhood amnesia (Pillemer & White, 1989), autobiographical Long-Term Recall of Early Memories (e.g., Bauer, 2014; Nelson & Fivush, 2004), and in dis- cussions of the development of a continuous sense of It is clear that children can recall at least some (e.g., Bluck & Alea, 2008; Habermas & Kober,€ events that happened when they were preschool 2014). aged for long periods of time, such as hurricanes Recently, a small body of research has begun after 6 years (Fivush, Sales, Goldberg, Bahrick, & exploring childhood amnesia in children, too (for Parker, 2004) and injuries requiring medical treat- reviews, see Bauer, 2014, 2015). Much has been ment after both 5 years (Peterson & Whalen, 2001) learned through cross-sectional research about and 10 years (Peterson, 2015; see Peterson, 2012 for a patterns of childhood amnesia in children of differ- review of the child-injury literature). These events, ent ages. However, little research has explored earli- however, were highly emotional and stressful, prop- est memories in the same children across several erties that foster long-term retention (Peterson, 2002). years. The present study addressed this gap by Thus, they are likely to be among the most memo- rable events that children ever experience. In terms of more mundane events, most (or all) of the memo- Preparation of this article was primarily supported by the Nat- ries from those very early years are forgotten or inac- ural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant 513-02 to Carole Peterson. We extend our thanks to the Janeway cessible. Prospective studies in which older children Hospital and their Emergency Room staff for allowing us to con- were reinterviewed about parent-suggested target tact families and collect this data set, as well as to all the recrui- events experienced when children were preschoolers ters, interviewers, transcribers, and data analyzers who participated. We also thank Penny Voutier for myriad helpful- showed considerable with increasing child ness. Most of all we thank the children and their parents who participated. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to © 2017 The Authors Carole Peterson, Department of Psychology, Memorial University Child Development © 2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, A1B 3X9, Canada. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2018/8906-0034 Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected]. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12972 Childhood Amnesia in Children e521 age (Cleveland & Reese, 2008). Age 7 seems to be a showed more stability in memory (see Bauer, Tas- boundary for childhood amnesia, with children older demir-Ozdes, & Larkina, 2014; Josselson, 2000 for than 7 years forgetting substantially more about pre- evidence of high consistency in identified earliest school events than those younger than age 7 (Bauer memories in adults). & Larkina, 2014; Van Abbema & Bauer, 2005). One goal of the present research was to follow some One typical method of studying childhood amne- of the same children for a much longer period of time, sia asks individuals to identify their earliest mem- that is, 8 years. A strength is that some of the children ory. This was done successfully with both were clearly below the typically described boundary of adolescents (Jack, MacDonald, Reese, & Hayne, childhood amnesia (age 7) at the time of their first inter- 2009; Peterson, Grant, & Boland, 2005; Reese, Jack, views (age 4–5 years initially), and when reinterviewed & White, 2010; Tustin & Hayne, 2010) and younger 2 years later, they were still near this boundary. In con- children (Peterson, Wang, & Hou, 2009; Peterson trast, other children were age 8–9 years initially and et al., 2005). Such a procedure elicits self-selected thus above this boundary from the beginning. An inter- memories that have salience for the child and mediate group was 6–7 years initially. Thus, 8-year include a wide range of content and emotions. maintenance of earliest memories in these three groups In an early study by our laboratory (Peterson could be compared. In addition, almost all children et al., 2005), children and adolescents were asked provided new early memories during their 2-year for their three earliest memories, and in a 2-year follow-up interview, and the fate of these memories follow-up (Peterson, Warren, & Short, 2011), those could be tracked 6 years later. who had been between 4 and 13 years old in the initial interview were again asked for their three Consistency of Content earliest memories as well as cued about any for- merly mentioned early memories that were not Children can be surprisingly consistent over time spontaneously recalled. (They were also given foils in some types of memory reports. For example, 3- about plausible but false events, which children to 5-year-olds provided similar information about a uniformly rejected.) Both the children themselves stressful injury requiring emergency room treat- and, in most cases, parents provided estimates for ment when reinterviewed after 2 years (Peterson, children’s age at the time of their memories, and 2011), 5 years (Peterson & Whalen, 2001), and parental estimates of children’s age were used if 10 years (Peterson, 2015). Van Abbema and Bauer available. Using parental estimates of age to iden- (2005) found that 7- to 9-year-olds recalled similar tify children’s very earliest memory among the set amounts of information about events that had been of memories they recalled, only 7% of 4- to 5-year- discussed with their mothers at age 3 for those olds and 13% of 6- to 7-year-olds provided the events that they still remembered. However, little same earliest memory in both interviews, whereas is known about the consistency of earliest memo- 39% of the 12- to 13-year-olds did so. When all ries across many years. Bauer et al. (2014) found three of the early memories provided by children in that adults provided the same amount of content both interviews were considered, fully 85% of chil- information for the same memories across 4 years, dren who had been 4- to 5-year-olds, and 78% of 6- although only just over half of the information to 7-year-olds at the time of the initial interview (52%–55%) was the same across interviews. In the spontaneously provided three totally different early only extant prospective study on similarity of con- memories 2 years later. In contrast, only approxi- tent for earliest memories of children, we also found mately 43% of the 8- to 13-year-olds had no overlap that children provided the same amount of content in their three earliest spontaneous memories. across a 2-year delay (Peterson et al., 2011) as did In terms of the proportion of all originally pro- adults described in Bauer et al. As well, former 8- vided early memories that children were able to to 13-year-olds had the same degree of overlap in recall 2 years later, whether remembered sponta- specific content (52%–56%), whereas former 4- to neously or cued, former 4- to 5-year-olds only 7-year-olds were less consistent, with 35%–37% remembered 48% of them. In contrast, former 8- to overlap. 9-year-olds recalled 88% of them and 12- to 13- year-olds recalled all but one memory. Thus, there Predictors of Memory Maintenance is considerable developmental change for younger children in terms of the memories that are identi- Why some very early memories are maintained fied as their earliest as well as their ability to recall and others are not is an important question, and those memories at all. In contrast, older children several potential explanations have been proposed. e522 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

These include the presence of emotion (Howes, Sie- The Current Study gel, & Brown, 1993; Mullen, 1994; Saunders & Nor- cross, 1988), event uniqueness (Howe, 1997; Nelson This was an extension of our 2-year follow-up & Fivush, 2004), and presence of reminders like studies (Peterson et al., 2011, 2014): It assessed chil- photographs or family discussion (Nelson & Fivush, dren’s self-identified earliest memories prospec- 2004). Recently, some researchers have emphasized tively over 8 years. Children who had been ages the quality of memory narratives, suggesting that 4–9 years at the time of initial interviews and rein- higher quality memory reports are likely to reflect terviewed after 2 years were reinterviewed again how well the event was initially encoded. In partic- after 8 years. At all three time points, children were ular, narrative coherence, defined as how well a asked for their three earliest memories; at follow-up memory narrative is structured and elaborated, has interviews, they were also given brief cues to mem- been deemed a conceptually critical property ories provided earlier but omitted in the follow-up (Fivush, Haden, & Adam, 1995; Morris, Baker- (along with foils about false memories—see Peter- Ward, & Bauer, 2010). son et al., 2011). Specifically, children provided new One measure of narrative coherence is the number memories at their first interview 8 years earlier. of traditional narrative components in the memory These memories are Memory Set A. In Interview 2, report (i.e., who, what, when, where, how, and why), 6 years earlier, they could recall the same memories termed narrative breadth (Bauer, Burch, Scholin, & and/or provide additional new memories. Almost Guler,€ 2007; Bauer & Larkina, 2014). Also, Reese all children provided at least one new memory, and et al. (2011) recently published a coding scheme that these new memories constitute Memory Set B. In evaluates three independent dimensions of coher- Interview 3, children could recall memories that ence (NaCCs—Narrative Coherence Coding Scheme: were previously recalled in one or both prior inter- theme, chronology, and context). Morris et al. (2010) views, or were new. Thus, we tracked children’s were able to apply the NaCCs to 5- to 9-year-olds’ recall of memories across both 8 years (Memory Set recall of parent-nominated events discussed with an A) and 6 years (Memory Set B). In addition, we experimenter a year earlier, and they found that the- compared what children said about the recalled matic coherence (defined as the extent to which there events in different interviews. Finally, potential pre- was a clear focus) predicted memory survivability, dictors of long-term memory maintenance were but chronological coherence (defined as the extent to assessed. In keeping with earlier findings (Peterson which the events in the memory could be put on a et al., 2011, 2014), we hypothesized that the young- timeline by the listener) did not. Although the est children would be unlikely to identify the same NaCCs also codes for contextual coherence (defined memory as their earliest, would have forgotten as the extent to which the narrative includes informa- more memories over time, and would be more tion that orients in both time and place), Morris et al. inconsistent in memory content in comparison with (2010) were unable to assess this. older children. We also anticipated that the pres- Most research exploring dimensions purported to ence of emotion and all indicators of coherence increase memory survivability is hampered by would predict long-term memory maintenance. being cross-sectional in design. But a cross-sectional study can only describe the properties of those memories that are actually maintained; it cannot Method compare the properties of memories that are Participants retained with those of memories that are lost. Such a longitudinal comparison was done in our labora- There were 37 participants, divided into three tory (Peterson, Morris, Baker-Ward, & Flynn, 2014). age groups. For clarity, throughout this article the Children were asked for their earliest memories ages given are those at the time of the initial inter- 2 years apart, and properties of those memories that view, even though children are 8 years older when survived were compared with those of memories the final interview was conducted. There were thir- = that did not. We found that event uniqueness, type teen 4- to 5-year-olds (7 girls [53.8%]; Mage 60.5 of event, presence of reminders, or report length months old, SD = 6.7 months), twelve 6- to 7-year- = = did not differentiate memories that were maintained olds (3 girls [25%]; Mage 82.5 months, SD 8.3 versus lost. However, the presence of emotion as months), and twelve 8- to 9-year-olds (5 girls = = well as all three indices of NaCCs coherence (theme, [41.7%]; Mage 107.3 months, SD 5.8 months). chronology, and context) increased retention 2 years This sample consisted of all of the 4- to 9-year-old later. (at initial interview) participants from Peterson Childhood Amnesia in Children e523 et al. (2011, 2014) who were still able to be con- Data Coding tacted and agreed to participate. Participants were Long-Term Recall mostly Canadians of European descent; they had been recruited from the emergency room of the Memories in later interviews were deemed the only children’s hospital in their community as part same as those in earlier interviews if they were of another study (Peterson, 2011, 2012). Because about the same topic and included the same or sim- health care is free in Canada, they were a cross-sec- ilar content. Three aspects were coded: (a) whether tion of the community in terms of socioeconomic or not the child and/or parent identified the same status. Data were collected between May 2000 and memory as their very earliest in compared inter- March 2012. views, both spontaneously and after cueing; (b) the proportion of overlap between the spontaneous memories provided in the final interview and the Procedure spontaneous memories in both Interview 1 (Set A) Children were visited in their homes three times: and Interview 2 (Set A and/or B); and (c) the pro- = initially, after 2 years (Mdelay 29.0 months, portion of overlap between all memories provided = = SD 5.3 months), and after 8 years (Mdelay 99.2 in the last interview, whether spontaneous or cued, months, SD = 13.7 months). When initially visited, and all memories provided in Interviews 1 or 2. after signed consent by parents and assent by chil- dren, children were given the prompt “I want you Consistency of Content think way back and tell me the first thing you ever remember, something that happened when you were Content was scored the same way as in Peterson really little.” They were prompted for more informa- et al. (2011). Memories in later interviews that were tion by asking “What else do you remember about the same as those in the first interview were scored that?” and then probed for more detail. Children for information about persons, event actions, loca- were then asked for their next two earliest memories tions, objects, and descriptions. Then each item of in the same way (see Peterson et al., 2005 for more content in later interviews was compared with that detail on procedure). The same procedures were fol- in earlier interviews and classified as the same, lowed at the beginning of the 2- and 8-year follow- new, or contradictory information. up visits. After children were asked for their earliest three memories in the 2-year visit, they were given Predictors of Memory Maintenance short prompts about any of their prior memories that they had not provided spontaneously to see if the The four predictors assessed in Peterson et al. children still recalled them, as well as given three (2014), namely emotion and the three types of foils about false events. More information was coherence coded by NaCCs (context, chronology, prompted about any recalled memories. In the final and theme) were coded here the same way as there. 8-year follow-up, children could potentially have In addition, memory breadth, length in terms of provided as many as six memories in their prior two word count, and whether or not a Set A memory visits (three per visit), if they had no overlap during had been recalled at the 2-year follow-up were also the prior interviews in the three memories they spon- investigated to see if they predicted memory main- taneously provided. They were given brief cues tenance after 8 years. about all of the memories that had been provided in either prior interview and which they had not spon- 1. Emotion: Memories were categorized as to taneously described at the beginning of the visit, whether they contained at least one explicit ref- along with six foils about false events. At all inter- erence to an emotion or affective state (e.g., views, children were also asked to date their memo- mad, happy, excited, cried). ries, and parents were asked to date them at the time 2. Thematic coherence (from NaCCs—see Reese of first recall. Comparisons of child versus parent et al., 2011): This indicated the degree to which memory dating after 2 and 8 years were the focus of there was a clearly developed focus to the nar- separate reports (Wang & Peterson, 2014, 2016) and rative, from minimally developed (coded as 0) will not be considered here. All aspects of the project to substantially developed events that included were approved by the Interdisciplinary Committee elaborations, interpretations, or causal links on Ethics in Human Research, ICEHR Approval (coded as 3). # 40002168-SC, Project Title: Children’s Earliest 3. Chronological coherence (from NaCCs): This Memories. assessed whether the event of the narrative e524 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

4-5-year-olds (N = 13) 6-7-Year-Olds (N = 12) Set A Set B Set A Set B Total Total I-1 28 I-1 I-1 33 I-1

Recalled Not Total Recalled Not Total I-2 16 12 I-2 29 I-2 28 5 I-2 32

Not Now Not Recalled Not Now Not Not I-3 Recalled Recalled I-3 Recalled Not I-3 Recalled I-3 Recalled 11 5 2 10 21 8 22 6 3 2 29 3

8-9-Year-Olds (N = 12) All Children (N = 37) Set A Set B Set A Set B Total Total I-1 34 I-1 I-1 95 I-1

Recalled Not Total Recalled Not Total I-2 32 2 I-2 27 I-2 76 19 I-2 88

Not Now Not Recalled Not Now Not Not I-3 Recalled Recalled I-3 Recalled Not I-3 Recalled I-3 Recalled 29 3 1 1 23 4 62 14 6 13 73 15

Figure 1. Pattern of remembering and forgetting across all three interviews, for all children combined. Note. I indicates which interview (1, 2, or 3); not = “not recalled”; “now recalled” = recalled at Interview 3 although not recalled at Inter- view 2. Set A memories were produced at the initial interview, and Set B memories were new ones produced at the 2-year follow-up. All ages are children’s age at Interview 1.

could be placed on a timeline by a listener, interviews, .84 for memory content coding, .97 for ranging from 0 (no temporal ordering) to 3 presence of emotion, and .88 for breadth. For cod- (75% or more of the actions were sequenced). ing coherence, two coders independently rated each 4. Context coherence (from NaCCs): Memories were dimension of coherence and intraclass correlations coded for the degree of inclusion (coded from 0 to were .85 for context coherence, .82 for chronological 3) of information that orients the memory in both coherence, and .77 for thematic coherence. time and place, with 0 assigned to those that con- tained none of this information and 3 assigned when specific information about both time and Results location were provided (“It happened in my Nana’s backyard when I was three.”) To best understand the data, we first describe the 5. Breadth: Memories were coded for the pres- survival pattern of the memories. Figure 1 depicts ence of the following types of information: the number of memories reported at the first inter- who, what object, what action, when, where, view and how many of those memories were why, how-description, and how-evaluation recalled at the second and third interviews (Set A (see Bauer et al., 2007, 2014). memories). It also depicts how many new memo- 6. Length: The number of words in the memory ries were reported at the second interview, and at the time of its first recall. how many of those were subsequently recalled at 7. For Set A memories only—whether a memory the third interview (Set B). Furthermore, it provides was recalled at Time 2. this information for each separate age group and for all the age groups combined. As can be seen from Figure 1, there were a total of 95 memories Reliability that were originally recalled at the first interview Approximately 24% of the transcripts (three from included in this data set (Set A) and 88 new memo- each age group) were randomly selected for calcu- ries first provided in the second interview (Set B). lating reliability. Interrater reliability (Cohen’s These constituted the total number of memories kappa) was .93 for identifying a memory as provided at the first two interviews by the 37 chil- describing the same event between two different dren who were interviewed at all three interviews. Childhood Amnesia in Children e525

Table 1 interview as their earliest according to their own Mean (and SD) Number of Memories Per Child Across Age Group estimates of age at the time of the event and which and Interview specific memory was identified as the earliest Age group according to parental estimates of age that were collected at the time the children originally pro- 4- to 6- to 8- to vided the memory. We had parental judgments of 5-year- 7-year- 9-year- age for 77% of the 4- to 5-year-olds, 92% of the 6- olds olds olds to 7-year-olds, and 92% of the 8- to 9-year-olds, and Interview M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) if there was no parental age estimate available, the ’ Set A: Memories children s estimates were necessarily used. Table 2 Reported at Interview 1 2.2 (0.8) 2.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.4) depicts the fate of the earliest memory children had Recalled at Interview 2 1.2 (0.9) 2.3 (0.7) 2.7 (0.5) produced in their initial interview when reinter- Recalled at Interview 3 1.0 (0.8) 2.1 (0.8) 2.5 (0.7) viewed 8 years later: still recalled either sponta- Set B: Memories neously or through cueing and still dated as the Reported at Interview 2 2.2 (0.7) 2.7 (0.5) 2.3 (0.5) earliest, still recalled either spontaneously or Recalled at Interview 3 1.6 (0.8) 2.4 (0.7) 1.9 (0.7) through cueing but now dated later than another memory, unable to be dated, or forgotten. There are Note. This table reports mean number of memories recalled per child both when they are first reported (at Interview 1 for Set A two sets of data in Table 2. We show the data and at Interview 2 for Set B) and when they are recalled at any according to children’s own dating of their memo- later interview. ries because this procedure was used in all research with adults, and more particularly, in Bauer et al.’s (2014) investigation of dating consistency of first Figure 1 depicts the data at the memory level memories in adults over time. We also show the but not at the child level, which is better character- data according to parental dating of the memories ized by the average number of memories per partic- because this procedure was used in all our previous ipant. The means (and standard deviations) of the reports, and more particularly in Peterson et al.’s number of memories per child are provided in (2011) assessment of dating consistency of first Table 1. memories in children over time. Thus, comparison The analyses were organized in three sections. with both bodies of research is possible. The first set of analyses explored the characteristics Regardless of who dated the memories, we of the set of memories across age groups, including found very little consistency in spontaneously pro- consistency of earliest memory, overlap of memo- vided earliest memories. Only two children in the ries, and the differences in recall rates. The second set of analyses investigated memory content, specif- ically the information in the memories and the Table 2 degree to which this information was consistent Long-Term Fate of Children’s Earliest Memory at Their Initial Inter- across the interviews for each age group. The last view When Reinterviewed 8 Years Later: Age Estimates Provided by set of analyses tested which properties of these Child (C) and Parent (P) memories predicted their later recall. In some analy- Age group in years ses, specifically those in which data were summed across memories for each individual child, different 4–56–78–9 children provided different numbers of memories and thus scores were averaged across memories. In Status of earliest memory CPCPCP other analyses, individual memories rather than Same memory spontaneously, 002233 children were assessed. and still earliest Recalled when cued, 450235 and still earliest Characteristics of the Memory Set Recalled spontaneously, 001100 but dated later than another The Earliest Memory Recalled when cued, 322132 Was there similarity in children’s very earliest but dated later than another memory across interviews? We used two vectors to Recalled when cued, 004310 explore this: We identified which specific memory but age unknown Forgotten 663322 was identified by the children themselves in each e526 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

6- to 7-year group and three in the 8- to 9-year were remembered, one needs to consider what chil- group spontaneously recalled the same earliest dren recalled both spontaneously and after cueing. memory in all their interviews. None of the former 4- to 5-year-olds did so. When cued, a number of Recall Rates the children not only recalled the same earliest memory, seven of them also still dated it as their The pattern of memory recall is shown in Fig- earliest; in contrast, parents identified 12 of these ure 1. The 4- to 5-year-olds had initially recalled 28 cued memories as the children’s earliest. In addi- early memories, but only 16 (57.1%) of these memo- tion, some memories that had been children’s earli- ries were still recalled 2 years later and 13 (46.4%) est in their initial interview were also forgotten. For of them 8 years later (with two memories that were the youngest group, almost half of the children no not recalled in Interview 2 remembered again in longer recalled that earliest memory, even after cue- Interview 3). For the 6- to 7-year-olds, fully 28 ing. As well, three in the middle group and two in (87.5%) of their initial 32 memories were recalled the oldest group also forgot that memory. 2 years later, and 25 (78.1%) were still recalled The analyses above did not address the question 8 years later (with 3 memories that had not been of what were the ages of the earliest memories and recalled after 2 years remembered again after how those ages changed over time and between 8 years). Similar to the 6- to 7-year-olds, the 8- to 9- age groups. Such an analysis, with these same par- year-olds recalled 32 (94%) of their initial 34 memo- ticipants, was the focus of a separate report (Wang ries 2 years later and still recalled 30 (88.2%) of & Peterson, 2016). them 8 years later. When all of the memories that were queried at Interview 3 (i.e., 95 memories from Set A and 88 memories from Set B) are considered, Overlap of All Memories the youngest group recalled only 59.6% of them, Although the majority of children were able to whereas the intermediate and oldest groups recall at least some of the same memories 8 years recalled 83.1% and 86.9% of them, respectively. later as they had in their initial interview (Set A), To test if these values were statistically signifi- some did not. For the youngest group, five children cant from each other, we conducted a logistic multi- (38.5%) had no recall of any of the early memories level model. Because this analysis compared the they had produced in Interview 1; for the interme- number of memories recalled, and because some of diate group, only one child (8.3%) had no recall of these memories were recalled by the same person any Set A memories, whereas all of the oldest chil- (and some were not), a multilevel model was dren recalled at least one memory from 8 years pre- needed to control for the person level dependency viously. In terms of children’s recall of those new of these memories. The multilevel model also memories generated 6 years previously in Interview included whether or not the memory was from Set 2 (Set B), two former 4- to 5-year-olds (15.4%) had A or Set B in order to control for any difference no recollection of any Set B memory, whereas all of from being 2 years older when first recalling the the children in the two older age groups could memory. We found that the former 4- to 5-year-olds recall at least one memory from 6 years previously. were significantly less likely to recall a memory When children in Interview 3 were asked for their than the two older age groups, who did not differ three spontaneously provided earliest memories, from each other (see Table 3). Although suggestive there was little overlap between interviews. The per- as a general pattern, it is possible that this finding centage of Set A memories that children sponta- was not the same for both Set A memories and Set neously provided were 0%, 18%, and 21% for the B memories. Looking at the Set A memories first, youngest, middle, and oldest age groups, respec- the former 4- to 5-year-olds recalled only 46.4% of tively. Likewise, the percentage of Set B memories them, whereas the former 6- to 7- and 8- to 9-year- that children spontaneously provided was also low, olds recalled 75.8% and 88.2%, respectively. For Set although higher than the overlap for Set A memories: B memories, the former 4- to 5-year-olds recalled the overlap was 14%, 36%, and 29% for the youngest, 72.4% of these memories, whereas the former 6- to middle, and oldest age groups, respectively. Thus, 7- and 8- to 9-year-olds recalled 90.6% and 85.2%, when children provided their spontaneously self- respectively. Thus, the difference between the selected three earliest memories in their last youngest age group and the two older age groups interview, most of them were novel. But this does seemed to be stronger in Set A memories than Set not mean that those earlier memories were actually B memories. To test this possibility, we ran separate forgotten. To assess whether or not prior memories logistic multilevel models testing the effect of age Childhood Amnesia in Children e527

Table 3 interviews for Set A memories (top half) and Set B Logistic Multilevel Models Examining Differences Between Age memories (lower half). The extent to which children Groups on Recalling Memories Controlling for Whether Memory Is provided the same overall amount of information From Set A or B across the different interviews was analyzed. To do Variable Odds ratio 95% CI p so, we restricted our sample to the 62 memories in Set A that were recalled at all interviews. Because All memories not all participants had memories that were recalled Age group at each interview, the number of participants was Intercept 3.90 [1.67, 9.10] .002* reduced to 31. The first analysis examined whether 4- to 5-year-olds versus 3.86 [1.37, 10.84] .010* the amount of information per memory changed 6- to 7-year-olds over time and whether or not this varied by age 4- to 5-year-olds versus 5.42 [1.81, 16.21] .002* group. To test for differences in Set A memories, a 8- to 9-year-olds 9 6- to 7-year-olds versus 1.40 [0.45, 4.37] .558 Group (3 ages) Interview (3 interviews: initial, 2- 8- to 9-year-olds year follow-up, and 8-year follow-up) analysis of Memory set 2.27 [1.04, 4.97] .040* variance (ANOVA) was calculated, with interview Set A: Memories only as a repeated measure. Interview was not signifi- Intercept 0.87 [0.41, 1.82] .706 cant, either alone or in interaction with group. 4- to 5-year-olds versus 3.61 [1.21, 10.71] .021* However, the age groups differed, F(2, 28) = 7.02, 6- to 7-year-olds = 2 = p .003, gp .334. Using post hoc analyses, we 4- to 5-year-olds versus 8.65 [2.40, 31.14] .001* found that the youngest age group provided signifi- 8- to 9-year-olds cantly fewer pieces of information per memory than 6- to 7-year-olds versus 2.40 [0.65, 8.92] .191 the oldest age group, whereas the middle-aged 8- to 9-year-olds group did not significantly differ from either group. Set B: Memories only 9 Intercept 3.19 [0.98, 10.42] .056 For Set B memories, a parallel Group (3) Inter- 4- to 5-year-olds versus 4.21 [0.73, 24.22] .108 view (2 interviews: 2- and 8-year follow-ups) 6- to 7-year-olds ANOVA was calculated, with interview as a 4- to 5-year-olds versus 2.39 [0.46, 12.39] .299 repeated measure. For these memories, there was 8- to 9-year-olds no effect of age group, interview, or the interaction 6- to 7-year-olds versus 0.57 [0.09, 3.61] .550 between them. 8- to 9-year-olds

Note. The default comparison age group was the 4- to 5-year- Table 4 olds, whereas the comparison group for memory set is Set A. To Mean (and SD) Amount of Information Provided About the Same generate the contrasts between the two older age groups, the Memories, Averaged Per Memory: For Set A Memories, Amount of models were run again with the comparison group changed. Information at Interview 1, Interview 2, and Interview 3, and for Set *p < .05. B Memories, Amount of Information at Interview 2 and Interview 3

Amount of information group for each memory set. The results of these Number of analyses are shown in the bottom of Table 3. Over- Age children Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3 all, we found that the youngest age group recalled significantly fewer memories than the two oldest Set A: Memories – a age groups for Set A memories, but the age groups 4 585.93 (1.61) 4.93 (3.09) 6.12 (3.30) – b did not differ for the Set B memories. 6 711 6.33 (4.55) 7.15 (3.19) 9.09 (4.86) 8–9 12 9.20 (3.61) 9.43 (2.05) 11.68 (4.86) Set B: Memories Memory Content 4–511c — 9.97 (2.94) 7.84 (5.77) 6–712 — 8.62 (3.10) 10.94 (4.95) The next set of analyses investigated whether the 8–912 — 11.36 (3.88) 12.30 (6.02) information contained in the memories was differ- ent across age groups or over time. Memories were Note. Set A memories were produced at Time 1. Set B memories coded for how much overall information they con- were new memories produced at Time 2. The amount of infor- mation at each time period for each child is divided by the num- tained. Furthermore, they were also coded for how ber of memories recalled by that child. much of the information was the same, new, or aFive children had no recall of Set A memories. The data only contradictory compared to what was said previ- include children who remembered at least one Set A memory at all three interviews. bOne child had no recall of any Set A memo- ously about that memory. Table 4 shows the ries at Time 2 or Time 3. cTwo children had no recall of any Set amount of information provided across different B memories at Time 3. e528 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

The next set of analyses examined the extent to significantly less overlap of same information than which the information within each memory from the oldest group. For the percentage overlap of new one interview to the next was either the same, new, information, there was a significant effect of com- = = 2 = or contradictory. These data are presented in parison, F(1, 28) 11.45, p .002, gp .290, where Table 5. For each comparison between interviews, there was a higher percentage of new information Table 5 lists the mean number of pieces of informa- provided between Interview 1 and Interview 3 than tion per memory that is either the same, new, or there was between Interview 2 and Interview 3. contradictory as well as the percentage prevalence There was no effect for group and no interaction. of same, new, or contradictory information. Fur- Finally, for the contradictory information, there was thermore, this information is broken down by age a significant effect of comparison, F(1, 28) = 4.19, = 2 = fi group. To test if there were any differences in the p .050, gp .130 and no signi cant effect for consistency of information in Set A memories from group, but there was a significant interaction = = 2 = Interview 1 to Interview 2 compared to Interview 1 between them, F(2, 28) 4.72, p .017, gp .252. versus Interview 3, a series of 3 (group) 9 2 (com- Using simple main effects analyses, we demon- parison) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were con- strated that although there was no group effect ducted, with comparison as the within factor, on when comparing Interview 1 to Interview 2, there the percentage overlap in same, new, and contra- was a significant group effect when comparing dictory information. For the overlap of the same Interview 1 to Interview 3, F(2, 28) = 4.04, p = .029, fi 2 = information, there was a signi cant effect of com- gp .224. In this case, 4- to 5-year-olds had a sig- = < 2 = fi parison, F(1, 28) 25.23, p .0005, gp .474, and ni cantly higher percentage of contradictory infor- no effect of group, but there was a significant inter- mation than did the 6- to 7-year-olds and nearly = = 2 = fi action, F(2, 28) 4.02, p .029, gp .223. Using signi cantly more than did the 8- to 9-year-olds. simple main effects analyses, we determined that We conducted a set of parallel analyses to the ones while there was no significant difference between conducted above to see if there were any differences the age groups when comparing Interview 1 to in consistency when comparing Set A to Set B memo- Interview 2, there was a difference when comparing ries in the Interview 2 to Interview 3 comparisons. Interview 1 to Interview 3, F(2, 28) = 4.70, p = .017, We ran 3 (group) 9 2 (set) ANOVAs with set as a 2 = gp .251, with the youngest group having within factor and percentage overlap of same, new,

Table 5 Comparison of Information in Set A Memories at the Three Different Interviews (Contrasting Two at a Time) and in Set B Memories (Time 2 vs. Time 3): Mean Amount (and Percentage) of Information That Is the Same in Both Interviews, New, or Contradictory

Age at initial interview

4–5 years 6–7 years 8–9 years

Comparison M (SD)%M (SD)%M (SD)%

Set A: Comparison of Time 1 versus Time 2 Same 1.87 (0.79) 48.6 2.37 (1.94) 33.8 4.55 (1.31) 49.0 New at Time 2 2.87 (2.70) 48.3 4.36 (2.42) 59.3 4.17 (2.06) 42.7 Contradictory 0.18 (0.37) 3.2 0.41 (0.61) 6.8 0.69 (0.53) 8.3 Set A: Comparison of Time 1 versus Time 3 Same 0.69 (1.03) 9.6 2.31 (2.15) 25.3 3.41 (1.51) 31.9 New at Time 3 4.31 (2.89) 68.2 6.46 (3.61) 69.4 7.40 (4.96) 59.6 Contradictory 1.12 (0.83) 22.2 0.30 (0.64) 5.3 0.86 (0.69) 8.4 Set A: Comparison of Time 2 versus Time 3 Same 0.93 (0.67) 14.5 3.45 (1.97) 40.1 3.94 (2.05) 34.3 New at Time 3 4.56 (3.13) 70.5 5.34 (3.15) 56.4 7.18 (3.40) 60.6 Contradictory 0.62 (0.69) 15.0 0.28 (0.52) 3.5 0.55 (0.52) 5.1 Set B: Comparison of Time 2 versus Time 3 Same 2.27 (1.74) 29.9 3.32 (1.69) 30.9 4.88 (2.40) 38.1 New at Time 3 5.01 (4.07) 61.1 6.50 (3.43) 62.0 6.18 (4.60) 51.8 Contradictory 0.56 (0.79) 8.9 0.82 (0.53) 7.1 1.23 (0.96) 10.1

Note. The amount of information of each type for each child is divided by the number of memories recalled by that child. Childhood Amnesia in Children e529 and contradictory information as the dependent vari- Table 6 ables. For new information, there was a significant Logistic Multilevel Models Examining Whether Recall at Interview 2 = = 2 = Predicts Recall at Interview 3 in Set A Memories effect for set, F(1, 27) 7.42, p .011, gp .216, where there was a higher percentage of same infor- Variable Odds ratio 95% CI p mation for Set B memories than for Set A memories. There was also a significant effect for group, F(2, Age group = = 2 = Intercept 0.31 [0.10, 0.94] .038* 27) 8.01, p .002, gp .372, where the youngest children has less overlap of the same information 4- to 5-year-olds versus 2.18 [0.65, 7.33] .208 compared to the oldest children. The interaction was 6- to 7-year-olds not significant. For the percentage of new informa- 4- to 5-year-olds versus 4.36 [1.08, 17.62] .039* tion, there was no effect for set, no effect for group, 8- to 9-year-olds 6- to 7-year-olds versus 2.00 [0.51, 7.89] .323 and no interaction, although the effect for group was fi = 8- to 9-year-olds near signi cance (i.e., p .056). Finally, for the con- Being recalled at Time 2 6.79 [2.03, 22.62] .002* tradictory information, the results paralleled that of the new information, with no effects for set or group Note. The default comparison age group was the 4- to 5-year- and no interaction but with a trend for the group olds. To generate the contrast between the two older age groups, = the model was run again with the comparison group changed. effect (i.e., p .084). *p < .05.

Predicting Which Memories Were Remembered variables (see Table 8). Individually, higher word The next set of analyses examined the properties count, presence of emotion, and greater breadth at of a memory that predicted it being remembered. the first interview the memory was recalled were The first analysis examined whether being remem- related to a higher likelihood of recall at Interview 3. bered once before increased the chance that the Among the coherence variables, higher amounts of memory would be remembered again. Because Set context were also related to higher rates of recall, but A memories were originally recalled at Interview 1, theme and chronology were not related. and their recall was queried at Interview 2 and It is possible that some of these memory proper- Interview 3, we tested whether being recalled at ties that individually predicted higher, later recall Interview 2 predicted whether an Interview 1 mem- would not be significant predictors once we take ory was recalled at Interview 3. Including only Set their relation with the other memory properties into A memories, a logistic multilevel model was con- account. To test for this, we conducted one more ducted with being remembered at Interview 3 as logistic multilevel model, again with recall at Inter- the outcome variable and being remembered at view 3 as the outcome variable, which included all Interview 2 as a predictor. Age group was also four of the significant memory properties from the added as a predictor in order to control for the previous analyses (and also with age group and effect of age. Overall, 82.7% of memories recalled at memory set as the control variables). The results of Interview 2 were recalled again at Interview 3, this analysis are in the bottom half of Table 8; emo- whereas only 33.3% of memories that were not tion and context remained separate and significant recalled at Interview 2 were recalled at Interview 3. predictors, but word count and breadth were no This difference was statistically significant, and longer significant. results of this model are described in Table 6. Thus, recall of a particular memory at Interview 2 pre- dicted its recall at Interview 3. Discussion Next, we considered what properties of the mem- ory (coded at the time of first recall) predicted that The beginning of enduring personal memories for memory being remembered in the third interview. an individual are the beginning of one’s sense of Memories were coded for word count, presence of personal continuity over time and the construction emotion, coherence (context, chronology, and of a temporally continuous sense of self (Bluck & theme), and breadth; means and standard deviations Alea, 2008; Habermas & Kober,€ 2014). Yet little is for these memory properties are shown in Table 7. known about whether children have a consistent Each predictor was entered into a separate logistic starting point for their life story. Moreover, many multilevel model with being remembered at Inter- memories from early childhood slip through the view 3 as the outcome variable, and age group and veil of childhood amnesia, but not all do so. This whether it was a Set A or Set B memory as control study prospectively explored the retention of early e530 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

Table 7 Properties of Both Set A and Set B Early Memories Recalled By Children in All Three Age Groups, and Each Interview: Means (and SDs)

Properties of memories

Age Emotion Theme Chronology Context Breadth Length

Set A: Memories Interview 1 4–5 1.57 (0.50) 1.04 (0.4) 1.13 (1.10) 1.14 (1.01) 5.32 (1.02) 49.6 (25.4) 6–7 1.58 (0.50) 1.09 (0.30) 0.86 (0.94) 1.22 (0.79) 4.82 (1.24) 43.7 (38.8) 8–9 1.29 (0.46) 1.45 (0.56) 1.83 (1.02) 1.33 (1.02) 6.47 (1.16) 96.6 (67.3) Interview 2 4–5 1.25 (0.45) 0.92 (0.52) 0.73 (0.79) 1.08 (0.64) 5.50 (1.55) 55.1 (36.5) 6–7 1.22 (0.42) 1.12 (0.52) 0.75 (0.74) 1.04 (0.72) 5.93 (1.47) 79.0 (47.1) 8–9 1.09 (0.30) 1.00 (0.26) 0.58 (0.76) 0.52 (0.93) 6.38 (0.94) 80.5 (39.3) Interview 3 4–5 1.54 (0.52) 1.17 (0.39) 0.82 (1.08) 1.17 (0.58) 5.62 (1.80) 64.1 (55.5) 6–7 1.28 (0.46) 1.21 (0.51) 0.78 (0.67) 1.63 (0.97) 6.42 (1.77) 114.6 (71.1) 8–9 1.23 (0.43) 1.38 (0.78) 0.85 (0.72) 1.97 (1.05) 6.83 (1.39) 135.0 (81.8) Set B: Memories Interview 2 4–5 1.21 (0.41) 0.92 (0.56) 0.60 (0.91) 1.32 (0.90) 6.03 (1.30) 83.8 (61.5) 6–7 1.09 (0.30) 0.94 (0.51) 0.61 (0.72) 1.56 (0.88) 5.84 (1.08) 76.0 (60.5) 8–9 1.07 (0.27) 1.07 (0.55) 0.70 (0.72) 1.89 (1.01) 6.89 (0.93) 100.0 (57.5) Interview 3 4–5 1.33 (0.48) 0.90 (0.44) 0.75 (0.91) 1.52 (0.87) 5.48 (1.75) 81.0 (70.7) 6–7 1.38 (0.49) 1.18 (0.39) 0.36 (0.68) 1.54 (1.04) 6.72 (1.28) 138.0 (81.0) 8–9 1.22 (0.42) 1.43 (0.66) 0.95 (0.84) 1.70 (1.06) 6.74 (1.42) 137.5 (108.3) memories over a span of many years, the degree to time in how children date their early memories, which the memories that remained still retained including the participants of the present study, has consistency in content, and whether we could pre- been documented by Wang and Peterson (2014, dict which ones are more likely to persist. 2016), and such redating may partially account for inconsistency in which particular enduring memory is thought to be one’s earliest. The Earliest Memory There were other contributors to this lack of con- In adults, two studies show that there is consider- sistency in identification of one’s first memory able consistency in which memories are identified as besides redating the memory. Most importantly, the earliest across significant time spans (Bauer et al., younger children were more likely to simply forget 2014; Josselson, 2000), but in the current study, the the memory, and even cueing did not help. This consistency of the particular spontaneously provided also occurred for the older children but at a sub- memory that children dated as their earliest was stantially reduced level. By definition, earliest mem- quite low across 8 years, as predicted, regardless of ories are of events that occurred when the whether children themselves or parents dated the individual was very young; at this time of life, the memory. This contrasts sharply with the high consis- neural, cognitive, and processes that tency of earliest memories found in adults across underlie the retention and forgetting of events are time, although even adults are not entirely consis- not fully formed (Bauer, 2015). Thus, memories of tent, and fully 40% of high school students provided early events are more vulnerable to forgetting, as a different earliest memory when reinterviewed after has been shown by a number of researchers (e.g., 3 months (Kihlstrom & Harackiewicz, 1982). In the Bauer & Larkina, 2014; Cleveland & Reese, 2008). current study, when children were reminded about Another contributor is that although some chil- the memory that had been their earliest in the initial dren could still recall the same earliest memory, cue- interview, seven of them still thought that it was the ing was required to remind them of it. Cues clearly earliest although eight children did not, even though facilitate later retrieval of early events (e.g., MacDon- parental dating suggested otherwise. Change over ald, Uesiliana, & Hayne, 2000). Almost half of the Childhood Amnesia in Children e531

Table 8 three interviews, although age was an important Logistic Multilevel Model of Initial Memory Characteristics Predicting variable. About a fifth of the memories that children Recall at Interview 3 spontaneously provided in their final interview over- Memory characteristic Odds ratio 95% CI p lapped with the memories that they had provided 8 years earlier, but this was only true for those who Individual analyses had initially been at least 6 years of age. Former 4- to Word count 2.04 [1.05, 3.95] .034* 5-year-olds had no overlap at all in spontaneous Presence of emotion 3.22 [1.23, 8.48] .018* memories. For all children, there was considerably Coherence: Theme 1.12 [0.72, 1.75] .602 more overlap when children were cued. That is, most Coherence: Chronology 1.41 [0.88. 2.25] .149 of those memories that were not spontaneously Coherence: Context 1.83 [1.16, 2.90] .009* recalled were not actually forgotten. However, age Breadth 1.81 [1.22, 2.67] .003* was again of key importance: Almost 40% of the chil- Full model Age group dren who had been 4 or 5 years of age at the time of Intercept 1.07 [0.40, 2.84] .900 their initial interview were unable to recall any of the 4- to 5-year-olds versus 4.73 [1.43, 15.58] .011* Set A memories, in contrast to children in the two 6- to 7-year-olds older age groups. Only one former 6-year-old had no 4- to 5-year-olds versus 2.89 [0.84, 9.93] .092 memory for any Set A memory. Overall, over half of 8- to 9-year-olds the Set A memories were inaccessible to children in 6- to 7-year-olds versus 0.61 [0.15, 2.44] .485 the youngest age group after the passage of 8 years, 8- to 9-year-olds whereas most memories produced by children who Memory set 0.92 [0.34, 2.44] .862 had been at least 6 years of age at the time of initial Word count 1.29 [0.61, 2.72] .502 recall were still remembered. Emotion 2.95 [1.07, 8.13] .037* Importantly, the Set B memories produced by Context 1.69 [1.02, 2.79] .040* Breadth 1.60 [0.86, 2.99] .141 former 4- to 5-year-olds in their second interview 2 years later, when they were 6- to 7-year-olds, Note. For the individual analyses section, each of the memory were recalled at the same rate as those of children characteristics were run in a separate model controlling for age in the two older age groups. Thus, it is those mem- group and whether memory was from Set A or Set B, but only the odds ratio for the memory characteristic is reported. The full ories produced by children who were preschool model section lists all coefficients (converted to odds ratios) for a aged that were particularly vulnerable to forgetting. model that includes the same control variables plus the four This highlights a major shift in memory retention memory characteristics that were significant predictors in the individual analyses. For the full model, the comparison group is between preschoolers and older children, and sup- the 4- to 5-year-olds for age group and Set A for memory set. To ports research that proposes an age shift in memory generate the contrast between the two older age groups, the at this particular age. For example, Bauer and Lark- model was run again with the comparison group changed. *p < .05. ina (2014) propose that children seem to exhibit a constant rate of forgetting before the age of 6 or 7 former 4- to 5-year-olds required cues in order to that is characterized by an exponential function remember their earliest enduring memory, and even rather than the power function that characterizes a quarter of the older children did too. These cued adult forgetting. This would result in a smaller pool memories were still the earliest of all those described of memories available for later retrieval—which is in their final interview, and thus, there was still some consistent with what we found. consistency in the identity of the first memory (espe- cially using adult estimates of age) if it was still Consistency of Content remembered at all. Because the children were adoles- cents at the time of the final interview, an inability to First, the amount of information children pro- follow task instructions is unlikely to account for vided about the same remembered events did not why they did not produce these memories sponta- differ across time, for either Set A or Set B. This neously when asked for their very earliest one. similarity of content amount across time parallels Rather, the memories may have been more fragile or findings with both adult (Bauer et al., 2014) and less salient, and therefore less accessible. child (Peterson et al., 2011) prior studies, in spite of the fact that the time gap between interviews was so large. Not surprisingly, children in the youngest Overlap of Memories group provided less information than did those in There was relatively little overlap in the sponta- the oldest group—but only with Set A memories. neous memories that children provided across the In terms of the similarity of content across e532 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham interviews, the amount of delay between interviews characteristic of those very early memories that are had a considerable impact. In both Peterson et al.’s retained (Howes et al., 1993; Mullen, 1994; Saun- (2011) child sample and Bauer et al.’s (2014) adult ders & Norcross, 1988; but see Kihlstrom & Harack- sample, approximately half of the information was iewicz, 1982). In contrast, cross-sectional research the same across their delays of 2 and 4 years. The with children documented that most of their earliest same was found for all age groups in the current memories are affectively neutral and refer to every- study when the initial and 2-year follow-up inter- day events that do not include affective descriptors views were compared. However, when the delay (Peterson et al., 2005, 2009). Longitudinal research was much larger, the amount of overlap decreased, may enable researchers to provide an explanation particularly for the youngest children. Less than for this divergence. Peterson et al. (2014) found that 10% of the information in these children’s final the presence of emotion increased the likelihood of interview 8 years later was the same as in their ini- a memory being retained across 2 years by two and tial interview. Even the older children only had a half times. In the current study, emotion was 25%–32% overlapping information. When compar- again a strong predictor of which memories were ing the information in Interview 2 and Interview 3, kept versus forgotten across a much longer span of 6 years later, again the youngest children had rela- 6 or 8 years. As examples, a 4-year-old girl remem- tively little overlap in the information they pro- bered when her mother came home from the hospi- vided—only about 15% of the information was the tal with a new baby: “And the most thing I loved same. about it was when she [mother] came home with The youngest children also had significantly [my sister].” A 4-year-old boy, while describing a more information that contradicted what they had dining mishap, stated: “I got all mad because I got said in Interview 1 than did older children when all dirty.” When emotion is narratively included as the delay was long, although very little contradic- part of the memory for events, these events are tion when the delay was short. When the effect likely to be more salient and meaningful than are of similar lengthy delays was assessed for highly affectively neutral events, and such personal mean- salient events such as hurricane experiences ing seems to foster long-term recall. Thus, if the (6-year delay—Fivush et al., 2004) and personal number of affectively neutral memories is progres- injuries (10-year delay—Peterson, 2015), accuracy sively winnowed down, one may be left with a was still quite high after these long delays, pool of early memories that are more likely to although it had deteriorated by a relatively small involve emotion—which is consistent with the adult amount. All of the children in Peterson (2015) literature. were as young at the time of their first interview Coherence, defined as how well a particular mem- as the children here (age 3–5 years); nevertheless, ory is structured, organized, and elaborated (e.g., 80%–90% of the information they provided was Fivush, 2007; Morris et al., 2010; Reese et al., 2011), accurate. However, injury events are highly sali- has also been proposed as an important characteristic ent and are talked about a great deal at the time of memory retention. In a 1-year longitudinal study, of occurrence, and indeed, children still recalled Morris et al. (2010) found that two aspects of coher- most of the relevant information 10 years later. ence predicted retention of recently occurring events However, one cannot assume a similar degree of in 4-, 6-, and 8-year-olds, namely, thematic coherence accuracy when a child’s very earliest enduring (as coded by NaCCs—see Reese et al., 2011) and memories are recalled. Also, according to parent breadth (inclusion of information on who, what, report, a lot of these early memories had not when, where, etc.—see Bauer & Larkina, 2014). In been the topic of family discussion and such that study, they were unable to assess contextual rehearsal may help long-term accuracy (Nelson & coherence. In our previous 2-year longitudinal study Fivush, 2004). of 4- to 13-year-old children’s retention of earliest memories, we found that all three aspects of coher- ence measured by NaCCs, namely thematic, chrono- Predictors of Long-Term Recall logical, and contextual coherence, predicted memory The current study enabled us to compare the survivability, with thematic coherence most impor- memories that were kept over a substantial length tant and chronological coherence least (Peterson of time with those that were not. Two factors were et al., 2014). (The authors did not measure breadth.) seen as key: emotion and an aspect of coherence. In In the current study, contextual coherence continued the adult literature, the presence of emotion has to be an important predictor, although, surprisingly, been frequently suggested as an important thematic coherence was not. Contextual coherence Childhood Amnesia in Children e533 measures the extent to which an event is embedded dimensions of coherence that are important for pre- within a mesh of time and space; the more such dicting memory maintenance is needed. embedding, the richer the memory representation. However, our results reinforce the conclusions The other factor that predicted memory survival articulated in Peterson et al. (2014), namely, “our in the 8-year follow-up interview was recall in the recollections of earliest childhood are not merely 2-year interview. This is not surprising because the random flashes of previous life that penetrate the greatest amount of forgetting for the youngest chil- veil of childhood amnesia for unknown reasons” dren in particular was during the first 2 years of (p. 447). Parallel to our findings in that report, we the study. Memories that were not recalled after found meaningful predictors for memory retention, 2 years would be expected to continue to be forgot- namely, emotion and coherence. Those memories ten. that articulated a description of emotion and were embedded in temporal and spatial context were more likely to escape the ravages of time. Conclusions Overall, the results documented considerable vari- ability in the event that children identified as their first memory and thus in what can be considered to References be their starting point for a continuous sense of self. Bauer, P. J. (2014). The development of forgetting: Child- Furthermore, there was considerable instability in hood amnesia. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The what children claimed to be their early memories. Wiley handbook of the development of children’s memory This was particularly true for those memories ini- (Vol. II, pp. 519–544). Chichester, UK: Wiley. tially provided by preschoolers, who showed sub- Bauer, P. J. (2015). A complementary processes account of stantial forgetting of memories even when cued. In the development of childhood amnesia and a personal past. Psychological Review, 122, 204–231. https://doi. addition, the information that children in the young- org/10.1037/a0038939 est group actually provided about those memories Bauer, P. J., Burch, M. M., Scholin, S. E., & Guler,€ O. E. (i.e., the ones that they recalled) differed substan- (2007). Using cue words to investigate the distribution tially after 8 years. Eight years later, a whopping of autobiographical memories in childhood. Psychologi- 22% of the information they provided about the cal Science, 18, 910–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- same events was contradictory to what they had said 9280.2007.01999.x before, and < 10% was the same. This was not true Bauer, P. J., & Larkina, M. (2014). Childhood amnesia in the mak- for memories provided by children who were at least ing: Different distributions of autobiographical memories in 6 years of age at the time of initial memory recall, children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, – including for children in the youngest group who 143, 597 611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033307 provided those memories during their second inter- Bauer, P. J., Tasdemir-Ozdes, A., & Larkina, M. (2014). Adults’ reports of their earliest memories: Consistency view when they were 2 years older. Thus, the age of – fi in events, ages, and narrative characteristics over time. 6 7 seems to mark a signi cant difference in not only Consciousness and Cognition, 27,76–88. https://doi.org/ whether a memory is recalled or not, but also in the 10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.008 ’ consistency of that memory s recall. Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2008). Remembering being me: The The present study was limited in terms of the size self-continuity function of in of the sample being studied, both in terms of the younger and older adults. In F. Sani (Ed.), Self-continu- number of children and the number of memories. ity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 55–70). New Longitudinal research over such long periods of time York, NY: Erlbaum. is rare; nevertheless, it needs to be done. Findings of Cleveland, E. S., & Reese, E. (2008). Children remember the current study suggest potential directions of this early childhood: Long-term recall across the offset of future research. With a larger sample size of individ- childhood amnesia. Applied , 22, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1359 uals as well as of early memories, it would be infor- Dudycha, G. J., & Dudycha, M. M. (1941). Childhood mative to explore in more depth the role of emotion, fi memories: A review of the literature. Psychological Bul- with more nely grained analyses of emotional letin, 36, 668–682. valence and saturation. In addition, much more Fivush, R. (2007). Maternal reminiscing style and chil- needs to be done to understand the consistency of dren’s developing understanding of self and emotion. children’s memories over time and whether we can Clinical Social Work Journal, 35(1), 37–46. predict what sort of information in particular is more Fivush, R., Haden, C., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and likely to alter over time in children’s recollections. coherence of preschoolers’ personal narratives over Furthermore, a better understanding of the time: Implications for childhood amnesia. Journal of e534 Peterson, Hallett, and Compton-Gillingham

Experimental Child Psychology, 60,32–56. https://doi. Peterson, C., Grant, V. V., & Boland, L. D. (2005). Child- org/10.1006/jecp.1995.1030 hood amnesia in children and adolescents: Their earli- Fivush, R., Sales, J. M., Goldberg, A., Bahrick, L., & Par- est memories. Memory, 13, 622–637. https://doi.org/10. ker, J. (2004). Weathering the storm: Children’s long- 1080/09658210444000278 term recall of Hurricane Andrew. Memory, 12, 104–118. Peterson, C., Morris, G., Baker-Ward, L., & Flynn, S. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000397 (2014). Predicting which childhood memories persist: Habermas, T., & Kober,€ C. (2014). Autobiographical rea- Contributions of memory characteristics. Developmental soning is constitutive for narrative identity: The role of Psychology, 50, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/ the life story for personal continuity. In K. C. McLean a0033221 & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity devel- Peterson, C., Wang, Q., & Hou, Y. (2009). “When I was lit- opment (pp. 149–165). Oxford, UK: Oxford University tle”: Childhood recollections in Chinese and European Press. Canadian grade-school children. Child Development, 80, Howe, M. L. (1997). Children’s memory for traumatic 506–518. https://doi.org/0009-3920/2009/8002-0015 experiences. Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 153– Peterson, C., Warren, K. L., & Short, M. M. (2011). Infantile 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(97)90004-2 amnesia across the years: A 2-year follow-up of chil- Howes, M., Siegel, M., & Brown, F. (1993). Early child- dren’s earliest memories. Child Development, 82, 1092– hood memories: Accuracy and affect. Cognition, 47,95– 1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01597.x 119. Peterson, C., & Whalen, N. (2001). Five years later: Chil- Jack, F., MacDonald, S., Reese, E., & Hayne, H. (2009). dren’s memory for medical emergencies. Applied Cogni- Maternal reminiscing style during early childhood pre- tive Psychology, 15,7–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp. dicts the age of adolescents’ earliest memories. Child 832 Development, 80, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Pillemer, D. B., & White, S. H. (1989). Childhood events j.1467-8624.2009.01274.x recalled by children and adults. Advances in Child Devel- Josselson, R. (2000). Stability and change in early memo- opment and Behavior, 21, 297–340. https://doi.org/10. ries over 22 years: Themes, variations, and cadenzas. 1016/S0065-2407(08)60291-8 Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 64, 462–481. Reese, E., Haden, C., Baker-Ward, L., Bauer, P. J., Fivush, Kihlstrom, J., & Harackiewicz, J. (1982). The earliest recol- R., & Ornstein, P. (2011). A multidimensional model of lection: A new survey. Journal of Personality, 50, 134– narrative coherence across the lifespan. Journal of Cogni- 148. tion and Development, 12, 424–462. https://doi.org/10. MacDonald, S., Uesiliana, K., & Hayne, H. (2000). Cross-cul- 1080/15248372.2011.587854 tural and gender differences in childhood amnesia. Memory, Reese, E., Jack, F., & White, N. (2010). Origins of adoles- 8, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050156822 cents’ autobiographical memories. Cognitive Develop- Morris, G., Baker-Ward, L., & Bauer, P. J. (2010). What ment, 25, 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev. remains of that day: The survival of children’s autobio- 2010.08.006 graphical memories across time. Applied Cognitive Psy- Rubin, D. C. (2000). The distribution of early childhood chology, 24, 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1567 memories. Memory, 8, 265–269. https://doi.org/10. Mullen, M. K. (1994). Earliest recollections of childhood: 1080/096582100406810 A demographic analysis. Cognition, 52,55–79. https:// Saunders, L. M., & Norcross, J. C. (1988). Earliest child- doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90004-3 hood memories: Relationship to ordinal position, family Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobi- functioning, and psychiatric symptomatology. Individ- ographical memory: A social cultural developmental ual Psychology, 44,95–105. theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–511. https://doi. Tustin, K., & Hayne, H. (2010). Defining the boundary: org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486 Age-related changes in childhood amnesia. Developmen- Peterson, C. (2002). Children’s long-term memory for tal Psychology, 46, 1049–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/ autobiographical events. Developmental Review, 22, 370– a0020105 402. https://doi.org/10.137/0012-1649.35.6.1493 Van Abbema, D. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Autobiographi- Peterson, C. (2011). Children’s memory reports over time: cal memory in middle childhood: Recollections of the Getting both better and worse. Journal of Experimental recent and distant past. Memory, 13, 829–845. https:// Child Psychology, 109, 275–293. https://doi.org/10. doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000430 1016/j.jecp.2011.01.009 Wang, Q., & Peterson, C. (2014). Your earliest memory Peterson, C. (2012). Children’s autobiographical memories may be earlier than you think: Prospective studies of across the years: Forensic implications of childhood children’s dating of earliest childhood memories. Devel- amnesia and for stressful events. opmental Psychology, 50, 1680–1686. https://doi.org/10. Developmental Review, 32, 287–306. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0036001 1016/j.dr.2012.06.002 Wang, Q., & Peterson, C. (2016). The fate of childhood Peterson, C. (2015). A decade later: adolescents’ memory memories: Children postdated their earliest memories for medical emergencies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, as they grew older. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,1–7. 29, 826–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3192 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02038