Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cognitive Development

Origins of adolescents’ autobiographical memories

Elaine Reese ∗, Fiona Jack, Naomi WhiteUniversity of Otago, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Adolescents (N = 46; M = 12.46 years) who had previously par-ticipated in a longitudinal study of autobiographical memorydevelopment narrated their early childhood memories, interpretedlife events, and completed a family history questionnaire andlanguage assessment. Three distinct components of adolescentmemory emerged: (1) age of earliest memory and insight intolife events; (2) volume of early memories; and (3) density ofspecific memories from early childhood. Children’s language, self-awareness, and theory of mind during early childhood (19–51months) all contributed to their memories as adolescents. How-ever, adolescents’ early reminiscing environment was the bestsingle predictor of the age and volume of their early memoriesand their insight into life events. In contrast, adolescents’ delayedself-recognition and reminiscing in early childhood predicted thedensity of their early memories. These findings provide partial sup-port for theories of autobiographical memory development.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Autobiographical memories are vital for a sense of self-continuity (James, 1890/1950) and identity(Wilson & Ross, 2003). Yet normal adults all experience childhood amnesia for the first several years oftheir lives (MacDonald, Uesiliana, & Hayne, 2000; Mullen, 1994). Adults’ earliest memories, once theybegin to exist, are by no means a continuous record of personal experiences in James’s sense. Instead,these memories of early childhood are spaced discretely in time, sometimes with gaps of years, notmonths, between memories (Bauer, 2007).

Research with older children and adolescents reveals a steady age progression with respect tochildhood amnesia. Near the end of early childhood, children can recall some events from as early asage 2 (Cleveland & Reese, 2008). During middle childhood, children progressively remember fewer

∗ Corresponding author at: Psychology Department, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 3479 8441;fax: +64 3479 8335.

E-mail address: ereese@psy.otago.ac.nz (E. Reese).

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.08.006

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 353

events from early childhood (Fivush & Schwarzmueller, 1998; van Abbema & Bauer, 2005) and havean average age of earliest memory of 3 years (Peterson, Grant, & Boland, 2005). Not until adolescence(Peterson et al.) or even young adulthood (Tustin & Hayne, in press) does the earliest memory stabilizeat around 3.5 years in European samples. It is also in early adolescence that insight into the meaningof earlier life events for one’s identity is first demonstrated (Habermas & de Silveira, 2008; McLean,Breen, & Fournier, 2010). Thus, both the quantity and the quality of one’s early memories are impor-tant dimensions to consider in the development of autobiographical memory. The aim of this studyis to trace the linguistic, cognitive, and social origins of adolescents’ autobiographical memory in alongitudinal sample from 1 to 12 years of age (see Cleveland & Reese, 2008; Reese, 2002a, 2002b forreviews of the early childhood phase of this study). We chose to focus on the early adolescent periodbecause children are still in the process of forgetting their early memories but are capable of insightsinto the function of those memories for identity. Thus our hope was to capture individual differencesin both the cognitive and the social functions of autobiographical memory.

1. Emergence of autobiographical memory in early childhood

The paradox of childhood amnesia is that young children show fairly good memory for their per-sonal experiences during early childhood. They begin to refer to past experiences in their speechat around 1½ years of age, although these early verbal references to the past are limited to recentlyexperienced and mundane events (Reese, 1999; Sachs, 1983). By age 2, children can contribute uniquememory information to a conversation with their parents about events that occurred in the last severalmonths (Hudson, 1991). By age 2½, children are initiating memory conversations (Hudson, 1990), andby age 3 to 3½ years, children can tell a relatively coherent account of a past event to a naïve listener(Fivush, Haden, & Adam, 1995; see Reese, 2009, for a review of these autobiographical memory mile-stones). Young children do not recall personal experiences in great detail, but what they do recall innatural circumstances is largely accurate, albeit mundane (Cleveland & Reese, 2008; Fivush & Hamond,1990). Thus, they are able to recall at least some of their earliest experiences near the time those eventsoccurred, but as adults they will no longer be able to recall events from this period.

What forces shape the emergence of autobiographical memory? Theories of the developmentof autobiographical memory proliferated at the millennium (Reese, 2009). One group of theoriesfocused on cognitive prerequisites to autobiographical memory. The most prominent of these wereself-awareness theories (Howe & Courage, 1993; Povinelli, 1995) and the autonoetic theory of auto-biographical memory (Perner & Ruffman, 1995; Perner, 2000, 2001). Self-awareness theories focusedeither on the advent of mirror self-recognition in the second year of life (Howe & Courage), or recogni-tion of the past self in the fourth year of life (Povinelli), as the prerequisite to autobiographical memory.Autonoetic theory held that true autobiographical memory was not possible until children began toappreciate the distinction between remembering and knowing about an experience in the late yearsof early childhood.

A second group of theories encompassed a wider array of potential influences on the development ofautobiographical memory. In particular these theories highlighted the role of social interaction (Bauer,2007; Fivush & Nelson, 2004; Nelson & Fivush, 2004; Reese, 2002a; Welch-Ross, 1995). Parents whotalk with their young children in an elaborative way about past events, through their use of open-ended questions containing memory information and their confirmations of children’s responses,have children with more detailed autobiographical memories by the end of early childhood (Fivush,Haden, & Reese, 2006; Reese, Haden, & Fivush, 1993). Indeed, the age of adolescents’ earliest memo-ries is strongly correlated with their mothers’ provision of new as opposed to repeated information inpast event conversations during early childhood (Jack, MacDonald, Reese, & Hayne, 2009). Yet thesetheorists maintain that social interaction is part of a larger web of biological, linguistic, cognitive,and socioemotional influences on early remembering (Fivush & Nelson, 2004; Nelson & Fivush, 2004;Reese, 2002b). Reese (2009) proposed a theory of emergent recollection in which positive develop-ments in each of these spheres worked separately and in interaction to increase the likelihood that anearly memory will survive into adolescence and young adulthood.

354 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

2. Factors in autobiographical memory development

Mothers’ style of reminiscing with their young children is an established contributor to autobi-ographical memory, both as memories are forming in early childhood (Fivush et al., 2006) and laterwhen memories are retrieved in adolescence (Jack et al., 2009). What other factors identified in promi-nent theories of autobiographical memory are supported empirically? Children’s early self-awarenesscontributes to the volume of their memories during early childhood, especially to their independentreminiscing with a researcher (Reese, 2009). Children who achieve mirror self-recognition earlier intoddlerhood display steeper growth in their independent reminiscing over the next year (Harley &Reese, 1999). However, the long-term impact of self-awareness on autobiographical memory is con-tingent upon mothers’ style of reminiscing. Children with early self-awareness only benefit in theirlater independent reminiscing when their mothers adopt a highly elaborative style of reminiscing(Reese & Newcombe, 2007).

In contrast, the link between children’s understanding of knowing (theory of mind) and their auto-biographical memory is less well established. When children’s age and language development areappropriately controlled, then the correlation between theory of mind and autobiographical memorydisappears (Naito, 2003). Instead, children’s theory of mind is only directly related to their memoryfor the source of information. Source memory is an important metamemory skill but is not a criterionfor autobiographical memory per se (Perner, Kloo, & Gornik, 2007).

Children’s socioemotional development has also received mixed support as a factor in developingautobiographical memory. Mothers reminisce more elaboratively with their securely attached chil-dren (Fivush & Vasudeva, 2002; Reese and Farrant, 2003) who, compared to their insecurely attachedcounterparts, are more likely to internalize the emotional aspects of their mothers’ reminiscing style(Newcombe & Reese, 2004). Securely attached preschoolers provide longer and more detailed inde-pendent memory narratives than do insecurely attached preschoolers (McCabe, Peterson, & Connors,2006). Yet children’s attachment security is unrelated to other aspects of mother–child reminiscing,such as their provision of time and place in a memory narrative (Newcombe & Reese, 2004), and atleast in one study (Belsky, Spritz, & Crnic, 1996), insecurely attached children remembered negativeevents better than positive events.

Children’s emotion understanding in the preschool years, however, is a strong and unique predictorof later autobiographical memory (Wang, 2008). Wang suggested that children with stronger languageskills developed a better understanding of emotions, which in turn helped them to develop moredetailed and specific autobiographical memories.

Children’s language skills are likewise an important candidate for influencing autobiographicalmemory. Language skills strengthen children’s nonverbal and verbal memory for events (Simcock& Hayne, 2003). Children with stronger language skills at the time of an event are processingthat event at a deeper level, and later it is easier for them to express that memory in a verbalform. It is even possible, although difficult, for children with strong language skills to translatetheir preverbal experiences into verbal memories (Cheatham & Bauer, 2005; Morris & Baker-Ward, 2007), although this translation is probably the exception and not the rule (Simcock &Hayne, 2002). Language development is thus one of the clear and direct contributors to chil-dren’s autobiographical memories in early childhood, even after accounting for other importantfactors such as mothers’ style of reminiscing and children’s self-awareness (Reese, 2002a). How-ever, after basic proficiency in language is achieved, individual differences in language skill mayno longer contribute greatly to individual differences in autobiographical memory (Fivush et al.,2006).

Thus, the evidence from early childhood identifies social interaction, language, and some social-cognitive factors as the most important contributors to developing autobiographical memories. Yetmost of this early childhood research is limited to an exploration of the volume of children’s memo-ries during early childhood. Other important aspects of autobiographical memory in adolescence andadulthood are the age of one’s earliest memory (Jack et al., 2009) and the density (Weigle & Bauer, 2000)and specificity (Wang, 2004) of early memories. Finally, adolescents’ and adults’ insight into the rele-vance of past events for their current selves is perhaps the most important aspect of autobiographicalmemory for identity purposes (McLean & Pratt, 2006).

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 355

The first goal of the present study is to integrate these different aspects of autobiographical mem-ory in early adolescence. Do adolescents with earlier and denser memories experience greater insightinto life events? Have adolescents with richer early memories experienced a richer family storytellingenvironment (Bohanek, Marin, Fivush, & Duke, 2006), in which their parents adopted a more elab-orative style of reminiscing (Jack et al., 2009)? Finally, do adolescents with richer autobiographicalmemories also possess more extensive knowledge of their family history, presumably through themedium of adult–child interaction (Reese & Fivush, 2008)?

The second goal of this study is to explore the lasting linguistic, cognitive, and social influencesfrom early childhood on adolescents’ autobiographical memories. We address these questions withevidence from a longitudinal study of New Zealand children’s autobiographical memory development(Reese, 2002a, 2002b). Early childhood measures included children’s self-recognition (both currentand delayed), language, theory of mind, attachment security, and mother–child and independentreminiscing between ages 1½ and 5½.

3. Methods

3.1. Adolescent timepoint

Participants. We were able to contact 49 of the original 58 families who participated in the earlychildhood phase of the study (Reese, 2002a, 2002b) and invited them to participate in a follow-upstudy when their children were 12 years old. (Note that this sample was distinct from that of Jack etal. (2009)). Forty-six mothers and adolescents (23 boys and 23 girls) agreed to take part in a singlesession, with 42 dyads assessed at a university laboratory, and four families visited at home at theirrequest. The adolescents’ age at the follow-up session ranged from 12–1 to 13–6 years (M = 12.46,SD = 0.25). On average, mothers had completed high school, but mothers’ education ranged from nothaving completed high school to holding a postgraduate degree. Thirty-nine mothers reported work-ing outside the home, with an average occupational status equivalent to semi-skilled labor such asa clerical job (Elley & Irving, 2003). Forty-three of the adolescents were of European New Zealandethnicity and three were Maori. Mothers and adolescents received a pair of movie tickets at the endof the session.

Procedure. Each adolescent completed an audiotaped memory interview, a family history ques-tionnaire, and a language task in one room with a female researcher while the mother provideddemographical information and performed accuracy checks with another female researcher in aseparate but adjoining room. The entire session lasted approximately 1½ h.

Adolescent memory interview. The researcher first engaged the adolescent in the Emerging Life StoryInterview (ELSI; Reese, Chen, Jack, & Hayne, 2010). In the first part of the ELSI, the adolescent talksabout the chapters in his or her life as if it were a story in a book. The chapter task served as a warm-upto the second part of the ELSI that assesses the adolescent’s insight into life events. The researcherasked the adolescent to think of two life-changing events from any period of his or her life (see Reeseet al., 2010, for details). The researcher encouraged the adolescent to recall the event and then toanswer questions about what happened, who was there, how everyone felt, and finally how the eventhad changed their life.

These narratives were later transcribed from audio and coded according to McLean and Pratt’s(2006) 4-point scale for the highest level of insight achieved across both memories. A score of 3(insight) was awarded if the participant clearly described how the event changed them and its impacton other aspects of their life with reference to self or relationships (e.g., It gave me a new perspectiveon life because I didn’t really like it before then. . .and it made me realize I’ve gotta live life to the full. . ..Justmade me aware that people die out of nowhere.). Participants scored a 2 (vague meaning) if their mem-ory included a statement of self-reflection but no specific information about how their life had beenchanged (e.g., It brought the confidence out in me.). A score of 1 (lesson learned) was awarded whenparticipants indicated that they had learned a particular lesson from their life-changing event linkedto a specific behavior (e.g., Be more careful in P.E.). Finally a score of 0 (no meaning) was awardedwhen participants indicated that the event had not changed their life or made statements withoutself-reflection or reference to internal states (e.g., I met new people and like learnt a lot of new things

356 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

and just going to school was just the big event.). The whole narrative, and not just the answer to the ques-tion “How did this event change your life?”, was considered when coding these events. Two codersachieved reliability of Cohen’s kappa = .77 on 25% of the transcripts; each coder then scored half of theremaining transcripts independently.

The researcher then asked the adolescent to describe his or her earliest memory: “the very firstthing that you remember doing or that you remember happening to you. It should be somethingthat you actually remember, not just something you’ve learned about from photographs or conver-sations about the event.” (see Jack et al., 2009, for details). The researcher encouraged the adolescentto freely recall the event and then to answer questions about who was there, where they were,what happened, and how they felt during the event. Then the researcher asked for any additionalinformation about the event, before asking the adolescent to estimate his/her age at the time ofthe event and give a reason for this estimate. The researcher then asked the adolescent “What isthe next earliest thing you can remember?” Once the adolescent had identified his or her second-earliest memory, the researcher followed the same questioning protocol as was used for the earliestmemory.

Finally, the researcher interviewed the adolescent about events that he or she had discussedwith a parent or a researcher during the early childhood phase of the study from 19 to 65 months(see Cleveland & Reese, 2008 for details of these prior interviews). We interviewed adolescents onlyabout previously discussed events that the parent verified had not re-occurred since early childhood;therefore, the number of previously discussed events varied across participants, from 0 to 12. Theresearcher asked the adolescent about these events in chronological order, starting with the ear-liest event. For each event, the researcher asked, “Can you remember [event title]?” If necessary,the researcher then provided one or more event details to cue the participant’s recall of the event.These cues were drawn from the participant’s original memories for that event during early child-hood. If the participant indicated that he or she did recall the event, the researcher asked, “Whatcan you remember about that?” and then proceeded with the prompts and specific questions in thesame way as for the earliest memories. The researcher proceeded through the list of previously dis-cussed events, stopping once the participant had recalled two events or when the end of the list wasreached.

Knowledge of family history. Next, adolescents completed four computerized tasks, presented inrandom order. Only one of these, the Do You Know questionnaire (Duke, Lazarus, & Fivush, 2008),is reported here. This questionnaire measures knowledge of family history that can only be gainedthrough storytelling (e.g., Do you know how your parents met?). For each item, adolescents simply hadto answer “yes” or “no”; they were not required to supply any information. We deleted the last itemfrom the original scale (Do you know about a relative whose face “froze” in a grumpy position becausehe or she did not smile enough?) because it confused participants in a pilot study. We also providedan “NA” option for two questions regarding parents’ wedding and siblings; participants’ scores werethen prorated out of the total number of applicable items. Otherwise, participants received a score ofone point for each “yes” answer, for a maximum total of 19.

Receptive language. Finally, the researcher administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III(Form B; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) to measure verbal ability. Standard scores on the PPVT were used inanalyses.

Parent accuracy check. While the adolescent completed the computer tasks and the language assess-ment, a second researcher assisted the parent in listening to the audio recording of the adolescent’searly memories (two earliest memories plus previously discussed events) to assess the accuracyof those memories. The researcher wrote down each utterance on a form and asked the parent tojudge whether each utterance was “definitely correct”, “maybe correct”, or “definitely incorrect.” Onlyutterances parents verified as “definitely correct” are included in analyses as the most conservativemeasure of memory and to be consistent with prior analyses of these memories during early childhood(Cleveland & Reese, 2008).

This procedure allowed us to calculate three variables for the volume of adolescents’ early mem-ories. First, we calculated the total number of specific early memories, either self-nominated or fromthe previously discussed events, for which adolescents recalled any accurate information accordingto the parents (number of early memories). The number of memories a child could gain credit for was

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 357

restricted to some extent by the number of previously discussed events that the researcher was able toask that child about. Depending on when the previously discussed events took place, the differentialavailability of previously discussed events for some children may also have contributed to the age ofearliest memory and density of earliest memories, which are described below. Consistent with priorresearch (Jack et al., 2009; Wang, 2004), only memories for events that occurred at one particular pointin time were considered to be specific. Memories for events that occurred on a number of occasions,with no evidence that a specific instance was being recalled, were excluded. Second, for each of theseearly memories, we calculated the number of correct clauses, defined by an independent verb, acrossfree and prompted recall for all early memories. We divided this total by the number of specific earlymemories to derive an average volume of early memory variable. Third, we computed separately thenumber of correct clauses about the earliest memory to achieve a volume of earliest memory variable.

Mothers rated the accuracy of adolescents’ age estimates for each of the two earliest memories.If the mother judged the age the adolescent gave as definitely incorrect they were asked to providethe correct age. The age supplied or confirmed by the parent was used in all analyses for the earliestmemories (see Jack et al., 2009 for more details on age estimates). For the previously discussed events,dating information the mother provided during the early childhood timepoint when the event wasfirst discussed was used to calculate age estimates. The age of earliest memory variable consisted of theage of the earliest memory recalled, whether that memory was from a self-nominated early memoryor from a previously discussed event. For this variable, we only included ages of earliest memoriesthat mothers supplied or identified as definitely correct, again to be as conservative as possible in ageestimates.

Although Weigle and Bauer (2000) computed the density of early memories as the average age ofthe two earliest memories, in our sample this measure of density was too highly correlated with the ageof earliest memory (r = .86, p < .001) to include as a separate variable in analyses. We thus computedthe density of earliest memories as the distance in months between the two earliest memories theadolescent recalled and that the parent verified.

3.2. Early childhood timepoints

Full details on the methodology of the early childhood measures are supplied in previous publica-tions; therefore, we provide only an overview of the relevant measures here.

Participants. All 46 families included here participated at all of the first four timepoints, at 19, 25, 32,and 40 months. Two of these families moved during the early childhood phase and did not participatein the 51- and 65-month timepoints but rejoined the study in adolescence. All early childhood visitstook place in the families’ homes.

Self-awareness. Children’s mirror self-recognition was assessed at 19 months (Harley & Reese,1999). Children were reliably coded as passing (n = 21) or failing (n = 25) the mirror test. Childrenalso participated in photo tests of self-recognition at 19 and 25 months, adapted from Lewis andBrooks-Gunn (1979), not included in prior publications. In the “present-self” condition at 19 months,a researcher photographed children’s faces with a Polaroid camera. One week later, the researcherpresented children with their photograph in a clear frame alongside photographs of two other 19-month-old children from the study, one of whom had hair of a similar color to the child. Photos werepresented simultaneously to children in a row in a random order. The researcher looked at the childwhile asking, “Show me (child’s name). Point to (child’s name). Which one is (child’s name)?” Chil-dren who pointed to the picture of themselves were scored as passing this task. At 25 months, in thepast-self photo condition, children were presented with the same array from 19 months in a differentorder. Again, children were scored as passing the past-self photo task if they pointed to the picture ofthemselves in the array.

To assess delayed self-recognition, researchers administered Povinelli, Landau, and Perilloux’s(1996; Exp. 2) photo task at the 40-month timepoint. The researcher first engaged children in fivetrials of a game of hiding stickers under cups. The researcher patted the child’s head after the firsttwo trials. After the third trial, the researcher surreptitiously placed a 2 cm × 2 cm square neon orangesticker onto the front edge of the child’s hair in the guise of patting the child’s head. After makingsure the child did not discover the sticker over the final two trials, a second researcher took a Polaroid

358 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

photograph of the child and the researcher beside a large teddy bear. Three minutes later, with theteddy bear out of sight, the researcher showed the child the photo of themselves with the sticker intheir hair. She pointed to the child’s image with a pen and asked “Who’s that?” and, pointing to thesticker with the pen, “What is that?”; “Where is that sticker, really?”; and “Can you find where thatsticker really is?”. Children who reached up to find the sticker in their hair in response to any of thequestions were scored as passing the delayed self-recognition task. A second coder later scored 25%of the sample from videotape and reliability was 100% with the online coding. For all self-awarenesstasks, scores ranged from 0 (failing) to 1 (passing).

Attachment security. Mothers rated children’s attachment security at 19 months using the Attach-ment Q-set (AQS; Waters, 1987; see Newcombe & Reese, 2004, for details). The correlation betweenmothers’ sorts and a criterion sort for an ideally attached child was used as the final measure ofchildren’s attachment security. Scores could thus range from – 1 to +1.

Theory of mind. Researchers assessed children’s theory of mind via six tasks at 51 months over twosessions (see Reese & Cleveland, 2006, for more details). The theory of mind tasks were combined intotwo composites: one assessing children’s understanding of representational change, and the otherassessing children’s understanding of the origins of knowledge (Welch-Ross, 1997). Each compositescore was computed as a proportion of the total number of points possible such that the final scoresranged from 0 to 1.

Language. Children’s language was assessed at every early childhood timepoint (Reese & Read,2000). However, the language measures at 32 months were most strongly correlated with children’smemory during early childhood (Cleveland & Reese, 2008). These language measures were the PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test III (Form A; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) to test receptive vocabulary and the Expres-sive Vocabulary Test (EVT; Williams, 1997) to measure expressive vocabulary. Standard scores wereused in analyses.

Mother–child reminiscing. Mother–child reminiscing about shared past events occurred at all earlychildhood timepoints (see Cleveland & Reese, 2005; Farrant & Reese, 2000, for more details). Theseconversations were audiotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded for the following types of utterances:mothers’ open-ended elaborative questions containing new event information; mothers’ repetitions oftheir own previously supplied information; mothers’ evaluations of children’s conversational turns; andchildren’s memory information that had not previously been supplied by the mother. This child memoryvariable is called children’s shared memory in analyses. Averages of each utterance type across allevents at all early childhood timepoints comprised the mother–child reminiscing variables in analyses(see Jack et al., 2009, for a similar procedure). All conversation variables were positively skewed sologarithmic transformations were used in analyses, but means and ranges displayed in Table 1 arebased on raw scores.

Independent memory. Starting at 25 months, children participated in researcher–child memoryconversations at all subsequent early childhood timepoints. These conversations were audiotaped,transcribed, and reliably coded for all unique pieces of independent memory information that childrensupplied (see Cleveland & Reese, 2005; Farrant & Reese, 2000, for details). Logarithmic transformsof the average independent memory units across the 25- to 65-month timepoints constituted theindependent memory variable in analyses, but means and ranges in Table 1 are based on raw scores.

4. Results

4.1. Missing data

At the adolescent timepoint, four adolescents remembered only one event prior to 65 monthsso their early memory measures were based on this single event. For these adolescents, density wascalculated as 66 months (1 month after the end of the early childhood phase as the earliest possible ageof the second-earliest memory) minus the age of their only existing early memory. Four adolescentswere unable to generate any life-changing events; the sample median of 1 on the insight scale wassubstituted in these cases. Due to time constraints, we were unable to conduct the PPVT with twoadolescents, so sample means were substituted for their scores. On the delayed self-recognition task,seven children discovered the sticker on their heads before they were shown the photo; medians of 0

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 359

Table 1Descriptive statistics for early childhood and adolescent measures.

M (SD) range

Adolescent measuresLanguage 108.64 (14.08) 67–144Age of earliest memory (months) 31.53 (13.76) 1–58Density of two earliest memories (months) 14.04 (14.17) 0–56Volume of earliest memory (correct clauses) 7.98 (3.90) 1–22Average volume per early memory (correct clauses) 10.85 (4.16) 1–26.5Number of specific early memories 3.31 (0.88) 1–5Highest level of insight achieved 1.15 (0.97) 0–3Family history (proportion) 0.54 (0.18) 0.11–0.84Early childhood language measures: 32 monthsReceptive vocabulary 101.86 (9.95) 78–120Expressive vocabulary 103.65 (10.76) 78–124Early childhood self-awareness measures: 19–40 monthsMirror self-recognition: 19 months 0.45 (0.50) 0–1Present-self photo recognition: 19 months 0.39 (0.49) 0–1Past-self photo recognition: 25 months 0.54 (0.50) 0–1Delayed self-recognition: 40 months 0.26 (0.44) 0–1Early childhood theory of mind measures: 51 monthsOrigins of knowledge 7.20 (2.53) 2–12Representational change 2.45 (2.08) 0–6Early childhood socioemotional measures: 19 monthsAttachment security 0.38 (0.18) −0.11 to 0.66Early childhood reminiscing measures: 19–65 monthsMothers’ elaborative questions 7.06 (2.80) 3–17Mothers’ repetitions 5.71 (2.58) 2–13Mothers’ evaluations 7.48 (4.33) 2–28Children’s shared memory 10.70 (5.57) 2–29Children’s independent memory 7.08 (4.86) 0.5–25

were substituted for these missing scores. Missing data for the other early childhood measures wereminimal (Cleveland & Reese, 2008; Farrant & Reese, 2000; Harley & Reese, 1999; Reese, 2002a) andwere treated in an identical fashion by substituting means/medians to retain the entire sample foranalyses.

Descriptive statistics for the early childhood and adolescent measures are displayed in Table 1. Onaverage, adolescents’ first memory dated back to 32 months, or 2½ years of age. Parents estimatedthat 81% of the information adolescents reported about their earliest memories was definitely correct,and 77% of the information adolescents reported about all of their early childhood memories wasdefinitely correct.

4.2. Components of adolescents’ autobiographical memory

Table 2 contains correlations among the adolescent memory variables. Because these adolescentmemory variables were intercorrelated, we submitted them to a factor analysis to reduce the numberof variables for further analyses. We used a principal components extraction followed by a varimaxrotation. The resulting 3-factor solution accounted for a total of 73.42% of the variance in adolescents’autobiographical memories (see Table 3 for factor loadings). The first factor, which we call age andinsight, accounted for 33.89% of the variance and had high loadings from age of earliest memory, levelof insight, and knowledge of family history. Density had a moderate positive loading on this factor,indicating that adolescents with earlier but farther spaced memories achieved higher levels of insightand greater knowledge of family history. The second factor, which we call volume, accounted for 22.43%of the variance and had high loadings from the average amount recalled per early memory and theamount recalled about the earliest memory. Adolescents who recalled more details about their earliestmemory also recalled more memory information across early childhood. The final factor, density,accounted for 17.1% of the variance and had high loadings from the number of specific early memoriesand density of the two earliest memories. Family history also loaded moderately on this factor. Density

360 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

Table 2Correlation coefficients among adolescent memory measures.

2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age −0.37* −0.20 −0.05 −0.23 −0.49** −0.42**

2. Density 1.00 −0.33* −0.10 −0.07 0.20 −0.043. Number 1.00 −0.03 0.30* 0.10 0.284. E-volume 1.00 0.61** 0.13 0.165. A-volume 1.00 0.30* 0.36*

6. Insight 1.00 0.33*

7. History 1.00

Notes. Age = age of earliest memory; Density = density of two earliest memories; Number = number of specific early memories; E-volume = volume of earliest memory; A-volume = average volume of early memories; Insight = highest level of insight achieved;History = family history knowledge.

* p < .05.** p < .01.

loaded negatively, such that adolescents with denser earliest memories recalled a greater number ofspecific memories across early childhood and had a greater knowledge of family history. Thus, ageand insight, volume, and density are separate components of adolescents’ autobiographical memory.

We next explored whether these three facets of adolescents’ autobiographical memory differed asa function of demographic characteristics, such as child gender, maternal education and occupation.One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) by gender indicated no significant gender differences in thefactor scores for the age and insight, volume, or density of early memories. Nor was adolescents’ mem-ory significantly correlated with mothers’ education levels. However, for the 39 adolescents whosemothers worked outside the home, mothers’ current occupation was correlated with the age andinsight factor (r = .33, p < .05). Follow-up correlations with the individual variables making up that fac-tor revealed only a significant correlation between maternal occupation and family history knowledge(r = .46, p < .01). Mothers with higher level occupations had adolescents with a greater knowledge offamily history.

Next we turn to the early childhood predictors of adolescents’ autobiographical memories, begin-ning with children’s linguistic, cognitive, and socioemotional development. In each of the followingsections, we conducted correlations between the three adolescent memory factors (age and insight,volume, and density) and the relevant early childhood variables.

4.3. Adolescents’ memories and children’s language development

Language skill at either age did not correlate with age and insight of adolescents’ memories (rsranged from −.11 to .18, n.s.). Only adolescents’ PPVT scores at age 12 correlated with the volume oftheir early memories (r = .29, p < .05), and only their early childhood PPVT scores correlated with thedensity of their early memories (r = .36, p < .05). Early childhood EVT scores did not correlate signifi-cantly with any of the adolescent memory factors (rs ranged from .14 to .24, n.s.). Adolescents withstronger concurrent language skills recalled more voluminous early memories; adolescents who had

Table 3Factor loadings for adolescent memory variables.

Variable Age and insight Volume Density

Age of earliest memory −.87Density of earliest memories .49 −.72Number of early memories .85Volume of earliest memory .94Average volume of early memories .81Insight .74Family history .59 .41

Note. Loadings with an absolute value below .40 are not shown.

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 361

Table 4Correlation coefficients between mother–child reminiscing and adolescents’ autobiographical memory.

Early childhood variable Adolescent memory factors

Age and insight Volume Density

Maternal reminiscing variablesOpen-ended elaborative questions .35* .27 .31*

Repetitions .27 .32* .24Evaluations .20 .39** .11Children’s reminiscing variablesShared memory .19 .34* .35*

Independent memory .30* .51** .17

* p < .05.** p < .01.

stronger receptive language skills in early childhood recalled a greater number of specific early mem-ories. It is important to note that the early childhood and adolescent language measures were stronglyintercorrelated (rs ranged from .64 to .85, ps < .001).

4.4. Adolescents’ memories and cognitive development in early childhood

Self-awareness. Past-self photo recognition at 25 months was associated with 19-month present-self photo recognition, �2 (1) = 6.54, p < .05, indicating that children’s self-awareness was consistentover time, at least for the photo task. We then tested for relations between children’s self-awarenessand adolescents’ memories with a series of t-tests comparing early and later recognizers. Adolescents’memories were not a function of their mirror self-recognition at 19 months (all ps > .39), nor were theysignificantly related to their photo self-recognition at 19 or 25 months (ps ≥ = .07). However, children’sdelayed self-recognition at 40 months significantly predicted the density of their early memories inadolescence, t(44) = 2.61, p < .05. Children with advanced self-recognition skills had denser memoriesfrom early childhood as adolescents.

Theory of mind. Adolescents with earlier memories and greater insight had higher scores on ori-gins of knowledge tasks in early childhood, r = .33, p < .05. Adolescents with greater volume of earlymemories had higher scores on representational change tasks in early childhood, r = .32, p < .05. Thus,adolescents who had advanced theory of mind in early childhood had earlier memories, higher levels ofinsight and greater knowledge of family history, as well as more detailed autobiographical memories.

4.5. Adolescents’ memories and socioemotional development in early childhood

Next we conducted analyses of the prediction of early memories from children’s early attachmentsecurity, but we found no significant associations between any aspect of adolescents’ autobiographicalmemory and children’s attachment security (rs from −.01 to .12, n.s.).

4.6. Adolescents’ memories and mother–child reminiscing in early childhood

In contrast, there were substantial associations between adolescents’ autobiographical memoriesand the reminiscing conversations with their mothers during early childhood (Table 4). All correla-tions were positive, such that greater volumes of different utterance types during reminiscing wereassociated with advanced autobiographical memory in adolescence. Mothers’ elaborative questionsand children’s independent memory were correlated with the age and insight factor of adolescents’memory. Mothers’ repetitions and evaluations, and children’s shared and independent memory, allcorrelated with the volume of adolescents’ early memories. Mothers’ elaborative questions and chil-dren’s shared memory correlated with the density of adolescents’ early memories. Thus, motherswho reminisced in more elaborative ways with their young children had adolescents with earlier anddenser memories from early childhood. Mothers who were more elaborative also had adolescents withgreater insight into life events and a greater knowledge of family history. In contrast, mothers who

362 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

Table 5Predicting adolescents’ autobiographical memory.

Variable B SE B ˇ

Predicting age and insight of adolescents’ memoryMothers’ occupation .33 .18 .27Photo recognition .34 .28 .17Origins of knowledge .05 .06 .12Mothers’ elaborative questions .92 .43 .31*

Predicting volume of adolescents’ memoryAdolescent language .00 .01 .04Representational change .11 .08 .23Mothers’ evaluations .74 .34 .33*

Predicting volume of adolescents’ memoryAdolescent language .01 .01 .12Representational change .06 .07 .13Children’s independent memory .74 .22 .45**

Predicting density of adolescents’ memoryDelayed self-recognition .63 .31 .28*

Children’s shared memory .68 .29 .32*

Note. All beta weights are from the final model of the equation.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

simply provided more memory talk during early childhood, including their repetitive and evaluativecomments during reminiscing, had adolescents with more voluminous memories.

Because these correlations might be a function of maternal talkativeness, not memory talk per se,we computed a new maternal talk variable consisting of mothers’ total utterances in the conversationminus the three main maternal reminiscing variables. Then we re-ran the correlations with the ado-lescent memory factor scores. This non-memory talk variable was significantly negatively correlatedwith age and insight (r = −.32, p < .05) and volume (r = −.34, p < .05) and marginally negatively corre-lated with density (r = −.29, p < .10). Mothers who simply talked more had adolescents with later, lessinsightful, and less voluminous memories. Thus, the positive relations of maternal reminiscing to ado-lescent memory were specific to reminiscing, and were not due to effects of talkativeness. Children’sown memory responding was also important for their memory as adolescents, with children who pro-vided more memory information in early childhood having earlier, more insightful, more voluminous,and denser memories as adolescents.

4.7. Unique prediction of adolescents’ autobiographical memories

Because multiple early childhood variables predicted each of the adolescent memory factors, thenext step was to conduct hierarchical regression analyses to explore the unique predictors for eachdimension of adolescents’ autobiographical memory, after controlling for any relevant demographiccharacteristics and adolescent covariates in a first step. The reminiscing variables were strongly inter-correlated (significant rs ranged from .37 to .77, with the only non-significant correlation betweenmothers’ repetitions and children’s independent memory at r = .16), so only one reminiscing variablecould be entered at a time in each regression analysis to avoid multicollinearity.

Predicting age and insight of adolescents’ memory. We regressed the age and insight factor on moth-ers’ occupation in the first step, followed by photo self-recognition at 19 months, origins of knowledge,and mothers’ elaborative questions in a second step. Intercorrelations among predictors ranged fromr = −.06 to .36. The overall equation was significant, R2 = .27, F(4, 41) = 3.74, p < .05. After controlling formaternal occupation, the early childhood predictors in the second step of the regression resulted in asignificant change, R2 = .18, F(3, 41) = 3.38, p < .05. Of the early childhood predictor variables, only moth-ers’ elaborative questions uniquely predicted the age and insight of adolescents’ memories (Table 5).We also conducted a second hierarchical regression analysis with children’s independent memory asthe reminiscing variable. Intercorrelations among predictors ranged from r = .06 to .22. The overallmodel was significant, R2 = .23, F(4, 41) = 3.01, p < .05. However, after controlling for maternal occupa-

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 363

tion, the early childhood predictors in the second step did not result in a significant change, R2 = .14,F(3, 41) = 3.01, p < .10. Nor did any of the individual variables significantly predict adolescent mem-ory in the final model. Thus, mothers’ elaborative questions during early childhood reminiscing arethe best predictor of the age of adolescents’ earliest memory, their insight into life events, and theirknowledge of family history.

Predicting volume of early memories. We regressed the volume factor on adolescent language in afirst step, and in a second step representational change and mothers’ evaluations as the most highlycorrelated maternal reminiscing variable. Intercorrelations among predictors ranged from r = .34 to .53.The overall equation was significant, R2 = .22, F(3, 42) = 3.85, p < .05. After controlling for adolescentlanguage, the early childhood predictors entered in the second step resulted in a significant change,R2 = .13, F(2, 42) = 3.49, p < .05. In the final model, only mothers’ evaluative comments during reminisc-ing uniquely predicted the volume of adolescents’ memory (Table 5). In a separate regression equationwith children’s independent memory as the reminiscing variable, intercorrelations among predictorsranged from r = .19 to .53. The overall equation was significant, R2 = .31, F(3, 42) = 6.26, p < .01. Aftercontrolling for adolescent language, the early childhood predictors entered in the second step of theregression resulted in a significant change, R2 = .22, F(2, 42) = 6.80, p < .01. In the final model, only chil-dren’s independent memory uniquely predicted the volume of adolescents’ memory (Table 5). Thus,the volume of mothers’ and children’s reminiscing during early childhood is the best predictor of thevolume of adolescents’ early memories.

Predicting density of early memories. We regressed the density factor on early childhood receptivelanguage, delayed self-recognition, and mothers’ elaborative questions as the most highly correlatedreminiscing variable. There were no significant demographic or other covariates to control for in thismodel. Intercorrelations among the predictor variables ranged from r = .16 to .36. However, inclusionof the early language variable created multicollinearity issues, so this variable was dropped. The over-all model was significant, R2 = .17, F(2, 43) = 4.27, p < .05. However, neither delayed self-recognition normaternal elaborative questions uniquely predicted density. In a second regression model with chil-dren’s shared memory as the reminiscing variable, intercorrelations among predictors ranged fromr = .10 to .48. The resulting overall model was significant, R2 = .20, F(2, 43) = 5.31, p < .01. Both delayedself-recognition and children’s shared memory uniquely predicted the density of adolescents’ earlymemories (Table 5). Thus, the best predictors of the density of adolescents’ early memories are theirdelayed self-recognition skills and their shared reminiscing during early childhood.

5. Discussion

The first contribution of this study is a detailed view of the quantity and quality of adolescents’autobiographical memories, with a special focus on memories from early childhood. As previouslyestablished (Tustin & Hayne, in press), adolescents are still in the process of forgetting their earlymemories. The young adolescents in this sample had an earliest memory from age 2 - 1/2 on average,which is consistent with other New Zealand European samples in early adolescence (Jack et al., 2009;Tustin & Hayne, in press), but which is substantially earlier than the average of 3½ for young NewZealand European adults (MacDonald et al., 2000; Tustin & Hayne, in press) and for adolescents fromsome other cultures (Peterson et al., 2005). Methodological differences may have lowered the age ofearliest memory in our study. First, the children in this sample discussed their memories repeatedlywith mothers and experimenters during early childhood, and those discussions may have strength-ened their retention of memories from early childhood (Jack et al., 2009). Second, our method ofbeginning the adolescent memory interview with a life review and discussion of more recent eventsmay have helped adolescents retrieve memories from earlier in childhood than they would if theyhad been asked first to retrieve their earliest memory, which is the typical procedure in childhoodamnesia studies (Jack & Hayne, in press; Mullen, 1994).

Of greatest interest for the current study is not the average age of earliest memory, but the relationsamong the adolescent memory variables, and especially the predictive power of early childhood vari-ables for adolescent memory. We predicted that adolescents with earlier memories would also havedenser memories across early childhood, but this was not the case. Instead, the age of earliest memory

364 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

was correlated with adolescents’ insight into life events and with their knowledge of family history.Given that family history knowledge is gained largely through social interactions (Duke et al., 2008),this pattern is in line with social interaction explanations of childhood amnesia (Fivush & Nelson,2004; Nelson & Fivush, 2004). Perhaps adolescents with rich family storytelling traditions are morepracticed at reflecting upon memories and connecting their own memories to their current identi-ties. A number of researchers have hypothesized that family storytelling, and elaborative reminiscingspecifically, could lead to fuller and more insightful life stories in adolescence and young adulthood(McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). Mullen (1994) also noted that adults who reported thinking abouttheir earliest memories prior to the study tended to have earlier first memories. We were able tointegrate these claims by showing that mothers’ elaborative reminiscing during early childhood wasthe best single predictor of adolescents’ age of earliest memory, their insight into life events, and theirknowledge of family history.

This finding is also in line with Jack et al.’s (2009) finding of the importance of mothers’ open-endedelaborative questions during early childhood for the age of one’s earliest memory, but it extends thatfinding to rule out other possible contributors, such as children’s self-recognition skills or their theoryof mind. Open-ended elaborative questions are a particularly effective technique for encouragingchildren to put their own memories into words (Haden, 1998; Reese & Newcombe, 2007), and it islikely that this act of linguistic recall is a good mnemonic. We did not replicate Jack et al.’s (2009)finding that mothers’ high levels of open-ended elaborative questions combined with low levels ofrepetition were linked to earlier memories. However, we were able to show that only open-endedelaborative questions, and not repetitive questions and statements, significantly predicted the ageof adolescents’ earliest memory. We speculate that open-ended elaborative questions may also helpchildren develop insights into life events because these questions encourage children to develop theirown perspectives on an event (Bird & Reese, 2006). For instance, one common open-ended elaborativequestion during reminiscing with young children is “What was your favorite part [of the event]?” Infuture research, it will be important to clarify the mechanism by which mothers’ elaborative questionsare linked to adolescents’ insights into life events.

Density of early memories was a separate component of adolescents’ autobiographical memoryand was linked to having a greater number of specific memories across early childhood and to somedegree with knowledge of family history. It is not surprising that knowledge of family history is linkedto multiple aspects of autobiographical memory in adolescence—not just to one’s earliest memoryand to insight but also to the density of one’s memories (Fivush, Bohanek, & Duke, 2008). Familieswith rich storytelling traditions most likely also contribute to the retention of adolescents’ own earlyautobiographical memories by reinstating these memories through frequent and elaborative con-versations. In keeping with this interpretation, mothers’ open-ended elaborative questions were alsocorrelated with adolescents having denser early memories. However, the most important contributorsto the density of adolescents’ memories were their delayed self-recognition and their own memoryresponding during early childhood. Thus the density of adolescents’ memories was governed more bychild factors than by maternal factors.

Previous research with this sample did not identify children’s delayed self-recognition as an impor-tant factor in early childhood memories. We must view this result with some caution because of theamount of missing data on this task, which was extremely difficult to conduct in the home setting,and because of the inability to control for early language in this analysis. Our pass rate on this taskof 31% at 40 months (excluding the replaced data) is midway between Povinelli et al.’s (1996) passrate of 13% for 35- to 40-month olds and 60% for 41- to 46-month olds as expected. The questionremains, however, of what exactly this task measures. Although Povinelli et al. (1996) asserted that itmeasures the concept of a self that extends in time – similar to James’s notion – later interpretationsare more qualified (Povinelli, 2001). Perhaps this task simply measures the child’s ability to connectrecent events with the current state of affairs, and is thus more of a cognitive than self-relevant accom-plishment (Welch-Ross, 2001). If so, the link with memory density lends support to the interpretationthat this factor is more a function of sheer cognitive capacity than are some of the other aspects ofautobiographical memory in adolescence.

Volume of early memories was yet another distinct aspect of adolescents’ autobiographical memorywith distinct sources of influence. Nearly all aspects of mother–child reminiscing, along with their

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 365

current language skills and their earlier ability to understand false belief, predicted the volume withwhich adolescents described their early memories. Although girls did not provide significantly moredetails about their early memories than did boys as in prior research (MacDonald et al., 2000), meansfor the volume of early memories were in the expected direction (M = 12.16 propositions for girls andM = 9.55 for boys). Thus, the quantity of memory information provided by mother and child in earlychildhood was the most important predictor of the details that adolescents retained about their earlymemories.

The strengths of this study are the longitudinal design, the range of constructs assessed in earlychildhood and in adolescence, and the relatively high retention rate (79.3% across 11 years from thestart of the study, and 92% across 7 years from the last early childhood timepoint). One limitation isthat we did not measure children’s emotion understanding, which is now identified as a critical factorin autobiographical memory development (Wang, 2008). We were also unable to assess the uniquerole of early childhood language in the density of early memories due to the strong links betweenlanguage and cognitive development in early childhood. Another limitation is the homogeneity of thesample, which does not allow us to generalize these findings to non-European cultures. It is worthnoting, however, that the three Maori adolescents who remained in our study had earliest memoriesof 30, 29, and 22 months—all younger than the average for our sample and similar to prior researchon the earlier first memories of Maori adults (MacDonald et al., 2000).

These findings provide partial support for nearly all existing theories of autobiographical memorydevelopment (Bauer, 2007; Fivush & Nelson, 2004; Howe & Courage, 1993; Nelson & Fivush, 2004;Perner & Ruffman, 1995; Povinelli, 1995; Reese, 2009). Adolescents’ memories are a function of socialinteraction during early childhood, their current and past language development, their self-awarenessand their theory of mind. These different sources of influence, however, are related to different aspectsof memory in adolescence. As Bauer (2007) pointed out, theorists of autobiographical memory are likeblind people feeling part of the elephant and claiming it for the whole. The answer is “yes” to all ofthese theories, but it is a qualified “yes,” because many of the cognitive and linguistic contributors wereno longer direct contributors to adolescent memory once social interaction was put into the mix. Theexception is the important role of delayed self-recognition and possibly early childhood language in thedensity of early memories. Most likely, mothers who engage in rich levels of reminiscing strengthentheir children’s language, self-awareness, and theory of mind as they simultaneously enrich theirchildren’s memories (Peterson, Jesso, & McCabe, 1999; Reese & Cleveland, 2006; Reese & Newcombe,2007). We look forward to new research that will elucidate these effects.

Acknowledgements

The Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of NZ supported the early childhood phase of this research.The Division of Sciences at the University of Otago supported the adolescent phase of this researchthrough a grant to the first author and a summer bursary to the third author. We thank Donna Ander-son, Chen Yan, Sandra Sullivan and the Origins of Language and Memory team for their help withrecruitment, data collection, transcription, and coding. We are also grateful to the families for theircontinued enthusiasm.

References

Bauer, P. J. (2007). Remembering the times of our lives: Memory in infancy and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Belsky, J., Spritz, B., & Crnic, K. (1996). Infant attachment security and affective-cognitive information processing at age 3.

Psychological Science, 7, 111–114.Bird, A., & Reese, E. (2006). Emotional reminiscing and the development of an autobiographical self. Developmental Psychology,

42, 613–626.Bohanek, J. G., Marin, K. A., Fivush, R., & Duke, M. P. (2006). Family narrative interaction and children’s sense of self. Family

Process, 45, 39–54.Cheatham, C. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Construction of a more coherent story: Prior verbal recall predicts later verbal accessibility

of early memories. Memory, 13, 516–532.Cleveland, E. S., & Reese, E. (2005). Maternal structure and autonomy support in conversations about the past: Contributions to

children’s autobiographical memory. Developmental Psychology, 41, 376–388.Cleveland, E. S., & Reese, E. (2008). Children remember early childhood: Long-term recall across the offset of childhood amnesia.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 127–142.

366 E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367

Dudycha, G. J., & Dudycha, M. M. (1933). Adolescents’ memories of preschool experiences. Journal of Genetic Psychology: General,42, 468–480.

Duke, M. P., Lazarus, A., & Fivush, R. (2008). Knowledge of family history as a clinically useful index of psychological well-beingand prognosis: A brief report. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 45, 268–272.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Elley, W. B., & Irving, J. C. (2003). The Elley-Irving socio-economic index: 2001 census revision. New Zealand Journal of Educational

Studies, 38, 3–17.Farrant, K., & Reese, E. (2000). Maternal style and children’s participation in reminiscing: Stepping stones in children’s autobi-

ographical memory development. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 193–225.Fiese, B. H., & Pratt, M. W. (2004). Metaphors and meanings of family stories: Integrating life course and systems perspectives

on narrative. In M. W. Pratt, & B. H. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the life course: Across time and generations (pp. 401–418).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fivush, R., Bohanek, J., & Duke, M. P. (2008). The intergenerational self: Subjective perspective and family history. In F. Sani (Ed.),Individual and collective self-continuity (pp. 131–144). New York: Psychology Press.

Fivush, A., Haden, C., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and coherence of preschoolers’ personal narratives over time: Implicationsfor childhood amnesia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 32–56.

Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Reese, E. (2006). Elaborating on elaborations: The role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive andsocioemotional development. Child Development, 77, 1568–1588.

Fivush, R., & Hamond, N. (1990). Autobiographical memory across the preschool years: Toward reconceptualizing childhoodamnesia. In R. Fivush, & J. A. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 223–248). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fivush, R., & Nelson, K. (2004). Culture and language in the emergence of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 15,573–577.

Fivush, R., & Schwarzmueller, A. (1998). Children remember childhood: Implications for childhood amnesia. Applied CognitivePsychology, 12, 455–473.

Fivush, R., & Vasudeva, A. (2002). Remembering to relate: Socioemotional correlates of mother–child reminiscing. Journal ofCognition and Development, 3, 73–90.

Habermas, T., & de Silveira, C. (2008). The development of global coherence in life narratives across adolescence: Temporal,causal, and thematic aspects. Developmental Psychology, 44, 707–721.

Harley, K., & Reese, E. (1999). Origins of autobiographical memory. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1338–1348.Haden, C. A. (1998). Reminiscing with different children: Relating maternal stylistic consistency and sibling similarity in talk

about the past. Developmental Psychology, 34, 99–114.Howe, M. L., & Courage, M. L. (1993). On resolving the enigma of infantile amnesia. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 305–326.Hudson, J. A. (1990). The emergence of autobiographical memory in mother–child conversation. In R. Fivush, & J. A. Hudson

(Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 166–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Hudson, J. A. (1991). Learning to reminisce: A case study. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 295–324.Jack, F., MacDonald, S., Reese, E., & Hayne, H. (2009). Maternal reminiscing style during early childhood predicts the age of

adolescents’ earliest memories. Child Development, 80, 496–505.James, W. (1890/1950). Principles of psychology. Chicago Encyclopedia Britannica.Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self. New York: Plenum Press.McCabe, A., Peterson, C., & Connors, D. M. (2006). Attachment security and narrative elaboration. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 30, 398–409.MacDonald, S., Uesiliana, K., & Hayne, H. (2000). Cross-cultural and gender differences in childhood amnesia. Memory, 8, 365–376.McLean, K., Breen, A., & Fournier, M. (2010). Constructing the self in early, middle, and late adolescent boys: Narrative identity,

individuation, and well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 166–187.McLean, K, Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A process model of self-development. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262–278.McLean, K., & Pratt, M. (2006). Life’s little (and big) lessons: Identity statuses and meaning-making in the turning point narratives

of emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 42, 714–722.Morris, G., & Baker-Ward, L. (2007). Fragile but real: Children’s capacity to use newly acquired words to convey preverbal

memories. Child Development, 78, 448–458.Mullen, M. K. (1994). Earliest recollections of childhood: A demographic analysis. Cognition, 52, 55–79.Naito, M. (2003). The relationship between theory of mind and episodic memory: Evidence for the development of autonoetic

consciousness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 312–336.Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological

Review, 111, 486–511.Newcombe, R., & Reese, E. (2004). Evaluations and orientations in mother–child narratives as a function of attachment. Inter-

national Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 230–245.Perner, J. (2000). Memory and theory of mind. In E. Tulving, & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 297–312).

New York: Oxford University Press.Perner, J. (2001). Episodic memory: Essential distinctions and developmental implications. In C. Moore, & K. Lemmon (Eds.),

The self in time: Developmental perspectives (pp. 181–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Perner, J., Kloo, D., & Gornik, E. (2007). Episodic memory development: Theory of mind is part of re-experiencing experienced

events. Infant and Child Development, 16, 471–490.Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (1995). Episodic memory or autonoetic consciousness: Developmental evidence and a theory of

autobiographical memory development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 516–548.Peterson, C., Grant, V. V., & Boland, L. D. (2005). Childhood amnesia in children and adolescents: Their earliest memories. Memory,

13, 622–637.Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging narratives in preschoolers: An intervention study. Journal of Child

Language, 26, 46–67.

E. Reese et al. / Cognitive Development 25 (2010) 352–367 367

Povinelli, D. J. (1995). The unduplicated self. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Advances in psychology, the self in infancy: Theory and research(pp. 161–192). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.

Povinelli, D. J. (2001). The self: Elevated in consciousness and extended in time. In C. Moore, & K. Lemmon (Eds.), The self in time:Developmental perspectives (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Povinelli, D. J., Landau, K. R., & Perilloux, H. K. (1996). Self-recognition in young children using delayed versus live feedback:Evidence of a developmental asynchrony. Child Development, 67, 1540–1554.

Reese, E. (1999). What children say when they talk about the past. Narrative Inquiry, 9, 1–27.Reese, E. (2002a). A model of the origins of autobiographical memory. In H. Hayne, & J. Fagan (Eds.), Progress in infancy research

(pp. 215–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Reese, E. (2002b). Social factors in the development of autobiographical memory: The state of the art. Social Development, 11,

124–142.Reese, E. (2009). Development of autobiographical memory: Origins and consequences. In P. Bauer (Ed.), Advances in child

development and behavior (pp. 145–200). The Netherlands: Elsevier.Reese, E., Chen, Y., Jack, F., & Hayne, H. (2010). Emerging identities: Narrative and self in early adolescence. In K.C. McLean, & M.

Pasupathi (Eds.), Narrative development in adolescence: Creating the storied self (pp. 23–43). R.J.R. Levesque (Series Editor),Advancing responsible adolescent development. NY: Springer Science.

Reese, E., & Cleveland, E. (2006). Mother–child reminiscing and children’s understanding of mind. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52,17–43.

Reese, E., & Farrant, K. (2003). Social origins of reminiscing. In R. Fivush, & C. Haden (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and theconstruction of the narrative self: Developmental and cultural perspectives (pp. 29–49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (2008). Collective memory across the lifespan. Memory, 16, 201–212.Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1993). Mother–child conversations about the past: Relationships of style and memory over

time. Cognitive Development, 8, 403–430.Reese, E., & Newcombe, R. (2007). Training mothers in elaborative reminiscing enhances children’s autobiographical memory

and narrative. Child Development, 78, 1153–1170.Reese, E., & Read, S. (2000). Predictive validity of the New Zealand MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Words

and Sentences. Journal of Child Language, 27, 255–266.Sachs, J. (1983). Topic selection in parent–child discourse. Discourse Processes, 2, 145–153.Simcock, G., & Hayne, H. (2002). Breaking the barrier? Children fail to translate their preverbal memories into language.

Psychological Science, 13, 225–231.Simcock, G., & Hayne, H. (2003). Age-related changes in verbal and nonverbal memory during early childhood. Developmental

Psychology, 39, 805–814.Tustin, K., & Hayne, H. (in press). Defining the boundary: Age-related changes in infantile amnesia. Developmental Psychology.

doi:10:1037/90020105.van Abbema, D., & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Autobiographical memory in middle childhood: Recollections of the recent and distant

past. Memory, 13, 829–845.Wang, Q. (2004). The emergence of cultural self-constructs: Autobiographical memory and self-description in European Amer-

ican and Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 40, 3–15.Wang, Q. (2008). Emotion knowledge and autobiographical memory across the preschool years: A cross-cultural longitudinal

investigation. Cognition, 108, 117–135.Waters, E. (1987). Attachment Q-set. University of New York at Stony Brook. Unpublished instrument.Weigle, T. W., & Bauer, P. J. (2000). Deaf and hearing adults’ recollections of childhood and beyond. Memory, 8, 293–309.Welch-Ross, M. (1995). An integrative model of the development of autobiographical memory. Developmental Review, 15,

338–365.Welch-Ross, M. K. (1997). Mother–child participation in conversation about the past: Relationships to preschoolers’ theory of

mind. Developmental Psychology, 33, 618–629.Welch-Ross, M. K. (2001). Personalizing the temporally extended self: Evaluative self awareness and the development of auto-

biographical memory. In C. Moore, & K. Lemmon (Eds.), The self in time: Developmental perspectives (pp. 97–120). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory, 11, 137–149.