The document summarizes a study that compared autobiographical memories of adolescents and adults. It collected narratives and subjective ratings of past events from adolescents aged 12-14 and adults aged 18-23. The narratives were coded for coherence, including context, chronology, and theme. Results showed adults' narratives were more thematically coherent for recent and significant events, but not for early childhood events. Adolescents and adults gave similar subjective ratings overall, but adolescents rated early memories stronger than adults did. This suggests adults have more sophisticated narrative skills, while adolescents and adults both experience vivid recollections and view memories personally.
2. This article was downloaded by: [Nicole Hättenschwiler]
On: 04 February 2015, At: 12:27
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Memory
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20
“Owning” the personal past: Adolescents’ and
adults’ autobiographical narratives and ratings of
memories of recent and distant events
Patricia J. Bauer
a
, Nicole Hättenschwiler
b
& Marina Larkina
a
a
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
b
Institute Humans in Complex Systems, University of Applied Sciences,
Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland
Published online: 02 Feb 2015.
To cite this article: Patricia J. Bauer, Nicole Hättenschwiler & Marina Larkina (2015): “Owning” the personal past:
Adolescents’ and adults’ autobiographical narratives and ratings of memories of recent and distant events, Memory,
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2014.995673
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.995673
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
4. 2008; Bluck & Habermas, 2001; Fivush, 2011;
Fivush & Zaman, 2014; McAdams, 2001). This
stance is noted as absent from autobiographical
narratives as late as adolescence (Fivush, 2012;
Habermas & de Silveira, 2008). Moreover, prior to
adulthood, memories of past events are charac-
terised as lacking important features of episodic
and thus autobiographical memory, such as vivid
recollection or phenomenological reliving (e.g.,
Wheeler, 2000). The primary source of evidence
for these perspectives are the narratives that
children and adolescents produce about past
events. Their narratives tend to feature relatively
few attributes that establish the temporal and
spatial context of events (Reese et al., 2011) and
which convey a subjective sense of the significance
of events to the narrators’ lives (Bohn & Berntsen,
2008; Fivush & Zaman, 2014; Habermas & Bluck,
2000). Importantly, direct comparisons of the
qualities of adults’ autobiographical memories
and those of children and adolescents are rare in
the literature (though see Bauer & Larkina, 2013),
making it difficult to evaluate claims of features
present in adults’ autobiographical recollections
but absent in those younger. In the present
research, we compared autobiographical memories
of adolescents and adults drawn from each of
several periods in the past, using measures of
narrative quality and participants’ own subjective
ratings of their memories. The data were used to
test suggestions of differences in the perspective
adults and adolescents have on memories of their
personal pasts.
An element crucial to definition of an episodic
memory as autobiographical is evidence of a
unique, personal perspective on the event that is
the subject of the memory (Bauer, 2007, in press;
Bluck & Alea, 2008; Conway, 2005; Habermas &
Köber, 2014; Nelson & Fivush, 2004). Among
adults, evidence of the meaning or significance
placed on memories of past events comes from
three primary sources. First, the fact that adults
remember some events over long periods of time
is taken as prima facie evidence of their import-
ance to the individual. Second, in their narratives
about past events, adults include information
that indicates vivid recollection of the experi-
ences, such as details that locate the events in
time and place. They also feature subjective
evaluations and interpretations of events, and
they explicitly create linkages between autobio-
graphical events and experiences, future plans
and self-understanding (Bluck, Alea, Habermas,
& Rubin, 2005; Pillemer & Kuwabara, 2012;
Reese et al., 2011). Third, when adults describe
their memories by rating them, they indicate that
their memories are vivid, as well as personally
relevant and significant (e.g., Bauer, Stennes, &
Haight, 2003; Howes, Siegel, & Brown, 1993;
Waters, Bauer, & Fivush, 2014; Weigle & Bauer,
2000; West & Bauer, 1999). These sources con-
verge to suggest that adults have a unique,
individual and personal perspective on their
memories—in effect, they “own” their autobio-
graphical memories.
In studies with children and even adolescents
as subjects, there is less evidence of appreciation
of the personal relevance or significance of
memories of past events. Young children, in
particular, do not remember the events of their
lives over periods as long as adults do. Indeed,
there is growing evidence that throughout the
first decade of life, children’s memories are more
vulnerable to forgetting, relative to those of
adults (e.g., Bauer & Larkina, 2014; Bauer,
Burch, Scholin, & Guler, 2007; Peterson, Warren,
& Short, 2011); the younger the child at the time
of the event, the more susceptible the memory is
to forgetting (Bauer & Larkina, 2014; Morris,
Baker-Ward, & Bauer, 2009; see Bauer, in press,
for discussion).
The narratives that children provide about past
events are also noted as lacking in some of the
features that characterise adults’ narrative
reports. There are pronounced changes in narrat-
ive length and quality over the first decade of life
(e.g., Habermas, Negele, & Mayer, 2010; Van
Abbema & Bauer, 2005). It is not until 10–12
years of age that children effectively orient the
listener to the time and place of events and
maintain and elaborate on the topics of past
events (e.g., O’Kearney, Speyer, & Kenardy,
2007; Reese et al., 2011). Especially salient omis-
sions are the causal connections between and
among actions and events (e.g., because, so that)
that aid in understanding of why events unfolded
as they did and which characterise adults’ narra-
tives (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005; Habermas et al.,
2010). It is only in adolescence that individuals
construct an extended life narrative and convey a
sense of narrative self-identity (e.g., Bohn &
Berntsen, 2008; Fivush & Zaman, 2014; Habermas
& Bluck, 2000; see Bohn & Berntsen, 2014).
The third source of evidence regarding the
meaning of memories of past events to adults,
namely, subjective ratings, is virtually absent from
the developmental literature. With children, use
of subjective ratings seemingly is confined to
2 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
5. those of confidence in old/new recognition of
words or pictures from a study set (e.g., Ghetti,
Qin, & Goodman, 2002), and valence and arousal
of emotional picture stimuli (e.g., Leventon,
Stevens, & Bauer, 2014). It does not appear that
subjective ratings of the qualities of personal or
autobiographical memories have been elicited
from children or adolescents. As a result, it is
not possible to determine how pre-adults them-
selves evaluate their memories of the naturally
occurring events of their lives.
The major purpose of the present research was
to test suggestions of differences in the perspect-
ive adults and adolescents have on memories of
their personal pasts. We addressed this question
by obtaining narratives and subjective ratings of
past events from adolescents (ages 12–14 years)
and adults (ages 18–23 years); the materials were
obtained in the context of an online survey. We
chose these age groups because they are on either
side of a transition in identity development
(Erikson, 1968). Further, based on analyses of
autobiographical narratives, they are presumed to
have different relationships with their memories
of past events. As noted, adults’ narratives reflect
a personal or subjective perspective on the events
of their lives. In contrast, even as late as adoles-
cence, children’s narratives are lacking in this
perspective (e.g., Bluck & Habermas, 2001;
Fivush, 2011; Habermas & Bluck, 2000; McA-
dams, 2001). Direct comparison of participants
before and after the hypothesised transition
stands to inform the question of whether adults
and adolescents place different meaning or signi-
ficance on their recollections of past events.
Although it would have been desirable to extend
the developmental sample further into childhood
(i.e., below age 12 years), we did not do so
because of concerns that younger children would
have difficulty completing the protocol, which, as
described below, required written production of
several narratives and completion of multi-item,
multiple-point rating scales. Moreover, we had
concerns that parents of children younger than
age 12 years would be uncomfortable with their
children independently completing an online sur-
vey describing personal events and experiences.
We coded the participants’ narratives about
past events along three dimensions of coherence
that are theoretically and empirically distinct:
context, chronology and theme (Reese et al.,
2011). We focused on the attribute of narrative
coherence because of the central role that well-
developed narratives are presumed to play in
building a structure of personal experiences in a
way that facilitates subjective reflection and helps
to understand life (Bruner, 1987). Specifically,
coherent narratives provide a chronological se-
quence of events and aid the narrator and listener
in placing events on a timeline. They also feature
intentions, motivations, thoughts and emotions
that give structure and meaning to the events
(Linde, 1993). In short, the coherence of a
narrative is thought to reflect the sense of
personal meaning of experienced events (Reese
et al., 2011). The context dimension of narrative
coherence reveals the extent to which a reader
(or listener) observes evidence that the event that
is the subject of the memory report is located in
time and place, and the extent to which the
temporal and spatial context of the event is
elaborated and specified. The chronology dimen-
sion reveals the extent to which the narration is
temporally organised. The theme dimension cap-
tures the extent to which the coder perceives
maintenance of a distinct topic in the narrative
and importantly for present purposes, the extent
to which the narrative features interpretations of
the meaning of the event, and connections to and
integration with other personal events and experi-
ences, future plans and the significance of the
event to the self. In prior research, the dimension
of theme has been shown to be especially sensit-
ive to developmental change (Reese et al., 2011).
Critically, coding of narratives for any attribute—
including coherence—is an act performed not by
the person recollecting the past event, but by an
independent coder. As such, it does not provide
a direct window onto the perception that the
provider of the narrative has on the memory or
the event. Moreover, it is inevitably confounded
with developmental changes in narrative produc-
tion. This further distances the coding from the
provider’s perception. In this regard, use of
subjective ratings can be expected to be espe-
cially revealing of the perspective an individual
has on her or his recollections. In spite of this
potential, ratings of subjective qualities such as
the importance of the event at the time of
the experience and in retrospect, the vividness
of the recollection, and the completeness of
the memory, for example, do not tend to be
included in developmental studies; we know of
no comparison of ratings of these attributes by
adolescents and adults. In the present research,
we used participants’ subjective ratings of their
memories as a source of evidence regarding how
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 3
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
6. they think about their memories of the naturally
occurring events of their lives.
We asked the participants to narrate and rate
memories from the recent and distant past.
Specifically, we asked both age groups to provide
memories and ratings for each of three events
from each of three periods: (a) ages 1–5 years, (b)
ages 6–10 years and (c) the previous year. Adults
also provided memories and ratings of the period
of 11–15 years. Both age groups also narrated and
rated their memory of the “most significant”
event of their lives. We used the data in planned
contrasts of adolescents’ and adults’ responses
within each period.
A strong version of the suggestion that adults
and adolescents have different perspectives on
the events of their lives and their memories of
them would lead to the prediction of between-
group differences in memory quality, regardless
of the period of time from which the memories
were drawn. Moreover, the differences would be
expected to be apparent in both narratives and
subjective ratings; the narrative dimension of
theme would be expected to be especially sensit-
ive to group differences because it reflects nar-
rative interpretations of the meaning and
significance of the event to the self. These
predictions follow from the argument that a
subjective perspective on the corpus of memories
of past events is developed in adulthood, as
individuals come to evaluate their past experi-
ences in terms of their significance and meaning
to the self. Thus, regardless of when the events
took place, adults’ narrative reports and subject-
ive ratings of their memories should feature a
sense of vivid recollection with personal or indi-
vidual perspective. In contrast, it is argued that
adolescents have not yet gained autobiographical
perspective on the events and memories of their
lives and thus should not convey it either in
narrative descriptions or in subjective ratings.
An alternate version of the suggestion that
adults and adolescents have different perspectives
on their memories of past events would allow that
personal meaning or significance might be appar-
ent only for memories formed at (or near) the
time that a subjective perspective was adopted,
namely, in adulthood. In this case, memories
formed earlier in life (1-5 years and 6-10 years)
might be recalled with less “autobiographical”
flavour, by both adults and adolescents. In con-
trast, age group differences should be apparent in
narratives and subjective ratings of memories of
the “most significant” event and memories of
events from the previous year of life, which for
adults was ages 17–22 years and for adolescents
was ages 11–13 years. For adults, memories of
these events should be characterised by vivid
recollection and personal reflection, whereas
these qualities should be less apparent in adoles-
cents’ memories. Moreover, under the assump-
tion that achievement of a subjective perspective
occurs gradually, we would expect to see more
evidence of it in narratives and ratings of events
and memories from the period of early adoles-
cence (11–15 years), relative to childhood (6–10
years). We tested this by comparing adolescents’
narratives and ratings of events and memories
from the period of 6–10 years and adults’ narra-
tives and subjective ratings from the period of 11–
15 years. This contrast features memories from
the same temporal distance in the past (i.e., on
average, 5-7 years in the past), yet the memories
were formed in different developmental periods
(childhood vs. early adolescence).
As just outlined, both the strong and alternate
versions of the suggestion that adults and adoles-
cents have different perspectives on their mem-
ories lead to predictions that the pattern of age
group differences would be similar whether based
on narratives that the individuals produce or on
their subjective ratings of their memories. Yet
these two windows on autobiographical memory
do not by necessity, afford the same view. As
noted earlier, when the source of evidence about
a memory is a narrative description of it, the
vividness, personal relevance, meaning, or signi-
ficance of the experience or the memory is in the
eye of the beholder—an independent coder. That
individual’s perception of the memory is inevit-
ably confounded with the quality of the narrative
description of it. Because narrative competence
develops slowly, over the first decade of life and
beyond, it is possible that independent coding of
narratives underestimate the extent to which
narrators have adopted a subjective perspective
on their memories (see Bauer, in press, for
discussion). If this is the case, then fewer differ-
ences between adults’ and adolescents’ may be
observed in their subjective ratings of events and
memories, relative to their narrative descriptions
of them.
In summary, in the present research, we used
narratives and subjective ratings to directly com-
pare the qualities of autobiographical memories
of adolescents and adults. We compared the
qualities in both recent and distant events. Evid-
ence of differences in both the narrative
4 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
7. description and subjective ratings of events and
memories, regardless of the time in life from
which they were drawn, would be consistent with
a strong version of the suggestion of a different
perspective on autobiographical memories by
adults and adolescents. Evidence of differences
in more recent and the “most significant” event—
but not in more remote events—would be con-
sistent with an alternate suggestion that a sub-
jective perspective infuses events and memories
formed later, but not earlier, in life. In light of the
possibility that independent coding of narratives
may underestimate the personal meaning or
significance of events, especially among younger
narrators, we expected fewer differences between
adults’ and adolescents’ in their subjective ratings
of events and memories, relative to their narrat-
ive descriptions of them.
METHODS
Participants
A total of 110 participants took part in the study.
Of the participants, 54 were adolescents (26
females, 28 males; M age = 13.01 years, SD =
0.80, range 12–14 years) and 56 were adults (29
females, 27 males; M age = 20.51 years, SD =
1.30, range 18–23 years). Adolescents were
recruited from an existing pool of families who
had volunteered to take part in child develop-
ment research. Though no specific information on
SES was obtained, the pool comprises largely
middle- to upper middle-class families in which
one or both parents are college educated. The
adults were undergraduate and graduate students
recruited through flyers and online advertise-
ments on the Emory University campus. Based
on self-report, the racial composition of the
sample was 19% African-American, 17% Asian,
56% European-American and 3% mixed race;
the remaining 5% of participants did not report
their race. Four-percent of the sample self-identi-
fied as Hispanic. The adults and the parents of
the adolescents provided online written informed
consent for their own or their children’s parti-
cipation (respectively). Adolescents provided on-
line written assent to take part. After completing
the survey, participants received a gift certificate.
All procedures were reviewed and approved by
the Emory University Institutional Review
Board.
Procedure
Data were collected via an online survey using
Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com). Adult
participants and the parents of adolescent partici-
pants were sent a direct link to the survey using
electronic mail. Upon accessing the survey, adult
participants were asked to complete the consent
procedure. Parents of adolescent participants were
encouraged to review the entire survey before
consenting to their adolescents’ participation.
Upon receiving parental consent, the adolescents
themselves were asked for their assent to particip-
ate. They were instructed to complete the survey
independently (i.e., without parental assistance).
All participants then were asked to provide the
demographic information of birth date, survey
date, gender, race and ethnicity, and for adults,
the last year completed in college. All participants
fulfilled the inclusion criterion of having English as
their first language (the requirement for English as
the first language was provided in the recruitment
materials).
In the survey proper, participants were asked
to think about specific events that occurred in one
place at one time in their lives. A sample survey
for one memory report is provided in the
Appendix. They were asked to provide a written
narrative of each event and to include “as much
detail as you can” about the event. Adolescents
were prompted to provide a total of 10 memory
reports. They described three memories from
each of three periods: 1–5 years, 6–10 years and
the previous year of life. At the end, they were
asked to describe the “most significant” event of
their lives. Adults were prompted to provide a
total of 13 memory reports. They described three
memories from each of four periods: 1–5 years,
6–10 years, 11–15 years and the previous year of
life. At the end, they were asked to describe the
“most significant” event of their lives.
After describing each memory, participants
were asked to provide their age at the time of
the event, in years and months. They also were
asked to provide a descriptive title for the event.
Participants then used 9-point Likert-type scales
to provide ratings of their subjective experience
of the event that gave rise to the memory, of the
memory itself and of the extent to which they
shared their memory with others. To capture
participants’ ratings of the subjective experience
of the event that gave rise to the memory, we
asked them to rate the event on valence (very
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 5
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
8. negative to very positive), arousal (very bored/
calm to very excited/nervous) and uniqueness
(occurs often to occurs very rarely). We also
asked about the significance of the event at the
time of the experience (not at all important to
very important), and the significance of the event
now (not at all important to very important). To
capture participants’ ratings of the qualities of the
memory of the event, we asked them to rate the
memory on vividness (very unclear to very clear)
and completeness (referred to as “coherence” in
the survey; very few details to many details). We
also asked them to rate their confidence that their
memory accurately captured the details of the
event (very unsure to very sure). Participants also
indicated whether their memory of the event was
(a) as if they experienced it (first person), (b) as if
they were watching it happen (third person) or
(c) both. Finally, to assess the extent to which
participants shared their memories with others,
we asked them to rate the frequency of retelling
of the narrative with others (never to very often).
The prompts for memories from the different
periods were presented in a pseudo-random
order, such that memories from the same period
were not prompted in immediate succession, and
the prompt for the “most significant” event
always was provided last. Each of the four
pseudo-random orders was used approximately
equally often across participants and age groups.
Questions that prompted ratings of the events,
the memories themselves and the frequency of
retelling of the narratives were interspersed and
presented in the same order for all memories, for
all participants.
Coding and reduction of data
The length of each narrative was calculated in
words, using Microsoft Word. The coherence of
the memory narratives was coded on the three
dimensions of the Narrative Coherence Coding
Scheme (NaCCs) developed by Reese et al.
(2011). The three dimensions are context (orient-
ing in time and space), chronology (relating event
components along a timeline) and theme (main-
taining and elaborating on topic). Each dimension
was coded on a 4-point scale, from 0–3. The levels
of the dimensions are described in Table 1.
All narratives were coded by a single indi-
vidual (the second author). For purposes of
estimating reliability of coding, a second inde-
pendent researcher (the third author) coded 20%
of the narratives. Average reliability for each
dimension was calculated using Cohen’s kappa.
Estimates of reliability ranged from .82 to .85 for
adults and .82 to .86 for adolescents (ps < .001),
indicating “outstanding” reliability (Landis &
Koch, 1977).
For purposes of analysis, for each period (1–5,
6–10, 11–15 [adults only], previous year) we
calculated the mean length of the narratives (in
words) and the mean score for each coherence
dimension (context, chronology, theme; as argued
and demonstrated by Reese et al. [2011], the
dimensions are theoretically and empirically
TABLE 1
The narrative coherence dimensions of context, chronology, and theme, and the levels of each dimension (derived from the NaCCs
categories in Reese et al. [2011])
Score Context Chronology Theme
0 Neither time nor
location information is
provided in the story.
Narrative contains no information about
temporal order.
Narrative is off-topic or described with several
distracters that make identification of the
topic difficult.
1 Time point or location at
any level of specificity.
Some events on the timeline and fewer than
half of the temporally relevant actions can be
ordered on a timeline with confidence.
Topic is identifiable yet the narrative includes
negligible development of causal linkages,
personal evaluations and reactions or
elaborations of actions.
2 Time and location of the
event and one of the
dimensions is specific.
Between 50% and 75% of the relevant actions
can be placed on a timeline but the entire story
cannot with confidence be ordered from start
to finish.
The narrative includes interpretations and/or
elaborations of previously reported actions.
3 Time and location
information is specific.
Almost all the temporally relevant actions can
be ordered.
In addition to the requirements for score 2
memories are connected to other
autobiographical experiences, future plans
or self.
6 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
9. distinct and thus were treated separately in ana-
lyses). We also calculated the mean subjective
rating for each dimension (valence, arousal,
uniqueness, significance then, significance now,
vividness, completeness, confidence in details and
frequency of retelling). The mean values were
used in all analyses. Because there was only a
single “most significant” event, analyses of the
most significant event were based on the raw
scores and ratings. Finally, for each period, we
tallied the percentage of memories that partici-
pants indicated were in first person, third person,
and both.
RESULTS
Events reported
As is frequently observed in studies in which
participants are free to report on any type of past
event (e.g., Morris et al., 2009), the majority of
the events upon with the participants reported
were moderately positive experiences, including
school events, family outings and celebrations and
vacations. Few negative experiences were refer-
enced, with those included consisting primarily of
minor injuries or accidents. For the “most signi-
ficant” event, adults’ and adolescents alike
reported on family and leisure or vacation activ-
ities; experiences with friends and family; and
birthdays, gifts and holidays. Additionally, adults
reported on their reception of the news that they
had been accepted to college.
Missing data and preliminary analyses
One adolescent indicated that he “did not under-
stand” the instruction to report on events from
the “previous year.” This participant’s data were
excluded from analysis of this period. Addition-
ally, due to an error in survey design, one adult
was not prompted for her or his age at the time of
the events from the previous year, and two adults
were not prompted for their ages at the time of
the most significant event of their lives. Addition-
ally, data for three adolescents were excluded
from analyses of the “most significant” event: one
adolescent did not respond to the prompt and two
indicated that the most significant event in their
lives was their own birth, but that they did not
remember it. In each case, degrees of freedom
were adjusted accordingly.
To ensure that participants responded appro-
priately to the prompts to provide memories from
specific periods of time, we conducted analyses of
the average age of participants at the time of the
events reported from each of the time periods. As
reflected in Table 2, Panel a, participants per-
formed as directed and provided reports of events
from within the specified time frames. For the
periods of 1–5 and 6–10 years, the average ages of
participants at the time of events did not differ
for adolescents and adults. For the previous
year and most significant event, the average ages
of the adolescents at the time of the events were
younger, relative to adults. In addition, for
the previous year and most significant events,
we examined the length of delay between the
time of the event and the session date (see Table
2, Panel b). The average delays did not differ
significantly between the adolescents and adults.
Because of reports in the literature of gender
differences in adolescents’ and adults’ autobio-
graphical memories (see Fivush & Zaman, 2014,
for a review), we conducted analyses for possible
gender differences. We conducted a total of
65 statistical tests (4 narrative variables plus 9
ratings × 5 period comparisons); only 5 of the
tests reached the conventional level of statistical
significance. Across age groups, females produced
longer narratives than males for events from the
period of 6–10 years (Ms = 121.30 and 93.30,
SDs = 62.29 and 61.83) and for the previous year
(Ms = 141.60 and 109.10, SDs = 75.00 and 86.58;
ts(108) = 2.36 and 2.10, ps < .05, respectively). For
memories from the period 1–5 years, females had
higher scores on the context dimension of narrat-
ive coherence, relative to males (Ms = 2.05 and
1.67, SDs = 0.48 and 0.48; t(108) = 4.24, p < .001,
respectively). In terms of their ratings of their
memories, across age groups, females indicated
that the events on which they reported were more
unique than males, both from the period 6–10
years (Ms = 7.70 and 6.93, SDs = 1.34 and 1.65)
and from the previous year (Ms = 7.35 and 6.73,
SDs = 1.58 and 1.59; ts(108) = 2.93 and 2.04,
ps < .05, respectively). There were no other
gender differences. Given the relative paucity of
gender-related effects, gender was not considered
in subsequent analyses.
Narrative dimensions
Statistics describing the narratives provided by
the participants are provided in Table 3, Panel a.
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 7
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
10. As reflected in the table, the average lengths of
the narratives (in words) provided by adolescents
and adults did not differ for the period of 1–5
years. For all other periods, adults provided
longer narratives, relative to adolescents. In con-
sideration of the differences in narrative length,
the number of words per narrative was controlled
in subsequent analyses.
To test for possible age-related differences in
narrative coherence, we conducted one-way ana-
lyses of covariance (ANCOVA) for each of the
narrative dimensions (n = 3), for each period
comparison (n = 5), controlling for narrative
length.1
Because for the period 1–5 years, the
difference in narrative length was not statistically
significant, we also conducted analyses of this
period without the statistical control. The results
of analyses did not differ when narrative length
was and was not controlled. In light of the large
number of planned comparisons conducted, in
addition to conventional levels of statistical signi-
ficance, we also evaluated the results of the
ANCOVAs against an alpha adjusted for the
number of comparisons (p < .0033: p = .05/15 =
.0033). Table 3 reflects the results of both the
uncorrected and corrected comparisons.
On the dimension of contextual coherence,
adolescents and adults differed in their narratives
from the previous year. However, the effect fell
below the adjusted level of statistical significance
(p < .0033). There were no other significant
differences in contextual coherence. On the
dimension of chronology, none of the analyses
was statistically significant.
On the dimension of thematic coherence, ado-
lescents and adults did not differ for the periods of
1–5 and 6–10 years. The narratives that adults
produced about events from ages 11 to 15 years
were more thematically coherent than those pro-
duced by adolescents about events from the same
distance in the past, namely, the period of 6–10
years. Additionally, adults’ narratives of events
from the previous year and about the most signi-
ficant event of their lives were more thematically
coherent than those produced by adolescents.
Though the effects for events from childhood
versus adolescence (6–10 years vs. 11–15 years)
TABLE 2
Average age at the time of events from each time period for adolescents and adults (Panel a) and average delay between events
and memory reports for the previous year and most significant events (Panel b)
Group
Test of difference
Adolescents Adults T-test value
Time period M (SD) Range M (SD) Range (df = 108)*
Panel a: Average age at the time of events
1–5 years 4.29 (0.77) 4.35 (0.67) 0.47
1.64–5.67 2.81–5.92
6–10 years 8.55 (0.83) 8.55 (0.89) 0.02
7.03–10.53 6.50–10.61
11–15 years NA 13.47 (0.86) NA
11.64–15.44
Previous year 12.10 (1.83) 19.80 (1.35) 6.91***
11.00–14.61 17.20–22.94
Most significant 10.85 (2.88) 17.34 (3.72) 7.64***
1.08–14.17 4.78–23.08
Panel b: Average delay between events and memory reports for the previous year and most significant events (in years)
Previous year 0.89 (0.37) 0.81 (0.38) 1.10
0.27–1.86 0.19–1.84
Most significant 2.16 (2.32) 3.17 (3.40) 1.76
0.03–11.18 0.06–13.75
Degrees of freedom for the previous year = 106 and for the most significant event = 103. ***p < .001.
1
The data also could have been subjected to a group
(adults, adolescents) × period (1–5, 6–10, previous year, most
significant event) multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA)
with the three coherence dimensions entered as separate
dependent variables. Such an analysis would have the potential
to yield uninterpretable main effects of period. Moreover, we
explicitly predicted the possibility of interactions of Group ×
Period, as well as different patterns for the different dimensions
of coherence. As such, the MANOVA approach likely would
have resulted in a larger number of statistical tests. For this
reason, we did not adopt it.
8 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
11. TABLE 3
Means (and standard deviations) for narrative length and coherence (by dimension) (Panel a), subjective ratings of events (Panel b), subjective ratings of memories (Panel c) and ratings
of frequency of retelling (Panel d), for adolescence and adults, from each time period
Time period
Dimension or rating by age group 1–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 yearsa
Previous year Most significant
Panel a: Length (in words; no maximum) and narrative coherence dimension (max = 3.0)
Length Adolescence 71.31 (48.81) 92.72 (64.96) NA 96.11 (61.15) 119.50 (172.40)
Adults 81.76 (41.92) 121.30 (58.98) 140.72 (92.65) 153.50 (90.33) 187.70 (176.60)
t-test value 1.21 2.42* 2.03* 3.89*** 2.05*
Context Adolescence 1.85 (0.46) 1.99 (0.52) NA 1.83 (0.66) 1.85 (0.78)
Adults 1.88 (0.57) 2.26 (0.59) 2.21 (0.48) 2.27 (0.51) 2.18 (0.83)
(ANCOVA length controlled) 0.01 F(1, 107) 3.43 F(1, 107) 3.26 F(1, 107) 7.78**/ns F(1, 106) 1.74 F(1, 104)
Chronology Adolescence 0.67 (0.57) 0.76 (0.61) NA 0.69 (0.64) 0.88 (1.01)
Adults 0.82 (0.70) 0.89 (0.51) 0.83 (0.51) 0.95 (0.52) 1.18 (0.92)
(ANCOVA length controlled) 1.43 F(1, 107) 1.12 F(1, 107) 0.32 F(1, 107) 2.76 F(1, 106) 2.22 F(1, 104)
Theme Adolescence 1.13 (0.30) 1.19 (0.35) NA 1.22 (0.38) 1.41 (0.53)
Adults 1.23 (0.34) 1.26 (0.37) 1.56 (0.52) 1.59 (0.47) 2.04 (0.85)
(ANCOVA length controlled) 1.55 F(1, 107) 0.02 F(1, 107) 9.62** F(1, 107) 8.18**/ns F(1, 106) 16.08*** F(1, 104)
Panel b: Subject ratings of the events (max = 9)
Valence Adolescence 5.74 (1.79) 6.21 (1.81) NA 6.70 (1.61) 7.65 (2.47)
Adults 4.98 (1.44) 4.97 (1.58) 5.61 (1.44) 6.15 (1.69) 5.84 (3.56)
t-test value −2.44*/ns −3.84*** −1.93 −1.71 −3.02***/ns
Arousal Adolescence 6.71 (1.35) 7.23 (1.59) NA 7.52 (1.30) 8.53 (1.24)
Adults 5.09 (1.90) 5.60 (1.85) 6.22 (1.66) 6.62 (1.60) 7.46 (2.21)
t-test value −5.14*** −4.03*** −3.24***/ns −3.23**/ns −3.04**/ns
Uniqueness Adolescence 7.23 (1.65) 6.86 (1.60) NA 6.20 (1.65) 7.22 (2.15)
Adults 7.80 (1.30) 7.82 (1.37) 8.21 (0.86) 7.83 (1.08) 8.59 (1.17)
t-test value 2.02*/ns 3.37*** 5.54*** 6.13*** 4.16***
Significance Adolescence 6.33 (1.95) 6.83 (1.61) NA 7.16 (1.51) 8.71 (1.10)
Then Adults 5.68 (1.84) 6.44 (1.71) 6.48 (1.83) 6.75 (1.40) 8.18 (1.71)
t-test value −1.82 −1.25 −1.07 −1.46 −1.88
Significance Adolescence 4.57 (2.08) 5.24 (1.83) NA 5.86 (2.02) 7.96 (1.82)
Now Adults 3.85 (1.93) 4.45 (1.89) 4.55 (1.65) 6.01 (1.53) 7.95 (1.71)
t-test value −1.88 −2.21*/ns −2.04*/ns 0.43 −0.04
Panel c: Subject ratings of the memories (max = 9)
Vividness Adolescence 5.17 (1.76) 6.67 (1.34) NA 7.79 (1.02) 8.25 (1.25)
Adults 4.36 (1.79) 5.61 (1.47) 6.02 (1.25) 7.62 (1.04) 7.79 (2.05)
t-test value −2.40*/ns −3.97*** −2.66***/ns −0.86 −1.41
Complete Adolescence 4.73 (1.71) 5.89 (1.41) NA 6.75 (1.39) 7.59 (1.68)
Adults 3.57 (1.81) 4.79 (1.75) 5.40 (1.60) 7.20 (1.43) 7.55 (1.90)
“OWNING”THEPERSONALPAST9
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
12. TABLE 3 (Continued)
Time period
Dimension or rating by age group 1–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 yearsa
Previous year Most significant
t-test value −3.43*** −3.61*** −1.70 1.65 0.10
Confidence Adolescence 5.80 (1.85) 7.02 (1.36) NA 8.02 (0.89) 8.20 (1.25)
Adults 4.79 (1.81) 5.94 (1.54) 6.52 (1.26) 7.77 (0.98) 8.02 (1.33)
t-test value −2.29**/ns −3.90*** −2.00*/ns −1.35 −0.71
Perspective Adol 1st 65% 73% NA 76% 72%
Adult 1st 59% 67% 71% 77% 71%
Adol 3rd 9% 7% NA 5% 6%
Adult 3rd 25% 17% 11% 7% 11%
Adol both 26% 20% NA 19% 22%
Adult both 16% 16% 18% 16% 18%
Panel d: Subjective rating of frequency of retelling (max = 9)
Retelling Adolescence 3.78 (1.88) 4.28 (1.41) NA 4.95 (1.99) 6.35 (2.09)
Adults 2.94 (1.77) 3.16 (1.77) 3.15 (1.77) 4.17 (2.00) 4.77 (2.91)
t-test value −2.43*/ns −3.65*** −3.68*** `−2.04*/ns −3.21**/ns
a
The test for difference between adolescents and adults for the period 11–15 years is a comparison between adolescents for period 6–10 and adults for period 11–15 years. T-test (df) =
108 (for the previous year df = 107; for the most significant df = 105).
For the dimensions of coherence in Panel a, alpha corrected for multiple comparisons = p < .0033. For Panels b, c and d, alpha corrected for multiple comparisons = p < .0011. In all
panels, effects that met conventional levels of statistical significance, but failed to reach the more stringent alpha, are indicated by “ns” next to F or t value.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
10BAUER,HÄTTENSCHWILER,LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
13. and the most significant event remained statistic-
ally significant with the adjustment for multiple
tests (p < .0033), the effect for the previous year fell
below the corrected level. Thus, the age of the
participant at the time of the report did not have
consequences for narrative characteristics about
events from early in life (ages 1–5 and 6–10 years).
In contrast, group differences in thematic coher-
ence emerged in reports of events from adoles-
cence versus childhood (i.e., 11–15 years vs. 6–10
years) and from adulthood versus adolescence (i.e.,
for the most significant event with a less robust
trend for events from the previous year).
Subjective ratings
To test for possible age-related differences in
participants’ subjective ratings of the events that
gave rise to their memories, the qualities of the
memories themselves, and the frequency with
which they shared the memories with others, we
conducted one-way analyses of covariance
(ANCOVA) for each of the rating scales (n =
9), for each period comparison (n = 5). We did
not conduct formal tests of possible differences in
the perspective that participants had on their
memories (first vs. third person, or both). In light
of the large number of planned comparisons
conducted, in addition to conventional levels of
statistical significance, we also evaluated the
results of the ANCOVAs against an alpha
adjusted for the number of comparisons (p <
.0011: p = .05/45 = .0011). Table 3 reflects the
results of both the uncorrected and corrected
comparisons.
To assess potential age group differences in
participants’ ratings of the subjective experience of
the events that gave rise to their memories, we
asked them to rate the events on valence, arousal,
uniqueness, significance then and significance now.
As reflected in Table 3, Panel b, on the dimensions
of valence, arousal, significance then and signific-
ance now, adolescents provided higher ratings than
adults. In the cases of valence and arousal, without
the correction for multiple comparisons, adoles-
cents’ ratings tended to be statistically significantly
higher than those of adults (8 of 10 comparisons).
With the correction (p < .0011), only three signi-
ficant differences remained; they were confined
to the periods 1–5 and 6–10 years. The groups
did not differ significantly in their ratings of
the significance of the events at the time of the
experience. Ratings of the significance of the
events at the time of the report (i.e., significance
now) differed significantly only in the cases of
comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ ratings of
events from ages 6–10 years, and in comparison of
adolescents’ ratings of events from ages 6–10 years
and adults’ ratings of events from ages 11–15 years.
Yet with the correction for multiple comparisons
(p < .0011), these differences no longer were
significant. The one exception to higher ratings by
adolescents than adults was on the dimension of
significance now, for events from the previous
year; the difference was not statistically significant,
even before correction. On the dimension of
uniqueness, adults had significantly higher ratings
than adolescents for all periods; for every period
except 1–5 years, the differences remained signi-
ficant after correction. Thus, in general, relative to
adults, adolescents rated the events that gave rise
to their memories as less unique. Importantly, they
did not rate the events that gave rise to their
memories as less significant, either at the time of
the experience or to the present day.
To assess potential age group differences in
participants’ ratings of the qualities of their
memories of the events, we asked them to rate
their memories on vividness, completeness and
confidence in memory accuracy. Participants also
indicated whether their memory of the event was
in first-person perspective, third-person perspect-
ive or both perspectives. As reflected in Table 3,
Panel c, for the dimensions of vividness, comple-
teness and confidence, adolescents tended to
provide higher ratings than adults. For the dimen-
sions of vividness and confidence, for the periods
of 1–5 years, 6–10 years, and 6–10 years for
adolescents and 11–15 years for adults, the
differences were statistically significant before
correction for multiple comparisons. After the
correction (p < .0011), the groups differed sig-
nificantly only for the period of 6–10 years. For
the dimension of completeness, the differences in
ratings were significant for the periods of 1–5 and
6–10 years, both before and after correction;
the comparison of 6–10 years for adolescents
and 11–15 years for adults was not statistically
reliable. For all three dimensions, ratings of
memories of events from the previous year and
the most significant event did not differ between
the age groups. The ratings thus indicate that for
memories of events more distant in time, adoles-
cents’ phenomenological experience of their
recollections was that they were as or more vivid
and complete than the recollections of adults.
Adolescents also had greater confidence in their
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 11
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
14. distant memories, relative to adults. The pattern
is not surprising given that, on average, the
amount of time between the occurrence of the
events and the report was shorter for adolescents
than adults. Consistent with this observation, the
differences were less apparent in participants’
ratings of memories of more recent events (pre-
vious year and most significant), for which the
length of delay between the time of the event and
the session date did not differ between the age
groups.
The perspective that adolescents and adults
tended to provide on their memories (first-per-
son, third-person, both) was nominally similar.
Because there were multiple observations per
period (except for the most significant event),
there is not an appropriate statistical test to
determine whether the patterns differed statistic-
ally. Visual inspection of Table 3, Panel c,
indicates a predominance of first-person perspect-
ive for both age groups, for all periods. In
general, both adolescents and adults indicated
that they had both first- and third-person per-
spective more frequently than third-person alone.
The one exception was that adolescents tended to
have both first- and third-person perspective on
their memories from the period 1–5 years (relat-
ive to third-person alone), whereas for this
period, adults had a nominally higher percentage
of third-person alone relative to both first- and
third-person perspective.
Finally, to assess the extent to which partici-
pants shared their memories with others, we
asked them to rate the frequency of retelling of
the narrative (never to very often). As reflected
in Table 3, Panel d, for all periods, adolescents
indicated more frequent retellings of the events
relative to adults. All the comparisons were
statistically significant before the correction.
After correction for multiple comparisons (p <
.0011), only the differences for 6–10 years and
6–10 years for adolescents and 11–15 years for
adults remained significant.
DISCUSSION
Theories of the development of autobiographical
or personal memory posit that over develop-
mental time, there are important changes in the
perspective that individuals take on past events
and their memories of them. Based on the
qualities of their narrative reports and on their
subjective ratings of their memories, adults are
recognised as appreciating the meaning or signi-
ficance of past events to their lives. Based on
their narrative reports, this stance is noted as
absent from memories as late as adolescence
(e.g., Fivush, 2012; Habermas & de Silveira,
2008). Again based largely on their narrative
reports, adolescents’ memories also are charac-
terised as lacking important features of episodic
and thus autobiographical memory, such as loca-
tion in time and place and a sense of vivid,
veridical recollection (e.g., Reese et al., 2011;
Wheeler, 2000). In the present research, we
provided a direct comparison of the qualities of
adults’ autobiographical memories and those
of adolescents, thereby permitting evaluation of
claims of features unique to adults’ autobiograph-
ical recollections. We compared autobiographical
memories of adolescents and adults from each of
several periods encompassing distant to recent
events. We used measures of narrative quality as
well as participants’ own subjective ratings of the
events and their memories of them. Subjective
ratings can be expected to be especially revealing
of the perspective an individual has on her or his
recollections, both because they are uncon-
founded by developments in narrative production
ability and because they are provided by the
individuals themselves, versus by an independent
coder.
Analysis of the narrative qualities of adoles-
cents’ and adults’ autobiographical memory
reports yielded no significant differences on the
dimension of chronological coherence. Contex-
tual coherence differed only for narratives of
events from the previous year, with the advantage
going to adults. The effect did not survive statist-
ical comparison for multiple tests, however. As
expected, the narrative dimension of thematic
coherence proved most sensitive to age-related
differences. This dimension reflects the narrator’s
interpretations and elaborations of the reported
actions and thus a sense of the significance of the
event to the self. The highest score on the
dimension indicates that the event being
described is connected to and integrated with
other autobiographical experiences or future
plans (Reese et al., 2011). It is thus suggestive
that the narrator has created a life story or
autobiography of which the described event is a
part (e.g., Bohn & Berntsen, 2008; Habermas &
Bluck, 2000).
On the dimension of thematic coherence, we
observed between-group differences on the “most
significant” event, on events from the previous
12 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
15. year, and on events from the period 11–15 years
for adults versus 6–10 years for adolescents; the
effect for the previous year did not survive the
correction for multiple comparisons. The pattern
of differences is consistent with both the strong
and alternate versions of the suggestion that
adults and adolescents have different perspectives
on the events of their lives and their memories of
them (at least as conveyed through narrative).
For adults, based both on their average age at the
time of the report (20.5 years), and on their
average ages at the times of the most significant
event and events from the previous year (17.3 and
19.8 years, respectively), a personal or subjective
perspective on the events would be expected
(e.g., McAdams, 2001; Reese et al., 2011). For
adolescents, the reports were obtained (13.0
years) and the events were experienced (10.9
and 12.1 years, for most significant and previous
year, respectively), at ages before which they
would be expected to convey personal perspect-
ive on the events of their lives through narrative.
The logic extends to events reported by adults
from ages 11–15 years (average 13.5 years) and
by adolescents from ages 6–10 years (average
8.6 years). This contrast features narratives about
events from the same temporal distance in the
past (i.e., on average, 5–7 years in the past), yet
the memories were both formed in different
developmental periods (adolescence vs. child-
hood) and reported in different developmental
periods (adulthood vs. adolescence).
The between-group differences on the “most
significant” event, on events from the previous
year, and on events from the period 11–15 years
for adults versus 6–10 years for adolescents, are
consistent with both the strong and alternate
versions of the suggestion that adults and adoles-
cents have different degrees of ownership of the
remembered experiences of their lives. In con-
trast, the pattern of findings for the periods 1–5
and 6–10 years are consistent with the alternate,
but not with the strong version of the suggestion.
We observed minimal, and nonsignificant, differ-
ences in the thematic coherence of reports of
events from the periods of 1–5 and 6–10 years.
Memories from these periods were formed when
both age groups presumably lacked a personal
perspective on events. Nevertheless, by strong
versions of the suggestion (e.g., Bluck & Alea,
2008; Bluck & Habermas, 2001; Fivush, 2011,
2012; Fivush & Zaman, 2014; Habermas & de
Silveira, 2008; McAdams, 2001), adults would be
expected to have adopted a more personal or
subjective perspective on the events and to reflect
that perspective in their narrative retellings of the
experiences. The fact that adults had not
obviously infused their memories of these early
events with a more subjective perspective (relat-
ive to adolescents), even though they had
developed the narrative skills to do so, implies
that at least as tested in the present research,
adults had no greater ownership of these early-
life events, relative to adolescents. Overall, the
pattern is more consistent with the alternate than
the strong version of the suggestion of differences
in perspective on memories of past events by
adults and adolescents.
Analysis of the coherence dimension of adults’
and adolescents’ narratives provided evidence
consistent with characterisation of the groups as
having different perspectives on their autobio-
graphical memories. Yet going beyond the stat-
istical significance of mean differences in thematic
coherence provides reason for caution in this
conclusion. Moreover, consideration of partici-
pants’ subjective ratings of their memories pro-
vided yet more reason to be circumspect.
As reflected in Table 3, Panel a, adults earned
narrative thematic coherence scores of 1.56, 1.59
and 2.04, for the periods 11–15 years, previous
year and most significant event, respectively.
Their scores were statistically significantly differ-
ent from those of adolescents, with corresponding
scores of 1.19, 1.22 and 1.41, for the periods of 6–
10 years, previous year and most significant
event, respectively (though the difference for
previous year failed to reach the corrected level
of statistical significance). Critically, for both the
6–10 versus 11–15 comparison and for the previ-
ous year, for both age groups, the modal rating of
thematic coherence was 1 (76% and 73% for
adolescents for 6–10 and previous year, and 54%
and 52% for adults for 11–15 and previous year).
This means that most participants—in both age
groups—provided “negligible development of the
topic” in terms of causal linkages, personal
evaluations and reactions or elaborations of
actions (Table 1). It was only on the “most
significant” event that a substantial percentage
of adults earned scores of 2 (29%) or 3 (37%),
and thus provided evidence of the narrator’s
interpretations and elaborations of the events
(score = 2) and their integration with other
autobiographical experiences, future plans and
self-identity (score = 3). In contrast, for adoles-
cents, even on the most significant event, the
modal rating of thematic coherence was 1; 37%
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 13
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
16. earned a score of 2 and only 2% earned a score of
3 (no narrative earned a score of 0). There are
two points to be made about this pattern. First,
modal differences in scores were confined to the
most significant event. On the balance of the
narratives, at least under the conditions of the
present research, adolescents and adults were
more similar than they were different. Second,
the narratives about the most significant event
were different. When describing this defining
event of their lives, adults featured evidence of
interpretation, elaboration and integration of
their autobiographical experiences into a life
narrative. Although the task called for it, adoles-
cents did not make the autobiographical features
of this most significant event apparent in their
narratives.
Another observation about the thematic
coherence scores earned by adolescents and
adults in the present research is that they are
nominally lower than those observed for 11- to
14-year olds and adults in Reese et al. (2011).
Across the separate samples of adolescents and
adults included in the analysis by Reese and
colleagues, the average thematic coherence scores
were around 2 and 2.5, respectively. In contrast,
in the present samples, the average thematic
coherence scores for events from the previous
year and the most significant event were 1.22 and
1.41 for adolescents and 1.59 and 2.04 for adults,
respectively. We attribute the apparent differ-
ences to methodological factors. First, in the
present research, the narratives were obtained in
an online survey, without any direct interaction
with an experimenter. For the samples included
in Reese et al., participants reported on their
memories either verbally in one-on-one inter-
views or in hand-written reports collected in a
classroom or laboratory in the presence of an
experimenter. Second, in the present research,
participants reported on the relatively ordinary
and mundane events that make up everyday life.
In much of the research included in Reese et al.,
participants were asked to report on highly emo-
tional events and experiences. Finally, in the
present research, participants had a relatively high
burden, in that they were asked to report on 10
(adolescents) or 13 (adults) events. They also rated
each memory on 10 dimensions. In contrast, in
much of the research included in Reese et al.,
participants reported on four to six events; no
ratings were collected. Alone or in combination,
these methodological factors are a likely explana-
tion for the nominally lower thematic coherence of
the narratives in the present research, relative to
Reese et al. (2011). Importantly, the methodolo-
gical factors cannot explain why, in the present
research, only modest differences were observed
between adolescents and adults: both age groups
experienced them; increased participant burden
would be expected to have a larger negative impact
on adolescents relative to adults and thus should
have exaggerated—rather than diminished—
differences between the groups.
Though the levels of thematic coherence in the
present research were nominally lower for both
adolescents and adults, relative to Reese et al.
(2011), there was ample evidence that even the
adolescents had autobiographical perspective on
the events on which they reported. The evidence
came from their subjective ratings. As argued
above, subjective ratings have an advantage over
narrative descriptions in that they are direct
reports of the provider’s perception of the event
or the memory, whereas narrative descriptions
are evaluated through the eyes of an independent
observer. Moreover, ratings are not confounded
with developmental changes in narrative ability,
per se. In spite of these advantages, subjective
ratings are not a common tool in research on
autobiographical memory in development. In the
present research, direct comparison of subjective
ratings by adults and adolescents yielded little
evidence that adults have greater personal per-
spective on the events of their lives, relative to
adolescents. Indeed, in general, adolescents
tended to give higher ratings, relative to adults.
In terms of the events that were the subject of
their memories, adolescents rated the experiences
as more positive and resulting in greater arousal,
relative to adults. Few of the differences reached
the corrected level of statistical significance, how-
ever. At the same time, adolescents indicated that
the events were less unique than those described
by adults. Importantly, the adolescents and adults
did not differ in their ratings of the importance of
the events at the time they were experienced.
Once corrected for multiple comparisons, adoles-
cents’ and adults’ ratings of the current signific-
ance of the events also did not differ significantly.
Overall, with the exception of the quality of
uniqueness, adolescents’ and adults’ ratings of
the events that gave rise to their memories were
more similar than different.
The subjective ratings that the participants
provided also lacked evidence of differential
perspective on the memories themselves among
adolescents relative to adults. For memories of
14 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
17. events from the previous year and the most
significant event, the ratings of vividness, com-
pleteness and confidence in the details of the
memory did not differ between adolescence and
adults. For events from the period 6–10 years,
adolescents and adults differed on all three of
these dimensions, even after correction for mul-
tiple comparisons. The only other difference that
survived the correction for multiple comparisons
was on completeness, for memories from the
period 1–5 years. In these cases, adolescents rated
the features of their memories higher than adults.
The (mostly nonsignificant) differences between
the groups could be interpreted as evidence of
differential perspective on early-life events by
adolescents and adults (albeit opposite the
expected direction). However, a more parsimoni-
ous interpretation is in terms of the length of the
delay between the event and the report: the delay
was shorter for adolescents than adults, which
could lend itself to higher ratings. As well,
children reported more frequent retellings of the
events, relative to adults. This could contribute to
greater vividness, completeness and confidence
(though why it would not also apply in the cases
of the previous year and most significant event is
not immediately clear). Finally, for both adoles-
cents and adults, the majority of events were
described as being seen from first-person per-
spective. Overall, ratings of events were more
similar than different for adolescents and adults.
The most pronounced differences were on distant
events, not the more recent events for which
adults may have been assumed to have adopted a
more personal or subjective perspective or
ownership.
Taken together, the results of the present
research indicate greater similarity than differ-
ence in adolescents’ and adults’ perspective on
their autobiographical memories. Even in their
narratives, the groups differed only on the dimen-
sion of thematic coherence, and then only on the
most significant event and on events from 6–10
years for adolescents and 11–15 years for adults.
Adolescents and adults also differed little in
terms of their rating of the events that gave rise
to their memories and of the memories them-
selves. The exceptions tended to favour adoles-
cents (i.e., they provided higher ratings than
adults) and were largely confined to events from
earlier in life. Indeed, with the exception of the
dimension of uniqueness, for events from the
previous year and the most significant event,
none of the statistical tests for differences
between adolescents’ and adults’ ratings reached
the corrected level of significance. For the com-
parison of 6–10 years for adolescents and 11–15
years for adults, only the tests for uniqueness and
frequency of retelling reached the corrected level
of statistical significance. The fact that the events
that were the subjects of the memory reports
were rated as more unique by adults than by
adolescents makes the absence of differences on
the other dimensions even more striking.
Another factor that should be considered in
evaluation of the degree of difference between
the adult and adolescent samples in the present
research is the reminiscence bump. A robust
finding in the literature is that older adults tend
to have a larger number of memories from the
period of 10 or 15 to 30 years, relative to the years
both before and after (e.g., Glück & Bluck, 2007;
Jansari & Parkin, 1996). Adults also tend to rate
memories from this period as especially vivid and
as high in personal relevance and significance
(e.g., Conway, Singer, & Tagini, 2004). In the pres-
ent research, the memories upon which adults
reported for the previous year and the most
significant event were from within the bump
period. Fewer of the memories reported by the
adolescents came from this period. Based on the
differential degrees of sampling from the period of
the reminiscence bump, prominent differences
between the groups could reasonably have been
expected. Yet for the most part, they were not
observed.
In conclusion, the results of the present
research provide qualified support for the sugges-
tion that adults have greater personal or subject-
ive perspective on the events of their lives,
relative to adolescents. Yet the support was
confined to observation of higher scores on the
dimension of thematic coherence for adults’
narratives of (a) events from the periods of 11–
15 years compared to the narratives of adoles-
cents from the same temporal distance in time,
namely, the period 6–10 years and (b) the most
significant event, relative to these same periods
for adolescents; the same pattern was observed
for events from the previous year, though the
effect was less robust. Thus, as evaluated by an
independent coder, adults’ memories from these
periods featured more evidence of a subjective
perspective than adolescents’ memories from the
corresponding periods.
There also were qualifications to the support;
they came in three forms. First, whereas evidence
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 15
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
18. of the personal or subjective perspective was
more apparent in adults’ narratives, relative to
adolescents’, it was not especially pronounced
even in the older age group. In most cases, the
modal score on the thematic coherence dimen-
sion was 1 for both adults and adolescents. It was
only on the most significant event of their lives
that the majority of adults’ narratives earned a
score of 2 or 3 on this dimension. Second, there
were no differences in the thematic coherence of
narratives about events from the periods 1–5 and
6–10 years. The absence of differences on early-
life events is inconsistent with the strong form of
the suggestion that adults have adopted an
evaluative perspective on past events and mem-
ories thereof, a perspective lacking among ado-
lescents. Third, as evidenced by their ratings of
the events that gave rise to their memories and of
the memories themselves, a personal or subjective
perspective is not missing from adolescents’
autobiographical memories (even though it was
less apparent in their narrative descriptions).
Adolescents rated the events of their lives as
emotional, arousing and significant, both when
the events occurred and in the present day. They
also rated their memories as vivid, complete and
accurate. These are not the ratings of a popula-
tion that lacks personal or autobiographical per-
spective on past events or ownership of their
memories of them. Instead, the data suggest that
adolescents as well as adults have auto in their
autobiographical memories.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Claudia M. Roebers, University of Berne,
Switzerland, for her comments on the work, and
members of the Memory at Emory Laboratory for
their assistance with various aspects of the research.
Special thanks to the participants who devoted their
time to this effort.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
FUNDING
Support for this research was provided by Emory
College of Arts and Sciences.
REFERENCES
Bauer, P. J. (in press). A complementary processes
account of the development of childhood amnesia
and a personal past. Psychological Review.
Bauer, P. J. (2007). Remembering the times of our lives:
Memory in infancy and beyond. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bauer, P. J., Burch, M. M., Scholin, S. E., & Guler, O.
E. (2007). Using cue words to investigate the
distribution of autobiographical memories in child-
hood. Psychological Science, 18, 910–916.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01999.x
Bauer, P. J., & Larkina, M. (2013). The onset of
childhood amnesia in childhood: A prospective
investigation of the course and determinants of
forgetting of early-life events. Memory. doi:10.1080/
09658211.2013.854806
Bauer, P. J., & Larkina, M. (2014). Childhood amnesia
in the making: Different distributions of autobio-
graphical memories in children and adults. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 597–611.
doi:10.1037/a0033307
Bauer, P. J., Stark, E. N., Lukowski, A. F., Rademacher,
J., Van Abbema, D. L., & Ackil, J. K. (2005).
Working together to make sense of the past: Mothers’
and children’s use of internal states language in
conversations about traumatic and nontraumatic
events. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6,
463–488. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.08.007
Bauer, P. J., Stennes, L., & Haight, J. (2003). Repres-
entation of the inner self in autobiography:
Women’s and men’s use of internal states language
in personal narratives. Memory, 11(1), 27–42.
doi:10.1080/741938176
Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2008). Remembering being me:
The self-continuity function of autobiographical
memory in younger and older adults. In F. Sani
(Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective per-
spectives (pp. 55–70). New York: Erlbaum.
Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C.
(2005). A tale of three functions: The self-reported
uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition,
23(1), 91–117. doi:10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198
Bluck, S., & Habermas, T. (2001). Extending the study
of autobiographical memory: Thinking back about
life across the life span. Review of General Psycho-
logy, 5(2), 135–147. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.2.135
Bohn, A., & Berntsen, D. (2008). Life story develop-
ment in childhood: The development of life story
abilities and the acquisition of cultural life scripts
from late middle childhood and adolescence. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 44, 1135–1147. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.44.4.1135
Bohn, A., & Berntsen, D. (2014). Cultural life scripts
and the development of personal memories. In P. J.
Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
handbook on the development of children’s memory
(pp. 626–644). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54
(2), 11–32.
Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of
Memory and Language, 53, 594–628. doi:10.1016/j.
jml.2005.08.005
16 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
19. Conway, M. A., Singer, J. A., & Tagini, A. (2004). The
self and autobiographical memory: Correspondence
and coherence. Social Cognition, 22, 491–529.
doi:10.1521/soco.22.5.491.50768
Erikson, E. H. (1968) Identity youth and crisis. London:
W. W. Norton.
Fivush, R. (2011). The development of autobiograph-
ical memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 559–
582. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131702
Fivush, R. C. (2012). Subjective perspective and per-
sonal timeline in the development of autobiograph-
ical memory. In D. Berntsen and D. C. Rubin
(Eds.), Understanding autobiographical memory:
Theories and approaches (pp. 226–245). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fivush, R., & Zaman, W. (2014). Gender, subjective
perspective, and autobiographical consciousness. In
P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
handbook on the development of children’s memory
(pp. 586–604). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ghetti, S., Qin, J., & Goodman, G. S. (2002). False
memories in children and adults: Age, distinctive-
ness, and subjective experience. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 705–718. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.
5.705
Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2007). Looking back across the life
span: A life story account of the reminiscence bump.
Memory & Cognition, 35, 1928–1939. doi:10.3758/
BF03192926
Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The
emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 126, 748–769. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.126.5.748.
Habermas, T., & Köber, C. (2014). Autobiographical
reasoning is constitutive for narrative identity: The
role of the life story for personal continuity. In K. C.
McLean & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of identity development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Habermas, T., Negele, A., & Mayer, F. B. (2010).
““Honey, you’re jumping about”—Mothers’ scaf-
folding of their children’s and adolescents’ life
narration. Cognitive Development, 25, 339–351.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.08.004
Habermas, T., & de Silveira, C. (2008). The development
of global coherence in life narratives across adoles-
cence: Temporal, causal and thematic aspects. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 44, 707–721. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.44.3.707
Howes, M., Siegel, M., & Brown, F. (1993). Early
childhood memories: Accuracy and affect. Cognition,
47(2), 95–119. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90001-C
Jansari, A., & Parkin, A. J. (1996). Things that go
bump in your life: Explaining the reminiscence
bump in autobiographical memory. Psychology and
Aging, 11(1), 85–91. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.85
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement
of observer agreement for categorical data. Biomet-
rics, 33, 159–174.
Leventon, J. S., Stevens, J. S., & Bauer, P. J. (2014).
Development in the neurophysiology of emotion
processing and memory in school-age children.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 21–33.
doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2014.07.007
Linde C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence.
New York: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories.
Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122.
doi:10.1037//I089-2680.5.2.100
Morris, G., Baker-Ward, L., & Bauer, P. J. (2009). What
remains of that day: The survival of children’s auto-
biographical memories across time. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24, 527–544. doi:10.1002/acp.1567
Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of
autobiographical memory: A social cultural devel-
opmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–
511. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486
O’Kearney, R., Speyer, J., & Kenardy, J. (2007).
Children’s narrative memory for accidents and their
post-traumatic distress. Applied Cognitive Psycho-
logy, 21, 821–838. doi:10.1002/acp.1294
Peterson, C., Grant, V., & Boland, L. (2005). Childhood
amnesia in children and adolescents: Their earliest
memories. Memory, 13, 622–637. doi:10.1080/
09658210444000278
Peterson, C., Warren, K. L., & Short, M. M. (2011).
Infantile amnesia across the years: A 2-year follow-up
of children’s earliest memories. Child Development,
82, 1092–1105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01597.x
Pillemer, D. B., & Kuwabara, K. J. (2012). Directive
functions of autobiographical memory: Theory and
method. In D. Berntsen & D. C. Rubin (Eds.),
Understanding autobiographical memory: Theories
and approaches (pp. 181–201). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Reese, E., Haden, C. A., Baker-Ward, L., Bauer, P.,
Fivush, R., & Ornstein, P. A. (2011). A multi-
dimensional model of narrative coherence across
the lifespan. Journal of Cognition and Development,
12, 424–462. doi:10.1080/15248372.2011.587854
Reese, E., Jack, F., & White, N. (2010). Origins of
adolescents’ autobiographical memories. Cognitive
Development, 25, 352–367. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.201
0.08.006
Tustin, K., & Hayne, H. (2010). Defining the boundary:
Age-related changes in childhood amnesia. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 46, 1049–1061. doi:10.1037/
a0020105
Van Abbema, D., & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Autobio-
graphical memory in middle childhood: Recollec-
tions of the recent and distant past. Memory, 13,
829–845. doi:10.1080/09658210444000430
Waters, T. E. A., Bauer, P. J., & Fivush, R. (2014).
Autobiographical memory functions served by mul-
tiple event types autobiographical memory func-
tions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 185–
195. doi:10.1002/acp.2976
Weigle, T. W., & Bauer, P. J. (2000). Deaf and hearing
adults’ recollections of childhood and beyond. Mem-
ory, 8(5), 293–309. doi:10.1080/09658210050117726
West, T. A., & Bauer, P. J. (1999). Assumptions of
infantile amnesia: Are there differences between
early and later memories? Memory, 7(3), 257–278.
doi:10.1080/096582199387913
Wheeler, M. A. (2000). Episodic memory and auton-
oetic awareness. In E. Tulving and F. I. M. Craik
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 597–
608). New York: Oxford University Press.
“OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 17
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
20. APPENDIX
Example survey for one memory report to which participants responded online.
18 BAUER, HÄTTENSCHWILER, LARKINA
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
21. “OWNING” THE PERSONAL PAST 19
Downloadedby[NicoleHättenschwiler]at12:2704February2015
![This article was downloaded by: [Nicole Hättenschwiler]
On: 04 February 2015, At: 12:27
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Memory
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20
“Owning” the personal past: Adolescents’ and
adults’ autobiographical narratives and ratings of
memories of recent and distant events
Patricia J. Bauer
a
, Nicole Hättenschwiler
b
& Marina Larkina
a
a
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
b
Institute Humans in Complex Systems, University of Applied Sciences,
Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland
Published online: 02 Feb 2015.
To cite this article: Patricia J. Bauer, Nicole Hättenschwiler & Marina Larkina (2015): “Owning” the personal past:
Adolescents’ and adults’ autobiographical narratives and ratings of memories of recent and distant events, Memory,
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2014.995673
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.995673
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions]()