Holmes & Conway (1999).Generation Identity and the Reminiscence Bump: Memory for Public and Private Events. Journal of Adult Development, 21-34.
Rubin, D. & Bernstein, D. (2003). Life scripts help to maintain autobiographical memories of highly positive, but not highly negative, events. Memory and Cognition, 31, 1-14.
5 comments:
Rubin provides several examples of accounts for the reminiscence bump which occurs between 10 and 30 years. His research supports the cognitive mechanisms account which supposes that this increased memory capacity results from a period of rapid change followed by stability, as occurs with adolescence or immigration. What I’m wondering is if these periods of self-redefinition would result in the same bump if the experience were negative, as with a significant trauma or loss of a loved one such as a spouse or parent. Along these lines, I’m not all together convinced that the Pollyanna Principle is valid. I was talking with one of my friends about it and he remarked. “I guess that’s why old people enjoy reminiscing about their youth.” Perhaps I have an unnaturally negative life schema (I really don’t think so) or am simply to young to have experienced the effects of this principle firsthand, but I find I can recall the negative aspects of my life just as readily as the positive if prompted.
Reading the Rubin piece I was also interested when considering my own history. For about a quarter of my life I was fluently bilingual, though I’ve since lost most of my proficiency in French. It’s interesting how at this point I’ve actually translated my memories. My internal-speak was frequently French, I dreamed in French, and spoke French with the majority of my friends and professors, though I took mainly English classes. When I remember these times in boarding school however, I’ve translated my recollections into English at this point. I have vivid memories of my francophone friends…speaking fluent English. I’m sure the content of the conversation is accurate, but the language is completely fabricated. Based on this I have to question whether in spite of results to the contrary, the separate store model’s theory of a “translator” may have some validity behind it, as I retrieve French memories in English. Perhaps this has more to do with Broca’s Area and the fact that I’ve lost my fluency than memory systems and code-switching however.
I struggle with conversation at this point, though it has surprised me on several occasions how well I can remember French if prompted. My Belgian friend Laure-Anne said the word revendificer and couldn’t find the English word. I blurted out vindication without hesitation. After we’re together for a few hours I’ll find myself thinking in French or even have a French dream crop up. On an ordinary day however, I can barely manage basic conversation beyond the scope of English. It is interesting to me however, that Laure-Anne rarely (unless directly asking about my past) elicits memories of my francophone past. I’m not sure I agree with Bugelski’s assertion that the language of childhood maintains its associated imagery.
Having read the Linton and Rubin articles, I’m becoming concerned about what effect memory testing has on one’s memory. I’m particularly interested in Linton as he’s been using himself as a sort of test subject for decades at this point. Going through these exercises in recall may in fact improve his memory, however I have to wonder a) how has this process of recall altered his memories, and b) is he really remembering the memory or is he remembering his recording of the memory? In Rubin’s experiment, I’m just curious if some of the noted reminiscence bump’s appearance around the period of migration could be due to the fact that they know they’re a part of a study on memory and bilingual immigrants.
As I read the articles, I was particularly stricken by the concept of the reminiscence bump: a time period between the ages of ten and thirty in which memories formed during this time are recalled most easily (aside from those formed most recently). In the Holmes and Conway article, the two of the eight psychological stages (that were identified through the work of Erickson) that constitute the reminiscence bump are (chronologically) problems of identity formation versus identity confusion and intimacy versus isolation. This correlates with the authors’ hypotheses that the first time period of the reminiscence bump involves the retention of public knowledge and the second period involves the retention of private experiences.
Aside from the reasoning as to why this reminiscence bump exists at all, I am particularly intrigued by the fact that the first part of it involves the retention of more public events and the second of more private. I relate this to one’s need for context and the crucial role that memory plays in giving one context. It is interesting, and fitting that the reminiscence bump—a time period in which, probably, the most drastic development of one’s self takes place—involves first a bump in retention of public events and then in private events. The retention of public events seems to act as giving one a context on which to base their experiences, and this seems to be crucial to the formation of identity. One must have a jumping off point, a place of relation for their own personal things to be put up against. Perhaps during this first part of the reminiscence bump private events are not as easily remembered because, without the context of the larger, public world, there is no way to make sense of them or attach meaning to them. That is why it strikes me as interesting and, again, fitting, that later on, in the second part of the reminiscence bump, private events and experiences are more remembered. Perhaps—I’m guessing—that this is because one can attach meaning to them more easily. There has already been a context built during the perception of public events, in which one can fit their private events into and make them more meaningful, and therefore, more memorable. I also relate this to the description of this second period of the reminiscence bump as involving intimacy versus isolation. Development in intimacy versus isolation can be looked at in various ways, but I initially saw it in relation to separating one’s self from the greater world. Once someone is provided with a context to work with and to engage with the greater world, they struggle in the second phase to separate themselves from this world, or perhaps to join with it. However, I don’t see it as one or the other; I see it as the struggle to find a balance between the greater world and one’s self.
This leads into the whole concept of life scripts, setting one’s own private life against public expectations. I feel that a big part of the maturing that takes place during this period of the reminiscence bump is the struggle between self and world, between life scripts,—the expectations set upon the individual by society and what the individual chooses to do themselves—between public events and what the individual can make sense of them, receive of them, and incorporate them into their private life.
As someone in the midst of the reminiscence bump, close to the dividing line between its two different phases, I try to relate these concepts to myself and my peers. I wonder at the fact that I haven’t even entered into the phase in which I will later remember private experiences, in which I struggle between intimacy and isolation. Although I feel that I’m struggling with these things now, my life imitates this research in the sense that I haven’t quite separated my private experiences from the world yet. With all the introspection I do, I feel that it always relates primarily to the rest of the world. I’m still struggling with the incorporation and the separation of myself and the world.
One thing I would like to discuss more in depth from the readings is the idea of 'life scripts'. I found this extremely interesting in the piece by Rubin and Bernstein, which posed the question as to why events that structure life scripts (the unspoken, yet culturally accepted order of large scale life events) are particularly positive. These events may include ideas such as graduation, continuing education, work, marriage, child bearing, etc. However, despite the actual feelings one may have surrounding these events, they are generally looked forward and looked back upon in a positive, general sense. I tried to ask myself the same question- there are certainly negative events that shape us and are common at a certain time in our life, why are they not included in our life script?
The first answer I could come up with is denial. We simply do not want to accept the inevitability of certain events. For example, one study found that roughly fifty percent of all marriages (when married under the age of 45) end in divorce. Though divorce is apparently a common occurrence in many lives, why is it not included in our life scripts? Denial might be an explanation, but uncertainty of whether or not it will occur is also possible.
This brings up an interesting observation for me in the differentiation between positive and negative life scripts- typically, the positive events are left open for choice, but not negative. For example, while marriage and child bearing may be part of the general life script, people may choose not to be married. However, negative events such as deaths of friends/family may happen in a lifetime, but one has no choice in the matter. The exact timing of these events is also less certain.
Because of this, I think Rubin and Bernstein’s hypothesis may not have been completely accurate. Though I agree with the results of their study, I wonder how much of the life script is actually based on memory. I also think the results can be skewed by cultural norms.
For example, there could be several issues with the experiment they conducted with the ‘hypothetical 70 year old’. For example, I believe it is cultural norms and not memories that allow one to make such predictions about occurrences in one’s life. For example, there are many that marry very late in life for varying reasons. However (especially as one of the stipulations in the experiment was not to think of a specific person), I believe that even someone who married late in life would estimate a younger age for marriage in this experiment. Thus it is difficult to truly know whether these life scripts are based around memories or just an established series of events in the country’s culture. Also, it is difficult to say that life scripts are not based around negative memories solely because the experiment subjects had difficulty applying a specific age to negative events. This could just be because of a lack of consistency as to when these events are expected to occur.
“Those were the good times,” we say shortly after we’ve experienced an eventful occasion. As I was reading the studies about generational effects, reminiscence bumps, life scripts, life narratives, etc. I couldn’t help but wonder why we reminisce the most and categorize the age 14-24 as “our moment” or generational. Its evident between the ages of 14-24 first life time experiences are taking place, but people in that age group also reflect and consolidate the self the most. Many would agree that this is the site of development, maturation, etc. If we claim that our generation is between these ages, what happened before or after we discredit? Or do we experience pre/post-generation? There is also a clear distinction that a particular generation can place themselves in an era and that generation and era shouldn’t be used interchangeably.
I also am bit confused between life scripts and narratives and the way that they are defined. It seems that life scripts lead to life narratives? My impression is that life scripts are events that are bound to happen almost like presets to living like growing up, body growth, aging, etc. and come in an order? Whereas life narratives live out the order and untimed? Narratives are the personal experiences that go along with scripts then?
Finally, I found the conclusions mentioned in Holmes and Conway to be very interesting how they found less negative memories occurred at a smaller rate in young adulthood. I had speculated it would be the opposite since young adulthood, many experience trauma, depression that leads into their prime adulthood. They also found that reminiscence bumps are primarily influenced by public events then private. It’s interesting that self-integration first turns to public events rather than private events. Could it be because public events are more relatable? We experience generational effects?
Generation Identity and the Reminiscence Bump: Memory for Public and Private Events
The authors of this article state: “Most importantly, it seems that the bump must relate to the maturation of the self which takes place during this period, 10 to 30 years of age, and which itself culminates in the emergence of a stable identity” (Holmes & Conway, 1999, p.21). There are several pieces of this passage that I want to discuss. A) The “maturation of the self,” causes me to pose the question: how can one gage a person’s maturation? How do scientific researchers know that they are talking about the same thing when they use the term maturation? Everyone defines maturity differently. Also how can this be tested? Since a person can portray himself or herself falsely as “mature,” what meaning does the term truly have? B) The phrase: “culminates in the emergence of a stable identity,” gives me more questions. How does one measure the stability of a person? You can’t know everything about a person from one particular testing period. If a person responds to a survey consistently over a period of time it still does not shed light on whether their identity is stable. How can such a long span of years (10 to 30 years of age) be grouped into the same characteristics?
Post a Comment