Mullen. M. (1994). Earliest recollections of childhood: A demographic analysis. Cognition, 52, 55-79.
Harpaz-Rotem, I. & Hirst, W. (2005). The earliest memory in individuals raised in either traditional and reformed kibbutz or outside the kibbutz. Memory, 13, 51-62.
Wang, Qi (2004). The emergence of cultural self-constructs: Autobiographical memory and self-description in European American and Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 40, 3 –15.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The article by Wang examines the cultural differences in the conception of selfhood in European American and Chinese children, based on open-ended questions asked of each group of children. The predicted responses were based on a number of observed cultural differences, and were largely proven to be accurate, with differing responses among different age ranges. The fact that the data supported the paper's hypotheses is intriguing, and suggests the immense importance of cultural context in the development of self (in concept and autobiographical memory). The positive self-regard in European American children contrasted with the presence of self-criticism in the responses of Chinese children. In addition, the strengthening of such cultural framework is evident in the elaboration of responses present in older children, suggesting a continued strengthening over time (congruent with the development of a more concrete self, perhaps).
The comparison of two vastly different cultures proves useful for this particular experiment, and definitely provides provocative results. However, the apparent consistencies in such results makes me curious as to how the experiment might translate across other culture comparisons, on both a global and local scale? That is, how might the results be the same/different when comparing Indian and Latin American cultures, for example? Any combination would do, really, as I would expect the results (based on the units of measurement used in this experiment, more or less) to be relatively consistent. However, how might the examinations of self hold up on a smaller scale? How would the comparison of different cultural groups (in strong/dense populations) differ if both groups were within the United States? Would two groups with a shared culture vary as greatly in responses as two geographically separate cultures?
Wang, Mullen, and Harpaz-Rotem all exacted studies to examine the question of infantile amnesia, and to study its effects on a cross-cultural scale. The studies reveal several clues regarding infantile amnesia, but the overarching theme of these three experiments reveals the imperativeness of language development in the formation of autobiographical memories.
In the Wang study, they attempted to examine the differences in time of onset of autobiographical memory across cultures. Ultimately, their hypothesis and their findings showed earlier memories in the American culture, which stresses high-elaboration in mother-child interaction, and a very egocentric view of the world, as opposed to the Chinese culture, which is more engrained in societal identity. Despite what this may say about the differences in the two cultures, it reveals the importance of language development in the ability to form one’s own autobiographical memory. Not just does the cross-cultural study reveal that language is necessary before long-term memories can be encoded, but it also shows that the way in which it is encoded (the way it is discussed, etc) will affect the way it is remembered later in life. In the Western culture, which stresses individualism, the mothers speak with their children more about them and discussing unique traits which make up their identity. In the Chinese culture, interaction between mother and child is more focused on social identity. Because of this, the study found that Chinese participants, more frequently than Americans, had first memories which involved other people. This reveals that the effects of language in autobiographical memory do not simply end once these processes are developed. Instead, language continues to play a large role in how memories are shaped and recalled later.
Another aspect of these studies I found interesting was the effects of birth order on memory, which was mentioned in all three studies. The consistent finding was that those born earlier would have earlier first memories than those born later. The hypothesis behind this finding was that parents speak more with their older children than younger ones. At first, I was not completely convinced by this hypothesis. Although none of the evidence supported it, I believed much more in the hypothesis of one psychologist (I believe it was Nelson) who argued that younger sibling’s should develop earlier memories because they have their siblings to talk to, in addition to their parents. This seemed to make sense to me, as I have an older sister and remember much of my interaction when I was young to be alone with her. However, the more I considered this, the more the concept seemed to make sense. Although younger children may spend more time interacting with their older siblings, these siblings are most likely not as conducive to long lasting encoding as a high-elaborative mother would be. My sister, who was only three years older than me, obviously would not have had the kind of language skills to truly help the continuing development of my memory. Because of this, I believe the reasoning behind the birth order findings must be a combination of the two hypotheses. Younger siblings speak more with their siblings, and because of this they speak less with their parents, as opposed to parents simply being less interested or involved in the child’s language development. Instead, they just aren’t needed when another sibling exists, because the child has another person to be interacting with. However, most often this person (sibling) does not have the same language skills that is required from a mother or father for full development of memories.
A few notions I had already had about memory surfaced more and continued to persist as I read these three articles, particularly the one entitled “Earliest recollections of childhood: a demographic analysis.” One of them was the general consensus of the research—the central conclusion drawn in the aforementioned article that “co-construction experiences play a role in the development of autobiographical memory.” This article specifically, and the other two, further endorses my belief that autobiographical memory depends greatly on the social, and thus cultural, constructs that exist outside of one’s self. Thus, it supports a larger belief I have come to during this course: that autobiographical memory depends very much on narrative. What one remembers seems to be so much about what one is supposed to remember. Thus, the cultural differences accounted for in autobiographical memory—the significant ones between Caucasians and Chinese, and even more so between Koreans and Caucasians—suggest, and, to me, practically ensure, that autobiographical memory depends so much upon a pre positioned narrative structure in a family (and the familial structure is, in turn, influenced by the culture). One’s memories are formed in order to conform to a narrative.
I find this to be true in my own life; the things that seem to hold significance for me, and thus are incorporated into my memory, all have to do with the way in which they fit into the “story of my life.” As a writer, I wonder if this is even more so the case. If I construct a narrative in my mind my memories seem to conform to it. I wonder if the nature of these stories, these narratives, that I construct within myself are a product of the Western culture that I’m a part of. Overall, I connect to the idea that each person has a narrative construct that is instilled within them which I believe is, probably—especially after reading these studies—a product of the environment in which one grew up and is, in turn, a product of—or at least greatly influenced by—culture.
Furthermore, I’m interested in exploring what happens in terms of the breaking of these narrative constructs. It was interesting to me that people who moved at a young age had earlier memories. The article mainly concluded that the earlier memories resulting from a move arose because a move was a marker of time, which I agree with, but I also wonder how much it is because a move is a disruption in one’s usual narrative. I am coming to think more and more that memories conform to narrative, but not only that—they also exist because they are a break from the usual narrative. And I wonder how these breaks vary from culture to culture, in terms of their incorporation into memory. It seems to me that they would vary, and I wonder how. Are breaks from narrative more welcomed into memory in Western culture? What are the differences between these breaks in narrative? It would be an interesting thing to study.
“The Emergence of Cultural Self-Constructs…”
Qi Wang
This article explores how the Chinese and European American cultures view selfhood differently, and because of this the children from each culture remember memories based on the culture’s expectation for the self. It generalizes that European Americans children associate emotion to their memories and are more self-centered while Chinese children remember activities and people so as not to focus as much on their inner self. When the children described themselves, Americans described themselves in a positive manner while Chinese children gave themselves a neutral description. Wang says this is because “European American parents scaffold children’s individuality and self-expression while protecting or enhancing their self-esteem” in contrast to Chinese parents encouraging “children’s compliance with authority, appropriate conduct, humility, and a sense of belonging.” This seems to support stereotypes of the structured upbringing of Chinese children so that they excel in school and are prepared to compete. Only one example, but I have a friend from China who is an excellent student and never gets into trouble, but no matter what she does her father doesn’t think it’s enough. At the same time there are plenty of American parents like that as well, and I don’t know enough Chinese people to make any claims, but what I’ve encountered supports this. I think the studies do show that European American and Chinese children express memories in different ways depending on how they were brought up. I also think it’s important to note that just because a people don’t express their memories to others in an emotional way doesn’t mean they don’t remember it that way in their heads. Maybe a culture teaches people to express their memories in a certain way, but what people keep to themselves is just as important to their “selves.”
These two studies conducted by Harpaz-Rotem and Hirst intended to find a connection between the age of earliest memories and the amount of time spent rehearsing recollections within the family unit, specifically within a traditional kibbutz lifestyle versus regular Israeli family life. Within the communal lifestyle of a traditional kibbutz, children are raised with small groups of their peers, not within the nuclear family, so there is far less opportunity to reflect on personal past experiences without the attention and support of a parent. Early childhood memories are formed as “extent of elaborative discussion about the past will influence the onset and quality of children’s autobiographical memory” (2, Harpaz-Rotem, Hirst). Several previous studies have confirmed this, as the early childhood memories of Korean and Caucasian children were compared, as were the memories of Chinese, Maori, and Western children (Mullen, Yi, 1995). In these studies, the Western mothers focused on detail and asking open-ended questions to help the child rehearse and recall memories that were about their individual experiences, whereas Asian mothers gave their children less opportunity for recollection, and their questions were generally about community-based group activities. This study on kibbutz members versus non-kibbutz dwellers is significant because the cultural differences of Asian and Western lifestyles that informed previous similar studies is removed. This enables researchers to study the effects of time spent rehearsing memories with parents within the same basic cultural context of Israeli children. The first study compared the earliest memories of those children raised communally in a kibbutz and those raised by their parents, and as the researchers suspected the age of the earliest memory was significantly lower for the latter group. In the second study, children raised in a reformed kibbutz—that is, who were not raised communally and spent nights with their nuclear families—were compared to regular Israeli children. In the second study, the differences in age of earliest memory were much less pronounced than in the first. Intriguingly, issues of birth order were also explored, with the hypothesis that first-born children have more time to talk with their parents and rehearse memories and learn narrative forms, and thus will have earlier memories than their later-born siblings. This proved true for the reformed kibbutz and non-kibbutz children, but within the confines of the traditional kibbutz, this effect didn’t take place.
The readings suggest that our narratives are constructed in a way that conforms to cultural and familial expectations. I believe this to be true; however I’m also interested in how out current self schemas impact what is recalled. Though it goes against the Pollyanna complex, I tend to believe that negative memories are just as easy to recall as the positive. I also wonder if we recall memories which were encoded while in an emotional state similar to the ones we find ourselves in at the time of recall. It seems as though when we’re feeling happy it’s easier to view ourselves as generally elated people, and we pull supporting evidence of this from our memory banks. Essentially, I think we adapt our memories so that our narrative feels consistent, and we remember what supports our view of our lives and selves, as well as events or episodes which are in particular contrast to that construction.
I’d also like to talk a little about socialization goals. Evidence suggests that European American children tend to remember more self-centered first memories and report positive self-regard whereas the first recalled memories of Chinese children tended to involve other people or activities which were not self centered, and viewed themselves neutrally. Likewise, Harpaz-Rotem and Hirst found that females attached greater emotional value to their memories than males. I’m wondering how much of this is due to cultural expectancies of expression rather than actual recall. Western culture is particularly individualistic and emotive and when asked to describe a facet of our lives we tend to describe something pertinent to our selves rather than environmental context. Women, particularly in Western culture, have long been viewed as the more emotive sex and thus have carte blanche to express themselves. I don’t tend to believe males or Eastern cultures have a more minimal range of emotion, just that the norms attached to emotional expression are different.
If Chinese children are subject to less co-construction of memories than European American children, are their memories more accurate? Though autobiographical memory may develop later in children with low-elaborative mothers, are these early memories not closer to the truth than the co-constructed? On one hand I know from personal experience how detrimental it can be when one doesn’t have someone else to validate memories, but this comes later in life, at the recall stage. It seems though, that while soliciting memories in a high-elaborative way prompts more descriptive recall, it might also add to embellishment or stifling as the child is interacting with, and subject to the expectations of, the mother.
Mary K. Mullen’s Earliest Recollections of Childhood: A Demographic Analysis, Ilan Harpaz-Rotem and William Hirst’s The earliest memory raised in either traditional or reformed kibbutz or outside the kibbutz, and Qi Wang’s The Emergence of Cultural Self-Constructs: Autobiographical Memory and Self-Description in European American and Chinese Children, discuss the impact of birth-order, culture and gender on the formation and emergence of autobiographical memories in order to better understand the theory of infantile amnesia, or the near complete loss of memories before the age of about three and a half. I was particularly intrigued by Mullen’s study in which 768 subjects of American, Chinese, Chinese-American and Korean ethnicity were questioned about their earliest memory. In Mullen’s study, as in many others, it becomes clear that birth-order has a significant impact on the development of autobiographical memories, with first-born children recalling earlier first memories than second-born children and first-memories decreasing across birth-order. I found this interesting because in reminiscing with my younger sister it is profoundly evident that I recall a far greater number of memories than she does, even though we are the only two children of my parents. I would expect that her recollection of events from our childhood would differ only slightly from mine because with only two children, born only fifteen months apart, my parents should have been nearly as interested in interacting with my sister as they were with me. Perhaps it was because of the traumatic nature of much of our childhood that she chooses to repress many of her memories. Secondly, Mullen discusses the affect of major changes in one’s early life, such as moving from one house to another, and determines that an event such as moving serves as dateable point in one’s life which makes it easier to develop a narrative timeline across childhood. More compelling, however, is the evidence that linguistic structures and the development of verbal skills aids recall of memories, thus making it easier for one’s first memory to be of an image as opposed to an event which requires narrative. Most fascinating was Mullen’s exploration of cultural influences on the development of earliest memories. Comparing Koreans of Korea with Caucasians of Western culture, she concludes that while the age of earliest memories in Caucasians is typically 38.3 months, the age of earliest memories in Koreans lags by 17.2 months. Many scholars attribute this gap to the cultural differences between Asia and the West. Whereas in our culture great importance is places on the development of an independent, highly-regarded self, in Asia, particularly in Korea, great importance is placed on community, authority and the role one has in family and social life. This is evident in Mullen’s findings that while 78% of Koreans questioned recalled memories involving others, 50% of Caucasians questioned described memories which only involved themselves. It is clear throughout all three of these articles that the development of autobiographical memory heavily depends on the “co-construction” of memories, and thus the social and cultural influences that exist within every aspect of day-to-day life. Through discussion with peers and family, particularly in western culture, one is able to develop a narrative structure through which one is better able to recall earlier memories, hence proving the vital importance of language on the development of autobiographical memories. In reading these articles as a writing student I can not help but wonder if what I am able to recall and write about is pre-disposed to a narrative structure of Western culture which I am unable to break from.
Kristelle Jose
I think the three journals center on the beginnings of autobiographical memory and the differences in the systems we create. Both Wang and Mullen observe two systems that create our autobiographical memories: the remembered self and conceptual self. We discussed in class how the two have confused us whether our first memories are we actually remember or someone has told us just like in the article with Chinese mother’s dialogue where she practically feed her daughter the answers. I believe the two “selves” go in hand with each other; we also have no choice but to except them both. But why can’t we differentiate the two? Mullen goes on further to explain that infantile amnesia is related to organized and unorganized systems. The organized system (enhanced by the parent-child interaction and the linguistics in the environment) builds the narrative abilities in young children, which ten develops into autobiographical memory. These organized thoughts are cued by others and categorized for future references, but what have we hypothesized about unorganized information other than it can’t be recalled?
I also found that the studies included gender, culture, sibling hierarchy, etc. to be very anthropological. Of course different cultures and different parent interaction will affect one’s memory. It seems a bit obvious that there would be cultural differences and sex differences in the way parents parent their kids. The article also made it seem like Chinese families to be very controlling and strict in the sense that they don’t allow their children to speak their minds. The “high mother” controlled the dialogue each time. However, I did find interesting that girls had longer detailed narratives in the last study of Harpaz. Mothers and fathers speak to each child differently, but it seems consistent that girls had more details with events and wanted to talk more. I wonder if this is prompted by elders or if its become and accepted trait for girls.
Recalling our earliest memories is an extremely difficult task. When I try to think back to my earliest memory I find it extremely difficult and many instances float through my head. I have no clue what my earliest memory is, and when I try to think of early memories I can’t differentiate between what I remember myself and what I think I remember from seeing pictures and home videos of me in those instances. All the pictures, videos and my actual personal memories from childhood jumble together into one big mess of memories. How is it that I can’t remember my earliest memory but someone else definitively can and can add on other factors to it as well? I know that there are many components involved during childhood in establishing our ability to create narratives and in helping us to establish memories, however the concept still greatly confuses me. Understandably we are all different so of course we are all going to remember things differently and some of us will remember our earliest memory and some will not, but even so it is crazy just how varied autobiographical memory factors can differ from one person to the other.
The development of our autobiographical memories all have to do with the way in which we grew up, the interactions we encountered, the way our parents talked to us about the past, the environment we lived in as a child and our culture. It is believed that the age of earliest memory is between our third and fourth year. Our ability at this age to be able to start collecting memories has to do with beginning to store our memories in a way that makes them available to be retrieved as narratives. Elements that are crucial to a child’s ability to store experiences in a narrative structure are language and discussion about past events. Children are basically taught how to remember and talking about past events becomes a sort of memory cueing. The development of autobiographical memory is also the development of a sense of self and by learning about the self from others (such as parents), one learns that telling about their experiences is also telling about themselves. Parents play a large role in this co-construction process and their participation in a child’s ability to start forming memories into narratives is absolutely vital.
The Wang and Harpaz-Rotem and Hirst articles show how culture and environment and parents and support are a large part in determining and affecting the development of autobiographical memories. In Harpaz-Rotem and Hirst’s article, I find it fascinating but understandable how children raised in the traditional kibbutz, where children were living away from their parents in a colony of houses divided by age and were forced to adjust to group life, were raised not by their parents but by nurses, were educated in groups and without constant adult supervision, had a significantly later start of autobiographical memory than children raised outside the kibbutz who were under principal care by their parents. This study shows that since these children living in the kibbutz lacked the presence of those parenting figures that significantly help in aiding a child’s ability to remember, they had a much later start in their development of autobiographical memory compared to those who were under the primary care of their parents.
In Wang’s article it is interesting how different Western culture compared to Chinese culture’s approach is to the development of the self in children. Because of religious, philosophical and political traditions these two societies have radically different views on selfhood. In Western culture, the development of identity is linked directly to individuality and to distinguishing oneself from other selves. The culture honors the expression of unique characteristics and one’s own internal feelings. Western culture promotes independence while Chinese culture promotes interdependence. In Chinese culture one’s existence as an individual is established and viewed as being realized through relationships with others. One’s identity is predetermined by one’s relationship to others. One is encouraged to express humility and to be self-critical. I found it very interesting that in a study with fifth graders in Taiwan and 5th graders in the U.S., Chinese children rated their competence much lower than the American children, therefore reducing their level of importance and rank compared to the American children. This shows the effect of Chinese culture on these young children in terms of the encouragement of humbleness the culture promotes in order to “enhance social harmony.” It makes sense then that in Wang’s primary study when American and Chinese children were asked to recount four autobiographical events, the American children gave very detailed memories, describing themselves positively and focusing on their roles, preferences and feelings, and the Chinese children provided very shaky accounts of their past experiences revolving around social interactions and daily routines. I like a question that Wang asked in this article; by what age have children internalized the prevailing views of self in their culture in the process of understanding themselves? I don’t have an answer to this question but I want to think about it more and explore it in different ways. Through research, we vaguely know when we establish a sense of self, but when do we come to truly understand ourselves in our specified culture?
The Earliest Memory in Individuals Raised in Either Traditional and Reformed Kibbutz or Outside the Kibbutz
Harpaz-Rotem and Hirst claim: “According to Nelson (1993, 1996), the initial functional significance of autobiographical memory is that of sharing memories with other people, a function made possible by language. Nelson also argued that the ability to use language as a representational system is essential for the development of autobiographical memory” (Harpaz-Rotem & Hirst, 2005, p.52). Why does there need to be a dialogue involving one or more other people in order for these autobiographical memories to function significantly? What does it mean for a memory to function significantly? Researchers and the researched must vary in their views of significance. I would argue that you can retain a memory regardless of whether you articulate it via conversation. In this sense the “ability to use language” is not necessarily “essential.” I know at times it may seem that I leave everything open for subjective interpretation, but I just like to highlight the concepts and terms we take for granted as meaning the same thing across cultures, ages, races, genders, sexualities, religions etc. Scientists may make bold claims but their claims have to be taken within the context of their own use or misuse of language. The vaguer the term then the more it can be misinterpreted. The following quote reminded me of the overbearing mothers we read about: “When children first begin conversing about their past with adults, at about 20 months of age, it is adults who provide most of the content and structure in the recounting” (Harpaz-Rotem & Hirst, 2005, p.52). The concept of parents and other influential adults in children’s lives having the power to construct memories through their biased recital of them creeps me out. It is clear that recounting a memory repeatedly helps one remember something and retain it for a longer amount of time. But, what if the memory is like a game of telephone? Each time the memory is recounted something might be altered in the story and years later the memory could evolve into just a fictional tale. This leads me to the final quote I will discuss: “…autobiographical memories become more narratively and culturally conventionalized” (Harpaz-Rotem & Hirst, 2005, p.52). Why do memories need to be “structured” and “conventionalized” in order for them to be considered autobiographical? Why must we look at our memories as a formulaic crappy movie in order for them to be legitimized? (or easier to be studied by psychologists).
Post a Comment