Module 5: Child Memory Flashcards
Children’s event memory:
*three groups of factors that influence children report on their experience.
- Event: Factors associated
with the event itself (i.e.,
type: single or reoccurring event, recent or
past, positive, neutral, or negative event) - Child: factors about the child.
- Questioning: how they are questioned.
(3) Child factors
What children bring to an interview
- (2)
- (4)
- (6)
1. parent-child conversation styles > elaborative > directive 2. age (young/old) > amount > accuracy > coherency > suggestibility 3. cognitive development > memory > knowledge > source monitoring > theory of mind > language > social
(1) Parent-Child Conversations:
• Infants are dependent on their caregivers
to reach maturity and strongly influenced
by their nested systems (family, community
and opportunities).
• The style in which parents talk to their
children. Question and respond to them
influences their development.
• Parent-Child Conversations shape multiple
skills (Salmon & Reese; 2015):
• Memory function (encoding)
• Memory retrieval (recall)
• Narrative style (how they talk about
events)
• Elaborative style (linked to children's
memories being richer memories
currently at questioning and in the
future; better encoding of memories,
recall of them and language skills to
recount and communicate them to
others).
Two types of conversational style parents can adopt:
- Elaborative:
• Where parents use “WH” words (what,
where, why, when, who etc.) and open-
ended questions to encourage the child
to think about and generate their own
responses.
• What did we see at the zoo? What was
he doing? What was he eating.
• Small contributions children make to
conversation by providing additional
information. Responding and building
on children’s contributions to get to the
next step in the narrative.
• Parents are modelling to the child what
type of information may be interesting
about an event to provide when people
ask you about it. - Directive:
• In contrast, a more directive style of
conversation where they have open-
ended questions, but the narrative of
the story is guided by the questions the
parent asks rather than what
information the child provides. Can
jump all over the place rather than
focusing on a single topic/event.
• Tell dad what we saw at the zoo? What
else did we see? What else did you
see? What were they doing?
(2) Age differences in memory
• Brown et al. (2012; 2018)
• Memory is a construct. Therefore, there
are many many ways that it can be
operationalized making it hard to do
comparisons across studies (quantity:
amount vs quality: accuracy or
coherency of what is accounted or
suggestibility on its proneness to error).
• IV: Interview Question Styles & Young
(4-6) or Old (7-11)
• Method: children experienced an event
at the school (alone) then six weeks
later were interviewed in the lab about
their experience at school.
• DV:
• Number of units recalled in terms of the
amount and coherency.
• Older children report more details than
younger children.
• Older children report an event with
greater coherence than younger
children (follows a single narrative;
easier to follow).
• DV:
• Older children had greater accuracy in
recalling an event (small but significant
difference that occurred across types of
interview questions but didn’t hold
when broken down into types of
interview questions). Less memory
errors in adult children but it’s important
to note that the youngest kids were 85%
accurate.
• Suggestive questions (children being
able to say no, that isn’t right to
suggestive questions) we see that older
children are more accurate in their
response to suggestive questions
(younger children are more
suggestible).
In summary: General trends that as children age their memory (recall of events): • Amount recalled increases • Accuracy (depends on how they’re questioned) • Closed questions increases (multichoice, yes/no; gets better with development) • Open questions (no age difference trend; older and children are similar) • Overall increases (across question type there is a general trend of accuracy increasing as they age) • Coherency increases (constructing and narrating events to others) • Suggestibility decreases across development.
(3) Cognitive development
> 6
A range of cognitive skills are employed
when we talk about our past experiences
o Memory
• Encoding (how their experiences are
explained), storage (how the information is
consolidated and connected to other
memories in the network), retrieval
strategies (how the information is recalled;
what other information is selected in the
search and what they select: IMPORTANT
TO READ THE TEXTBOOK CONTENT ON
THIS)
o Knowledge
• General, specific, abstract (how we
understand and explain events to others at
different levels of abstraction)
o Source-monitoring
• where our knowledge is from (process by
which we identify and understand where
our knowledge comes from)
o Theory of Mind
• our understanding of other’s beliefs,
motivations, knowledge, etc. (extent to
which we understand other people’s minds
influences how we perceive and event,
encode it and how it is communicated to
others).
o Language
• Receptive and expressive (how we encode
it, make sense of it, and communicate it;
COVERED IN THE TEXTBOOK)
o Social
• Tailoring to the audience (tailor what
information is important or appropriate to
the current situation they’re in)
• Conversational conventions (understanding
when it is appropriate to give a log
summary or short summary).
Age caveat
Is more complex than this. It is a general milestone (averages across children) in development which indicates what a skills child should have but we need to remember that these milestone may not reflect reality (all development; individual differences exist):
• Variability across and within age groups is
typical (variability within age groups is
normal)
• Abuse/neglect can lead to developmental
delays (applying it to special populations
where developmental delays occur these
milestones may not be as accurate)
• Age summarises a range of abilities, which
might vary in a particular child in different
ways (skills better than others in each child)
Knowledge
(2) studies
o Memories are not like a recorder or video
tape of real events that can be recalled with
vivid accuracy.
o Memories are rebuilt each time we recall
them (reconstructed; each time its recalled
and prone to bias)
o Reconstructive process
• Recall (what seems to go together or is
activated during the search)
• Inference/filling in gaps (fill in gaps of our
own memory with own assumptions, biases
or knowledge at recall)
o Draws on
• Knowledge/expectations (realistic;
experience with that category of events)
• Typicality/atypicality
• Ease of access/familiarity (familiarity heuristic
where easier to recall information is
perceived to be more accurate)
Helping and hindering
Example (1)
Sutherland et al (2003)
• Study where 5–6-year-olds all experienced
an event with a pirate. There were (4) goals
to this experience: becoming a real pirate,
making a treasure map, finding the treasure
and sailing the pirate ship.
• What extent does provide children with
knowledge or activating knowledge they
already have influences how they later recall
and explain the event.
• There were three groups of children: the day
before the event had a discussion with the
experimenter- specific (information about
pirates that would directly map onto the
event they were about to experience),
general (more generally about pirates not
linking to the future experience), irrelevant
(talked about fire fighters rather than pirates).
• The next day hey visited the pirate and then
five days later were interviewed to see how
much information they would recall. Does
activation of knowledge relevant or
irrelevant to event influence later recall?
Does the type of knowledge activate matter?
• Results:
• The specific group recalled more information
than the irrelevant group (rehearsal or
reinforced information latter recalled)
• The general group did worse (recalled less
information) to the specific and the irrelevant
group (general knowledge activation
undermines memory recall of events).
• Conclusions
• Prior knowledge can make things easier to
understand and remember. It can either help
or hinder recall. The type of knowledge
matters (general inhibit specific detail recall;
specific knowledge can help later recall).
Example (2)
Prior knowledge may also lead to error
when the prior knowledge conflicts or
contrasts the event
• Ornstein et al (1998)
• 4 and 6-year-old children had a health
check-up with their doctor and were
interviewed 12 weeks later about their
experience.
• The health check up either included typical
features and used to experiencing
(height/breathing/hearing checks) or atypical
(knee reflexivity/head measured/blood
pressure taken).
• IV: typical or atypical features
• DV: recall of typical or atypical features that
did or didn’t happen (error) and response to
suggestive questions (deny that didn’t
happen)
• Results:
• Correct recall of experienced typical
features was higher than atypical features
(correct inclusions)
• Children incorrectly reported typical non-
experienced items more than atypical (more
likely to falsely report something typical
happened which didn’t than atypic =
incorrect inclusions).
• Correct denials of non-experienced atypical
features was higher than for non-
experienced typical features (correct denials)
*Knowledge helps recall when it aligns with
our expectations of how events normally go
but hinders recall (increase error or number
of incorrect inclusions) when it contrasts our
expectations.
Memory for familiar events
*what processes cause this?
As children mature they begin to form dual
representations of an familiar or repeated
events
• Script: What usually happens (expectations
in general what happens for this type of
event; high level generic information)
• Episodic: What happened on a particular
occasion (memory trace of specific
experiences/even; more detailed with
sensory details of a specific event)
Scripts can guide both retrieval of past
information (reconstruction) and planning or
prediction of future events (reduces
cognitive energy spent; mental shortcut to
free up resources to identify new
information to put into our network; salient
or unique information of new events).
*Can be helpful or undermine accurate
memory if a particular event diverges from
our script. Across child development they
are learning how to differentiate information
meant to be in scripts or episodic memory.
Younger children are particularly vulnerable
to mixing them up. Forming scripts is harder
for younger children than older children.
Scripts and Recall
Example:
Single Event
• Thomas is three and off to his first birthday
party which is batman themed. They play
pass the parcel, gives him a ben 10 watch
and eats fish n chips. When he is asked
about the party he can recall the events with
a specific detail “he won”.
• One off occasion where he can recall
details of the event.
Repeated event:
• Another party which is frozen theme, played
pin the carrot on olaf, gave her a jigsaw
puzzle and ate popcorn whilst watching the
film.
• He might begin to see that when recalling
events there are patterns in what’s present
each time or the questions people ask him
about it (food, theme, games, gift etc.).
Three weeks later:
• Harder for him to recall specific details but
can use his script to rebuild his experience.
Use them as retrieval cues to search and
find memories; spread activation to trigger
another schema and reconstruct the event.
Patterns and differences between the
events (movie vs game; won or loss) sort
information into common and uncommon
aspects of the event.
12 weeks later:
• Jamie batman themed, fish n chips,
swimming pool, sticker book gift. However,
this time the details of both batman parties
can be activated and confuse the
information from the two events. Familiar
details (overlap) will be details easier
recalled but differences harder to recall.
• Salience of new events could be easier to
recall. Memory errors can occur, can be
corrected as they activate more memories
or kept and overtime through repetition
becomes a part of the memory.
Markers of script vs episodic recall
*There are language markers children use
which indicate if they’re using script or
episodic description of events.
Script > Condensed version or outline (overview) > Sparse content (focus on similarities across events) > Similarity rather than uniqueness emphasised > “would”, “usually” > Impersonal pronouns (you go to party, play games and eat food) > Timeless present tense > Chronologically ordered (drawing on genera knowledge)
Episodic > Specific account (differences between events) > Richer content > Distinctive features emphasised (personal details) > Emotions, goals, reactions > Personal pronouns (I, he she) > Specific past tense ? Chronologically ordered (may reflect > salience; can vary across accounts; what ever is most salient to them is where they’ll start)
Examples:
What happens when you go to a b-day
party (general):
• You get to.
• Invitation, go to party, bring present, play,
blow out candles, sing happy birthday and
blow out cake.
What happened at keslises party (specifc):
• I went to the top of the junglerama
playground with Thomas. I … then I.. We had
a minion cake, and tattoo.
Connolly & Lindsay (2001)
*Study looks at how children manage the
differences between predictable
(consistent) and unpredictable (novel) characteristics of events.
Method:
• 4, 6, 8 year old’s either experienced a
single or repeated (4x) event. It either had
fixed or variable components. Single event
had to be fixed but repeated exposure
where details were either fixed or variable.
• They were then asked suggestive
questions and given misinformation 4 days
later and then the following day they were
interviewed about the event.
Results:
• Red: fixed events: children who had
multiple experiences of the same event
with fixed features were more
suggestible than children with a single
event (better at consolidating information;
easier to recall and say no to suggestions).
• Yellow: variable events: reverse effect
where children in a single event were
better able to recall details and avoid
suggestions relative to those with multiple
experiences (scripts help with constant
information but hinder recall of variable
information; episodic information variable
to error).
*Less suggestible and less influenced by
misinformation for fixed components than
variable
Source Monitoring
Source monitoring (SM)
• Knowing how you know something
(process; being able to track the source of
your knowledge, experience, dream, word
of mouth, watched on tv, thought about)
• Important for distinguishing memory from
other sources of information (e.g., scripts;
identify accurate or inaccurate sources of
knowledge; I saw it or is it general
knowledge)
• Is hard for everyone across all stages of the
lifespan but especially so for infants
(challenging cognitive skill which leads to
error in memory of events)
Example: Observed vs experienced
Roberts & Blades (1999)
• Can 4 (young) and 10-year-old children (old)
distinguish between events they had
observed or directly experienced?
• They watched live & video events and then
after a 1-week delay they were interviewed
about their memory of the event.
• The Live Event differed from the Video
Events (similar and dissimilar) on the theme,
stimuli, actions etc. with some similarities.
Results:
• Source confusion greater for similar than
different events (similar video events more
confused with live events relative to
different video events)
• Occurred in free recall and to specific
questions (spontaneous errors and question
response errors)
• Older children more accurate than younger
(representations kept separate and could
track source of information better than
younger infants)
• Older children less source confusion than
younger (better source monitoring in older
children)
interviewing is a ___ process…
interviewing is a two-way process where the interviewer influences the child, and the child influences the interviewer. Which highlights the need for the researcher to be aware of the developmental needs of the child they are interviewing (double-sided arrow reflects this).
Context:
Conversations with children and comparing everyday conversations (socialization) vs formal assessments
Food for thought:
Think about how a child may respond and report about events across these contexts when the interviewer is parent, teacher, doctor or judge/interviewer/police and how would the conversation unfold? What questions would be asked?
Changing contexts for children’s event memory will influence:
> Details (more important in some settings than other; more detailed or brief overview) > Responses > Accuracy (more important in some settings than other; charges or medication) > Roles (of child) > Expertise (who has power; teacher has more knowledge than child, but doctor or police rely on child for knowledge about an event) > Consequences (of response more severe in formal settings)
*Context matters! Will they answer, how
they answer, what information they provide
and how accurate it is. Expectations from
everyday life conversations clash with
expectations about conversations in formal
settings.
How do adults talk to children?
> Structure and guide the conversation
heavily
• via modelling
• Helping them the learn to understand
the question being asked and the best
way to answer it
Use closed questions (closed questions
are more common in everyday situations;
multi-choice or yes/no)
Teaching and testing (closed questions
allow adults to provide feedback and a
teaching experience)
Shape conventional responses
(encouraged to be brief in everyday
conversations; social convention; broad
summary of what happened with fewer
details)
Waterman, Blades & Spencer (2000)
The way we ask questions influence whether children respond and how they respond
> Children were asked a series of questions
which were either closed/open or
sensible/non-sensible.
• Open sensible (what colour is a banana)
• Open non-sensible (where do circles
live)
• Closed sensible (is a rabbit faster than a
turtle)
• Closed non-sensible (is a box louder
than a knee)
Will children answer questions that are
non-sensible and is the way the question is
asked influence how children respond?
In the sensible Q’s there is a correct
answer to test accuracy but in the non-
sensible Q’s an accurate response would
be the child saying the Q makes no sense,
IDK, what or huh?
Results:
• Children are good at answering sensible
open ended and sensible closed questions
(i.e., can answer sensible questions
irrespective of their structure).
• Children were good at rejecting
nonsensible open-ended questions (i.e.,
say idk, what, or that question is silly)
• Children were poor at answering non-
sensible closed questions over 70% of
children tried to answer the question.
The way in which a Q is asked influences
whether a child will try to answer it (i.e., will
try to answer an unanswerable Q if it is
asked in a closed way)
