Age-related differences and commonalities in remembering earliest memories: a comparison of young and older adults

We investigated age-related differences and commonalities in earliest memories, focusing on retrieval speed, recollection type (remember vs. know), retrieval type (direct vs. generative), age at the time of the event, and phenomenological characteristics. The sample consisted of 131 adults: 68 young adults (48.5% males; <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 20.29, <i>Sa<sub>ge</sub></i> = 1.53) and 63 older adults (47.6% males; <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 68.43, <i>SD<sub>age</sub></i> = 4.11). They reported their earliest memories, estimated their age at the time, indicated recollection and retrieval types, and rated event characteristics (e.g., importance, vividness). Results showed that older adults were significantly more likely to classify their memories as <i>remembered</i> and <i>directly</i> retrieved, whereas young adults had a more balanced distribution of the classifications. <i>Directly</i> retrieved memories were accessed more rapidly than <i>generatively</i> retrieved ones, and young adults demonstrated shorter retrieval latencies than older adults. Additionally, older adults dated their earliest memories to later age and rated them as significantly more vivid, emotionally intense, and personally meaningful. Recollection type was not associated with retrieval latency but linked to higher vividness and confidence. Overall, our findings demonstrate potential age-related shifts in the retrieval and subjective evaluation of earliest autobiographical memories.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Memory
Published
2025-11-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2594556
Primary Topic
Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Age-related differences and commonalities in remembering earliest memories: a comparison of young and older adults

Berivan Ece, Sami̇ Gülgöz
Memory
Identity, Memory, and Therapy
article

Age-related differences and commonalities in remembering earliest memories: a comparison of young and older adults

Berivan Ece, Sami̇ Gülgöz
article en

Abstract

We investigated age-related differences and commonalities in earliest memories, focusing on retrieval speed, recollection type (remember vs. know), retrieval type (direct vs. generative), age at the time of the event, and phenomenological characteristics. The sample consisted of 131 adults: 68 young adults (48.5% males; <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 20.29, <i>Sa<sub>ge</sub></i> = 1.53) and 63 older adults (47.6% males; <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 68.43, <i>SD<sub>age</sub></i> = 4.11). They reported their earliest memories, estimated their age at the time, indicated recollection and retrieval types, and rated event characteristics (e.g., importance, vividness). Results showed that older adults were significantly more likely to classify their memories as <i>remembered</i> and <i>directly</i> retrieved, whereas young adults had a more balanced distribution of the classifications. <i>Directly</i> retrieved memories were accessed more rapidly than <i>generatively</i> retrieved ones, and young adults demonstrated shorter retrieval latencies than older adults. Additionally, older adults dated their earliest memories to later age and rated them as significantly more vivid, emotionally intense, and personally meaningful. Recollection type was not associated with retrieval latency but linked to higher vividness and confidence. Overall, our findings demonstrate potential age-related shifts in the retrieval and subjective evaluation of earliest autobiographical memories.

MemoryVol. 34(1)
Northwestern University (US), Koç University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Identity, Memory, and Therapy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.