DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14947/psychono.33.26
Personal implications of specific long-term memories on social events:
Retrospective and current memory of older Japanese adults’
experiences of visiting world expositions
David Anderson
a* and Hiroyuki Shimizu
baDepartment of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, bDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Kobe Gakuin University
This study explored the retrospective and current memory implications of older Japanese adults’ experiences of visiting World Expositions, concerning their own personal implications and significance of the specific long-term memories of these kinds of social events. Two independent data sets of older Japanese visitors’ long-term memories of two different Japanese World Expositions (Osaka 1970 and Aichi 2005), based on responses to specific relating items in the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ) instrument, were analyzed. The visiting experiences were encountered at two very different stages of the participants’ lives: Visiting Expo 1970 was encountered while they were young adults and Expo 2005 while they were at the life stage of retirees. The study revealed a relationship between retrospective and current memory implications, and evidence that personal memories of these specific so-cial events with a long retention interval had greater implications than those memories with a short interval.
Keywords: retrospective memory, current memory, implications, adult memories, social events, autobiographical
memories
Introduction
It is widely recognized that the construction of autobio-graphical memories is strongly influenced both by how one recalls the past (retrospective) and by the present (current) self (Erikson, 1980). The present analysis focuses on the inter-section of personal implications of autobiographical memor-ies of the self in both retrospective and current frames of older adults memories of specific social events. Conway and Pleydell-Pearce (2000) proposed the Self-Memory System, a conceptual framework used to explain the relationship between memory and the self. According to this framework, autobiographical reasoning, a thinking process of creating relations between different parts of individual’s past, present, and even future life, has a crucial role in the development of self-identity (and implications for the self) especially for older adults (Bluck & Habermas, 2000, 2001; Habermas, 2011; Habermas & Bluck, 2000; Pasupathi & Mansour 2006; McLean & Fournier, 2007; Singer & Bluck, 2001).
It is generally considered that the longer the retention inter-vals of long-term memories, the less accurate or vivid those memories become, since a number of studies indicate that the stability of memory traces decreases with longer retention in-tervals (Janssen, Rubin, & St. Jacques, 2011; Rubin, 1982). Therefore, it is conceivable to assume that the memories of events that occurred several years ago might hold greater per-sonal implication for the self than the memories of experienc-es that occurred much earlier in life for older adults (recency effect). On the other hand, it is well known that the retention of autobiographical memories across the lifespan is usually marked by more autobiographical memories from early adult-hood (i.e., reminiscence bump). This reminiscence bump is confirmed by using the method of cueing autobiographical memories with words (Rubin, Wetzler, & Nebes, 1986). Schol-ars have also investigated the qualitative richness of memories centering on the reminiscence bump for older adults (cf. Tung & Ritchie, 2011).
Previous studies by authors have investigated the autobio-graphical memories of social events of older adults using a va-riety of methodological techniques. For example, Anderson and Shimizu (2007a, b) demonstrated the significant contribu-tion of rehearsal on memory vividness of autobiographical Copyright 2015. The Japanese Psychonomic Society. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Department of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
memories of Expo 70 using researcher-rated assessments of 112 independent memories. Anderson and Shimizu (2012) demonstrated that visitors’ autobiographical memories of Expo 2005, as measured by factors of the Memory
Characteris-tics Questionnaire (MCQ), varied differentially by the
interac-tion of age (older and younger adults) and their and commu-nity identity (Kansai and Aichi). Finally, Shimizu, Anderson, and Takahashi (2012) further investigated context dependency of MCQ factors with data collected from participant memo-ries of Expo 1970, Expo 2005, and high school graduation, and showed that three contextual variables (retention interval of specific social events, age of the participants, and the nature of the experiences) had different effects on autobiographical memories of social events. Retention intervals for older adults proved not to be significant except for one of eight MCQ fac-tors̶Sensory Experience̶where older visitors to Expo 2005 had heighted memories of physical senses compared with old-er visitors to Expo 1970, which can be accounted for in told-erms of recency effects.
Based on the aforementioned theoretical views, together with the trajectory of the authors work, we investigated the dif-ferences that may exist between retrospective and current im-plications of autobiographical memories for distant and close social events as perceived by older adults. Hence, we sought to clarify the effect of retention intervals of autobiographical memories, that is, the chronological distance of autobiographi-cal memories, on the level of personal implications for the self.
Psychological studies of autobiographical memory have em-ployed a variety of questionnaire instruments in order to study various aspects of memory phenomena (Johnson, Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988; Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2003; Sutin & Robins, 2007). Johnson and colleagues have used the Memory
Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ) to examine the
qualita-tive characteristics of autobiographical memories (Johnson et al., 1988; Suengas & Johnson, 1988). Originally developed by Johnson et al. (1988) to explore differences between real and imagined events, the questionnaire comprised items with which participants rate the extent to which they experience a particular attribute of memory in a specific autobiographical event, using 7-point scales. In particular, three items, relate to the personal implications of autobiographical memories of events in respect of the current self, retrospective self, and
self-identity which are highly pertinent to this study of older
adults’ long-term autobiographical memories. Hence, the question items of the MCQ are useful to investigate qualitative
attributes of autobiographical memory, particularly in consid-eration of older adult participants.
Research Question
Given the issues that frame the aforementioned discussion of current and retrospective personal implications of autobio-graphical memories, the research question that framed this study is as follows: What self-assessed differences exist between
older Japanese adults’ retrospective and current long-term auto-biographical memory implications of very similar social events that occurred in Japan at two highly differentiated life stages?
In particular, what differences exist between retrospective and current autobiographical memory perspectives for older Japanese adults who visited the 1970 Japan World Exposition,
Osaka (Expo 1970) while they were at the life stage of young
adults (19–45 years), compared with older adults who visited the Aichi 2005 World Exposition (Expo 2005) while they were at the life stage of retirees (56–78 years)?
Method
The analysis reported in this article is based on a compari-son of two independent samples of older Japanese adults’ memories of their visit to an Exposition drawn from previously completed research studies by Anderson and Shimizu (2007a, b, 2012) and Shimizu, Anderson, and Takahashi (2012).
As such, this analysis is not derived from a research design in the traditional fashion of most psychology research studies of memory, in that we deliberately and intentionally looked at the data from two past studies with a new research question which drove the re-interrogation of the data sets. Thus, the analysis reported here is based on a re-visitation of two inde-pendent data sets, collected at different times with identical data gathering approaches and the same data collection instru-ment, but now are re-analysed to explore the question of cur-rent and retrospective personal implications of autobiographi-cal memories of participants at two different life stages.
Participants
The first independent data set was collected in the summer of 2004, and comprised a total of forty-eight physically and psy-chologically healthy Japanese adults, who had visited Expo 1970. One of the older participants was excluded from the data analyses because she refused to complete the MCQ due to fa-tigue, and eight others visited the exposition as children or teenagers and were excluded from this analysis because of their
young life-stage (Shimizu, Anderson, & Takahashi, 2012). Hence, the data corresponding to 38 older adult participants (14 males and 24 females) were considered for this analysis. Their ages at the time of data collection ranged from 53 to 79 years (M＝69.1, SD＝7.06), while their age at the time of their visit to Expo 1970 ranged from 19 to 45 years (M＝35.1, SD＝7.06).
The participants were recruited to voluntarily participate in the study by means of advertising posters placed in the Social
Clubs in the town of Akashi. Social Clubs are centres of social
activity in Japanese towns and cities where locals gather for arts and crafts, singing, and other community-based events. The Social Clubs were seen by the research team as ideal ven-ues to recruit participants because they attract a broad cross-section of the populace who would likely be willing to volun-teer their time to participate in the study. The advertisement cited the objectives of the study and called for participants who visited Expo 1970 on at least one occasion.
The second independent data set was collected in the spring of 2009, and comprised a total of 82 physically and psycholog-ically healthy Japanese adults who had visited Expo 2005. Of these participants, 40 were university students who experi-enced Expo 2005 as teenagers and were excluded from this analysis because of their young life stage. Hence, the data of 42 older adult participants (20 males and 22 females) were con-sidered for this analysis, and were also interviewed at Social
Clubs. Their ages at the time of the data collection ranged
from 60 to 82 years (M＝68.2, SD＝6.86), while their ages at the time of their visit to Expo 2005 ranged from 56 to 78 years (M＝64.2, SD＝6.86). The participants were recruited to vol-untarily participate in the study through contacts at local com-munity and sporting groups and through networks associated with Nagoya University and Kobe Gakuin University, and were also interviewed at Social Clubs. Thirty participants (71.4％) out of these 42 older participants had visited Expo 1970. This
proportion is not odd or surprising, because Expo 1970 at-tracted a total attendance of over 64 million visitors as an offi-cial record. Only one participant, an elderly female adult, par-ticipated in both independent studies, and was able to clearly differentiate her memories of the two social events. In addi-tion, there was no statistical difference in age between the two group of participants based on independent samples t-test;
t(78)＝.574, p＝.568.
Given the periods of data collection for these two indepen-dent data sets, the analysis provided an ideal opportunity for the investigation of effect of retention interval on retrospective and current autobiographical memories of social events. Figure 1 depicts the timeline of both social events and data collection of the two independent studies. The Expo 2005 data set, collected in the year 2009, provided an opportunity to examine with older adult participants’ memories of a social event that was chronologically close (i.e., short retention inter-val̶4 years past). Whereas, the Expo 1970 data set permitted an examination of the memories of a similar kind of social event that was chronologically distant (i.e., long retention interval̶34 years past). As such, a distinct two-level grouping of retention intervals is afforded with the post-hoc examina-tion of data from the two studies.
Questionnaire and Procedure
At the time at which the two independent studies were con-ducted, a Japanese-translated version of the MCQ (Takahashi & Shimizu, 2007), which included the original 38 items (Johnson et al., 1988) was administered to the participants.1 Figure 1. Time line for exposition events and data collection.
1 The order of the questions was identical to that in the original questionnaire (Johnson et al., 1988) but excluded Item 39 (i.e. “About when did this event happen?”) from the original version of the MCQ since the answer was ob-vious to the participants.
The participants from both independent studies were individ-ually asked to answer the question items of the MCQ, in which they self-rated, on 7-point scales, the strength of various attri-butes of their memories of their visit(s) to Expo 1970 or 2005. The time required to complete all the questions on the MCQ ranged from 5 to 10 minutes.
The 1970 and 2005 Expositions̶The Memory Contexts
Expo 1970 and Expo 2005 as experiential events for exam-ining term memory were useful to investigating the long-term memories of naturally-occurring life events. A descrip-tion of the events is represented in Appendix A. Visitors’ memories of Expos were generally positive, easily recalled events, and experienced by many people in Japan. In addition, these experiences represent a defined marker in time for which the retention intervals since the event were certain for all participants. Importantly, this addresses the issue of a threat to validity that might arise when examining memories of events with multiple and varying retention intervals, and is a critical factor in terms of the research design when attempt-ing to examine retrospective memory of social events from two distinctly different time intervals. Epistemologically speaking, our view is that memories of personal experiences construct and reconstruct longitudinally, and that what was reported by participants might not be an entirely accurate ver-sion of the experience that originally produced the memories (Bruner, 1994; Freeman, 1993; Neisser & Fivush, 1994). How-ever, the focus of this study was concerned with an investiga-tion of the differences between retrospective and current long-term personal implications of autobiographical memories of very similar social events, and not the reliability and accuracy of participants’ memories. Hence, the qualitative characteris-tics of self-assessed memories were considered participants’ personal current and retrospective realities.
From today’s vantage point, it may be argued that Expo 1970 was a social event that historically holds greater signifi-cance for the nation of Japan than does Expo 2005. Unques-tionably, Expo 1970 was larger in size, scale and overall atten-dance compared with Expo 2005. Moreover, from a national perspective, more has been written, documented, analyzed, and discussed about Expo 1970, staged more than four de-cades ago, compared to its more recent “cousin” Expo 2005. As such, one might readily jump to the conclusion that per-sonal implications related to ones’ personal experiences of these events might directly equate with their national and/or
historic significance. However, this kind of assumption may not be justified since personal memories of events can differ from the collective (national) and constructed memories of events (cf. Larson, 1988). Regardless, the participants in this study were explicitly asked to focus on the personal implica-tions of specific long-term memories of these social events, and not the national implications, which have to date not been investigated. In addition, despite the actual differences in size, scale, and attendance of the two expositions, as social events of this nature, there are no other comparable memory events in Japan that can be available to investigate long-term memories recalled from two distinctly different life stages. Also, there is a possibility that Expo 2005 participants could conflate their au-tobiographical memories of Expo 2005 with Expo 1970. How-ever, we regard this possibility to be remote because partici-pants in both studies were acutely aware of the context of the autobiographical memories they were being asked about (i.e., Expo 1970 or Expo 2005, respectively). Hence, there was no conflation of personal implications about Expo 1970 in respect of the Expo 2005 research study participants that the research-ers could reasonably detect.
Data Analysis
Data analysis of the MCQ item data comprised two stages. The first stage of analysis compared the two independent memory data sets with differing retention intervals̶Expo 2005 (Close) and Expo 1970 (Distant)̶by MCQ questions #25 (Retrospective memory perspective), #26 (Current memo-ry perspective) and #32 (Identity) respectively, through inde-pendent t-tests using IBM-SPSS for Windows, Version 19.2 The three questions̶Q25, Q26, and Q32̶were selected from the MCQ and were considered for detailed analysis because of their particular relevance to the issue of current and retrospec-tive personal implications of autobiographical memories:
Q25. At the time, the event seemed like it would have seri-ous implications: 1＝not at all; 7＝definitely
Q26. Looking back, this event did have serious implica-tions: 1＝not at all; 7＝definitely
Q32. This memory reveals or says about me: 1＝not much; 7＝a lot
2 Although this kind analysis may include Type 1 errors overestimating the differences between the two groups, it is worthwhile in terms of our primary concerns driven by the research questions of the study.
Q25 was selected for analysis because it specifically assessed the extent to which the participants’ recollections of the Expo at the time of their experiences had, in retrospect, significant implications (Retrospective). Q26 was selected for analysis be-cause it specifically assessed the extent to which the partici-pants’ current recollections of the Expo had significant impli-cations (Current). Q32 was selected for analysis because it specifically assessed the extent to which the autobiographical memories were significant to the participants’ self in terms of their memory-related identity (Identity). Other items in the MCQ were not considered for the retrospective analysis be-cause they did not relate to issues of current or retrospective personal implications.3 Furthermore, this approach has been commonly employed and is consistent with other studies that have selected items of the MCQ to examine the particular as-pects of autobiographical memories (e.g., Destun & Kuiper, 1999; Schaefer & Phillippot, 2005). The second stage of the analysis sought to understand the relationships between the
Retrospective and Current personal implications of
autobio-graphical memories which proved to be significant in the first stage via Pearson Correlation analysis.
The present study has three reasons for the reanalysis of the data from the previous independent studies. First, the previous studies already analyzed the data of the Memory Characteris-tics Questionnaire (MCQ) from the participants having the experiences of Expo 1970 and Expo 2005 with a factor analy-sis, reveled the eight-factor structure of the MCQ, and found no clear difference between memories of Expo 1970 and Expo 2005 (Anderson & Shimizu, 2012; Shimizu, Anderson, & Takahashi, 2012) with the exception of the Sensory Experience factor. However, the factor structure of the MCQ is not always a valid means to examine the research questions of the present study. Especially, the “retrospective recollection” factor in the MCQ in the previous studies is conceptually related to the is-sue to be clarified in the present study, but this factor includes not only items relating to the self (Q25, Q26, Q32), but also items relating to rehearsal, and emotional intensity. Because of the qualitative variety of included items, the overall meaning of this factor becomes highly ambiguous. Therefore, in the present study, the analysis involving estimated value of select-ed individual items, not basselect-ed on factors, has validity (cf.
D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2008). Second, memory re-searchers have frequently used well-known social events, in-cluding the events inducing negative feeling or traumatic memories, to clarify the characteristics of personal memories (e.g., Lee & Brown, 2003). However, the two similar social events with close and distant retention interval, desirably not inducing unpleasant feeling for the participants, are very limit-ed. At this point, re-analyses of the data sets of memories about Osaka 1970 and Aichi 2005 expos are highly appropriate for our research question. Finally, although the re-analysis of data in the present study has been carried out from a theoreti-cal interest differing from those of the authors’ previous stud-ies (i.e., current and retrospective autobiographic memory im-plications), this in no way affected the capacity to reinterpret the quantitative data in the light of the research question when framed this current analysis. Therefore, we believe that reanal-ysis of previously published data, collected under the same methodological conditions, with a new research question was a best way to achieve the purpose of this study.
Results
A comparison of retrospective, current and identity items of MCQ by retention interval
Table 1 indicates the results of the independent
t-test̶Ret-rospective (Q25), Current (Q26), and Identity (Q32) items by Close and Distant retention intervals (Expos 2005 and 1970).
From this analysis, it is evident that the effect of the reten-tion interval was statistically significant for retrospective (p＜.05) and current memory (p＜.05) implications of autobi-ographical memories, but not for identity. Specifically, the more chronologically distant memories (based on the distant retention interval data set) were seen by participants as con-taining higher implications both in the retrospective and cur-rent personal implications of autobiographical memories, compared with the personal implication of more recent mem-ories (based on the close retention interval data set). For these participants, memories of these social events with a longer re-tention interval (recollections of an event that occurred at the life stage of young adults) are seen as having greater implica-tions than shorter retention interval memories (recollecimplica-tions of an event that occurred at the life stage of retirees).
The relationship between retrospective and current memory personal implications of autobiographical memories
Table 2 shows the Pearson’s coefficients of correlation 3 See Shimizu, Anderson, & Takahashi (2012) for
discus-sions of other aspects of the MCQ which are not the fo-cus of personal implications and time perspectives.
tween Retrospective and Current implication, by retention in-terval and an analysis of both data sets as a whole. The Pear-son’s coefficients of correlation between Retrospective (Q25) implication and Current (Q26) implication for both retention intervals were highly positive (Close-Expo 2005, r＝.568,
p＜.01; Distant-Expo 1970, r＝.481, p＜.01), and there is no
difference between the two correlation coefficients (χ2(1)
＝.274, n.s.). Furthermore, this same relationship is evidenced across both independent data sets a whole (All Data-Total,
r＝.548, p＜.01).
The relationship between Retrospective and Current implica-tions is not different as a function of retention interval, that is, the chronological distance of the memory. This is evidenced by the nearly identical Pearson’s coefficients of correlation be-tween Retrospective and Current memories for the two inde-pendent Expo data sets.
Discussion
The results of the study can be summarized in two points. First, when we compare the response of Retrospective (Q25),
Current (Q26), and Identity (Q32), it is evident that significant
differences exist by retention interval for Retrospective and
Current memories, but not for Identity. As a whole pattern,
memories of Expo 1970, which are inherently of a longer
(dis-tant) retention interval, were rated with higher levels of
impli-cation than those memories of Expo 2005 which are inherent-ly of a shorter (close) retention interval. In respect of the non-significant result for identity (Q32), the mean values for close and distant retention intervals were 4.14 and 4.32 respectively. These values closely approximated the neutral point rating (4), suggesting that neither experience (exposition visited) had a great impact on formation, establishment, or modification of self-identity. This might be explained by the fact that the expe-rience was a one or two-day event against the backdrop of 60 or more years of more significant life experiences, and so the question concerning implication for identity is not significant for participants in either Expo Case.
Second, there are statistically significant correlations be-tween Retrospective and Current implications indicating that the higher implication associated with the event at the time of the Expo (Retrospective), the higher the implication one felt about that event now (Current). Conversely, the lower the im-plication associated with the memories at the time of Expo (Retrospective), the lower the implication one felt about that event now (Current). This result is not different by retention interval (Expo), that is, the correlation relationship is equiva-lently observed.
These results indicate that the memories with a longer re-tention interval are rated with higher levels of implication than those memories with shorter retention intervals. It could be reasonable to explain this outcome in terms of the pattern of the reminiscence bump (Leist, Ferring, & Filipp, 2010; Rubin et al., 1996), which indicates more (and perhaps high-implication) autobiographical memories of younger adult-hood. Interpretation of this result with the recency effect would predict that the memories of Expo 2005, which are Table 1.
Independent t-test Analysis̶Retrospective (Q25), Current (Q26), and Identity (Q32) items by Close and Distant retention intervals (Expos 2005 and 1970).
Retention interval N Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Retrospective (Q25) Close (Expo 2005) 42 4.12 1.864 −2.190 78 .032*
Distant (Expo 1970) 38 5.13 2.268
Current (Q26) Close (Expo 2005) 42 4.40 1.795 −2.236 78 .028*
Distant (Expo 1970) 38 5.37 2.059
Identity (Q32) Close (Expo 2005) 42 4.14 1.829 −0.379 78 .705
Distant (Expo 1970) 38 4.32 2.243
* Significant p＜.05; Equal variances assumed. Table 2.
Pearson Correlation between Retrospective Implication and Current Implication as a function Retention Interval ̶Close/Distant (Expo).
Retention Interval Implications Current (Q26)
Close (Expo 2005) Retrospective (Q25) .568**
Distant (Expo 1970) Retrospective (Q25) .481**
All Data (Total) Retrospective (Q25) .548** ** Correlation is significant at the p＜.01 (2-tailed).
more recent (close), should hold inherently higher implica-tion, yet, this was not seen to be the case. This finding is also consistent with Wright (1993), whose study also concluded that the more distant memories of a disastrous event were rat-ed with higher levels of importance comparrat-ed to those ratrat-ed soon after the event.
Both recency and reminiscence bump are phenomena that have been mainly examined in terms of the quantity of re-called memories. However, this study examined not only the quantity of rated implication of recalled memories, but also validates a hypothesis in relation to the quality or personal im-plications of memories (cf. Tung & Ritchie, 2011). If the remi-niscence bump pattern can in part explain the result seen in this analysis, it suggests that this pattern coincides with the pe-riod of life when these older adults experienced Expo 1970̶a life stage which was more vitally and vividly recalled, and with higher levels of current (then) and future (now) implications. Interpreting these findings in light of autobiographical reason-ing theory (e.g., Peterson, Sampson, Lenz, & Reardon, 2002; Wilson & Ross, 2003; Wright, 1993), it is reasonable to con-clude that these older adults are connecting their past, present and future lives as a narrative within which longer retention interval memories having high personal implication. In this sense, older adults (≈70 years) were in a life stage where they were apt to retrospectively reflect on the active, and likely more vibrant and significant years of their early adult life of which their visit to Expo 70 was a part of that earlier, and con-nected, life narrative. Such memory conditions were not af-forded to the older adults’ experience of Expo 2005.
Although the relationship between Retrospective and
Cur-rent memories are equivalently observed for both close and
distant retention intervals, the results demonstrate that the more distant memories (Expo 1970) recalled by older adults are more highly evaluated in their implication compared to the memories of the more recent past (Expo 2005). Once again, we see a reasonable explanation for this in terms of the reminiscence bump, and the likely fact that these recalled memories of early adult life are more significant and meaning-ful. From this perspective it may be the case that more high-implication memories are coincident with the reminiscent bump period of life for these older adults. We recognize that the older participants visiting Expo 1970 in this study were mostly in their mid-thirties in 1970, and as such, their ages are somewhat later than the ordinary periods of the reminiscence bump. However, it is probable that the reminiscence bump for
Japanese adults emerges later than for American adults (Ben-son, Jarvi, Arai, Thielbar, Frye, & McDonald, 1992). Hence, it is a plausible explanation for the results. Finally, we recognise that the temporal distance and reminiscence bump are essen-tially not equivalent in nature. Accordingly, we cannot identify which is the resultant cause, since dissociation of the period of reminiscence bump and the temporal distance with indepen-dently manipulation was not possible. Hence, further research is warranted to investigate the issue of resultant cause of the observed effects beyond the limitations of this study.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that there exists a relationship be-tween the levels of personal implication of retrospective and current autobiographical memory of these social events. Moreover, in this study, the more distant memories (at the life stage of young adults) were stronger in implication compared with those memories of the more recent past (at the life stage of retirees) for older adults. We propose an explanation for this outcome in terms of the more high-implication memories being coincident with the reminiscent bump period of life for these older adults and the aptness for these older adults to ret-rospectively reflect on their active (and likely more vibrant) years of their early adult life. We acknowledge that this study cannot provide insights about the nature of the relationship between retention interval and implication given the compari-son of only two different and highly differentiated retention intervals. However, the outcomes of these analyzes does pro-vide the opportunity to question an assumption, exclusively and intensively based on the recency effects, that the memo-ries of events that occurred several years ago might be more remembered and probably hold greater personal implication than the memories of experiences that occurred much earlier in life for older adults (Spreng & Levine, 2006).
These outcomes under the constraint of this research design provide some tantalizing future opportunities for further in-vestigations around the exact nature of this relationship as a function of life stage. Such future studies need not be limited to specific social events like expositions, but rather, consider retention intervals of commonly experienced movies, music, and news that participants encountered in both the recent and distant past (Rubin, Rahhal, & Poon, 1998).
Furthermore, while this study revealed a correlation rela-tionship between retrospective and current memory personal implications of autobiographical memories, it does not
ad-dress which of the two implication types (retrospective or cur-rent) was responsible for influencing the other in the demon-strated relationship. Specifically, we cannot speculate if it is the retrospective memory implication that influences the current memory implication, or whether it is the current memory im-plication that influences the retrospective memory implica-tion. However, it may be reasonable to assume that there exists bi-directional influence as suggested by Peterson et al. (2002) and Wilson and Ross (2003).
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Japan Foundation to the first author and the JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25380992 to the second author.
References
Anderson, D., & Shimizu, H. (2007a). Factors shaping vivid-ness of memory episodes: Visitors’ long-term memories of the 1970 Japan World Exposition. Memory, 15, 177–191. Anderson, D., & Shimizu, H. (2007b). Memories of Expo 70:
Visitors’ experiences and the retention of vivid long-term memories. Curator, 50, 435–454.
Anderson, D., & Shimizu, H. (2012). Memory characteristics as a function of age and community identity: Visitors’ recol-lections of the 2005 Aichi World Exposition. Visitor Studies,
15, 186–202.
Benson, K. A., Jarvi, S. D., Arai, Y., Thielbar, P. R. S., Frye, K. J., & McDonald, B. L. G. (1992). Socio-historical context and autobiographical memories: Variations in the reminis-cence phenomenon. In M. A. Conway, D. C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, & W. A. Wagenaar (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives
on autobiographical memory. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academ-ic, pp. 313–322.
Bluck, S., & Habermas, T. (2000). The life story schema.
Moti-vation and Emotion, 24, 121–147.
Bluck, S., & Habermas, T. (2001). Extending the study of auto-biographical memory: Thinking back about life across the life span. Review of General Psychology, 5, 135–147. Bruner, J. S. (1994). The “remembered” self. In U. Neisser
(Ed.), The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in
self-narratives. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.
41–54.
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construc-tion of autobiographical memories in the self-memory sys-tem. Psychological Review, 107, 261–288.
D’Argembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2008). Remember-ing pride and shame: Self enhancement and the phenome-nology of autobiographical memory. Memory, 16, 538–547. Destun, L. M., & Kuiper, N. A. (1999). Phenomenal
character-istics associated with real and imaged events: The effects of event valence and absorption. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
13, 175–186.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the lifecycle. New York: Norton.
Freeman, M. (1993). Rewriting the self: History, memory,
nar-rative. London: Routledge.
Habermas, T. (2011). Autobiographical reasoning: Arguing and narrating from a biographical perspective. In T. Haber-mas (Ed.), The development of autobiographical reasoning in
adolescence and beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.
1–17.
Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emer-gence of life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 748–769.
Janssen, S. M. J., Rubin, D. C., & St. Jacques, P. L. (2011). The temporal distribution in autobiographical memory: Chang-es in reliving and vividnChang-ess over the life span do not explain the reminiscence bump. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1–11. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L.
(1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 371–376.
Larsen, S. (1988). Remembering without experiencing: Memo-ry for reported events. In U. Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.),
Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 326–355.
Lee, P. J., & Brown, N. R. (2003). Delay related changes in per-sonal memories for September 11, 2001. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 17, 1007–1015.
Leist, A. K., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2010). Remembering positive and negative life events: Associations with future time perspective and functions of autobiographical memo-ry. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and
Geriat-ric Psychiatry, 23, 137–147.
Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2002). Looking back in time: Self-concept change affects visual perspective in autobiographi-cal memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 167–179.
Neisser, U., & Fivush, R. (1994). The remembering self:
Construction and accuracy in self-narratives. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pasupathi, M., & Mansour, E. (2006). Adult age differences in autobiographical reasoning in narratives. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 798–808.
McLean, K. C., & Fournier, M. A. (2007). The content and processes of autobiographical reasoning in narrative identi-ty. Journal of Research in Personality 42, 527–545.
Rubin, D. C. (1982). On the retention function for autobio-graphical memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 21, 21–38.
Rubin, D. C., Rahhal, T. A., & Poon, L. W. (1998). Things learned in early adulthood are remembered best. Memory &
Cognition, 26, 3–19.
Rubin, D. C., Wetzler, S. E., & Nebes, R. D. (1986). Autobio-graphical memory across the adult lifespan. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–221.
Rubin, D. C., Schrauf, R. W., & Greenberg, D. L. (2003). Belief and recollection of autobiographical memories. Memory &
Cognition, 31, 887–901.
Schaefer, A., & Philippot, O. (2005). Selective effects of emo-tion on the phenomenal characteristics of autobiographical memories. Memory, 13, 148–160.
Shimizu, H., Anderson, D., & Takahashi, M. (2012). Autobio-graphical memories of specific social events for older and younger adults: Context dependency of the Memory Char-acteristics Questionnaire on recollection of 1970 and 2005 Japan World Expositions. Japanese Psychological Research,
54, 182–194.
Singer, J. A., & Bluck, S. (2001). New perspectives on autobio-graphical memory: The integration of narrative processing and. Review of General Psychology, 5, 91–99.
Spreng, R. N., & Levine, B. (2006). The temporal distribution of past and future autobiographical events across the lifes-pan. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1644–1651.
Suengas, A. G., & Johnson, M. K. (1988). Qualitative effects of rehearsal on memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 377–389.
Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The phenomenology of autobiographical memory: The memory experiences ques-tionnaire, Memory, 15, 390–411.
Takahashi, M., & Shimizu, H. (2007). Do you remember the day of your graduation ceremony from junior high school?: A factor structure of the Memory Characteristics Question-naire. Japanese Psychological Research, 49, 275–281. Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie J. R. B. (2011). Investigating the
memorable experience of the senior travel market: An ex-amination of the Reminiscence Bump. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 28, 331–343.
Wright, D. B. (1993). Recall of the Hillsborough disaster over time: Systematic biases of ‘flashbulb’ memories. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 7, 129–138.
Appendix A
Description of the Exposition Cases ̶Expo 1970 (Osaka) and Expo 2005 (Aichi)
Expo 1970 was a Category One Universal Exposition held in
the Senri Hills in the city of Osaka, Japan. The exposition ran for 182 days, from March 15 to September 13, 1970, and the official attendance over the six months of operations was 64 million visitors. The theme of Expo1970 was “Progress and Harmony for Mankind.” Expo 1970 featured numerous visions of the future. For example, the telecommunications pavilions featured “dream telephones”̶wireless handheld telephones where visitors could call any part of the country.
Expo 2005 was an international exposition held in Aichi
Pre-fecture, Japan, east of the city of Nagoya. The exposition ran for 185 days between March 25 and September 25, 2005, and the official attendance over the six months of operations was 22 million visitors, 95.4％ of whom were residents of Japan. Typical visitor experiences included visiting national and cor-porate pavilions where they viewed high-technology movies, visual displays, and static as well as interactive exhibitions. Technologies such as robots featured highly in much of the ex-position, in addition to modern art (kinetic sculptures), nature experiences (parks and woodlands), dinning and eating (res-taurants), shopping (gift and souvenir shops), and shared so-cial experiences.
