Search

Spirrison, Schneider, Hartwell, Carmack, and D'Reaux (1997) argued that onset prior to age 4 of reported first memory is linked to maladjustment based on a study of 60 undergraduates; however, the literature suggests that sex, age, socioeconomic status, and Verbal IQ are likely to affect age of first recall. Responses of three previously unanalyzed samples were then reviewed for age of first recall The first two samples yielded a .3-year earlier age of first recall for the female university student sample (3.2 vs 3.5 yr. for men); however, Spirrison, et al.'s prediction of maladjustment is probably better explained by various personal and demographic variables. A third sample--incarcerated male prisoners--was handpicked for specific demographic measures to test the notion that late age of first recall is linked with somatic complaints. Their average age of first recall was 6.2 yr. or "late onset." Spirrison, et al.'s results would predict "somatic concerns"--extremely unlikely for this group. First recall at a later age is likely linked to a variety of psychological and demographic variables, including but not limited to low Verbal IQ, low education, low socioeconomic status, male, and a criminal background. Similarly, early age of first recall is probably linked to a high Verbal IQ, high education, middle-class socioeconomic status or higher, female, and an interest in reflection, among other variables. More research is needed on what affects age of first recall to avoid questionable attributions of pathology.

We demonstrated the efficacy of using early memory (EM) data to distinguish postdictively criminally dangerous from nondangerous psychiatric patients. Dangerous patients (n = 30) had been adjudicated not criminally responsible (NCR) for felonies, whereas nondangerous psychiatric patients (n = 30) had no convictions for aggressive offenses. Groups were comparable in age, IQ, socioeconomic status (SES), marital status, and diagnoses. Group racial compositions, however, were significantly different. Statistical analyses were thus performed to clarify the potential effect of this racial confound. Overall, 73% of the dangerous and nondangerous patients were accurately classified via a newly developed EM scoring system, the Early Memory Aggressiveness Potential Score System (EMAPSS). Of those classified as dangerous, 15 of 16 (94%) were actually dangerous. The false-positive rate was an impressively low 6%, suggesting EM aggression is highly predictive of dangerousness postdictively.

This article introduces the Early Memories Procedure (EMP), the first projective test of autobiographical memory. The EMP requires minimal one-on-one professional time, because it is a self-administered pencil-and-paper test. Part 1 of the EMP includes five spontaneous early childhood memories (EMs) and one particularly clear or important memory (lifetime); Part 2 contains 15 directed memories, including both EMs and more recent memories. The procedure is intended to be used after intake by new clients, because it provides the clinician with an opportunity to explore client problem areas with a minimum of face-to-face time. The experiential aspect of the procedure helps to reduce the initial anxiety and confusion experienced by novice therapy clients by providing a lesson regarding what some of the more important aspects of therapy are about: understanding the self and its needs, taking responsibility, and making changes consistent with one's needs and goals. Due to its length, the article is divided in half, and each half is published separately. Part 1 introduces the EMP and provides a rationale for its use. Part 2 illustrates how EMs can be interpreted with the cognitive-perceptual model and presents a full EMP protocol and interpretation.

Most clinicians know little about the operation of autobiographical memory. Yet as assessment people, clinicians are frequently called upon to make important decisions about the individuals they evaluate. It is not surprising that clinicians are ignorant regarding many aspects of autobiographical memory because most have not been trained to understand how autobiographical memory functions. This article focuses on a vital domain of autobiographical memories--early memories--and discusses from a clinical perspective the purpose, function, and organization of autobiographical memory as seen by cognitive-perceptual theory.

A previous study of early childhood memories (EMs) with a sample of 15 delinquents and 18 nondelinquent controls successfully identified 80% of the delinquents and 100% of the nondelinquents. Our study used 71 delinquents and 71 nondelinquent controls matched for age, whereas gender (male) and geographical area were held constant. Socioeconomic status (SES) was restricted to middle class and above. Several refinements were also made to the previous EM scoring system to make it more useful to clinicians, and four EMs were elicited rather than two in the prior study. Predictive results with a discriminant analysis were consistent with those from the previous study and were highly significant--81.7% were correctly classified as delinquents and 95.8% as nondelinquents. The study effectively validates the use of the EM scoring system for this population. The results are discussed from the standpoint of the Cognitive-Perceptual approach to EMs and current models of delinquency.

While Adlerians have long advocated the use of the earliest childhood memory (EM) for adult assessments, they have discouraged the use of children's EMs for the same purpose. The present writer argues that children's EMs merit further research. In support of this position, the research literature is discussed, a clinical case study is presented, and the results from a small pilot study of clinical cases is summarized.

Examined the early memories of 94 boys, aged 8 through 11, with varying levels of psychopathology. Via a newly developed early memory scoring system, subjects were classified according to degree of presenting psychopathology at a highly significant level. The scoring system classifications were also more accurate than those made by experienced clinicians. The importance of scoring system structural variables in making adjustment/maladjustment decisions was emphasized.