P .00, with physical words getting recalled far better than psychological words (Table
P .00, with physical words being recalled better than psychological words (Table ). There was also a main effect of encoding condition, (F(three,08)5.86, p.00). Memory was superior for words encoded within the self versus the valence situation (t(36)two.87, p .007) and for the valence versus the outline situation (t(36) four.4, p.00). Memory for words encoded inside the mother situation was numerically in involving the self and valence conditions, and Compound library custom synthesis didn’t differ reliably in the self (t(36) 0.87, p.39), but tended towards getting superior relative to the valence situation (t(36) .89, p.067). There was superior memory for physical relative to psychological trait words inside the self, mother, and valence situations (ps.002) but not within the orthographic condition (p.47, Figure ). Lastly, there was an interaction of encoding condition and list, (F(3,08) 2.78, p.045).NIHPA Author Manuscript NIHPA Author Manuscript NIHPA Author ManuscriptChild Dev. Author manuscript; accessible in PMC 204 August 20.Ray et al.PageTo examine agerelated changes in recall, we correlated recall and age separately for physical and psychological words. For the physical words, recall improved drastically with age for words encoded in mother (r(36) .36, p 028) and outline (r(36) .33, p . 047) conditions, and also tended towards significance within the self (r(36) .29, p .08) and valence (r(36) .29, p .07) circumstances. Correlations with age for psychological words showed a distinct pattern. Recall improved drastically with age for the self (r (36) .42, p .0) and valence (r(36) .50, p .002), conditions, but didn’t adjust with PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25356867 age for the mother and outline conditions (ps .3). To test our hypothesis that the selfreference impact would grow relative towards the closeother impact for psychological traits but not for physical descriptors, we made a difference score by subtracting the proportion of mother words from the proportion of self words recalled. As hypothesized, this difference enhanced with age, r(36) .29, p .04 (Figure two) for the psychological words, but not the physical words (r(36) .six, p.7. Our findings replicate and extend prior investigation on memory as well as the development of self idea. As expected from prior findings, we found that memory efficiency showed the selfreference effect, (2) memory overall performance was superior for concrete (physical descriptors) relative to abstract (psychological trait descriptors) words and for semantically encoded words relative to nonsemantically encoded words, (three) memory efficiency improved with age, and (4) memory for semantic encoding of psychological trait words enhanced with age, whereas memory for orthographic encoding of psychological trait words didn’t enhance with age. A novel contribution of this study is the fact that it examined children’s memory for words encoded in reference to a close other, in this case one’s mother. Constant with adult findings, children’s memory for words encoded in reference to a close other fell numerically involving selfreference and impersonal semantic encoding situations. Importantly, age moderated the relation involving memory for words encoded in self versus closeother circumstances. Memory for selfencoded trait words elevated with age, whereas memory for motherencoded trait words didn’t. Hence, the distinction involving memory for self and motherencoded trait words grew significantly with age. Whereas younger children normally recalled far more words encoded in relation to their mothers than themselves, older.
