Abstract
We thank Habermas, Hatiboglu,˘ and Kober (2015), Janssen(2015), andRubin(2015)fortheirthoughtfulcommentariesonourtarget article (Koppel & Berntsen, 2015). We would like to use thisreply tofollowupandelaborateuponafewofthepointstheyraise,concerning, specifically, (1) the reminiscence bump in word-cuedversus important memories, (2) the reminiscence bump outside ofautobiographical memory, and (3) other effects of cueing on thetemporal location of the bump in autobiographical memory.1. The reminiscence bump in word-cued versus importantmemoriesIn our target article, we argue that the mechanisms underly-ing the reminiscence bump in word-cued memories are poorlyunderstood. We reason that, among other considerations, (1) theidentity formation, life script, and life story accounts are more con-sistent withthelaterbumpinimportantmemoriesthantheearlierbump in word-cued memories, (2) none of the existing accountssay anythingabouttheretrievalstrategy(orstrategies)usedingen-erating word-cued memories, and (3) nor can any of the existingaccounts explain the basic finding that thelocation of the bumpdiffers for word-cued versus important memories, though the life
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
