Quick Look
A new developmental theory proposed by an Iowa State professor of human development and family studies describes how memory and perception of trauma evolve over time, challenging the long-held assumption that trauma reporting is either accurate or untrue. Instead, research indicates recollections of traumatic events can shift with new experiences and as cognitive and emotional development take place.
AMES, Iowa - A new developmental theory is reshaping how experts understand the reliability of children's and adolescents' memories of traumatic events and adverse experiences.
Proposed by Carl F. Weems, Iowa State professor of human development and family studies, the theory describes how memory and perception of trauma evolve over time, challenging the long-held assumption that trauma reporting is either accurate or untrue.
"This developmental perspective highlights that children's recollections of traumatic events aren't static," says Weems, whose paper "Reporting, Forgetting, or Reimagining: A Developmental Theory of Traumatic and Adverse Childhood Memories" was published by Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review earlier this year. "In reality, they can shift with new experiences and as cognitive and emotional development take place."
What does this mean when it comes to our understanding of youth reports of traumatic events and adverse experiences?
"We need to move beyond the traditional binary conclusion of 'something happened or it didn't,'" Weems says. "The perception of trauma exists on a continuum."
TRACEs and trauma memory
Traumatic events and adverse childhood experiences - also known as TRACEs - are associated with a variety of negative emotional and psychological outcomes.
These events and experiences, Weems writes, can include emotional, physical or sexual abuse; emotional or physical neglect; domestic violence; living with household members who abuse substances, suffer from mental illness, attempt suicide or have been imprisoned; parental separation/divorce; and exposure to disasters, war, accidents or community violence.
"Traumatic events and adverse childhood experiences have been linked to an increased risk of negative health outcomes in adulthood," says Weems, citing alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and obesity as examples.
Assessment of TRACEs is a critical component of research linking childhood experiences to outcomes, but the reliability and validity of reporting has been debated for years.
Weems aims to help examine and address this issue by offering a developmental perspective on how to conceptualize correspondence in reports over time.
"This approach begins from a neutral standpoint by using data on the reliability of reports and applies a developmental lens - drawing on both theory and empirical evidence - while also integrating relevant neuroscience findings," he says.
A closer look
If you ask someone - let's call them "Riley," as Weems does in his paper - if they experienced a traumatic or adverse experience in their childhood or adolescent years, Riley may or may not choose to share information about that experience. However, someone else - a parent, spouse, partner or friend, for example - might be in the position to report that Riley did indeed have that experience.
If both Riley and the other source indicate "yes, this happened" or both say "no, this didn't happen," there's agreement. But if their responses are different, there is clear disagreement - and the passage of time may become an increasingly significant consideration.
"The focus here is on when someone does not report despite evidence that an event (or events) occurred and when there is inconsistency across time," Weems says.
So, if you ask Riley again if they have had a traumatic or adverse experience later in time - such as a week, a month, a year or several years down the road - Riley might report the event(s) previously reported again or choose not to report. And, as Weems writes, if Riley reported "no" initially but "yes" at the later time, one can often assume a traumatic or adverse event has occurred.
However, if Riley is now an adult and asked about childhood events and the intervening event could not have occurred, there might be some "confusion, dissembling or remembering," Weems says. And if Riley reported "yes" at an initial point or another source of information suggested "yes," but Riley does not report at the later time, this may be an indication of truly forgetting, not wanting to report it or reimagining the event as not traumatic.
"Whether someone reports, forgets, reimagines or chooses not to disclose has immense practical implications for intervention, prevention and clinical practice," Weems says.
The development of memory and memory over time
Researchers say the experience of TRACEs during childhood or adolescence may not be reliably committed to memory due to the immaturity of brain structures involved in memory formation. From a developmental standpoint, children's ability to comprehend and interpret emotional reactions evolves with age.
Similarly, our episodic memory - which is the capacity to recall specific events and associated emotions from our past - strengthens progressively from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood.
Weems also points out that directly experienced TRACEs are recalled at higher frequency across the board.
"The theory based on the extant empirical literature provides a basic developmental view of why TRACEs that are directly experienced versus witnessed may show higher stability," Weems says. "Additionally, this also suggests why the details of TRACEs may lack complexity when TRACEs are experienced by the very young."
The research, Weems says, suggests that a clear initial memory of a traumatic event occurring later in childhood will be associated with greater consistency in reporting because there is strong developmental evidence that forgetting is greater in younger children.
"For all children, the intervening events that occur as time elapses between the event and the request to recall/report will also strongly affect the consistency of the report," Weems says. "Events may occur to strengthen memories or to change the perception that these events were traumatic."
Changing perceptions
What is a key takeaway for researchers and clinicians?
Simply put, we shouldn't assume one assessment of TRACEs will capture the full picture needed to understand an individual's experience of trauma, Weems says. There is frequently an evolution of the memory of an event and a change in our perception of an event as traumatic over time.
And while an individual may consistently report TRACEs, intervening events can strengthen or weaken the memory itself or one's view of the experience.
"Trauma isn't experienced in a silo, and it can't be addressed overnight," Weems says. "It unfolds within relationships, environments and histories, and is often shaped by repeated exposures and systemic factors. Similarly, healing also requires time, safety and support.
"By collecting reports of the trauma experiences over time, we may be able to better manage the therapeutic process and increase overall treatment effectiveness."
