Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30533033›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Understanding the reminiscence bump: A systematic review.

Khadeeja Munawar, Sara K Kuhn, Shamsul Haque

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Least Equal When Most Teachable: The Biodevelopmental Learning Opportunities and Outcomes Model of Gender Differences in Sexuality.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khadeeja MunawarDepartment of Psychology, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Sara K KuhnDepartment of Teaching and Learning, College of Education and Human Development, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3368-478X
Shamsul HaqueDepartment of Psychology, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-1561-6989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most consistently observed phenomena in autobiographical memory research is the reminiscence bump: a tendency for middle-aged and elderly people to access more personal memories from approximately 10-30 years of age. This systematic review (PROSPERO 2017:CRD42017076695) aimed to synthesize peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the reminiscence bump. The researchers conducted searches in nine databases for studies published between the date of inception of each database and the year 2017. Keywords used included: reminiscence, bump, peak, surge, blip, reminiscence effect, and reminiscence component. Sixty-eight quantitative studies, out of 523, met the inclusion criteria. The researchers implemented a thematic analytic technique for data extraction. Four main themes were generated: methods of memory activation/instruction for life scripts, types of memory/life scripts recalled, location of the reminiscence bump, and theoretical accounts for the bump. The two prevailing methods of memory activation implemented were the cuing method and important memories method. Three types of memories/life scripts were recalled: personal/autobiographical memory, memories for public events, and life script events. The findings illustrate differing temporal periods for the bump: approximately 10-30 years for memories for important events, approximately 5-30 years for memories that were induced by word cues, and 6-39 years for studies using life scripts. In explaining the bump, the narrative/identity account and cultural life script account received the most support.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicMental RecallAnniversaries and Special EventsCuesHumansLife Change Events

Identifiers

PMID30533033
PMCPMC6289446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.