P .00, with physical words being recalled superior than psychological words (Table
P .00, with physical words being recalled much better than psychological words (Table ). There was also a primary effect of encoding condition, (F(three,08)5.86, p.00). Memory was superior for words encoded in the self versus the valence condition (t(36)two.87, p .007) and for the valence versus the outline condition (t(36) 4.4, p.00). Memory for words encoded inside the mother condition was numerically in among the self and valence circumstances, and did not differ reliably in the self (t(36) 0.87, p.39), but tended towards getting superior relative for the valence situation (t(36) .89, p.067). There was superior memory for physical relative to psychological trait words in the self, mother, and valence situations (ps.002) but not within the orthographic situation (p.47, Figure ). Finally, there was an interaction of encoding situation and list, (F(three,08) two.78, p.045).NIHPA Author Manuscript NIHPA Author Manuscript NIHPA Author ManuscriptChild Dev. Author manuscript; out there in PMC 204 August 20.Ray et al.PageTo examine agerelated alterations in recall, we correlated recall and age separately for physical and psychological words. For the physical words, recall enhanced considerably with age for words encoded in mother (r(36) .36, p 028) and outline (r(36) .33, p . 047) circumstances, and also tended towards significance in the self (r(36) .29, p .08) and valence (r(36) .29, p .07) situations. Correlations with age for psychological words showed a distinctive pattern. Recall improved drastically with age for the self (r (36) .42, p .0) and valence (r(36) .50, p .002), situations, but did not alter with MedChemExpress Apigenol 25356867″ title=View Abstract(s)”>PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25356867 age for the mother and outline situations (ps .3). To test our hypothesis that the selfreference impact would develop relative to the closeother effect for psychological traits but not for physical descriptors, we developed a distinction score by subtracting the proportion of mother words in the proportion of self words recalled. As hypothesized, this distinction improved with age, r(36) .29, p .04 (Figure two) for the psychological words, but not the physical words (r(36) .6, p.7. Our findings replicate and extend prior investigation on memory plus the improvement of self concept. As expected from prior findings, we identified that memory performance 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, (3) memory functionality improved with age, and (four) memory for semantic encoding of psychological trait words elevated with age, whereas memory for orthographic encoding of psychological trait words did not raise 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. Consistent with adult findings, children’s memory for words encoded in reference to a close other fell numerically between selfreference and impersonal semantic encoding circumstances. Importantly, age moderated the relation among memory for words encoded in self versus closeother situations. Memory for selfencoded trait words elevated with age, whereas memory for motherencoded trait words did not. Consequently, the difference in between memory for self and motherencoded trait words grew considerably with age. Whereas younger young children normally recalled more words encoded in relation to their mothers than themselves, older.