What’s New in Psychology

Children’s Recollections of Traumatic Events Aren’t Static         

Jim Windell

            When I was a little kid, one fall day I was playing next to a fire pit where my grandfather was burning trash. Learning over the pit, I lost my balance and fell into the fire. I quickly scrambled out of the pit, but I had burned both hands and both hands were bleeding because there was broken glass in the trash.     

            No one saw this happen, but I was only a short distance from my grandparents’ home and pulling my hands up into the sleeves so no one could see that my hands were blackened and bleeding, I walked to their house.

            I can no longer remember what happened when I returned to my grandparents’ home, but I’m certain that my grandmother applied some nursing skills and ministered to my relatively minor wounds. But to this day, I have scars on both hands, so I know this event happened.

            Or did it? Or maybe my memory has evolved over the years. Can you trust my memory of an e vent from decades ago?  Could I have imagined this traumatic incident?

           Researchers say the experience of TRACEs – traumatic events and adverse childhood experiences – during childhood or adolescence may not be reliably committed to memory. That’s because of 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. 

           However, a new developmental theory is reshaping how experts understand the reliability of children’s and adolescents’ memories of TRACEs.

           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. “In reality, they can shift with new experiences and as cognitive and emotional development take place.”

           Weems’ paper, “Reporting, Forgetting, or Reimagining: A Development Theory of Traumatic and Adverse Childhood Memories,” was recently published in Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review.

           What does Weems’ theory 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.”

           Traumatic events and experiences, Weems writes in the article, 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.

           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.”

           So, what are key takeaways for researchers and clinicians?

           For one thing, we shouldn’t assume one assessment of TRACEs will capture the full picture needed to understand an individual’s experience of trauma. 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.”

           To read the original article, find it with this reference:

Weems, C.F. (2025). Reporting, Forgetting, or Reimagining: A Developmental Theory of Traumatic and Adverse Childhood Memories. Clinical and Child and Family Psychological Review 28, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-025-00528-4