Memories of childhood trauma may shift depending on current relationships

Most people assume their memories of growing up are fixed, much like a file stored in a cabinet, but new research suggests the way we remember our childhoods might actually shift depending on how we feel about our relationships today. A study published in Child Abuse & Neglect reveals that young adults report fewer adverse childhood experiences during weeks when they feel more supported by their parents. This suggests that standard measures of early trauma may reflect a person’s current state of mind as much as their historical reality.

Adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, refer to traumatic events such as abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction that occur before the age of 18. Medical professionals and psychologists frequently use questionnaires to tally these events because a high number of ACEs is associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes later in life. These screenings rely on the assumption that an adult’s memory of the past is stable and reliable over time.

However, human memory is not a static playback device. It is a reconstructive process that can be influenced by current moods, identity development, and social contexts. This is particularly true for emerging adults, who are navigating the transition from dependence on parents to establishing their own independent identities. This developmental period often requires young people to re-evaluate their family dynamics.

Annika Jaros, a researcher at Michigan State University, led an investigation into this phenomenon alongside co-author William Chopik. They sought to determine if fluctuations in current social relationships or stress levels corresponded with changes in how young adults remembered early adversity. They hypothesized that recollections of the past might wax and wane alongside the quality of a person’s present-day interactions.

The team recruited 938 emerging adults, largely undergraduate students, to complete three identical surveys. These surveys were spaced four weeks apart over a two-month period. At each interval, participants completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, a standard tool used to identify histories of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as physical and emotional neglect.

In addition to recalling the past, participants rated the current quality of their close relationships. They reported on levels of support and strain with their parents, friends, and romantic partners. They also rated their current levels of academic stress to see if general life pressure affected their memories.

The researchers used statistical models to separate the data into two distinct categories of variance. They looked at differences between people, such as whether a person with a generally happy childhood reports better adult relationships. They also looked at variations within the same person over the course of the eight weeks.

The results showed that reports of childhood adversity were largely consistent over the two months. However, there was measurable variability in the answers provided by the same individuals from month to month. The analysis revealed that this variability was not random but tracked with changes in parental relationships.

When participants reported receiving higher-than-usual support from their parents, they reported fewer instances of childhood adversity. Conversely, during weeks when parental strain was higher than their personal average, recollections of emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional neglect increased. This pattern suggests that a positive shift in a current relationship can soften the recollection of past transgressions.

The influence of friends and romantic partners was less pronounced than that of parents. While supportive friendships were generally associated with fewer reported ACEs on average, changes in friendship quality did not strongly predict fluctuations in memory from week to week. Romantic partners showed a similar pattern, where high support correlated with fewer retrospective reports of sexual abuse, but the effect was limited.

Academic stress also played a minor role in how participants viewed their pasts. While higher stress was linked to slight increases in reports of emotional abuse and physical neglect, the impact was small compared to the influence of family dynamics. The primary driver of change in these memories appeared to be the quality of the bond with caregivers.

The authors noted several limitations to the study that contextualize the results. The sample consisted primarily of university students, meaning the results may not apply to older adults or those with different socioeconomic backgrounds. The study covered only an eight-week period, leaving it unclear if these fluctuations persist or change over years.

There was also a pattern of attrition that affected the data. Participants with more severe histories of trauma were more likely to stop responding to the surveys over time. This may have reduced the study’s ability to capture the full range of variability in how trauma is recalled by those with the most difficult histories.

Despite these caveats, the findings have practical implications for therapists and researchers. A single screening for childhood adversity may capture a snapshot influenced by the patient’s current state of mind rather than a definitive history. Assessing these experiences multiple times could provide a more accurate picture of a patient’s background and current psychological state.

The study challenges the idea that retrospective reports are purely factual records. Instead, they appear to be dynamic interpretations that serve a function in the present. As young adults work to integrate their pasts into their life stories, their memories seem to breathe in time with their current emotional needs.

“People are generally consistent in how they recall their past, but the small shifts in reporting are meaningful,” said Chopik. “It doesn’t mean people are unreliable, it means that memory is doing what it does — integrating past experiences with present meaning.”

The study, “Record of the past or reflection of the present? Fluctuations in recollections of childhood adversity and fluctuations in adult relationship circumstances,” was authored by Annika Jaros and William J. Chopik.