Not all semantics: Similarities and differences in reminiscing function and content between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians

Abstract

This study explored why and how Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians remember the past. Indigenous Australians traditionally share a strong oral tradition in which customs, personal and cultural histories, and other narratives are passed across groups and between generations by word of mouth. Drawing on this tradition, in which inherent value is placed on sharing knowledge and maintaining connectedness with others, we hypothesised that Indigenous Australians would be more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to report reminiscing to fulfil social functions (but not self or directive functions). Furthermore, we hypothesised that Indigenous Australians would recall personal past experiences more elaborately than would non-Indigenous Australians. In Study 1, 33 Indigenous Australians and 76 non-Indigenous Australians completed Webster's Reminiscence Functions Scale. As predicted, Indigenous participants reported higher scores on subscales related to social functions than did non-Indigenous Australians: particularly “Teach/Inform” and “Intimacy Maintenance”. They also scored higher on the “Identity” subscale. In Study 2, 15 Indigenous and 14 non-Indigenous Australians shared three memories from the distant and recent past. While Indigenous and non-Indigenous narratives did not differ in either emotion or elaboration, Indigenous Australians provided more memory context and detail by including a greater proportion of semantic memory content. Taken together, these findings suggest differences in both why and how Australians remember.

Keywords:

• Reminiscing function
• Autobiographical memory
• Culture
• Indigenous Australian
• Oral tradition

Notes

¹ To assess the factor structure of the RFS for our sample (n = 109), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. The CFA indicated an appropriate model fit with eight factors supported, χ² = 1.88 (recommended range 0–5), RMSEA = .089, CFI = 0.803. Seven items did not load strongly onto their expected factors (loadings < 0.7). As a precaution, a revised model was developed and a supplementary MANCOVA run. Effects did not differ from those for the original factor structure; thus, the original eight factor model was retained.

² Although in past work participants have been asked to nominate events on the spot, prompts for this study were initially requested in the online questionnaire, Study 1, at the recommendation of an Indigenous ethics representative. Indigenous Australians have experienced a history of discrimination including, but not limited to, the removal of young children from their families and the restrictions of rights. The use of a screening tool to gather prompts meant that no distressing memories would be raised during the interview.