The distinction between conscious and unconscious memory, which is central to modern theories of cognition, has received only limited scrutiny in developmental research. One reason is a need for developmental methodologies that allow age variability in conscious and unconscious memory to be quantified. A simple paradigm (called conjoint recognition) and model are presented that quantify conscious and unconscious memory for learned materials and for the types of unlearned materials that have been found to induce false memories in children. A validation study showed that the model gave excellent accounts of the performance of 7-and 10-year-olds and that conscious and unconscious memory parameters reacted in appropriate ways to 3 manipulations (age, meaningfulness of distractors and targets, and priming).Much research in the adult memory literature has been devoted to the question of how two processes affect performance. One has been termed conscious (controlled or explicit) memory, and the other has been termed unconscious (automatic or implicit) memory. Conscious memory is said to involve vivid recollections of the occurrence of specific items as part of previously presented material. Phenomenologically, items' prior occurrences are "seen" in the mind's eye or "heard" in the mind's ear. Unconscious memory is said to involve definite feelings that items resemble presented material, but those feelings are not anchored in specific recollection of prior occurrences. Research on these two processes has produced a number of important results--for instance, that retrieval of verbatim traces of items' surface forms is involved in conscious memory and that retrieval of gist traces of their patterns and meanings is involved in unconscious memory (Brainerd, Reyna, & Brandse, 1995;Payne, Elie, Blackwell, & Neuschatz, 1996;Reyna & Brainerd, 1995a).Research on conscious versus unconscious memory is quite thin in the developmental literature, with only a few studies having been reported (e.g., Bullock Drummey & Newcombe, 1995;Newcombe & Fox, 1994;Newcombe & Lie, 1995;Russo, Nichelli, Gibertoni, & Cornia, 1995). Those studies have been concerned with questions such as whether above-chance performance on unconscious memory tests can be demonstrated in young children after long delays (Bullock Drummey & Newcombe, 1995;Newcombe & Fox, 1994), whether performance on unconscious memory tests exhibits age variability (Russo et al., 1995), and whether children's performance on unconscious memory tests is dissociated from their performance on conscious memory tests (Newcombe & Lie, 1995). The present article builds on these pioneering studies, focusing on the question of how to factor the contributions of conscious and uncon-C. J. Brainerd and L. M. Stein, College of Education, University of Arizona; V. E Reyna, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C. J. Brainerd, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. Electronic mail may be sent to brainer...