The article you select must be a peer-reviewed journal article in the field of cognitive
psychology. The article must also be a primary source, meaning that the authors are
discussing their own research, not others’ research (e.g. review articles). Do not use
an article that conducted a meta-analysis. It is ideal to select an article that you will
be using in your paper; however, this is not a requirement. If you use an article that
does not meet these criteria, you will not receive credit for this assignment.
PSYC 575
JOURNAL ARTICLE SUMMARY ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
For each Journal Article Summary, you will choose an article to review and use the Journal
Article Summary Form to complete the assignment. The article you select must be a peer-
reviewed journal article in the field of cognitive psychology. The article must also be a primary
source, meaning that the authors are discussing their own research, not others’ research (e.g.
review articles). Do not use an article that conducted a meta-analysis. It is ideal to select an
article that you will be using in your paper; however, this is not a requirement. If you use an
article that does not meet these criteria, you will not receive credit for this assignment. See the
example below for detailed explanation of the required material for each question. Submit the
completed form and a PDF of the article being reviewed. All material must be in current APA
format.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. APA reference of article being reviewed
Write the reference for the article as if it were in the reference section of your paper.
2. What is the research problem that is being investigated? What is the purpose of the
research being conducted?
Provide the “why” behind the paper. Why have they conducted this experiment? For
example: “These experiments were designed to explore the role of second order
conditioning in anxiety disorders.”
3. What is the research question?
The research question is more specific. What is the specific question or questions the
article will answer as a result of the study or experiment? For example: “Are adolescents
more sensitive to the memory imparting effects of alcohol?”
4. What are 2 or more theories that are discussed in the Introduction? How are they used to
motivate (or set up) the research question? Do the authors agree or disagree with these
theories?
Simply restate the theories discussed in the introduction in your own words. State how
these theories are driving the research questions. If the authors’ hypothesis is correct,
will it support the theory or be inconsistent with the theory? You should have good idea
of where the authors stand based on the evidence presented and the arguments they are
making.!
5. How is the research question operationalized? First, identify the abstract constructs being
studied. Next identify the concrete way these are being observed or measured. This
should include your IV and DV.
PSYC 575
A construct is an abstract explanatory variable that this not directly observable (e.g.
memory). The concrete way the construct is measured will point you to the dependent
variable (DV). For example, if the paper is concerned with memory, the DV may be the
number of items recalled. The independent variable (IV) could be the amount of sleep
each participant was allowed the night before the test. Remember that we cannot directly
measure many of the constructs that are studied in psychology, so it is important that we
identify how they are being operationalize in each research study.
6. What is the research design (i.e. between or within subjects, what type of statistical tests
were used, what were the levels of each variable)?
This information will be in the methods section of your paper. Be sure to provide enough
detail to describe how the study was designed.
7. Describe the results (but not their broader implications). Were the results significant?
Which ones? Do these support or not support the hypothesis?
Describe the result in your own words. For example: Group X were able to recall
significantly more words than Group Y. This finding supports the hypothesis that
manipulation Y would reduce recall. !
8. What limitations are mentioned? Why are these limitations theoretically interesting?
Limitations can be found in the discussion section of the paper. If a limitation is that they
didn’t have X control group, then explain in your own words why that is important. Does
it change the interpretation of the findings?
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the SafeAssign plagiarism tool.
SPECIAL SECTION ARTICLE
False memory for trauma-related Deese–Roediger–McDermott
lists in adolescents and adults with histories of child sexual abuse
GAIL S. GOODMAN,
a
CHRISTIN M. OGLE,
b
STEPHANIE D. BLOCK,
c
LATONYA S. HARRIS,
c
RAKEL P. LARSON,
d
ELSE-MARIE AUGUSTI,
e
YOUNG IL CHO,
f
JONATHAN BEBER,
a
SUSAN TIMMER,
a
AND ANTHONY URQUIZA
a
aUniversity of California, Davis; bDuke University; cUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; dUniversity of California, Riverside;
eUniversity of Oslo, Norway; and fArizona State University
Abstract
The purpose of the present research was to examine Deese–Roediger–McDermott false memory for trauma-related and nontrauma-related lists in
adolescents and adults with and without documented histories of child sexual abuse (CSA). Individual differences in psychopathology and adult
attachment were also explored. Participants were administered free recall and recognition tests after hearing CSA, negative, neutral, and positive Deese–
Roediger–McDermott lists. In free recall, CSA and negative lists produced the most false memory. In sharp contrast, for recognition, CSA lists enjoyed
the highest d0scores. CSA-group adolescents who evinced greater posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms had higher rates of false memory compared
to (a) non-CSA group adolescents with higher PTSD symptom scores (free recall), and (b) CSA-group adolescents with lower PTSD symptom scores
(recognition). Regression analyses revealed that individuals with higher PTSD scores and greater fearful-avoidant attachment tendencies showed less proficient
memory monitoring for CSA lists. Implications for trauma and memory development and for translational research are discussed.
The effects of childhood trauma on memory have been much
debated (e.g., Goodman, Quas, & Ogle, 2010; Howe, Cic-
chetti, & Toth, 2006; Loftus, Garry, & Feldman, 1994; Pez-
dek & Banks, 1996). Recently this debate has concentrated on
false memory as indexed by the Deese–Roediger–McDermott
(DRM) task (Gallo, 2010; Pezdek & Lam, 2007). Traditionally,
the DRM paradigm involves presenting participants with posi-
tive and neutral as well as some vaguely negative word lists, with
each list semantically related to a “critical lure” (CL), that is, a
word that was not actually presented. On subsequent memory
tests, participants often falsely remember the CLs as having
been presented amidst the associated words. For instance, in a
well-known study by Roediger and McDermott (1995), partic-
ipants were first presented with a word list including bed, rest,
awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze, blanket, doze,andslumber.
When later asked to remember the words, participants often
spontaneously—and falsely—reported the CL, sleep,ashaving
been presented in the original list. Confidence ratings on such
tasks have further demonstrated that adults are surprisingly con-
fident that the CLs were actually presented (Roediger & McDer-
mott, 1995). Backward associative strength (BAS), along with
familiarity and meaningfulness, are particularly robust predic-
tors of the DRM effect (Brainerd, Yang, Reyna, Howe, & Mills,
2008; Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001). Roediger
and McDermott’s 1995 article quickly became a classic, gener-
ating a deluge of research (e.g., Brainerd, Reyna, & Ceci, 2008;
Gallo, 2006, 2010; Ghetti, Qin, & Goodman, 2002; Howe, Cic-
chetti, Toth, & Cerrito, 2004).
These studies are important to a scientific understanding of
false memories for semantically associated word lists. The find-
ings support the possibility that the human mind reconstructs
reality, sometimes producing false memories and beliefs, even
when simply processing lists of words. Because robust false-
memory effects (in both recall and recognition) can be reliably
obtained under conditions of precise experimental control, re-
searchers have relied on the DRM task to address important
questions about false memories in adultsand children (Brainerd,
Reyna, et al., 2008; Gallo, 2006; Howe, 2007).
However, we know of no developmental studies that have
examined DRM false memory for trauma-related lists in child
sexual abuse (CSA) victims. Because of heated debates about
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Gail S. Goodman, De-
partment of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis,
CA 95616; E-mail: ggoodman@ucdavis.edu; or Stephanie D. Block, Center
for Departmental Science, University of North Carolina, CB 8115, 100 East
Franklin Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8115; E-mail: stephanie_
This study was partially funded by the National Science Foundation (Grants
0004369 and 0545413). We thank Michelle Culver, Annarheen Pineda,
Adam Lindsey, Sue Hobbs, Yoojin Chae, Jillian Mongetta, Keith Widaman,
and many undergraduate assistants for their help. We also thank Mark L.
Howe for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Any opinions,
findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.
Development and Psychopathology 23 (2011), 423–438
#Cambridge University Press 2011
doi:10.1017/S0954579411000150
423
memory for trauma-related information and about the applic-
ability of DRM findings to legal cases, especially concerning
victims of CSA, it was of interest to determine if such victims
would show reduced or exaggerated DRM false memory ef-
fects. Thus, the purpose of the present research was to exam-
ine DRM false memory for trauma-related and nontrauma-
related lists in adolescents and adults with and without
documented CSA histories. Individual differences in psycho-
pathology and attachment were also explored.
Developmental Differences in DRM Performance
DRM performance has been investigated developmentally in
several studies (e.g., Brainerd, Reyna, & Forrest, 2002; Ghetti
et al., 2002; Howe, 2007; for a review, see Brainerd, Reyna,
et al., 2008). Although contradictory findings exist regard-
ing whether children are more or less susceptible than adults
to false memories on the DRM task, the majority of published
studies report that adults are more prone than children to DRM
false memory effects. Children’s false memories, like those of
adults, involve activation of associative relations (Howe, Wim-
mer, & Blease, 2009). The extent to which the developmental
trend is explained by simple associative relations versus defi-
cits in gist memory for children is currently under debate (Brain-
erd, Reyna, et al., 2008; Howe, Wimmer, Gagnon, & Plump-
ton, 2009). Although adolescents would be expected to have
gist memory functioning largely equivalent to that of adults,
which could equalize the occurrence of DRM false memory
across age, adolescents may not have the same extent of asso-
ciative strength as adults for trauma-related lists, resulting in
greater false memory for adults than adolescents when pre-
sented with such lists. One possible exception could be that
CSA experience may provide adolescent victims with relatively
tight semantic relations for trauma-related material (Foa & Ko-
zak, 1986). Alternatively, lack of sufficient memory monitoring
has been identified as a key component of the DRM false mem-
ory effect (Gallo, 2006). If adolescents’ memory monitoring
skills (e.g., source monitoring abilities) are still developing,
they may exhibit greater DRM false memory than adults (Ghetti
et al., 2002).
In any case, there is currently a paucity of developmental
DRM research that compares the performance of traumatized
children and adults. In one particularly relevant study, Howe
et al. (2004) tested 5- to 12-year-old maltreated children and
nonmaltreated controls on the DRM task using standard DRM
lists. There were no significant differences in DRM false mem-
ory as afunction of maltreatment status. The authors commented
that future research should include trauma-related DRM lists to
determine if maltreatment or developmental differences would
then emerge. The present study addressed that suggestion.
DRM, Emotional Lists, and Development
Several recent studies have examined DRM performance when
adults and/or children are exposed to emotional lists (e.g.,
Howe & Derbish, 2010). It has been hypothesized that DRM
false memory might be less apparent for lists that activate
negative than positive emotional themes because people pay
particularly close attention to negative information and thus en-
gage in more “item-specific” processing of negative lists; item-
specific processing reduces DRM false memory effects (e.g.,
Palmer & Dodson, 2009). According to this view, develop-
mental differences in false memory might be attenuated or non-
existent for negative lists due to greater item-specific processing
regardless of age. However, others have contended that negative
valence activates “gist” or meaning processing to a greater ex-
tent than does positive or neutral information, making it more
difficult to differentiate negative target and distractor words at
test. In effect, the claim is that negative valence is an especially
salient gist. To the extent that, with age, gist processing tenden-
cies increase, it follows that adults should show a stronger false
memory effect than children especially for negative lists com-
pared to, for example, positive lists (Brainerd, Holliday, Reyna,
Yang, & Toglia, 2010).
However, empirically, findings vary as to whether more
false memory occurs for negative versus neutral or positive lists,
whether age and emotional list type interact, or whether effects
simply reflect changes in response bias. To wit, several studies
find that false memory is more likely for negative than neutral
and/or positive DRM lists. For example, Howe, Candel, Otgaar,
Malone, and Wimmer (2010) examined the role of valence in
children’s (5- to 11-year-olds) and adults’ true and false mem-
ories using the DRM paradigm. Children’s and adults’ true re-
call and recognition were best for neutral compared to negative
items. Concerning false memory, although false recall was
higher for neutral compared to negative items, false recognition
was higher for negative compared to neutral items. Although the
findings were thus rather mixed, they were partly consistent with
the idea that negative emotional information is semantically
denser than neutral information, resulting in greater false mem-
ory at least on recognition tests (see also Howe, 2007).
Brainerd, Stein, Silveira, Rohenkohl, and Reyna (2008)
and Brainerd et al. (2010) also report greater likelihood of
false memory for negative than nonnegative lists. They exam-
ined DRM false memory on recognition tasks in adults and
children, respectively, who were presented with negative and
positive lists (with arousal held constant). False memory was
highest for negative lists, especially with age. The authors con-
cluded, based largely on Brainerd and Reyna’s (1998) fuzzy
trace theory, that for lists of negative valence, false memory in-
creases because the perceived meaning overlap between false
and true items increases and that this problem is exacerbated
for adults compared to children because adults are better at ab-
stracting gist. In addition, for negative lists, it was inferred that
participants were less able to use verbatim memories of true
items to suppress errors.
In contrast to these findings, Palmer and Dodson (2009)
reported less false memory for emotional than neutral DRM
lists. Adult participants viewed negative, positive, and neutral
lists of semantic associates matched on BAS. Neutral lists re-
sulted in the highest false and true recall rates. The results
suggest that emotional words decrease false memories by en-
G. S. Goodman et al.424
couraging item-specific processing, which impairs the acqui-
sition of relational information and/or the spread of activation
to the critical lure (see also Pesta, Murphy, & Sanders, 2001).
Moreover, emotional lures are likely more distinctive than
nonemotional lures; adults and children are less likely to false
alarm to distinctive items (e.g., Ghetti et al., 2002).
Finally, response bias is an important consideration in the
DRM false memory effect generally, including for emotional
lists. Budson et al. (2006) examined DRM true and false mem-
ory for negative versus neutral lists in younger and older adults.
(Of interest here are the older adults in their sample who did not
suffer from dementia.) Critical lures for the negative lists in-
cluded such words as rape, sick, hungry, hell,anddanger; crit-
ical lures for the neutral lists included, for example, slow, sleep,
fruit, foot,andsweet. A significant effect of emotion for true
memory but not false memory emerged. For true recognition,
younger and older adults were more likely to correctly recog-
nize studied emotional versus nonemotional words. For false
recognition, a significant effect of emotion failed to emerge.
However, response bias best explained the findings; adults
were more liberal in their responses to emotional compared
with nonemotional items regardless of whether they were stud-
ied or nonstudied, and if nonstudied, regardless of whether
they were related to the studied items or not. These results sug-
gest that studying emotionally charged items may shift partic-
ipants’ response bias to a more liberal one for all emotional
items at test—not just the ones related to the study lists. Al-
though one possible explanation for this effect is that gist rep-
resentations of emotional word lists are more robust and/or
broader than those of nonemotional word lists, the data are al-
ternatively compatible with Windmann and Krueger’s (1998;
see also Windmann & Kutas, 2001) proposal that emotion bi-
ases recognition memory at an unconscious and automatic
stage to facilitate processing of potentially threatening stimuli
relative to neutral ones. This facilitation in processing may
lead to enhanced fluency and a sense of familiarity, thereby in-
creasing the likelihood of an incorrect “old” response.
Thus, results from DRM studies are mixed, with some re-
searchers finding more false memory for negative lists and oth-
ers finding more false memory for nonnegative lists. Moreover,
there are hints in the literature that findings may vary for recall
versus recognition when emotional DRM lists are employed
(Howe & Malone, 2010). Further research is clearly warranted
to disentangle the effects of different emotions on true and
false memory in the DRM paradigm.
DRM, CSA History, and Trauma-Related
Psychopathology
Previous investigations of DRM performance in adults who
report histories of CSA indicate that adults with CSA his-
tories typically make more errors than nonabused controls, es-
pecially if the victims reach diagnosis for posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD; Bremner, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2000; Zoell-
ner, Foa, Brigidi, & Przeworski, 2000; see also Brennen, Dyb-
dahl, & Kapidz
ˇic
´, 2007). Individuals with trauma histories
may have memory monitoring problems that make them more
susceptible to false memory errors. However, another body
of research indicates that adults and teenagers with maltreat-
ment histories, especially if they have symptoms of PTSD,
actually have better memories for trauma-related information
than do matched nonabused controls and better memory for
trauma-related information than for nontrauma-related infor-
mation (Alexander et al., 2005; McNally, Metzger, Lasko,
Clancy, & Pitman, 1998; Vrana, Roodman, & Beckham, 1995).
Thus, although CSA victims might be prone to memory errors
regarding positive and neutral information, their trauma his-
tory could potentially enhance memory (or promote resistance
to false memory) for trauma-related stimuli. To test this hy-
pothesis, we examined DRM false memory performance in indi-
viduals with known histories of CSA compared to a non-CSA
control sample, using new trauma-related and nontrauma-re-
lated DRM lists.
PTSD is comorbid with several other types of emotional
problems, such as dissociation and depression. Moreover, these
emotional problems are associated with memory errors on a
variety of tasks (e.g., Eisen, Goodman, Qin, Davis, & Clayton,
2007; Hertel, 2000). Dissociative symptoms have been specif-
ically associated with DRM-task memory errors. For example,
individuals with greater dissociative tendencies are more prone
to DRM memory monitoring errors, such as intrusion errors for
nonpresented, non-CL words (e.g., Clancy, Schacter, McNally,
& Pitman, 2000; Wilkinson & Hyman, 1998; Winograd, Pe-
luso, & Glover, 1998). However, other studies have found no
such relations (e.g., Bremner et al., 2000; Geraerts, Smeets, Jel-
icic, van Heerden, & Merckelbach, 2005; Jelinek, Hottenrott,
Randjbar, Peters, & Moritz, 2009; for review, see Gallo, 2006).
Given that indices of psychopathology are often intercorrelated,
it is important to take general psychopathology into account
when examining CSA and DRM false memory.
Adult Attachment and DRM False Memory
Possible associations between adult attachment styles and
DRM false memory are also of interest. Adult attachment
styles have been related to memories of early childhood and
intimate partner events, suggesting that the encoding or re-
trieval of such memories may activate the attachment system
(e.g., Simpson, Roles, & Winterheld, 2010). For example, it is
more difficult for adults with avoidant attachment tendencies
to access negative emotional experiences from childhood,
whereas adults with ambivalent attachment proclivities access
these kinds of experiences easily (Edelstein, 2006; Mikulincer
& Orbach, 1995). Consistent with attachment theory (Bowlby,
1969), adults and adolescents with avoidant attachment styles,
like their child counterparts, may attempt to suppress physio-
logical and emotional reactions to avoid activation of the
attachment system (e.g., Fraley, Garner, & Shaver, 2000).
Qin, Ogle, and Goodman (2008) examined the relation be-
tween adult attachment and DRM performance. Adult attach-
ment orientation predicted DRM false memory when the orig-
inal Roediger and McDermott lists were employed (e.g.,
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 425
higher security predicted greater DRM false memory for gist
information, whereas higher fearful avoidance scores pre-
dicted less false memory for gist information). Perhaps more
secure individuals embody positive mood (Mikulincer & Sha-
ver, 2007), and a more positive mood contributes to gist pro-
cessing (Storbeck & Clore, 2005). This may result in greater
spontaneous false memory as elicited on the DRM task. How-
ever, Qin et al. (2008) also found that avoidant attachment
(both fearful and dismissing), at least in parents, was associ-
ated with indices related to greater DRM false memory in
adult offspring. The latter findings are consistent with research
indicating greater memory error in adults with insecure attach-
ment (Chae, Ogle, & Goodman, 2009). Given that CSA lists
may activate attachment issues, it was of interest to examine
relations between attachment and DRM false memory for
CSA lists as well as for other list types.
The Present Experiment
The main goal of the current research was to administer trauma-
related and nontrauma-related DRM word lists as well as cog-
nitive and mental health measures to adolescents and adults
with and without documented CSA histories. First, it was pre-
dicted that, with BAS controlled, participants would exhibit
less false memory for CSA lists than other list types. The basis
of this prediction was that CSA lists are distinctive, because
they are high in arousal and negative in valence, and distinctive-
ness reduces DRM false memory through item-specific pro-
cessing (Ghetti et al., 2002; Kensinger, 2009; Schacter, Israel,
& Racine, 1999). However, it was also possible that CSA lists,
like other negative lists, would produce stronger false memory
effects due to tighter associative connections or stronger the-
matic or gist activation (Brainard et al., 2010; Brainard, Stein,
et al., 2008; Howe, Wimmer, Blease, et al., 2009; Howe, Wim-
mer, Gagnon, et al., 2009; Howe et al., 2010). Second, overall,
adolescents might be expected to produce fewer false memo-
ries than adults on the DRM task (e.g., Howe, Wimmer, Gag-
non, et al., 2009). Although basic gist processing should be
largely in place by adolescence, associative relations for CSA
content might increase with age due to familiarity with the sex-
ualized content. It was considered alternatively quite possible,
however, that memory monitoring deficits in adolescents rela-
tive to adults would result in less DRM false memory with age.
Third, overall, participants with a history of CSA were expected
to perform better (i.e., display fewer false memories) than par-
ticipants with no known CSA histories on trauma-related DRM
lists but worse on nontrauma-related DRM lists (and thus worse
overall). The basis for this prediction was that CSA victims
might overfocus on trauma-related information, bolstering use
of item-specific processing, whereas problems in memory mon-
itoring might be more apparent on nontrauma-related lists. This
would result in a significant CSA StatusList Type interaction.
Moreover, such effects might be particularly apparent for indi-
viduals with symptoms of PTSD, that is, individuals with
greater traumatization (McNally et al., 1998) and with younger
age. Fourth, greater PTSD symptomology and youngerage were
predicted to be associated with recall and/or recognition of ad-
ditional words that were not presented and that were not the
CL, reflecting deficits in memory monitoring. Fifth and finally,
insecure attachment orientations were predicted to be linked to
greater DRM memory error.
Method
Participants
Participants (N¼93, 81 female) included 49 14- to 17-year-
olds (M¼15.12 years, SD ¼0.95) and 44 18- to 37-year-olds
(M¼21.43 years, SD ¼4.77). The sample contained 58.1%
Caucasians, 21.5% African Americans, 8.6% Hispanics,
2.2% Asian Americans, and 9.7% other. Twenty-five adoles-
cents and 22 adults had histories of CSA.
Participants with CSA histories were primarily recruited
from a child maltreatment diagnostic/treatment center and dis-
trict attorneys offices, although a few (n¼3) were recruited
from university Introductory Psychology classes. Control partic-
ipants were recruited from many sources (e.g., newspaper ads,
internet ads, medical clinics, Introductory Psychology classes;
for the latter, n¼5). Controls were screened for CSA histories.
In soliciting nonabused controls, CSA was defined (e.g., fond-
ling of genitals, penetration), and adults and caregivers were
asked not to participate or have their children participate, re-
spectively, if CSA had been experienced by the children. Al-
though it is often impossible to know for certain if a child
has or has not experienced CSA, misclassification provides a
conservative test of the main hypotheses. Caregivers and chil-
dren were required to have lived together for 6 months or more,
so that the caregivers could provide valid information (e.g., on
the mental health measures). None of the participants were in
nonkinship foster care or group homes.
The youngest children included were 14 years old due to the
sexual nature of the stimuli and the standardization of psycho-
pathology measures. All participants were English speaking
and free of such disorders as mental retardation, schizophrenia,
and autism.
Materials and measures
Demographic questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire
included questions about age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeco-
nomic status, and education. Information was also collected
about foster placements and therapy experiences (e.g., years
in therapy).
Traumatic Events Screening Inventory for Children (TESI-C)
and Trauma Assessment for Adults (TAA). The TESI-C (Ford
& Rogers, 1997) is an 18-item measure that assesses exposure
to potentially traumatic experiences (e.g., severe accidents,
child abuse). The TESI-C is standardized for use with children
as young as 7 years, but it is also appropriate for adults report-
ing about childhood experiences. Caretakers completed the
TESI-C in relation to their adolescent children in the present
G. S. Goodman et al.426
study. The TAA (Resnick, Best, Kilpatrick, Freedy, & Falsetti,
1993) is a similar measure for adults and includes questions
about potential traumas in adulthood. The TAA was adminis-
tered to adults in the present study. Both measures have high
convergent validity values (i.e., 0.42 to 0.91). Test–retest reli-
ability correlations for TESI-C range from 0.81 to 0.85. Test–
retest reliability values for the TAA are also high (e.g., 0.80).
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children: Memory span and vocabulary subtests.
The memory span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (Wechsler, 1997) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (Wechsler, 1991) requires participants to repeat sev-
eral series of numbers (of varying list length) both forward
and backward. The vocabulary section involves defining
words. Reliabilities for these IQ subscales are high, and the
tests are well normed.
Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) and the Adolescent
Dissociative Experiences Scale (ADES). The DES (Bernstein
& Putnam, 1986) is a widely used self-report measure that in-
cludes 28 questions designed to assess normal to pathological
dissociative experiences. The adolescent version, the ADES
(Armstrong, Carlson, Putnam, Libero, & Smith, 1997), measures
psychological constructs such as dissociation, amnesia, and de-
personalization using age-appropriate item content. Adoles-
cents indicate how frequently they experience each of 30 items
using an 11-point scale (0 ¼never,10¼always). Test–retest re-
liabilities for both measures range from 0.77 to 0.93, and both
have been used effectively to distinguish among abused, non-
abused, and dissociative-disordered children and adults.
Trauma symptom checklists. The Trauma Symptom Checklist
(TSC-33; Briere & Runtz, 1989) was administered to both
adults and caretakers; it includes subscales for anxiety, depres-
sion, dissociation, sexual abuse trauma index, sexual problems,
and sleep disturbance, as well as a total score. The TSC for
Children (TSC-C; Briere, 1996) is the downward extension
and is appropriate for 8- to 15-year-olds. Subscales for this mea-
sure include anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, sexual
concerns, dissociation, and anger. Both measures are frequently
used in research and have good psychometric properties.
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale (PDS) and the Child
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Scale (CPSS). The
PDS (Foa, 1995) is a self-report questionnaire that provides
a categorical PTSD diagnosis as well as a continuous measure
of PTSD severity and number of PTSD criteria met. The mea-
sure has been validated with clinical interviews and other self-
report trauma measures among individuals with a wide range of
trauma experiences (e.g., victims of natural disasters, assaults,
war). The CPSS (Foa, Johnson, Feeny, & Treadwell, 2001) is
the child version of this scale and is appropriate for children
8 to 18 years of age. Both the PDS and CPSS have high inter-
nal consistency, good test–retest reliability, and demonstrated
validity.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Young Adult Self-Re-
port (YASR). The CBCL (Achenbach, 1991) is a parent-report
questionnaire that assesses maladaptive emotional and behav-
ioral problems in children ages 4 to 18. The YASR (Achen-
bach, 1997) is the adult self-report version of this question-
naire and was administered to adult participants. Scores for
internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled)
and externalizing (i.e., aggression, hyperactive, noncompli-
ant, and undercontrolled) symptoms and behavior from the
CBCL and the YASR were analyzed. The psychometric prop-
erties of the CBCL and YASR are exemplary for measures of
this type.
State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and STAI for Children
(STAIC). The STAI (Spielberger, Gorschuch, & Lushene,
1970) is a self-report measure of anxiety for adults, and in-
cludes separate measures of state (S) and trait (T) anxiety.
The STAIC (Spielberger, Edwards, Montuori, Lushene, &
Platzek, 1973) has been successfully used with adolescents.
These measures have good psychometric properties. High
scores indicate greater trait or state anxiety.
Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR).
The ECR (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) is a standardized
36-item self-report measure of attachment. Participants respond
to items using 7-point Likert (agree–disagree) scales that yield
measures of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. The
ECR is appropriate for use with adults and adolescents. The re-
liability and construct validity of these scales have been dem-
onstrated extensively (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Sibley,
Fischer, & Liu, 2005).
Children’s Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). The CTQ (Bern-
stein, Ahluvalia, Pogge, & Handelsman, 1994) is a standard-
ized screening measure that identifies maltreatment histories.
Adults respond to 28 items using 5-point Likert scales. In the
present study, caretakers of adolescent participants completed a
modified version of the CTQ in which questions referred to the
adolescents’ childhood experiences. The CTQ yields four main
factors: physical neglect, emotional neglect, emotional abuse,
sexual abuse, and a minimization score. The scale’s reliability
and validity have been demonstrated in adult populations.
DRM lists. Forty DRM lists were included (10 each for CSA,
positive, negative, and neutral lists). Examples of CLs per cat-
egory are: sex, rape, fondle (CSA); rich, loving, happy (posi-
tive); ugly, kill, crash (negative), and foot, girl, window (neu-
tral). Eleven of the original DRM lists (Roediger et al., 2001)
were used in the neutral (n¼10) and negative (n¼1) categor-
ies, reducing the number of lists to be newly developed. For
the lists we developed, 166 18- to 31-year-old undergraduates
(105 females, M¼19.68 years, SD ¼1.75) provided free
associations to potential items. The 10 best associates for
each CL were selected based on the sum of the BAS ratings
and frequency, age of acquisition, concreteness, and familiar-
ity ratings (MRC Psycholinguistic Database, 1987) to ensure
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 427
the words were age appropriate and highly similar across these
dimensions for lists within and across list type. Traditionally,
mean BAS has been considered the strongest predictor of a
word list eliciting false memory of a CL (Roediger et al.,
2001; but see Brainerd, Reyna, et al., 2008). The CSA lists
had significantly lower BAS ratings (M¼0.06, SD ¼0.04)
than the other lists ( p,.05), whereas the BAS ratings for
the positive and negative lists (M¼0.14, SD ¼0.06 and M
¼0.13, SD ¼0.05, respectively) were quite comparable to
those of neutral DRM lists developed by Roediger and McDer-
mott (1995), although BAS varies considerably even among
the standard neutral lists (e.g., from 0.06 to 0.20).
We also obtained ratings of valence and arousal for each
list. Specifically, 30 undergraduates (15 females) rated the lists
in terms of valence (1 ¼very negative;5¼very positive), and
a separate group of 30 undergraduates (15 females) rated the
lists in terms of arousal (1 ¼not at all arousing, exciting, stim-
ulating, and interesting;5¼very arousing, exciting, stimu-
lating, and interesting), consistent with Bradley and Lang’s
(1994) rating system. All raters indicated English as their first
language. For each type of rating, participants were presented
with one of two random orders of the lists. Separate one-way
within-subject analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were con-
ducted on the ratings to determine list type differences. For va-
lence, the main effect of list type was significant, F(3, 87) ¼
484.37, p,.001, h2
p¼0.94. The valence means were as fol-
lows: neutral, M¼3.27, SD ¼0.23; positive, M¼4.48, SD ¼
0.28; negative, M¼1.72, SD ¼0.32; CSA, M¼2.50, SD ¼
0.30. Pairwise comparisons revealed that all means signifi-
cantly differed, ps,.001. As would be expected, the negative
and CSA lists were rated as particularly negative, and the pos-
itive lists were rated as particularly positive. The CSA lists
were likely not viewed as the most negative because some
of the words, such as kiss, have positive connotations in
many contexts. For arousal, the main effect of list type was
also significant, F(3, 87) ¼125.65, p,.001, h2
p¼0.81.
The arousal means were as follows: neutral, M¼1.74, SD
¼0.41; positive, M¼2.93, SD ¼0.67; negative, M¼
3.54, SD ¼0.62; CSA, M¼3.78, SD ¼0.57. Pairwise com-
parisons indicated that all means significantly differed, ps,
.01. Thus, the CSA lists were rated as the most arousing,
and the neutral lists were rated as the least arousing. Despite
statistical significance, the absolute mean difference in arousal
ratings between the CSA and negative lists was small.
To form the stimuli, associates for each CL were listed in or-
der from strongest to weakest associate. The 40 word lists were
ordered using a random numbers table such that each word list
category (e.g., negative lists) did not appear more than twice in
a row (for details of list development, see Block, 2008).
Recognition test. The first and fifth associate from each list
was selected to be included in the recognition task. A distrac-
tor (a nonpresented word not including the CL) was selected
for each associate and CL. The criteria for choosing distrac-
tors were as follows: first, distractors were matched with their
paired target words in terms of frequency, concreteness, fa-
miliarity, and age of acquisition. Second, distractors were se-
lected and matched by category (i.e., CSA, positive, negative,
or neutral) according to valence when possible.
Associates, CLs, and distractors (N¼240) were random-
ized using a random numbers table, with several restrictions.
First, associates and CLs could not be within 10 places of
each other, and words from each category (e.g., CSA, positive)
could not repeat more than twice consecutively. Second, each
distractor from a given list had to be five places or more away
from other distractors for that list.
Procedure
The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Re-
view Board. For participants who met study criteria based on
a telephone interview (e.g., age, absence of developmental dis-
ability), a more thorough screening occurred at the experi-
mental session. Participants (adolescents and adults) were
tested individually. Informed consent was obtained. Parents
approved all lists before they were presented to adolescents.
Participants first completed a standard demographic question-
naire followed by the ECR and IQ subscale tests. For the
DRM task, participants heard the 40 DRM word lists. Two
random orders of the DRM word lists were created for purposes
of presentation, with the stipulation that no more than 2 lists in
any one category could occur sequentially. Because of its
length, the DRM task was divided into two segments (each in-
volving presentation of 20 lists, 5 from each of the 4 list cate-
gories, and free recall and recognition for those 20 lists). Partic-
ipants performed free recall for 12 lists that differed across the
two versions and for 8 lists that were the same across the two
versions. The two segments were separated by a short break.
Researchers who administered these tests were blind to CSA
status.
Within each segment, participants engaged in free recall
after approximately half of the word lists (9 to 11 of the 20
lists); within each of the two random orders of presentation,
random assignment was used to determine which lists the par-
ticipants free recalled. In this way, participants did not know
whether, after each presentation of a list, they would be asked
to freely recall it or simply to wait during the delay until the
next list was presented.
Before the recognition test, participants completed the STAI
or STAIC (in Segment 1, participants completed the state
scales; in Segment 2, participants completed the trait scales).
Per segment, two recognition test orders were counterbalanced
across participants within each age group. Participants indicated
“Yes” or “No” as to whether they believed the word had been
presented.
After the DRM task was completed, the following ques-
tionnaires were administered to participants in two random
orders: BDI/CDI, DES/ADES, CTQ, PDS/CPSS, YASR
(for adult participants), and the TSC-40/TSC-C. The TAA
(adult participants only) and the Negative Experiences Ques-
tionnaire were then administered. Caretakers completed the
demographic questionnaire, CBCL, CDC, CTQ, TESI-C,
G. S. Goodman et al.428
and Negative Experiences Questionnaire in that order. All
participants were then debriefed.1–3
Results
Preliminary analyses
For the analyses, when measures differed across ages (e.g., for
depression, PTSD), mean zscores were created. Matching suc-
cess was determined through a series of 2 (Age)2 (CSA Sta-
tus) ANOVAs (Table 1). There were no significant main effects
or interactions for socioeconomic status, ethnicity (majority vs.
minority), digit span (zscored), or vocabulary (zscored), Fs(1,
85–89) 2.76. However, CSA (M¼0.30, SD ¼1.03) and
control (M¼20.30, SD ¼0.87) participants differed signifi-
cantly in the number of PTSD criteria met (zscores), F(1, 89)
¼10.15, p,.01, h2s¼0.10, and the AgeCSA interaction
was significant as well, F(1, 89) ¼4.21, p,.05, h2s¼0.05.
Simple effects analyses revealed that CSA adolescents (M¼
0.10, SD ¼1.11) and control adolescents (M¼20.10, SD ¼
0.89) did not significantly differ, whereas as CSA adults (M
¼0.52, SD ¼0.90) met a significantly greater number
of PTSD criteria than did control adults (M¼20.52, SD ¼
0.82), F(1, 42) ¼14.04, p,.001. There were no other sig-
nificant simple effects.
On the TSC (zscores), CSA participants (M¼0.31, SD ¼
1.11) reported more sexual problems than did controls (M¼
20.32, SD ¼0.74), F(1, 85) ¼9.16, p,.01, h2s¼0.10;
greater dissociation (CSA, M¼0.40, SD ¼1.03; control,
M¼20.41, SD ¼0.79), F(1, 89) ¼17.19, p,.001, h2s
¼0.16; greater depression (CSA, M¼0.49, SD ¼1.00; con-
trol, M¼20.49, SD ¼0.71), F(1, 89) ¼26.95, p,.001,
h2s¼0.24; and more anxiety (CSA, M¼0.40, SD ¼
1.02; control, M¼20.41, SD ¼0.80), F(1, 86) ¼17.79,
p,.001, h2s¼0.17. Analyses of CBCL/YASR scores re-
vealed significant main effects for CSA status both for inter-
nalizing (CSA, M¼0.56, SD ¼9.97; control, M¼47.23, SD
¼10.15) and externalizing behaviors (CSA, M¼56.38, SD
¼9.73; control, M¼49.07, SD ¼9.96), Fs (1, 84) 11.30,
ps,0.001, h2s¼0.12. In addition, for internalizing prob-
lems, there was a significant age main effect (adolescents,
M¼54.48, SD ¼9.47; adults, M¼48.71, SD ¼11.72), F
(1, 84) ¼6.10, p,.05, h2s¼0.07. Moreover, a one-way
ANOVA confirmed that there were no significant differences
in age for the CSA and control participants, F(1, 92) ¼0.03.
Because a relatively large number of psychopathology mea-
sures was administered, the number of variables was reduced
through factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblique
rotation (OBLIMIN with Kaiser normalization). PTSD was not
included in the factor analysis because of its special status in re-
lation to the hypotheses and PTSD’s past importance in predict-
ing memory in maltreated samples. The factor analysis yielded
two factors with eigenvalues greater or equal to one. Using
0.40 as a cutoff for factor loadings, the first factor included sexual
concerns, dissociation, depression, and anxiety as measured by
the TSC/TSC-C; dissociation as measured by the DES/ADES;
and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI/STAIC. It yielded
an avalue of 0.88. For each participant, a mean zscore for this
Psychopathology Scale was created (M¼20.01, SD ¼0.81).
CBCL/YASR internalizing and externalizing scores loaded on
the second factor, but the factor did not yield adequate reliability;
thus, the CBCL/YASR scores were considered separately. State
anxiety as measured by the STAI/STAIC did not load adequately
on either factor and was treated as a separate variable.
Main analyses
Hypotheses were tested through a series of ANOVAs and re-
gression analyses. For free recall and recognition, a series of 2
(Age: 14- to 18-year-old adolescents vs. adults)2 (CSA Sta-
tus: CSA vs. control)2 (PTSD: low vs. high criteria met)4
(List Type: CSA, negative, positive, neutral) mixed ANOVAs
was conducted with list type as the only within-subject factor.
For recognition, a series of comparable ANOVAs was con-
ducted on false alarms to CLs, d0, and bscores. High versus
low PTSD criteria was determined by a mean split resulting in
48 participants in the high PTSD and 45 participants in the
low PTSD groups. The smallest cells in the ANOVAs con-
tained at least 5 participants. For each dependent measure
regarding DRM memory (e.g., free recall of the CL, d0score),
BAS adjusted scores were created by subtracting the mean
1. Several additional measures were administered (e.g., Big Five Inventory;
John & Srivastava, 1999; Autobiographical Memory Interview; Kopel-
man, Wilson, & Baddeley, 1989), and analyses of them will be reported
in a separate paper. Preliminary analyses confirmed that version did not
significantly affect DRM performance with one exception. Free recall
of nonassociates for neutral lists was higher when the DRM task preceded
the autobiographical memory task (M¼3.52, SD ¼3.49) than vice versa
(M¼2.13, SD ¼1.50), F(1, 91) ¼6.06, p,.05, h2
p¼0.06. However,
version did not interact with age, CSA status, or PTSD criteria met. The
significant finding may have reflected chance and is therefore not consid-
ered further.
2. Forty-six undergraduates, all English-first language speakers, were pre-
sented with 20 of our DRM lists (5 per category), with the 20 lists counter-
balanced as targets and distractors, followed by a recognition test, using
the counterbalancing procedure for targets and distractors as implemented
by Roediger and McDermott (1995). The findings closely paralleled those
for the present study (e.g., higher d0for CSA lists).
3. When non-BAS adjusted scores were analyzed, the basic findings were
the same as reported for the BAS adjusted scores, with the following ex-
ceptions: free recall of the critical lure was higher for negative lists (M¼
0.29, SD ¼0.21) than for the CSA lists (M¼0.21, SD ¼0.21) and pos-
itive lists (M¼0.20, SD ¼0.19, ps,.05), consistent with the proposal
that negative valence promotes false memory (the negative lists were rated
as having more negative valence than the CSA lists). The mean for the
neutral lists (M¼0.25, SD ¼0.23) did not differ from that of other list
types. Free recall of associates was highest for neutral lists (M¼0.60,
SD ¼0.14) and lowest for positive lists (M¼0.49, SD ¼0.12) compared
to the other list types (CSA, M¼0.56, SD ¼0.14; negative lists, M¼
0.56, SD ¼0.12). On the recognition test, CSA lists (M¼0.54, SD ¼
0.20) resulted in significantly fewer false alarms compared to the positive
lists (M¼0.64, SD ¼0.23) and negative lists (M¼0.62, SD ¼0.21).
Neutral lists (M¼0.60, SD ¼0.23) were not significantly different in
false alarm rates from other list types. Otherwise, the pattern of the results
was the same as for the BAS adjusted scores (e.g., higher d0for CSA lists).
However, use of BAS nonadjusted scores confounds BAS with list type.
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 429
BAS value for each list type from the participants’ mean score
for each list type. All analyses reported in the main text were
based on such scores.
Free recall. Free recall CL proportion scores (false recall of
CLs) were created by dividing CLs that were falsely recalled
for a given list type by the total number of word lists presented
for a given list type. The main effect of list type was significant,
F(3, 83) ¼6.35, p,.001, h2
p¼0.19. The CSA and negative
list CLs (Ms¼0.15 and 0.16, SDs¼0.20 and 0.21) were sig-
nificantly more likely to be recalled than positive list CLs (M¼
0.06, SD ¼0.19), ps,.001. Recall of neutral list CLs (M¼
0.11, SD ¼0.23) did not significantly differ compared to that
for the other list types. Thus, in free recall, there was more false
memory for CSA and negative lists than for positive lists.
There was also a significant AgeCSA StatusPTSD in-
teraction, Fs (1, 85) ¼4.54, ps,.05, h2
ps¼0.05. Means are
presented in Table 2. Simple effect analyses revealed a signif-
icant CSA Status PTSD interaction for adolescents, Fs (1,
45) ¼4.78, p,.05, h2
p¼0.10. Simple effects analyses
showed that, for participants with a higher number of PTSD
criteria met, adolescents with CSA histories falsely recalled
the critical lure more often than did control adolescents with
high PTSD symptoms, F(1, 24) ¼3.76, p,.05 (one-tailed
test). There were no other significant simple effects.
Proportion scores were calculated for number of correct as-
sociates recalled divided by the number of correct associates
potentially recallable for each list type. The main effect of
list type was significant, F(3, 83) ¼54.52, p,.001, h2
p¼
0.66: Recall for all lists types was significantly different from
one another with significantly higher recall for CSA list associ-
ates compared to all other list types, and significantly lower re-
call for positive associates compared to all other list types
(CSA, M¼0.50, SD ¼0.14; negative, M¼0.43, SD ¼
0.12; neutral, M¼0.46, SD ¼0.14; positive, M¼0.35, SD
¼0.12; ps,.01). A significant main effect of age emerged,
F(1, 85) ¼8.84, p,.01, h2
p¼0.09: adolescents (M¼
0.41, SD ¼0.08) recalled fewer associates than did adults (M
¼0.47, SD ¼0.13). The number of additional words recalled
was also analyzed. There were no significant effects (CSA list,
M¼2.10, SD ¼2.45; negative list, M¼2.42, SD ¼2.77; neu-
tral list, M¼2.71, SD ¼2.79; positive list, M¼2.52, SD ¼
2.59). Thus, in free recall, CSA associates were the most likely
to be recalled, a traditional developmental difference in mem-
ory for associates emerged, and no significant differences
were found for recall of additional words.
Recognition. For the ANOVA for proportion of false alarms
to CLs on the recognition test, list type was not significant,
F(3, 83) ¼1.57 (CSA, M¼0.48, SD ¼0.20; negative, M
Table 1. Means (standard deviations) for matching variables
Adolescents Adults
Variable Control CSA Control CSA
SES 4.23 (1.77) 3.61 (1.59) 3.82 (1.82) 3.32 (1.32)
Ethnicity 1.38 (0.50) 1.44 (0.51) 1.32 (0.48) 1.23 (0.43)
IQ (vocabulary) 0.32 (0.90) 20.35 (0.94) 0.02 (1.17) 0.03 (0.90)
IQ (digit span) 20.15 (1.04) 0.07 (0.90) 0.20 (0.85) 20.13 (1.9)
PTSD criteria met 20.10 (0.88) 0.10 (1.11) 20.52 (0.82) 0.52 (0.90)
TSC anxiety 20.38 (0.96) 0.39 (0.94) 20.44 (0.60) 0.41 (1.13)
TSC depression 20.51 (0.65) 0.57 (1.0) 20.46 (0.79) 0.39 (1.03)
TSC dissociation 20.40 (0.87) 0.45 (0.98) 20.41 (0.72) 0.34 (1.11)
TSC sexual problems 20.40 (0.74) 0.42 (1.07) 20.22 (0.75) 0.19 (1.18)
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; SES, socioeconomic status (annual income): 1 ¼under $15,000,2¼$15,000–$25,000,3¼
$25,000–$40,000,4¼$40,000–$60,000,5¼$60,000–$90,000,6¼over $90,000; ethnicity: 1 ¼Caucasian,0¼other;IQ(vo-
cabulary) is the vocabulary subscore from the Wechsler Intelligence Test (zscored), and IQ (digit span) is the digit span subscore
from the Wechsler Intelligence Test (zscored); PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder; TSC, Trauma Symptom Checklist.
Table 2. Means (standard deviations) for free recall of critical lures
Adolescents Adults
Control CSA Control CSA
Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD
False 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.10
memory (0.12) (0.11) (0.13) (0.17) (0.15) (0.16) (0.27) (0.13)
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder criteria met.
G. S. Goodman et al.430
¼0.49, SD ¼0.21; neutral, M¼0.46, SD ¼0.23; positive, M
¼0.47, SD ¼0.23). A significant CSA StatusPTSDAge
interaction also emerged, F(1, 85) ¼4.84, p,.05, h2
p¼0.05
(Table 3). Simple effect analyses revealed that the PTSD
Age interaction was significant for CSA participants, F(1,
43) ¼6.57, p,.05, h2
p¼0.13. CSA adolescents with high
PTSD scores false alarmed more often to the critical lure than
CSA adolescents with low PTSD scores, F(1, 23) ¼4.71,
p,.05, h2
p¼0.17. No other simple effect analyses were signif-
icant. Although the List TypeCSA StatusPTSD interaction
was significant, F(3, 83) ¼3.41, p,.05, h2
p¼0.11 (Table 4),
all simple effect analyses were nonsignificant.
Next, d0and bscores were calculated according to Wixted
and Lee (n.d.). For calculating d0, scores of zero and 1 were ad-
justed by 1/(2N) as suggested by Wixted (http://psy2.ucsd.
edu/kang/sdt/sdt.htm). To create the d0scores, hits to studied
list items and false alarms to CLs per list were compared. Pre-
liminary analyses confirmed that overall mean d0scores differed
significantly from zero, F(1, 91) ¼59.44, p,.001, with zero
indicating chance performance, and that this was also true for
the CSA lists, F(1, 91) ¼48.39, p,.001; negative lists, F
(1, 91) ¼19.21, p,.001; neutral lists, F(1, 91) ¼29.52, p
,.001; and positive lists, F(1, 91) ¼15.06, p,.001.
When d0scores for each participant were entered into the
ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of list type, F
(3, 83) ¼15.19, p,.001, h2
p¼0.15 (CSA, M¼0.66, SD
¼0.84; negative, M¼0.18, SD ¼0.68; neutral, M¼0.35,
SD ¼0.86; positive, M¼0.15, SD ¼0.71). CSA lists enjoyed
a higher d0than did the other list types, ps,.05. Neutral lists
had significantly higher d0scores than did negative and posi-
tive lists, ps,.05. Negative and positive list d0scores did not
significantly differ (pairwise comparisons). A significant List
TypeCSA StatusPTSD interaction also emerged, F(3, 83)
¼4.08, p,.01, h2
p¼0.05 (Table 5). Simple effects analyses
revealed a significant List TypeCSA Status interaction for
participants with high PTSD scores, F(3, 41) ¼2.80, p¼
.05, h2
p¼0.17, but not for those with low PTSD scores, F
(3, 44) ¼0.44. The main effect of list type among control par-
ticipants with high PTSD scores was significant, F(3, 14) ¼
7.55, p,0.05, h2
p¼0.62. The pattern was very similar across
groups, however, with CSA having the highest d0scores. Per
group, there was a significant main effect of list type for CSA
participants, F(3, 43) ¼4.28, p,.01, h2
p¼0.23, control partici-
pants, F(3, 42) ¼10.36, p,.001, h2
p¼0.43, participants with
low PTSD scores, F(3, 44) ¼5.12, p,.01, h2
p¼0.26, and
participants with high PTSD scores, F(3, 41) ¼8.81, p,
.001, h2
p¼0.39.
Beta scores were calculated as a ratio, such that scores above
1.0 indicate a tendency to say “no” (a conservative response
criterion), scores below 1 indicate a tendency to say “yes” (a
Table 3. Means (standard deviations) for false alarms to the critical lures on the Recognition Test
Adolescents Adults
Control CSA Control CSA
Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD
0.48 (0.17) 0.46 (0.18) 0.42 (0.15) 0.55 (0.13) 0.46 (0.21) 0.52 (0.10) 0.58 (0.18) 0.44 (0.19)
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.
Table 4. Means (standard deviations) for false alarms to
critical lures on the Recognition Test
Control CSA
Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD
CSA 0.50 (0.24) 0.42 (0.17) 0.48 (0.20) 0.50 (0.19)
Negative 0.49 (0.21) 0.53 (0.21) 0.47 (0.23) 0.48 (0.20)
Neutral 0.45(0.24) 0.44 (0.20) 0.44 (0.23) 0.50 (0.23)
Positive 0.43 (0.22) 0.51 (0.28) 0.49 (0.24) 0.47 (0.22)
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.
Table 5. Means (standard deviations) for d ′scores
Controls CSA
Low PTSD High PTSD M(SD) Low PTSD High PTSD M(SD) High PTSD Low PTSD
CSA 0.49 (0.89) 0.94 (0.53) 0.65 (0.80)a0.72 (0.83) 0.64 (0.92) 0.67 (0.88)a0.75 (0.80)a0.57 (0.86)a
Negative 0.06 (0.66) 0.24 (0.71) 0.13 (0.68)bd 0.16 (0.76) 0.28 (0.65) 0.23 (0.69)b0.27 (0.66)b0.10 (0.69)b
Neutral 0.23 (0.89) 0.62 (0.84) 0.38 (0.88)bc 0.51 (0.79) 0.19 (0.87) 0.32 (0.84)b0.35 (0.87)b0.34 (0.85)ac
Positive 0.18 (0.62) 20.09 (1.10) 0.09 (0.83)bd 0.16 (0.55) 0.24 (0.62) 0.21 (0.59)b0.12 (0.84)b0.18 (0.59)bc
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder. Mean values that do not share subscript letters per column are significantly different.
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 431
liberal response criterion), and scores of 1.0 indicate no bias on
the recognition test. There was a significant CSA Status
PTSD List Type interaction, F(3, 83) ¼3.12, p,.05, h2
p
¼0.10 (Table 6). Simple effect analyses revealed a significant
List Type PTSD interaction for control participants, F(3,
132) ¼3.72, p,.05, as well as a significant List Type
CSA Status interaction for participants with high PTSD scores,
F(3, 129) ¼5.15, p,.05. Of interest, response bias was par-
ticularly low on CSA lists for participants with high PTSD
scores. However, further analyses of these interactions yielded
no significant effects.
Correlations and regressions. Means for individual differ-
ence variables and main dependent measures are presented
in Table 7. Correlations of individual-difference variables
with the main dependent measures for CSA lists are presented
in Table 8. Correlations among individual-difference vari-
ables are presented in Table 9. Hierarchical regression analy-
ses were conducted to examine the unique contribution of in-
dividual difference variables in predicting the various DRM
dependent measures for CSA lists. The following variables
were entered: Step 1, age (as a continuous variable), CSA status,
CBCL externalizing Tscores, attachment anxiety dimension, at-
tachment avoidance dimension, and PTSD criteria met; Step 2,
attachment AnxietyAvoidance interaction. Multicollinearity
prevented inclusion of other mental health variables (e.g., disso-
ciation, psychopathology, CBCL internalizing Tscores). There
was only one significant model, which was for additional words
recalled from the CSA lists. The overall model for the first step
was not significant, F(6, 81) ¼1.76, R2¼.12, but the overall
model for the second step reached significance, F(7, 80) ¼
2.53, p,.05, DR2¼.07. PTSD was a significant predictor
(b¼0.15, p,.05) as was the interaction of attachment anx-
iety score and attachment avoidance score (b¼0.28, p,.05).
Compared to individuals with fewer PTSD criteria met, indi-
viduals with a greater number of PTSD criteria met recalled
more additional words on the CSA lists. The significant inter-
action is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, higher scores on
both the avoidance and anxiety dimensions of attachment
(comparable to fearful avoidants in adult attachment research)
were associated with a higher level of free recall of additional
words. Thus, individuals with greater PTSD symptomology
and those with stronger tendencies toward fearful avoidance
exhibited less proficient memory monitoring. The findings
Table 7. Means and standard deviations
for predictor variables in regression
Predictor Variables Mean SD
Age 18.11 4.60
CSA status 0.51 0.50
Avoidance (zscore) 0.00 1.00
Anxiety (zscore) 0.00 1.00
Externalization 52.81 10.45
Internalization 51.73 10.94
State anxiety (zscore) 0.00 0.97
Psychopathology (zscore) 20.01 0.81
Anxiety×Avoidance (zscore) 0.22 0.94
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse.
Table 6. Means (standard deviations) for
b
false alarms
Control CSA
Low PTSD High PTSD Low PTSD High PTSD
CSA 1.47 (2.35) 0.59 (0.31) 1.37 (3.04) 0.69 (0.33)
Negative 1.19 (1.80) 0.75 (0.33) 1.71 (3.02) 0.72 (0.27)
Neutral 1.59 (3.0) 0.61 (0.38) 0.96 (1.37) 1.50 (2.52)
Positive 0.86 (0.39) 2.41 (3.58) 1.13 (1.31) 0.80 (0.42)
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.
Table 8. Correlations among predictors and Deese–Roediger–McDermott dependent variables for CSA word lists
(N ¼88–93)
Predictors
FA CL
Free Recall
Associates
Free Recall
Add. Words
Free Recall
FA CL
Recog. d′b
Age 2.05 .23* 2.12 2.01 .15 2.08
CSA status 2.04 2.09 .07 .06 .01 2.05
Avoidance .04 .00 .13 .14 .00 2.18
Anxiety .02 2.14 .15 .10 2.15 2.18
Externalization .00 2.18 .18 .05 2.16 2.05
Internalization .06 2.20 .20 .01 2.03 2.09
State anxiety .08 2.14 .12 .11 2.17 2.03
Psychopathology 2.12 2.08 .10 .05 2.05 2.06
PTSD 2.12 2.07 .29** 2.05 .03 2.20*
Avoidance×Anxiety .02 .06 .21* .03 .17 .14
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; FA, false alarms; CL, critical lure. Add., additional; Recog., recognition test; PTSD, number of criteria met for posttrau-
matic stress disorder.
*p,.05. **p,.01.
G. S. Goodman et al.432
were unchanged when interactions among the attachment vari-
ables and CSA status were added to the regressions.
It was also of interest to determine if arousal or valence
were better predictors of DRM performance than BAS. As
mentioned earlier, we had obtained ratings of valence and
arousal for the lists from groups of undergraduate students.
The correlations of the valence and arousal ratings, including
with BAS, were nonsignificant: valence and arousal, r¼
2.28; BAS and valence, r¼2.08; and BAS and arousal, r
¼.09. In separate hierarchical list-level analyses, the DRM
memory measures (e.g., free recall of the CL, recall of addi-
tional words, d0scores) were each regressed on BAS (M¼
0.17, SD ¼0.13), valence (M¼3.06, SD ¼1.25), and arousal
(M¼2.96, SD ¼0.94) ratings on Step 1, with the Valence
Arousal interaction entered on Step 2. Only the model for free
recall of the CL was significant: Step 1, F(3, 29) ¼3.47, p,
.05, R2¼.29; Step 2, F(4, 29) ¼3.13, p,.05, DR2¼.05.
BAS was the only significant predictor (b¼0.46, p,.05).
Discussion
Our main goal was to examine DRM false memory for trauma-
related and nontrauma-related DRM lists in adolescents and
adults with and without CSA histories. In this regard, many
studies based on the DRM paradigm are limited because the
original DRM word lists create false memories primarily for
neutral words (e.g., flag). The few studies that have examined
DRM false memory for emotional lists have generally not fo-
cused on CSA victims (but see Howe, Toth, & Cicchetti, in
press). Although the DRM paradigm has been used to examine
false memory in individuals with maltreatment histories (e.g.,
Howe et al., 2004), it is important to investigate memory for
trauma-related information in such populations.
Several recent studies investigated DRM false memory for
valenced word lists (e.g., Brainerd, Stein, et al., 2008; Brainerd
et al., 2010; Howe, 2007; Howe et al., 2010). Howe (2007) pro-
posed that, compared to neutral word lists, negative word lists
might induce more item-specific processing and consequently
less false memory, or alternatively, that the rich semantic inter-
relations of negative words might lead to increased false mem-
ory. Brainerd, Stein, et al. (2008) and Brainerd et al. (2010)
contended that negative compared to neutral and positive
DRM lists are more likely to activate gist processing, leading
to more false memory for the former than the latter. These the-
oretical predictions were examined in the present study by
exploring DRM false memory for trauma-related, negative,
positive, and neutral lists. Given that significant differences
in BAS ratings per list type were uncovered, it was important
to control for BAS in free recall and recognition performance.
We found that participants falsely recalled the CL signifi-
cantly more often for CSA and negative lists than for positive
lists. Participants also recalled significantly more CSA list as-
sociates than associates of all other list types. These findings
suggest greater thematic processing of CSA lists compared to
positive and neutral lists on our free recall task. The findings
are consistent with those of Howe (2007), Brainerd, Stein,
et al. (2008), and Brainerd et al. (2010) in suggesting that
negative emotional DRM lists have denser semantic relations
or result in greater gist processing compared to positive lists,
but our results add that CSA lists were also particularly prone
to false memory in free recall both for our CSA and non-CSA
groups. (Unfortunately, many of the CSA words we included
have not been normed in such a way as to permit calculation
Figure 1. The Avoidance Anxiety interaction for free recall of additional
words for child sexual abuse lists. Avoid, avoidance dimension; Anx, anxiety
dimension.
Table 9. Intercorrelations among predictors (N ¼88–93)
Predictors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age
2. CSA status .02
3. Avoidance 2.14 .10
4. Anxiety 2.04 .40*** .22*
5. Externalization 2.21† .35** .12 .32**
6. Internalization .31** .40** .32** .34** .64***
7. State anxiety 2.12 .11 .11 .31** .27* .37**
8. Psychopathology 2.20† .46** .32** .54*** .33** .50** .37**
9. PTSD 2.10 .30** .22* .27** .20† .39*** .09 .43***
10. Anxiety×Avoidance .11 2.01 .01 2.32** 2.14 2.08 2.06 2.08 .07
Note: CSA, child sexual abuse; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.
†p,.06. *p,.05. **p.01. ***p,.001.
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 433
of semantic density. Moreover, our CSA lists were rated as
higher in arousal than the other lists, which may have also af-
fected the pattern of results.)
For recognition, signal detection analyses presented a
strikingly different picture. CSA lists enjoyed the highest d0
scores, indicating they produced the least false memory com-
pared to other list types. Previous research indicates that pos-
itive affect can increase gist processing (Gasper & Clore,
2002; Storbeck & Clore, 2005), which in the case of the
DRM task, may lead to lower d0scores. It is also possible
that the nature of the CSA words (e.g., rape, molest, hump),
being rather startling and/or taboo to the average person
and trauma-related for the CSA victims, led to greater item-
specific processing than did the other lists, including the
negative lists. The words were likely surprising for our partic-
ipants to hear in a scientific study, perhaps leading to greater
item-specific processing and thus better memory on the rec-
ognition test.
We are not the first to report divergent findings for DRM-
task recall and recognition of emotional lists. Howe (2007)
also obtained opposite results for recall and recognition in-
volving emotional DRM lists. However, in his study, children
were least likely to report true and false negative information
in free recall. In contrast, A0scores in the Howe (2007) study
indicated that it was more difficult to discriminate negative
than neutral information in recognition. It is possible that the
CSA lists we constructed resulted in greater relational process-
ing for free recall, but also motivated more item-specific pro-
cessing for recognition, especially to the extent that DRM false
memory errors are generated at test. Inverse findings for recall
and recognition are not uncommon in memory studies gener-
ally, with free recall often based more on semantic knowledge,
and recognition based more on item-specific processing (e.g.,
see Goodman, 1980).
Response bias is also of interest in DRM false memory re-
search, perhaps especially when traumatized individuals ex-
posed to trauma-related information are included. According
to Windmann and Krueger (1998), trauma victims should
have a tendency to respond “old” to trauma-related informa-
tion (a lax response criterion). These researchers argue that
everyone is evolutionarily primed to give special attention
to trauma-related information via amygdala activation be-
cause such responses promote survival, but that traumatized
individuals overinterpret many nontrauma-related stimuli as
trauma related. In contrast to this proposal, in the present
study, no significant differences in response bias emerged.
It is possible, however, that although the stimuli we employed
did not elicit a lax response bias in CSA victims, other stimuli
might do so. Moreover, although the effect was not signifi-
cant, participants with higher PTSD scores had particularly
lax response biases for CSA lists.
It was also hypothesized that participants with CSA histor-
ies, particularly if they showed symptoms of PTSD, would per-
form better (i.e., display fewer false memories) than non-CSA
controls on trauma-related DRM lists, but worse on nontrauma-
related DRM lists. This expectation was based on previous re-
search indicating that trauma victims have a memory bias that
supports accurate memory for trauma-related information but
creates a memory deficit for positive and neutral information
(e.g., McNally et al., 1998; Vrana et al., 1995). However, the
predicted pattern was not found. Significant differences may
have failed to emerge because the trauma-related lists were re-
lated to sex, and were therefore attention grabbing, distinctive,
and relevant to all of the participants. Another possibility is that
CSA per se or greater traumatization do not necessarily lead to
the development of fear networks (Foa & Kozak, 1986) or
trauma-related expertise (Castel, McCabe, Roediger, & Heit-
man, 2007; Chi, 1978) sufficient to affect DRM false memory
for the trauma-related word lists we constructed. Note that mal-
treatment victims’ basic memory processes, including on DRM
tests, often do not significantly differ from those of nonmal-
treated controls (Howe et al., 2006).
Regarding developmental differences, adolescents would
be expected to evince less false memory than adults to the ex-
tent that they might be less familiar with some of the words we
presented. Alternatively, adolescents were anticipated to ex-
hibit more false memories than adults on our DRM task given
possible deficits in memory monitoring. However, the main ef-
fect of age was not significant in this regard. Overall, adoles-
cents’ false memory performance did not differ significantly
from that of adults. The lack of a straightforward develop-
mental difference may be understandable given the study did
not include young children. That is, failure to find significant
age differences may be related to the age range of participants
included in this research. From the perspective of fuzzy trace
theory, adolescents should already have the ability to abstract
gist and might therefore be just as likely to report false memory
as adults (Brainerd & Reyna, 1998). Moreover, adolescents’
associative networks for the words used in the present research
were likely to be relatively similar to those of adults. Although,
arguably, adolescents on average may know less about sexual-
ity than adults do, the adolescents’ associative structure for the
words on our lists may have been sufficiently similar to those
of adults to eliminate age effects overall. Memory monitoring
skills are also likely to be fairly well developed by adolescence,
at least absent vulnerabilities that might delay such develop-
ment. However, a developmental difference that was apparent
in our data concerned memory for associates: adolescents re-
called fewer associates than did adults. Thus, a developmental
difference in true memory for presented words emerged, con-
sistent with typical developmental trends of better memory
performance with age.
In relation to emotional lists specifically, Howe (2007)
predicted that children would form false memories for emo-
tional material earlier than for neutral material. This predic-
tion was based on the notion that the necessary associative
structures required to form false memories are available ear-
lier for emotional information (Pollack & Kistler, 2002). It
is likely that by age 14 associative structures necessary for
false memory for both emotional and neutral information
are already formed. Developmental differences as a function
of list type might have emerged in the present research if
G. S. Goodman et al.434
younger children had been tested, but the sexually explicit na-
ture of the stimuli prevented inclusion of young children.
We were particularly interested in possible interactive ef-
fects of age, CSA status, and PTSD on DRM false memory,
especially given past findings of greater error on DRM tasks
for adults with PTSD who report histories of CSA (Bremner
et al., 2000; Zoellner et al., 2000). A significant interaction
emerged among age, CSA status, and PTSD in our study,
such that for youth who exhibited more PTSD symptoms,
those with CSA histories evinced more false memory in
free recall than same-age controls. CSA-group adolescents
with high PTSD symptomology also false alarmed on the rec-
ognition test to critical lures more than did CSA-group adoles-
cents with fewer PTSD symptoms. These findings are consis-
tent with previous research suggesting that PTSD subsequent
to childhood trauma is associated with memory monitoring
deficits (Golier et al., 2002; McNally et al., 1998). In the cur-
rent study, PTSD was also related to less adequate memory
monitoring regarding free recall of additional, nonpresented
(non-CL) words for CSA lists. However, specifically for false
memory of CLs, the deficits associated with CSA and PTSD
were restricted to adolescents, who generally may have defi-
cits in memory monitoring skills compared to adults. One
might expect gist processing and associative strength to be,
if anything, higher for adults than adolescents (leading to
more false memory with age), but that memory monitoring
skills might still be developing, which could lead to greater
false memory for adolescents than adults, particularly if child-
hood trauma is associated with delays in development. Espe-
cially if CSA history, PTSD, and younger age each are asso-
ciated with potential deficits in memory monitoring, their
combination may lead to greater error on the DRM task—a de-
velopmental delay that was no longer apparent for our adult
participants with CSA histories and PTSD symptoms. This in-
terpretation seems to offer the most parsimonious explanation
of our findings.
Finally, it was of interest to examine attachment style, which
has been empirically linked to DRM false memory. Fearful
avoidance was associated with less effective memory monitor-
ing, regardless of CSA history. Specifically, individuals who
exhibited stronger tendencies toward fearful avoidance recalled
more nonpresented non-CL words for CSA lists. This finding
is consistent with previous research in which individuals with
more secure attachments demonstrated superior cognitive func-
tioning (e.g., Fraley et al., 2000; Ogle, 2010). It is also con-
sistent with the findings that attachment avoidance is associ-
ated with greater memory error for stressful information in
particular (Chae et al., 2009)—in the present case, words asso-
ciated with CSA.
Future Directions: Methodological Concerns and New
Translational Research
We have a number of suggestions for future research on CSA
and the DRM task. First, regarding methodology, future re-
search should include a larger sample size than was encom-
passed in our study; the relatively small number of partici-
pants we tested may have resulted in an inability to detect
certain predicted interactions. It will be important to determine
if our findings replicate with a larger sample. Furthermore,
researchers should consider presenting the word lists by cate-
gory rather than in a random order, the latter of which might
disrupt trauma-related processing. Moreover, future DRM
studies with CSA lists should include the more typical DRM
procedure for counterbalancing of targets and distractors on
the recognition test. This was not possible in the present experi-
ment because of the need for a sufficient number of word lists
to be presented in each category. Valence and arousal ratings
could vary for CSA and non-CSA groups, and thus future
researchers should obtain ratings from CSA groups as well
as non-CSA groups.
Second, continued translational research on trauma and
memory generally, including DRM performance specifically,
is needed. Considerable debate centers on whether DRM false
memory findings are generalizable to legal cases or justify ap-
plication of specific memory development theories to the le-
gal context (Brainerd, Reyna, & Zember, in press; Freyd &
Gleaves, 1996; Gallo, 2010; Pezdek & Lam, 2007). In our
view, new translational research should determine quite di-
rectly if DRM findings for CSA victims are applicable to for-
ensic situations. One next step would be to test CSA victims
on DRM lists and on false memory paradigms that are argu-
ably more ecologically valid regarding forensic cases, at least,
more ecologically valid than are DRM lists. Loftus and Pick-
rell’s (1995) “lost in the mall” paradigm, which taps implanted
false memory for childhood autobiographical events, would
be one such false memory task of considerable interest. Qin
et al. (2008) examined DRM performance and false implanted
memory in college students and laypersons, finding a signifi-
cant relation between the two tasks. Specifically, intrusion of
unrelated words in free recall on the DRM task and a more
liberal response criterion in DRM recognition were associated
with false childhood autobiographical memory, suggesting a
common underlying mechanism of lax memory monitoring.
This was found even though the nonemotional DRM lists were
used, whereas false childhood memories dealt with more emo-
tional material. Being younger and being a child of a fearful
avoidant parent also predicted implanted false memory scores,
and participants’ own attachment styles (greater avoidance) pre-
dicted their performance on the DRM task (regarding a more lib-
eral response bias).
Conducting a similar study to that of Qin et al. (2008) with
CSA victims would be on point. Bremner et al. (2000) pre-
viously found that women with CSA histories and PTSD di-
agnoses (vs. women with CSA histories but without PTSD
diagnoses) showed increased DRM memory error regarding
recognition memory for additional (new) words. However,
their study did not include an ecologically valid false memory
measure to test the generalizability of their findings to foren-
sically relevant false memory tasks. Of note, spontaneous
false memory for critical lures, as tapped by the DRM task,
is not what has generally predicted implanted false memory
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 435
performance in laboratory tasks. Rather, to date, memory
monitoring regarding additional, nonpresented words seems
to be the more robust predictor (but see Clancy et al., 2000;
Clancy, McNally, Schacter, Lensenweger, & Pitman, 2002;
for a review, see Gallo, 2010).
In addition to examining the relations between DRM perfor-
mance and implanted false memory, it is also of interest to in-
vestigate relations between DRM performance and accurate au-
tobiographical memory in CSA victims. In a preliminary
examination of this issue, Ogle et al. (2007) explored whether
DRM performance on emotional lists predicted autobiographi-
cal memory accuracy in adolescents with and without child
maltreatment histories. No significant relations were found for
DRM false memory, but free recall of DRM list associates sig-
nificantly predicted more accurate autobiographical memory. It
is possible that both tasks tapped, to a certain extent, a general
characteristic of greater versus poorer memory accuracy.
However, even when significant relations exist, they are of-
ten not sufficiently strong to provide much guidance to the legal
system. Typically, the variance explained is relatively meager.
For example, in the Ogle et al. (2007) study just mentioned, a
correlation of 0.40 was found between DRM accurate recall of
associates and accurate autobiographical memory. This means
that the proportion of variance accounted for was only 0.16,
leaving 0.84 unexplained. If legal professionals or jurors were
to base decisions on such correlations, they would inaccurately
credit (or discredit) witnesses in many if not most cases. For ex-
ample, many CSA victims would likely be inaccurately judged
as not credible witnesses when their memory was quite correct.
In some other studies, the differences in performance between
groups were quite weak and significant only with one-tailed sta-
tistical tests (justified by predictions). Overall, in our view, it is
premature to assume that results such as ours would generalize
to false memory for autobiographical events in CSA victims
and premature to use such findings as a basis for decisions or
expert testimony in actual legal cases. Moreover, the pattern
of findings differs depending on the type of test (free recall
vs. recognition). Such differences need to be understood be-
fore implications of the findings can be firmly drawn. We
agree, however, with Brainerd et al.’s (in press) suggestion
that DRM findings (as well as findings from a subset of mis-
leading questioning studies) indicate that children are not al-
ways more prone to false memories than adults—a conclusion
with legal relevance—and that the DRM paradigm and var-
iants thereof might eventually prove useful for identifying in-
structions and mental processes that help children guard
against false memory formation during forensic interviews
(but see Gallo, 2010).
Finally, in conclusion, research on memory for trauma-re-
lated information in maltreated children and adults is timely
given heated theoretical debates about the effects of trauma
on memory development. Moreover, translational research
in this area is crucial to inform practice. The present study pro-
vides valuable information to inform debate and application.
References
Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and
1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psy-
chiatry.
Achenbach, T. (1997). Manual for the Young Adult Self-Report and Young
Adult Behavior Checklist. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, De-
partment of Psychiatry.
Alexander, K., Quas, J., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Edelstein, R., Redlich,
A., et al. (2005). Traumatic impact predicts long-term memory of docu-
mented child sexual abuse. Psychological Science,16, 33–40.
Armstrong, J. G., Putnam, F. W., Carlson, E. B., Libero, D. Z., & Smith, S. R.
(1997). Development and validation of a measure of adolescent dissocia-
tion: The Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease,185, 491–497.
Bernstein, D. P., Ahluvalia, T., Pogge, D., & Handelsman, L. (1994). Validity
of the childhood trauma questionnaire in an adolescent psychiatric pop-
ulation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psy-
chiatry,36, 340–348.
Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, E. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and va-
lidity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
174, 727–734.
Block, S. D. (2008). Developmental and individual differences in DRM mem-
ory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994), Measuring emotion: The self-assess-
ment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Ther-
apy and Experimental Psychiatry,25, 49–59.
Brainerd, C. J., Holliday, R. E., Reyna, V. F., Yang, Y., & Toglia, M. P. (2010).
Developmental reversals in false memory: Effects of emotional valence
and arousal. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,107, 137–154.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). Fuzzy-trace theory and children’s false
memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,71, 81–129.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2008). Developmental reversals in
false memory: A review of data and theory. Psychological Bulletin,134,
343–382.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Forrest, T. J. (2002). Are young children sus-
ceptible to the false-memory illusion? Child Development,73, 1365–1377.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Zember, E. (in press). Theoretical and foren-
sic implications of developmental studies of the DRM illusion. Memory
& Cognition.
Brainerd, C. J., Stein, L. M., Silveira, R. A., Rohenkohl, G., & Reyna, V. F.
(2008). How does negative emotion cause false memories? Psychological
Science,19, 919–925.
Brainerd, C. J., Yang, Y., Howe, M. L., Reyna, V. F., & Mills, B. A. (2008).
Semantic processing in “associative” false memory. Psychonomic Bulle-
tin & Review,15, 1035–1053.
Bremner, J. D., Shobe, K. K., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2000). False memories in
women with self-reported childhood sexual abuse: An empirical study.
Psychological Science,11, 333–337.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-
ment of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.
46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brennen, T., Dybdahl, R., & Kapidzic, A. (2007). Trauma-related and neutral
false memory in war-induced Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Conscious-
ness and Cognition,16, 877–885.
Briere, J. (1996). Professional manual for the Trauma Symptom Checklist for
Children (TSC-C). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1989). The Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33):
Early data on a new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,4, 151–163.
Budson, A. E., Todman, R. E., Chong, H., Adams, E. H., Kensinger, E. A.,
Krangel, T. S., et al. (2006). False recognition of emotional word lists in
aging and Alzheimer Disease. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology,19,
71–78.
Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., & Heitman, J. L. (2007). The
dark side of expertise: Domain-specific memory errors. Psychological
Science,18, 3–5.
Chae, Y., Ogle, C., & Goodman, G. S. (2009). Remembering negative child-
hood experiences: An attachment theory perspective. In J. A. Quas & R.
G. S. Goodman et al.436
Fivush (Eds.), Emotion and memory (pp. 3–27). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory development. In R.
Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking—What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clancy, S. A., McNally, R. J., Schacter, D. L., Lezenweger, M., & Pitman, R.
K. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,111, 455–461.
Clancy, S. A., Schacter, D. L., McNally, R. J., & Pitman, R. K. (2000). False
recognition in women reporting recovered memories of sexual abuse.
Psychological Science,11, 26–31.
Edelstein, R. S. (2006). Attachment and emotional memory: Investigating the
source and extent of avoidant memory impairments. Emotion,6, 340–345.
Eisen, M. L., Goodman, G. S., Qin, J., Davis, S., & Crayton, J. (2007). Mal-
treated children’s memory: Accuracy, suggestibility, and psychopathol-
ogy. Developmental Psychology,43, 1275–1294.
Foa, E. B. (1995). The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) manual. Min-
neapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Foa, E. B., Johnson, K., Feeny, N. C., & Treadwell, K. (2001). The child
PTSD symptom scale (CPSS): A preliminary examination of its psycho-
metric properties. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,30, 376–384.
Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to
corrective information. Psychological Bulletin,99, 20–35.
Ford, J. D., & Rogers, K. (1997). Empirically-based assessment of trauma and
PTSD with children and adolescents. Paper presented at the International
Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the
defensive regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of pre-
emptive and postemptive defensive process. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,79, 816–826.
Freyd, J., & Gleaves, D. H. (1996). Remembering words not presented in
lists: Relevance to the current recovered/false memory controversy. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,22,
811–813.
Gallo, D. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory: False memory research
in DRM and related tasks. New York: Psychology Press.
Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the
DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition,38, 833–848.
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and
global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Sci-
ence,13, 34–40.
Geraerts, E., Smeets, E., Jelicic, M., van Heerden, J., & Merckelbach, H.
(2005). Fantasy proneness, but not self-reported trauma is related to
DRM performance of women reporting recovered memories of childhood
sexual abuse. Consciousness and Cognition,14, 602–612.
Ghetti, S., Qin, J., & Goodman, G. S. (2002). False memories in children and
adults: Age, distinctiveness, and subjective experience. Developmental
Psychology,38, 705–718.
Golier, J. A., Yehuda, R., Lupien, S. J., Harvey, P. D., Grossman, R. & Elkin,
A. (2002). Memory performance in Holocaust survivors with posttrau-
matic stress disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry,159, 1682–1688.
Goodman, G. S. (1980). Picture memory: How the action schema affects re-
tention. Cognitive Psychology,12, 473–495.
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Ogle, C. M. (2010). Child maltreatment and
memory. Annual Review of Psychology,61, 325–351.
Hertel, P. (2000). The cognitive–initiative account of depression-related im-
pairments in memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation,39,47–71.
Howe, M. L. (2007). Children’s emotional false memories. Psychological
Science,18, 856–860.
Howe, M., L., Candel, I., Otgaar, H., Malone, C., & Wimmer, M. C. (2010).
Valence and the development of immediate and long-term false memory
illusions. Memory,18, 58–75.
Howe, M. L., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2006). Children’s basic memory
processes, stress, and maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology,
18, 759–769.
Howe, M. L., Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. L., & Cerrito, B. M. (2004). True and
false memories in maltreated children. Child Development,75, 1402–1417.
Howe, M. L., & Derbish, M. H. (2010). On the susceptibility of adaptive
memory to false memory illusions. Cognition,115, 252–267.
Howe, M. L., & Malone, C. (2010). Mood-congruent true and false memory:
Effects of depression. Unpublished manuscript.
Howe, M. L., Toth, S. L., & Cicchetti, D. (in press). Can maltreated children
inhibit true and false memories for emotional information? Child Devel-
opment.
Howe, M. L., Wimmer, M. C., & Blease, K. (2009a). The role of associative
strength in children’s false memory illusions. Memory,17, 8–16.
Howe, M. L., Wimmer, M. C., Gagnon, N., & Plumpton, S. (2009b). An as-
sociative–activation theory of children’s and adults’ memory illusions.
Journal of Memory and Language,60, 229–251.
Jelinek, L., Hottenrott, B., Randjbar, S., Peters, M. J., & Moritz, S. (2009).
Visual false memories in post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Be-
havior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,40, 374–383.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–
138). New York: Guilford Press.
Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Emotional memory across the adult lifespan.
New York: Psychology Press.
Kopelman, M. D., Wilson, B. A., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). The autobio-
graphical memory interview: A new assessment of autobiographical
and personal semantic memory in amnesic patients. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology,11, 724–744.
Lang, P., Loftus, E., Garry, M., & Feldman, J. (1994). Forgetting sexual
trauma: What does it mean when 38% forget? Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology,62, 1177–1181.
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psy-
chiatric Annals,25, 720–725.
McNally, R. J., Metzger, L. J., Lasko, N. B., Clancy, S. A., & Pitman, R. A.
(1998). Directed forgetting of trauma cues in adult survivors of child sex-
ual abuse with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology,107, 596–601.
Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defen-
siveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 917–925.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. S. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure,
dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
MRC Psycholinguistic Database. (1987). Psycholinguistic database: Machine
usable dictionary. Version 2.00. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from
http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/mrcdatabase/mrc2.html
Ogle, C. M. (2010). Developmental changes in the suppression of emotional
memories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Davis.
Ogle, C. M., Block, S. D., Harris, L. S., Augusti, E., Pineda, R., Urquiza, A.,
et al. (2007). PTSD severity and DRM recall predict adolescents’ auto-
biographical memory accuracy. Paper presented at the Society for Re-
search on Child Development meeting, Boston.
Palmer, J. E., & Dodson, C. S. (2009). Investigating the mechanisms fueling
reduced false recall of emotional material. Cognition and Emotion,23,
238–259.
Pesta, B. J., Murphy, M. D., & Sanders, R. E. (2001). Are emotionally
charged lures immune to false memory? Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,27, 328–338.
Pezdek, K., & Banks, W. P. (Eds.). (1996). The recovered memory/false
memory debate. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pezdek, K., & Lam, S. (2007). What research paradigms have cognitive psy-
chologists used to study “false memory,” and what are the implications of
these choices? Consciousness and Cognition,16, 2–17.
Pollak, S. D., & Kisteler, D. J. (2002). Early experience is associated with the
development of categorical representations for facial expressions of emo-
tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America,99, 9072–9076.
Qin, J. J., Ogle, C., & Goodman, G. S. (2008). Adults’ memories of child-
hood: True and false reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Ap-
plied,14, 373–391.
Resnick, H. S., Best, C. L., Kilpatrick, D. G., Freedy, J. R., & Falsetti, S. A.
(1993). Trauma assessment for adults. Charleston, SC: Medical Univer-
sity of South Carolina.
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Re-
membering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,21, 803–814.
Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001).
Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psy-
chonomic Bulletin and Review,8, 385–407.
Schacter, D., Israel, I., & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in
younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Mem-
ory and Language,40, 1–24.
Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Reliability and validity of the
Revised Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure
Trauma-related DRM lists in adolescents with child sexual abuse 437
of adult romantic attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin,31, 1524–1536.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Winterheld, H. A. (2010). Attachment
working models twist memories of relationship events. Psychological
Science,21, 252–259.
Spielberger, C. D., Edwards, C. D., Lushene, R. E., Montouri, J., & Platzek,
D. (1973). STAIC: Preliminary manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inven-
tory for Children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorschuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (Eds.). (1970). STAI
manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2005). With sadness comes accuracy; with hap-
piness, false memory: Mood and the false memory effect. Psychological
Science,16, 785–791.
Vrana, S. R., Roodman, A., & Beckham, J. C. (1995). Selective processing of
trauma relevant words in post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anx-
iety Disorders,9, 515–530.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III).
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—III (WAIS-III). San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Wilkinson, C., & Hyman, I. E. (1998). Individual differences related to two
types of memory errors: Word lists may not generalize to autobiograph-
ical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology,12, 29–46.
Windmann, S., & Krueger, T. (1998). Subconscious detection of threat as re-
flected by enhanced response bias. Consciousness and Cognition,7,
603–633.
Windmann, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates of emo-
tion-induced recognition bias. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,13,
577–592.
Winograd, E., Peluso, J. P., & Glover, T. A. (1998). Individual differences in
susceptibility to memory illusions. Applied Cognitive Psychology,12,
S5–S27.
Wixted, J., & Lee, K. (n.d.). Signal detection theory. Retrieved May 18, 2008,
from http://psy.ucsd.edu/kang/sdt/sdt.htm
Zoellner, L., Foa, E., Brigidi, B., & Przeworski, A. (2000). Are trauma vic-
tims susceptible to “false memories”? Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
109, 517–524.
G. S. Goodman et al.438
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Outline
Research Problem
o The research was carried out to determine whether the human mind creates false
memories in response to traumatic experiences like child sexual abuse.
o The study also sought to answer questions that regard the applicability of DRM in the
legal field on cases that involve victims of child sexual abuse.
Research Question
o Does the human mind create false memories after trauma?"
What are 2 or more theories that are discussed in the Introduction? How are they used to
motivate (or set up) the research question?
o Regarding developmental differences, the authors argue that adults and adolescents are
more likely to process DRM false memories due to their developed gist memory and
greater associative strength.
o The use of emotional lists while using DRM is also a determinant of performance
Research Question Operationalization
o For the study in question, the study's expectations included; Using a CSA list in place of
other negative lists; this is because CSA lists are distinctive and with negative valence,
thus reducing false memory by forcing item-specific processing.
o However, the list could result in more significant false memory due to the gist's
activation. Compared to adults, adolescents were expected to come up with fewer false
memories
Research Design/ Methodology
o The research adopts a qualitative design.
o For the study, 93 female participants 49 were aged between 14 and 17, and 44 were aged
between 18 and 37. Of the participants, 21.5% were African-American, 58.1% were
Caucasian.
o The measures and materials used for the research included A demographic questionnaire
to collect information on gender, age, ethnicity, education, SES, and foster placement.
Results
o For measures that varied across the age groups, mean z scores were created to enable the
researchers to achieve matching success through ANOVAs that put age against the
subjects' CSA status.
o The CSA-group of adolescents with more symptoms of PTSD indicated higher false
memory rates than non-CSA adolescents who had similar PTSD symptoms and CSA
adolescents who had lower PTSD symptom scores.
Limitations of the study.
o According to the authors, the study's limitations included a small sample size, Random
order for word selection for the DRM lists, the number of words presented to the
subjects, biased ratings that favored non-CSA groups.
1
False Memory for Trauma-related Deese-Roediger-McDermont lists in Adolescents and Adults
with Histories of Child Sexual Abuse: A Summary
Student's Name
Institution
Instructor's Name
Course Name
Date
2
What is the research problem that is being investigated? What is the purpose of the?
research being conducted?
The Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm is used in the field of psychology to study false
human memory. It involves presenting a list of terms related to a subject, which is then required
to remember as many words from the list. Typically, the subject tends to recall a related term that
wasn't actually on the list in the first place referred to as a critical lure. The presence of a critical
lure proves that the human mind is capable of creating false memory. A research carried out by
Goodman et al. (2011) sought to look into the DRM false memory on adults and adolescents
who've had documented histories of sexual abuse and those without. The research was carried
out to determine whether the human mind creates false memories in response to traumatic
experiences like child sexual abuse. The study also sought to answer questions that regard the
applicability of DRM in the legal field on cases that involve victims of child sexual abuse.
Through the study, the researchers intended to determine if CSA victims express exaggerated or
reduced false memory effects, thus determining if DRM was suitable as a data source for legal
cases.
What is the research question?
The study was intended to answer the question, "Does the human mind create false memories
after trauma?" The authors in this article argue that the human mind can reconstruct reality and
come up with false memories that didn't happen. This deduction is backed by the study's findings
and supported by previous literary works on the same.
According to the authors, previous studies on the topic failed to examine the DRM false memory
among victims of child sexual abuse concerning trauma-related lists.
What are 2 or more theories that are discussed in the Introduction? How are they used to
motivate (or set up) the research question? Do the authors agree or disagree with these
theories?
The authors of the article argue that DRM performance could be affected by developmental
differences, emotional lists, and trauma-related psychopathology, or a history of child sexual
abuse. Regarding developmental differences, the authors argue that adults and adolescents are
more likely to process DRM false memories due to their developed gist memory and greater
associative strength. The use of emotional lists while using DRM is also a determinant of
performance. According to this study, lists that activate negative emotional themes bring about
fewer false memories than positive lists. People tend to use item-specific processing for negative
information regardless of age which in turn reduces false memories. However, it was proven that
if a participant studied an emotionally-charged item beforehand, their response to emotional
items presented during the test would shift their response bias to be relatively more liberal. In the
article, the authors also argue that individuals with a history of trauma are more likely to make
memory errors concerning positive information.
In contrast, their memory for negative trauma-related information is more accurate. On the other
hand, the study suggests that adult attachment orientation could influence a DRM false memory
3
test's performance. The study argues that parents with avoidant attachment tendencies raise adult
offspring with greater false memory through the attachment theory.
How is the research question operationalized? First, identify the abstract constructs being
studied. Next identify the concrete way these are being observed or measured. This
should include your IV and DV.
For the study in question, the study's expectations included; Using a CSA list in place of other
negative lists; this is because CSA lists are distinctive and with negative valence, thus reducing
false memory by forcing item-specific processing. However, the list could result in more
significant false memory due to the gist's activation. Compared to adults, adolescents were
expected to come up with fewer false memories. This deduction was based on the fact that
associative relations for child sexual abuse increase with age. However, memory-monitoring
deficits in adolescents could cause less false memory with age. Subjects who had a history of
child sexual abuse were expected to perform better in trauma-related lists than subjects with no
documented CSA history. The CSA individuals were also expected to perform worse in non-
trauma-related lists. Younger subjects with more significant PTSD symptoms were expected to
recall non-existent words on the list that weren't part of the critical lures. In contrast, Individuals
with insecure attachment orientations were expected to have more DRM memory errors.
What is the research design (i.e. between or within subjects, what type of statistical tests
were used, what were the levels of each variable)?
Methods
For the study, 93 female participants 49 were aged between 14 and 17, and 44 were aged
between 18 and 37. Of the participants, 21.5% were African-American, 58.1% were Caucasian,
8.6% Hispanics, 2.2% were Asian-Americans, and 9.7% were "other." Twenty-two adults and 25
adolescents had a history of child sexual abuse and were recruited from district attorney offices,
university introductory psychology classes, and child maltreatment centers. The controls were
recruited at random places and screened to find any evidence of former CSA. The research
followed all standard protocols to ensure that all participants were stable and comfortable to
partake in the task. The age limit was particular since the task is sexual.
The measures and materials used for the research included A demographic questionnaire to
collect information on gender, age, ethnicity, education, SES, and foster placement. Traumatic
assessment for adults(TAA) and traumatic events were screening inventory for children(TESI-
C), Wechsler adult intelligence scale(WAIS) and Wechsler intelligence scale for
children(WISC), memory span and vocabulary subtests, Trauma symptom checklist(TSC-40 &
TSC-C), Dissociative experiences scale(DES) and the adolescent dissociative experiences
scale(ADES), Child behavior checklist (CBCL) and young adult self-report (YASR),
Posttraumatic stress disorder scale(PDS) and the child posttraumatic stress disorder scale(CPSS),
Experiences in close relationships questionnaire(ECR), State-trait anxiety inventory( STAI) and
state-trait anxiety inventory for children(STAIC), Children's trauma questionnaire(CTQ) and 40
DRM lists; 10 were assigned for each list, ie. Positive, negative, neutral, and CSA. Each list had
relevant critical lures that are age-appropriate since some participants were on the spectrum's
4
younger side. Associates to the critical lures were listed chronologically from the strongest to the
weakest associate. Recognition tasks were also used in the study.
The study met the required criteria for research. Consent was obtained for invasive procedures;
thorough screening was done at experimental sessions; testing for adults and adolescents was
done privately and individually; the subjects underwent demographic questionnaires followed by
IQ and ECR tests. Finally, the DRM task required them to hear the words on the DRM lists. The
DRM tasks were divided into two segments that had short breaks between them. For the
segments, the free recall was used for the first half of the lists, while for the second half, random
criteria were used to pick a list. Participants then undertook STAI, BDI\CDI, CTQ, CDC, TSC-
C, TSC-40, YASR, DES\ADES, TAA, and the rest of the test mentioned in the materials section
in random order.
Describe the results (but not their broader implications). Were the results significant?
Which ones? Do these supports or not support the hypothesis?
For measures that varied across the age groups, mean z scores were created to enable the
researchers to achieve matching success through ANOVAs that put age against the subjects' CSA
status. CSA and control subjects differed slightly regarding the PTSD criteria met. The results
also indicated that control adolescents and CSA adolescents didn't have a significant difference,
whereas control adults met fewer PTSD criteria than the CSA adults. CSA subjects elicited more
sexual problems, depression, dissociation, and anxiety in the TSC tests compared to control
subjects. YASR\CBCL scores proved that CSA subjects had effects like internalizing and
externalizing behavior. The study used both trauma-related lists and non-trauma-related lists for
the DRM regarding the subjects' variances in adult attachment and psychopathology. The study
administered free recall and recognition tests to the participants after being exposed to positive,
negative, and neutral DRM lists. The free recall test results, child sexual abuse, and negative lists
elicited the false memory. The CSA-group of adolescents with more symptoms of PTSD
indicated higher false memory rates than non-CSA adolescents who had similar PTSD symptoms
and CSA adolescents who had lower PTSD symptom scores. The researchers also carried out a
regression analysis that elicited that people with avoidant attachment tendencies didn't have a
memory that was accomplished enough for the CSA lists.
What limitations are mentioned? Why are these limitations theoretically interesting?
According to the authors, the study's limitations included a small sample size, Random order for
word selection for the DRM lists, the number of words presented to the subjects, biased ratings
that favored non-CSA groups. According to the article, more research needs to be done on the
relationship between memory and trauma, including DRM performance. Future research also
needs s to determine if DRM information from CSA victims can be used in legal practice. In
conclusion, the study determined that the human brain is capable of creating false memories.
Still, the degree and accuracy of the same depend on factors like traumatic history,
developmental differences, and attachment tendencies. According to this study, the findings from
DRM are too meager to be used as evidence in law.
5
Reference
Goodman, G. S., Ogle, C. M., Block, S. D., Harris, L. S., Larson, R. P., Augusti, E. M., Cho, Y.
I., Beber, J., Timmer, S., & Urquiza, A. (2011). False memory for trauma-related Deese-
Roediger-McDermott lists in adolescents and adults with histories of child sexual
abuse. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 423–438.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579411000150
