Transcript Slide 1

Individual Differences in Dissociative Experiences and
Recovered Memory Accuracy
Results and Discussion
Introduction
Craig E. Hunt, Anne M. Sorgi, Kris Gunawan, Sharon E. Walsh
& David R. Gerkens
California State University, Fullerton
Some researchers claim that memory blocking can be explained by normal cognitive
processes rather than by emotional factors (Anderson & Green, 2001; Smith et al., 2003).
These processes may be affected by individual differences in dissociation and repressor
type coping style.
The experimental group recalled significantly fewer critical
items during free recall than did the control group due to the
blocking caused by our manipulation (see Fig. 1).
High scorers on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein and Putnam, 1986)
may make more episodic memory errors due to a predisposition to suggestibility (Hyman &
Billings,1998; Merckelbach, Muris, and Rassin, & Horslenberg, 2000).
However, recovery was observed when a cued recall test
virtually eliminated the blocking effect.
Memory Blocking
The DES loads on three factors (Ross, Joshi, & Currie, 1991) ranging from common,
benign experiences, such as missing part of a conversation (factor one), to rare
experiences, such as not recognizing oneself in a mirror (factor three).
Proportion Recalled
A repressor coping style is identified as one that reports low anxiety and high
defensiveness (Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979). These two attributes may cause
repressor types to use stricter criteria in accepting memories as accurate (Spirrison &
McCarley, 2001).
The present study used a modified version of the comparative memory paradigm
developed by Smith et al. (2003) to block and recover word lists. Participants were also
tested for dissociative experiences and repressor type coping style.
Hypotheses: The research team predicted that the blocking and recovery effects found in
Smith, et al. (2003) would be replicated; that the high DES scorers’ suggestibility would
translate into higher rates of episodic based errors; and that a repressor coping style would
reduce the number of errors.
The experimental group also recalled significantly more
categories on the filler lists due to greater accessibility (see
Fig. 1).
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Control
Experimental
Filler Lists
Figure 1. The experimental group recalled significantly fewer
critical (blocked) categories, while recalling significantly more
categories on the filler (practiced) lists, than did the control group.
Whereas repressor types did not differ in episodic errors
regardless of their DES scores…
Affect rating task
Cued recall of
category member
names
Non-repressor types, who also had high DES scores, made
more episodic errors than did non-repressor types who had
low DES scores.
Forget
Condition
Source of
episodic errors
Recovery
effect observed
1
High Dissociators
0.8
Low Dissociators
Mean Proportion
Forgetting
effect observed
Repressor Type Moderates
Dissociative Episodic Errors
Memory Differences Between
High and Low Dissociators
Biasing tasks: e.g.,
repeated rankings
of filler list items
Mean Proportion
Free recall of
category names
The results also supported our hypothesis that high dissociators
would commit more episodic errors than would low dissociators.
We also found an interaction between DES group (high vs. low) and
repressor type (non-repressors vs. repressors) for episodic memory
errors (see Fig. 3).
Initial encoding of
critical and filler lists
Non-verbal tasks:
e.g., mazes, mental
rotations
We failed to find a difference in errors for recovered versus
continuous memory.
Interestingly, “normal” people who frequently experience
common and benign dissociative experiences (DES factor
one) exhibited high episodic errors rates (see Fig. 2).
Critical
Method
Control
Condition
The results supported our hypothesis for a basic cognitive process
explanation of memory blocking and recovery consistent with our
explanation of altering the accessibility of lists (Smith et al., 2003).
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Correct Recall
Sem antic Errors
Episodic Errors
Figure 2. High dissociators did not differ significantly in
correct recall or semantic errors, but they did commit
significantly more episodic errors, w hen compared to
low dissociators. (DES Factor One)
Low Dissociators
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Repressor types’ stricter memory acceptance criteria
negated the effects of high dissociators’ suggestibility.
High Dissociators
Non-Repressor
Repressor
Figure 3. Whereas high dissociators committed more episodic
errors, that effect was driven by the high dissociators who were
non-repressors. Episodic errors did not differ significantly among
high dissociators who were also repressors. (DES Factor One)
We would like to thank
Mississippi State University
and
Jason Outlaw, Brianna Kay, Lauren Lever, Jorden Hertl,
Zac Stringer, Erin Busbea, and Kristen Rogers
for their contributions to this research.