Psyco 350 Lec #21– Slide 1 Lecture 21 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011 N. R. Brown.

Psyco 350 Lec #21– Slide 1

Lecture 21 – Psyco 350, B1Winter, 2011

N. R. Brown


Outline

1. Recovered Memory Controversy• Two Approaches

• Implanting False Memories

• Forgetting CSA

• A Third Approach

2. Memory Issues in PTSD• Background


The Recovered Memory Controversy


1. Background: The False Memory Hypothesis

2. Implanting False Memory

3. Forgetting CSA

4. The “Middle Ground” Position




Background:

• Adults report “recovering” forgotten memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA).

• Memories often recovered during therapy.

• Profound emotional & legal repercussions



Assumptions – The Recovered (“true”) Memory Position:

• traumatic memories can be repressed/suppressed

• recovery techniques produce valid memories of real events.

• recovering forgotten CSA memories has therapeutic value.


Question Assumptions

• Do/can people repress/suppress memories of CSA?

• Can recovery techniques produce false memories?

• Does memory recovering CSA memories have therapeutic value?


Theoretical Response


Lindsay & Read (1994)

Memory is fallible & subject to distortion.

Relevant Phenomena:

• Misinformation Effect – blend facts & suggestion

• Source Amnesia – forget source of information

• Imperfect Reality Monitoring – mistaking imagined events for real ones

• Reconstruction – past events reconstructed from fragmentary details and schematic knowledge.


Clinical Practice (circa, 1990)

When CSA suspected, recovery techniques employed (over sessions)

Techniques:

• guided imagery

• hypnosis

• dream interpretation

• survivors’ groups

• uncritical acceptance of claims


False Memories of CSA

“Memory recovery techniques may lead some clients to create illusory memories.”

-- Lindsay & Read

Imagined and/or suggested events can take on a realistic vividness and detail w/ extensive memory work.


The False-Memory Hypothesis


False Memories of CSA

Step 1 – create CSA story

Step 2 – elaborate on CSA story

(suggestion, imagery, interpretation, hypnosis, social facilitation)

Step 3 – forget or mistake origin of CSA story

(source amnesia, failed reality monitoring).

Implication:

• It should be possible to create FM in the lab.


Implanting False Memories


Implanting FMs /w Narrative Hyman et al. (1995)

Issue: Can FMs be implanted using clinical techniques?

Method:

• Preparation: Solicit event descriptions from parents

• Materials: – 3 “real” event descriptions

– 1 “false” event description (spill punch bowl at wedding)


Hyman et al. (1995): Procedure

• Phase 1:– Recall as much as possible about each event

& continue to reflect outside of lab.

• 2-day delay

• Phase 2 – repeat procedure

• Phase 3 – repeat procedure


Hyman et al. (1995): Results• true memories increase

across phases

• false memories increase across phases– Phase 2 FM = 25%

• Accessing background knowledge predicts FM– FMS for 11 or 30 Ss

who accessed BK– FM for 2 of 21 Ss who

did not access


Hyman et al (1995): Sample FM

Background Knowledge


Hyman et al (1995): Sample FM


Hyman et al. (1995): Results

• Accessing background knowledge predicts FM– FMs for 11 or 30 Ss who accessed BK

– FMs for 2 of 21 Ss who did not access BK

Interpretation:

suggestion + BK + source confusion FM


Creating FMs w/ Photos:Wade, Garry, Read, Lindsay (2002)

Method:• 3 “real” childhood

photos• 1 doctored childhood

photo

Task: • recall as much as

possible• three phases 1 week

apart


Creating FMs w/ Photos:Wade, Garry, Read, Lindsay (2002)

Results for False Photos:

• 1st Interview: 30% FMs• 3nd interview: 50% FM

Conclusion:

Photos compiling for support of generating false event and accept false memory.


Implanted False Memories


Three Stages Required to Implant FMsHyman & Loftus (1998)

1. Plausibility Assessment/acceptance• source (family, experts)• content (likelihood, consequentiality)2. Memory Construction (creation of a plausible

imagined event)• Actively relate proposed event to self-knowledge• Imagery, journaling, dream interpretation3. Source Monitoring Error.• Situational/social demands• Delay• Repetition


Implanting FMs

FM research:• demonstrates FMs can be implanted • refines techniques for creating FMs

Ethical Question:• Is it time for a moratorium on this type of

work?


Forgetting CSA


A Prospective Study: Williams (1994)

Participants:

• 129 women contacted 17 yrs after reported sexual abuse

Age at report:

• 10 months to 12 years

Task:

• 3 hr interview – questions about– sexual history.

– NOTE: “Index” event not specifically probed


Williams (1994): Results

• 38% failed report index event– suggest repression-based

forgetting of CSA very common.

• Victim-perpetrator relation affected recall– by-stranger (82%) > by-relative

(53%)

• recall as degree of force • Younger victims less likely to

recall event


All respondents

129 – 100%

remembered

80 – 62%

not remembered

49 – 38%


Williams (1994): Decomposing the Non-responses

38% failed to report index event.


All respondents

129 – 100%

remembered

80 – 62%

not remembered

49 – 38%

other abuse

33 – 26%no other abuse

16 – 12%



38% failed to report index event.

But:

68% (33/49) of non-responders report other abuse.

Non-repression based explanations

• schematization

• retrieval (motivational) failure

• coding mismatch


All respondents

129 – 100%

remembered

80 – 62%

not remembered

49 – 38%

other abuse

33 – 26%no other abuse

16 – 12%

under 3 yrs

5 – 4%

3 or older

11 – 8.5%



Thus, “Pure” failure to report CSA relatively uncommon (8.5%):

“failure to report” may reflect:

• willingness to disclose• forgetting


Prospective Study – Replication

Goodman et al (2003)

• n = 168; failure to report = 10%

Alexander et al (2005)

• Memory for CSA w/ severity of trauma


• FMs can be implanted.

• CSA can be forgotten, but generally is not.

Main Points


A Third Perspective


1. Repressed Memory View– Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia underlies ALL

recovered memories.

2. False Memory View– ALL recovered memories are implanted

3. Middle Ground (Schooler, McNally, Geraerts)

– CSA events can be forgotten and later recalled

– Repression/dissociative processes not required/involved

Three Views


Three States re: CSA memory

1. Continuous Memory

• Discontinues Memories

2. Spontaneous recovery

3. During-therapy recovery

Middle Ground


• Corroborated case studies exist (Schooler)

• Between-group corroboration rates (Geraerts et al, 2007)

45% -- continuous group (n=71)

37% -- spontaneous group (n=41)

0% -- recall-in-therapy group (n=16)

• Rated-surprise:spontaneous >> recalled-in-therapy

Middle Ground: Evidence


Modal nature of recovered abuse event

• Victim’s age: 7 or 8

• Non-violent molestation

• Perpetrator: close relative

• (Recalled) initial reaction

– “confused and upset, but not terrified”

– “not fully understood… as sexual abuse.”

Characteristics of Spontaneous Recovery(McNally, 2007)


• T1

– CSA little understood/discussed.

• CSA “forgotten” like other past events

• T2

– Context-cued recovery of CSA event – CSA understood as abuse, leading to...– “intense emotional distress”

“Normal” Spontaneous Recovery of CSA


Assumptions:

• CSA is always traumatic

• Normally, traumatic events are NOT forgotten

• CSA events sometimes forgotten

Therefore:

1.Forgetting can’t be “normal”

2.So a special forgetting process must evoked by CSA

The Logic of Repression


Assumptions:

• CSA is NOT always traumatic

• Memory for non-traumatic events is normally discontinuous.

• CSA events sometimes forgotten

Therefore:

1.Forgetting can be “normal”

2.So a special forgetting process need NOT be evoked by CSA events

The Logic of “Middle Ground”


• Traumatic events are well remembered.

• Continuous memory for CSA is normal.

• CSA can be forgotten & recovered.

• Repression/dissociation not required.

• Spontaneous CSA memories more credible than recalled-in-therapy memories.

• Because, memory recovery techniques can produce false memories.

Summary: A Cognitive Perspective on Recovered Memories


Post-traumatic Stress Disorder:Background


DSM-IV Criterion A

The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following have been present:

(1 – The Event) The person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others

(2 – Peritraumatic Reaction) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.


DSM-IV Criteria B-F

B. reexperiencing of the traumatic event

C. avoidance of stimuli associated w/ trauma and numbing of general responsiveness

D. increased arousal

E. symptoms present for more than 1 month

F. clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning


Prevalence

• Traumatic events “common”

– In US, experienced by 50%-60% of population

• PTSD symptoms in ≈ 10% of population


Risk Factors

• Previous Traumatic Experiences

• History of Abuse

• Family History of PTSD or Depression

• History of Substance Abuse

• Poor Coping Skills

• Lack of Social Support

• Ongoing Stress

• Sex

• Neuroticism


Comorbidity

Slide 51

Psyco 350 Lec #21 – Slide 52

• D-R Model predicts: PTSD w/ severity of trauma.

• “The relationship between dosage of trauma and resultant psychopathology is far from straight forward.” – McNally, 2003, p, 223

• Possible reasons:

– Nonlinear relation

– Problems w/ retrospective self-report (distorted/biased estimates of dosage).

The Dose-Response Model


• Estimation bias & strategy related

• We know:– memory contents restrict strategy selection

• If mental state affects strategy selection, then dose estimates may be systematically biased.

Estimation Theory Meets PTSD

Psyco 350 Lec #21– Slide 1 Lecture 21 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011 N. R. Brown.

Documents

wedding slide

brown slide

falsememory hypothesis

repeat procedure slide

ptsd background slide

theoretical response

false memories of csa

forgotten csa memories