Does Feigning Amnesia Cause Forgetting

1
Does Feigning Amnesia Cause Forgetting?

• Elizabeth Mora Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D. Kristy
  Lyons
• McNair Scholars Program
• Department of Psychology
• University of California, Davis

2
Introduction

• 25 45 of suspects accused of serious crimes
  claim to have partial or total amnesia (Kopelman,
  1987 Taylor Kopelman 1984)

3
Background Previous Study

• Christianson and Bylin (1999) found that when
  participants simulated amnesia for a crime they
  performed worse in recall, as compared to control
  subjects.

4
Background Previous Study

• Possible explanations for findings
• Non-rehearsal
• Source monitoring errors

5
Goal of Present Study

• To test the hypothesis that simulated amnesia
  affects memory of victims
• Simulated amnesia may cause memories to be less
  accessible

6
Methods Participants

• 92 Undergraduates
• Participants were screened for history of sexual
  abuse, assault, and long hospital stays
• Demographics
• Age range 18-47
• Median Age 20
• 69 Female
• 49 Asian American, 23 Caucasian, 10 Hispanic,
  3 African American, 15 Other

7
Methods Procedure

• First-Session
• Victimization Narrative
• Emotional Response
• Distracter Task
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale

• Second-Session
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale
• Debriefed

8
Victimization Narrative

• Note this story occurs when you are 7 years old
• Around 100 pm, your friends Jamie and Chris
  come over. You play video games and have so much
  fun that you ask your mom if you could spend the
  night over at Jamies. Around 700 pm, Jamies
  brother, Tom, picks you up. Around 1130 pm Tom
  tells you to go to bed. You are trying to fall
  asleep when Tom comes into the room. He takes
  your underpants down, and starts to touch your
  private parts. You realize that what he is doing
  is bad. You tell him, Dont do that! but he
  doesnt stop. He tells you not to tell anyone or
  you will get in trouble!

9
Methods Procedure

• First-Session
• Victimization Narrative
• Emotional Response
• Distracter Task
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale

• Second-Session
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale
• Debriefed

10
Methods Conditions

• No-Rehearsal (control group)
• Truth
• Commission
• Omission
• Suppression

11
Methods Procedure

• Cued Recall Example questions
• How much beer did Tom drink?
• What time did Tom pick you up?
• What did Tom do to you when he entered the room?

12
Methods Procedure

• First-Session
• Victimization Narrative
• Emotional Response
• Distracter Task
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale

• Second-Session
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale
• Debriefed

13
Methods Procedure

• 1 Not at all Responsible
• 11 Totally Responsible
• 1 Not at all Responsible
• 11 Totally Responsible

• Culpability Scale
• To what extent was the perpetrator responsible
  for the way things developed?
• To what extent were you responsible for the way
  things developed?

14
Methods Procedure

• First-Session
• Victimization narrative
• Emotional response
• Distracter task
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale

• Second-Session
• Free recall
• Cued recall
• Culpability scale
• Debriefed

15
Methods Procedure

• Cued recall scoring
• Separate scores were calculated for correct and
  incorrect responses
• Two independent raters coded cued recall
  questionnaires (reliability .91)

16
Methods Procedure

• Q How much beer did Tom drink?
• A 3 glasses
• Q What time did Tom pick you up?
• A 8 pm
• Q What did Tom do to you when he entered the
  room?
• A He took my sheets off and touched me.

17
Results Emotional Response

• Emotional reaction to crime narrative
• Non-significant effect of condition
• F (4, 85) 1.04, ns .39

18
Results Cued Recall

• Total Correct Information
• Significant effect of condition
• F (4, 87) 3.67, p lt .05

19
Results Cued Recall

• Total Incorrect Information
• Non-significant effect of condition
• F (4, 87) 2.03, ns .097

20
Results Culpability Scale

• Blame Assigned to Perpetrator
• Non-significant effect of condition
• F (4, 77) 1.52, ns .205
• Blame Assigned to Victim
• Non-significant effect of condition
• F (4, 77) 0.22, ns .926

21
Results Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES)
Correlations
22
Summary of Results

• Victims who simulate amnesia report fewer correct
  details of victimization
• Source monitoring errors
• Non-rehearsal
• Victims who suppress also report fewer correct
  details of victimization

23
Next Step

• Increase motivation

24
Acknowledgements

• Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D.
• Kristy Lyons
• Ray Shiraishi

• Developmental Research Center
• Presidents Undergraduate Research Fellowship
• McNair Scholars Program

25
Does Feigning Amnesia Cause Forgetting?

• Elizabeth Mora Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D. Kristy
  Lyons
• McNair Scholars Program
• Department of Psychology
• University of California, Davis