PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Traumatic Impact Predicts Long- Term Memory for Documented Child Sexual Abuse Kristen Weede Alexander,' Jodi A. Quas,? Gail S. Goodman," Simona Ghetti,>* Robin 8. Edelstein,* Allison D. Redlich,* Ingrid M. Cordon,* and David P.H. Jones® ‘California State University, Sacramento; *University of California, Irvin *University of California, Davis; ‘Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy; *Policy Research Associates, Inc., Delmar, New York; and “University of Oxford, Park Hospital for Children, Oxford, England ABSTRACT—Prospective studies of adults’ memories of documented child sexual abuse (CSA) reveal that the majority of individuals remember their victimization. However, the accuracy of these memories has rarely been investigated scientifically. The present study examined predictors of memory accuracy and errors 12 to 21 years after abuse ended for in resulting from documented CSA. Severity of posttraumatic iduals with legal experiences stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology was positively associated with memory accuracy. However, individuals nominating CSA as their most traumatic life event exhib- ited relatively accurate memory regardless of indicators of PTSD. Predictors of memory errors were also identified (e.g., less maternal support). These results indicate that, in addition to understanding the role of traditional cog- nitive factors, understanding an event's traumatic impact is important for predicting the accuracy of long-term memory for reported C. Although research has focused on forgetting of child sexual abuse (CSA), virtually no studies have examined the accuracy of long-term memory for such trauma among adults who remember involving victims of documented and prosecuted CSA to investigate, being victimized. We conducted a longitudinal study prospectively, the accuracy of long-term memory of sexual abuse in childhood. Address correspondence to Gail S. Goodman, Department of Psy- chology. One Shields Ave., University of California, Davis, CA 95616 email: ggoodman@uedavis.edu, or to Jodi Quas. Department of Psychology and Si I Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, email: jquas®uci.edu. Volume 16—Number 1 Copyright © 2005 Au We specifically sought to examine how reactions to trauma (i.e., trauma symptoms, cognitive appraisals) affect memory (see also Williams, 1995). Regarding trauma symptoms, much eur- rent interest focuses on memory functioning in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; McNally, 2003), a psy- chopathology that is defined by anxiety and memory problems (Sullivan & Gorman, 2002) and is a possible sequela of CSA (Brow survivors, especially those with PTSD, overattend to trauma- & Finkelhor, 1986). Research suggests that trauma related cues (e.g., for rape victims, the word rape on the mod- ified Stroop test; e.g., Field et al., 2001; Foa, Feske, Murdock, Kozak, & MeCarthy, 1991) and evince heightened memory and reduced forgetting of trauma-related words (e.g., Amir, Mc- Nally, & Wiegartz, 1996; McNally, Metzger, Lasko, Clancy, & Pitman, 1998; Paunovie, Lundh, & Oest, 2002). One possible explanation of such findings is that traumatized individuals, especially those with PTSD, develop semantic networks (“fear networks”) within which trauma-related infor- mation becomes stored (e.g., Foa, Steketee, & Rothbaum, 1989; but see Foa & Riggs, 1993, and for review, Dalgleish, 2004). These networks may predispose traumatized individuals to be hypervigilant to trauma-related information and retain it par- ticularly well. These networks could also affect retention of the original trauma (e.g., by fostering greater rehearsal) and influ- ence memory for similar experiences or traumatic events gen- erally (e.g., by activation of related nodes in memory). Accordingly, one might predict that abused individuals, espe- cially those who exhibit high levels of PTSD symptomatology. have robust CSA memories, despite findings that link trauma backgrounds with information processing defi for non- trauma-related information (e.g., Bremner, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2000; Edwards, Fivush, Anda, Felitti, & Nordenberg, 2001; an Peychobagical Society 33 3534-009 Page | of 8 EFTA_00010253 EFTA00159901

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Memory for Child Sexual Abuse Hunter & Andrews, 2002; McNally, Lasko, Macklin, & Pitman, 1995: ef. Metcalfe & Jacobs, 2000, regarding “hot” and “cold” memory systems). Independent of potential effects of PTSD symptomatology on memory of CSA, cognitive appraisals of distressing events may also affect CSA memories. Events appraised as highly negative are remembered especially well (e.g.. Berntsen, 2002), perhaps because of their salience or distinctiveness. They may activate physiological (e.g., amygdala; LeDoux, 2000) and behavioral {e.g., rehearsal; Christianson, 1992) responses that help con- solidate or maintain memories, possibly including memories for whole categories of experiences. Moreover, for highly negative incidents, information directly related to the cause of the stress is prioritized in memory, with such information often retained better the greater the distress (Christianson, 1992); this relation between memory and distress implies that increased severity of CSA would result in more accurate memory for main features of the abuse. Thus, overall, although alternative hypotheses exist (e.g., traumatic reactions and negative appraisals could overwhelm coping abilities or activate defense mechanisms, leaving victims with reduced or distorted processing of CSA experiences; Terr, 1991; van der Kolk, 1997), there is reason to predict that individuals who appraise their CSA as a particularly traumatic experience would remember it well, es- pecially if they evince high levels of PTSD symptomatology, and further that more severe abuse would result in better CSA memory. In addition to the aforementioned trauma-specific factors, numerous factors correlated with trauma undoubtedly affect memory. Thus, the impact of trauma must be considered in the context of other potentially important variables. Increased se- verity of CSA may result in increased trauma, but severity ean comprise such factors as duration and frequency, which them- selves may affect memory accuracy independently of traumatic impact. Moreover, severe abuse is often aggressively prose- cuted. Insofar as extensive legal involvement results in elab- orative rehearsal, greater stress, and a more distinct experience, children with extensive legal involvement may remember their CSA experiences particularly well. Another set of variables potentially correlated with trauma concerns interpersonal relationships. Close relationship to the perpetrator is associated with lack of maternal support when child victims disclose their abuse (Everson, Hunter, Runyon, Edelsohn, & Coulter, 1989). To the extent that unsupportive mothers talk less often with their children about the CSA than supportive mothers do or fail to legitimate their children’s al- legations, long-term memory may be adversely affected (Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, & Kuhn, 1994; Haden, Hayne, & Fiyush, 1997). Furthermore, individ- uals abused by an emotionally close caregiver may feel espe- cially betrayed (Freyd, 1996). Such feelings may reduce the clarity and accessibility of memories (e.g., through cognitive avoidance). However, a close relationship to the abuser (e.g.. intrafamilial abuse) may be associated with a detailed knowl- edge base, which may support memory. Thus, relationship variables must be considered, despite the unclear direction of their effects. Factors that are not necessarily related to trauma but affect long-term retention (e.g., age, delay) also likely influence memory of CSA. Older children provide more accurate and complete memory reports than do younger children (e.g., Quas et al., 1999), which suggests that children who were older when the abuse ended may have more accurate long-term memories than children who were younger. Additionally, delay often heralds forgetting: a shorter delay between the event and memory interview should engender better memory. Further- more, compared with females, males may be less likely to dis- close CSA (e.g.. Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Widom & Morris, 1997; but see Goodman et al., 2003) and may have less detailed autobiographical memories about emotional events (Davis, 1999). If males are hesitant to talk about CSA, their memory of it might fade over the years. In the present study, memory accuracy was considered in light of these pos- sible influences. THE PRESENT STUDY Our goal was to examine the accuracy of adolescents’ and young adults’ memory for CSA that ended 12 to 21 years previously. We hypothesized that individuals displaying more PTSD symptomatology and reporting CSA as their most traumatic life event would exhibit better memory for the abuse than individ- uals displaying less PTSD symptomatology and reporting an- other event as their most traumatic experience. Further, increased abuse severity, greater maternal support, more ex- tensive legal involvement, older age when the abuse ended, shorter delay, and being female were expected to make inde- pendent contributions to memory accuracy. METHOD Participants and Procedure Participants had been involved during the 1980s in a study of the short-term effects of criminal prosecutions on CSA victims (Goodman et al., 1992). In that study, detailed information was collected on two hundred seventeen 3- to 17-year-olds’ back- grounds, mental health, and abuse and legal experiences.' The data included demographic information (e.g.. ethnicity, socio- economic status), ratings of the children’s behavioral adjust- ment at the outset of prosecution (i.e., Achenbach’s, 1991, Child Behavior Checklist, or CBCL), information about the abuse (e.g., victim-perpetrator relationship, abuse duration), and facts ‘One participant from the original study (no = 218) is not included because the defendant was not 4 years older, a necessary element of the crime for prose~ cution. Volume 16—Namber 1 3534-009 Page 2 of 8 EFTA_00010254 EFTA00159902

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

K.W. Alexander et al. related to the children’s legal experiences (e.g., extent of legal involvement).” ‘Ten to 16 years following the original study, when participants were adolescents and young adults, they were recontacted to join a study of attitudes toward and experiences with the legal system. The follow-up was conducted in three phases: (a) Phase 1 was conducted via telephone interview, (b) Phase 2 was conducted via mailed questionnaires, and (c) Phase 3 was conducted via in-person interview. Exceptions to interview format were made as necessary (e-g.. for participants lacking telephones, Phase 1 was conducted via mail or in-person in- terview). For scientific and ethical reasons, participants were not told of the researchers’ knowledge of the sample's past victimization, legal involvement, or participation in the original study. Interviewers were blind to individual participants’ prior experiences. In each phase, information about the participants’ mental health, victimization, and legal experiences was elicit- ed. Of the original 217 eligible participants, 81% (n = 175) were interviewed at least once. For the present report, CSA memory accuracy was deter- mined using primarily information collected during Phase 3 (in- person interview), which focused on participants’ CSA memo- ries, disclosure, and legal experiences. CSA was defined as exhibitionism, sexual touching, rape, oral sex, or intercourse {completed or attempted acts) that occurred before age 18 and with a person more than 4 years older (see Goodman et al., 2003). Of the 103 individuals (23 males, 80 females) who completed all portions of Phase 3, 7 said they were never abused {although 3 of them had disclosed abuse in Phase 1 or 2), and 2 discussed the legal case but stated the abuse was a false report. The present study concerns the 94 individuals (19 males, 75 females) who reported the former CSA and answered questions about it (see Table 1).° Of these individuals, 69.1% were non- Hispanic Caucasian, 8.5% were African American, 12.8% were Hispanic, and 9.6% were “other.” Alleged perpetrators were strangers (996), acquaintances (30%¢), nonparental caregivers (399), or parental caregivers (22%). Of the cases, 44.7% in- volved genital contact and 42.6% involved penetration. At entry into the original study, maternal support following disclosure was assessed on a dichotomous scale; most individuals had supportive mothers (n = 83 of 91). Participants’ legal involve- ment was scored as | if the child never went to the courthouse (n = 25). 2 if the child went to the courthouse but did not testify (n = 32), or 3 if the child went to the courthouse and testified (n = 37). Participants who completed Phase 3 and disclosed the CSA were comparable to the other participants from the original sample (Goodman et al., 1992) in terms of gender, socioeco- *See Goodman et al. (1992) and Goodman et al. (2003) for details about the measures in the original study and identifeation of target cases, respectively. “Por predictors of Phase | disclosure, see Goodman et al. (2003). An identical analysis predicting disclosure in the smaller Phase 3 sample revealed similar findings, although age no longer significantly predicted disclosure. Volume 16—Number 1 TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Sample Variable M Victim's age at end of abuse* O88 ictim’s age at police report” 10.23 Victim's age at Phase 3° 24.23 Delay" 14 Socioeconomic status 488 Victim's relationship to perpetrator! 2.76 Abuse severity” 481 Abuse frequeney! Les Legal involvement® 2.13 Maternal support 1 Number of posttraumatic stress disorder eriteria met 3.65 1.95 He “Ages ave reported in years. "Delay is the number of years between the ces n of abuse and the Phase 3 interview. “Socioeconomic status (1 = high, 7 = low) was determined during the original study using a modified Hollings. head index. “The seale for relationship to perpetrator ranged from stranger (1) to parental figure (4). "The abuse-severity composite index (1 = low, 12 = high) ineluded abuse duration, extent of sexual contact, amount of foree. and extent of injury sustained heeause of the abuse, all from the original ease documentation. ‘Abuse frequency was scored as 1 (1 time}, 2 (2-3 times), or 3 (4 or more times). "The seale for legal involvement ranged from minimal (1) to testified (3). “Maternal support was scored on a dichotomous scale (0 = no, 1 = yes). nomic status, abuse severity, victim-perpetrator relationship, and original CBCL total T'score, ts(213-215) < 1.19. However. this subsample experienced greater legal involvement, received more maternal support, and was older at the end of the abuse than were others from the original sample, ts(164-215) > 12.311, ps < .01. PTSD was assessed during Phase 2 using the Post-Traumatic Stress Diagnostic Seale (PDS), which has commendable psy- chometric properties (e.g., internal consistencies from .78 to .84 for the criteria; Foa, Cashman, Jaycox, & Perry, 1997). This measure provides a list of traumatic events (including CSA); respondents indicate which events happened to them and, among those, which was the most traumatic. The answer to the latter question was used to score the most traumatic event (MTE) as CSA or another event. The measure then lists a series of questions regarding the effects of participants’ self-identified MTE on their lives. Depending on participants’ responses to these questions, they could meet up to six PTSD criteria: ex- posure to trauma, reexperiencing symptoms, avoidance symp- toms, arousal symptoms, trauma-related symptoms lasting 3 months or more, and significant distress or impairment in daily functioning. A PTSD diagnosis is made when all six criteria are met. However, because another potentially important index is number of PTSD criteria satisfied, which may reflect more precisely the magnitude of an individual's psychopathology related to a particular trauma, we used number of PTSD criteria met (nPTSD) as the operational index of traumatization. Of participants who completed the PDS (n = 86), 77 provided detailed information about the nature of their most traumatic 35 3534-009 Page 3 of 8 EFTA_00010255 EFTA00159903

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

TABLE 2 Correlations Among Key Variables Variable I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ww ll 12 1 im’s age at end of abuse _ 2. Victim’s gender 0 — 3. Abuse severity 06 1 — 4. Legal involvement AZ -40 6 —- 5. Victim's relationship to perpetrator —.03 28" 38" —19 — 6. Maternal support -0b AM AM ll 9 _ 7. Delay —.09 —AT 2 —.08 25" 4AM _ 8. Abuse frequency 02 09 62 1 56" OS 9. Number of posttraumatic stress disorder criteria met 25% 01 Ain 20 08 03 —16 OO 10. Most traumatic event —.22" —1 13 —.20 22-02 20% 10 OO — 11. Proportion correct OT —A 16 19 O1 296 1-08 4 26 — 12. Proportion commission errors Oo 13 — 30% —24* 13 18 -M -04 -01 —.08 -6l"* — 13. Proportion omission errors -.16 -21* AS 02 -.09 -29 4 24" -.26" -20 -4A3"* —16 ations of rating seales: in addition, for vietim’s gender, male ~ 1 and female ~ 2, and most traumatic event Note. Ns ranged from 75 to 94. See Table 1 for expli 01. 4p < AOE (two-tailed tests). experience, which was CSA for 48 of these participants and another event for 29." Memory Coding Memory interviews were coded for accuracy according to facts recorded in the original study. The coding scheme was based on 11 points of information (i.e.. perpetrator’s name, sexual acts, victim’s age at onset and offset, perpetrator’s age, child-perpe- trator relationship, frequency and duration of abuse, child- perpetrator living arrangement, and force and coercion in- volved). Participants’ Phase 3 responses to relevant questions {e.g., “How old were you when the CSA first happened?” “What was the defendant's name?”) were examined for this informa- tion. When necessary for clarification, Phase 1 interviews and Phase 2 questionnaires were consulted. Then, responses were compared with the corresponding information from the original study (Goodman et al., 1992). Proportion correct was computed by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of the 11 points of information reported by the participant. For 7 of the 11 points (e.g.. whether force was involved). errors could be scored as errors of commission (exaggeration or addition of information relative to the original record; e.g., the victim stating that he or she lived with the perpetrator when our records indicated that was not the case) or omission (exclusion or downplaying of information; e.g., indicating no force was in- volved when our records indicated force was used).” “For most cases, it was possible to determine that the CSA reported as the MTE was the CSA case we had studied previously (ic. of the 48 participants indicating CSA as their MTE, 36 pravided enough information to verify that they were referring to the documented CSA). SQuestions not scored for errors were those such as, “How old were you when the abuse ended?” M_for example, the participant was 10 years old but indicated 9 years, it was unclear whether this should be scored as a commission or emission error. The denominator for propartion errors was 7. To establish reliability, four raters independently coded 12% of the interviews. For correct responses, commission errors, and omission errors, proportion agreement ranged from .83 to .99 (M = .93) for each pair of raters. The raters divided the re- maining interviews for coding. RESULTS Our goal was to identify predictors of memory accuracy for CSA. Dependent measures included proportion correct (M = .72, SD = .18, range = .29-1.00), proportion commission errors (M = 14, SD = 17, range = .00-.71), and proportion omission errors (M=.14, SD =.18, range = .00-.80). Correlations among key variables are shown in Table 2. To examine the relative contribution of each variable in predicting memory of CSA, we conducted three linear regres- sions.” Predictors included victim’s age at the end of the abuse, victim's gender, abuse severity, maternal support, victim-per- petrator relationship, extent of legal involvement, delay be- tween end of abuse and current memory interview, nPTSD. MTE, and the nPTSD x MTE interaction. The regression for proportion correct was significant, F(10, 64) = 3.34, p< .01 (Table 3): Maternal support, nPTSD, MTE, and the MTE x nPTSD interaction were significant predictors. Individuals who received maternal support following CSA discovery evinced more accurate long-term memory than those who did not receive such support. More PTSD criteria met and nominating CSA as the MTE were also associated with more accurate responses. Figure 1 shows the interaction between “Because of missing data, n in the regressions was 73 to 75. The pattern of results was virtually identical (except as noted in the text) when duration or frequency. which could independently affect memory, replaced severity, and when only corroborated cases were considered. Volume 16—Namber 1 3534-009 Page 4 of 8 EFTA_00010256 EFTA00159904

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

K.W. Alexander et al. TABLE 3 Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Accuracy of Long- Term Memory for Child Sexual Abuse Variable B ‘ Pp Victim’s age at end of abuse —07 —0.62 4 Victim's gender 16 147 AS Abuse severity 17 147 15 Legal involvement 03 0.28 7 Victim’s relationship to perpetrator —. —0.82 A2 Maternal support 33 311.003 Delay —.06 O51 1 MTE 29 2.4 aU aPTSD 23 2.07 AM MTE x aPTSD —.33 3.10 103 Note. n= 75. MTE = most traumatic event (not child sexual abuse = 0, child sexual abuse ~ 1), nPTSD = number of posttraumatic stress disorder eviteria met. MTE and aPTSD were standardized to create the interaction term. Ke = 34. The addition of the interaction term led to R? change of .10, p < 01. See Tables 1 and 2 for explanations of rating scales. MTE and nPTSD. For individuals designating CSA as their most significant life trauma, there was virtually no relation between nPTSD and memory for the abuse, r= —.02; memory was rel- Nominated as Most Traumatic Event -@ Childhood Sexual Abuse -O- Other Few Many Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Criteria Met Fig. 1. Relation between number of posttraumatic stress disorder crite- ria sutished and proportion correct on the measure of memory for the target childhood sexual abuse for participants indicating their most traumatic life event was child sexual abuse versus another event. Lines are plotted according to the regression coefficients. Volume 16—Number 1 atively accurate regardless of the number of PTSD criteria satisfied. However, for individuals nominating another life event (e.g.. car accident, loved one’s death) as their most sig- nificant trauma, the relation between nPTSD and memory was positive, r= 44, p < .05. For these individuals, a greater number of PTSD criteria met was associated with better memory of CSA. It is possible that PTSD symptomatology is related to how often the abuse was discussed with a counselor or parent, which could affect memory. To investigate this possibility, we added therapy (whether the participant reported receiving counseling during or immediately following the prosecution) and frequency of CSA discussion with the caregiver (immediately following the CSA and during the delay), as indicated during Phase 2, indi- vidually to the regressions.’ We similarly included self-reported number of other CSA experiences (M = 1.71 for participants whose MTE was CSA and M = 2.07 for participants whose MTE was not CSA) and number of non-C traumas (M = 7.02 for participants whose MTE was CSA and M = 8.90 for partici- pants whose MTE was not CSA), assessed in Phase 1. No sig- nificant KR changes resulted." Our accuracy measure might be perceived as simply an index of consistency between the original and current reports. Although some facts used to create the accuracy variable relied solely on children’s original statements, others were ob- jectively verifiable (e.g.. perpetrator’s name and age). When a composite variable including only proportion correct for these verifiable questions was entered as the dependent variable, the regression results remained virtually identical, F(10, 64) = 2.57, p= 01. The regression analysis for omission errors was also signifi- cant, F(LO, 62) = 2.17, p < .05, R= 26. Maternal support was the only significant predictor, 30, p = .O1 (greater maternal support predicted fewer omissions),” although gender, 8 = —.21, p <.10, approached significance (females produced somewhat fewer omission errors than males). When we con- ducted the analysis replacing severity with frequency (the two variables were highly correlated), greater frequency of CSA significantly predicted increased omission errors, § = 40, p = O1, despite a positive relation between frequency and *We did not have information on recent therapy. “Ohher mental health indices (composite scores) collected during the initial study (ie, CBCL) or present study (ic. Dissociative Experiences Seale, Bernstein & Putnam, 1986; Youth Self Report, Achenbach, 1997; Behavior Symptom Index, Derogatis, 1983; Beck's Depression Inventory, Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974; Trauma Symptom Inventory, Briere, Elliott, Harris, & Cotman, 1995) were not significantly related to memory accuracy or errors, rs = |.191 Of the 86 individuals whose data allowed for a formal PTSD diagnosis to be made, 14 (15.9%) reached the clinical diagnosis level (meeting the six criteria). Having a PTSD diagnosis was not related to proportion correct or commission or omission errors regarding the documented CSA, rs < LO8I, largely because participants who met four or five PTSD criteria generally evinced aceurate memary for the documented . “Participants whe reported that their mother avoided talking about the abuse or told them not to talk about it made more omission errors than other partici~ pants, rs = —.29 and —.25, ns = T& ps < 05. 37 3534-009 Page 5 of 8 EFTA_00010257 EFTA00159905

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Memory for Child Sexual Abuse initially receiving counseling related to the case, r= 30, p < .05. The regression model for commission errors was not sig- nificant, F(10, 62) = 1.35, R? = .18. For the three memory measures, the findings remained vir- tually identical when we excluded the 12 people who indicated another CSA case (not our target case) was their MTE; for ex- ample, the regression for the proportion correct was again sig- nificant, F(10, 52) = 4.79, p < .001. Also, the effect of gender became significant for proportion correct, § = .23, p < .05; females were more accurate than males. DISCUSSION ‘The present study examined the accuracy of long-term memory for CSA using a prospective design. Individuals who designated CSA as their MTE and individuals with more PTSD symptom- atology were particularly accurate in their memory of the doc- umented CSA ease, which suggests an important influence of trauma symptoms and cognitive appraisals on long-term CSA memory. Evidence demonstrates that memory for emotional events often endures and that trauma-related information is generally retained well, especially among individuals with PTSD (Paunovie et al., 2002). Our results are largely consistent with this evidence. Regarding the significant interaction involving PTSD erite- ria, it is possible that when CSA (our documented case or an- other incident) was indicated as the MTE, individuals encoded and rehearsed central details of the CSA enough to maintain accurate memory over the long term, regardless of PTSD symptoms. For them, as they reported, CSA was an emotional event, and the emotion or trauma-related semantic network that resulted may have facilitated memory retention (Foa et al., 1989; LeDoux, 2000). Among victims who indicated a non-CSA event as their most traumatic, those with fewer PTSD symptoms may not have focused on or may have actively tried to forget the CSA, leading to poorer long-term memory. In contrast, those who reported greater PTSD symptomatology (for a non-CSA trauma) may have been preoccupied with trauma or possessed fear networks that generalized to traumatic events overall, supporting relatively accurate long-term memory of CSA. It is also possible that this latter group had discussed the abuse more {e.g.. in recent psychotherapy). although apparently not with a therapist right after the target CSA or with their nonoffending caregiver up to the time of the present interview. Maternal support following disclosure of the abuse signifi- cantly predicted a higher proportion correct and fewer omission errors. Previous research has revealed benefits of maternal support on children’s memory for distressing experiences (e.g., Goodman et al., 1994). In our study, maternal supportiveness may have facilitated formation of a coherent representation of the abuse. Also, children with supportive mothers may have felt comfortable discussing the CSA with other people. Both greater coherence of an initial event representation and in- creased discussion could lead to maintenance of accurate memory. When the entire sample was included in the analyses, men’s and women’s memory accuracy did not differ significantly. However, when the sample was limited to participants speci- fying the target case as their MTE, results demonstrated that females provided more correct information than did males. Former research has suggested gender differences in what males and females define as abusive and in their memory for emotional events (e.g., Davis, 1999; Widom & Morris, 1997). To the extent that males may be less willing to discuss CSA, perhaps particularly when the CSA is appraised as a highly traumatic personal event, they may have fewer rehearsal opportunities from the time the abuse ends, even in individuals willing to disclose their victimization. The resulting lack of rehearsal may affect accuracy of long-term memory. Frequency of abuse was associated with a greater proportion of omission errors. There are several possible interpretations of this finding. For instance, frequent events are associated with schematization in memory, which could lead to omission errors. Victims may also downplay incest or abuse in which they were frequently (and perhaps actively) invelved (Bidrose & Good- man, 2000). Although the regression predicting commission errors was nonsignificant, two potentially important factors were identified in correlational analyses, warranting further research. Abuse severity predicted lack of commission errors, a result consis- tent with studies indicating that stress is often (although not always) associated with accuracy (e.g.. Christianson, 1992). Also, greater legal involvement predicted fewer commission errors. Legal involvement might be associated with elaborative rehearsal, which facilitates long-term retention. The additional stress of possibly or actually testifying may have further solidified memory, thus reducing the likelihood of memory errors. In the regression analyses, age at end of abuse was not sig- nificantly associated with long-term memory. In a previous analysis based on a larger sample (from Phase 1, n = 174; Goodman et al., 2003). we found that age predicted whether participants disclosed CSA. Nondisclosing participants were not included in the present study. Moreover, the present sample did not contain individuals whose abuse ended before they were 3 years old. Age at end of abuse may be related to childhood amnesia or “lost memory” but not to accuracy for core, salient features among individuals whose abuse ended at age 3 or after and who remember CSA. Finally, victim-perpetrator relationship and delay were sta- tistically unrelated to memory of CSA. Relationship between the victim and perpetrator is likely more complicated than our classification captured. Delay may have lost its predictive power given the long time interval, and subsequent forgetting. between the abuse and memory interview. Volume 16—Namber 1 3534-009 Page 6 of 8 EFTA_00010258 EFTA00159906

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

..W. Alexander et al. Some limitations of our study should be noted. The general- izability of our findings to nonreported CSA cases is unknown, and most CSA is never reported to authorities. Because we tested memory in a prosecution sample, disclosure and dis- cussion of CSA had typically taken place during childhood. Our results do not necessarily reflect memory accuracy for cases in which the first disclosure occurs after lengthy delays (i.e. in adulthood). Moreover, if the initial allegations were false or distorted, our findings would be affected. Lack of statistical power may have reduced our ability to detect certain effects, such as those of age and delay. Furthermore, future studies should focus on additional memory characteristics (e.g., com- pleteness, emotional content). Nevertheless, by examining trauma-related factors, the present study sheds light on theoretical and applied issues regarding memory for traumatic experiences. Although repli- cation is needed, our results indicate that in addition to tradi- tional cognitive factors, an event's traumatic impact predicts aceuracy of long-term memory for CSA. Acknowledgments—This article is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant 0004369. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. We thank Lois Buckman, Deena Day, Patricia England, Gina Gallo, Jenny Garfein, John Kihlstrom, Jennifer Noll, Linda Port, Lydia Prado, Juliana Ras- kauskas, Leslie Rudy, Jennifer Schaaf, Daniel Stroski, Eliza- beth Taub, and Penelope Trickett. We also thank members of the Adams, Arapahoe, and Denver County District Attomey Offi- ces, especially District Attorneys James Peters, Robert Grant, and William Ritter, and Deputy District Attorneys John Jordan, Jill Straus, and Norman Brisson. REFERENCES Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, TM. (1997). Manual for the Young Adult Self-Report and Young Adult Behavior Checklist. Burlington: University of Ver mont, Department of Psychiatry. Amir, N., McNally, RL, & Wiegartz, PS. (1996). Implicit memory bias for threat in posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 625-035. Beck, A-T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The Depression Inventory. Psychological Measurements in Psycho- pharmacology, 7, 151-169. Bernstein, E.M., & Putnam, FW. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 72 5. Berntsen, D. (2002). Tunnel memories for autobiographical events: Central details are remembered more frequently from shocking than from happy experiences. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1010- 1020. Volume 16—Number 1 Bidrose, S.. & Goodman, G.S. (2000). Testimony and evidence: A scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 197-214. Bremner, J.D., Shobe, K.K., & Kihlstrom, J.P. (2000). False memories in women with self-reported childhood sexual abuse: An empir- ical study. Psychological Science, 11, 333-337. Briere, J., Elliott, DM. Harris, K.. & Cotman, A (1995). Trauma Symptom Inventory: Psychometrics and association with child- hood and adult victimization in clinical samples. Journal of In- terpersonal Violence, 10, 387-401. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66-77. Christianson, S.-A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284-09. Dalgleish, T. (2004). Cognitive approaches to posttraumatic stress disorder: The evolution of multirepresentational theorizing. Psy- chological Bulletin, 130, 228-20). Davis, P. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 498-510. Derogatis, LR. (1983). SCL-O90-R: Administration, scoring, and pro- cedures manual. Townsend, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Edwards, VJ.. Fivush, R.. Anda, R-P., Felitti, VJ.. & Nordenberg, DLP. (2001). Autobiographical memory disturbances in childhood abuse survivors. Journal of Aguression, Maltreatment and Trau- ma, 4, 247-263. Everson, MD, Hunter, W.M.. Runyon, D.K., Edelsohn, GA. & Coulter, M.-L. (1989). Maternal support following disclosure of incest. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 197-207. Field, N.P., Classen, C., Butler, L.D., Koopman, C., Zareone, J., & Spiegel, D_ (2001). Revictimization and information processing in women survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 459-469. Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, LA., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 19-28. Poa, E.B., Cashman, L., Jayeox, L., & Perry, K. (1997). The validation of a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Seale. Psychological Assessment, 9, 445-451. Foa, E.B., Feske, U., Murdock, T., Kozak, MJ.. & MeCarthy, PR. (1991). Processing of threat-related information in rape vietims. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 156-162. Poa, E_B., & Riggs, DS. (1993). Post-traumatic stress disorder in rape victims. In J. Oldham, M_B. Riba, & A. Tasman (Eds.), Resiew of psychiatry (Vol. 12, pp. 273-303). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Foa, E.B., Steketee, ¢ Rothbaum, B.O. (1989). Behavioral/eogni- tive conceptualization of post-traumatic stress disorder. Behavior Therapy, 20, 155-176. Freyd, J.J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodman, G.S., Ghetti, S., Quas, JA. Edelstein, R.S.. Alexander, K.W., Redlich, A.D. Cordon, LM., & Jones, D.PLH. (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse: New findings relevant to the repressed-memory controversy. Psychological Science, 14, 113-118. Goodman, G.S., Quas, J-A., Batterman-Faunce, J.M., Riddlesberger, MLM., & Kuhn, J. (1994). Predictors of accurate and inaceurate memories of traumatic events experienced in childhood. Con- sciousness and Cognition, 3, 269-294. 39 3534-009 Page 7 of 8 EFTA_00010259 EFTA00159907

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Memory for Child Sexual Abuse Goodman, G.S., Taub, EP, Jones, D.PH., England, P., Port, L.K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992). Testifying in criminal court. Mono- graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5, Serial No. 229). Haden, C.A., Hayne, RLA., & Fivush, R. (1997). Developing narrative structure in parent-child reminiscing across the preschool years. Developmental Psychology, 33, 295-W7. Hunter, E.C_M., & Andrews, B. (2002). Memory for autobiographical facts and events: A comparison of women reporting childhood sexual abuse and non-abused controls. Applied Cognitive Psy- chology. 16, 575-588. LeDoux, J.E. (2000). Emotion cireuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155-184. McNally, R.J. (2003). Progress and controversy in the study of post- traumatic stress disorder. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 229- 252. MeNally, RJ.. Lasko, N.B.. Macklin, M-L.. & Pitman, RK. (1995). Autobiographical memory disturbance in combat-related post- traumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 619-630. MeNally, R.J., Metzger, L.J., Lasko, N.B., Clancy, S.A., & Pitman, R.K. (1998). Directed forgetting of trauma cues in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 596-001. Metcalfe, J.. & Jacobs, W.J. (2000). “Hot” emotions in human recol- lection: Toward a model of traumatic memory. In E. Tulving (Ed.), Memory, conseiousness, and the brain: The Tallinn Conference (pp. 228-242). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Paunovie, N., Lundh, L.-G.. & Oest, L.-G. (2002). Attentional and memory bias for emotional information in crime vietims with acute posttraumatic stress disorder, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 675-092. Quas, J.A., Goodman, G.S., Bidrose, S., Pipe, M.-E., Craw, 8. & Ablin, D. (1999). Emotion and memory: Children’s long-term remem- bering, forgetting. and suggestibility. Jounal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 235-270. Sullivan, G.M.. & Gorman, J.M. (2002). Finding a home for post- traumatic stress disorder in biological psychiatry: Is it a disorder of anxiety, mood, stress, or memory? Psychiatric Clinies of North America, 25, 463-468. Terr, LC. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 10-20. van der Kolk, B.A. (L997). The psychobiology of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 58, 16-24. Widom, C.S., & Morris, S$. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization, Part 2: Childhood sexual abuse. Psy- chological Assessment, 9, 34-16, Williams, L.M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1167-1176. Williams, LM. (1995). Recovered memories of abuse in women with documented child sexual victimization histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 649-673. (Receiven 9/15/03; Accerre 10/24/03) Volume 16—Number 1 3534-009 Page 8 of 8 EFTA_00010260 EFTA00159908