EFTA00159928

ASSOCIATION FOR Empirical Article PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Psycholopc.al Science I -I6 Long-Term Memory in Adults Exposed 0 The Authors) LOIS AnKle reuse guidelines to Childhood Violence: Remembering sigcpub.conliournailtpeimmans DOI- I0.1I77/216770260130742 wenvpsychologica6cience ocp/CPS Genital Contact Nearly 20 Years Later OSAGE Deborah Goldfarb', Gail. S. Goodman2, Rakel P. Larson3, Mitchell L. Eisen', and Jianjian Qins oen:Lament of Psychology, Florida International university: 'Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis. 'Department of Psychology, Pities College. 'Department of Psychology, California State University, Las Angeles; and ^Derailment of Psychology. California State University. Sacramento Abstract Recent changes in statutes of limitations for crimes against children permit accusations of decades-old child sexual abuse to be considered in court. These laws challenge scientists to address the accuracy of long-term memory of genital contact. To examine theoretical, clinical, and legal concerns about long-term memory accuracy, children who in the 1990s (Time 1) were 3 to 17 years old and experienced a documented child maltreatment medical examination that included genital touch were interviewed between 2012 and 2014 (Time 2), as adults, about the medical experience. Almost half of the adults reported the childhood genital contact. Child sexual abuse and greater depression in adulthood predicted greater memory accuracy. No participant falsely reported chargeable offenses that did not occur, even when such offenses had been falsely suggested in a childhood interview. Some participants erred with regard to specific and misleading questions implying less egregious acts. Ramifications for theory and application are discussed. Keywords maltreatment, longitudinal memory Received 3/31/1R; Revision accepted 8/2/18 There are some memories that time may never erase, Morrison, & Conway, 2014), as reflected in prosecutions but questions arise as to whether genital contact expe- of Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, Michigan State ath- rienced in childhood is one of them. Recent research letic physician Larry Nassar, Bay Area child psychiatrist confirms the possibility of false memories of childhood William Ayres, former Speaker of the U.S. House of sexual encounters, including as intensified in vulner- Representatives Dennis Hasten, and in the U.S. Senate's able individuals by debated clinical techniques (Bot- Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of toms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996; Lilienfeld, 2015; Loftus, Judge (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh. As few, if any, 1996). Yet clinical and memory theories should also published studies have analyzed the accuracy of adults' address the matter of enduring memories for genital memories for a verified abuse-related childhood event touch actually experienced in childhood. that includes concurrently documented genital contact, Currently, there is a pressing need for scientific stud- the question of how accurately adults remember such ies on this topic because in "historic" child sexual abuse experiences has gone largely unanswered (hut see cases (where prosecution occurs years after the alleged Alexander et al., 2005; Widom & Morris, 1997; Williams, assault), the accuracy of adults' memory for childhood 1994). To shed light on this issue, we analyzed adults' genital contact is paramount, with concerns about inac- memories for verified childhood genital contact after an curacies amplified when the adults have trauma histories 18-to-20-year delay. (Conway, 2013; Howe, 2013; Loftus, 1996; Otgaar, Muds, Corresponding Author Howe, & Merchkelback, 2017). Society is grappling with Gail S. Goodman, Department of Psychology, University of California, how to respond to such cases (D. A. Connolly, Chong, One Shields Ave.. Davis. CA 95616 Coburn, & Lutgens, 2015; Howe & Knott, 2015; Wells, E-mail. pasordnianerucdaviciedu 3534-013 Page 1 of 16 EFTA_00010280 EFTA00159928 2 Goldfarb et al. Long-Term Memory for Significant suggestions (Loftus, 1996; Rubin & Wenzel, 1996; Childhood Events Wickens, 1998; Wixted, 2004). There are legitimate con- cerns that delay can lead to increased guessing, schema- In general, memories fade over time for both children driven commission errors, and false memories (e.g., and adults (Hirst et al., 2015; La Rooy, Pipe, & Murray, Kleider, Pezdek, Goldinger, & Kirk, 2008). Although few 2007), making adults less sure of their childhood mem- studies of memory accuracy have included delays as ories and more subject to suggestive influences (Loftus long as 20 years (Bahrick, Bahrick, & Wittlinger, 1975), & Pickrell, 1995). Yet memories of highly emotional it seems likely that, as the time between an event and (compared to neutral) events are often less susceptible a memory task increases, individual differences will be to forgetting (LaBar & Cabeza, 2006; Yonelinas & evident in the adoption of a conservative versus liberal Ritchey, 2016): Individuals who experienced traumatiz- response strategy, the latter of which could increase ing events, such as a natural disaster, an impending suggestibility (Singer & Wixted, 2006). airplane crash, or an injury necessitating an emergency room visit, recall the event years and sometimes even Individual Differences and Memory decades later (Bauer et al., 2016; Fivush, McDermott Sales, Goldberg, Bahrick, & Parker, 2004; McKinnon Individual differences in trauma history and psychopa- et al., 2015; Peterson, 2015; Van Abbema & Bauer, thology may affect the accuracy of long-term memory 2005). For example, adolescents and adults accurately for stressful life events. In this regard, maltreatment remember injuries and assaults experienced 6 to 13 history and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have years prior (Goodman et al., 2003; Greenhoot, McClo- been of much interest, especially to clinicians. Some skey, & Glisky, 2005). researchers find that maltreatment history and/or PTSD Young children's ability to remember details of a symptomology are associated with increased accuracy medical event decreases over an initial 3-month period of remembering abuse-related experiences (Alexander and becomes stable by 6 months (Ornstein et al., 2006). et al., 2005; Eisen, Goodman, Qin, Davis, & Crayton, However, for children old enough to remember a stress- 2007). For example, children with a history of sexual ful medical test, delays of months or years do not nec- abuse omit fewer details regarding a forensic anogenital essarily increase inaccuracies or suggestibility (Quas examination than children with no such history (Katz, et al., 1999). Even when encoding occurred in the sec- Schonfeld, Carter, Leventhal, & Cicchetti, 1995). Prior ond year of life, during what later is typically labeled a childhood sexual victimization, especially when associ- period of -childhood amnesia," a subset of older children ated with PTSD, may provide a knowledge structure and adults remember salient and distinctive emotional within which to encode abuse-related acts or increase events despite significant delays (McDermott Sales, the saliency (including trauma relevance) of such expe- Finish, Parker, & Bahrick, 2005; Peterson 2015; Usher & riences (Baker-Ward et al., 2015; Frankenhuis & Weerth, Neisser, 1993; Williams, 1994). Still, young age and long 2013). delays typically predict the waning accuracy and decreas- Another mental health problem of particular interest ing detail of long-term memory, including of child sexual is depression, which is associated with a child maltreat- abuse (Goodman et al., 2003), and predict adults' sus- ment history (Brown, Cohen, ohnson, & Smailes, 1999), ceptibility to false suggestion (Howe & Knott, 2015; Qin, increased overgeneral memory (Williams & Broadbent, Ogle, & Goodman, 2008). 1986), and increased rumination and recall of negative There are factors, however, that guard against false life events (e.g., S. L. Connolly & Alloy, 2018; Hertel & childhood recollections (e.g., Pezdek, Finger, & Hodge, El-Messidi, 2006; Matt, Vazquez, & Campbell, 1992). 1997). Relatively strong memories of negative, conse- Greater rumination of negative childhood experiences quential childhood experiences combined with age may keep such memories alive, leading to greater improvements in metacognitive abilities, such as accu- accuracy. rately realizing that one does not know an answer It has also been proposed, however, that individuals (Koriat, Goldsmith, & Pansky, 2000; Lyons & Ghetti, with trauma-related psychopathology, such as PTSD or 2010), may support the ability of many adults either to depression, are less conservative in responding and accurately report salient childhood events that occurred more likely to err in reporting events (Otgaar et al., decades prior or to use a conservative response strategy 2017; Windmann & KrUger, 1998). Coupled with a (e.g., saying, "I don't remember") if one has forgotten trauma history, PTSD and depression may thus be pre- or is unsure of what happened. There is disagreement, dictors of increased correct memory of negative life however, about the contribution of forgetting to recol- events but also of greater error (e.g., susceptibility to lection error, as well as about the role that lack of misleading questions). The hypothesized memory confidence in one's memory plays in resisting false errors related to maltreatment may be driven by mental 3534-013 Page 2 of 16 EFIA_00010281 EFTA00159929 Remembering Genital Touch 3 health symptomology, perhaps resulting from trauma, Nearly 20 years later, between 2012 and 2014, 30 rather than by maltreatment itself (Eisen et al., 2007; participants were located and interviewed as adults Goodman et al., 2016). about their memories of the experience. On the basis Furthermore, gender differences in memory for emo- of aforementioned research, we predicted that partici- tional childhood events have been documented, with pants who were older at Time 1 and female would be males compared to females remembering fewer emo- more likely to report genital touch, but also that some tional childhood experiences (Davis, 1999). Such dif- of the youngest Time 1 participants (i.e., 4 years old) ferences may he particularly likely for an emotional would accurately remember such contact—an abuse- event that is sexual in nature, such that males may he related analogue for a legally chargeable act that did more reluctant than females to remember or disclose occur. We also examined accuracy in response to spe- sexual details (thereby increasing the extent of omis- cific and misleading questions, including questions that sion errors; Ullman & Filipas, 2005; Widom & Morris, could lead to memory errors with legal relevance. Given 1997). research showing that prior experience of sexual abuse in childhood may provide a framework for encoding and/or may increase the personal significance of genital Effects of Misleading Questioning in touch (Katz et al., 1995), we predicted that individuals Childhood on Adult Memory with (vs. without) a child sexual abuse history would be more likely to remember this documented event. As Increased memory error may occur after children are to the possible influence of psychopathology on mem- exposed to false suggestions in interviews (Ceci ory, it was predicted that higher levels of current PTSD Bruck, 1995); yet when memory is strong, misleading symptoms and greater depression would he associated questions can increase the accuracy of long-term mem- with more accurate memory of the anogenital exam, ory in children and adults (Peterson, Parsons, & Dean, including the genital contact, but also to greater error 2004; Putnam, Sungkhasettee, & Roediger, 2017; Quas in response to misleading questions. Finally, exposure et al., 2007). Moreover, memory rehearsal (e.g., via to a misleading interview in childhood was expected to repeated interviews or conversations with others be related to inaccuracy of memory in adulthood. regarding the event) may reinstate accurate memory but can also lead to error (Cordon, Pipe, Sayfan, Melinder, & Goodman, 2004; Ornstein et al., 2006; Method Peterson, 2015; Peterson, Pardy, Tizzrard-Drover, & Warren, 2005). However, the effects of prior misleading Participants interviews in childhood on the accuracy of adults' At Time 1 (1990s), when they experienced an anogeni- memory after an almost 20-year delay for an event tal examination as part of a forensic investigation of involving genital contact have not been previously maltreatment allegations, the 30 participants ranged in published. age from 4 to 17 years (M = 8.37 years, SD = 3.61; 20 females). They ranged in age from 23 to 36 years (M = 27.80 years, SD = 3.55) when interviewed at Time 2, The Present Study approximately 20 years later (M = 19.03 years, SD = .32, This project is part of a longitudinal study of memory range = 18 to 20), about their memories of the exami- in children exposed to violence. In 1994 (Time I), nation involving genital contact. Participants included because of suspicions of child maltreatment, authorities non-Hispanic Whites (13.3%), African Americans (80%), removed participants from their homes and placed and Latinos/as (6.7%). For analyses, ethnicity was coded them in a forensic hospital unit for evaluation (not for as African American = 1 and non-African American = illness), where participants experienced an anogenital 0 (M = .80, SD = .41). As adults, participants also tended exam by a physician as part of a 5-day child-maltreatment to be single (67%) and of low socioeconomic status investigation. As the anogenital exam was part of the (57% reported making less than $20,000 per year). Half standardized forensic medical procedure for the hospi- of the Time 2 participants (n = 15) were interviewed tal unit, virtually all children received such an exam, (with open-ended, specific, and misleading questions) and it followed a set format, including the doctor about the anogenital exam at Time 1, whereas the other administering both visual and manual inspection and half had not been interviewed about the exam at Time penetration of the genital and rectal areas to enable 1 (see Eisen, Qin, Goodman, & Davis, 2002, for details). swabbing for venereal disease. Researchers were pres- A central hypothesis of the present study concerned ent during the anogenital exam and documented what memory in adults with Time 1 histories of child sexual occurred, including all genital and anal contact. abuse compared to those with no Time 1 history of that 3534-013 Page 3 of 16 EFIA_00010282 EFTA00159930 4 Goldfarb et at type of maltreatment. Thus, children classified as child phone, email, and/or letter) to participants, inviting sexual abuse victims were those whose Under the Rain- them to take part in the research. bow (UTR) cases were determined to be "indicated" for Once participants were reached, trained female child sexual abuse by the Department of Child and researchers "blind" to Time 1 measures, including to Family Services (DCFS) after extensive investigations memory performance and maltreatment history, con- by local law enforcement, child-welfare authorities, and firmed participants' identity (i.e., name, birthdate, race, UTR specialized staff (i.e., medical, mental health, and gender, and city in which the participant grew up). social work professionals). DCFS records were also Participants were told that the study's purpose was to checked for past indicated sexual abuse. For the present interview children who had grown up in Chicago in research, if the child had an indicated case of sexual the 1990s. After consent was obtained and confidential- abuse at or prior to Time 1 (even if he or she had ity ensured, participants answered a series of demo- experienced ocher forms of maltreatment, such as graphic and background questions, which allowed for neglect, which was common, or physical abuse), the rapport building before the memory portion of the child was considered a sexual abuse victim = 19). If interview commenced. the child had no known sexual abuse case (current or For the memory interview, participants were cued to past at Time 1), the child was not considered a sexual the target event by our saying that we wanted to ask abuse victim (n = 11), although the child might have about the time they stayed at a hospital unit, the UTR suffered founded physical or psychological abuse or program, in the 1990s as a child or adolescent, and that neglect, or had no founded child abuse case (e.g., 4 "there were a lot of other children" there. Of note, neglect, 3 nonabused controls). As discussed below, participants were never informed of the purpose of Time 1 maltreatment status was unknown for 3 partici- their stay at the hospital, including that they were at pants. For the present study, child sexual abuse status the UTR as children as part of a forensic evaluation was coded as child sexual abuse history = 1 and no investigating maltreatment allegations. Participants such history = 0 (M = .70, SD = .47).' At Time 2, 5 par- were first asked a free-recall question concerning their ticipants reported having experienced sexual assault as general experience at the UTR program ("Please tell me an adult and 25 reported no such experiences. There everything you remember about being there"). They was no significant difference in Time 2 report of adult were then prompted to provide any additional informa- sexual assault between those who had experienced tion they could remember ("Is there anything else you child sexual abuse as of Time 1(19%) and those who remember about it? Even the smallest details are of had not (10%), Fisher's Exact Test, p = 0.285, ns. interest to us."). Time 2 participants Os = 30) were not significantly Participants were then asked to recall everything different from Time 1 participants who did not take part they could remember about the medical exam at the in the Time 2 interview (n = 183) in terms of age, gen- UTR, the one where "small white patches Jelectrode der, ethnicity, and memory accuracy at Time 1 for either patches) and wires were placed on your chest to mea- the exam generally or the genital contact specifically, sure your heart beat." Note that for this part of the Time ts(15-30) < 11.871. The Time 2 sample, however, con- 2 interview, like the initial free-recall question, no cues tained more child sexual abuse victims than the original were given to inform participants that they had received sample, t(27) > 13.311, p = .001. The sample size was an anogenital exam. Two free-recall questions were based on prior research, including effect sizes, on long- asked: "Please tell me everything you remember about term memory for emotional events (Peterson, 2015; the doctor examination in as much detail as passible" Talarico & Rubin, 2003). and "Is there anything else you remember about it?" One open-ended question (e.g., "What parts of your body did the doctor examiner) and 25 closed-ended Measures and procedure questions about the examination followed. Closed- The longitudinal study was approved by the university's ended questions consisted of 16 specific (e.g., "Did the institutional review board and carried out in accordance doctor have you bend over?") and nine misleading with the provisions of the World Medical Association questions that presumed false information (e.g., "When Declaration of Helsinki. At Time 1, consent for follow- the doctor gave you the shot/inoculation, was it in your up had been obtained. At Time 2, researchers located upper arm, upper thigh, or in your buttocks?" though the participants' current physical or postal address, participants did not receive an inoculation) designed email address, and/or phone number by extensively to assess memory accuracy and suggestibility, respec- searching available databases, including Google, tively. Inaccurate responses for nine of the specific and LexisNexis, and TLO, and social network sites, such as seven of the misleading questions were commission Facehook and MySpace. Contacts were made (via errors (e.g., choosing an option when asked, "Did the 3534-013 Page 4 of 16 EFIA_00010283 EFTA00159931 Remembering Genital Touch 5 nurse wash off your whole body at the start of that All participants were debriefed at the end of the medical exam or was it during it?" when in fact the interview (e.g., told that it was normal not to remember children's bodies were not washed then), and inaccu- everything from the UTR, asked how they were doing). rate responses for seven of the specific and two of the As many participants did not remember portions of the misleading questions were omission errors (e.g., agree- event in question or the UTR at all, special attention ment to "I know it is hard to remember back all that was paid to assure the participants that some questions time, but there wasn't a chair in the room, was there?" might not have applied to them and that we asked the when in fact there always was a chair in the exam same questions regardless of an individual's specific room). As both commission and omission errors to experience. At debriefing, participants were given infor- misleading questions index suggestibility, they were mation on support hotlines they could contact. combined as incorrect responses. A subset of the After completion of the interviews, research assis- closed-ended questions (n = 7) asked about forensically tants (RAs) blind to hypotheses transcribed and de- relevant details that might well he related to an inves- identified the interviews (removing any identifying tigation of inappropriate or abusive behavior on the information not relevant to the accuracy of the medical part of the doctor or nurse (e.g. "Did the doctor take examination). Of central interest was memory for the your clothes off at the start of the exam?" when, in fact, documented genital contact (i.e., vaginal or penile the doctor did not). touch). Interview responses across free-recall, open- Two of these seven forensically relevant questions ended, and closed-ended questions were coded on a concerned memory of the genital contact that actually checklist for report of genital contact, false denial of did occur during the anogenital exam ("Did the doctor genital contact (omission errors), and "don't examine your genitals fprivate pans) during that exami- know"/"don't remember" responses. Participants' nation?"; if participants responded "yes," they were answers to the Time 2 specific questions were scored asked, "Did the doctor examine both your genital and as proportion correct, commission errors, omission rectal areas or just the genital area?" as a follow-up); errors, and 'don't know"/'don't remember" replies. this permitted us to examine omission errors of acts Responses to Time 2 misleading questions were coded that were potentially chargeable legally. Two of the as proportion correct, incorrect, and "don't know"/'don't seven abuse-related questions concerned acts that did remember" responses. To analyze the accuracy of par- not occur and that (as with genital touch) could also, ticipants' overall reporting, including monitoring of on their own, potentially lead to legal charges ("Did their lack of report, particularly after such a long delay, the doctor or nurse hit you during that medical exam?" a genital report variable was created to capture not only "At the end, did the doctor kiss you?"). This allowed us participants' rates of correct and incorrect responding to examine potentially chargeable commission errors. but also their "don't know" responses (-1 = incorrect At the end, participants were asked one final question recall, 0 = don't know, 1 = correct recall). ("Do you remember anything else about your doctor exam that day?"). Questions were roughly balanced for correct yes and no answers. Results Participants also completed a battery of psychopa- Descriptive and correlational analyses thology measures (all with strong psychometric proper- ties and appropriate for age and race/ethnicity). Of note Information on key variables is presented in Tables 1 here, at Time 2 they completed the 40-item Trauma and 2. For the variable indexing discussion of the hos- Symptom Checklist (TSC; Elliot & Briere, 1992) and the pital visit, mean imputation replaced missing data for 49-item Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS; Foa, 4 people. All significant effects are reported. Cashman, Jaycox, & Perry, 1997). For our sample, rel- evant means and standard deviations on these measures Report of genital contact. As can be seen in Table 1, were: TSC total score, M = 23.92, SD = 14.08; TSC across the entire Time 2 memory interview (collapsing depression, M = 6.17, SD = 3.91; PTSD avoidance, At = across free-recall, open-ended, and closed-ended ques- .70, SD = .67; and PTSD arousal, M = .82, SD = .83. To tions), a slight majority of the participants (57%) failed to assess how frequently participants had discussed their report the documented genital touch (e.g., said they did memory of the UTR program, Time 2 participants were not remember what parts of their bodies were exam- also asked, "How frequently have you discussed your ined), including 2 participants who denied that such stay at Mt. Sinai Hospital with others?" Participants touch had occurred (e.g., said the doctor examined their responded using a 5-point scale (1 = never, 6 = very upper bodies but not their private areas). However, 13 frequently), = 1.58, SD = .88.2 (43%) of the participants correctly reported it. For the 3534-013 Page 5 of 16 EFIA_00010284 EFTA00159932 6 Goldfarb el al. Table 1. Percent of Adults Who at Timc 2 Reported Timc 1 Genital Contact, Denied Genital Contact, or Said "Don't Know," Analyzed by Time 1 Age Group and Gender Agc gmup at Time 1 Gender AJ 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Mak Female Type of genital contact report' (n=7) = 15) (n=8) = 10) (n= 20) (N=30) Reported genital contact 28.6% 40.0% 62.5% 20.0% 55.0% 43.3% Incorrect denial of genital contact 14.3% 6.7% 0% 20.0% 0% 6.7% -Don't know" across all question types 57.1% 53.5% 37.5% 60.0% 45.0% 50.0% 'Collapsed across free-recall, open.ended, and elosed-ended questions. subset of respondents who were asked specifically about Time 2, r = .40, p = .027. No participant who was over the anal touch (n = 11), omission errors were more frequent age of II when the genital touch occurred falsely denied for anal (55%) compared with vaginaVpenile (7%) con- it. Of those who remembered Time 1 genital contact, 1 tact, 1(10) = —3.46,p = .006. adult was only 4 years old (53 months) at the time. Four additional participants were of this age at Time 1, 3 of Lost memory. Five out of 30 (17%) participants did not whotn said "don't know' at Time 2 and 1 of whom incor- remember, or at least did not disclose, being at the UTR rectly denied genital touch had occurred. None of the 30 hospital unit at all (i.e., evincing a "lost memory"). For panic-4)3ms wa.s younger than 4 years old at Time 1.3 the overall sample, having a lost memory of the UTR was not significantly correlated with age (r = —.05; p = .808) Correlations controllingfor child age. Partial correla- but was significantly correlated with gender, even with tions, statistically controlling for Time 1 age, assessed age partialed (r = —.44, p = .016): Males (40%) were more whether other potential theorized predictors (e.g., gender, likely than females (5%) to express having no knowledge depression, PTSD symptoms) related to long-term mem- of ever being at the UTR program. Not recalling the UTR ory of the anogenital examination (Table 3). Consistent was also significantly related to higher total TSC scores, with the lost-memory findings, males (vs. females) were r = —.37, p = .048 (with age partialed; with gender par- significantly less likely to report genital contact and more tialed, r = .28, us). likely to omit information. Males also had lower shop-term memory (STM) scores at Time 1, but Time 1 STM (Al = Child age. Being older at Time 1 was associated with a 43.87, SD = 7.47) was not significantly correlated with greater likelihood of accurately reporting genital contact at memory performance. The Titne 1 memory-interview Table 2. Proportion of Correct, Incorrect, and "Don't Know" Responses to the Time 2 Memory Closed-Ended Questions About the Anogcnital Examination Agc group at Time 1 Gender Al 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Male Female Question type (n=7) (n= 15) (n = 8) (n= 10) (n = 20) (N=30) Specific questions Correct .17 (.20) .34 (.29) .33 (.30) .22 (.23) .33 (30) .30 (.28) Commission .05 (.08) .05 (.05) .06 (.07) .05 (.07) .06 (.06) .05 (.06) Omission .04 (.09) .03 (.08) .03 (.05) .08 (.11) .02 (.03) .04 (.07) 'Don't know' .73 (.37) .58 (.36) .58 (.39) .65 (.39) .60 (.36) .61 (.36) Misleading questions Correct .15 (.28) .17 (.19) .12 (.13) .14 (.24) .16 (.17) .16 (.20) Incorrect .23 (.22) .17 (.20) .24 (.28) .23 (.24) .19 (.22) .20 (.22) 'Don't know' .62 (.37) .65 (.34) .64 (.36) .63 (.40) .65 (.32) .64 (.34) Note: Means are accompanied by standand deviations in parentheses. misleading questions incorrect = commission + omission errors. 3534-013 Page 6 of 16 EFIA_00010285 EFTA00159933 Table 3. Partial Correlations of Key Variables Controlling for Participant Age at Time I Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 I" 10 I. Gender 1.00 2. Ethnicity 0.09 1.00 3. Time I STM 0.4r -cum 1.00 4. Time I Memory Interview 0.21 0.08 —0.04 1.00 5. CSA status" 0.09 0.10 0.15 —0.04 1.00 6. Time 2 Genital Contact Report 0.38' 0.05 0.001 0.05 0.48* 1.00 7. Time 2 Npo. tic Correct" 0.14 0.09 0.32 0.13 0.27 0.25 1.00 8. Time 2 Npo. tic Comm,' 0.04 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.23 0.38o 0.70" 1.00 9. Time 2 NI.. tic Omissions -O.3T 0.15 -0.15 0.19 -0.28 -0.13 0.4P 0.52" 1.0D 10. Time 2 specific DK4 —0.03 —0.15 —0.25 -0.16 -0.19 -0.23 -0.96" -0.8P• -0.61" 1.00 It, how 2 MI. Conrecri 0.06 0.15 0.10 -0.001 0.21 0.33 0.72" 0.59* 0.40* -0.73" 1.00 12. Time 2 MI. Incorrect -0.10 0.20 0.13 0.03 0.05 -0.02 0.62" 0.71" 0.46" -0.69" 0.34 1.00 13. Time 2 ML l)K 0.03 —0.22 —0.14 -0.02 -0.16 -0.17 -0.82" -0.79" -0.52" 0.87" -0.79" -.84" 1.00 14. Time 2 Total TSC 0.29 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.32 0.11 0.34 0.09 -0.11 -0.25 0.09 0.03 -0.07 1.00 15. TSC-Depression 0.17 0.10 0.07 -0.01 0.27 0.17 0.500 0.22 -0.13 -0.39. 0.26 0.26 -0.32 0.79" 1.0D 16. PTSD Avoid Severity -0.04 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.6r 0.09 0.13 0.26 -0.14 -0.12 0.07 0.12 -0.12 0.39 0.31 1.00 17. PTSD Arousal Severity 0.21 -0.19 -0.03 0.09 0.62" 0.26 0.08 0.02 -0.25 -0.01 -0.08 -0.13 0.14 0.73" 0.44o 0.64" 1.00 18. Discussing Hospital VLsitf 0.21 —0.09 0.15 -0.06 0.13 0.27 0.360 0.25 -0.14 0.29 0.31 0.27 —0.35 0.16 0.30 —0.12 —0.09 1.00 Nitre: N.30. except child sexual abuse (CSA) status, AN'. 27, and PTSD variables, N= 25. 5Th = short-teem memory; Comm = commission; DK = 'Don't Know"; ML = misleading. = male, I = female. = non-African American, I = African AMC/ILIA. s0 = not CSA, I = CSA. 'CI inconett recall of genital contact, 0 = don', know, I = correct recall of genital contact. `Tune 2 memory variables are all proportion scores (dosed-ended queitions). (Imputed values. 71, < .05. "p < .01. EFTA00159934 8 Goldfarb et al. Table 4. Age, Gender, Time 2 Depression, and Time 1 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Status Predicting Time 2 Memory for the Anogenital Exam Genital contact correct Proportion specific correct Proportion specific omission Model b SE p b SE I r b SE p Model 1 Age .06 .03 .33 1.781 .02 .02 .28 1.40 <.001 .004 .02 0.09 Gender .33 .24 .25 1.36 .03 .13 .04 0.21 -.08 .03 -.48 -2.60• R2 = .20 R2 = .08 R2 = .22 g2, 24) = 3.081 1(2, 24) = 1.09 FT2, 24) = 3.46• Model 2 Depression .01 .03 .08 0.40 .04 .01 .52 2.92" -.001 .004 -.07 -0.36 AR' = .006 Are = .25 AR2 = .004 1(3, 23) = 2.03 1(3,23) = 3.80* ki3, 23) = 2.26 Model 3 CSA .59 .25 .47 2.38' .09 .12 .15 .72 .04 -.27 -1.27 AR! = .16 AR/ = .02 AR2 = .05 114, 22) = 3.26• 1(4, 22) = 2.92° 1(4, 22) = 2.15 Now: Depression = '1SC depression suhscale score; GSA: 0 = not CSA, t = GSA; Genital contact collect: -1 = incorrect recall of genital contact, 0 = dont know, t = collect recall of genital contact, a = 27. 1p<.10. sp < .05. "p < .01. variable (i.e., having had a Time 1 memory interview) was in each of the sets of regressions, unless indicated oth- not significantly related to gender, ethnicity/race, or Time erwise, Time 1 age and gender were tested in the first 2 memory performance. model, depression was added in the second model, and Regarding psychopathology, total TSC scores were child sexual abuse status was added in the third model not significantly correlated with the memory variables (Table 4).. shown in Table 3. Contrary to our predictions, Time 2 depression was not significantly related to report of Genital contact. In the regression analyses of genital genital contact, but consistent with prediction, greater contact memory, the first model was not significant, p = depression was significantly correlated with greater .065, although there was a trend for those who were memory accuracy as assessed by specific questions older at Tame 1 to be more likely in adulthood to remem- (correct and "don't know" responses). The PTSD avoid- ber the childhood genital contact (p = .088), as would he ance and anxiety scores were not significantly associ- expected. Gender was not a significant predictor. When ated with memory performance and were not unique depression was added, the model was also not signifi- predictors in preliminary regression analyses; thus, they cant. However, in the final model, with child sexual abuse were maintained for control purposes only, as needed. status included, the model was significant: Having been a Having engaged in more discussion of the hospital visit child victim of sexual abuse at Time 1 was a significant was associated with increases in the proportion of cor- predictor in adulthood of accurately reporting of child- rect answers to specific questions at Time 2. Because hood genital touch experienced during the UTR medical ethnicity, STM, total TSC score, and experience of a exam. Time 1 memory interview were not significant predic- Because frequency of discussion about the hospital tors of memory in correlational and preliminary regres- visit was expected to affect memory, we conducted the sion analyses, they are not considered further. regression analysis above but with the hospital-visit discussion (imputed) variable added in the third model, Unique predictors of memory nearly and then with child sexual abuse status added in the last model. The model for frequency of discussion was 20 years later not significant, R2 = .32, F(4, 22) = 2.58, p = .065, R=A = The regression models discussed below tested the .11. However, the model that included child sexual unique predictors of long-term memory of the medical abuse status was significant, R2 = .467, F(5, 21) = 3.66, examination. The first set of analyses concerned mem- p = .016, R2A = .15; child sexual abuse remained a sig- ory of genital contact. The second set concerned the nificant predictor of adulthood memory of childhood adults' accuracy in response to closed-ended questions genital contact even after controlling for frequency of about the anogenital examination generally. Throughout, discussions: child sexual abuse status, b= .56, SE= .23, 3534-013 Page 8 of 16 EFIA_00010287 EFTA00159935 Remembering Genital Touch 9 13 = .45, 1(21) = 2.39, p = .026. In two sets of regressions, contact that actually occurred (Skeem, Douglas, & when the PTSD variables were separately entered in Lilienfeld, 2009). There is a pressing clinical, societal, second models followed by entering depression in the and scientific need to know whether individuals who third models, the second models were not significant, have experienced childhood trauma can accurately ps 2 .078, but in the third models, child sexual abuse remember genital contact decades later and to identify status remained a significant predictor, bs 2 .72, SEs 2 factors that promote accurate reporting of childhood .32, ps 2 is 2 2.24, ps 5 .038 (ns = 22). events (e.g., Goodman, Goldfarb, Quas, & Lyon, 2017). A main goal of this study was to examine the accu- Closed-ended questions. We were also interested in racy of adults' long-term memory, after a nearly 20-year unique predictors of Time 2 accuracy in answering spe- delay, for genital contact and related events experi- cific and misleading questions about the anogenital enced in childhood. Almost half of the adults (43%) examination. For proportion of correct responses to spe- correctly disclosed genital touch that occurred during cific questions, Model 1 was not significant (Table 4). a childhood medical exam. Most participants (93%) However, when depression was added, the model was either accurately reported the touch or stated that they significant, and depression predicted greater memory did not know if the touch occurred; only 2 participants accuracy. When child sexual abuse status was added, the incorrectly denied the genital touch (7%). Whereas most model was also significant, but child sexual abuse status participants utilized a conservative response strategy was not a significant unique predictor. (e.g., saying "don't know") in answering closed-ended We also conducted the regression above but with questions regarding the exam, some participants the discussion variable added in a second model, with revealed suggestibility, mainly as a tendency to falsely depression added in the third model, and child sexual report schema-consistent information. Although genital abuse status added in the last model. The second touch during medical exams is not at issue in most child model, R1 = .18, g3, 23) = 1.65, p = .205, E2A = .09, sexual abuse cases, it is the alleged crime in some his- p = .118, and the frequency of discussion (imputed) toric prosecutions (e.g., People of the State ofMichigan variable, b = .10, SE = .06, 14 = .32, t(23) = 1.62, p = .118, v. Lawrence Gerard Nassar, 2018; State of California v. were not significant. In contrast, the model that included William Ayers, 2013). Such touch also serves as an ana- depression was still significant, R2 = .36, F(4, 22) = 3.08, logue to child sexual abuse that can he scientifically p = .037, R2E, = .18, and depression remained a signifi- studied to examine memory. cant predictor of memory accuracy in answering spe- cific questions, b = .03, SE = .01, p = .47, 1(22) = 2.50, Predictors of long-term memory of p = .021. Similarly, when the PTSD variables were significant childhood events entered in second models followed by entering depres- sion in the third models, the models with the PTSD vari- Child age. The 30 individuals tested ranged widely in ables were not significant, p > .576, but in the third age (4 to 17 years) at Time 1. Across this age range, one model, depression remained a significant predictor, bs 2 would expect older compared to younger children to .04, SEs 2 .015, Bs 2 .54, ts 2 2.64, ps 5 .017, (ns = 25). better remember the forensic experience (Peterson, For proportion of specific omission errors, age and 2015), and for this age pattern to carry over into adult- gender were again entered in the first model, which hood. In the present study, correlational analyses indi- was significant. Although age was not a significant pre- cated the expected age effect, with adults who were dictor, gender significantly predicted more omission older at Time 1 being more likely than adults who were errors. The other models and predictors for proportion younger at Time 1 to remember the genital touch, of specific omission errors were not significant. There although the finding was not quite significant in regres- were no other significant models for specific questions sion analyses when gender was also considered. In this (proportion of commission and "don't know" responses). regard, it is relevant that even 1 of the youngest partici- Furthermore, there were no significant models for pro- pants (53 months old at the time of the exam) recalled portion of misleading questions (proportion of correct, the genital contact. As noted by Peterson (2015), this incorrect, and "don't know" responses). long-term accurate memory of information encoded around or shortly after the time of infantile amnesia is particularly of note became even though many adults Discussion cannot remember events from this early period of devel- Controversies about memory accuracy in historic child opment, some individuals who were quite young at the sexual abuse cases challenge clinical and cognitive time of encoding are able to remember an emotional researchers to examine, and theorists to explain, the event decades later (McDermott Sales et al., 2005; Usher accuracy or inaccuracy of reports of childhood genital & Neisser, 1993). For some adults, accurate recollections 3534-013 Page 9 of 16 EFIA_00010288 EFTA00159936 10 Goldfarb et al. of events experienced at an early age can include mem- Gender. When interviewed about emotional childhood ory of genital contact. events, adult males tend to remember less than do adult females (Davis, 1999), including about child sexual abuse Child sexual abuse. Consistent with Eisen et al.'s (Widom & Morris, 1997). In the present study, compared (2007) results, child sexual abuse status at Time 1 pre- with females, males were more likely to exhibit "last dicted accurate reporting of genital touch. It is passible memory" for being at the UTR, were less likely to report that the anogenital part of the exam was particularly rel- genital contact (correlational analyses), and were more evant or salient for these children or that they were sen- likely to make omission errors in answering specific sitized to such contact (Goodman, Rudy, Bottoms, & questions (regressions). Furthermore, the 2 individuals Aman, 1990). For example, for participants with a child who denied that they experienced genital touch were sexual abuse history, the forensic medical exam (i.e., as both males. The anogenital exam differed slightly for part of a maltreatment investigation) likely had additional males and females, but both genders experienced swab- importance in determining if they would he placed in bing of their genital and anal areas, as well as visual and faster care or returned home. Moreover, if at Time 1 the manual inspection. In adulthood, males may find it emo- children falsely denied that sexual assault occurred when tionally difficult to discuss experiences relevant to child- it actually had taken place, they might have feared that hood victimization or may have avoided thinking about the medical exam would reveal the truth, making the emotional childhood memories generally. exam stand out in memory (Lyon, 1995). Furthermore, compared to the other adults interviewed, those with Time 1 memory interview and IITR child sexual abuse histories, even in childhood may have had a richer semantic knowledge base regarding discussion genital contact within which to encode the exam (Howe, In this study, the Time 1 interview, which included 2011), and this may have aided accurate reporting or specific and misleading questions, did not taint memory inference (rather than stating "don't know") 20 years reports after an almost 20-year delay. The questions later. asked at Time 1 varied considerably as to the format of Like Eisen et al. (2007), Katz et al. (1995) found that the questions, and they covered a wide range of infor- children in maltreatment evaluations show particularly mation about the anogenital exam, concerning fairly robust memories of genital touch if the investigations innocuous information (e.g., "Was there a sink in the were for sexual abuse. Of importance, particularly to room?" which there was) to misleading but not abuse- historic child sexual abuse cases, the present study adds related questions (e.g., "When you went to the doctor's that such findings hold even after delays of 20 years, room, there was a little boy from the playroom with regardless of whether or not an earlier memory inter- you, wasn't there?" when in fact there was not), to view was administered. highly inappropriate legally chargeable acts (e.g., "Did the doctor or nurse hit you?" "How many times did the Psychopathology. One goal of this study was to deter- doctor kiss your "Did the doctor take her/his clothes mine whether individual differences in trauma-related off?" none of which the doctor or nurse did). Yet accu- psychopathology predicted memory accuracy or error. racy did not significantly differ between those partici- Although PTSD symptoms were not significantly related pants who had a Time 1 interview and those who did to memory performance, participants who were more not, and the correlations with Time 2 inaccuracy (e.g., depressed at Time 2 more accurately answered specific commission errors) were low. Overall, as far as we questions about the anogenital exam. Because depressed could detect with a relatively small sample, there was individuals ruminate on past negative incidents (Hertel & no apparent memory-malleability effect in relation to El-Messidi, 2006), their memory of distressing childhood the content of the Time 1 questions intruding into the experiences may he better preserved than that of indi- adults' long-term memory reports. viduals who are less depressed. Although this study did The results provide insight into whether prior inter- not directly address rumination or the "chicken-and-egg" views in childhood predict long-term memory of emo- question of whether memory for negative events drives tional experiences (Ornstein et al., 2006; Peterson, depression or, alternatively, depressed individuals focus 2015; Peterson et al., 2005). In line with Ornstein et al.'s on negative life experiences (Everaert, Bronstein, Cannon, (2006) and Peterson's (2015) results, we found that & Joormann, 2018), the present research indicates that having a prior interview did not adversely or positively depression is associated with comparatively accurate affect the overall accuracy of later memory. Similarly, memory of negative childhood occurrences endured discussion of the UTR experience with others, which almost 20 years earlier. could be a source of rehearsal of accurate or inaccurate 3534-013 Page 10 of 16 EFIA_00010289 EFTA00159937 Remembering Genital Touch 11 information, generally did not significantly predict specific question, 'Did the doctor take your clothes off memory accuracy, as indicated with regression, although at the start of the examr (which the doctor did not do), having engaged in more discussion of the hospital visit 7 of 30 (23%) individuals gave affirmative responses. was associated with increases in the proportion of cor- And in response to the Time 2 misleading question, rect answers at Time 2 to specific questions, as revealed "Why did the doctor take a picture of you?" (when in in correlational analyses. It should be noted, however, fact the doctor had not taken a picture of them at Time that discussion of the UTR experience was self-reported 1), 3 of 30 (10%) participants erred. Thus, when asked as occurring infrequently, perhaps because the child in a specific or misleading manner at Time 2, closed- maltreatment investigation was often considered a ended questions about plausible acts led to a certain shameful or unpleasant part of childhood. percentage of commission errors, including for some of the script-consistent, abuse-related questions (e.g., "Did the doctor have you bend overt to which 4 of 30 Memory and suggestibility f13%) agreed, when in fact the doctor did not). Still, We examined memory and suggestibility for true infor- participants' Time 2 error rates were relatively low over- mation that was documented during the medical exam all, especially for specific questions. and for information that was false. The robustness of The participants revealed similar patterns of suggest- memory for what actually occurred may vary depending ibility at Time 1 (Eisen et al., 2002). Then, the children, on the consequentiality, salience, and taboo nature of particularly the young ones, were suggestible about the act (Goodman et al., 1990). For example, to the low-inappropriate abuse-related acts hut, as seen here extent that anal touch is more taboo than genital touch, again at Time 2, were resistant to error for highly inap- it is of interest that participants who recalled experienc- propriate acts. As these low-inappropriate abuse acts ing genital contact underreported anal contact when were quite plausible (i.e., schema typical) for an exami- asked about it directly. Although differences in disclo- nation (e.g., many doctors do bend participants over sure of overall genital compared to anal touch may have to check for scoliosis), participants may be relying on arisen from children's failure to encode the anal touch a medical exam schema as the basis for their recollec- at Time 1, an alternative possibility is that individuals tions. This interpretation is bolstered by the finding that may be more reluctant to disclose a rectal than a genital no participants incorrectly recalled nonschematic highly exam because of societal and socioemotional factors inappropriate abuse-related actions. (e.g., embarrassment; Saywitz, Goodman, Nichols, & Participants' false reporting of schema-typical infor- Moan, 1991). mation may call into question whether the participants For abuse-related events that did not occur, no par- who disclosed genital touch were also relying on a ticipant falsely reported that either the doctor or nurse medical-exam schema. However, anogenital exams are committed a highly inappropriate abuse-related act not schema-typical for most hospital visits, in contrast (i.e., hitting or kissing the participant). At Time 2, most with annual checkups for older children. Moreover, this participants (57%) correctly denied having been hit or explanation is undercut by the fact that many partici- kissed by the doctor or nurse, and no participant made pants who recalled the genital touch did so in free a commission error to these two questions. Instead, the recall when no mention of a forensic exam or a child- remaining 43% of participants stated that they did not abuse investigation had been made and no question know whether these events had occurred. The individu- about it had been posed. Note also that 8 participants als who indicated they did not know if they had been who were age 10 or younger at Time 1, for whom an hit or kissed by the doctor or nurse may have been able anogenital exam is not schema-typical, reported the to use metacognitive strategies to monitor the absence genital contact. Furthermore, when asked about child- of their memories (Koriat et al., 2000). Note that no hood medical exams, children often do not disclose commission errors were made to these two questions, genital or anal touch in free recall, even after much even though the acts had been falsely suggested to half shorter delays, without additional prompting (e.g., Say- of the adults when they were children at Time 1. Thus, witz et al., 1991). as far as we could detect, there was no Time 1 carryover Thus, although the Time 1 misinformation did not effect on Time 2 memory for the highly inappropriate result in distortion of later memory, Time 2 misinforma- acts over the almost 20-year delay. tion was associated with error. This pattern is consistent Despite participants correctly denying the criminally with a source-monitoring notion that memory-trace chargeable acts of being hit or kissed, some participants strength comparison (comparing memory traces of the falsely affirmed other abuse-related information at Time Time 1 actual event to memory traces of the misinfor- 2, including in response to both specific and misleading mation) is predictive of memory distortion. When mis- questions. For instance, in response to the Time 2 information fades over 20 years, its distorting effect on 3534-013 Page 11 of 16 EFTA_00010290 EFTA00159938 12 Goldfarb et al. report accuracy may fade, too. But when misinforma- then there was no criminal investigation (nor the cor- tion is presented at Time 2 and memory traces for a responding effect an investigation has on one's life) of long-ago event are relatively weak, as likely occurred the genital touch by the physician. An actual legal at Time 2, misinformation can reveal its distorting effect investigation of acts by the physician might have pro- on accuracy. vided both richer recall and increased event saliency However, at Time 2, although participants revealed (La Rooy, Katz, Malloy, & Lamb, 2010). That said, a suggestibility in response to misleading questions, they forensic medical examination conducted with children were generally resistant to commission errors and removed from their homes during an ongoing legal responded conservatively (with "I don't know"). Time investigation of their caretakers (and other known indi- thus seems to lead to some suggestibility for misleading viduals) may be emotionally difficult and more conse- questions hut, overall, to conservative reporting in quential than an ordinary genital examination, and adulthood. therefore quite memorable. Responding conservatively almost 20 years later is For creating a memory-malleability effect, multiple surprising, because no participant reported "don't interviews in adulthood might he needed to activate know" to the genital touch question when asked as past suggestions in memory and then to confuse them children at Time 1. At first glance, reporting not know- with actual experience, leading to source monitoring ing might be expected, as the intervening time delay errors (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). It may would likely result in significant forgetting (Hirst et al., also be that individuals would be more suggestible 2015). Indeed, approximately 17% of the participants when incorrect information is conveyed by an authority did not recall being at the hospital at all. A "don't know" figure (e.g., police officer) or a perceived expert (e.g., response may indicate that participants' memory has therapist or another physician), or is supported by gen- degraded so much that the event is no longer accessible eral consensus (e.g., Web sites or social media). More- or, alternatively, may indicate an inability or unwilling- over, although there was no significant relation between ness to retrieve the memory at the time of the interview our two Time 1 memory-interview groups in age, gender, (Wagenaar & Groeneweg, 1990). Thus, it may be that race/ethnicity, and so forth, random assignment to these participants accurately tracked whether or not groups rather than a quasi-experimental design is war- they correctly remembered (metacognition skill; Koriat ranted to examine effects of a Time 1 interview on Time et al., 2000) or that they were conservative responders 2 responses after a nearly 20-year delay. who needed additional rapport building, cues, or mem- We were precluded from investigating "false memory" ory reinstatement to retrieve and disclose the event for the anogenital exam because all of the participants (McNally, 2005). experienced one as part of the Time 1 child-maltreatment investigation. This also limited our ability to falsely implant a suggestion of having had such an examination at Time Caveats/constraints on generality 1. Future researchers should consider this important issue, Because of a small sample size, statistical power to taking into account vital ethical limitations. detect effects was limited in this study. In the future, the In addition to the caveats mentioned, boundary con- findings here could help inform clinicians' understand- ditions on the generality of the findings should be ing of the potential accuracies (and inaccuracies) in considered (Simons, Shoda, & Lindsay, 2017). The sam- clients' disclosure of traumatizing events that occurred ple here consisted largely of African Americans growing during childhood. However, especially given the reduced up in poverty, surrounded by community violence, in power present here, replication is needed before any a large United States city and who, because of suspi- such conclusions or recommendations can he made. cions of maltreatment, experienced in childhood a A forensic genital exam, although an analogue to forensic investigation that included a medical examina- sexual abuse, does not involve many of the psychologi- tion at a specialized hospital unit in the 1990s. Then, cal factors typical in child maltreatment cases. At Time 20 years later, they engaged in an unexpected memory 2, participants might have been more cautious in interview via phone by unknown researchers. Self- responding (e.g., to closed-ended questions) if a real reports of psychological symptoms (depression, PTSD) police investigation was ongoing; or alternatively, they were elicited. Cultural, cohort, situational, and/or meth- might have been less cautious if highly inappropriate odological factors could affect the generalizahility of interview techniques (such as coercion or overly the findings. Aside from caveats and boundary condi- lengthy interviews) were utilized. Although the Time 1 tions, we have no reason to believe that the results genital touch did indeed take place in the context of depend on other characteristics of the participants, an ongoing child protective services investigation, even materials, or context. 3534-013 Page 12 of 16 EFIA_00010291 EFTA00159939 Remembering Genital Touch 13 Summary and Conclusion or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the A noteworthy proportion of individuals who experi- National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, enced documented genital touch as children accurately or other funding agencies. recalled it almost 20 years later. Furthermore, adults who experienced child sexual abuse were more likely Declaration of Conflicting Interests to report the genital touch, regardless of gender. Some participants were suggestible and incorrectly stated that The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest the doctor or nurse engaged in abuse-related acts (e.g., with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article. the doctor taking the child's clothes off at the start of the exam). All of these acts were, arguably, schema- typical plausible acts that are not highly inappropriate Funding for a medical examination. No participants falsely The Time 1 study was funded by the National Center on Child reported legally chargeable maltreatment that was sug- Abuse and Neglect (Administration on Children and Families). gested, sometimes in a misleading manner, in a prior The Time 2 research was supported by Grant 1424420 from interview that took place in childhood. the National Science Foundation, Grant 2013-WCX-0104 from Our findings imply that theories of long-term mem- the National Institute of Justice, and the VC Davis Center for ory of distressing events must consider the relation of Poverty Research. the event to one's life course (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Frankenhuis & Weenh, 2013); the emotional or taboo Notes nature of the acts (Christianson, 1992; Goodman et al., I. For the Time 1 study, the 27 children with known child mal- 1990); meta-cognitive abilities (Koriat et al., 2000), treatment histories fell into the following maltreatment catego- especially in relation to schema-expected, plausible acts ries: sexual and/or physical abuse (66.6%), neglect (13.3%), or (Pezdek et al., 1997); and trauma-related psychopathol- no known maltreatment (10%) (Eisen ct al., 2002). ogy, such as depression (Goodman et al., 2017). This 2. For further information about the questions asked, contact study offers data to guide such theories, as well as the second author. insights into whether adults can accurately remember 3. Age and gender were not significantly associated, r = .21, lIS, but age and child sexual abuse status were significantly related, abuse-related acts visited upon them in childhood, r = -.42, p = .028. Participants who had a Time 1 memory inter- thereby potentially affecting evaluation of their memo- view did not significantly differ in age from those who did not ries within therapeutic and legal contexts in historical have a Time 1 memory interview, at either Time I,1(28) = 1.39, child sexual abuse cases. p= 0.176, or lime 2, 1(28) = 1.37,p = 0.183. 4. Skew and kurtosis were acceptable for all variables entered Action Editor into regression analyses (between —2 and + 2) except for specific question omission errors (skew = 2.76) and frequency of dis- Scott O. Lilienfeld served as action editor for this article. cussion (kurtosis = 2.32). All regression analyses that included these variables and produced significant findings were rerun Author Contributions with appropriate transformations (i.e., omission errors by log10 D. Goldfarb, G. S. Goodman, and M. L. Eisen developed the and frequency of discussion by square root), and the findings Time 2 study concept. I). Goldfarb and G. S. Goodman remained virtually unchanged. Specifically, child sexual abuse devised the Timc 2 study design. Time 2 testing and data status remained a significant unique predictor of report of geni- collection were performed by D. Goldfarb, R. P. Larson, and tal contact, b = .55, SE = .24, fl = .44, p = .030, and depres- G. S. Goodman, who were joined by J. Qin in advising on data sion remained a significant predictor of proportion of correct coding and analysis. All authors were involved in the interpre- answers to specific questions, b = .03, SE= .01, p = .45,p = .024. tation of the data. M. L. Eisen designed the Time I study and For proportion of specific omission errors, gender was still sig- collected the data, and G. S. Goodman and J. Qin performed nificant, with a log10 transformation of the dependent measure, data coding and analyses. D. Goldfarb, G. S. Goodman. and b = —.02,SE= .01, p = -.46,p = .021. Also relevant to the regres- R. P. Larson drafted the manuscript, and M. L. Eisen and ). Qin sions reported in the main text, abuse-status information was provided critical revisions. D. Goldfarb and G. S. Goodman missing from our lime I files for 3 participants. On the basis contributed equally to this work. All authors approved the final of lime 2 reports, two of the three missing data points were version of the manuscript for submission. filled in as Time 1 non-child-sexual-abuse cases. The regres- sions were conducted on the n = 29 sample, and the results were virtually identical to those for the n = 27 sample, with the Acknowledgments exception that the predicted effect of gender on omission errors We thank Brianna Piper, Rachel K. Narr, and Annie Kalomiris reached significance only with a one-tailed test, jS = -.38, p = for research assistance. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, .03; the beta remained substantial. 3534-013 Page 13 of 16 EFIA_00010292 EFTA00159940 14 Goldfarb et at References suggestibility, and psychopathology. Developmental Psy- chology, 43(6), 1275-1294. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1275 Alexander, K. W., Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Eisen, M. L., Qin, J., Goodman, G. S., & Davis, S. L. (2002). Edelstein, R. S., Redlich, A. D., ... Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Memory and suggestibility in maltreated children: Age, Traumatic impact predicts long-term memory for docu- stress arousal, dissociation, and psychopathology. mented child sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 16, Journalofaperimental ChildPsychology, 83(3), 167-212. 33-40. &A:10.1016/50022-0965(02)00126-1 Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, P. O., & Wittlinger, R. P. (1975). Fifty Elliot, D. M., & Briar, J. (1992). Sexual abuse trauma among years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional professional women: Validating the Trauma Symptom approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Checklist-40 (TSC-40). Child Abuse& Neglect, 16, 391-398. 104, 54-75. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104. 1.54 Everaen, J., Bronstein, M. V., Cannon, T. I)., & Joormann, J. Baker-Ward, L., Quinonez, R., Milano, M., Lee, S., Langley, (2018). Looking through tinted glasses: Depression and H., Brumley, B., & Ornstein, P. A. (2015). Predicting social anxiety are related to both interpretation biases and children's recall of a dental procedure: Contributions of inflexible negative interpretations. Clinical Psychological stress, preparation, and dental history. Applied Cognitive Science, 6(4), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2167702617747968 Psychology, 29(5), 775-781. doi:10.1002/acp.3152 Fivush, R., McDermott Sales, J., Goldberg, A., Bahrick, L., & Bauer, P., Stark, E. N., Ackil, J. K., Larkina, M., Merrill, N., Parker, J. (2004). Weathering the storm: Children's long- & Fivush, R. (2016). The recollective qualities of adoles- term recall of Hurricane Andrew. Memory, 12(1), 104-118. cents' and adults' narratives about a long-ago tornado. doi:10.1080/09658210244000397 Memoiy, 25(3), 412-424. doi:10.1080/09658211.2016.11 Foa, E., Cashman, L., Jaycox, L, & Perry, K. (1997). The valida- 80396 tion of a self-report measure of PTSD: The Posttraumatic Berntsen, D., & Rubin, I). C. (2006). When a trauma becomes Diagnostic Scale. Psychological Assessment, 9, 445-451. a key to identity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 417- Frankenhuis, W. E., & de Weerth, C. (2013). Does early-life 431. exposure to stress shape or impair cognition? Current Bottoms, B. L, Shaver, P. R., & Goodman, G. S. (1996). An Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 407-412. analysis of ritualistic and religion-related child abuse alle- Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Edelstein, R. S., gations. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 1-34. Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D., . . . Jones, D. P. H. Brown, J., Cohen, P., Johnson, J., & Smailes, E. (1999). (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual Childhood abuse and neglect: Specificity of effects on abuse: New findings relevant to the repressed-mem- adolescent and young adult depression and suicidality. ory controversy. Psychological Science, 14, 113-118. Child 6 Adolescent Psychlaig, 38, 1490-1496. cloi:10.1111/1467-9280.01428 Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A Goodman, G. S., Goldfarb, I)., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, A. (2017). scientific analysis ofchiklren's testimony. Washington, DC: Psychological counseling and accuracy of memory for American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10180- child sexual abuse. American Psychologist, 72, 920-931. 000 Goodman, G. S., Goldfarb, D., Quas, J. A., Narr, R., Milojevich, Christianson, S. A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness H., & Cordon, I. (2016). Memory development, emotion memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, regulation, and trauma-related psychopathology. In D. 284-309. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmentalpsychopathology (pp. 555- Connolly, I). A., Chong, K., Coburn, P. I., & Lutgens, I). 590). Ncw York, NY: Wiley. (2015). Factors associated with delays of days to decades Goodman, G. S., Rudy, L., Bottoms, B. L, & Aman, C. (1990). to criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Behavioral Children's concerns and memory. In R. Finish & J. A. Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 546-560. cloi:10.1002/bsl.2185 Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young chil- Connolly, S. L., & Alloy, L. B. (2018). Negative event recall dren (pp. 249-284). New York, NY: Cambridge University as a vulnerability for depression: Relationship between Press. momentary stress-reactive rumination and memory for Greenhoot, A. F., McCloskey, L., & Glisky, E. (2005). A longi- daily life stress. Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 32-47. tudinal study of adolescents' recollections of family vio- Conway, M. (2013). On being a memory expert witness: Three lence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 719-743. doi: cases. Aleatory, 21, 566-575. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013 10.1002/acp.1103 .794241 Hertel, P. T., & El-Messidi, L. (2006). Am I blue? Depressed Cordon, I. M., Pipe, M.-E., Sayfan, L., Melinder, A., & mood and the consequences of self-focus for the interpre- Goodman, G. S. (2004). Memory for traumatic experi- tation and recall of ambiguous words. Behavior Therapy, ences in early childhood. Developmental Review, 24(1), 37, 259-268. 101-132. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2003.09.003 Hirst, W., Phelps, E. A., Mcksin, R., Vaidya, C. J., Johnson, M. K., Davis, P. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical Mitchell, K. J., . .. Mather, M. (2015). A ten-year follow- memory for childhood emotional experiences. Journal up of a study of memory for the attack of September I1, ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 498-510. 2001: Flashbulb memories and memories for flashbulb Eisen, M. L., Goodman, G. S., Qin, J., Davis, S., & evems.Jounial ofapes-MentalPsychology: General, 144, Cranon, J. (2007). Maltreated children's memory: Accuracy, 604-623. doi:10.1037/xge0000055 3534-013 Page 14 of 16 EFIA_00010293 EFTA00159941 Remembering Genital Touch 15 Howe, M. L (2011). The nature ofearly memory: An adaptive McKinnon, M. C., Palombo, D. J., Nazarov, A., Kumar, N., theoryofthe genesis and development ofmemory. Oxford, Khuu, W., & Levine, B. (2015). Threat of death and auto- UK: Oxford University Press. biographical memory: A study of passengers from Flight Howe, M. L. (2013). Memory development: Implications for AT236. Clinical Psychological Science, 3, 487-502. adults recalling childhood experiences in the courtroom. McNally, R. J. (2005). Debunking myths about trauma and Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 869-876. cloi:10.1038/ memory. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 817- nrn3627 822. doi:10.1177/070674370505001302 Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory Ornstein, P. A., Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B. N., Pclphrey, in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their mod- K. A., Tyler, C. S., & Gramzow, E. (2006). The influence ern consequences. Memory, 23, 633-656. doi:10.1080/ of prior knowledge and repeated questioning on chil- 09658211.2015.1010709 dren's long-term retention of the details of a pediatric Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, S. D. (1993). examination. Developmental Psychology, 42, 332-344. Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.332 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 Otgaar, H., Muris, P., Howe, M. L, & Merchkelback, H. (2017). Katz, S., Schonfeld, I). J., Carter, A. S., Leventhal, J. & What drives false memories in psychopathology? A case Cicchetti, I). V. (1995). The accuracy of children's reports for associative activation. Clinical Psychological Science, with anatomically correct dolls. JournalofDevelopmental 5(6), 1048-1069. doi:10.1177/2167702617724424 and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 71-76. People of the State of Michigan v. Lawrence Gerard Nassar, Kleider, H., Pczdek, K., Goldinger, S., & Kirk, A. (2008). Case Nos. 17-00425-FY and 17-00318-FY (W.1). Michigan, Schema-driven source misattrihution errors: Remembering 2017). the expected from a witnessed event. Applied Cognitive Peterson, C. (2015). A decade later: Adolescents memory for Psychology, 22, 1-20. doi:10.1002/acp.1361 medical emergencies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, Koriat, S., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a 826—834. doi:10.1002/acp.3192 psychology of memory accuracy. Annual Review of Peterson, C., Pardy, L., Tizzard-Drover, T., & Warren, K. L. Psychology, 51, 481-537. (2005). When initial interviews are delayed a year: Effect LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience on children's 2-year recall. Law and Human Behavior, of emotional memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 29(6), 527-541. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6833-6 54-64. Peterson, C., Parsons, T., & Dean, M. (2004). Providing mis- La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L C., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). leading and reinstatement information a year after it hap- Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated inter- pened: Effects on long-term memory. Memory, 12, 1-13. views? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16, 373-392. Pezdck, K., Finger, K., & Hodge, I). (1997). Planting false doi:10.1037/a0019909 childhood memories: The role of event plausibility. La Rooy, D., Pipe, M.-E., & Murray, J. E. (2007). Enhancing Psychological Science, 8, 437-441. children's event recall after long delays. Applied Cognitive Putnam, A. L., Sungkhasettee, V., & Roedigcr, H. L. (2017). Psychology, 21, 1-17. doi:10.1002/acp.1272 When misinformation improves memory. Psychological Lilienfeld, S. 0. (2015). Psychological treatments that Science, 28(1), 36-46. doi:10.1177/09567976166722(A cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, Qin, J., Ogle, C. M., & Goodman, G. S. (2008). Adults' mem- 53-70. ories of childhood: True and false reports. Journal of Loftus, E. F. (1996). Memory distortion and false memory Eapethnental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 373-391. creation. Bulletin of the American Academy ofPsychiatry Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Bidrose, S., Pipe, M. E., Craw. & the Law, 24, 281-295. S., & Ablin, D. S. (1999). Emotion and memory: Children's Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of long-term remembering, forgetting, and suggestibility. false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725. doi: Journal of Egyrimental Child Psychology, 72, 235-270. 10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07 doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2491 Lyon, T. D. (1995). False allegations and false denials in Quas, J. A., Malloy, L. C., Melinder, A., Goodman, G. S., child sexual abuse. Psycholog,y, Public Policy, and Law, D'Mello, M., & Schaaf, J. (2007). Developmental differ- 1, 429-437. ences in the effects of repeated interviews and inter- Lyons, K. E., & Ghetti, S. (2010). Metacogntive development viewer bias on young children's event memory and faLsc in early childhood: New questions about old assumptions. reports. Developmental Psychology, 43, 823-837. In A. Efklicles & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects Rubin, D. C., & Wenzel, A. E. (1996). One hundred years in metacognition research (pp. 259-278). New York, NY: of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6546-2_12 PsychologicalReview, 103(4), 734-760. doi:10.1037/0033- Matt, G. E., Vazquez, C., & Campbell, W. (1992). Mood con- 295X.103.4.734 gruent recall of effectively toned stimuli: A meta-analytic Saywitz, K., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). review. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 227-255. Children's memories of a physical examination involving McDermott Sales, J., Finish, R., Parker, J., & Bahrich, L. (2005). genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual Stressing memory: tong-term relations among children's abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, stress, recall, and psychological outcome following 59(5), 682-691. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.682 Hurricane Andrcw.JoumalofCognition andDevelopment, Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, I). S. (2017). Constraints 6, 529-545. doi:10.1207/515327647jccI0604_5 on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all cmpiri- 3534-013 Page 15 of 16 EFIA_00010294 EFTA00159942 16 Goldfarb et at cal papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, Wells, C., Morrison, C. M., & Conway, M. A. (2014). Adult 1125-1128. recollections of childhood memories: What details Singer, M., & Wixted, J. T. (2006). Effect of delay on recogni- can he recalled? Quarterly Journal of Experimental tion decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift. Memory & Psychology, 67(7), 1249-1261. doi:10.1080/17470218 Cognition, 34(1), 125-137. doi:10.3758/BF03193392 .2013.856451 Skeem, J. L, Douglas, K. S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2009). Wickens, T. I). (1998). On the form of the retention function: Psychological science in the courtroom. New York, NY: Comment on Rubin and Wenzel (1996): A quantitative Guilford. description of retention. Psychological Review, 105(2), State of California v. William Hamilton Ayres, Case Nos. 379-386. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.379 SC064366A and 5F350769A (Superior Court of California, Widom, C. S., & Morris, S. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollec- San Mateo County, 2007). tions of childhood victimization: Pan 2. Childhood sexual Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, I). C. (2003). Confidence, not con- abuse. Psychological Assessment, 9, 34-46. sistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Williams, J. M. G., & Broadbent, K. (1986). Autobiographical Science, 14(5), 455-461. memory in suicide attempters. Journal of Abnormal Ullman, S. E., & Filipas, H. H. (2005). Gender differences in Psychology, 95, 144-149. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.99.2 social reactions to abuse disclosures, post-abuse coping, .144 and PTSD of child sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse& Williams, L. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective Neglect, 29(7), 767-782. cloi:10.1016/Lchiabu.2009.01.005 study of womeres memories of child sexual ahuse.Journal Usher, J. A., & Neisser, U. (1993). Childhood amnesia and the ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1167-1176. beginnings of memory for four early life events. Journal Windmann, S., & Kruger, T. (1998). Subconscious detection ofExperimental Psychology: General, 122, 155-165. of threat as reflected by an enhanced response bias. Van Abbema, I)., & Bauer, P. (2005). Autobiographical mem- Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 603-633 ory in middle childhood: Recollections of the recent and Wixted, J. T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of distant past. Memory, 13(8), 829-845. doi:10.1080/09658 forgetting. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 235-269. 210444000430 doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141555 Wagenaar, W. A., & Groeneweg, J. (1990). The memory Yonclinas, A., & Ritchey, M. (2016). The slow forgetting of of concentration camp survivors. Applied Cognitive emotional episodic memories: An emotional binding Psychology, 4(2), 77-87. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350040202 account. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19, 259-267. 3534-013 Page 16 of 16 EFIA_00010295 EFTA00159943