Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2143

Child Maltreatment, Trauma-Related Psychopathology, and Eyewitness Memory in Children and Adolescents Kelly McWilliams†, Latonya S. Harris‡ and Gail S. Goodman* Two experiments were conducted to examine eyewitness memory in children and adolescents (9- to 15-years-old) with and without known histories of maltreatment (e.g., physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence). In Experiment 1, participants (N = 35) viewed a positive film clip depicting a congenial interaction between family members. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 31) watched a negative film clip in which a family argument was shown. Younger age and higher levels of trauma-related psychopathology significantly predicted commission errors to direct questions when the positive family interaction had been viewed, but not when the negative family interaction had been shown. Maltreatment history was not a significant unique predictor of memory performance for the positive or negative film clip. Implications for a scientific understanding of the effects of child maltreatment on memory are discussed. Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Although scores of studies document developmental differences in eyewitness memory accuracy, few include children with known histories of abuse or trauma exposure. Also, studies tend to focus primarily on preschool and elementary school children. Yet, many children who find themselves testifying in a courtroom have histories of maltreatment and are approaching or have reached adolescence (Goodman, Quas, Bulkley, & Shapiro, 1999). The present research examined eyewitness memory in children and adolescents with maltreatment histories compared with those without such histories.

Maltreatment and Children’s Eyewitness Memory Research on the influence of prior maltreatment on children’s eyewitness memory is still in its infancy; however, it is possible that a history of victimization is associated with alternative paths of memory development. For example, extreme negative experiences during infancy and youth could alter basic memory processes, or, more likely, affect the contents of memory (Howe, Toth, & Cicchetti, 2011). A history of maltreatment has been linked with atypical socio-emotional and neurological development, which could potentially be related to memory performance (Carrion, Weems, & Reiss, 2007; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Toth, Harris, Goodman, & Cicchetti, 2011). These alternative developmental outcomes may be associated with differences in the way children and adolescents with trauma histories attend to and process information *Correspondence to: Dr. Gail S. Goodman, Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] † University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA ‡ University of California, Davis, CA

Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Child maltreatment psychopathology memory

703

(Young & Widom, 2014). Research has yet to fully determine if past maltreatment alters basic memory processes, or if those with histories of abuse or neglect attend to/encode, store, and recall memories similarly to those without past maltreatment (Goodman, Quas, & Ogle, 2010; Howe, Cicchetti, & Toth, 2006). Howe and colleagues examined memory processes in maltreated children using the Deese Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Howe, Cicchetti, Toth, & Cerrito, 2004; Howe et al., 2011). With this methodology, no significant effects were uncovered in false associative-memory reports between maltreated and non-maltreated participants, suggesting that the experience of maltreatment may not alter basic memory processes. However, a lack of differences in basic associative memory is not necessarily equivalent to a lack of differences in eyewitness memory performance. Additional factors may influence event memory and suggestibility, particularly regarding emotional information, for participants with and without histories of abuse and neglect. Consistent with this point, Goodman, Bottoms, Rudy, Davis, and Schwartz-Kenney (2001) uncovered discrepancies in event memory between a sample of maltreated children and a matched control group. When interviewed about a play session with an unfamiliar adult, maltreated children reported significantly less information in free recall, answered fewer specific questions accurately, and showed poorer photo identification accuracy than the non-maltreated controls. In addition, Eisen, Goodman, Qin, Davis, and Crayton (2007) reported that children with sexual abuse histories were particularly accurate in reporting genital touch and venipuncture that had taken place during a forensic medical examination, whereas children with histories of neglect were particularly inaccurate when reporting such experiences. Greenhoot, McCloskey, and Gilsky (2005) found that children who had suffered physical abuse and witnessed domestic violence were especially accurate in remembering the abuse incidents if they had more negative attitudes toward the abuser. Finally, Young and Widom (2014) examined recognition memory for emotional scenes from the International Affective Picture System in samples of adults with and without documented maltreatment histories. A history of child maltreatment was associated with less accuracy in recognizing positive and neutral pictures. However, IQ was a significant mediator, indicating that maltreatment history may have affected IQ, which in turn affected memory accuracy. Together, these results suggest that a history of maltreatment may play a role in the content, if not the mechanisms, involved in children’s eyewitness memory. It is possible that the basic memory processes measured by the DRM task (e.g., formation of semantic associations, spread of activation) are not influenced by maltreatment. However, accurately recalling, recognizing, and communicating event-related information may be affected —in some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse — following experiences of maltreatment. The influence of the emotional valence of the to-be-remembered information on memory performance for children with maltreatment histories is of special interest for eyewitness memory. Children with and without histories of maltreatment may attend to and remember emotional information differently depending on valence (Young & Widom, 2014). Consistent with this theory, children with a history of physical abuse over-attend to audio and visual cues of anger compared with those without histories of abuse (Shackman, Shackman, & Pollak, 2007). Research has also uncovered a distinct pattern of emotional understanding in children with maltreatment histories (Pollak, Cicchetti, & Klorman, 1998). For example, maltreated children report that Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

704

K. McWilliams et al.

positive, negative, and ambiguous situations are equally likely to elicit sadness and anger in an individual (Perlman, Kalish, & Pollak, 2008). Additionally, children who have experienced extreme cases of neglect have trouble identifying emotional facial expressions and matching them with the appropriate emotional events, except for in cases of anger (Wismer & Pollak, 2004). Based on these findings, researchers suggest that early exposure to threat, humiliation, and/or violence (such as childhood maltreatment) is related to the creation of specialized mental systems or processes that promote attention to and memory for information relevant to children’s unique, and largely negative, environmental conditions. In other words, these children may have adapted to their stressful situations by developing improved detection, understanding, and memory of information relevant to distress and danger (Alexander et al., 2005; Frankenhuis & de Weerth, 2013; but see Young & Widom, 2014). Overall, research supports the theory that a history of maltreatment may result in heightened attention to and understanding of negative emotional stimuli (e.g., anger-related material). However, it is also possible that such heightened processes come at the risk of a lack of attention, deficient memory, or incorrect interpretation of positive stimuli. The present study aims to test this possibility by examining memory for positive and negative emotional stimuli in children and adolescents with and without histories of maltreatment.

Psychopathology, Maltreatment, and Memory Several studies indicate that psychopathology rather than maltreatment is particularly likely to be associated with memory deficits (e.g., Eisen et al., 2007). It is possible that the experience of maltreatment per se is not the direct cause of memory disadvantages or advantages, but rather, that resulting trauma-related psychopathology is associated with memory performance. Although to date there have been relatively few direct examinations of the effects of trauma-related psychopathology on children’s eyewitness memory, we review relevant studies next. A history of maltreatment and trauma is related to a number of mental health outcomes that may be associated with altered cognitive processes (Goodman et al., 2010; Young & Widom, 2014). Individuals with a history of maltreatment, as compared with non-maltreated peers, are at heightened risk for developing trauma-related psychopathology, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Egeland, 1997), which can affect memory. PTSD is relatively common in children exposed to traumatic situations, such as maltreatment (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; McLeer, Deblinger, Atkins, Foa, & Ralphe, 1988). Neuroscience research that examined hippocampal size in adults with maltreatment history, accompanied by PTSD or no PTSD, found reduced hippocampal size only in the presence of PTSD (Bremner et al., 1997). (The hippocampus is a brain structure known to be important for memory functioning.) Similar findings exist for children (Carrion et al., 2007), although, overall, results in this area, especially for children, are mixed (e.g., Teicher, Anderson, & Polcari, 2012; Tupler & De Bellis, 2006). Post-traumatic stress disorder has been associated at times with atypical memory performance (Goodman et al., 2010; Sullivan & Gorman, 2002). Studies conducted with adult samples reveal memory deficits in victims with PTSD symptomatology (e.g., Bremner, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2000). However, PTSD has also been associated with hypervigilance Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

Child maltreatment psychopathology memory

705

and enhanced memory for trauma-related stimuli (Alexander et al., 2005; Field et al., 2001; Paunovic, Lundh, & Ost, 2002). These findings suggest that individuals with PTSD may over-attend to trauma-related cues, at the expense of other information related to “everyday memories.” Moreover, PTSD is frequently co-morbid with depression (Kilpatrick et al., 2003), both of which are associated with “over-general” memory, which may interfere with recall of event detail (Ogle et al., 2013; Williams, 2007). Few studies have examined PTSD and memory in child samples, and those that exist produced inconsistent findings. For example, Eisen et al. (2007) failed to uncover a significant relation between PTSD and children’s memory for a medical procedure. Beers and De Bellis (2002) also did not obtain significant differences while examining memory and learning performance in adolescents with and without PTSD diagnoses. However, Moradi, Taghavi, Neshat-Doost, Yule, and Dalgleish (2000) found that adolescents with PTSD performed significantly worse than typically developing adolescents on an everyday memory task. Of interest, adolescents with PTSD showed a bias for recalling negative information, above positive and neutral information. Another form of psychopathology commonly linked to childhood maltreatment is dissociation. Maltreated children display significantly more dissociative symptoms than non-maltreated children (Chae, Goodman, Eisen, & Qin, 2011; Eisen et al., 2007). Maltreatment may be related to dissociative symptoms through victims’ possible use of defensive strategies to psychologically avoid the pain of traumatic situations. Use of these strategies could result in limited information processing, and therefore facilitate psychological “removal” from the distressing situation (Bower & Sivers, 1998; Chae et al., 2011). Avoidant emotion regulation techniques implemented by dissociative individuals may result in the substandard encoding of event information, leading to memory deficits (Goodman et al., 2010). Consistent with this theory, among 3- to 16-year-olds involved in forensic investigations of maltreatment, highly dissociative participants who self-reported more trauma symptoms than did their peers provided significantly more incorrect information about a previously experienced play event (Chae et al., 2011). In addition, Eisen and colleagues (2007) found that, when interviewing children suspected of having suffered maltreatment, those children who had obtained higher dissociation scores, who were more physiologically distressed during medical procedures, and who self-reported more trauma symptoms made significantly more memory errors than other children when interviewed about the medical procedures. It is possible that distress may have activated dissociative defense strategies in a subset of children with maltreatment histories, which affected information processing during and/or after the medical exam, and thus in memory deficits. Overall, further research is needed examining trauma-related psychopathology and memory in maltreated children, especially in regard to memory for emotional information.

Age Differences Age is a strong predictor of eyewitness memory performance. On average, preschool children recall less information and answer specific, yes–no, and misleading questions less accurately than do older children and adults (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Goodman & Reed, 1986; Peterson, 2012; Poole, Dickinson, Brubacher, Liberty, & Kaake, 2014). Compared with their older counterparts, younger children are more likely to be misled by misinformation, suggestive questioning, and stereotypes (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Schwartz-Kenney & Goodman, 1999). However, there are exceptions to this Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

706

K. McWilliams et al.

traditional age trend; for example, memory for gist-related information has shown age-reversals in false memory reports (Brainerd, 2013). Moreover, even young children can often be quite accurate in their eyewitness memory, especially when interviewed about negative or abuse-related information while their memories are still strong for what really happened (Goodman et al., 2001; Quas et al., 2007; Rudy & Goodman, 1991). Relatively few studies have examined eyewitness memory in older children compared with adolescents (but see Chae et al., 2011; Eisen et al., 2007). Moreover, few studies have juxtaposed children’s eyewitness memory performance for negative and positive stimuli to determine if age trends are similar regardless of event valence. Recent research on memory for negative and positive photographs indicates a lack of age effect in elementary school children compared with adults for negative stimuli, whereas typical age differences emerged for positive stimuli (Cordon, Melinder, Goodman, & Edelstein, 2013). Thus, although age effects in memory performance for negative and positive stimuli are likely, they cannot be presumed.

The Present Study The goal of the present study was to examine relations among age, maltreatment, mental health, and memory for emotion-evoking stimuli. Experiment 1 examined memory for positive emotion-evoking stimuli, and Experiment 2 examined memory for negative emotion-evoking stimuli. Although the stimuli necessarily varied somewhat in content across the two experiments, potential differences in the patterns of memory performance were of interest from both a theoretical and applied perspective.

EXPERIMENT 1 In our first study, 9- to 15-year-olds with (vs. without) known histories of maltreatment were assessed on various cognitive tasks, including the digit span, matrix reasoning, and vocabulary measures of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV). Then, participants and their parents completed measures of children’s mental health and trauma history. Following these assessments, participants were exposed to a positive emotion-evoking stimulus. After a delay, eyewitness memory was measured. The following hypotheses were tested. It was hypothesized that older children would perform better than younger children on a test of eyewitness memory. Despite the paucity of research comparing preadolescents’ and adolescents’ eyewitness memory, age differences in memory and suggestibility have been uncovered across this age range, justifying the prediction (Eisen et al., 2007). Based on research suggesting that children with histories of maltreatment show impaired emotional understanding for positive information (e.g., Perlman et al., 2008) and relatively poor recognition memory for positive pictures (Young & Widom, 2014), a significant main effect of maltreatment status was anticipated. Specifically, it was expected that maltreated children would perform less well than matched, nonmaltreated participants on the eyewitness memory task. Finally, consistent with a subset of previous research (Goodman et al., 2010), we hypothesized that participants with Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

Child maltreatment psychopathology memory

707

higher versus lower levels of traumatic psychopathology would show impairments in memory performance.

Method Participants Participants included 35 individuals, 20 with known histories of maltreatment (10 males) and 15 with no known histories of such (nine males). Participants ranged in age from 9 to 15 years old (M = 12.08, SD = 2.25). The sample was ethnically diverse, consisting of Caucasians (n = 21), African Americans (n = 5), Hispanic/Latino Americans (n = 5), Asian/Pacific Islanders (n = 2), and “other”/missing (n = 2). Originally, participants with maltreatment histories were recruited based on child protective services substantiation of physical maltreatment or exposure to domestic violence. However, during the study, six control participants self-reported instances of child maltreatment, and therefore were moved to the maltreatment group (reflected in the numbers above). Based on self-report of maltreatment type, 11 participants had a history of witnessing domestic violence, eight experienced emotional abuse, seven suffered physical abuse, three incurred neglect, and two were victims of sexual abuse. The majority of maltreated participants reported being the victim of multiple forms of maltreatment (n = 11); however, the number of differing types of abuse did not affect the results. Therefore, participants were classified as maltreated or non-maltreated. Most of the children and adolescents in the maltreated sample were recruited from agencies and programs that serve maltreated children in a western state. A few were recruited from newspaper advertisements and online bulletin boards. The nonmaltreated sample was recruited from local community events, newspaper advertisements, online bulletin boards, and community organizations (e.g., public library, community centers). The maltreated and non-maltreated groups were matched for age, ethnicity, gender, and intelligence, ps > .05 (Table 1).

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for maltreated versus non-maltreated participants in Experiments 1 and 2 Experiment 1

Age Ethnicity Gender IQ Income Trauma FR correct FR incorrect DQ correct DQ commission DQ omission

Experiment 2

Maltreated M (SD)

Non-maltreated M (SD)

Maltreated M (SD)

Non-maltreated M (SD)

11.94 (2.26) 0.55 (0.51) 0.50 (0.51) 9.89 (1.90) 1.72 (1.64) 0.35 (0.65) 103.27 (39.70) 1.47 (2.20) 0.75 (0.20) 0.08 (0.08) 0.08 (0.04)

11.66 (2.42) 0.40 (0.51) 0.40 (0.51) 11.09 (2.48) 3.70 (1.70) 0.21 (0.70) 81.65 (53.73) 4.47 (9.27) 0.78 (0.23) 0.04 (0.04) 0.10 (0.12)

12.64 (2.21) 0.47 (0.51) 0.56 (0.51) 9.76 (2.06) 2.17 (1.65) 0.08 (0.95) 92.27 (43.13) 3.67 (3.22) 0.77 (0.26) 0.07 (0.07) 0.06 (0.05)

12.08 (2.18) 0.67 (0.49) 0.69 (0.48) 11.17 (3.25) 3.45 (1.80) 0.10 (0.57) 71.9 (27.07) 2.30 (2.21) 0.86 (0.07) 0.05 (0.05) 0.04 (0.02)

Note. Ethnicity was coded as 0 = minority, 1 = majority. Gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Trauma, trauma-related psychopathology, z-score; FR, free recall; DQ, direct questions. Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

708

K. McWilliams et al.

Measures Demographic Questionnaires. Two demographic questionnaires were administered, the first of which focused on the child participant. The child questionnaire included questions about the child’s ethnic background, language, and mental and physical health, the mother’s experiences while pregnant with the child, and details of the child’s birth. The second questionnaire concerned the parent’s mental health and experience of domestic violence. The parent questionnaire included questions about the family’s socioeconomic status [SES; income was assessed using a scale of 1 (under $15,000 a year) to 7 ($90,000 a year and over)]. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 1991). IQ was assessed with the WISC-IV, including the digit span, vocabulary, and matrix reasoning subtests. The WISC-IV is normed for 6- to 16-year-olds and has a standardized mean score of 10 (SD = 3) for individual subtests. The subtests have internal and test– retest reliability coefficients of 0.86 to 0.93 (Wechsler, 1991). Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPPS; Foa, Johnson, Feeny, & Treadwell, 2001). Childhood PTSD symptoms were assessed using the CPSS, which was developed to measure PTSD symptomatology and diagnosable PTSD in children and adolescents ages 8–18 years old. The measure includes three subscales in relation to a traumatic event: re-experiencing, avoidance, and arousal. Participants indicate how often in the past month they have experienced various problems. Responses to the first 17 questions are made on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (five or more times a week). Seven follow-up questions assess daily functioning; these responses are scored dichotomously as absent (0) or present (1). High scores indicate greater presence of PTSD symptoms. Test–retest reliability for the CPSS is 0.55 for PTSD diagnosis, 0.84 for overall score, 0.85 for the re-experiencing scale, 0.63 for the avoidance scale, and 0.76 for the arousal subscale (Foa et al., 2001). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; Briere, 1996). Children’s acute and chronic post-traumatic symptomatology was measured using the TSCC, which is appropriate for 8- to 16-year-olds. This is a self-report measure of distress for children who have experienced traumatic events. It includes six clinical scales to evaluate anxiety, depression, anger, post-traumatic stress, dissociation, and sexual concerns. Each item is scored on a four-point scale, with higher scores indicating a greater level of trauma symptoms. The measure was standardized on a group of over 3,000 children from urban, suburban, and rural environments. The subscale reliabilities range from 0.77 to 0.89 (Briere, 1996). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC)and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Edwards, Montuori, & Lushene, 1970). Young children’s current anxiety was measured with the STAIC, designed for use with children aged 9–12 years. The STAI for adults is appropriate for and was administered to older children (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). Responses are on a three-point-scale from “very” to “not” for each feeling. For example, participants are asked to describe their feelings of calmness as “very calm,” “calm,” or “not calm”; higher scores indicate greater anxiety. The STAIC and STAI have high internal consistency and validity (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). Positive Scene. The positive clip depicts a family eating dinner together while the children and mother compliment the father on improvements in his lifestyle. At the conclusion of the clip, the mother informs the children (who have been denied visitation with Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

Child maltreatment psychopathology memory

709

their father) they will again be able to see their father frequently, and the children are overjoyed. The clip lasts approximately 5 minutes. Eyewitness Memory Questionnaire. An eyewitness memory questionnaire was created for the movie clip. The questionnaire consisted of four free recall questions (e.g., “Tell me everything you can remember about what happened?”), followed by 20 direct (yes–no) questions including specific questions (e.g., “Did the mom talk to the Dad about going to the son’s baseball game?”) and misleading questions, (e.g., “There was an ice cream truck outside, wasn’t there?”).

Procedure All procedures were approved by the university’s institutional review board. Participants were tested individually. Upon arrival at the laboratory, child participants were escorted away from their caregiver to a separate room and given reading materials while full consent was obtained from the caregiver. Once caregiver consent was gained, assent was attained from the child. Following the consent procedure, the researcher began with administration of the STAIC or STAI to the children. Next, the researcher presented children with the various IQ subtests, counterbalanced across participants. Upon completion of these cognitive measures, children were given a short break. Immediately following the break, participants were shown the video clip, which was presented via computer screen. Participants were then asked to complete a variety of measures (e.g., the mental health and trauma-related measures, such as the CPSS and TSCC). The final task for the children was the eyewitness memory test, which was verbally presented to children by the experimenter. There was an approximately 20-minute delay between viewing the video clip and the memory test. During this procedure, caregivers completed their assigned questionnaires (i.e., demographic questionnaires).1 Following completion of all measures, participants were fully debriefed.

Coding Free Recall. Participants’ responses to free recall questions were coded for units of information using a scoring scheme that was adapted from previous studies (e.g., Alexander et al., 2002; Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, & Kuhn, 1997). Each agent, action, object, and descriptor was coded as a unit of correct or incorrect information. For example, the statement “He was eating spaghetti” would be three units: he, eating, and spaghetti. The total number of correct and incorrect units was then summed for each question, and then again across free recall questions per participant, yielding a total number of correct units and a total number of incorrect units for each of the children. Two raters (blind to key variables, such as age and maltreatment status, but not to positive-negative video clip) coded 20% of the protocols for Experiments 1 and 2, and reached 0.88 proportion of agreement. One then scored the rest of the free recall protocols. Direct Questions. The dependent variables for the direct questions were calculated by coding the participants’ answers to the 20 specific and misleading questions. The participants’ responses were coded for the following categories: correct answers, 1

Parents also completed Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). However, there were no significant relations of the CBCL scores with the children’s memory performance. Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Sci. Law 32: 702–717 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/bsl

710

K. McWilliams et al.

commission errors (e.g., providing false information, or saying something occurred when in fact it did not), omission errors (e.g., replying that something did not happen when in fact it did), and responses of “I don’t know.” (Don’t know responses were relatively few and are not considered further.) Responses per category were then totaled to create a sum for each type of response. Proportion scores were created with the total number of direct questions answered by each participant in the denominator. The proportion scores were used in all analyses.

Results A factor analysis was conducted to create composite variables assessing participants’ trauma-related psychopathology. STAIC/STAI anxiety, TSCC anxiety, TSCC depression, TSCC anger, TSCC dissociation, TSCC PTSD, and CPSS PTSD (criteria met) scores were entered into a principal axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation. Results revealed one factor, inclusive of all variables, and with an eigenvalue greater than 1 (factor loadings >0.50). These scores were standardized, averaged, and summed to create a Trauma-Related Psychopathology mean score, alpha = 0.91. Means and standard deviations for key variables are presented in Table 1. Correlations are presented in Table 2. Of note, age significantly and inversely predicted proportion of commission errors to direct questions. There were significant correlations among income, maltreatment status, and Trauma-Related Psychopathology. The correlation between maltreatment and IQ scores was substantial, albeit not statistically significant. As a result of the intercorrelations, income and IQ were statistically controlled in analyses that examined relations of maltreatment status and Trauma-Related Psychopathology. A series of regression models examined whether age, maltreatment status, and Trauma-Related Psychopathology uniquely predicted key eyewitness memory variables. In each series, children’s age, income, and IQ were entered into the first model. This was followed by entering maltreatment status in a second model, and finally by entering Trauma-Related Psychopathology in a third model (Table 3). Each series was conducted separately for each memory variable. The only significant models were for proportion of commission errors in response to direct questions. The first model closely approached significance [F(3, 27) = 2.83, p = 0.057] and was significant with a one-tailed test (justified by the prediction). Older Table 2. Intercorrelations for Experiment 1

1. Age 2. Income 3. IQ 4. Maltreatment 5. Trauma 6. FR correct 7. FR incorrect 8. DQ correct 9. DQ commission 10. DQ omission

1.

2.

3.

1

0.04 1

0.11 0.24 1

4. 0.10 0.52** 0.25 1

5. 0.12 0.41* 0.20 0.39* 1

6. 0.25 0.22 0.09 0.23 .08 1

7. 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.22 0.24 0.37* 1

8. 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.20 0.14 1

9. 0.45** 0.02 0.21 0.28 0.38* 0.04 0.14 0.06 1

10. 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.14 0.001 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.16 1

*p

Child maltreatment, trauma-related psychopathology, and eyewitness memory in children and adolescents.

Two experiments were conducted to examine eyewitness memory in children and adolescents (9- to 15-years-old) with and without known histories of maltr...
138KB Sizes 0 Downloads 5 Views