Hi all,
Ken wrote:
Tipsters interested in this issue should also note:
Clancy, S. A., Schachter, D. L., McNally, R. J., & Pitman R. K.
(2000). False recognition in women reporting recovered memories
of sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 11, 26-31.
The authors report that those women who reported recovered
memories of sexual abuse were more prone to false recognition in
other memory tasks and suggest that these women as a group may be more susceptiple to
memory illusion.
**This is an interesting finding, but I was surprised at how
**statistically weak the effect was, given its publication in
**Psych Science. In contrasting the rates of false recognition
**among groups characterized as "Recovered Memory",
**"Repressed Memory", "Continuous Memory" and "Control",
**based on their abuse trauma and memory status, there was
**no significant main effect of group, F(3,53)=1.74, p=.88.
**The Ss had seen lists with either 2, 8, or 15 associates of
**the "false-recognition lure", and even though there was no
**group x list interaction, F(3,53) = 2.00, p=.40, the authors
**examined group effects by each list length individually.
**For 8-item lists, when Recovered subjects were contrasted to
**all other subjects combined, a significant effect emerged,
**t(53) = 2.54. A similar analysis for 15-item lists approached **significance, t(53)
= 1.48, p=.07.
**Overall, neat effects, but not particularly robust. Of course,
**the sample sizes here were understandably small (ns = 12-15
**per group). It will be interesting to see whether successful
**replications come down the pike...
**Mike
*****************************************************
Michael J. Kane
Psychology Department
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
phone: 404-651-0704
fax: 404-651-0753
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing
is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good,
as it is not to care how you got your money as
long as you have it."
-- E.W. Teale
