Are subjective memory problems related to suggestibility, compliance, false memories, and

objective memory performance?

Author(s): SASKIA VAN BERGEN, MARKO JELICIC and HARALD MERCKELBACH
Source: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 122, No. 2 (Summer 2009), pp. 249-257
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784395
Accessed: 27-02-2016 16:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of
Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Are subjective memory problems related to
suggestibility, compliance, false memories,
and objectivememoryperformance?
SASKIAVANBERGEN, MARKOJELICIC,
and HARALD
MERCKELBACH
MaastrichtUniversity

compliance,falsememo
between subjectivememorybeliefsand suggestibility,
The relationship
was studied ina communitysample of young and
ries,and objectivememoryperformance
=
middle-agedpeople (N 142).We hypothesizedthatpeoplewith subjectivememoryproblems
and compliance levelsand would be more susceptibleto
would exhibithighersuggestibility
thanthosewho are optimisticabout theirmemory.Inaddition,we expected
false recollections
a discrepancybetween subjectivememoryjudgmentsand objectivememoryperformance. We
with compliance,with more
foundthatsubjectivememoryjudgmentscorrelatedsignificantly
negativememoryjudgmentsaccompanyinghigherlevelsof compliance.Contraryto our expec
tation,subjectivememoryproblemsdid not correlate or false recollections.
with suggestibility
Furthermore, were accurate inestimatingtheirobjectivememoryperformance.
participants

There are large individual differences inhow people far-reaching consequences. Given theweight that
evaluate theirown memory. Although most of us tend triersof fact attach to confidence (Leippe, Manion,
tobe quite optimistic about thepower of ourmemory, & Romanczyk, 1992), people with such pessimistic
some people believe theirmemory ismuch poorer ideasmay erroneously be treated as less credible eye
than thatof others from theirown age group (Crom witnesses or
suspects.
are hints in the literature
bag, Merckelbach,
8c Elffers, 2000; Magnussen et There suggesting that
ideas about ideas about one's own memory are associat
al., 2006). However, subjective memory negative
do not always correspond to objective memory per edwith elevated suggestibility levels and an enhanced
formance (Ponds 8c Jolles, 1996; Ponds, Van Boxtel, susceptibility to false recollections. People who judge
8c Jolles, 2000). For example, healthy older people their own memory as very poor because they suffer
who rate theirmemory from the "memory distrust syndrome" are thought to
(more than 55 years old)
as very poor often exhibit normal performance on be especially prone tomemory distortions (Gudjons
standard memory tasks. In a forensic setting, pes son 8cMacKeith, 1982). According toGudjonsson
simistic ideas about one's own memory might have (2003, p. 196),memory distrust is "a condition where

American Journalof Psychology

Summer 2009, Vol. 122,No. 2 pp. 249-257 ? 2009 by the Board ofTrustees of theUniversity of Illinois

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 people develop profound distrust of theirmemory
recollections, as a result ofwhich theyare particularly
susceptible to relying on external cues and sugges
tions."This author described a number of court cases
inwhich defendants sufferingfrommemory distrust
plywith the suggestive cues given by others. Further
more, based on thework of Crombag et al. (2000),
we expected that
people would overestimate their
own memory
functioning. This hypothesis is con
sistentwith research demonstrating that in healthy

developed false memories, eventually resulting in older adults, subjective evaluations ofmemory do not
false confessions (Gudjonsson, 2003; Gudjonsson, appear to be associated with objective memory per
Kopelman, 8cMacKeith, 1999). Note that such iso formance (Ponds & Jolles, 1996; Ponds et al, 2000).
lated single cases do not provide hard evidence for We decided to select a sample of young and middle
an intimateconnection between
pessimistic opinions aged participants so as to be sure that the subjective
about one's own memory and suggestibility.Further memory judgments we measured were not linked to
more, we believe that a distinction should be drawn age-related memory problems.
between state and traitmemory distrust, with the for
mer referringto the cases described in the literature
EXPERIMENT
and the lattermanifesting itselfas a personality trait.
In this article,we will focus on trait
memory distrust, METHOD
which can be seen as a negative subjective memory

judgment.
Participants
Compliance is a concept related to suggestibility. Our sample consisted of 142 young and middle
It can be defined as "a tendency of the individual to
aged research participants (37men), who were re
go along with propositions, requests or instructions, cruited in a regional news
through advertisements
for some immediate instrumental =
gain" (Gudjons paper. Their mean age
was 34.23
years (SD 8.06,
son, 2003, p. 370). Whereas suggestibility assumes =
range 17-46). The participants were told that
that people accept the information provided, this would be administered severalmemory tasks
they
does not apply for compliance. Nonetheless, the and questionnaires. They were given financial
consequences of complying can be far reaching in compensation ( 25) forparticipating in our study.
some The researchwas approved by the standing ethical
settings.For example, thinkof complying with
statements about amurder committeeof theFaculty ofPsychology,Maastricht
expressed by a police of
ficer or complying with a
therapist's suggestion that University.

you might have been sexually abused. Research has

shown thatpeople with poor self-esteem are Instruments
highly
compliant (Gudjonsson, Hannesdottir, Petursson, 8c SUBJECTIVE MEMORY.
Bjornsson, 2002). Because self-esteemandjudgments A Dutch translationof theSquire SubjectiveMemory
about one's memory seem tobe related, ameasure of
Questionnaire (SSMQ; Squire, Wetzel, 8c Slater,
compliance was included in our study. 1979;Van Bergen, Brands, Jelicic, 8cMerckelbach,
To our knowledge, the relationship between 2009), with Cronbach's a = .94, was used tomeasure

judgments of one's own memory and suggestibility, subjectivememory. This self-reportquestionnaire

compliance, false recollections, and objective mem that are answered
consists of 18 items on a
9-point
scale (-4 = disastrous,+4 = perfect).Sample itemsare
ory performance has not yet been studied system
atically.Therefore, we designed a study to examine "My ability to recall thingswhen I really tryis" and
these associations. "My ability to remember thingsthathave happened
Following the ideas ofGudjons more than a year ago is." Scores are summed to obtain
son
(2003), we hypothesized thatparticipants with a total
SSMQ score (varyingfrom -72 to 72),with a
subjective memory problems would exhibit higher
levels of suggestibility and compliance and would be negative score indicatinga negative subjectiveevalu
ation of one's own memory. The has good
SSMQ
more susceptible to false recollections than thosewho
test-retest r = .89, n = 113 et
stability, (Van Bergen
reported tohave excellent memory capabilities. The al.,2008).
idea here is thatpeople who have pessimistic ideas To test theconcurrentvalidityof the
SSMQ, we
about theirown memory will be more
willing to com administered another index of subjectivememory

250 VAN BERGEN ETAL.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 functioning:theDutch translationof theCognitive second set ofquestions (maximum = 15). Shift is the
FailuresQuestionnaire (Broadbent,Cooper, Fitzger number of answers that the participant changes
as

ald,& Parkes, 1982;Merckelbach, Muris, Nijman, & a result of thenegative feedback (maximum = 20).
= The total suggestibility score is the sum ofYieldi
Dejong, 1996),with Cronbach's a .92.The Cogni
tiveFailures Questionnaire consists of 25 items that and Shift,with higher scores indicatinghigher sug
measure
self-reported frequency of everyday lapses gestibilitylevels.Research has shown thattheDutch
and errors inmemory, perception
and attention, and version of theGudjonsson Suggestibility Scale is a
action. Illustrative items are "Do you forget where psychometrically sound instrument(Merckelbach,
you put something like a newspaper or a book?", "Do Muris, Wessel, 8c Van Koppen, 1998). More spe
you fail tonotice signposts on the road?", and "Do Merckelbach et al. reported sufficientinter
cifically,
you drop things?"Participants are asked to indicate nal consistency,with Cronbach's alphas being .79
on a
5-point scale how often they have experienced (Yieldi), .75 (Shift), and .82 (total suggestibility).
each cognitive
failure in recent months (o
=
never, Test-retest stabilitywas modest (r = .55).They also
= Scores are summed to obtain a total found indications for thepredictive validity of the
4 very often).

Cognitive FailuresQuestionnaire score,with higher yield scale.

scores
indicating
more
self-reported cognitive
fail The Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (Gudjons
ures.The Dutch translationof theCognitive Failures Cronbach's a = .75, is a
son, 1997), with self-report
has adequate measure of 20 items that tap compliant
Questionnaire psychometric properties consisting

(Merckelbach et al., 1996). behavior, or the to in to another's

tendency give

opinion. Examples of Gudjonsson Compliance

SUGGESTIBILITY AND COMPLIANCE. Scale items are "I in easily when I am pres
give
A Dutch translation of theGudjonsson Suggest sured", "People in authority make me feel uncom
mea
ibilityScale (Gudjonsson, 1984) was used to
"I
fortable anduneasy", try to please
and others."

sure suggestibility.The Gudjonsson Suggestibility The items have a true-false format. After recoding,

Scale consists of a story thatis read out loud by the scores are summed
(range 0-20),
with higher scores

In the free recall phase, more behavior. In the present

experimenter. participants reflecting compliant
are asked to write down what
they
can remember
study,we used a Dutch translationof theGudjons
from the story. Fifty minutes later, participants are son Compliance Scale, which has good psychomet

given a second free recall test.Subsequently, they ricproperties (Smeets, 2008).

are asked a series of 20 questions. Fifteen of these

contain elements in the sense FALSE RECOLLECTIONS.

questions misleading
that they suggest things thatare not mentioned in To measure individualdifferencesin the tendency to
the story, whereas five other are factual false recollections, we used the Deese-Ro
questions develop

memory questions. After theyhave answered the ediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Roediger 8c
questions, participants
receive
negative feedback McDermott, 1995).The 10word lists thatwere used
irrespective
of their performance (i.e.,
"You have comprised 15Dutch words each. Each listcontained
made a number of errors. It is therefore necessary words bed, dream) thatwere associated
(e.g., drowsy,
to go through the questions once more, and this with a nonpresented themeword (sleep).This word
time, try to be more accurate"). Next, the questions is called the critical lure.Extensive pilot studies by
are
repeated. Peters,Jelicic, andMerckelbach (2008) showed that
The Gudjonsson SuggestibilityScale yields sev proportions of recall and recognitionof theseword
eral parameters. First, with regard
to the free recall, lists are comparable to those reported by Roediger
thenumber of correctlyreproduced storyelements and McDermott. Participants were told that they
= for both would hear several word lists and would be tested
40). This
is counted is done
(maximum
to
immediate and delayed recall. The corresponding immediatelyafterhearing each listby being asked
interrater reliability parameters
were .95 and .93, write down all thewords theycould remember. They
<
.001).Also, four suggestibil lists were read out
were instructed not to guess. The
respectively(bothps
can be derived from theGudjonsson loud by the experimenter at a pace of 1word per sec
ityparameters
Suggestibility Scale. Yieldi is thenumber ofmislead ond, with an interstimulus interval of 1 s. After each

ing elements that the participants accept during the list,participantswere given 2min towrite down all
firstset of questions (maximum = 15).Yield2 is the thewords theycould remember.Split-half reliability
number of accepted misleading elementsduring the was excellent for correctly recalled words (Spearman

SUBJECTIVEMEMORY PROBLEMS 251

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Brown coefficient= .92) andmoderate forthecritical delayed recall followed by recognition,participants
=
lures coefficient several unrelated filler
(Spearman-Brown .54), completed questionnaires.
After all listshad been presented, a recognition
testwas given.This testconsisted of 30 old words RESULTS
and 30 new words. Three items per list correspond
Table l shows themean scores, standard deviations,
ingwith serialpositions 1,8, and 10were selected as
old words. Ten of thenew words were critical lures; and ranges of the self-reportquestionnaires, theGud
the other 20 words were derived fromotherword jonsson Suggestibility Scale, the falsememory task
lists that were not used during this (DRM), and theAuditory Verbal Learning Test.
experiment.

OBJECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE.

Subjectivememory
The Dutch version of theAuditory Verbal Learn
As can be seen inTable l, the total SSMQ scores
ing Test (Deelman, Brouwer, Van Zomeren, 8c Saan,
ranged from -46 to 57. This indicates thatpeople
1980; Rey, 1964) was used to determine objective
This test consists of 15mono
with both negative and positive impressions of their
memory performance.
in our study. There was a
syllabicmeaningfulwords thatare presented on five memory participated
successive trials. Participants are asked to recall the significant negative correlation between subjective
words aftereach trial(immediate recall).Delayed re memory evaluation and r = -.72,
cognitive failures,
call ismeasured afteran intervalof approximately 15 p < .05, showing thatmore optimistic views about
min, duringwhich participants complete nonverbal one's own memory were associated with fewer self
filler tasks.The present study focused on both im This
failures. underlines the con
reported cognitive
mediate and recall. Research has shown that
delayed current validity of the SSMQ.
theAuditoryVerbal Learning Test has high internal
with Cronbach's a= et al.,
consistency, .95 (Deelman
Suggestibilityand compliance
Test-retest was
1980). stability acceptable, Both immediate and delayed recall on theGudjons
varying
from .64 (for long intervals) to .85 (for intervalsless
son Suggestibility Scale were positively correlated
than 1hr).
with subjective memory beliefs, both rs = .30, both
Recognition was also measured by reading a list <
of30 words out loud, consistingof 15old and 15new ps .05.However, none of the correlations between
words. For each word,
participants had to indicate SSMQ and other Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale
whether theword had appeared on thestudy list,and parameters attained significance (see Table 2). Fur
true
positive, false positive, and false negative scores thermore,we found a negative correlation between
were scored. theGudjonsson Compliance Scale and the SSMQ,
r = -.22, p < .05, more optimistic
suggesting that
Procedure opinions about one's memory are associated with
Participants were tested in a labora less
individually quiet compliance.
toryroom.Upon arrival,theywere firstasked togive
informed consent. Next, the Gudjonsson
Suggest False recollections
Scale was followed theDRM
ibility administered, by Although the number of correctly recalled words in
recall task.After this,participants completed several theDRM task correlated
significantlywith SSMQ
questionnaires (including theSSMQ, Cognitive Fail scores, r =
.36, p
<
.05, there was no link between
ures and Gudjonsson
Questionnaire, Compliance
SSMQ scores and endorsement of critical lures dur
Scale), and theywere given the recognitionpart of r = - .62.As for the
theDRM task.Immediatelyafterthistask,theywere ing the free recall phase, -.04, p
the SSMQ was only partly
asked towrite down theGudjonsson Suggestibility recognition parameters,
related to false recollections. More specifically,a sig
Scale story for a second time. Participants were asked

20 questions about the story,and aftertheyhad been nificant positive correlation was found between old
false feedback on their were words that were remembered as old words
given performance, they correctly
instructed to answer the 20 questionsand the SSMQ, r = .ig,p < .05. Such a relationship
again. Next,
theAuditoryVerbal LearningTest was administered. was absent for the SSMQ and critical lures thatwere
In the time intervalbetween immediate recall and remembered as old r = -.12, =
.16.
words, p

252 VAN BERGEN ETAL.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE 1. Mean scores,standarddeviations,and rangesof thequestionnairesand tests ina
=
communitysample (N 142)

Instrument M
SD Range

SquireSubjectiveMemoryQuestionnaire 11.39 22.55

-46-57

CognitiveFailuresQuestionnaire 40.59 14.42

12-79

GudjonssonComplianceScale 10.40 3.92 2-18

Scale
GudjonssonSuggestibility
Immediaterecall 16.85
6.01 4.5-33

Delayed recall 15.80 3-34.5

6.05
3.62
Yieldi 2.610-12
4.77
Yield2 3.290-13
3.25
Shift 2.560-10
Total score 6.87 4.40
0-20

Deese-Roediger-McDermott Task

Recall
91.07
Correct 16.17 53-128
False:criticallures 4.97 2.23 0-10

Recognition
Correct:oldwords 23.94 3.69 10-30
False: criticallures 8.35
2.21 1-10
Verbal LearningTest
Auditory
Immediaterecall
46.46
Correct 11.1021-69
1.27
Incorrect 1.97
0-10

Delayed recall
9.75
Correct 3.411-15
Incorrect 0.37 0-3
0.67

Recognition
Truepositive 13.97 4-15
1.69
Falsepositive 0.27 0.72 0-6
False negative 1.04 1.69 0-11

correct both rs = .29, both

<
.05. As for
Objectivememoryfunctioning recall, ps
Table 2 shows Pearson's
product-moment
corre word recognition, theSSMQ correlated significandy
lations of the SSMQ with objective memory indi with truepositives (i.e., correct identificationof stud
ces. Subjective memory judgments (indexed by the iedwords). In otherwords, participants with higher
more old words
SSMQ) and objective memory functioning (mea SSMQ scores correctly recognized
sured by theAuditory Verbal Learning Test) corre as previously presented, r = .24,p < .05. Similarly,
were negatively correlated with false
lated significantly,for both immediate and delayed SSMQ scores

SUBJECTIVEMEMORY PROBLEMS 253

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 r = -.25, <
.05. No correla
negatives, p significant
TABLE 2. Pearson's product-moment correlations tion emerged between SSMQand falsepositives, that
between subjectivememory(indexedby theSquire
is, falsely recognizing words thatwere not studied,
SubjectiveMemoryQuestionnaire)and othertests ina r =
-.og,p
=
.30.
=
community sample (N 142)a
Extreme values
Instruments r Because correlational analyses assume linearity,and
this assumption might not be true forour sample,we
CognitiveFailuresQuestionnaire -.72*
conducted additional analyses forwhich we created
GudjonssonComplianceScale -.22*
two groups consisting of participants with extreme
Suggestibility
SSMQ values: a poor memory group, with the 25%
Immediaterecall .30* lowest SSMQ scores (n = 35), and an excellentmemo
=
Delayed recall .30* rygroup,with the25% highest SSMQ scores (n 38).
Yieldl .13 Independent sample t tests revealed a similar pat
Yield2 .01 ternas was obtained with Pearson product-moment

Shift.11 correlations, except for theGudjonsson Compliance

= = .16. In other
Scale, ?(71) 1.43,^ words, we found
Total score .14
significantdifferences between the poor and excel
False recollections
lentmemory group on all correct recall parameters
Recall and the questionnaire tapping cognitive failures, all
<
Correct .36* ps .05. But no group differences on suggestibil
False: critical lures -.04 ity,compliance, and false recollection parameters
Recognition emerged.

Correct: old words .19*

Correlations
between thequestionnaires
False: critical lures -.12
To getmore insight into the relationships between the
Objectivememory concepts in this study,we examined the correlation
Immediaterecall matrix (Table 3). Suggestibilitywas positively corre
Correct .29* lated to falsememories, r = .19,^ < .05. In addition,
Incorrect -.12 falsememories and objective memory performance

Delayed recall
Correct .29*

Incorrect .00
TABLE 3. Correlationmatrixof questionnairesand
testscores ina community =
sample (N 142)
Recognition
Truepositive .24*
Tests CFQ GSS GCS DRM AVLT
False positive -.09
? -.14 .12 -.01 -.14
CFQ
False negative -.25*
GSS ? -.06 .19* -.17
aTheapplication of a Bonferronicorrectiondid not change the
?
general pattern. GCS .05 -.10
*p < .05. ?
DRM -34*

AVLT ?
Note. AVLT= correct immediate recall of theAuditoryVerbal
=
Learning Test;CFQ Cognitive Failures Questionnaire total score;
DRM = Deese-Roediger-McDermott recall of critical lures;GCS =
=
Gudjonsson Compliance Scale total score; GSS Gudjonsson Sug
gestibilityScale total score.
*p < .05.

254 VAN BERGEN ET AL.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
were negatively correlated, r = -.34,^ < .05.The other
correlations did not reach significance.
DISCUSSION
The findings of thepresent study can be summarized
as follows. First, participants who were pessimistic
about theirmemory reportedmore cognitive failures
and higher levels of compliance. Second, beliefs about
one's own memory were not related to suggestibility
and false recollections. Third, participants with more
optimistic opinions about theirmemory exhibited
better objective memory performance.
Gudjonsson described a number of cases sug
gesting thatmemory distrustmay contribute to false
memories and false confessions (Gudjonsson, 2003;
Gudjonsson et al., 1999). He argued thatpeople with
subjective memory problems tend to relyon external
cues and suggestions,
making themvulnerable to false
memories. Our results only partly support this line of
we found that the
reasoning. Thus, SSMQ was nega
tively associated with theGudjonsson Compliance
Scale: The more pessimistic a person's own memory
beliefs, themore compliant he or she is,which isun
derstandable when one assumes thatpeople suffer
ing frommemory distrust (i.e., who evaluate their ing their own memory than older adults with self
memory as poor) aremore susceptible to the author
ityof others. As a result, theyperceive the of fitnicely with those of Brewin and Stokou
opinion
others as more important than theirown opinions.
However, because this relationship was based only
on correlations, the causal
relationship between these
two concepts cannot be established. One could also
argue thatpeople start to distrust theirmemory be
cause theyaremore easily intimidated
by authorities
who might have played an active role inundermining
the confidence inone's memory abilities.This points
out that the relationship between memory distrust
and compliance could go both ways.
In this study,we failed to find a significant cor
relation between the SSMQ and false recollections
(i.e., critical lures) elicited by theDRM task.This
finding could be explained by themoderate reliability
of this task. Furthermore, following Gudjonsson's
line of reasoning, one would also expect high suggest
ibility levels inpeople with negative memory beliefs
(Gudjonsson, 2003). Contrary to our expectation,
we did not find evidence to support thishypothesis.
Thus, no significantcorrelationswere found between
This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the SSMQ and suggestibility.However, it should be
noted that levels of interrogativepressure during the
Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale procedure are very
modest. In the forensic cases involvingmemory dis
trust (Gudjonsson, 2003; Gudjonsson et al.,
1999),
all suspects had been exposed to extremely high
levels of interrogative stress.Therefore, our results
do not preclude the possibility thatwhen people
sufferingfrommemory distrust are exposed to high
interrogativepressure, theybecome suggestible.We
also found that the correlation between false recol
lections and suggestibilitywas positive and reached
significance. This was not surprising because other
studies have indicated thathighly
suggestible people
are more
likely to develop falsememories (see Ger
aerts, Smeets, Jelicic,Van Heerden,
8cMerckelbach,
2005; Gudjonsson, 2003).
Our finding that self-reported memory capa
bilities in young and middle-aged participants cor
respond with their objective memory performance
contrasts with research
showing that older adults
who believe theirmemory ispoor perform as well as
older adults with optimistic views of theirmemory
(Ponds 8c Jolles, 1996; Ponds et al., 2000). It seems
that our
participants
were more accurate in evaluat
reportedmemory problems. Interestingly,our results
(2002),
who found thatpeople who judge themselves tohave
poor childhood memory perform worse on a stan
dardized autobiographical memory test than those
who report normal childhood memories. It is diffi
cult to saywhy some of the older people believe
they
have poor memory capabilities when there is
nothing
wrong with theirmemory. Perhaps these people had
been confrontedwith cases of dementia in their rela
tives and friends. Such an experience may lead one
to interpretnormal age-related memory decline as a
form of pathological aging (Commissaris, Ponds, 8c
Jolles, 1998). Our younger and middle-aged partici
pants may not have these experiences, and this may
help to explain why in thisgroup subjective and ob
jective memory parameters are not dissociated to the
extent often seen inolder adults. Our sample may also
have more realisticmemory beliefs because
they are
more often exposed to feedback about theirmemory
performance (e.g., in the context of theirwork or edu
cation), which could promote a better calibration.
SUBJECTIVEMEMORY PROBLEMS 255
 In addition, we found thatpoor memory perfor For the forensic setting, our results imply that
mance (indexed
by immediate recall on theAuditory people who have optimistic ideas about theirmem
Verbal Learning Test) was related tomore false recol ory generally show bettermemory performance and
lections (i.e.,more critical lures).However, thiswas to lower compliance scores than thosewith pessimistic
be expected because "(partial) amnesia is a necessary views. However, these correlations are modest. Fur

condition for the development of a full-blown false
autobiographical memory" (Smeets, Merckelbach,
Horselenberg, 8c Jelicic, 2005, p. 925).
There are several limitations in thepresent study
thatdeserve some comment. First, although the cor
relations between subjectivememory judgments and
thermore,people with optimistic beliefs about their
memory are not less susceptible to suggestions and
false recollections than people with pessimistic be
liefsabout theirown memory. Therefore, one should
not regard their testimonies as more reliable.

objective memory parameters were significant, they NOTES

were
by all standardsmodest. This may have todo with This research was supported by
a grant from theNetherlands

thefact thatthe sample did not involvepatients or older Organization for Scientific Research (400.04.048). Thanks
are due toHeleen van
adults (i.e., participants with more extreme opinions Hoynck Papendrecht and Francine
Schneider for data collection.
about theirmemory). Furthermore, themodest cor
Address correspondence about this article to Saskia
relationsmay have todo with the fact that the testwe
van of Clinical Science,
Bergen, Department Psychological
used tomeasure objective memory performance, the
Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht Univer
a
Auditory Verbal Learning Test, taps only specific sity,P.O. Box 616,6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

type ofmemory (i.e., learning of new verbal informa (e-mail: s.vanbergen@psychology.unimaas.nl). Received for

tion). Second, anotherweakness of thepresent study publication January 18,2008; revision received July 16,2008.
is thatfor technical reasons, scales and taskswere given Action Editor: Donalson E.
Dulany.
in a fixed order, and thismay have introduced carry
over effects.Finally and most importandy,inour study, REFERENCES

people with low SSMQ scores might not necessarily Brewin, C. R., 8c Stokou, L. (2002). Validating reports of
sufferfroma full-blownmemory distrust syndrome. It poor childhood memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

may be that some participants with pessimistic views

16, 509-514
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, R R, Fitzgerald, R, 8c Parkes,
about theirown memory sufferedfrom trait memory
K. R.(1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire
distrust.However, thismay not be true formost par
(CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psy
ticipants scoring low on the SSMQ. Furthermore, in chology, 21,1-16.
Gudjonsson's forensic cases, memory distrust is de Commissaris, C,Ponds, R., 8c Jolles, J. (1998). Subjective
scribed as a confusional state.Because theSSMQ taps forgetfulness in a normal Dutch
population: Possibilities

a more trait than state in nature, our

quality that is
for health education and other interventions. Patient Edu

results cannot be easily generalized tomemory distrust cation and Counseling, 34, 25-32.

cases. Therefore, futurestudies should look atwhether Crombag, H., Merckelbach, H., 8c Elffers, H. (2000). Other
memory. Psychology, Crime &Law, 6, 251-265.
people sufferingfrom statememory distrust are likely
people's
Deelman, B. G., Brouwer, W. H., Van Zomeren, A. H., 8c
to create falsememories and have high suggestibility
Saan, R. J. (1980). Functiestoornissen na trauma
capi
levels. Itwould be interestingto examine how memory tis [Cognitive dysfunctions after head trauma]. In A.
distrust is related to other typesof tasks,notably tasks Jennekens-Schinkel,J. J. Diamant, H. R A. Diesfeldt 8c
inwhich external pressure is high. An example is the R. Haaxma (Eds.), Neuropsychologie inNederland [Neu

"computer crash" paradigm (Horselenberg, Merck (pp. 253-281). Deven

ropsychology in theNetherlands]
ter,The Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus.
elbach, & Josephs, 2003; Horselenberg et al., 2006;
Kassin 8c Kiechel, 1996). In thisparadigm, innocent Geraerts, E., Smeets, E.Jelicic, M., Van HeerdenJ., 8cMer

ckelbach, H. (2005). Fantasy proneness, but not self-re

participants are accused of being responsible for a women
ported trauma is related toDRM performance of
computer crash. The question riseswhether people
reporting recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
with negative opinions about theirownmemory would Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 602-612.
be more ready to confess than those with favorable Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A
new scale of
interrogative suggest
about their memory. ibility.Personality and Individual Differences, 5,303-314.
opinions

256 VAN BERGEN ET AL.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility (1998).The Gudjonsson Suggestibility
Scale (GSS): Fur
Scales manual. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. ther data on its reliability, validity, and metacognition cor
G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations relates. Social Behavior and
Gudjonsson, Personality, 26, 203-210.
and confessions: A handbook. New York: Wiley. Peters, M.J. V, Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2008).
G. H., Hannesdottir, K., Petursson, H., 8c A Dutch
Gudjonsson, Inducing false memories: version of theDeese/

Bjornsson, G. (2002). The effects of alcohol withdrawal Roediger-McDermott submitted

paradigm. Manuscript
on mental state, interrogative suggestibility and compli for publication.
ance: An
experimental study.Journal ofForensic Psychia Ponds, R. W. H. M., 8c Jolles, J. (1996). Memory com

try, 13, 53-67 plaints in elderly people: The role of memory abilities,

Gudjonsson, G. H., Kopelman, M. D., 8c MacKeith,J. A. C. metamemory, and personality. Educational

depression,
Unreliable admissions to homicide: A case ofmis
(1999). Gerontology, 22, 341-357.
diagnosis of amnesia and misuse of abreaction technique. Ponds, R. W. H. M., Van Boxtel, M. P.J.,&Jolles,J. (2000).
British Journal ofPsychiatry, 174, 455-459. Age-related changes in subjective cognitive functioning.
G. H., 8cMacKeith, J. A. C. con
Gudjonsson, (1982). False Educational
Gerontology, 26, 67-81.
fessions: Psychological effects of interrogation. A discus Rey, A. Uexamen clinique
en
(1964). psychologie [Clinical
sion paper. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing thepast: examination in psychology]. Paris: Presses Universitaires
The role ofpsychologists in criminal trials (pp. 253-269). de France.
The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Deventer, Roediger, H. L., 8c McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false

Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.
Individual differences and false confessions: A concep ofExperimental
Journal Psychology: Learning, Memory,
tual replication of Kassin and Kiechel and
(1996). Psychology, Cognition, 21, 803-814.
Crime &Law, g, 1-8. Smeets, T. (2008). Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales
en Gud

Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Frans jonsson Compliance Scale [Gudjonsson Suggestibility
sens, D., Peters, G. J.Y, 8c Zeles, G.
(2006). False confes Scales and Gudjonsson Compliance Scale]. In T. Gies
sions in the lab: Do mat
plausibility and consequences brecht, C. de Ruiter 8c M. Jelicic
(Eds,), Forensisch psy
ter?Psychology, Crime &Law, 12, 61-75. en
chodiagnostisch gereedschap. Malingering, psychopathie
Kassin, S. M., 8c Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychol andere persoonlijkheidstrekken [Forensic psychodiagnos
ogy of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and tic tools. Malingering, psychopathy and other personality
confabulation. Psychological Science, j, 125-128. traits] (pp. 63-72). Amsterdam: Harcourt.

Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., 8c Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewit Smeets, T, Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., 8c Jelicic, M.
ness
persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge (2005). Trying to recollect past events: Confidence,
the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports? beliefs, and memories. Clinical 25,
Psychology Review,
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63,181-197. 917-934

Magnussen, S., Andersson,J., Cornoldi, C, De Beni, R., Squire, L. R., Wetzel, C, 8c Slater, P. C. (1979). Memory
G. S., et al. (2006). What complaint after electroconvulsive
Endestad, T, Goodman, people therapy: Assessment
believe about memory. Memory, with a new
14, 595-613. self-rating instrument. Biological Psychiatry,
Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Nijman, H., 8c De Jong, P. J. 14, 791-801.

(1996). Self-reported cognitive failures and neurotic Van Bergen, S., Brands, I., Jelicic, M., 8c Merckelbach, H.
and Individual
symptomatology. Personality Differences, (2009). Assessing trait memory distrust: Psychometric
20, 715-724. properties of the Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire.
Merckelbach, H., Muris, P.,Wessel, I., 8c Van Koppen, P. J. Manuscript submitted for publication.

SUBJECTIVEMEMORY PROBLEMS 257

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:02:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions