An important limitation of ABM memory research is that, due to the nature of the tasks, it is rarely possible to verify the accuracy of memories retrieved. Eyewitness paradigms, by contrast, typically present participants with a standardized to‐be‐
remembered event before asking them to recall the event at some point afterward, allowing recall accuracy to be objectively ascertained. Most studies of eyewitness memory in autism have used videos as the to‐be‐remembered “event”; however, three studies have used personally experienced live events: two in child samples (Bruck, London, Landa, & Goodman, 2007; McCrory, Henry, & Happé, 2007) and one in an adult sample (Maras et al., 2013). These studies provide measures of both memory accuracy (proportion of correct details from total details reported) and completeness (number of correct details reported), while still retaining a higher level of ecological validity than traditional lab‐based memory tasks (using stimuli such as word lists). To date, studies of eyewitness memory in children and adults with autism have reported diminished recall under unsupported free‐recall tests, either in terms of fewer correct details reported (e.g., Bruck et al., 2007; Maras & Bowler, 2011; Maras et al., 2012;
Mattison, Dando, & Ormerod, 2014; McCrory et al., 2007), or increased errors (Maras & Bowler, 2011; Maras et al., 2012, 2013; Mattison et al., 2014).
Klein et al.
(1999) 21 year old R.J.
(case study) All male Mental age matched comparison group (comprised of three 12 year old children)
Episodic ABM was assessed using a modifi ed ABM cueing task (personality trait words were used as memory cues). Semantic ABM was assessed by asking participants and their mothers to complete a personality trait questionnaire and looking at the degree of correspondence between the two.
Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specifi c ABMs retrieved); Semantic ABM = no (intact knowledge of personality traits).
Goddard et al.
(2007) 18–35 years old 30:7 (autism),
31:8 (TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
ABM cueing task (positive, negative,
neutral cues) Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specifi c ABMs retrieved and longer latencies to memory retrieval).
Also, a signifi cant effect of cue valence.
Crane and Goddard (2008)
18–64 12:3 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
Episodic and semantic interview task;
ABM fl uency task; Episodic memory narrative task
Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specifi c ABMs retrieved); Semantic = no (intact access to information about the self).
Crane et al.
(2009) – Study One
Autism mean = 41.57 (SD = 16.49), TD mean = 40.53 (SD = 17.20)
14:14 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
General event knowledge task (computer‐based measure of whether participants generally experienced events) and event specifi c knowledge task (ABM cueing task)
General event knowledge = autism group took longer to respond, but showed a similar pattern of ABM as the TD group (using the self to facilitate ABM retrieval). Event specifi c knowledge task = autism group retrieved fewer specifi c ABMs and took longer to do so;
also did not use the self to facilitate memory retrieval (whereas the comparison group did).
(continued on p. 168) (2009) – Study
Two 36.55 (SD =
11.62); TD mean = 35.45 (SD = 11.75)
and TD) group matched for age, gender and IQ
task (in which participants are asked to report general, rather than specifi c, ABMs)
to retrieval and patterns of performance as a function of cue type, using the self to facilitate memory performance).
Adler et al.
(2010) Autism mean = 21.87 (SD = 4.75), TD mean = 22.90, SD = 4.62)
15:1 (autism),
20:1 (TD) TD comparison group matched for age, years of education and gender.
A personality trait questionnaire was administered, with participants selecting the traits that best described them. Then, participants were asked to provide ABMs about selected traits.
Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specifi c ABMs).
Crane et al.
(2010) Autism mean = 36.55 (SD = 11.62); TD mean = 35.45 (SD = 11.75)
10:10 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
Self‐defi ning and everyday ABM task Episodic ABM = no difference in numbers of memories retrieved, but memories of the autism group were less specifi c. Themes of memories differed, but other qualitative similarities (e.g., emotion, self/other references).
autism group also less likely to extract meaning from narratives than TD group.
Tanweer et al.
(2010) 18–65 years 9:2 (autism),
4:11 (TD) TD comparison group matched for age and IQ
ABM interview task in which ABMs were provided for three different time periods; participants were then asked to give R/K judgements for each memory
Episodic ABM = yes (fewer memories overall, and fewer specifi c memories over all lifetime periods). Autism group tended to give fewer R responses and more K responses, particularly regarding memories from early life.
Crane et al.
(2012) – Study One
19–65 years 12:6 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
ABM cueing task (high/low
imageability/frequency cue words) Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specific ABMs retrieved and longer latencies to memory retrieval).
Similar patterns of memory retrieval though: both groups retrieved a higher number of specific memories in response to high imageability (but not high frequency) cue words.
Crane et al.
(2012) – Study Two
18–65 years 10:8 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
ABM cueing task (sensory cues – odour, image, word, auditory)
Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specific ABMs retrieved and longer latencies to memory retrieval).
Similar patterns of memory retrieval though: both groups retrieved a higher number of general (categoric) memories to odour cues, which were also from the more distant past. Auditory cues also elicited more emotional memories in both groups.
Crane et al.
(2013) Autism mean = 41.57 (SD = 16.49); TD mean = 40.53 (SD = 17.20
14:14 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
ABM cueing task (positive, negative,
neutral cues) Episodic ABM = yes (fewer specific ABMs retrieved and longer latencies to memory retrieval). No effect of cue valence (cf. Goddard et al., 2007).
Crane, Lind &
Bowler (2013) Autism mean = 40.12 (SD = 13.94), TD mean = 44.80 (SD = 11.59)
13:5 (autism
and TD) TD comparison group matched for age, gender and IQ
Sentence Completion of Events from the Past (SCEPT) test and Sentence Completion of Events from the Future (SCEFT) test
Episodic ABM (from past and future): No (no group differences for any measures).
Four studies of eyewitness testimony in autism have specifically examined the role of retrieval support for witnesses with autism: three in adults (Maras & Bowler, 2010, 2012a; Maras, Mulcahy, Memon, Picariello, & Bowler, 2014) and one in children/
adolescents (Mattison et al., 2014). The cognitive interview (see Chapter 13) is an evidence‐based police interviewing technique that has been widely shown to increase both the quantity and the quality of witness recall (Memon, Meissner, & Fraser, 2010). In addition to social communication techniques, the cognitive interview con- tains various cognitive mnemonics, including instructions from the interviewer to mentally reinstate the context that was experienced during encoding as well as varied
BIOLOGY
Medial prefrontal cortex Posterior cingulate cortex
Frontal lobe Limbic system
(amygdala)
Hippocampus Temporal parietal
junction
Intact self-enactment
effect Episodic memory
atypicalities
Ruminative self-focus
Difficulties in executive functions
Atypical emotion processing Theory of mind
atypicalities
Different self-memory links
Depressed mood Failure to inhibit
irrelevant ABMs
Difficulties generating
specific ABMs Difficulties with conversation/
social interaction
Long latencies to ABM retrieval Social problem-solving
challenges COGNITION
BEHAVIOUR
Figure 8.4 Illustration of the relation between ABM and autistic behaviours using the notation of the causal modelling approach (Morton, 2004). Full lines indicate relations identi- fied in previous research (although not all relations are necessarily indicated); where no arrows are shown, no relation has yet been suggested. Relations between items in the model may be bi‐directional (see also Hill, 2008). Although not shown in the illustration, the environment is thought to have an impact at all three levels of the model.
retrieval attempts such as recalling the details in a different order or changing the perspective of recall.
Based on the task support hypothesis (Bowler et al., 1997, 2004), one might pre- dict that the cognitive interview would offer useful retrieval support for adults with autism. However, Maras and Bowler (2010) found that not only did it fail to increase the number of correct details reported by witnesses with autism; it actually increased their error reporting. The reinstatement of encoding context procedure in particular was ineffective, which could be related to one of two possibilities. Either autistic indi- viduals failed to encode contextual detail during the encoding of an event (in which case any attempt to reinstate context during retrieval would be futile), or they experi- enced difficulty in retrieving the context under the traditional interview instructions.
To elucidate whether this was more of an encoding or retrieval issue, Maras and Bowler (2012a) interviewed adults with autism with the context reinstatement instructions either in a different room from which they witnessed the event (as is usual for this type of eyewitness paradigm) or in the same room, to physically reinstate the context. When interviewed in a different room, the context reinstatement instruc- tions once again resulted in diminished autistic performance relative to the typical comparison group. Physically returning to the encoding context at retrieval, however, led to improved recall in the autistic group, to the extent that there was no difference between groups in the number of correct details reported. These findings support the notion that autistic difficulties in utilizing context to enhance their retrieval are related to retrieval, rather than encoding issues.
Of course, returning to the scene of a crime in real life will rarely be practically pos- sible or appropriate. Thus, it is important to develop methods of support that can be utilized in interviews. The self‐administered interview (SAI) is a pen‐and‐paper evidence‐based interview that was developed to allow an early, quality retrieval by witnesses in real life instances where there are multiple witnesses but limited police resources to interview each witness immediately (Gabbert, Hope, & Fisher, 2009).
Crucially, the SAI contains some of the cognitive mnemonics of the cognitive interview, including context reinstatement, but being self‐administered it removes the social communication techniques. As such, it offers potential for witnesses with autism, who may otherwise struggle with the inherently social nature of a police interview (see also White, 2013; White et al., 2009). Maras et al. (2014) tested the effectiveness of the SAI for witnesses with autism. Whereas the context reinstatement instructions remained to be ineffective in eliciting more detail (compared to a standard control written free‐
recall test), the “varied retrieval” component, whereby witnesses generate a sketch of the scene, increased recall, indicating a promising avenue to support retrieval in wit- nesses with autism. Similarly, a recent study by Mattison et al. (2014) found that a modification of sketching in order to reinstate context was effective in improving the number of correct details reported by children and adolescents with autism without a concomitant increase in error reporting (see Chapter 13 for more details).
Practical implications
Despite specific difficulties in the retrieval of certain autobiographical information (e.g., specific memories), autistic adults are capable of providing accurate and rel- evant information as witnesses if they are appropriately supported at interview.
For instance, autistic individuals tend to show diminished performance on most memory tasks when test procedures are unsupported (as is the case in free recall), but not on supported tests such as cued recall or recognition. This suggests that these difficulties do not always reflect an encoding problem and are open to effective support.
Although free recall is widely accepted as producing the most accurate, uncontami- nated witness recall (Ministry of Justice, 2011), witnesses with autism may need more guided, focused, retrieval from the outset to (a) support memory retrieval (see Maras
& Bowler, 2014), (b) reduce implicit social demands regarding what is relevant for recall (see White, 2013), and (c) minimize demands on executive resources (see Maister et al., 2013). Indeed, a recent survey of police officers in England and Wales indicated that police officers themselves recognized the importance of narrowing the parameters in their questioning (Crane, Maras, Hawken, Mulcahy, & Memon, 2016), for instance, by specifying the time frame, place, or event that the witness should focus on. Empirical, lab‐based findings indicate that adults with autism (without accompa- nying intellectual impairment) are no more suggestible than those without autism (Maras & Bowler, 2011, 2012b; North, Russell, & Gudjonsson, 2008; see also Bruck et al., 2007; and McCrory et al., 2007 for similar findings with children); thus, more focused retrieval is unlikely to result in heightened suggestibility, provided it is non- leading. It is worth cautioning, however, that although no more suggestible, indi- viduals may be more compliant (North et al., 2008; but see Maras & Bowler, 2012b).
On the basis of the research reviewed in this chapter, interviewers should also bear in mind that individuals with autism may:
•
Need longer to process questions and recall their answers.•
Need more focused (nonleading) questions with set parameters.•
Have better memory for semantic and general information, but require more prompting to retrieve specific episodes.•
Find it difficult to focus due to sensory demands (e.g., in a noisy or brightly lit interview environment).The Advocate’s Gateway toolkits (2015a, 2015b) on autism provide further practical guidance for practitioners on such issues.
Take‐Home Points
•
Episodic ABM (memory for personal events), but not semantic ABM (memory for personal facts), appears to be atypical in autistic adults.•
While typical adults (primarily) tend to organize their ABMs around the self, this does not appear to be the case for adults with autism.•
Autistic adults appear to show some areas of strength regarding ABM; for example, they may recall ABMs for very early life events.•
Despite difficulties with some aspects of ABM retrieval and encoding, adults with autism are capable of providing accurate and relevant information as witnesses, if they are appropriately supported at interview.References
Addis, D. R., Moscovitch, M., Crawley, A., & McAndrews, M. (2004). Recollective qualities modulate hippocampal activation during autobiographical memory retrieval. Hippocampus, 14, 752–762. doi:10.1002/hipo.10215
Adler, N., Nadler, B., Eviatar, Z., & Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The relationship between theory of mind and autobiographical memory in high‐functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. Psychiatry Research, 178(1), 214–216. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.11.015 The Advocate’s Gateway. (2015a). Planning to question someone with an autism spectrum disor-
der including Asperger syndrome. London, England: The Advocate’s Gateway.
The Advocate’s Gateway. (2015b). Witnesses and defendants with autism: Memory and sensory issues. London, England: The Advocate’s Gateway.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Asperger, H. (1944/1991). “Autistic psychopathy” in childhood. In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37–92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Attwood, T. (2007). The complete guide to Asperger’s syndrome. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi:10.1016/S1364‐6613(00)01538‐2
Baddeley, A., & Wilson, B. (1986). Amnesia, autobiographical memory and confabulation. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical Memory (pp. 225–252). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2002). Emotionally charged autobiographical memories across the lifespan: The recall of happy, sad, traumatic, and involuntary memories. Psychology &
Aging, 17(4), 636–652. doi:10.1037/0882‐7974.17.4.636
Beversdorf, D. Q., Anderson, J. M., Manning, S. E., Anderson, S. L., Nordgren, R. E., Felopulos, G. J., Nadeau, S., Heilman, K., & Bauman, M. L. (1998). The effect of seman- tic and emotional context on written recall for verbal language in high functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 65(5), 685–692. doi:10.1136/jnnp.65.5.685
Birch, L. S., & Davidson, K. M. (2007). Specificity of autobiographical memory in depressed older adults and its relationship with working memory and IQ. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 175–186. doi:10.1348/014466506X119944
Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2002). Exploring the functions of autobiographical memory: Why do I remember the autumn? In J. Webster & B. Haight (Eds.), Critical advances in reminiscence:
From theory to application. New York, NY: Springer.
Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A tale of three functions: The self‐
reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23(1), 91–117. doi:10.1521/
soco.23.1.91.59198
Boucher, J., & Warrington, E. K. (1976). Memory deficits in early infantile autism: Some similarities to the amnesic syndrome. British Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 73–87.
doi:10.1111/j.2044‐8295.1976.tb01499.x
Bowler, D. M. (2007). Autism spectrum disorders: Psychological theory and research. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bowler, D. M., & Gaigg, S. B. (2008). Memory in ASD: Enduring themes and future pros- pects. In J. Boucher & D. Bowler (Eds.), Memory in Autism (pp. 330–349). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, D. M., Gaigg, S. B., & Gardiner, J. M. (2008). Effects of related and unrelated context on recall and recognition by adults with high‐functioning autism spectrum disorder.
Neuropsychologia, 46(4), 993–999. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.004
Bowler, D. M., Gaigg, S. B., & Gardiner, J. M. (2014). Binding of multiple features in memory by high‐functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders, 44(9), 2355–2362. doi:10.1007/s10803‐014‐2105‐y
Bowler, D. M., Gardiner, J. M., & Berthollier, N. (2004). Source memory in adolescents and adults with Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 533–542. doi:10.1007/s10803‐004‐2548‐7
Bowler, D. M., Gardiner, J. M., & Grice, S. J. (2000). Episodic memory and remembering in adults with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30(4), 295–304. doi:10.1023/A:1005575216176
Bowler, D. M., Gardiner, J. M., Grice, S., & Saavalainen, P. (2000). Memory illusions: False recall and recognition in adults with Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 663–672. doi:10.1037/0021‐843X.110.2.215
Bowler, D. M., Matthews, N. J., & Gardiner, J. M. (1997). Asperger’s syndrome and memory:
Similarity to autism but not amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 35(1), 65–70. doi:10.1016/
S0028‐3932(96)00054‐1
Brewer, W. (1986). What is autobiographical memory? In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb Memories. Cognition, 5, 73–99.
doi:10.1016/0010‐0277(77)90018‐X
Bruck, M., London, K., Landa, R., & Goodman, J. (2007). Autobiographical memory and suggestibility in children with autism spectrum disorder. Development & Psychopathology, 19(1), 73–95. doi:10.1017/s0954579407070058
Cohen, G. (1998). The effects of ageing on autobiographical memory. In C. Thompson, D.
Hermann, D. Bruce, J. Read, D. Payne, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Autobiographical memory:
Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 67–93). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Conway, M. A. (1990). Autobiographical memory: An introduction. Buckingham, England:
Open University Press.
Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 594–628.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.005
Conway, M. A., & Bekerian, D. A. (1987). Organization in autobiographical memory. Memory
& Cognition, 15(2), 119–132. doi:10.3758/BF03197023
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell‐Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memo- ries in the self‐memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288. doi:10.1037/
0033‐295X.107.2.261
Conway, M. A., & Rubin, D. C. (1986). The structure of autobiographical memory. In A.
Collins, S. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. Morris (Eds.), Theories of Memory (pp. 103–
137). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corcoran, R., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Autobiographical memory and theory of mind: Evidence of a relationship in schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 33(5), 897–905.
doi:10.1017/S0033291703007529
Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Aging and memory: Implications for skilled perfor- mance. In W. A. Rogers, A. D. Fisk, & N. Walker (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance:
Advances in theory and applications. Rogers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crane, L. (2010). Autobiographical memory in adults with autism spectrum disorders (doctoral dissertation). University of London, England.
Crane, L., & Goddard, L. (2008). Episodic and semantic autobiographical memory in adults with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38(3), 498–506. doi:10.1007/s10803‐007‐0420‐2
Crane, L., Goddard, L., & Pring, L. (2009). Specific and general autobiographical knowledge in adults with autism spectrum disorders: The role of personal goals. Memory, 17(5), 557–
576. doi:10.1080/09658210902960211
Crane, L., Goddard, L., & Pring, L. (2010). Self‐defining and everyday autobiographical memories in adults with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40(3), 383–391. doi:10.1007/s10803‐009‐0875‐4
Crane, L., Goddard, L., & Pring, L. (2013). Autobiographical memory in adults with autism:
The role of depressed mood, rumination, working memory and theory of mind. Autism:
The International Journal of Research and Practice, 17(2), 205–219.
doi:10.1177/1362361311418690
Crane, L., Lind, S. E., & Bowler, D. M. (2013). Remembering the past and imagining the future in adults with autism spectrum disorders. Memory, 21(2), 157–166. doi:10.1080/
09658211.2012.712976
Crane, L., Maras, K. L., Hawken, T., Mulcahy, S., & Memon, A. (2016). Experiences of autism spectrum disorder and policing in England and Wales: Surveying police and the autism community. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2028–2041. doi:10.1007/
s10803‐016‐2729‐1
Crane, L., Pring, L., Jukes, K., & Goddard, L. (2012). Patterns of autobiographical memory in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42(10), 2100–2112. doi:10.1007/s10803‐012‐1459‐2
Dahlgren, S. O., & Trillingsgaard, A. (1996). Theory of mind in non‐retarded children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome. A research note. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 37(6), 759–763. doi:10.1111/j.1469‐7610.1996.tb01469.x
Dalgleish, T., Williams, J. M. G., Golden, A. M. J., Perkins, N., Barrett, L. F.,…Barnard, P. J.
(2007). Reduced specificity of autobiographical memory and depression: The role of executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology‐General, 136(1), 23–42.
doi:10.1037/0096‐3445.136.1.23
Deruelle, C., Hubert, B., Santos, A., & Wicker, B. (2008). Negative emotion does not enhance recall skills in adults with autistic spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 1(2), 91–96.
doi:10.1002/aur.13
Fassbender, C., & Schweitzer, J. B. (2006). Is there evidence for neural compensation in atten- tion deficit hyperactivity disorder? A review of the functional neuroimaging literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 26(4), 445–465. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.003
Fivush, R., Haden, C., & Reese, E. (1996). Remembering, recounting and reminiscing: The development of autobiographical memory in social context. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 341–359). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self‐administered interview tool. Law & Human Behavior, 33(4), 298–307.
doi:10.1007/s10979‐008‐9146‐8
Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2008). Free recall and forgetting of emotionally arousing words in autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychologia, 46(9), 2336–2343. doi:10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2008.03.008
Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2009). Illusory memories of emotionally charged words in autism spectrum disorder: Further evidence for atypical emotion processing outside the social domain. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 39(7), 1031–1038.
doi:10.1007/s10803‐009‐0710‐y
Gaigg, S. B., Gardiner, J. M., & Bowler, D. M. (2008). Free recall in autism spectrum disorder: The role of relational and item‐specific encoding. Neuropsychologia, 46(4), 983–992. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.011
Gardiner, J. M. (2001). Episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness: A first‐person approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 356(1413), 1351–1361. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0955
Goddard, L., Dritschel, B., & Burton, A. (1996). Role of autobiographical memory in social problem solving and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(4), 609–616.
doi:10.1037/0021‐843X.105.4.609