(PS14-30) Following an Analogue Trauma and Volitional Eye Movements Greater Changes in Vividness Are Associated with Greater Endorsement of Misinformation

Background: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) has gained significant popularity as a treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). One possible mechanism is that it assists in reducing the vividness and emotionality associated with traumatic memories (Leer et al., 2014). In a experimental study, Houben et al., (2018) found that performing lateral eye movements after watching an analogue trauma video was associated with greater endorsement of misinformation, which may have significant consequences in forensic settings. However, subsequent attempts at replication were unsuccessful (Calvillo & Emami, 2019; van Schie & Leer, 2019). This pre-registered study aimed to replicate previous research and extend it by examining reflexive eye movements (compared to the volitional eye movements that take place in EMDR) as well as potential moderating factors that may explain the heterogeneity of findings across prior studies.

Methods: Participants (N=112) were recruited from an undergraduate introductory psychology course. Participants watched an analogue trauma video and were randomly assigned to complete volitional lateral eye movements (V-EM), reflexive eye movements (R-EM) or no eye movements (fixed gaze). Participants completed analogue visual scale ratings of vividness and emotionality before and after completing the eye movements. Participants then read a written narrative containing misinformation, completed a 5-minute distractor task, and then completed questions about the analogue trauma video to assess susceptibility to misinformation. Data were analyzed using Bayesian models fit with the brms package in R.

Results: Analyses that aimed to directly replicate prior null findings were consistent (there was no impact of group on endorsement of misinformation, vividness or emotionality). However, one novel finding from the exploratory moderation analysis did emerge: greater decrease in vividness (change from after the analogue trauma to after the experimental condition) was associated with greater endorsement of misinformation among individuals in the the V-EM group b=0.40, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.03, 0.78], Bayes Factor (BF) = 3.44 compared to individuals in the control group. There was no effect of change in vividness on endorsement of misinformation in the R-EM group compared to the control group  b=0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69], (BF = 1.08 ).

Conclusions: The results of this study were consistent with previous findings that eye movements alone are not associated with increased endorsement of misinformation. However,  we identified greater decrease in vividness as risk factor for endorsement of misinformation when volitional eye movements were performed whereas this effect was not present for reflexive eye movements. It may be that the decrease in vividness in conjunction with the attentional engagement associated with volitional eye movements modulates memory consolidation and increases susceptibility to misinformation. Further research is needed to replicate this preliminary, but potentially important, finding.