1. Individual Differences in Dissociative Experiences and Recovered Memory Accuracy Introduction  Some researchers claim that memory blocking can be explained by normal cognitive processes rather than by emotional factors (Anderson & Green, 2001; Smith et al., 2003). These processes may be affected by individual differences in dissociation and repressor type coping style.  High scorers on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein and Putnam, 1986) may make more episodic memory errors due to a predisposition to suggestibility (Hyman & Billings,1998; Merckelbach, Muris, and Rassin, & Horslenberg, 2000).  The DES loads on three factors (Ross, Joshi, & Currie, 1991) ranging from common, benign experiences, such as missing part of a conversation (factor one), to rare experiences, such as not recognizing oneself in a mirror (factor three).  A repressor coping style is identified as one that reports low anxiety and high defensiveness (Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979). These two attributes may cause repressor types to use stricter criteria in accepting memories as accurate (Spirrison & McCarley, 2001).  The present study used a modified version of the comparative memory paradigm developed by Smith et al. (2003) to block and recover word lists. Participants were also tested for dissociative experiences and repressor type coping style.  Hypotheses: The research team predicted that the blocking and recovery effects found in Smith, et al. (2003) would be replicated; that the high DES scorers’ suggestibility would translate into higher rates of episodic based errors; and that a repressor coping style would reduce the number of errors. Method Results and Discussion  The results supported our hypothesis for a basic cognitive process explanation of memory blocking and recovery consistent with our explanation of altering the accessibility of lists (Smith et al., 2003).  The experimental group recalled significantly fewer critical items during free recall than did the control group due to the blocking caused by our manipulation (see Fig. 1).  However, recovery was observed when a cued recall test virtually eliminated the blocking effect.  The experimental group also recalled significantly more categories on the filler lists due to greater accessibility (see Fig. 1).  We failed to find a difference in errors for recovered versus continuous memory.  The results also supported our hypothesis that high dissociators would commit more episodic errors than would low dissociators.  Interestingly, “normal” people who frequently experience common and benign dissociative experiences (DES factor one) exhibited high episodic errors rates (see Fig. 2).  We also found an interaction between DES group (high vs. low) and repressor type (non-repressors vs. repressors) for episodic memory errors (see Fig. 3).  Whereas repressor types did not differ in episodic errors regardless of their DES scores…  Non-repressor types, who also had high DES scores, made more episodic errors than did non-repressor types who had low DES scores.  Repressor types’ stricter memory acceptance criteria negated the effects of high dissociators’ suggestibility. Craig E. Hunt, Anne M. Sorgi, Kris Gunawan, Sharon E. Walsh & David R. Gerkens California State University, Fullerton We would like to thank Mississippi State University and Jason Outlaw, Brianna Kay, Lauren Lever, Jorden Hertl, Zac Stringer, Erin Busbea, and Kristen Rogers for their contributions to this research.