# Relationship between personality, memory complaints and episodic memory in young, middle-aged and older adults

Alix Launay, Laurence Taconnat, Sandrine Vanneste, Aurélie Matysiak, Alexia Baudouin

► To cite this version:

Alix Launay, Laurence Taconnat, Sandrine Vanneste, Aurélie Matysiak, Alexia Baudouin. Relationship between personality, memory complaints and episodic memory in young, middle-aged and older adults. Acta Psychologica, 2026, 263, pp.106274. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106274. hal-05482229

HAL Id: hal-05482229

https://hal.science/hal-05482229v1

Submitted on 28 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
**Title:** Relationship between personality, memory complaints and episodic memory in young, middle-aged and older adults

**Authors:** Alix LAUNAY¹², Laurence TACONNAT¹, Sandrine VANNESTE¹, Aurélie MATYSIAK², Alexia BAUDOUIN³

¹Université de Tours, Centre de Recherche sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (CeRCA)
UMR-CNRS 7295

²Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche (CMRR), CHRU de Tours

³ Université Paris-Cité, Institut de psychologie, LMC2 UR 7536

**Acknowledgments**

We thank Aloys Austasie, Juliette Deshayes, Manon Diot, Elsa Gateau, Sixtine Huck, Ophélie Langlois, Katell Lebrun and Nassim Yacoub for their work during data collection.

**Declaration of Interest statement**

The authors report no conflict of interest.

**Corresponding author email address**

alix.launay@univ-tours.fr
## Abstract

Our study aimed to investigate the relationship between episodic memory, memory complaints, and personality traits (openness to experience and neuroticism) as a function of age. Using a cross-sectional design with a multimodal assessment of episodic memory, we compared three groups of adults (young, middle-aged, and older). We examined age effects on both objective and subjective measures of memory, as well as on openness and neuroticism. Our results revealed an age effect only on the objective measures. Furthermore, associations between memory and personality differed by age group. In young adults, memory complaints were consistent with actual memory performance. Among middle-aged adults, memory complaints were more correlated with the level of neuroticism. The higher the level of neuroticism, the higher the memory complaints. In contrast, a high level of openness was associated with better performance and lower memory complaints. Finally, among older adults, high level of openness was associated with better performance, whereas high levels of neuroticism were linked to a great number of errors. In this group, the level of complaints was not linked to performance or personality. These results support the use of multimodal paradigms to investigate the dynamic relationships between episodic memory, memory complaints and personality in the context of normal cognitive aging.

## Keyword

episodic memory, memory complaints, personality, aging, multimodal task

## Highlights

* Memory, complaints and personality show different links across age groups.

* In young adults, better memory is linked to fewer memory complaints.

* In middle age, neuroticism relates to more complaints, openness to better recall.

* In older adults, neuroticism relates to more errors, openness to better recall.
# 1. Introduction

Normal aging is characterized by difficulties in retrieving information stored in episodic memory (Balota et al., 2000; Taconnat et al., 2023; Park & Festini, 2017). Older adults feel the effects of ageing on memory, with 50% of people over the age of 50 reporting memory complaints (Reid & Maclullich, 2006; Ritchie, 2000). Memory complaints are defined as the expression of a perceived memory problem by an individual, regardless of whether objective impairments are present (Mitchell et al., 2014). Although they may signal a neurodegenerative risk (Petersen et al., 2014; Reid & Maclullich, 2006), they are considered a nonspecific indicators, as only 15% of complaints correspond to an actual cognitive deficit (Gifford et al., 2014), and 7% lead to a diagnosis of major neurocognitive disorder within four years after the first assessment of complaints (Slot et al., 2018).

Other factors are involved in the expression of memory complaints and may explain this lack of specificity (Derouesné et al., 2003; Gopi & Madan, 2024; Rowell et al., 2016; Stephan et al., 2020). Thus, social factors such as low educational attainment or ageism stereotypes can increase complaints. Cognitive difficulties, such as maintaining an accurate perception of one's abilities, can also create a gap between actual and perceived performance (Gopi & Madan, 2024). Although high motivation to succeed can enhance performance, it can also increase awareness of memory failures, leading to more memory complaints (Duan et al., 2020; Gopi & Madan, 2024). Finally, certain personality traits, such as neuroticism (which is strongly linked to anxiety), have also been associated with an increase in memory complaints (Derouesné et al., 2003; Stephan et al., 2020).

Personality thus appears to be a promising avenue for understanding the association between aging and memory functioning (e.g. Bouazzaoui et al., 2024). The most commonly used model is the Big Five, which includes five distinct personality traits (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Openness to experience reflects creativity, curiosity, and open-mindedness. Neuroticism refers to sensitivity to stress and anxiety. Extraversion characterizes sociability and assertiveness. Agreeableness reflects empathy and cooperativeness. Finally, conscientiousness refers to organizational skills, adherence to social norms, and a sense of moral duty.

Numerous studies have explored the association between personality traits and either objective or subjective memory measures, across participants of different ages. Agreeableness and extraversion are generally unrelated, or only weakly related, to memory performance or complaints, regardless of age (Luchetti et al., 2021; Sutin et al., 2023). Conscientiousness has been associated with better episodic memory performance in several studies, although the direction of the association varies across investigations (Luchetti et al., 2016; Rammstedt et al., 2016). In contrast, associations between memory and openness or neuroticism appear more consistent (Luchetti et al., 2016; Sutin et al., 2023). Specifically, openness is linked to better memory performance (Bouazzaoui et al., 2024; Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2010; Allen, 2019; Luchetti et al., 2016; Pinard et al., 2023; Taconnat et al., 2022), while neuroticism is associated with poorer cognitive performance and increased memory complaints (Stephan et al., 2020; Taconnat et al., 2022). Moreover, higher levels of neuroticism are also linked to more memory errors, particularly false memories (Zhang et al., 2024).

Regarding the evolution of associations between personality and memory during aging, longitudinal studies show that higher openness to experience is related to a slower decline in episodic memory, whereas higher neuroticism is associated with accelerated cognitive decline with advancing age (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2010; Allen, 2019; Luchetti et al., 2016; Stephan et al., 2020). Although they offer useful insights into interindividual differences in the association between personality and memory, cross-sectional studies remain rare. Conversely, Simon et al. (2020) reported that openness predicts episodic memory and found a small age moderation effect, but its magnitude was limited. One possibility is that classical verbal recall
tasks have low ecological validity and therefore underestimate individual differences that are
more apparent in naturalistic episodic memory task (Craik & Rose, 2012; Pause et al., 2013).
In a more naturalistic approach, Rammstedt et al. (2016) has directly compared these variables
in a sample of 1,645 participants aged 16 to 65 with a paradigm including a subjective memory
measure. Their findings suggest that personality, especially neuroticism, influences subjective
evaluations of cognition, but their design did not allow examination of age differences.
However, their sample did not include individuals over 65, and it is possible that associations
between personality, subjective, and objective memory become more pronounced in later
adulthood, as longitudinal studies consistently show that these relationships evolve across the
lifespan and tend to strengthen in later adulthood (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2010; Allen, 2019;
Luchetti et al., 2016; Stephan et al., 2020). In addition, their subjective memory measure relied
on a single question, and episodic memory was assessed through immediate word recall.
Together, these findings suggest that potential age-related differences may remain difficult to
detect when using brief subjective measures or classical, non-ecological memory tasks. This
supports the need to examine personality, objective memory, and subjective memory
simultaneously across age groups using more ecological assessments.

Further studies are needed to determine the relationship between memory, personality
and memory complaints, especially as most research emphasizes that these associations could
vary considerably depending on the methods employed. For example, the association between
memory complaints and performance is stronger in free recall tasks and tends to disappear in
recognition tasks (Hülür et al., 2015). Similarly, the association between personality and
memory is more consistent when delayed recall is used rather than immediate recall (Sutin et
al., 2023). Furthermore, the discrepancy between the areas assessed by memory complaint
questionnaires (daily life functioning) and the areas measured by experimental tasks (often far
removed from real-life contexts) further weakens the association between complaints and
performance, especially in aging (Derouesné, 2003; Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011).

To better understand the association between memory complaints, memory, and
personality, some authors recommend adopting more ecological paradigms, which offer a more
comprehensive understanding of how episodic memory functions in daily life (Burmester et al.,
2016; Pause et al., 2013). To improve the ecological validity of episodic memory assessments,
researchers recommend using multimodal material that is embedded in emotional and
spatiotemporal contexts and that involves incidental encoding and delayed recall (La Corte et
al., 2019; Pause et al., 2013).

Classical paradigms assessing episodic memory generally focus on only one modality,
which do not fully represent the complexity of episodic memory in real life, where multiple
sources of acquisition interact dynamically (Misra et al., 2018). Thus in this study, we examined
the relationship between ageing, episodic memory, memory complaints and personality using
an approach that more accurately reflects real-life functioning. To do this, we used a multimodal
memory task combining both visual and auditive modality, incorporating incidental encoding,
cross-modal acquisition sources and delayed free recall. This multimodal task was designed to
more closely mimic everyday memory situations through a continuous and meaningful short
film that captures how memory processes emerge in daily life, where the connections between
personality, memory complaints, and memory performance are expressed (NEM, Launay et al.,
2025). We compared the memory performance of adults divided into three age groups: Young
Adults (YA), Middle-Aged Adults (MA) and Older Adults (OA). We related two personality
traits (openness to experience and neuroticism) to complaints and memory performance on this
multimodal task.
In a comparative approach, a classic verbal memory task was also administered, comparing the nature of the links between performance and complaints in both cases. Our analysis then focused on the multimodal task, examining how associations between performance, personality, and memory complaints change with age.

Based on previous literature (Balota et al., 2000; Park & Festini, 2017; Taconnat et al., 2023), we hypothesized that older individuals would show overall poorer memory performance compared to younger individuals. Furthermore, the links between subjective memory measures (memory complaints) and objective memory measures should be more pronounced with the multimodal memory test, as this memory measure is closer to everyday functioning. Accordingly, higher levels of memory complaints should be associated with poorer memory performance on this task. In addition, consistent with prior findings, we hypothesized that higher neuroticism would be associated with increased memory complaints (Stephan et al., 2020; Taconnat et al., 2022), poorer memory performance (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2010; Luchetti et al., 2016), and a higher number of errors (Zhang et al., 2024). Higher openness to experience was expected to be associated with better memory performance (Allen, 2019; Bouazzaoui et al., 2024; Luchetti et al., 2016; Pinard et al., 2023; Taconnat et al., 2022). Finally, we hypothesized that personality traits would have a stronger influence on memory performance and complaints among older participants. This suggests that personality may have a greater impact on episodic memory as we age.

# 2. Method

## 2.1. Participants

The sample size was determined using an a priori power analysis conducted with G*Power. Based on the recent findings of Kang et al. (2023), who reported a relationship between personality traits and memory performance with an R² of approximately 0.18, we
calculated the required sample size to detect an effect of this magnitude across three age groups.

With a significance level of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80%, the analysis indicated that a minimum of 111 participants was needed. To anticipate potential exclusions and maintain sufficient power, 137 individuals were recruited. the inclusion criteria of having no known sensory, motor, affective, or cognitive disorders and scoring 27 or higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al., 1975; French adaptation by Kalafat et al., 2003).

Young adults were required not to be students, and older adults were all retired. All participants completed the French National Adult Reading Test (fNART; Mackinnon & Mulligan, 2005) to assess vocabulary level. fNART score corresponded to the number of correctly pronounced irregular words. They also answered a question evaluating their subjective health status on a 5-point scale, where 1 indicated the poorest health and 5 the best.

The final sample consisted of 124 participants, divided into three age groups: 46 young adults (20–40 years), 40 middle-aged adults (41–64 years), and 38 older adults (65–85 years) (Table 1). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tours, France (CER-TP no. 2024-10-01), and all participants provided written informed consent.
<table><caption>Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) of socio-demographic variables by age group</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>YA<br>(n = 46)</th><th>MA<br>(n = 40)</th><th>OA<br>(n=38)</th><th>F(2,121), p, ηp<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age<br>[min-max]</td><td>31.04 (4.72)<br>[22-40]</td><td>50.95 (5.68)<br>[41-64]</td><td>74.45 (5.68)<br>[65-85]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women/men ratio</td><td>24/22</td><td>28/12</td><td>26/12</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Educational Level<br>(years)</td><td>15.39 (2.17)</td><td>15.38 (2.72)</td><td>13.32 (3.36)</td><td>7.42, p &lt;.001, ηp<sup>2</sup> = 0.11</td></tr><tr><td>fNART<sup>1</sup></td><td>27.14 (4.94)</td><td>29.67 (4.04)</td><td>30.28 (5.35)</td><td>2.99, p = .055, ηp<sup>2</sup> = 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective health status<br>(/5)</td><td>4.17 (0.67)</td><td>4.08 (0.69)</td><td>3.96 (0.71)</td><td>0.65, p = .526, ηp<sup>2</sup> = 0.01</td></tr><tr><td>MMSE</td><td>29.62 (0.50)</td><td>28.97 (1.10)</td><td>28.89 (1.05)</td><td>4.12, p = .019, ηp<sup>2</sup> = 0.08</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square test indicated that gender distribution did not differ significantly across age groups ($\chi^2(2) = 3.63, p = .163$). ANOVA revealed a significant difference in educational level and a trend-level difference in vocabulary scores. Young adults had a higher level of education, whereas middle-aged and older adults obtained higher vocabulary scores than young adults, consistent with previous findings (Alwin et al., 2008; Twenge et al., 2019). No significant differences were observed in subjective health ratings. Regarding the MMSE, young adults performed significantly better than middle-aged adults ($t(121) = 2.41, p = .018$) and older adults ($t(121) = 2.73, p = .008$), but no significant difference was found between middle-aged and older adults ($t(121) = 0.35, p = .730$).

## 2.2. Materials

To assess episodic memory, participants completed the multimodal NEM task (Nouvelle Évaluation de Mémoire, NEM; Launay et al., 2025; Launay et al., submitted). The NEM task is a multimodal memory test that meets the criteria outlined by Pause et al. (2013) for an ecological evaluation of episodic memory. These criteria include inducing recall in a laboratory

<footnote n="1">¹ French National Adult Reading Test, Mackinnon & Mulligan, 2005 (/40)</footnote>
setting, incidentally encoding information, using emotionally valenced and spatiotemporally contextualized material, having a single learning phase, unexpectedly testing memory, and having an interference delay between encoding and retrieval.

In the NEM task, the material to be encoded is a five-minute short film depicting everyday situations, such as waking up late or helping a lost tourist find their way. The main character interacts with others, performs actions, and manipulates objects. Participants are asked four times to make decisions on behalf of the main character (e.g., whether to take a bike or a car to go to work) based on what they would do in the same situation ("What would you do if you were in the same situation as the main character?"). This choice instruction enhances attention and engagement. Regardless of the participants' choices, the film follows a predetermined storyline leading to the same outcome, ensuring that the material to be remembered is identical for all participants.

After a delay of approximately 35 minutes, the recall phase of the NEM begins with a semi-structured interview inspired by and adapted from the Autobiographical Interview (Levine et al., 2002). The interview begins with a general prompt ("Tell me everything you remember about the film") and continues with more specific questions to probe memory traces based on what participants initially recalled (e.g., "Earlier, you mentioned a man sleeping in his bedroom. Can you give me more details, even if you are not sure?"). The narrative provided in response to the general question is scored as Free Recall (FR) score, and the enriched account obtained through the specific questions is scored as Deepened Recall (DR) score. Both scores are calculated by counting all the episodic elements from the storyboard that the participant recalled. The maximum possible score for each recall type is 105, which corresponds to the total number of episodic elements in the storyboard. Errors during free and cued recall were also recorded. Three types of errors were distinguished: temporal order errors (correct episodic elements recalled but misplaced in the sequence, e.g., a character appearing in the wrong scene),
false memories (intrusions of episodic elements absent from the film), and total memory errors (the sum of temporal order errors and false memories).

To assess verbal memory and to verify the ecological validity of the NEM by comparing associations with memory complaints, we also used the Logical Memory task (Wechsler, 2012). In the Logical Memory test, participants were instructed to listen to and memorize two stories presented orally. They were asked to recall the stories immediately after hearing them (LM I) and again 20–30 minutes later (LM II). The maximum number of elements that could be recalled for each score (LM I and LM II) was 30.

Subjective memory complaints were assessed using the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ; Smith et al., 2000). Participants answered 16 multiple-choice questions, estimating the frequency of memory difficulties on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Very often”). Eight of the 16 items target the retrospective component of episodic memory, which was the specific focus here. The maximum retrospective complaint score is 40.

Finally, personality traits were assessed using the French version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-Fr; Plaisant et al., 2010). This 45-item questionnaire describes personality attributes that participants rate on a 5-point scale, from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). Each item corresponds to one of the five Big Five dimensions, and mean scores are calculated for each dimension ranging from 1 to 5.

In this study, only the openness and neuroticism scores were used in line with our hypotheses regarding these two traits.

## 2.3. Procedure
Participants first viewed the NEM film. During the subsequent 35-minute interference delay, they completed the Logical Memory task. Then, participants completed the fNART and MMSE, followed by the PRMQ and BFI-Fr questionnaires (approximately 20 minutes). After completing the questionnaires, they took the delayed recall test for the Logical Memory task, followed by the NEM recall test.

## 2.4. Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted using JASP (version 0.19.3). The distributions of the NEM, Logical Memory, PRMQ, and personality variables met the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, allowing for parametric analyses. Accordingly, analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlations were performed to examine the associations between memory performance, memory complaints, and personality traits. However, error scores showed skewness due to a floor effect. Therefore, correlations with these error scores were computed using non-parametric Spearman's correlations. All correlations were analyzed without strict correction for multiple comparisons, to identify trends and associated effect sizes in an exploratory approach, as recommended for this type of study (García-Pérez et al., 2023).

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Effects of age on episodic memory, memory complaints, and personality

Analysis of the NEM scores revealed an age-related difference in free recall (FR) scores ($F(2, 121) = 10.37, p < .001, \eta p^2 = 0.15$). There was no significant difference between YA and MA ($t(121) = -0.32, p = .748, d = -0.07$), but OA performed significantly worse than both MA ($t(121) = 4.07, p < .001, d = 0.92$) and YA ($t(121) = 4.07, p < .001, d = 0.85$). Similarly, an age effect was observed for deepened recall (DR) ($F(2, 121) = 9.26, p < .001, \eta p^2 = 0.13$). YA and MA did not differ significantly ($t(121) = -1.44, p = .152, d = -0.31$). However, OA performed
significantly worse than both MA ($t(121) = 4.22, p < .001, d = 0.96$) and YA ($t(121) = 2.94, p = .004, d = 0.65$).

The mean number of total errors was approximately 1 across age groups ($F(2, 121) = 0.41, p = .667, \eta p^2 = 0.01$) and there was no age effect on temporal order errors ($F(2, 121) = 2.07, p = .132, \eta p^2 = 0.04$) or false memories ($F(2, 121) = 0.83, p = .438, \eta p^2 = 0.02$). All memory, complaint, and personality scores are presented in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Means (and standard deviations) of memory, memory complaints, and personality scores by age group</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>YA<br>(n=46)</th><th>MA<br>(n=40)</th><th>OA<br>(n=38)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>NEM</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Free Recall (/105)</td><td>38.33 (9.99)</td><td>39.05 (13.01)</td><td>29.45 (7.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Deepened Recall (/105)</td><td>56.33 (8.54)</td><td>59.20 (10.51)</td><td>50.37 (8.59)</td></tr><tr><td>Total errors</td><td>0.91 (1.14)</td><td>1.06 (1.45)</td><td>0.79 (1.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Temporal order errors</td><td>0.29 (0.46)</td><td>0.08 (0.28)</td><td>0.16 (0.37)</td></tr><tr><td>False memories</td><td>0.57 (0.98)</td><td>0.97 (1.44)</td><td>0.68 (1.14)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Logical Memory</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Immediate recall (/50)</td><td>30.71 (6.44)</td><td>25.80 (6.27)</td><td>25.41 (5.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Delayed recall (/50)</td><td>26.14 (5.74)</td><td>22.29 (7.23)</td><td>22.14 (6.38)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>PRMQ</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Memory complaints</td><td>17.81 (5.56)</td><td>16.75 (3.33)</td><td>18.16 (5.06)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>BFI-Fr</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Openness</td><td>3.56 (0.58)</td><td>3.64 (0.53)</td><td>3.40 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Neuroticism</td><td>2.83 (0.78)</td><td>2.59 (0.88)</td><td>2.68 (0.53)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Comparison of Logical Memory Immediate Recall scores revealed an age effect ($F(2, 121) = 5.64, p = .005, \eta p^2 = 0.11$). YA had significantly higher scores than both MA ($t(121) = 2.89, p = .005, d = 0.80$) and OA ($t(121) = 3.15, p = .002, d = 0.86$). However, no
significant difference was found between MA and OA ($t(121) = 0.27, p = .787, d = 0.06$). For Logical Memory Delayed Recall, the age effect was only marginal ($F(2, 121) = 2.91, p = .060, \eta p^2 = 0.06$). YA recalled more information than OA ($t(121) = 2.23, p = .028, d = 0.61$) and MA ($t(121) = 2.12, p = .037, d = 0.59$). The performances of OA and MA were equivalent ($t(121) = 0.10, p = .923, d = 0.02$).

There were no significant age effects observed on retrospective complaint scores ($F(2, 121) = 0.91, p = .407, \eta p^2 = 0.02$). Similarly, no significant age effects were found for openness ($F(2, 121) = 2.06, p = .133, \eta p^2 = 0.03$) or neuroticism ($F(2, 121) = 1.11, p = .335, \eta p^2 = 0.02$).

To ensure that gender did not influence the main findings, we conducted additional analyses including Gender and the age x gender interaction as predictors. Gender was a significant predictor of neuroticism, with women reporting higher scores than men ($F(2, 117) = 7.67, p < .001$), but it did not predict openness, memory measures or memory complaints. Notably, the age x gender interaction was non-significant for neuroticism, as well as for all other variables ($F(2, 117) = 1.39, p = .253$), indicating that gender did not influence the pattern of results observed in the present study.

## 3.2. Correlations between memory, memory complaints, and personality scores

Correlation analyses were conducted across all participants to examine the relationships between subjective complaints, objective memory performance, and personality traits. The results are presented in Table 3.

Significant correlations were found between retrospective memory complaint scores and NEM performance (FR and CR), as well as temporal order errors. Higher complaint scores were associated with lower FR and DR scores and a greater number of temporal errors. However, the
level of memory complaint was not correlated with Logical Memory scores. Retrospective
memory complaint scores only correlated with neuroticism; higher neuroticism was associated
with higher complaints.

Regarding correlations between NEM performance and personality, higher openness
was associated with better FR and DR performance. In contrast, higher neuroticism was
associated with more total errors, particularly false memories.
<table><caption>Table 3. Correlation matrix between memory, complaint, and personality scores.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>PRMQ</th><th>FR</th><th>DR</th><th>Total errors</th><th>Temporal errors</th><th>False memories</th><th>LM I</th><th>LM II</th><th>Openness</th><th>Neuroticism</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>NEM</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>FR</td><td>-0.23*</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DR</td><td>-0.25*</td><td>0.76***</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total errors</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.03</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Temporal errors</td><td>0.21*</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.37***</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>False memories</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.76***</td><td>0.09</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Logical Memory</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LM I</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.28**</td><td>0.38***</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.12</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LM II</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.32**</td><td>0.36***</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.15</td><td>0.87***</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>BFI-Fr</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Openness</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.23*</td><td>0.25**</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.00</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.11</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neuroticism</td><td>0.24*</td><td>-0.01</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.26*</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.21*</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.17</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Pearson correlations are reported for FR, DR, LM I, LM II, PRMQ, Openness, and Neuroticism. Correlations for Total errors, Temporal errors, and False memories were computed using Spearman's correlations.

<footnote>*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001</footnote>
Next, correlations with NEM, PRMQ and BFI-Fr were examined within each age group to determine if the relationships between multimodal episodic memory, memory complaints, and personality traits changed with age (Figure 1). In YA, higher memory complaints were associated with lower DR scores ($r = -0.46, p = .035$), and marginally with lower FR scores ($r = -0.42, p = .056$). No associations were observed between memory complaints and personality traits (Openness: $r = 0.11, p = .641$; Neuroticism: $r = 0.37, p = .099$). Memory performance was not significantly related to personality traits (FR: Openness, $r = -0.04, p = .780$; Neuroticism, $r = -0.10, p = .498$; and DR: Openness, $r = -0.06, p = .716$; Neuroticism: $r = -0.04, p = .807$). Total errors were not significantly correlated with openness ($\rho = 0.42, p = .059$) or neuroticism ($\rho = -0.19, p = .406$). The same was true for temporal errors (Openness: $\rho = -0.04, p = .880$; Neuroticism: $\rho = -0.13, p = .570$) and false memories (Openness: $\rho = 0.41, p = .067$; Neuroticism: $\rho = -0.01, p = .979$).

Among MA, memory complaints were not significantly correlated with FR ($r = -0.22, p = .207$) or DR ($r = -0.23, p = .180$). However, higher neuroticism was associated with higher-frequency complaints ($r = 0.46, p = .005$), while higher openness was associated with fewer complaints ($r = -0.431, p = .062$). Additionally, higher openness was linked to better FR ($r = 0.35, p = .028$) and DR ($r = 0.35, p = .029$) performance. No significant correlations were found between neuroticism and memory performance (FR: $r = -0.01, p = .951$; DR: $r = 0.02, p = .924$). Personality traits were also unrelated to total errors (Openness: $\rho = -0.01, p = .966$; Neuroticism: $\rho = 0.10, p = .561$), temporal errors (Openness: $\rho = 0.15, p = .396$; Neuroticism: $\rho = 0.22, p = .191$), or false memories (Openness: $\rho = -0.12, p = .474$; Neuroticism: $\rho = -0.03, p = .870$).
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.**</figcaption></figure>

Correlations among personality traits, episodic memory measures (delayed recall and total errors), and memory complaints in young adults, middle-aged adults and older adults. Values represent Pearson (r) or Spearman (ρ) correlation coefficients depending on variable distribution. DR: Deepened Recall. p < .05*, p < .01**, p < .001***
Among older adults (OA), memory complaints were not associated with FR (r = -0.22, p = .207) or DR (r = -0.23, p = .180) or personality traits (Openness: r = 0.09, p = .596; Neuroticism: r = -0.08, p = .649). However, higher openness was associated with better DR performance (r = 0.33, p = .043), while higher neuroticism was related to a greater number of total errors (ρ = 0.55, p < .001), temporal errors (ρ = 0.34, p = .035), and false memories (ρ = 0.48, p = .002).

### 3.3. Moderation analyses between personality traits, episodic memory and memory complaints

Following exploratory correlation analyses that suggested potential age-related differences in the associations between personality, memory and memory complaints, we conducted moderation analyses. These analyses focused on specific relationships showing divergent patterns across age groups, i.e. the relationships between openness and episodic memory performance in FR and DR, between neuroticism and memory errors, and between memory performance in DR and memory complaints.

First, we examined whether age moderated the association between openness and episodic memory performances. In FR, the age × openness interaction approached significance ($F(2,118) = 2.660, p = .074, \eta p^2 = .043$). A similar pattern emerged for the DR, where interaction between age and openness approached significance ($F(2,118) = 2.56, p = .082, \eta p^2 = .042$), suggesting a possible moderation effect that did not reach statistical significance.

Regarding memory errors, the interaction between age and neuroticism did not reach significance for total errors ($F(2,118) = 2.15, p = .121, \eta p^2 = .035$), nor for false memories ($F(2,118) = 1.87, p = .158, \eta p^2 = .031$). For temporal errors, the interaction showed a marginal trend ($F(2,118) = 2.82, p = .064, \eta p^2 = .046$), suggesting a pattern consistent with correlational findings despite the floor effects observed in error scores.
Finally, the age × memory performance interaction did not significantly predict memory complaints (*F*(2,118) = 1.87, *p* = .161, *η*<sup>2</sup> = .040), indicating that age did not moderate this association. However, variances tended to be larger in the older age group even if assumption checks indicated no significant violation of homogeneity of variance (Levene's test, *p* = .060).

# 4. Discussion

Our study aimed to explore the relationships between aging, episodic memory, memory complaints, and personality using a multimodal approach. To this end, we administered an assessment based on a multimodal episodic memory task. We also recorded false memories and temporal order errors to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how episodic memories function.

In line with prior research (Balota et al., 2000; Taconnat et al., 2023; Park & Festini, 2017), we observed an age-related decline in episodic memory performance, with older adults recalling fewer details than younger adults. However, this age effect expressed differently in the multimodal (NEM) and verbal (Logical Memory) tasks. In the NEM task, older adults performed significantly worse than both young and middle-aged adults, whereas young and middle-aged adults did not differ from each other. In contrast, for the Logical Memory task, age-related young adults performed better than both middle-aged and older adults, while the two older groups did not differ significantly. Several studies have demonstrated that multimodal encoding benefits older adults by promoting associative learning or binding (Charles et al., 2003; Mather & Knight, 2005; Naveh-Benjamin, 2000; Ngo & Newcombe, 2021). In contrast, using verbal material tends to accentuate age-related differences because verbal processing relies more on strategic abilities (Craik & Rose, 2012). Therefore, our findings illustrate the well-known influence of experimental conditions on memory performance (e.g. Craik & Rose, 2012; Park & Festini, 2017).
No age-related difference was observed in memory errors in the NEM. In our study, error rates were extremely low across all age groups, resulting in a floor effect that limits the possibility of detecting age-related difference. This is likely due to the structure of the task: errors were only recorded when participants spontaneously produced a false memory or temporal error, whereas many episodic memory paradigms use lure-based or forced-choice formats that lead to a greater number of intrusions. The guided interview format used in the NEM may also have reduced interference and error production across all participants.

Interestingly, higher levels of memory complaints were associated with poorer recall on the NEM, whereas no such correlation was observed with the Logical Memory task. This suggests that the NEM provides an objective measure of episodic memory that is more closely aligned with how individuals describe their functioning in daily life. This observation highlights the ecological value of the NEM for assessing episodic memory.

No age-related differences were observed in memory complaints, openness, or neuroticism. Findings in the literature regarding whether memory complaints increase with age are inconsistent: some studies report an increase (Burmester et al., 2016; Desrichard & Köpetz, 2005), while others observe stability (Guerdoux et al., 2009; Rowell et al., 2016). In our study, older adults were cognitively healthy, and participants scoring below 27 on the MMSE were excluded. Consequently, the older group consisted of individuals with preserved cognitive functioning, a profile known to be associated with stable or low levels of memory complaints (Guerdoux et al., 2009; Rowell et al., 2016). In such populations, subjective complaints often reflect motivational, affective, or metacognitive factors rather than objective decline (Derouesné et al., 2003; Hülür et al., 2015), which may explain the absence of age difference observed here.

Regarding personality, no age-related difference was observed in openness, or neuroticism. This result is consistent with major findings in personality research showing that the Big Five
exhibits strong stability across adulthood (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Intra-individual stability increases until approximately age 30 and then remains highly stable across the adult lifespan (Terracciano et al., 2010). Although major life events may influence trait expression across the lifespan, openness and neuroticism are generally regarded as stable during adulthood (Gonzatti et al., 2017; McCrae & Costa, 1994; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008).

Analyses of the overall sample showed that higher neuroticism was associated with higher-frequency memory complaints and greater memory difficulties, as reflected by a higher number of errors. These results align with prior studies (Stephan et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2024). Specifically, our study found that neuroticism was related to false memories, but not temporal order errors. False memories, which are intrusions of episodic elements that never occurred, are distinct from temporal order errors, which reflect the inaccurate placement of elements within an event sequence (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). To our knowledge, no previous study has examined the relationship between neuroticism and different types of memory errors. While our findings confirm the link between false memories and neuroticism reported by Zhang et al. (2024), identifying the mechanisms underlying this specific error type is a promising direction for future research.

Subgroup analysis revealed differences in the associations between personality, memory complaints, and memory by age. Among young adults, memory complaints were related only to memory performance. Young adults who perceived themselves as more competent in daily life performed better on the NEM. This suggests that memory complaints in this age group primarily reflect actual memory abilities without evident contributions from personality traits. In middle-aged adults, the links between memory performance and memory complaints were weaker. However, the level of openness was associated with better memory performance and lower complaints. Conversely, neuroticism was significantly linked to higher-frequency complaints. These findings contrast with the cross-sectional results of Rammstedt et al. (2016),
who considered that age did not moderate the relationships between personality and memory.
However, their paradigm differed considerably from ours. Memory complaints were assessed
using a single-item question. Memory material was not multimodal. Recall was immediate.
Personality was measured using a shortened version of the Big Five Inventory. By analyzing
age groups separately and using more nuanced measures, our study shows that the associations
between personality and subjective and objective memory are stronger in middle adulthood.
These stronger associations may contribute to the cognitive decline associated with neuroticism
or, conversely, the protective effect of openness.

In older adults, associations between personality and objective memory were observed,
but they varied depending on the dimension and measure considered. Deepened recall, which
encourages participants to elaborate on their memories, was more frequently related to other
variables than free recall. Moreover, different traits were linked to different outcomes: higher
openness was associated with better deepened recall, whereas higher neuroticism was related
to more errors, particularly false memories.

To further examine whether the patterns observed across age groups reflected age-
related changes in the associations between openness and memory recall, and between
neuroticism and memory errors, we conducted moderation analyses. Concerning openness,
although the interaction with age did not reach statistical significance for either free recall or
delayed recall, both analyses showed consistent marginal trends. These patterns suggest that the
association between openness and episodic memory performance may vary across lifespan, but
the present study lacked sufficient power to detect reliably this effect. This interpretation is
consistent with prior work showing that openness is linked to cognitive engagement
(Bouazzaoui et al., 2024; Pinard et al., 2023), which could help support episodic memory
functioning, particularly in later adulthood.
With regard to memory errors, the interactions between age and neuroticism were not statistically significant for total errors or false memories. Interestingly, although false memories showed numerically stronger correlations with neuroticism in older adults, the marginal moderation effect emerged only for temporal errors. This discrepancy likely reflects strong floor effects in false memories and total errors, which severely limit variance and thus statistical sensitivity. Temporal errors, being more frequent and more normally distributed across age groups, provide a more suitable basis for detecting age-related moderation and may represent a more sensitive indicator of how neuroticism affects episodic reconstruction processes. The convergence between correlational and moderation findings for temporal errors also complements recent work showing that neuroticism is associated with a higher frequency of memory errors (Zhang et al., 2024). Importantly, not all errors rely on the same underlying mechanisms: as noted by Conway and Loveday (2015), memory errors can arise from different sources, involving interference with pre-existing traces or confusion between elements within the same episodic representation. Such heterogeneity may explain why only some types of errors are sensitive to personality-related influences, particularly in aging. Because total error scores aggregate these heterogeneous components, future research would benefit from analyzing error subtypes separately and using larger samples, where sufficient variability would allow clearer identification of potential moderating effects.

Notably, memory complaints in older adults were not correlated with either objective performance or personality. Although the moderation analysis did not reveal any significant interaction of age and performance on memory complaints, this does not imply that subjective memory functions similarly across age groups. The absence of statistical moderation may reflect the fact that older adults' complaints are shaped by a more heterogeneous set of determinants, which could also explain why complaint scores tended to be more dispersed in the older group. This pattern is consistent with prior research which indicates the influence of
other factors, such as social, motivational, or contextual variables, on subjective perceptions of
memory in late life (Derouesné et al., 2003; Gopi & Madan, 2024; Rowell et al., 2016; Stephan
et al., 2020). Importantly, the older adults in our sample had no known cognitive impairment
and were experiencing normal cognitive aging. Prior studies have shown that negative beliefs
about aging become particularly influential at this stage, even in the absence of cognitive
decline (Vallet et al., 2015). Such beliefs can reduce memory self-efficacy (Gautier et al., 2022)
and generate complaints that reflect perceived effort rather than actual performance (Burmester
et al., 2016).

Our study provides new insights into the dynamic relationships between personality,
objective memory, and subjective memory during the aging process. It also examines the impact
of the memory measure itself on the observed associations. Although the cross-sectional design
is ideal for analyzing intergroup differences and the effects of age on different groups, it has
limitations. For example, it cannot be used to make inferences about intraindividual trajectories,
which would require longitudinal methodologies. Such approaches could clarify whether
associations strengthen over time as personality evolves. In addition, correlational analyses
were examined within age groups and were not corrected for multiple comparisons, in line with
suggestions for exploratory designs (García-Pérez et al., 2023). These results should therefore
be interpreted with caution and considered as preliminary patterns requiring confirmation in
larger samples. Prior research suggests that personality traits, memory abilities, and memory
complaints change in relation to life events and social, cognitive, affective, and motivational
factors, such as educational level, metacognitive beliefs, and age-related stereotypes
(Bouazzaoui et al., 2024; Derouesné et al., 2003; Gopi & Madan, 2024; Greene & Naveh-
Benjamin, 2023; Rowell et al., 2016; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008; Stephan et al., 2020).
Considering these factors in future research would refine our understanding of the dynamic
interplay between episodic memory, subjective complaints, and personality in cognitive aging.
In summary, our study aimed to improve our understanding of the relationships between episodic memory, memory complaints, and personality across age groups by using a more ecological memory assessment than traditional methods. In addition to replicating the age-related effects that have been consistently reported in the literature, we found that the relationships between subjective memory, objective memory, and personality differ across age groups. This finding underscores the value of differentiated approaches. Considering the specific associations observed in normal cognitive aging and the notion that a multimodal memory task could facilitate the early diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders (Launay et al., submitted), it is therefore pertinent to investigate how these connections evolve in the context of cognitive decline, especially in Alzheimer's disease, where memory complaints and multimodal assessments may play a key role in early clinical detection.
References

Allen, M. S., Laborde, S., & Walter, E. E. (2019). Health-Related Behavior Mediates the Association Between Personality and Memory Performance in Older Adults. *Journal of Applied Gerontology, 38*(2), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817698816

Alwin, D. F., McCammon, R. J., Wray, L. A., & Rodgers, W. L. (2008). Population processes and cognitive aging. In *Handbook of cognitive aging: Interdisciplinary perspectives* (pp. 69-89). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976589.n4

Balota, D. A., Dolan, P. O., & Duchek, J. M. (2000). Memory changes in healthy older adults. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of memory* (pp. 395–409). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beaudoin, M., & Desrichard, O. (2011). Are memory self-efficacy and memory performance related? A meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin, 137*(2), 211-241.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022106

Birjandi, P., & Siyyari, M. (2016). Agreeableness and Conscientiousness as predictors of university students' self/peer-assessment rating error. *Irish Educational Studies, 35*(1), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1147973

Bouazzaoui, B., Fay, S., Alibran, E., Martinez, L., Pinard, F., Kerhardy, N., Onsekiz, T., & Taconnat, L. (2024). Openness to experience, a personality trait that reduces susceptibility to memory age-based stereotype threat. *Frontiers in Psychology, 15*.

Burmester, B., Leathem, J., & Merrick, P. (2016). Subjective Cognitive Complaints and Objective Cognitive Function in Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of
Recent Cross-Sectional Findings. *Neuropsychology Review*, 26(4), 376-393.

<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9332-2>

Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. *Journal of Experimental Psychology. General*, 132(2), 310-324. <https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.310>

Conway, M. A., & Loveday, C. (2015). Remembering, imagining, false memories & personal meanings. *Consciousness and Cognition*, 33, 574-581.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.002>

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. *Journal of Personality Disorders*, 6(4), 343-359.

<https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343>

Craik, F. I. M., & Rose, N. S. (2012). Memory encoding and aging : A neurocognitive perspective. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 36(7), 1729-1739.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.007>

Derouesné, C. (2003). La plainte mnésique. *Cliniques méditerranéennes*, 67(1), 14-24.

<https://doi.org/10.3917/cm.067.0014>

Desrichard, O., & Köpetz, C. (2005). A threat in the elder: The impact of task-instructions, self-efficacy and performance expectations on memory performance in the elderly.

*European Journal of Social Psychology*, 35(4), 537-552.

<https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.249>

Duan, H., Fernández, G., van Dongen, E., & Kohn, N. (2020). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on memory formation: insight from behavioral and imaging
study. *Brain structure & function*, 225(5), 1561–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-020-02074-x

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). « Mini-mental state ». A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. *Journal of Psychiatric Research*, 12(3), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

Gautier, R., Pinard, F., Vanneste, S., Fay, S., Bouazzaoui, B., & Taconnat, L. (2022). Aging, memory performance and metacognitive beliefs: A narrative review. *Gériatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement*, 20(4), 497-505.
https://doi.org/10.1684/pnv.2022.1070

Gopi, Y., & Madan, C. R. (2024). Subjective memory measures: Metamemory questionnaires currently in use. *Quarterly journal of experimental psychology*, 77(5), 924–942.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231183855

Gounden, Y., Hainselin, M., Cerrotti, F., & Quaglino, V. (2017). Dynamic and Functional Approach to Human Memory in the Brain: A Clinical Neuropsychological Perspective. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 8, Article 688. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00688

Gifford, K. A., Liu, D., Lu, Z., Tripodis, Y., Cantwell, N. G., Palmisano, J., Kowall, N., & Jefferson, A. L. (2014). The source of cognitive complaints predicts diagnostic conversion differentially among nondemented older adults. *Alzheimer's & dementia: the journal of the Alzheimer's Association*, 10(3), 319–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.02.007

Gonzatti, V., Cunha, A. M., Bastos, A. G., de Lima Argimon, I. I., Tatay, C. M., & Irigaray, T. Q. (2017). Personality factors in adults and the elderly: A comparative study. *Avaliação Psicologica: Interamerican Journal of Psychological Assessment*, 16(3), 256-260.
Greene, N. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2023). Adult age-related changes in the specificity of episodic memory representations: A review and theoretical framework. *Psychology and aging*, 38(2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000724

Guerdoux, E., Martin, S., Dressaire, D., Adam, S., & Brouillet, D. (2009). [Memory controlled processes between the young and old: The birth of cognitive complaint?]. *Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement*, 28(1), 5-20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980809090023

Guo, J., Shubeck, K., & Hu, X. (2021). Relationship Between Item and Source Memory: Explanation of Connection-Strength Model. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691577

Helmstaedter, C., Hauff, M., & Elger, C. E. (1998). Ecological Validity of List-Learning Tests and Self-Reported Memory in Healthy Individuals and Those with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. *Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology*, 20(3), 365-375.
https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.20.3.365.824

Hülür, G., Hertzog, C., Pearman, A. M., & Gerstorf, D. (2015). Correlates and Moderators of Change in Subjective Memory and Memory Performance: Findings from the Health and Retirement Study. *Gerontology*, 61(3), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369010

Kalafat, M., Hugonot-Diener, L., & Poitrenaud, J. (2003). The Mini Mental State (MMS): French standardization and normative data [Standardisation et étalonnage français du « Mini Mental State » (MMS) version GRÉCO]. *Revue de Neuropsychologie*, 13, 209-236.

Kang, W. (2023). Associations between Big Five personality traits and episodic memory performance in young, middle-aged, and older people: Evidence from the immediate
and delayed word recall tasks. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 202, Article
111967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111967

Kliegel, M., Zimprich, D., & Eschen, A. (2005). What do subjective cognitive complaints in persons with aging-associated cognitive decline reflect? *International Psychogeriatrics*, 17(3), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610205001638

La Corte, V., Sperduti, M., Abichou, K., & Piolino, P. (2019). Episodic Memory Assessment and Remediation in Normal and Pathological Aging Using Virtual Reality: A Mini Review. *Frontiers in Psychology, 10*, 173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00173

Launay, A., Taconnat, L., Brachet, M., Matysiak, A., Vanneste, S., & Baudouin, A. (2025). Exploring age-related changes in episodic memory: Contributions of a multimodal memory task. *Memory*, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2516834

Launay, A., Baudouin, A., Gonthier, C., Brachet, M., Matysiak, A., Vanneste, S., & Taconnat, L. (submitted). Development of a new episodic memory assessment tool (NEM): preliminary data and clinical perspectives. *Revue neurologique*.

Levine, B., Svoboda, E., Hay, J. F., Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. (2002). Aging and autobiographical memory: Dissociating episodic from semantic retrieval. *Psychology and Aging*, 17(4), 677-689.

Luchetti, M., Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., Aschwanden, D., & Sutin, A. R. (2021). Personality Traits and Memory: A Multilevel Analysis Across 27 Countries From the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. *Psychological Science*, 32(7), 1047-1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621993101

Luchetti, M., Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., & Sutin, A. R. (2016). Personality and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Data From a Longitudinal Sample and Meta-Analysis. *The*
*Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(4),
591-601.* https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu184

Mackinnon, A., & Mulligan, R. (2005). Estimation de l'intelligence prémorbide chez les francophones. *L'Encéphale*, 31(1), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7006(05)82370-X

Mather, M., & Knight, M. (2005). Goal-directed memory: The role of cognitive control in older adults' emotional memory. *Psychology and Aging*, 20(4), 554-570.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.554

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observation and evaluations. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 3(6), 173-175.

Mitchell, A. J., Beaumont, H., Ferguson, D., Yadegarfar, M., & Stubbs, B. (2014). Risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in older people with subjective memory complaints: Meta-analysis. *Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica*, 130(6), 439-451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12336

Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2000). Adult age differences in memory performance: Tests of an associative deficit hypothesis. *Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, 26(5), 1170-1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1170

Ngo, C. T., & Newcombe, N. S. (2021). Relational binding and holistic retrieval in aging.
*Memory* (*Hove, England*), 29(9), 1197-1205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1974047

Park, D. C., & Festini, S. B. (2017). Theories of Memory and Aging: A Look at the Past and a Glimpse of the Future. *The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences*, 72(1), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw066
Pause, B., Zlomuzica, A., Kinugawa, K., Mariani, J., Pietrowsky, R., & Dere, E. (2013).
Perspectives on Episodic-Like and Episodic Memory. *Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience*, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00033

Petersen, R. C., Caracciolo, B., Brayne, C., Gauthier, S., Jelic, V., & Fratiglioni, L. (2014).
Mild cognitive impairment: A concept in evolution. *Journal of Internal Medicine*,
275(3), 214-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jim.12190

Pinard, F., Vanneste, S., Bouazzaoui, B., Fay, S., Isingrini, M., Angel, L., Borella, E., & Taconnat, L. (2023). Personality and organizational strategies in episodic memory: The role of Openness to experience on recall and subjective organization in young and older adults. *L'Année Psychologique*, 123(3), 513-537.
https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy1.233.0513

Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Réveillère, C., Mendelsohn, G. A., & John, O. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. *Annales Médico-psychologiques, revue psychiatrique*, 168(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003

Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Martin, S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: Going beyond simple effects. *Journal of Research in Personality*, 62, 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005

Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2010). Personality traits and autobiographical memory: Openness is positively related to the experience and usage of recollections. *Memory*, 18(7), 774-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.514270

Reid, L. M., & Maclullich, A. M. J. (2006). Subjective memory complaints and cognitive impairment in older people. *Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders*, 22(5-6), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1159/000096295
Ritchie, K., Ledésert, B., & Touchon, J. (2000). Subclinical cognitive impairment: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics. *Comprehensive Psychiatry, 41*(2, Suppl. 1), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-440X(00)80010-3

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17*(1), 31–35.

Rowell, S. F., Green, J. S., Teachman, B. A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2016). Age does not matter: Memory complaints are related to negative affect throughout adulthood. *Aging & Mental Health, 20*(12), 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1078284

Simon, S. S., Lee, S., & Stern, Y. (2020). Personality-cognition associations across the adult life span and potential moderators: Results from two cohorts. *Journal of Personality, 88*(5), 1025-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12548

Slot, R. E. R., Sikkes, S. A. M., Berkhof, J., Brodaty, H., Buckley, R., Cavedo, E., Dardiotis, E., Guillo-Benarous, F., Hampel, H., Kochan, N. A., Lista, S., Luck, T., Maruff, P., Molinuevo, J. L., Kornhuber, J., Reisberg, B., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Risacher, S. L., Roehr, S., Sachdev, P. S., ... van der Flier, W. M. (2019). Subjective cognitive decline and rates of incident Alzheimer's disease and non-Alzheimer's disease dementia. *Alzheimer's & dementia: the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 15*(3), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.10.003

Smith, G., Del Sala, Sergiola, Logie, Robert H., & Maylor, E. A. (2000). Prospective and retrospective memory in normal ageing and dementia: A questionnaire study. *Memory, 8*(5), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117735

Snitz, B. E., Small, B. J., Wang, T., Chang, C.-C. H., Hughes, T. F., & Ganguli, M. (2015). Do subjective memory complaints lead or follow objective cognitive change? A five-year population study of temporal influence. *Journal of the International
*Neuropsychological Society*, 21(9), 732-742.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715000922

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., & Terracciano, A. (2020). Memory and Personality Development in Adulthood: Evidence From Four Longitudinal Studies. *The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences*, 76(1), 88-97.

https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa086

Sutin, A. R., Brown, J., Luchetti, M., Aschwanden, D., Stephan, Y., & Terracciano, A. (2023). Five-Factor Model Personality Traits and the Trajectory of Episodic Memory: Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis of 471,821 Memory Assessments from 120,640

Participants. *The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences*, 78(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbac154

Taconnat, L., Bouazzaoui, B., Bouquet, C., Larigauderie, P., Witt, A., & Blaye, A. (2023). Cognitive mechanisms underlying free recall in episodic memory performance across the lifespan: Testing the control/representation model. *Psychological Research*, 87(5),

1370-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01736-1

Taconnat, L., Pinard, F., Vanneste, S., Bouazzaoui, B., Fay, S., Martinez, L., Alibran, E., & Geraci, L. (2022). Personality traits affect older adults’ memory differently depending on the environmental support provided at encoding. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 191, Article 111572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111572

Tromp, D., Dufour, A., Lithfous, S., Pebayle, T., & Després, O. (2015). Episodic memory in normal aging and Alzheimer disease: Insights from imaging and behavioral studies.

*Ageing Research Reviews*, 24(Part B), 232-262.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.08.006
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Sherman, R. A. (2019). Declines in vocabulary among American adults within levels of educational attainment, 1974–2016. *Intelligence, 76*, Article 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101377

Vallet, F., Agrigoroaei, S., Beaudoin, M., Fournet, N., Paignon, A., Roulin, J.-L. and Desrichard, O. (2015). Older Adults’ Beliefs About Forgetting and Aging Predict Memory Self-Efficacy Above and Beyond Actual Memory Performance and Mental Health. *Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 28*(4), 57-79.

Wechsler, D. (2015). *MEM-IV : Échelle clinique de mémoire de Wechsler* (Éditions du Centre de psychologie appliquée, Adapt.). ECPA : Pearson.

Zhang, W., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zhan, X. (2024). Event-related potentials study on the effects of high neuroticism on senile false memory. *PLOS ONE, 19*(8), e0304646.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304646