Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ, BBQ)

Abstract

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ; Gómez, Zounlome, & Noll, 2023) is an 18-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to capture how individuals currently remember, process, appraise, and cognitively manage memories of interpersonal trauma. Rooted in Betrayal Trauma Theory (Freyd, 1996) and extended by Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory (Gómez, 2019), betrayal blindness describes the conscious or unconscious unawareness, minimization, selective forgetting, or systematic disbelief that survivors exhibit regarding traumatic violations perpetrated by trusted individuals, close interpersonal attachments, or foundational social institutions. Historically, betrayal blindness was hypothesized as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism that preserves vital social relationships and institutional attachments necessary for physical survival and social protection. However, empirical operationalization was historically hampered by a lack of standardized, validated, and multidimensional measurement scales tailored to capture both historical and real-time shifts in memory phenomenology.

To address this methodological void, Gómez and colleagues developed the tripartite Betrayal Blindness Questionnaires (BBQs), comprising the Past Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (PM-BBQ), the Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ), and the Rotating Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (R-BBQ). The CM-BBQ explicitly evaluates the present-day cognitive-affective phenomenology of trauma recall across four distinct psychometric subscales: Influential (6 items), Wanton Disbelief (4 items), Unawareness (4 items), and Not Important (4 items). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type response metric ranging from 0 (Never true for me) to 3 (Always true for me). Psychometric evaluation among emerging adults of Color with documented trauma histories revealed robust internal consistency across the subscales, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of α = .88 (Influential), α = .73 (Wanton Disbelief), α = .79 (Unawareness), and α = .78 (Not Important), with an omnibus scale coefficient of α = .66. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a four-factor latent architecture adhering to strict psychometric thresholds (factor loadings > .40, cross-loadings ≤ .20). The CM-BBQ represents an essential tool for basic psychopathology research, developmental traumatology, and clinical assessment, illuminating the complex, non-linear trajectories of autobiographical memory and psychological survival among marginalized populations.

Keywords

Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire, Current Memory, CM-BBQ, Betrayal Trauma Theory, Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory, Interpersonal Trauma, Autobiographical Memory, Trauma Memory, People of Color, Dissociation, Wanton Disbelief, Unawareness

Authors

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire was conceptualized, psychometrically developed, and validated by an interdisciplinary team of trauma scholars and clinical researchers:

• Jennifer M. Gómez, Ph.D. — Boston University, School of Social Work and Center for Innovation in Social Work & Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. (Correspondence: [email protected]; Correspondence Address: Boston University, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA).
• Nelson O. O. Zounlome, Ph.D. — University of Kentucky, Department of Educational, School, & Counseling Psychology, Lexington, Kentucky, United States.
• Laura K. Noll, Ph.D. — Northern Arizona University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ) is to provide empirical, clinical, and developmental researchers with a psychometrically rigorous, standardized tool designed to quantify the present cognitive, dissociative, and phenomenological state of autobiographical memory for interpersonal trauma. Interpersonal trauma—such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological victimization, and intra-cultural violations—frequently occurs within the context of dependent, intimate, or identity-affirming relationships. In such contexts, surviving victims face a profound conflict: acknowledging the betrayal may trigger retaliatory violence, institutional abandonment, excommunication, or total loss of physical and economic support. Consequently, human cognitive systems often deploy selective forgetting, memory compartmentalization, deliberate cognitive avoidance, and affective flattening to preserve relational cohesion, a survival phenomenon termed betrayal blindness.

Despite decades of theoretical interest, empirical traumatology long struggled with how to operationalize and quantify the fluid, evolving nature of traumatic memory. Autobiographical memory for severe trauma is not a static videotape stored statically in neural circuits; rather, it is a dynamic, non-linear, reconstructive cognitive process that transforms across developmental epochs and changing environmental demands. Survivors may experience periods of profound amnesia, followed by intrusive hypermnesia, followed by phases of minimization or active self-doubt. The CM-BBQ was developed to capture the contemporary snapshot—the “here and now” psychological configuration—of how the survivor remembers and interprets their trauma today, independent of how they may have processed it immediately following the event or during childhood.

In basic psychopathology research, the CM-BBQ serves to dissect the cognitive architecture underlying post-traumatic adaptation, dissociation, and shame. It enables scholars to test formal mediation and moderation models examining how interpersonal betrayal influences cognitive schemas, symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), and secondary psychological sequelae. In applied clinical settings, the scale provides trauma-informed therapists with a granular diagnostic profile. Clinicians can determine whether a patient is currently immobilized by intrusive, identity-defining recollections (high Influential), paralyzed by internal conflict and active suppression (high Wanton Disbelief), experiencing profound psychogenic or dissociative amnesia (high Unawareness), or utilizing emotional detachment and cognitive de-escalation as a psychological defense mechanism (high Not Important).

Furthermore, the CM-BBQ fulfills a crucial social justice purpose within multicultural psychometrics. It was validated specifically among emerging adults of Color attending a Predominantly White Institution (PWI) in the United States. Historically, standardized trauma inventories have neglected the nuanced, intersectional experiences of minoritized populations who endure both institutional betrayal and cultural betrayal. By calibrating an instrument sensitive to how racial and ethnic minorities process interpersonal trauma in contexts where interpersonal support networks are vital buffers against societal racism, the CM-BBQ provides an indispensable assessment bridge for culturally responsive clinical practice and empirical traumatology.

Psychological Construct

The construct of betrayal blindness, first articulated by Jennifer J. Freyd in 1996, describes the unawareness, not-knowing, and misdirection of attention displayed by people toward betrayal, functioning to preserve relationships that are necessary for survival, attachment, or social inclusion. When applied to autobiographical memory, betrayal blindness is not a single, monolithic dissociative symptom. Rather, it represents a multifaceted matrix of cognitive appraisal, memory retrieval inhibition, deliberate disbelief, and affective detachment. The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ) operationalizes this construct across four distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Influential (Trauma Intrusion, Salience, and Identity Fusion)

The Influential subscale (6 items) reflects the degree to which the traumatic memory currently occupies conscious cognitive space, dictates executive functioning, and integrates into the survivor’s core sense of self. Far from being forgotten or suppressed, memories scoring high on this dimension are hyper-accessible, intrusive, and psychologically organizing. The items capture experiences such as the trauma being the continuous focus of conscious thoughts, being “all-consuming,” actively dictating everyday decision-making, and becoming inextricably bound to one’s personal identity. From a psychometric and cognitive perspective, this subscale captures the inverse pole of perceptual blindness—namely, the hypermnesic, intrusive re-experiencing that occurs when betrayal blindness defenses break down or when the survivor actively grapples with the immense significance of the violation.

2. Wanton Disbelief (Cognitive Dissonance, Divided Consciousness, and Willful Negation)

The Wanton Disbelief subscale (4 items) assesses the conscious, intentional, or conflicted rejection of reality regarding the traumatic event. This dimension captures a state of divided consciousness or profound cognitive dissonance: the survivor possesses implicit or explicit knowledge that the trauma occurred, yet simultaneously exerts psychological effort to deny, minimize, or disbelieve that knowledge. Survivors scoring high on this subscale report experiences such as wanting to believe the event never occurred, feeling that part of them is aware while another part remains unaware, or acknowledging that if confronted directly, they would publicly deny the trauma. This subscale directly mirrors Freyd’s theoretical formulation of betrayal blindness as a motivated cognitive strategy to preserve attachment bonds by consciously disavowing known abuses.

3. Unawareness (Dissociative Amnesia, Retrieval Blockades, and External Knowledge)

The Unawareness subscale (4 items) measures objective retrieval failures, psychogenic amnesia, and dissociative blocking of traumatic autobiographical memory. Unlike Wanton Disbelief, where knowledge exists but is contested or suppressed, Unawareness reflects an inability to access the episodic memory trace. Survivors high on this dimension report striving to retrieve the memory or its specific sensory-perceptual details but encountering an absolute cognitive barrier. In extreme cases, the individual has no firsthand episodic recall of the event whatsoever and only knows of its historical reality because external sources (e.g., family members, medical records, legal proceedings) informed them that it occurred. This dimension aligns with neurobiological models of traumatic memory where extreme threat combined with attachment-preserving demands induces dissociative amnesia.

4. Not Important (Emotional Detachment, De-escalation, and Minimization)

The Not Important subscale (4 items) evaluates the cognitive appraisal of the trauma as trivial, inconsequential, or psychologically detached from affective experience. Individuals scoring high on this dimension display cognitive awareness of the event but report profound emotional disconnection, dismissing the violation as “insignificant,” asserting that it “really didn’t have an effect,” or categorizing it as entirely devoid of personal importance. This subscale operationalizes psychological defense mechanisms such as affective blunting, minimization, and rationalization, which allow survivors to navigate daily life without being overwhelmed by the catastrophic emotional implications of interpersonal betrayal.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of the CM-BBQ rests upon two interconnected, paradigm-shifting frameworks in clinical psychology: Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT) and Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory (CBTT).

Betrayal Trauma Theory and the Evolutionary Function of Blindness

Introduced by Jennifer J. Freyd in 1994 and elaborated extensively in her 1996 foundational monograph, Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse, Betrayal Trauma Theory posits that the human psychological response to trauma is fundamentally organized by the degree of social betrayal involved. While non-betrayal traumas (such as natural disasters or motor vehicle accidents) primarily elicit hyperarousal, threat-avoidance, and somatic vigilance (classic fight-or-flight responses), traumas perpetrated by caregivers, romantic partners, or foundational institutions elicit an entirely different evolutionary imperative: attachment preservation.

Human infants and children are wholly dependent on primary caregivers for physical survival, nourishment, and emotional security. If a caregiver engages in abuse, the child cannot safely flee or attack the perpetrator; doing so would result in fatal abandonment or lethal escalation of violence. Consequently, human cognitive architecture evolved the capacity for betrayal blindness. By compartmentalizing, forgetting, or misinterpreting the abuse, the child retains psychological attachment to the perpetrator, ensuring ongoing care. In adulthood, similar dynamics operate within abusive romantic relationships, workplaces, religious organizations, and institutional settings where social ostracization or whistleblowing carries catastrophic interpersonal costs.

Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory (CBTT)

While classic BTT revolutionized developmental traumatology, Jennifer M. Gómez recognized that mainstream trauma psychology frequently operated from an ethnocentric, decontextualized perspective that ignored societal oppression. To address this critical theoretical gap, Gómez (2019, 2022) formulated Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory (CBTT). CBTT expands BTT into the realm of intersectional social identities and systemic oppression.

Minoritized populations—such as racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities—experience persistent, systemic macro-level threats from societal racism, discrimination, and state-sanctioned violence. In response to this hostile societal climate, minority communities develop strong internal solidarity, collective identity, and protective in-group bonds, establishing implicit social contracts of intra-cultural trust and mutual protection. When interpersonal trauma (such as sexual violence, physical assault, or domestic abuse) is perpetrated within the minoritized group by another member of that same marginalized community, the victim experiences a compounded violation termed a cultural betrayal trauma.

Under CBTT, betrayal blindness takes on an intensified, socio-politically driven complexity. A survivor of Color assaulted by a perpetrator of Color faces extraordinary pressure to maintain betrayal blindness. Acknowledging, reporting, or publicly exposing the perpetrator can lead to intense community ostracization, accusations of being a race traitor, and the fear of subjecting another member of their minoritized community to a racist, carceral criminal legal system. Consequently, cognitive mechanisms such as Wanton Disbelief (“I want to believe this didn’t happen”) and Not Important (“This event was insignificant”) operate not only as individual psychological defenses, but as culturally mediated survival strategies designed to protect both the self and the broader marginalized collective from external societal harm.

Validity

During its initial development and psychometric evaluation by Gómez, Zounlome, and Noll (2023), the CM-BBQ underwent rigorous scrutiny regarding its content, structural, and construct validity. The development of the item pool adhered to modern psychometric guidelines, beginning with an exhaustive qualitative and theoretical review of historical literature on betrayal trauma (Freyd, 1996, 2018), institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014), and cultural betrayal (Gómez, 2019, 2021). Draft items were refined through iterative consultation with expert trauma researchers, clinical psychologists, and qualitative feedback from colleagues and community respondents.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established by ensuring that the 18 retained items exhaustively covered the theoretical facets of autobiographical memory alteration identified in clinical literature: cognitive intrusion, intentional disbelief, dissociative retrieval deficits, and affective minimization. The explicit prompt (“Think back to this same event(s) you reported. Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe your experience of that event(s) NOW . . .”) guarantees high face validity by grounding respondent appraisals strictly in their current, real-time phenomenological state rather than asking for retrospective reconstructions of their post-event feelings.

Structural and Construct Validity

Structural validity was empirically validated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). While initial parallel analysis indicated potential over-extraction with up to five factors, psychometric item-retention rules were systematically applied: (a) primary factor loadings required to exceed .40, (b) cross-loadings restricted to no more than .20, (c) substantive conceptual alignment with theoretical tenets of betrayal trauma, and (d) subscale internal consistency metrics surpassing .65. Applying these stringent empirical criteria yielded a pristine, four-factor latent structure containing 18 items that clearly delineated the four theoretical constructs: Influential, Wanton Disbelief, Unawareness, and Not Important.

Convergent and Divergent Validity Trends

The construct validity of the BBQs is evidenced by the distinct empirical patterns observed across the parallel versions: the Past Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (PM-BBQ), the Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ), and the Rotating Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (R-BBQ). In validation studies among emerging adults of Color with interpersonal trauma histories, scores on the CM-BBQ subscales demonstrated strong correlations with post-traumatic symptom severity, dissociation, and cultural betrayal appraisals. Specifically, the Influential subscale converged robustly with measures of post-traumatic intrusion, depression, and trauma centrality, whereas the Unawareness and Wanton Disbelief subscales demonstrated selective convergence with dissociative amnesia scales, depersonalization/derealization inventories, and internalized cultural shame, affirming the multidimensional construct validity of the instrument.

Reliability

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire exhibits strong psychometric reliability across its individual subscales, establishing its utility for empirical research and clinical tracking.

Internal Consistency

In the primary psychometric validation study conducted by Gómez, Zounlome, and Noll (2023), internal consistency was thoroughly examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) calculated on a sample of emerging adults of Color with documented trauma histories. The individual subscales demonstrated strong to excellent internal consistency:

• Influential Subscale (6 items): α = .88, indicating high inter-item homogeneity and excellent scale precision for measuring trauma salience and identity centrality.
• Unawareness Subscale (4 items): α = .79, establishing substantial reliability in capturing psychogenic and dissociative memory retrieval deficits.
• Not Important Subscale (4 items): α = .78, demonstrating solid consistency in quantifying affective detachment and minimization appraisals.
• Wanton Disbelief Subscale (4 items): α = .73, reflecting respectable reliability for an inherently conflicted, cognitively dissonant psychological construct.

For the overall 18-item composite scale, the authors reported an omnibus Cronbach’s alpha of .66. This lower overall alpha coefficient is psychometrically expected and theoretically congruent with the nature of the construct: the CM-BBQ measures four distinct, theoretically diverging coping and memory adaptations. For instance, an individual who experiences extreme hypermnesia and trauma-focused identity (high Influential) would naturally report lower scores on total amnesic blocking (Unawareness) or complete minimization (Not Important). Because the four subscales capture contrasting poles and varied defensive strategies of traumatic memory adaptation, researchers are advised to analyze and report subscale scores independently rather than relying exclusively on a unitary composite sum score.

Factor Analysis

The latent factorial architecture of the CM-BBQ was empirically investigated via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine the underlying dimensional structure of traumatic memory appraisals in survivors of Color.

Factor Extraction and Selection Criteria

The statistical extraction process began with parallel analysis to identify the maximum number of latent dimensions supported by empirical eigenvalues compared against simulated random datasets. Although parallel analysis mathematically suggested up to five potential factors, factor over-extraction often generates minor, unstable, or theoretically uninterpretable components. Consequently, Gómez, Zounlome, and Noll (2023) established four rigorous, conservative a priori psychometric criteria to finalize the factor structure:

1. Salient Factor Loadings: An item was retained on a factor only if its primary standardized factor loading was greater than or equal to .40.
2. Negligible Cross-Loadings: Any candidate item exhibiting secondary cross-loadings greater than .20 on competing factors was eliminated to ensure clean discriminant validity between dimensions.
3. Theoretical Coherence: The grouping of items on each extracted factor was evaluated for conceptual soundness against the theoretical tenets of Betrayal Trauma Theory and Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory.
4. Subscale Reliability Threshold: Each extracted factor was required to possess an independent internal consistency reliability estimate exceeding .65.

Extracted Factor Architecture

Applying these empirical and theoretical constraints resulted in a clean, highly interpretable four-factor solution accounting for 18 total items:

• Factor 1: Influential — Comprising 6 items (Items 17, 18, 15, 10, 6, and 2), with primary factor loadings exceeding .40. Items reflect cognitive preoccupation (“focus of my thoughts”), behavioral disruption (“affects my decision-making”), intrusive recall (“can’t stop remembering”), and identity incorporation (“part of my identity”).
• Factor 2: Wanton Disbelief — Comprising 4 items (Items 12, 1, 3, and 5 in clinical numbering), with strong loadings capturing divided awareness (“part of me is aware… part isn’t”), motivated denial (“want to believe the event(s) didn’t happen”), and situational disavowal (“if asked I would have said it didn’t happen”).
• Factor 3: Unawareness — Comprising 4 items (Items 14, 13, 4, and 8), loading heavily on memory retrieval failure (“try to remember… but can’t”), detail loss (“try to remember the details… but I can’t”), and third-party historical knowledge (“don’t remember… but was told it happened”).
• Factor 4: Not Important — Comprising 4 items (Items 7, 11, 9, and 16), defined by items measuring trivialization (“insignificant”), perceived lack of impact (“didn’t have an effect on me”), and cognitive-affective splitting (“consciously aware… but not emotionally connected”).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ) is a standardized self-report psychometric instrument. Its administrative, structural, and scoring parameters are outlined below:

• Test Type: Original psychometric self-report scale; multidimensional trauma memory inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based/online survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes to complete.
• Item Count: 18 standardized items.
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 years and older); validated specifically in emerging adults of Color with documented trauma histories.
• Language Available: English.
• Prompt Instructions: Respondents are instructed: “Think back to this same event(s) you reported. Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe your experience of that event(s) NOW . . .”
• Response Format / Scale: 4-point Likert-type response scale:
  • 0 = Never true for me
  • 1 = Sometimes true for me
  • 2 = Often true for me
  • 3 = Always true for me
• Subscale Composition:
  • Influential Subscale (6 items): Items 2, 6, 10, 15, 17, 18. Measures present-day cognitive intrusion, behavioral influence, and identity fusion.
  • Wanton Disbelief Subscale (4 items): Items assessing divided consciousness, situational disavowal, and motivated denial of the event.
  • Unawareness Subscale (4 items): Items 4, 8, 13, 14. Measures psychogenic amnesia, detail retrieval failure, and external reliance for trauma knowledge.
  • Not Important Subscale (4 items): Items 7, 9, 11, 16. Measures affective detachment, minimization, and cognitive de-escalation of trauma impact.
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing the numerical values assigned to the corresponding items within each dimension, or by computing the mean item score per subscale (ranging from 0.00 to 3.00).
  • Higher subscale scores reflect a greater magnitude of that specific memory phenomenology or cognitive coping strategy in the present moment.
  • Due to the divergent nature of the subscales (e.g., hypermnesia vs. amnesia), subscale profiles should be analyzed separately to capture the survivor’s nuanced memory configuration rather than relying solely on a total sum.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ) was developed and officially published in 2023 by Jennifer M. Gómez, Nelson O. O. Zounlome, and Laura K. Noll.

• Year of Publication: 2023.
• Fee: There is no fee required to utilize the instrument for academic, non-profit, educational, or scholarly research purposes.
• Permissions and Licensing: The instrument is copyrighted by the authors and the publisher (Taylor & Francis / Routledge). Researchers seeking to reproduce, distribute, or adapt the scale for commercial purposes or clinical trial platforms must obtain formal permission from the publisher or contact the corresponding author, Dr. Jennifer M. Gómez ([email protected]).

References

• Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to childhood abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0404_1
• Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674041769
• Freyd, J. J. (2018). When sexual assault victims speak out, their institutions often betray them. The Conversation, 8.
• Gómez, J. M. (2019). What’s the harm? Internalized racism and cultural betrayal trauma in healthcare among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) emerging adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(7), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1622668
• Gómez, J. M. (2021). The cultural betrayal trauma theory: Emerging empirical support and future directions. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2020.1869085
• Gómez, J. M. (2022). The cultural betrayal of Black women & girls: A Black feminist approach to healing from sexual abuse. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000305-000
• Gómez, J. M., & Noll, L. K. (2023). Betrayal blindness: Historical roots and emerging empirical measurements. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 512–525.
• Gómez, J. M., Zounlome, N. O. O., & Noll, L. K. (2023). Development and initial validation of the Betrayal Blindness Questionnaires (BBQs). Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32(3), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2112339
• Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal: In search of measure. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2014.872749

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)