A scientometric and descriptive review on the debate about repressed memories and traumatic forgetting

In a UK sample, EMDR and other trauma therapists indicate beliefs in unconscious repression and dissociative amnesia

This study explored UK mental health professionals' beliefs (N = 178) for autobiographical memory function for trauma in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false memories. It captures novel data on controversial memory beliefs for unconscious repression, dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder (DID). Study participants were mental health professionals and included non-trauma-focused, (n = 92), trauma-focused EMDR practitioners (n = 62) and (non-EMDR) trauma-focused practitioners (n = 24). Most study participants indicated some degree of belief in repression (>78%) and dissociative amnesia (>84%). EMDR and other trauma-focused practitioners showed elevated agreement for controversial memory notions. The EMDR practitioner group also showed more belief in the diagnostic validity of DID. New data on mental health professionals' beliefs about the aetiology of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) was also captured. Most study participants "Somewhat agreed" or "Agreed" that "blocked out" trauma memories are causally related to dissociation and physical symptoms, e.g., PNES (>78%); EMDR practitioners showed the highest degree of agreement (91%). The impact of memory beliefs alongside EMDR theory and practice is considered in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false or non-experienced memories. Recommendations are made for future research to mitigate against adverse health outcomes.

Recovered memory practices in Ireland: public & professional perspectives

We surveyed members of the public and professionals to assess opinions and experiences related to recovered memories in Ireland (N = 675). We found that memory recovery amongst therapy-goers in Ireland is relatively common (8%). Likewise, many practitioners (29%) reported some experience with a client recovering a memory and most had actually recovered a memory themselves. However, both groups struggled with definitions of recovered memories: initially reporting inflated figures (19% & 84%, respectively) that incorporated normal, non-repression-related memory mechanisms. Working therapists and current trainees reported a profound lack of training in this area. We also replicated a previously demonstrated scientist-practitioner divide, where researchers were more likely than practitioners to endorse the fallibility of memory. Though the study related to a sensitive topic, both professionals and members of the public reported enjoying the survey and did not find the questions distressing or ethically problematic - encouraging for future research in this field.

Same concept, different label: the effect of repressed memory and dissociative amnesia terminology on beliefs and recovered memory admissibility in court

Controversy still surrounds recovered memories, centred around replacing the term repressed memory with dissociative amnesia. This study investigated whether exposure to these terminologies impacted legal opinions. In total, 886 participants were recruited across four experiments (1a/2a, followed by 1b/2b). In experiments 1a/1b, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: Repressed Memory, Dissociative Amnesia, and Control. They tested whether reading a paragraph/watching a video about one of these terms would impact their opinions on the admissibility of recovered memories in court. Experiments 2a/2b focused on dissociative amnesia's inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Participants were randomly allocated to either Dissociative Amnesia or DSM-5 Authority. Again, participants read a paragraph/watched a video corresponding to their condition, ascertaining any significant differences in opinions on recovered memory admissibility. Experiment 1a found that the Dissociative Amnesia condition was significantly more likely to support recovered memory admissibility than those in the Control condition. Experiment 1b found a significant difference between the Repressed Memory and Control condition. Experiments 2a/2b yielded no significant results. These results suggest that different terminologies affect opinions regarding recovered memory admissibility in students compared to the public (repressed memory on the public; dissociative amnesia in students).

The recovery and retraction of memories of abuse: a scoping review

People who claim to have been abused sometimes retract these claims at a later point in time. Research on these so-called 'retractors' might provide critical insights into the processes involved in the recovery and retraction of traumatic memories. However, the literature on this topic is highly diverse in terms of, for example, methodology. Hence, the aim of the current scoping review was to amass the available literature on retractors and identify key themes. We identified 17 articles on the topic of retractors ranging from empirical studies to critical commentaries. A central theme that arose from the literature was the influence of therapy in the recovery of potentially false memories. That is, retractors noted that therapists frequently believed that they harboured unconscious repressed memories of abuse which had to be recovered during therapy. Furthermore, retractors repudiated their claims of abuse for various reasons such as physical evidence implying that their memory was false. Also, retraction took longer that the initial recovery of memories of abuse. Finally, after recantation, retractors' memories varied considerably in terms of belief and recollection of the traumatic event with some accounts qualifying as nonbelieved memories. This review offers critical knowledge of a rather understudied population providing further insight in how traumatic events can sometimes be misremembered.

An exploration of Italian laypeople's belief in how human memory works

We present the first study to measure the beliefs held by Italian laypeople about how human memory works, using a newly developed tool: the Italian Memory Belief Questionnaire (IMBQ). Research conducted in other countries has demonstrated that beliefs about memory vary widely between different professional and non-professional groups, indicating that limitations exist regarding the dissemination of empirically researched scientific knowledge. To ascertain what Italian people understand about memory-related topics, including eyewitness testimony, repression of traumatic memories and factors influencing memory recall, 301 native Italian participants completed the IMBQ in Study 1. In Study 2, 346 additional participants completed the IMBQ, alongside various additional measures, to examine the construct validity of our new instrument and investigate socio-demographic predictors of memory beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis in Study 1 identified three distinct belief factors that were present in the dataset: eyewitness and memory reliability, trauma and remembering and aspects that improve remembering. Study 2 partially confirmed this factor structure and found IMBQ scores to correlate with existing memory belief questionnaires. Correlations were also found between the IMBQ subscales and measures of fantasy proneness, but not dissociation. In both studies, many Italian laypeople strongly endorsed the notion that controversial topics (i.e., repression) are possible. Contrastingly, Italian laypeople do appear to understand the conceivable inaccuracies of memory in eyewitness settings. Sex, age and education were shown to predict beliefs about memory. Findings are discussed in relation to the importance of addressing misinformation about memory, especially in clinical and forensic settings.

Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy

Debates surrounding the origin of recovered memories of child abuse have traditionally focused on two conflicting arguments, namely that these memories are either false memories or instances of repressed memories (i.e., reflecting the idea that people can unconsciously block traumatic autobiographical experiences and eventually regain access). While scientific evidence for the first is clearly established, the second is the subject of a controversy in the academic, clinical, and legal fields. This controversy rages on today. In this introductory article to our topic "Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy," we present alternative and more parsimonious explanations for repressed memories that we sorted into three categories: cognitive, motivational, and biological factors. Our aim is to provide a timely overview to help clinical and legal professionals, academics, and the general public to move beyond the idea that traumatic memories can be unconsciously repressed.

Judges and lawyers' beliefs in repression and dissociative amnesia may imperil justice: further guidance required

This article examines continuing misunderstanding about memory function especially for trauma, across three UK samples (N = 717). Delayed allegations of child sexual and physical abuse are prevalent in Western legal systems and often rely upon uncorroborated memory testimony to prove guilt. U.K. legal professionals and jurors typically assess the reliability of such memory recall via common sense, yet decades of scientific research show common sense beliefs often conflict with science. Recent international surveys show controversial notions of repression and accurate memory recovery remain strongly endorsed. In historical cases, these notions may lead to wrongful convictions. The current study surveyed the U.K. public, lawyers, and mental health professionals' beliefs about repression, dissociative amnesia and false memories. Study findings give unique data on judges' and barristers' beliefs. Overall, the study findings reinforce international scientists' concerns of a science - knowledge-gap. Repression was strongly endorsed by lay, legal and clinical participants (> 78%) as was dissociative amnesia (> 87%). Moreover, suboptimal professional legal education and juror guidance may increase misunderstanding. Correcting beliefs about memory function, and extending the contribution of memory science in the courtroom remains an important quest for cognitive scientists.

Recovered memories in psychotherapy: a survey of practicing psychotherapists in Germany

We report on a survey of 258 psychotherapists from Germany, focusing on their experiences with memory recovery in general, suggestive therapy procedures, evaluations of recovered memories, and memory recovery in training and guidelines. Most therapists (78%) reported instances of memory recovery encompassing negative and positive childhood experiences, but usually in a minority of patients. Also, most therapists (82%) reported to have held assumptions about unremembered trauma. Patients who held these beliefs were reported by 83% of the therapists. Both therapist and patient assumptions reportedly occurred in a minority of cases. Furthermore, 35% of participants had used therapeutic techniques at least once to recover presumed trauma memories. Only 10% reported assuming trauma in most patients and recovering purported memories in a majority of the attempts. A fifth believed memory recovery was a task of psychotherapy. This belief correlated with trauma assumptions, memory recovery attempts, and recovery frequency. Psychodynamic therapists more often reported to assume trauma behind symptoms and agreed more with problematic views on trauma and memory. No differences showed regarding suggestive behaviour in therapy. Most participants expressed interest in receiving support on dealing with memory recoveries. This interest should be taken up, ideally during therapist training.

Recovered memories of trauma as a special (or not so special) form of involuntary autobiographical memories

Recovered memories of trauma are memories of traumatic events experienced generally during childhood, but of which the persons were unaware until they retrieved it. Legal decisions are sometimes based on such recovered memories, the validity of which is often questioned. Yet, people can recover genuine traumatic memories of childhood abuse. In this paper, we present and further discuss the idea that recovered traumatic memories can be interpreted in the context of the autobiographical memory framework. Specifically, we argue that recovered memories may be accessed after exposure to incidental cues that initiate unexpected spontaneous memory retrieval. Thus, we relate the recovered memory phenomenon to involuntary autobiographical memories and argue that it is an example of highly stressful, emotionally negative, and intense involuntary memories that were yet never recalled. This novel, evidence-based perspective leads us to reconsider the examination of the validity of eyewitness testimony as a continuum ranging from the least valid form (i.e., memories recovered in highly suggestive context facilitating its factitious reconstruction) to the most valid form (i.e., memories that were triggered by cues without any person's voluntary engagement), and this in relation with how internal (e.g., age and internal cue) or external (e.g., suggestion in therapy, suggestion during investigative interview, and contextual cue) factors may influence memory retrieval. Finally, we propose several recommendations for experts that may be useful in assessing the validity of a testimony based on recovered memories.

Factors that contribute to an inability to remember an important aspect of a traumatic event

Dissociative amnesia is controversial. We tested other factors that could contribute to an inability to remember an important aspect of a traumatic event: how traumatic the event was, organic amnesia, dissociative state, childhood amnesia, expression suppression, sleep disturbance, repeated experiences, and ordinary forgetting. Trauma survivors who reported an inability to remember an important aspect of a traumatic event rated the event as traumatic as trauma survivors who reported no such inability to remember. Moreover, all cases of an inability to remember an important aspect of the traumatic event could be explained by at least one factor other than dissociative amnesia. These findings are contrary to dissociative amnesia. Compared to participants who reported no inability to remember an important aspect of the traumatic event, participants who did report an inability to remember were more likely to (1) have felt disconnected from their body during the traumatic event, which may have altered memory encoding, (2) have experienced sleep problems in the year after the traumatic event, which may have reduced memory consolidation, and (3) have experienced the traumatic event repeatedly, which may have led to less detailed memories. These findings have implications for the inclusion of dissociative amnesia in the DSM.