Misconceptions about Trauma and Memory
Delayed Recall of Trauma vs. “False Memories”
The false memory defense is not backed by science!
The summary of Israel’s supreme court decision to permit delayed memories of childhood abuse as evidence is located here.
The scientifically based opinion about “recovered” or dissociated memories is located here.
Scientific articles about recovered memory/traumatic memory/dissociative amnesia are available here.
Trauma experts offer a science-based critique of the defense being put forward that women who have been sexually assaulted are supposedly remembering “false memories” here.
See here for the story underlying the now defunct “False Memory Syndrome Foundation” including its history of receiving almost $8 million dollars from donors, many of whom were accused of having sexually abused children.
Trauma and memory experts have recently spoken out regarding misconceptions about traumatic memory.
Trauma experts offer a science-based critique of the defense being put forward that women who have been sexually assaulted are supposedly remembering "false memories" here.
Psychology Textbooks’ Coverage of Traumatic Amnesia or “Recovered” Memory
Reporting of Recovered Memory as Fantasy
Psychology textbooks tend to present only one side of the debate about the accuracy of delayed recollections, or “recovered memories,” of childhood abuse (Kisee et al., 2014; Letourneau & Lewis, 1999).
Unfortunately, many textbooks present information consistent with the notion that delayed recollections of abuse are false, yet they fail to present evidence for the other side of the debate. Among the most one-sided are the textbooks by Beidel et al. (2014) and Butcher et al. (2013).
Counter-Evidence: Recovered vs. Continuous Memories
There is important evidence that counters the notion that recovered memories of child abuse are likely “false memories,” even though textbook authors seem to be unaware of it, or elect to present evidence for only one side of the debate.
The truth is that clinical studies show that recovered memories of child sexual abuse are no more or less likely to be accurate than continuously remembered memories.
Dalenberg et al. (2012) summarize this literature in Psychological Bulletin, one of psychology's most respected journals:
"The hypothesis of confabulation as a primary source of recovered memory of trauma after dissociative amnesia [2] must rely on evidence that recovered memory victims are less likely (relative to those with continuous memories) to be authentic abuse victims. Methodological challenges to such research are plentiful, but it appears that the current evidence supports the TM (Trauma Model) rather than the FM (Fantasy Model) view." (pp. 566-567)
This evidence includes:
Equivalent Accuracy: Equivalent accuracy of recovered and continuous memories of child trauma were reported by Williams (1995), using objective measures like hospital records (e.g., of genital or anal injury) as the criterion.
Corroboration via Confession: Dalenberg (1996) found equivalent accuracy using records combined with perpetrator confessions, another objective measure of accuracy.
Spontaneously Recovered Memories: In a volunteer sample, Geraerts et al. (2007) found spontaneously recovered memories to be equally likely to have corroboration (37%) when compared to continuous memories (45%).
Note: Memories recovered in therapy, which represent a small proportion of the total recovered memory reports (Andrews et al., 2000), were less likely to be corroborated.
Further Reading
For more information about textbooks' coverage of trauma, including controversial topics related to trauma, please see Textbook Reviews.