Introduction
Proponents of the false memory theory assert that recovered memories are non-existent and that most claims are usually founded on psychotherapists’ beliefs or improper research lacking in empirical, clinical or scientific evidence (Whitfield et al., 2001). Most of them believe that the use of dreamwork, harmful visualization and suggestive techniques make recovered memories an unreliable psychotherapeutic method (Whitfield et al., 2001). Other individuals (Williams, 1995), (Colangelo, 2009), (Harvey and Herman, 1997) support the existence of recovered memories asserting that the impact of the trauma and the dissociation of the occurrence all have a tremendous effect on memory encoding. The paper argues that recovered memories are a real phenomenon and that summarily dismissing them is both inaccurate and unjustified.
Whether false memories of sexual abuse are possible
The first important fact guiding this argument is that memory is discontinuous. Williams (1995) found that 49 out of 129 participants in her survey could not remember any of the abuse they had undergone in their childhood or could just remember a part of it. Other studies on memory indicate that victims of sexual abuse at some point in their lives could not recall part or all of the events surrounding their abuse (Von der Kolk and Fisler, 1995). The latter research was an exploratory study of forty-six participants. It was found that forty-two percent of them went through total or significant amnesia at some point in their lives. Such cases of forgotten memories are even more likely when the issue occurred during one’s childhood. Therefore, it could be possible that victims of child sexual abuse are vulnerable to retrieval failures and this may necessitate the need for memory recovery.
Recovered memories should not be classified as pseudo memories because several studies have shown that instances of recovered memories by women can be corroborated or supported by external sources. For instance a study carried out by Williams (1995) among one hundred and twenty-nine women found that sixteen percent of these victims had recovered their memories. Their recovered memories were supported by the fact that seventeen years ago, their cases of sexual abuse had been reported in hospitals or other healthcare institutions. This research has great generalisability because a community sample was chosen instead of a clinical one. Von der Kolk and Fisler (1995) found that seventy-five percent of the participants involved in the study could be backed by convictions of perpetrators, confessions by perpetrators, court hearings, assertions made by their siblings/ mothers or through hospital records. While the William’s (1995) research is one of the most comprehensive analyses to date on the case for recovered memories, recent research also supports her findings: Colangelo (2009) carried out a case study of victims of childhood sexual abuse and also found that their recollections of incidences after periods of forgetting them could be supported by prior clinical records on the abuse. It should be noted that these authors tried to eliminate bias through the use of a prospective rather than retrospective method where the latter term refers to follow-up of patients from the beginning rather than recording what patients said and then confirming their statements.
In order to affirm whether recovered memories can play a significant role in the psychological profession, it is critical to examine its nature and compare it to continuous memories of victims of sexual abuse. Williams (1995) worked with women who had never forgotten their incidences of sexual abuse and with women who had recovered those memories. When recording assertions of both types of victims, it was found that discrepancies could be found among both categories. Furthermore, she established that the frequency of these discrepancies was not dependent on whether the memories were recovered or continuous since equal numbers of discrepancies were recorded in both instances. Williams (1995) utilized clinical reports made during the nineteen seventies to confirm reports made by her participants in 1995. The study therefore renders support to recovered memories; even though these memories are not flawless, their level of inaccuracy is comparable to that in continuous memory of childhood abuse.
Traumatic events involve a range of cognitive, psychological and biological factors that converge or present a unique scenario that differs substantially from conventional knowledge of ‘usual memory’. Elliot (1997) carried out a large-scale and comprehensive survey of seven hundred and twenty-four individuals. She found that forgotten memories were a form of dissociative strategy where the negative consequences of remembering an event were so intense that access to that memory is then inhibited by the body causing it. To this end, the process of retrieving that traumatic event can be inhibited. Elliot (1997) further asserted that the level of recall of such events was directly proportional to how chronic or how painful the effect of remembering it can be. This means that demographic variables have little to do with recovered memories. Even when the latter author decided to eliminate all the victims who had reported cases below the age of five, it was found that the same cases of recovered memories were reported. Consequently it can be said that bringing out repressed memories is case-specific and should not be assessed in the same manner as usual memories. If recovered memories are all branded as false, then there would no basis for assisting victims out of their predicaments. Therefore on an ethical level, patients could be missing out on treatment on the grounds of false belief. Most victims of sexual abuse are confronted with confusing and splintered information that interferes with their lives. A number of them wish that they could move on with their lives without the baggage of uncoordinated childhood memories. Consequently, treatment through recovered memories is indeed a powerful way of making sure that these individuals overcome their abuse and move from victims to survivors. (Harvey and Herman, 1997) On a programmatic level, it is inaccurate to assume that all claims of recovered memories are false. Although a number of clinicians have resorted to the use of improper methods such as premature diagnosis or employment of visual aids, it is also a fact that others have professionally used the method. As long as the environment for its use is open-minded, non-judgmental and highly reflective, then recovered memories can be a useful tool in offering assistance to patients.
Conclusion
An analysis of literature on the subject has shown that there are several reasons why recovered memories of sexual abuse are valid. Since memory exists in a continuum it would be difficult to seek treatment if these memories are not recovered. Furthermore, recovered memories have been verified or corroborated by external sources and because trauma is so multifaceted then it should not/cannot be judged on conventional knowledge on memory. This is supported by the equal level of discrepancies between reports made by women with recovered memories and by those with continuous memory. There are a series of ethical and programmatic concerns that emanate out of completely ignoring recovered memories in psychotherapy since this can be a legitimate means of assisting patients.
References
Colangelo, J. (2009). The recovered memory controversy- representative case study. Child sexual abuse journal, 18(1), 103-121
Elliot, D. (1997). Prevalence of traumatic events & delayed recall in general populations. Consulting & clinical psychology journal, 65(5), 811-820
Harvey, M. & Herman. J. (1997). A naturalistic study – adulthood memories of child trauma. Traumatic stress journal, 10(3), 557-571
Von der Kolk, B. and Fisler, R. (1995). Dissociation & fragmentary nature of trauma. Traumatic stress journal, 8(4), 505-525
Williams, L. (1995). Recovered memories in women with child sexual victimization histories. Traumatic stress Journal, 8(4), 649-673
Whitfield, C., Sillberg, L. & Fink, P. (2001). Misinformation concerning child sexual abuse survivors. Child sexual abuse journal, 3 (15), 56