PRO: Recovered Memories of Childhood Abuse can be REALHarvey & Herman (1994)Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Scheflin & Brown’s list of evidence in support of repressed memoriesImprovements in researchScheflin & Brown TableScheflin & Brown More good pointsScheflin & Brown ConclusionProspective data: Linda Meyer-Williams (1993)MethodsResultsNo Recall WomenImplicationsPRO: Recovered Memories of Childhood Abuse can be REALHarvey & Herman (1994)Traumatic recall is continuous, not dichotomousConfabulation hypothesis has flaws:Evidence exists where abuse was confirmed in amnestic cases (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Porter, 1993)Both amnesia and hyperamnesia are symptoms diagnostic of PTSD (APA, 1987)3 vignettes that typify adult remembrance of childhood traumaHarvey & Herman (1994)Vignette 1: Continuous Recall, Delayed UnderstandingPatient never forgets the abuse, but was perhaps not able to recognize what happened as abuse at the timeRecent events in life cause her to revisit the memories and try to make sense of them, accompanied by flood of emotions that were hitherto not present or dealt withHarvey & Herman (1994)Vignette 2: Partial Amnesia, Delayed Recall, and Delayed Understanding**Most characteristic of survivors of childhood traumaPatient may remember some abuse “fairly well”, but later gains information to indicate that there was more than she remembersaccompanied by partial amnesiaTriggers for recall: relational events, developmental challengesHarvey & Herman (1994)Vignette 3: Profound Amnesia and Delayed Recall**The kind of recall Loftus addressesAmnesia not only for the abuse that occurred, but also for whole eras of development and whole categories of experience\NONE of these clients conformed to Loftus’ generalizationsHarvey & Herman (1994)Discussion“False” v. “True” memories does not adequately capture the complexityLifecycle changes and new relational demands may trigger memories Many patients enter psychotherapy to try to make sense of these memories that have recently been recovered- first instance doesn’t happen in psychotherapy at allScheflin & Brown’s list of evidence in support of repressed memories25+ studies that show partial or full amnesia for abuseStudies use both varying methods & subjects Type of Report: Retrospective self-reports vs. prospective reportsType of subject: Clinical, non-clinical & randomImprovements in researchOriginal clinical surveys criticized for sample & experimenter biasNon-clinical samples criticized for selection biasRandom samples criticized for self-report lacking verification of abuseProspective studies criticized missing clarification interview (distinguishing memory failure cases from denial)Scheflin & Brown TableSource N FA PA C NA IC Rx C/nc R/nr SampleCLINICAL STUDIESLoftus et al. (1994)105 19% 12% 31% 69% C NR Women in drug treatmentNON-CLINICALElliot & Fox (1994)484 30% 14% 44% 56% 19% NC NR College undergraduatesGrassian & Holtzen42 19% 28% 47% 53% NC NR Father Porter victimsRANDOM SAMPLESElliot & Briere (1995)505 20% 22% 42% 58% 7%13%NC R General populationPROSPECTIVE STUDIESWilliams (1994) 129 38% 62% 100% 0% NC NR Women w/ clinical docum. of CSAScheflin & Brown More good pointsAccuracy of recovered memories (Dalenberg)Clarification Interview debateScheflin & Brown ConclusionWhile studies are criticized for methodological weakness, consider that all 25 studies provide evidence of partial or full amnesia, regardless of methodology or sampleBurden of proofProspective data: Linda Meyer-Williams (1993)129 girls who were taken to the ER for sexual trauma in the 1970’s were contacted 17 years later.Sexual abuse was defined as being:A) against the child’s wishesB) Involved force or coercion ORC) With a perpetrator at least 5 years older.86% of sample were African-American women.Methods3-hour in person interview, after sufficient rapport developed, women were asked about childhood experiences with sex. Interviewers knew purpose of the study but did not know the personal history of participants. Many participants reported multiple episodes of CSA; independent raters assessed whether participants recalled index abuse.Results38% of sample did not recall index abuse or any abuse by the perpetrator of index abuse. Were they just embarrassed to admit it?Other explanations for forgetting?No Recall WomenThose abused by people they knew were less likely to recall abuse. The closer the relation the less likely the recallGirls subjected to more forceful attacks were also less likely to remember.ImplicationsNot recall of CSA is a fairly common event Not recalling the abuse should not be taken as evidence that abuse did not occur.Not recalling CSA is more than a function of age.APA/APA/ AMA conclusions
View Full Document
Unlocking...