NCJ Number
185931
Date Published
1998
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This article considers the need to depolarize views about recovered memory experiences.
Abstract
The article cites factors that led to polarization of opinion about both therapies oriented to the recovery of childhood memories and the related controversy about the validity of so-called recovered memories. It highlights the aspects of the recovered memory controversy that contribute to contentiousness and specifies the conclusions permitted by scientific evidence. A crude estimate of the likelihood of recovered memory (RME) accuracy can be made by weighing the following: (1) how the RME came about; (2) the nature and clarity of the RME; (3) the likelihood of the suggested events being forgotten; (4) the plausibility of having memories to recover; and (5) the base rate of the alleged type of abuse. The article concludes that there is no necessary trade-off between supporting victims of childhood sexual abuse and minimizing the risk of iatrogenic illusory memories. Progress toward those dual goals requires a depolarized, collaborative approach to the many unanswered questions raised by the recovered memories controversy. Notes, references