What are some common claims regarding recovered memory?

There are multiple corroborated cases of robust repression, where an individual repressed and subsequently recovered memories of multiple years of repeated abuse.

This is a common argument used against survivors of abuse, particularly women in cases of sexual abuse, who bring their claims to court. It has nothing to do with recovered memories in particular.

This is a very particular argument proposed by people who argue that the childhood sexual abuse is not upsetting to the child, non-significant, and non-traumatic in nature. Following this argument, the mechanism involved in memories of abuse previously unavailable to consciousness being recovered is not a traumatic mechanism, but instead is the same ordinary mechanism as regular forgetfulness. Thus, proponents argue that the classification of “recovered memories” should not be distinct from normal “temporarily forgotten” memories.

How do we know a memory is actually unavailable to consciousness before being recovered – rather than actively avoided and ignored, simply not thought about, or subject to non-traumatic ordinary forgetfulness mentioned in the previous claim [link]? Brown et al. describe such claims as shifting “focus away from doubting the existence of repressed memories and toward debating about its explanation.”

Therapy does not necessarily increase the inaccuracy or falsehood of memories. A scientific paper on the accuracy of memories of abuse recovered in therapy and two notable case reports on the subject serve to refute this claim.

In actuality, many survivors forgot the holocaust - this blog post [link] lists 22 resources that provide compelling scientific evidence in support of the phenomena of dissociation and recovered memory in Holocaust survivors.

Recovered memories are not created by therapists. A scientific study found that a large majority of recovered memories are recovered outside of therapy. Two studies found that when recovered in therapy, there is no evidence that memories were fostered by therapists.

This claim conflates two different properties of memory: accuracy and continuity. A theoretical model of memory, two notable cases, and a scientific study on the accuracy of recovered memories are examples which refute this claim.

Recovered memories have been shown to be reliable as evidence under the Daubert criteria. Supportive examples include two robust reviews of scientific evidence and a court decision on the subject.

Arguments along these lines claim that cases of recovered memory only occurred in the United States during a particular decade of mass hysteria (Usually stated to be around 1980-1995), and as such are due to a socially constructed phenomena. This is simply untrue - cases of recovered memory occurred before the 1980’s, occurred after the year 2000, and occurred outside the US.

An expansive list of research refuting this claim can be found on our [link] SUPPORTIVE RESEARCH PAGE. Examples of scientific support involve two robust studies on recovered memories in the general population and Betrayal Trauma Theory.

This site exists to refute this claim. We have very clear documented evidence – both case reports and scientific studies – demonstrating how people can accurately recover memories.

Proponents of this argument often claim that cases of childhood sexual abuse in daycares and cases of recovered memories are linked by the use of suggestion, which produces false memories of abuse – the result of the mass hysteria discussed in the previous argument.

Elizabeth Loftus, a notable researcher who critiques the accuracy and existence of recovered memories, has disagreed with this claim based on scientific evidence.

Arguments associating recovered memories with bizarre claims of alien abduction or widespread satanic cult activity does not invalidate the depth of scientific evidence and corroborated case reports supporting the phenomenon of recovered memory. This is an example of a logical fallacy, ‘guilt by association.’

Roland Summit theorized the Child Abuse Accomodation Syndrome based on “the collective experience of dozens of sexual abuse treatment centers in dealing with thousands of reports or complaints of adult victimization of young children,” a vast majority of which were corroborated by a confession from the perpetrator. It outlines five categories of reactions children [could have] to childhood abuse that are often a “contradiction to the most common assumptions of adults.” The fifth category, retraction, involves those who reverse their story and take back their accusations of abuse.