Recovered memory therapy (RMT)

Statements by professional
organizations, during 1996

Sponsored link.

Statements after 1996 are recorded elsewhere

By 1996, widespread recognition of the dangers and ineffectiveness of recovered memory therapy were becoming obvious. "Memory wars" had broken out between many therapists and researchers into human memory processes. RMT was beginning to lose credibility -- a process from which it never recovered.

The American Psychological Association's "Working Group On Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse" issued an a final report on 1996-FEB-14. ₁ As expected, the committee was deeply split. They were able to agree that:

1. Controversies regarding adult recollections should not be allowed to obscure the fact that child sexual abuse is a complex and pervasive problem in America that has historically gone unacknowledged.
    
2. Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them.
    
3. It is possible for memories of abuse that have been forgotten for a long time to be remembered.
    
4. It is also possible to construct convincing pseudo memories for events that never occurred.
    
5. There are gaps in our knowledge about the processes that lead to accurate and inaccurate recollections of childhood abuse.

In the body of the report, the committee recommends that the therapist avoid endorsing "retrievals" (i.e. recovered memories of trauma):

"... as either clearly truthful or clearly confabulated. Instead, the focus should be on aiding the client in developing his or her own sense of what is real and truthful. Clients can be encouraged to search for information that would add to their ability to find themselves credible..., and to carefully weigh the evidence..."

Bruce Jancin, writing in the Clinical Psychology News, stated:

"... solid scientific evidence demonstrates that in the absence of third-party corroboration, there is no reliable way to tell real memory from the product of suggestion."

	The use of hypnotism, amobarbitol-assisted interviews, or experiential techniques to recover previously buried traumatic memories should be viewed as precluding subsequent litigation. Carefully controlled psychological studies have shown it's all too easy for therapists using these techniques to implant suggestions that result in elaborate, believable, but false memories.
	Patterns of current symptoms cannot legitimately be used as evidence for the truth of a memory.
	The forensic evaluator should not be the same person doing the therapy. The evaluator should look for possible contaminating influences within the therapy as expressed in the therapist's bias, ideology, and techniques.
	The litigant's current psychiatric status should be thoroughly assessed through clinical interviews and standardized scales measuring symptoms, functioning, hypnotic suggestibility, and dissociability. Nonspecific terms such as "sexual abuse syndrome" are not acceptable.
	The memories at issue should be subjected to close scrutiny. It is particularly helpful to document how the memories evolved over time. 2

	"Developmental psychology casts doubt upon the reliability of recovered memories from early childhood."
	"Reports of recovered memories of recovered memories from early childhood may be true, but great caution should be exercised before acceptance in the absence of solid corroboration."
	"The controversy over recovered memory has been compounded by certain therapists who use a list of symptoms that are said to indicate the likelihood of individuals having been abused. Common symptoms such as depression, anxiety, anorexia or overeating, poorly explained pains, and other bodily complaints have all been used as proof of alleged sexual abuse. There is no support for such propositions."
	"Increases in self-injury and suicide attempts have been reported in some patients given recovered-memory treatment".
	"Psychiatrists should take particular care, however, to avoid inappropriate use of leading questions, hypnosis, narcoanalysis, or other memory enhancement techniques directed at the production of hypothesized hidden or lost material."

The reference to "early childhood" presumably refers to people who believe that they remember events that occurred before they reached the age of, say, 36 months.

The Association also commented on the widespread disruption to families when recovered memories lead to false accusations of childhood sexual abuse. They warn of therapists being sued for malpractice.

	"...there is serious concern that some professionals may unintentionally create false memories of childhood abuse and thus cause harm to both clients and families. "
	"...it is important for psychologists to retain a balance in which they recognize that the objective reality of memories of [childhood sexual] abuse may vary considerably.
	"...there is no constellation of symptoms which is diagnostic of child sexual abuse." 4

References:

1. The final report of the American Psychological Association's "Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse", issued on 1996-FEB-14.
2. Bruce Jancin, "Corroborate repressed memories," Clinical Psychology News, 1996-JAN. Summary published at: http://www.fmsfonline.org/
3. Canadian Psychiatric Association report of 1996. It was reprinted in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 41, No 5, P. 305-306, "Adult Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse" See: http://cpa.medical.org/
4. Sharon Crozier & Jean Pettifor, "Guidelines for Psychologists Addressing Recovered Memories,", Canadian Psychological Association, 1996-AUG

Copyright 1996 to 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Latest update: 2009-AUG-20
Prepared by: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Page Translator: This page translator works on Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only After translating, click on the "show original" button at the top of this page to restore page to English.