SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.15 issue2Combining the devil's advocate approach and verifiability approach to assess veracity in opinion statementsCivil liability for clinical misdiagnosis of suicidal intention: procedure and guidelines to minimize fatal diagnostic error author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

On-line version ISSN 1989-4007Print version ISSN 1889-1861

Abstract

LI, Chunlin et al. Investigating the memory reports of retractors regarding abuse. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context [online]. 2023, vol.15, n.2, pp.63-71.  Epub Nov 20, 2023. ISSN 1989-4007.  https://dx.doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2023a7.

Background:

Legal cases and research have shown that due to suggestive therapeutic interventions, people can start to remember abuse that they never experienced. Some of these people eventually retract their claims of abuse. This study examined the memory reports of self-defined retractors of abuse and the prevalence of nonbelieved memories.

Method:

In this study, a retrospective survey method was used to investigate 56 individuals who had retracted their claims of abuse. We examined details, plausibility, beliefs, and recollections of the abuse before and after retraction, as well as the reasons for withdrawing their belief and the outcomes of both recovered and retracted memories.

Results:

Twenty-four participants took significantly longer to retract the memories than to initially recover them. The belief in the occurrence of the abusive event and personal plausibility scores were significantly lower after the retraction, whereas the recollection scores were similar before and after the retraction. The main reason for withdrawing the belief in the abuse-related memory was the emergence of external evidence putting doubt on the retractors' claims. After the withdrawal of the memories, some retractors (n = 17, 70.83%, 95% CI [52.6%, 0.89%]) believed that they gained more benefits (e.g., giving them a new chance to re-build their lives and to establish new relationships with others).

Conclusion:

While the reliability of retractors' reports is unclear, these findings support related work on retractor memory reports and highlight the presence of nonbelieved memories within retractors' memory reports.

Keywords : Nonbelieved memories; False memories; Recovered memories; Belief; Recollection.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )