| Abstract: | Comments on the article by J. L. Alpert et al (see record 2000-13581-002), which presented the report of the American Psychological Association Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse. The authors discuss 4 issues in this commentary: (a) the assumptions and evidence used to support the case for dissociated and recovered memories (noting that the evidence is weak and the assumptions internally inconsistent as well as contradictory to a mass of experimental evidence about human memory); (b) the process by which dissociated memories are said to be recovered (events that were originally very poorly encoded as fragmentary, kinesthetic memories cannot be recovered with accuracy later); (c) 4 bodies of relevant, but neglected, research on human memory (reminiscence and hypermnesia, effectiveness of retrieval cues, priming in implicit memory tests, and intentional forgetting); and (d) the issue of appropriate research strategies to gain evidence on the thorny issues of long-delayed retrieval of information. Current evidence does not support the conclusion that memories of repeated abuse are dissociated and recovered with accuracy years later. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
