Investigating the Memory Reports of Retractors Regarding Abuse

Chunlin Li, H. Otgaar, Tessa van Daele, Peter Muris, Sanne T. L. Houben, Ray Bull
{"title":"Investigating the Memory Reports of Retractors Regarding Abuse","authors":"Chunlin Li, H. Otgaar, Tessa van Daele, Peter Muris, Sanne T. L. Houben, Ray Bull","doi":"10.5093/ejpalc2023a7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":344860,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2023a7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
关于滥用牵开器记忆报告的调查
背景:法律案例和研究表明,由于暗示性治疗干预,人们可以开始记住他们从未经历过的虐待。其中一些人最终撤回了他们的虐待指控。这项研究检查了自我定义的虐待牵张者的记忆报告和不相信的记忆的普遍性。方法:本研究采用回顾性调查方法,对56名已收回其虐待声明的个体进行调查。我们检查了细节,合理性,信念,以及在收回之前和收回之后的虐待回忆,以及收回信念的原因和恢复和收回记忆的结果。结果:24名参与者收回记忆的时间明显长于最初恢复记忆的时间。撤稿后,被试对虐待事件发生的信念和个人可信性得分显著降低,而撤稿前后的回忆得分基本一致。撤回对虐待相关记忆的信念的主要原因是外部证据的出现对撤回者的说法产生了怀疑。一些牵开者(n = 17, 70.83%, 95% CI[52.6%, 0.89%])认为,在收回记忆后,他们获得了更多的好处(例如,给了他们一个重建生活的新机会,并与他人建立了新的关系)。结论:虽然牵开者报告的可靠性尚不清楚,但这些发现支持了牵开者记忆报告的相关工作,并突出了牵开者记忆报告中不被相信的记忆的存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信