Oisín G Carey, Maria Dempsey, Keith Minihane, Gillian Murphy
{"title":"When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review.","authors":"Oisín G Carey, Maria Dempsey, Keith Minihane, Gillian Murphy","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recovered memories (RM) of trauma remain a contentious issue in psychological research and clinical practice, with ongoing debates about their prevalence and validity. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence from 42 studies published post-2000, following the \"Memory Wars\", to examine the prevalence of RM and associated contextual factors across diverse populations. Prevalence rates vary significantly: 1-3% in legally documented childhood sexual abuse (CSA) cases, 22-39% in self-reported CSA survivor samples, 6-19% in therapy attendees, and 3-13% in general population samples. Variability is driven by differences in operational definitions (e.g., total amnesia vs. partial forgetting), sample types, and recovery contexts (e.g., therapy-induced vs. spontaneous triggers). Therapist reports indicate 27-78% have encountered clients with RM, with caseload proportions ranging from 0.56% to 20%, influenced by theoretical orientation and training. Purposive studies reveal no unique cognitive mechanisms for RM, with experiences often reflecting conscious suppression, meta-awareness failures, or environmental cueing rather than special dissociative processes. These findings support a reconstructive memory framework, emphasizing cognitive, motivational, and environmental factors. The review highlights the need for standardized definitions, cross-cultural research, and enhanced therapist training to address risks of suggestive practices and develop evidence-based guidelines for supporting clients reporting RM in the absence of concerns regarding suggestion.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":" ","pages":"238-259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recovered memories (RM) of trauma remain a contentious issue in psychological research and clinical practice, with ongoing debates about their prevalence and validity. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence from 42 studies published post-2000, following the "Memory Wars", to examine the prevalence of RM and associated contextual factors across diverse populations. Prevalence rates vary significantly: 1-3% in legally documented childhood sexual abuse (CSA) cases, 22-39% in self-reported CSA survivor samples, 6-19% in therapy attendees, and 3-13% in general population samples. Variability is driven by differences in operational definitions (e.g., total amnesia vs. partial forgetting), sample types, and recovery contexts (e.g., therapy-induced vs. spontaneous triggers). Therapist reports indicate 27-78% have encountered clients with RM, with caseload proportions ranging from 0.56% to 20%, influenced by theoretical orientation and training. Purposive studies reveal no unique cognitive mechanisms for RM, with experiences often reflecting conscious suppression, meta-awareness failures, or environmental cueing rather than special dissociative processes. These findings support a reconstructive memory framework, emphasizing cognitive, motivational, and environmental factors. The review highlights the need for standardized definitions, cross-cultural research, and enhanced therapist training to address risks of suggestive practices and develop evidence-based guidelines for supporting clients reporting RM in the absence of concerns regarding suggestion.
期刊介绍:
Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.