在英国的一个样本中,EMDR和其他创伤治疗师表明,他们相信无意识压抑和解离性健忘症。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Pamela J Radcliffe, Lawrence Patihis
{"title":"在英国的一个样本中,EMDR和其他创伤治疗师表明,他们相信无意识压抑和解离性健忘症。","authors":"Pamela J Radcliffe, Lawrence Patihis","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2025.2498929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explored UK mental health professionals' beliefs (<i>N</i> = 178) for autobiographical memory function for trauma in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false memories. It captures novel data on controversial memory beliefs for unconscious repression, dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder (DID). Study participants were mental health professionals and included non-trauma-focused, (<i>n</i> = 92), trauma-focused EMDR practitioners (<i>n</i> = 62) and (non-EMDR) trauma-focused practitioners (<i>n</i> = 24). Most study participants indicated some degree of belief in repression (>78%) and dissociative amnesia (>84%). EMDR and other trauma-focused practitioners showed elevated agreement for controversial memory notions. The EMDR practitioner group also showed more belief in the diagnostic validity of DID. New data on mental health professionals' beliefs about the aetiology of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) was also captured. Most study participants \"Somewhat agreed\" or \"Agreed\" that \"blocked out\" trauma memories are causally related to dissociation and physical symptoms, e.g., PNES (>78%); EMDR practitioners showed the highest degree of agreement (91%). The impact of memory beliefs alongside EMDR theory and practice is considered in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false or non-experienced memories. Recommendations are made for future research to mitigate against adverse health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In a UK sample, EMDR and other trauma therapists indicate beliefs in unconscious repression and dissociative amnesia.\",\"authors\":\"Pamela J Radcliffe, Lawrence Patihis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09658211.2025.2498929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study explored UK mental health professionals' beliefs (<i>N</i> = 178) for autobiographical memory function for trauma in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false memories. It captures novel data on controversial memory beliefs for unconscious repression, dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder (DID). Study participants were mental health professionals and included non-trauma-focused, (<i>n</i> = 92), trauma-focused EMDR practitioners (<i>n</i> = 62) and (non-EMDR) trauma-focused practitioners (<i>n</i> = 24). Most study participants indicated some degree of belief in repression (>78%) and dissociative amnesia (>84%). EMDR and other trauma-focused practitioners showed elevated agreement for controversial memory notions. The EMDR practitioner group also showed more belief in the diagnostic validity of DID. New data on mental health professionals' beliefs about the aetiology of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) was also captured. Most study participants \\\"Somewhat agreed\\\" or \\\"Agreed\\\" that \\\"blocked out\\\" trauma memories are causally related to dissociation and physical symptoms, e.g., PNES (>78%); EMDR practitioners showed the highest degree of agreement (91%). The impact of memory beliefs alongside EMDR theory and practice is considered in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false or non-experienced memories. Recommendations are made for future research to mitigate against adverse health outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2498929\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2498929","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了英国心理健康专业人员(N = 178)在不良治疗结果(如错误记忆)背景下对创伤自传式记忆功能的看法。它收集了关于无意识压抑、解离性健忘症和解离性身份障碍(DID)的有争议的记忆信念的新数据。研究参与者是心理健康专业人员,包括非创伤关注(n = 92)、创伤关注EMDR从业者(n = 62)和(非EMDR)创伤关注从业者(n = 24)。大多数研究参与者表示一定程度上相信压抑(>78%)和分离性健忘症(>84%)。EMDR和其他关注创伤的从业者对有争议的记忆概念表现出更高的一致性。EMDR从业人员组也对DID的诊断有效性表现出更强的信心。关于精神卫生专业人员对心因性非癫痫性发作(PNES)病因学的看法的新数据也被捕获。大多数研究参与者“多少同意”或“同意”“屏蔽”创伤记忆与分离和身体症状有因果关系,例如,PNES (>78%);EMDR从业者表现出最高的一致性(91%)。记忆信念与EMDR理论和实践的影响是在不良治疗结果的背景下考虑的,例如,错误或无经验的记忆。对今后的研究提出了建议,以减轻对健康的不良影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In a UK sample, EMDR and other trauma therapists indicate beliefs in unconscious repression and dissociative amnesia.

This study explored UK mental health professionals' beliefs (N = 178) for autobiographical memory function for trauma in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false memories. It captures novel data on controversial memory beliefs for unconscious repression, dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder (DID). Study participants were mental health professionals and included non-trauma-focused, (n = 92), trauma-focused EMDR practitioners (n = 62) and (non-EMDR) trauma-focused practitioners (n = 24). Most study participants indicated some degree of belief in repression (>78%) and dissociative amnesia (>84%). EMDR and other trauma-focused practitioners showed elevated agreement for controversial memory notions. The EMDR practitioner group also showed more belief in the diagnostic validity of DID. New data on mental health professionals' beliefs about the aetiology of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) was also captured. Most study participants "Somewhat agreed" or "Agreed" that "blocked out" trauma memories are causally related to dissociation and physical symptoms, e.g., PNES (>78%); EMDR practitioners showed the highest degree of agreement (91%). The impact of memory beliefs alongside EMDR theory and practice is considered in the context of adverse therapeutic outcomes, e.g., false or non-experienced memories. Recommendations are made for future research to mitigate against adverse health outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
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.
×
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