成人创伤性回忆延迟:法律、临床和法医建议的综合。

J O Beahrs, J J Cannell, T G Gutheil
{"title":"成人创伤性回忆延迟:法律、临床和法医建议的综合。","authors":"J O Beahrs,&nbsp;J J Cannell,&nbsp;T G Gutheil","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite considerable consensus on what is known and unknown about delayed traumatic recall in adults, this topic remains one of the most polarized issues within both forensic psychiatry and society as a whole. Competing priorities of values contribute to this polarization. So do often subtle confusions of categories: experiential with substantive realities; clinical with legal priorities and criteria; distinctions between explicit and implicit with declarative and procedural memory; conditioned avoidance with declarative knowledge; and prediction of traumatic sequelae from known traumatic events with postdiction of possible traumatic events from symptoms that may imply prior traumatization. Memories are rendered more vulnerable to falsification through social influence and intrinsic suggestibility-- and probably more so when suggestive input bypasses conscious scrutiny. Legal, clinical, and forensic guidelines are proposed to sort out these complexities, balance conflicting professional duties and priorities, balance protection of children with defending legitimate social structures such as the family, and better use our growing knowledge about the vicissitudes of human memory.</p>","PeriodicalId":76615,"journal":{"name":"The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"45-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delayed traumatic recall in adults: a synthesis with legal, clinical, and forensic recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"J O Beahrs,&nbsp;J J Cannell,&nbsp;T G Gutheil\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite considerable consensus on what is known and unknown about delayed traumatic recall in adults, this topic remains one of the most polarized issues within both forensic psychiatry and society as a whole. Competing priorities of values contribute to this polarization. So do often subtle confusions of categories: experiential with substantive realities; clinical with legal priorities and criteria; distinctions between explicit and implicit with declarative and procedural memory; conditioned avoidance with declarative knowledge; and prediction of traumatic sequelae from known traumatic events with postdiction of possible traumatic events from symptoms that may imply prior traumatization. Memories are rendered more vulnerable to falsification through social influence and intrinsic suggestibility-- and probably more so when suggestive input bypasses conscious scrutiny. Legal, clinical, and forensic guidelines are proposed to sort out these complexities, balance conflicting professional duties and priorities, balance protection of children with defending legitimate social structures such as the family, and better use our growing knowledge about the vicissitudes of human memory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"45-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管对于成人创伤性延迟回忆的已知和未知有相当大的共识,但这个话题在法医精神病学和整个社会中仍然是最两极分化的问题之一。价值观优先顺序的竞争导致了这种两极分化。通常对类别的微妙混淆也是如此:经验与实质现实;具有法律优先权和标准的临床;陈述性记忆和程序性记忆的外显和内隐差异陈述性知识条件回避;以及对已知创伤事件的创伤后遗症的预测以及从可能暗示先前创伤的症状中推断出可能的创伤事件。由于社会影响和内在的暗示性,记忆更容易被篡改——当暗示性输入绕过有意识的审查时,这种情况可能会更严重。提出了法律、临床和法医指南,以理清这些复杂性,平衡相互冲突的专业职责和优先事项,平衡保护儿童与捍卫合法的社会结构(如家庭),并更好地利用我们对人类记忆变迁的日益增长的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delayed traumatic recall in adults: a synthesis with legal, clinical, and forensic recommendations.

Despite considerable consensus on what is known and unknown about delayed traumatic recall in adults, this topic remains one of the most polarized issues within both forensic psychiatry and society as a whole. Competing priorities of values contribute to this polarization. So do often subtle confusions of categories: experiential with substantive realities; clinical with legal priorities and criteria; distinctions between explicit and implicit with declarative and procedural memory; conditioned avoidance with declarative knowledge; and prediction of traumatic sequelae from known traumatic events with postdiction of possible traumatic events from symptoms that may imply prior traumatization. Memories are rendered more vulnerable to falsification through social influence and intrinsic suggestibility-- and probably more so when suggestive input bypasses conscious scrutiny. Legal, clinical, and forensic guidelines are proposed to sort out these complexities, balance conflicting professional duties and priorities, balance protection of children with defending legitimate social structures such as the family, and better use our growing knowledge about the vicissitudes of human memory.

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
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