Repressed Memory and Sexual Abuse, Research Paper Example

Controversy and Treatment Implications for Clinicians

It would perhaps be difficult to find an issue which is more divisive or has caused more of a stir in the circles of clinical psychology than that of the controversy surrounding repressed memories of child sexual abuse.  Indeed, this controversy has spilled over into the media and permeated into popular thought, so that this issue reaches far beyond the realm of professional psychologists and therapists.  There are also legal ramifications to this issue, as state laws have been altered in recent years as policymakers have concluded that repressed memories of child sexual abuse can be used as evidence in court, even many years after the actual crime has been committed. These controversies and legal issues, in turn, can have implications for treatment which the clinician needs to take into account.

This issue of the validity of repressed memories of child sexual abuse has been extremely divisive in the profession of psychology. McNally, a cognitive psychologist notes that ,”While some scholars doubt that traumatic amnesia happens at all, others believe it happens often” (McNally 509). Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, writing in the AmericanPsychologist, for instance, is highly critical of her colleague Dr. Olio (writing in the same issue) for her justification of the use of the therapy technique known as “telling a story” to help induce memories in patients who have none. Loftus somewhat acerbically points out that “the ‘story’ may be the retrieval cue that finally leads to remembering the truth.  But it is also possible that imagination, like its cousin ‘guessing’ can lead people to believe that their false memories are real”(Loftus 443).

There are also important legal ramifications to be considered in this issue. Growing support for the validity of repressed memories of child sexual abuse have caused policymakers in many states to alter the laws regarding this type of criminal behavior. Whereas before, most states gave the victim around 2 years to come forward with charges after the assault had happened, now many states allow charges to be brought for a certain number of years after the victim remembers the abuse.  Sometimes that actual crimes being brought against suspects have actually occurred a number of years ago. However, one study has shown that jurors were more likely to convict a perpetrator is memories were non-repressed (67%) as opposed to memories that were repressed but then later recalled (58%). Age of the witness also played a key factor, with juries more likely to believe the victim if they were a young child at the time of the abuse, versus if they were an adult or a teenager. (Key 555).

In her critique, Loftus notes that she is not calling into question the validity of all repressed memories of sexual abuse. What concerns her, she notes is “one small class of memories – those that emerge in adulthood after “memory work” (Loftus 443).  She is very specific in listing these suspect therapies, and includes the following techniques as areas of concern: age regression, body memory interpretation, suggestive questioning, guided visualization, sexualized dream interpretation, aggressive sodium amyl interviews and misleading bibliotherapy. She points out the Ingram case, were memories were implanted and the case of Laura Paisley, who is known as a “retractor”, someone who were led to believe that they had been sexually abused in the past and then realize they had not . In this particular instance, Paisley went in for treatment for her bulimia but was soon convinced by her therapist that she had been a victim of incest. There was no corroborating proof of this and after spending four years with these distressing memories before she realized they were false. She sued her therapist and retrieved a sizable 6-figure settlement for emotional distress, another legal ramification of this controversial topic (Loftus 444).

She is not the only one to question these techniques; McNally, writing in PsychiatricAnnals, notes, too, that some therapy techniques that are geared towards recovering memories may indeed unintentional foster false remembrances. He cites guided imagery in particular as being a culprit in this generation of false memories and remarks on a recent laboratory study where college students who were guided to imagine various childhood events were more likely to believe that those events actually happened (McNally, 512).

Neither Luftus nor McNally are denying the need for therapy for these individuals.  Indeed, McNally noted that, after a battery of cognitive tests, he found that those with repressed and/or recovered memories were “the most psychologically distressed, the most prone to experience negative affective states, the most prone to absorption” (McNally 510).  Nor is Luftus, in questioning the methods by which some memories of abuse are elicited, calling into question the validity of all victim testimony. Her concern for the victim is obvious and she notes in the concluding paragraph of her paper “uncritical acceptance of every single case of sexual abuse, no matter how dubious, is found to have an unintended and tragic consequence: trivializing the true and ruthless cases of abuse and increasing the suffering of the genuine victims” (Luftus 445). Clearly, there is a definitely need for individuals in this group for a therapist to help them process these emotions and learn to deal with them in a constructive manner.

It might be well to remember that dealing with the complexities of perception and memory is not a new one to psychology: Eredlyi, writing in BehavioralandBrainSciences, notes that the “recovery of inaccessible memories has been part of scientific psychology for over a century” (Eredlyi 499), when P.B. Balk in 1913 wrote his essay on “Oblivesence and Reminiscence” and down through the years, countless studies have come across the difficulty of recollection of false memories along with real ones.  Eredlyi notes that, for example, Barlett, in his 1932 study, was “forced to accept the reconstructive and therefore distorting nature of memory” (Eredlyi 446) and more modern studies, such as those done by Eredlyi in 1996 and Roediger in 1997 show consistently that, as therapists work with patients to improve their memories, false recollections will also increase along with real ones; Roediger termed this the “paradox of memory” (Eredlyi 436).  This is good for therapist to keep in mind when considering a plan of treatment for patients whose memories may be repressed.

Loftus certainly seems to have this “paradox of memory” in mind when she is writing of what plan of treatment is more efficacious for this kind of patient. When outlining her preferred methods of treatment for potential victims of sexual abuse, Loftus gives the following guideline for therapy. Firstly, to focus in on treatments that enhancepatientfunctionratherthanthosethatworkonuncoveringmemories. Secondly, avoiding contaminating therapy with one’s own suggestions and guarding against personal biases on the part of the therapist. Thirdly, being very cautious in the use of hypnosis as part of the therapy. Fourthly, refraining from such techniques as bibliotherapy or group therapy until it has been confirmed that sexual abuse actually didoccur. Fifthly, Loftus encourages the development and utilization of techniques that minimize the possibility of a patient developing false memories (Loftus 445).

Blackshaw, writing for the Canadian Psychiatric Association, discusses ethical clinical guidelines for what therapists should do if retrieved memories of childhood sexual abuse implicate a particular person or persons.  She stresses that it is important in regards to professional ethics to remain neutral when it comes to allegations of abuse. She does not support the use of confrontation of the purported culprit for therapeutic uses alone and notes that far from being curative or cathartic, this can cause ruptures in the patient’s social support network. Instead, she reiterates that the clinician’s actions should “support the best interests of the patient and their supportive relationships” (Blackburn 2).

In conclusion, the issue of the appropriate treatment for patients who have been the victim of childhood sexual trauma is certainly a sensitive one. There are certainly cases of patients who have not been able to discuss these traumas until years after the violence has actually happened, and some who may well have repressed these memories as an attempt to cope. However, while trying to treat this patients and develop therapies to assist them in processing what has occurred and learning to function in as normal a way as possible in the aftermath, therapists have the responsibility to utilize treatment modalities that do not make the problem worse or lead patients to falsely believe that they have been victims of childhood sexual abuse. These treatments can be damaging and can also cause the true victims of abuse to lose credibility.  Since a very small percentage of sexual abuse cases are ever reported, tried or brought to a conviction, this could be very damaging indeed. It is certainly one of the areas of psychology where the actions of the therapists can truly have serious and wide-ranging consequences not only on the patient but on society at large; given this burden of responsibility, treatment modalities should be very careful chosen indeed.

Works Cited

Blackshaw, S. “Position Statement: Adult Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse”. Education Council of the Canadian Psychiatric Association. 1996. 1-2. Print

Eredlyi, M. “The Unified Theory of Repression”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2006. 29(2) 499-551. Print.

Key, L. et. al. “Perceptions of Repressed Memories: A Reprisal.” Law and Human Behavior. 1996. 20(5). 555-564. Print

Loftus, E. “The Repressed Memory Controversy”.  American Psychologist. 1994. May Edition. 443-445. Print

McNally, R. “The Cognitive Psychology of Repressed and Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse”. Psychiatric Annals. 2001. 31(8).509-651. Print.