If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on child memory. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality child memory paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in child memory, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your child memory paper at affordable prices!
Title Relations Among Childhood Memory, a History of Abuse,
Dissociation, and Repression.
Subject(s) CHILD abuse; REPRESSION (Psychology); DISSOCIATION
(Psychology)
Order custom research paper on child memory
Source Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Nov, Vol. 14 Issue 11,
p117, 1p, charts
Author(s) Melchert, Timothy P.
Abstract The author of this study investigated several questions
regarding the relationships between a history of child abuse,
recovered abuse memories, childhood memory in general, repression, and
dissociation. Of the total sample (N = 560 undergraduate students),
one quarter reported a history of child abuse, and 18% of these
reported that they had a period when they lacked memories of their
abuse. These participants endorsed a variety of descriptions of their
recovered memories, many of which do not suggest a lack of conscious
access to the memories. General quality of childhood memory was found
to be unrelated to a history of abuse, and most participants,
regardless of their abuse history, reported recovering memories from
their childhood in general. Repressive personality traits were found
to be unrelated to recovering abuse memories, but dissociative traits
were found to be weakly associated with recovering abuse memories.
[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
AN 7481
ISSN 0886-605
Full Text Word Count 81
Database Academic Search Elite
RELATIONS AMONG CHILDHOOD MEMORY, A HISTORY OF ABUSE, DISSOCIATION,
AND REPRESSION
The author of this study investigated several questions regarding the
relationships between a history of child abuse, recovered abuse
memories, childhood memory in general, repression, and dissociation.
Of the total sample (N = 560 undergraduate students), one quarter
reported a history of child abuse, and 18% of these reported that they
had a period when they lacked memories of their abuse. These
participants endorsed a variety of descriptions of their recovered
memories, many of which do not suggest a lack of conscious access to
the memories. General quality of childhood memory was found to be
unrelated to a history of abuse, and most participants, regardless of
their abuse history, reported recovering memories from their childhood
in general. Repressive personality traits were found to be unrelated
to recovering abuse memories, but dissociative traits were found to be
weakly associated with recovering abuse memories.
Recovered memories of child abuse remain a controversial topic.
Empirical evidence has begun to accumulate regarding some aspects of
these memories, but there are still limited data available for
addressing many of the questions that have been hotly debated
recently. Many of these questions refer to very complex memory
processes which will not be well understood until after much more
research is conducted. Nevertheless, this study initiated an
exploration of some of these questions.
The recovered-memory controversy initially focused almost entirely on
childhood sexual abuse (SA). It was believed that the confusing and
secretive nature of incest resulted in an altered psychological
processing of those experiences, and consequently memories for these
experiences were more frequently repressed (e.g., Courtois, 188;
Fredrickson, 1). The first two empirical studies that investigated
this issue also showed that incest survivors in therapy frequently
reported recovering memories of child SA. Herman and Schatzow (187)
found that 64% of a sample of incest survivor group therapy members
reported that they had recovered at least some memories of their
abuse, and Briere and Conte (1) found that 5% of a sample of SA
therapy clients reported that there had been some period before they
were 18 years old when they could not remember their abuse. The
studies that have been conducted since then have shown lower rates of
recovered SA memories, although all have shown that a minority of
child abuse survivors report recovering at least some memories of
their abuse (Elliott & Briere, 15; Feldman-Summers & Pope, 14;
Loftus, Polonsky, & Fullilove, 14; Melchert, 16; Melchert &
Parker, 17; Polusny & Follette, 16; Williams, 15). It was also
recently found that those reporting histories of physical and
emotional abuse were as likely as those reporting a history of SA to
report recovering memories of their abuse (Melchert; Melchert &
Parker).
Several writers have hypothesized that not only are child abuse
memories commonly repressed or dissociated, but that traumatic child
abuse can also cause childhood amnesia (e.g., Blume, 10; Courtois,
188). The lack of firm evidence to support this hypothesis quickly
led to substantial controversy (Loftus, 1). Recent studies have
shown large amounts of variation in the quality of individuals
childhood memories, with substantial numbers reporting that they have
memories from very early ages while others report that they have no
memories from their early childhood at all (Melchert, 16; Melchert &
Parker, 17). In neither of these studies, however, was general
quality of childhood memory related to a reported history of child
abuse. These two studies also investigated the relationship between a
reported history of abuse and recovering memories from ones childhood
in general. If child abuse can cause amnesia but the lost memories can
subsequently be recovered, those with known child abuse histories
would be more likely to recover greater numbers of childhood memories.
This hypothesis also was not supported in these studies, however.
Therefore, other than for cases involving organic disorders, to date
the substantial individual variation in reported quality of childhood
memory and the recovery of childhood memories is not well understood.
The mechanisms underlying the memories of child abuse that individuals
report recovering have been another focus of controversy. It has often
been assumed that those who report recovering abuse memories had
repressed or dissociated the memories for some period of time.
Repression involving the unconscious blocking of threatening memories
initially received most of the attention in the recovered memory
literature (e.g., Herman & Schatzow, 187), while dissociation has
since received most of the attention (e.g., Yates & Nasby, 1). The
defensive purposes of dissociation are similar to those of repression,
but dissociation involves an alteration in consciousness or cognition
which results in traumatic memories not being integrated into ones
consciousness or self-schema (Reviere, 16). There is much more
empirical data supporting models of dissociation than there is
regarding repression (Pope & Brown, 16; Reviere), and there is also
some consensus regarding the existence of memory impairments for
traumatic events as represented by the inclusion of the dissociative
disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 14).
Repression and dissociation have been controversial hypotheses ever
since they were first proposed. There have been numerous
conceptualizations of each of these concepts, and their validity
remains unclear (Erdelyi, 10; Holmes, 10; Pope & Brown, 16;
Reviere, 16). A variety of cognitive and neurophysiological evidence
suggests that attentional and memory mechanisms are affected by
extreme emotional arousal in ways similar to those posited by models
of dissociation (Christianson, 1; Nilsson & Archer, 1; van der
Kolk, 14). van der Kolk and Fisler (15) also found that
dissociative traits were related to a longer duration of abuse,
physical abuse and neglect, greater reliving of the abuse memories,
and self-destructive behaviors such as bingeing and purging, substance
use, and self-mutilation. If child abuse results in a reliance on
repressive or dissociative personality tendencies for coping and in
impairments in childhood memory, then adults repressive and
dissociative traits should be associated with having poorer childhood
memory in general and possibly with recovering greater numbers of
childhood memories. These possibilities have not yet been explored.
Ordinary forgetting and cued recall have also been offered as
alternative explanations for recovered child abuse memories (Lindsay &
Read, 14; Loftus, Garry, & Feldman, 14). Their role in the
recovery of child abuse memories has received little empirical
attention, although cues have been found to be powerful aids for the
recall of autobiographical information in general (Bower, 10).
Melchert (16) and Melchert and Parker (17) also found that
individuals who reported recovering abuse memories described those
memories in a variety of ways, some of which do not suggest repression
or dissociation (e.g., several participants in the Melchert study
indicated that I could always remember what happened, but I did not
think of it as abuse until I was older). These findings suggest that
there are varied explanations for recovered abuse memories, though the
nature of the recovered memories reported in these two studies remains
unclear. For example, when asked why they thought they lacked memory
of their abuse for some period, 1% of the participants in the
Melchert and Parker study indicated I dont know why. In addition,
nearly half of those in the Melchert study who indicated that they had
repressed their abuse memories also indicated that they were primarily
intentionally avoiding the memories.
The present study addressed each of the questions discussed above.
First, it replicated previous studies regarding the relationship of a
reported child abuse history to poor childhood memory and recovering
childhood memories in general. It also attempted to clarify the nature
of individuals recovered abuse memories and explore the role that
cues play in these memories. The relationship of repressive and
dissociative personality traits to poor childhood memory, recovering
childhood memories in general, and recovering child abuse memories
specifically were also investigated. One specific hypothesis was also
tested. It was hypothesized that participants recovered childhood
memories would include a disproportionate number of negative memories
that had originally been repressed or dissociated. Repressed or
dissociated memories are by definition psychologically threatening and
presumably negative in valence. Therefore, to the extent that
repressed or dissociated childhood memories are recovered, the valence
of those memories should be disproportionately negative. The control
group to which these memories were compared included participants
first memories of their childhood. Of course, individuals first
memories could be generally distorted in terms of their valence, but
currently there is no theoretical reason or empirical data to suggest
that they are. Consequently, the valence of participants first
childhood memories was expected to be more representative of their
childhood experiences than the valence of their recovered childhood
memories.
An undergraduate student sample was used to help avoid the possible
effects of suggestive therapy techniques and demand characteristics
which may exist in clinical samples. Both abused and nonabused groups
were included so that the effects of abuse history on childhood memory
could also be examined. It must be emphasized, however, that this
study relied on retrospective self-report data of unknown reliability.
Examining this type of data is useful for an initial exploration of
the research questions, though it will be necessary to employ other
research methodologies to eventually provide converging evidence
regarding these questions.
METHOD
Participants
The participant sample included 560 undergraduate students from a
large research university in the southwestern United States. The mean
age of the sample was 1.14 years (SD = .70) and 6% were female
(which is representative of the population in the subject pool). The
majority of the participants described their ethnic heritage as
European American (80%), and 1% indicated Latin American, %
indicated African American, % indicated Asian American, and %
indicated other ethnic heritages.
Twenty-five percent (n = 140) of the participants reported that they
had experienced one or more forms of child abuse. Eleven percent (n =
5) indicated a history of physical abuse (PA), 1% (n = 108)
indicated a history of emotional abuse (EA), and 8% (n = 45) indicated
a history of SA. Of the total study sample, 15% (n = 8) indicated
that they experienced one of the three forms of abuse, 8% (n = 4)
indicated experiencing two forms of abuse, and % (n = 15) indicated
experiencing all three forms of abuse. The mean age when the SA was
reported as beginning was 10.18 years (SD = 4.), and the mean age
when the abuse ended was reported to be 1.47 years (SD = 4.8).
Instruments
The participants were administered a survey questionnaire which was
followed by the two psychological tests described below. The survey
inquired about several aspects of their childhood memories, and all of
the survey items are found in the text and tables following.
Participants identified themselves as having an abuse history by
responding to the item, If you ever experienced physical abuse [or
emotional abuse or sexual abuse (unwanted sexual activity)] as a
child, please answer the following questions. Participants who
indicated a history of PA and EA were also asked to rate the severity
of the abuse on a scale ranging from 1 (mild) to 5 (severe), and
participants who indicated a SA history were asked to indicate the
number of sexual contacts they had prior to age 18 with their mothers,
fathers, other relatives, others who physically forced sexual contact
on them, or others with whom they had other unwanted sexual contact.
They were also asked at what age the SA occurred.
Dissociative personality traits were assessed with the Dissociative
Experiences Scale (DES) (Bernstein & Putnam, 186). This instrument
includes 8 items for assessing derealization, depersonalization, deja
vu experiences, absorption, and disturbances of identify, memory,
awareness, and cognition. It uses a visual analogue response scale
(from 0% to 100%) for indicating the amount of time the experiences
referred to in each of the items is experienced by the respondent.
Split-half internal consistency was found to be .8, and test-retest
stability was found to be .84 over a 4- to 8-week interval (Carlson &
Putnam, 1; in the present study, Cronbachs alpha was .). DES
scores have been found to discriminate between subjects with and
without dissociative disorder diagnoses. The median score of a normal
adult control group was found to be 4.8, for a normal college student
sample it was 14.11, for a clinical sample diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder it was 1.5, and for a clinical sample
diagnosed with multiple personality disorder it was 57.06 (Bernstein &
Putnam).
Repressive personality traits were assessed with the Weinberger
Repressive Restraint Scale (WRRS) (Weinberger, 10). This instrument
is based on research that has found that highly defensive repressors
report low levels of subjective distress but also show high levels of
physiological reactivity to stress. The 1-item scale uses a
true-false response scale, and higher scores indicate higher levels of
repression. Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to be greater than
.85 across a variety of samples, and 7-month test-retest reliability
was found to be greater than .70. Scores were also found to be
correlated in predicted directions with a variety of measures of
personality and psychopathology (Weinberger & Schwartz, 10).
Luborsky, CritsChristoph, and Alexander (10) concluded that the WRRS
is a reliable measure of a specific type of repression, namely, a
denial of negative and especially aggressive thoughts or behavior and
a denial of not measuring up to extremely high standards of conduct.
In the present study, however, the WRRS had low internal consistency
(Cronbachs alpha = .6), which is at the lower boundary of usefulness
for the initial stages of construct validation research (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 14). Consequently, the findings based on this measure
must be interpreted very cautiously.
Procedure
Participants were randomly selected from a psychology department
subject pool where they could obtain credit in an introductory
psychology course by participating in the subject pool or by
completing alternative activities. Signed informed consent was
required for participation, but the consent forms were collected
separately from the study questionnaires so that participants
anonymity could be maintained. No one refused participation. The
questionnaires were administered in groups of to participants,
and participants were not allowed to sit next to each other so that
they had some privacy when completing the questionnaires.
RESULTS
General Childhood Memory
Responses to the items inquiring about the quality of participants
childhood memory at various ages, their memory for their first and
third grade teachers, and their age in their earliest childhood memory
are found in Table 1. There was a significant increase in the reported
amount of childhood memory from ages to 5, 5 to 7, and 7 to 10,
ts(55, 554, 550) = 15.7, 1.0, and 8.77, respectively, all ps
.001. (In order to reduce the probability of a Type I error but also
to avoid a Type II error, particularly given the exploratory nature of
this study, the alpha level used to indicate statistical significance
was set at .01.) Participants also reported remembering their third
grade teachers faces and names more often than they did for their
first grade teachers, t(54) = 5., p .001. As a group, the
participants reported that they were quite young in their earliest
memories (M = .8 years, SD = 1.5).
The first seven childhood memory items were combined to create a
single measure of general quality of childhood memory. The responses
to these items were first converted to z-scores (because one item used
a different metric than the others). The responses to the first six
items were then summed (higher scores indicate better memory) and the
inverse of the seventh item was added to that subtotal (younger ages
in ones first memory indicate better childhood memory). Scores on the
resulting measure were internally consistent (Cronbachs alpha = .77),
suggesting that individuals reliably report that they experience
differences in the general quality of their childhood memories. There
was also substantial individual variation in scores on this measure (M
= .0, SD = 4.50, range = -14.84-15.).
A x x analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if
those who reported experiencing the three different forms of child
abuse (the independent variables) had poorer childhood memory than
those who reported no abuse history. No significant effect on general
quality of childhood memory scores was found for a history of PA, EA,
of SA, Fs(1,50) = .7, p = .78; .01, p = .1; and ., p = .5,
respectively, and none of the interactions was significant.
To more fully examine the effects of traumatic child abuse on
childhood memory, a single measure of abuse severity was computed
which took into account having no abuse history as well as suffering
multiple forms of abuse. Participants PA and EA severity ratings were
used to compute this measure. The mean PA severity rating (on a scale
of 1 [mild] to 5 [severe]) was .0 (SD = 1.1), and the mean EA
severity rating was .41 (SD = 1.). To obtain an estimate of SA
severity, participants reported frequency of sexual contact by
mothers, fathers, other relatives, others using physical force, and
others with whom one had unwanted sexual contact were summed (M= 7.18,
SD = 10.8, range = 1-51). To include those with no history of a
particular type of abuse, a zero was assigned to the abuse severity
rating for that abuse type. The abuse severity ratings for PA, EA, and
SA were then converted to z-scores (because one rating used a
different metric than the other two), and the three z-scores were then
summed. There was substantial variation in the resulting combined
abuse severity scores (M = -.01, SD = .17, range = -. 88-18.77).
Nevertheless, the correlation between the general quality of childhood
memory scores and the combined abuse severity scores was
nonsignificant, r(517) =-.01,p = .8.
Recovered Memories of Childhood in General
Nearly two thirds (6%) of the participants reported recovering at
least one memory from their childhoods in general (see Item , Table
1). A x x ANOVA was used to determine if those who reported
experiencing the three forms of child abuse (i.e., the independent
variables) recovered greater numbers of childhood memories than those
who did not. No significant effect was found for a history of PA, EA,
or SA, Fs(1,545) =. 18, p = .67; .00, p = .; and 1.87, p =. 17,
respectively, and none of the interactions was significant. The
correlation between number of recovered memories reported and the
combined abuse severity scores was also nonsignificant, r(55) = .07,
p =. 1, as was the correlation between number of recovered memories
and the valence of those memories, r(77) =-.05, p = .. The large
majority of those who reported recovering memories indicated that
there had been a variety of cues that triggered their recall, and only
18% indicated that there seemed not to be any cues for their memory
recovery.
The valence of participants recovered memories was compared to the
valence of their first memories to test the hypothesis that recovered
childhood memories include a disproportionate number of negative
memories which had been repressed or dissociated before they were
recovered. As seen in Table 1, very similar proportions of the
participants (10%) rated both their first and their recovered memories
as bad or really awful. When the responses of the 76 participants
who answered both items are compared, the proportion who rated their
recovered memories negatively was very similar to those who rated
their first memories negatively (6.1% and .4% rated their first
memories as bad and really awful whereas 6.6% and .% rated their
recovered memories as bad and really awful). When the proportions
of those who rated their first and recovered memories negatively as
opposed to neutral or positive are compared, the difference was not
significant at p .01, Chi[sup ](1, N - 76) = 5.71, p = .0.
Recovered Memories of Child Abuse
A minority of the abuse survivors answered yes to the question, Was
there ever a time when you had no memories of your physical [or
emotional or sexual] abuse, and then later the memories came back
to you? (1%, 8%, and % for PA, EA, and SA, respectively). Four
individuals reported recovering memories of two or three types of
abuse, resulting in 18% of the total abuse sample (n = 5) who
reported this type of memory experience. For those who reported
experiencing just one type of abuse, there was no significant
difference between the proportions of those who recovered PA, EA, or
SA memories, Chi[sup ](, N = 8) = 4.86, p = .0. There was a
significant relationship, however, between reporting recovered SA
memories and reporting larger numbers of SA incidents, r(140) = .0, p
.001. Reporting the recovery of abuse memories was also
significantly correlated with higher combined abuse severity scores,
r(140) = .4, p .001. The reported age when the SA occurred was not
significantly correlated with recovering abuse memories, however
(either age when the abuse began, r(45)--.7, p = .08, or when it
ended, r(45) =. 10, p = .5). Reporting recovered abuse memories also
was not related to the general quality of childhood memory scores,
r(1) =. 1, p-. 15.
The number of participants who reported that they lacked memories of
their abuse for some period contrasts with the number who answered the
questions inquiring whether they had ever recovered memories of any
form of child abuse which immediately followed (see Table ). There
were 8 participants (7% of the total abuse sample) who responded to
these items, compared with 5 individuals (18%) who answered the
previous ones. The most likely explanation for this discrepancy may be
that the 1 individuals who endorsed the latter but not the former
items could always remember particular abuse memories but also
recovered additional memories of their abuse over time, either
additional details regarding their continuously recalled abuse or
memories of additional abuse incidents. Follow-up interviews which
could clarify this possibility, however, were not conducted. Sixty-one
percent of the 8 participants who reported recovered abuse memories
indicated a history of PA, 7% reported a history of EA, and 55%
reported a history of SA (66% had reported a history of or types
of abuse). For those who reported a history of one type of abuse,
there was no significant difference between the proportions who
recovered PA, EA, or SA memories, Chi[sup ](, N = 8) = .15, p =
.1. Higher combined abuse severity scores were associated with
reporting that one had recovered abuse memories, r(140) = .8, p
.001. Age when the abuse occurred, however, was not correlated with
recovering abuse memories; either the age when the abuse began, r(45)
= .0, p = .8, or when it ended, r(45) = .08, p = .61.
With regard to the nature of the recovered abuse memories that were
reported, there was only one participant who endorsed the response
indicating that she would not have been able to remember the abuse
even with reminders due to a lack of conscious memories of the abuse
for some period (see Item 1, Table ). Another nine individuals
indicated that they would not have recalled the abuse without being
reminded. The majority of these participants, however, indicated that
they had been intentionally avoiding thinking about the abuse and
could have remembered it if they had wanted to (n = 5).
The participants indicated a variety of reasons for why they thought
they lacked memories of their abuse for some period (see Item , Table
). Three of the response options were intended to indicate
subconscious memory processes (repression or dissociation, ordinary
forgetting, and developing a false memory), while the others indicate
primarily conscious processes such as intentional memory avoidance or
a reinterpretation of always remembered experiences. Nearly one-half
of the participants (n = 17) chose responses suggesting subconscious
processes (i.e., repressing or forgetting the abuse, and one
participant wrote in that recurring dreams and familiar smells and
places reminded her of the abuse). One-half of these participants (n =
8) had indicated on the previous item, however, that they were
intentionally avoiding thoughts of the abuse. It is not possible to
know what these participants meant by these responses, but perhaps
they originally intentionally attempted to avoid thoughts of the
abuse, and at some point became successful at habitually or
automatically (i.e., subconsciously) avoiding those thoughts (cf.
Bower, 10; Erdelyi, 1). The other participants (n = 0) endorsed
responses more clearly suggesting conscious processes (i.e.,
intentionally avoiding the memories, reinterpreting continuously held
memories, or using substances or compulsive behaviors to help avoid
the memories). The majority of the participants rated their recovered
memories as being mostly accurate, and most also indicated that
nothing seemed to trigger the recall of those memories. Reporting no
cues for the recovery of their memories (responses 1,, , and 5 were
coded as having cues) was not significantly associated with endorsing
subconscious versus conscious explanations for the recovered memories,
Chi[sup ](1, N = 7) =. 1, p = .67. One half of these participants
(n = 1) also reported that they never received any corroboration that
the abuse actually happened. Receiving corroboration regarding ones
recovered memories also was not related to endorsing subconscious
versus conscious explanations for the memories, Chi[sup ](1, N = 6)
= .14, p = .71.
Dissociation
The mean score on the DES was 15.5 (SD = 1.1). The dissociation
scores were not significantly correlated with general quality of
childhood memory, r(40) = -.0, p = .66, but they were weakly
correlated with the number of recovered general childhood memories
reported, r(5) = .4, p .001. There were very weak associations
between dissociation scores and reporting a history of EA, r(5) =.
14, p = .00, and the combined abuse severity scores, r(5) =. 14, p
= .00. DES scores were not significantly associated with a history of
PA, r(5) = .06, p = .15, or a history of SA, r(5) = .08, p = .07.
DES scores for the 8 participants who reported recovering abuse
memories (M= ., SD = 15.01) were significantly higher than for
those who did not report recovering abuse memories (M = 17.4, SD =
11.86), F(1,1) = 5.6, p = .01 (for the 5 who indicated a lack of
memory for their abuse for some period, F(1,1) = 4.66, p = .0). The
16 participants who endorsed responses suggesting that subconscious
processes were responsible for their recovered memories had a mean DES
score (1.7, SD = 16.6) near the mean for the 0 participants whose
responses suggested conscious processes (.68, SD =14.06).
Repression
As noted above, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the WRRS was low,
so results based on this measure are presented only for exploratory
purposes. Scores on this scale (M = .0, SD = 1.) were not
significantly correlated with general quality of childhood memory
scores, r(487) = -.07, p =. 11, or number of recovered general
childhood memories reported, r(518) =-.01, p = .76. They also were not
correlated with reporting a history of PA, EA, or SA, rs(5) = .06, p
=. 17; .0, p = .67; and -.01, p = .81, respectively, or with the
combined abuse severity scores, r(5) = .0, p = .4. Scores for the
8 participants who reported recovered abuse memories were not
significantly different from those who did not report recovered abuse
memories, F(1, 1) =., p = .64 (this was also true for the 5 who
indicated that they lacked memories of their abuse for a period,
F(1,1) = .05, p = .8). The participants who endorsed responses
suggesting that subconscious processes were responsible for their
recovered memories had a lower mean WRRS score (1.71, SD = 1.64) than
those whose responses suggested conscious processes (.61, SD = .0).
DISCUSSION
This study helps address several questions that have been hotly
debated in the recovered memory controversy. First, the study found a
large amount of variation in individuals perceptions of the general
quality of their childhood memory. Assessing the reliability of
adults childhood memory is a very difficult measurement problem, and
there are no widely accepted measures of this variable (Lezak, 15).
Responses to the items used to measure the variable in this study,
however, showed a reasonable level of internal consistency and were
generally consistent with research regarding the offset of infantile
amnesia and the gradual improvement in autobiographical memory across
childhood (Bauer, 16; Fivush & Hudson, 10). However, a small
number (7%) of the participants did report that their first memories
are from the age of 1, which is probably not possible. These
participants likely underestimated their age when the events occurred
or they recall stories that family members told them regarding events
that happened at age 1 but which they cannot actually directly
remember. Nevertheless, a reported history of child abuse or of more
severe abuse was not significantly associated with reported quality of
childhood memory. This is now the third controlled study which has
resulted in this finding (see also Melchert, 16; Melchert & Parker,
17). Perhaps significant numbers of the relatively young
participants in these studies will eventually recover veridical child
abuse memories and the study findings would change as a result. All
three of these studies also used nonclinical samples and
uncorroborated self-report data, and other methodologies using
clinical samples might result in different findings. Until this
research is conducted, however, the available data do not support the
hypothesis that child abuse is associated with poor memory for ones
childhood.
The majority of the study participants, regardless of their abuse
history, also reported recovering memories from their childhood in
general. The hypothesis that these memories would be
disproportionately negative because a significant number of them had
originally been repressed or dissociated was not supported, however.
There was a very slight increase in the number of participants who
rated their recovered memories negatively as compared to their first
memories, but even with a very large amount of statistical power, this
difference was not significant at p .01. Although this hypothesis
was not supported, it must also be emphasized that the data do not
disconfirm the hypothesis because they were based on two assumptions
(a) A significant number of the memories that were recovered had
originally been repressed or dissociated; and (b) participants first
memories are more representative of their childhood experiences than
their recovered memories are. Both of these assumptions may be
incorrect. It is possible that the participants have not yet recovered
significant numbers of repressed or dissociated childhood memories
(i.e., mechanisms besides repression or dissociation are responsible
for the loss and later recall of virtually all of their recovered
memories). If this is true, however, it would suggest that repressed
or dissociated childhood memories are at most only rarely recovered by
undergraduate students, despite the substantial amount of child abuse
and recovered childhood memories that they report. It is also possible
that the participants repressed many of their early negative
experiences and their first memories are not more representative of
their childhood than their recovered memories are. The likelihood of
this possibility cannot be evaluated given the available evidence at
this time.
A large majority of those who reported recovering childhood memories
also reported that cues helped trigger the recall of their memories.
This suggests that cued memory recovery may play a significant role in
individuals autobiographical memory. No data were collected regarding
the reliability of these memories, and it should be noted that the use
of cues has been found to generate a large amount of recall but also
more errors in recall than traditional fact-oriented interviews
(Memon, Wark, Bull, & Koehnken, 17). Cues were reported to play a
smaller role, however, in recovering child abuse memories than they
did in recovering memories from ones childhood in general. No
explanation for this difference was found, but the kinds of cues which
most frequently triggered recall for general childhood events (i.e.,
listening to others stories about past events, viewing photographs of
past events) could serve as relatively direct cues. Experiencing
similarly direct cues for recovering child abuse memories probably
occurs far less frequently. This raises the possibility that more
frequent cues regarding child abuse would result in more frequent
recovery of child abuse memories as well.
Of those reporting child abuse histories, 18% reported that there was
a period of time when they could not recall the abuse, although their
memories later returned. There were also several additional
participants who reported that they recovered child abuse memories
even though they did not have a period of time when they lacked
memories of their abuse. Presumably these participants had
continuously remembered some abuse but recovered memories of
additional abuse experiences or additional details regarding the abuse
they had always remembered. It is important to note that the wording
of the two items used to elicit these responses appears to have
affected the rate of endorsement of the items. Nevertheless, at least
one-sixth of abuse survivors across a variety of clinical and
nonclinical samples have reported that they recovered child abuse
memories (Briere & Conte, 1; Elliott & Briere, 15;
Feldman-Summers & Pope, 14; Herman & Schatzow, 187; Loftus,
Polonsky, & Fullilove, 14; Melchert, 16; Melchert & Parker, 17;
Polusny & Follette, 16; Williams, 15). There also was a weak
relationship in the present study between the reported severity of
ones abuse and reporting recovered abuse memories. This may result
from a greater likelihood of repression or dissociation among those
who experienced more severe abuse, but it may also simply result from
having a larger pool of abuse experiences from which memories of
individual incidents could be lost and later recovered.
The participants in this study endorsed a variety of descriptions of
their recovered abuse memories, and it appears that many of these
memories were not unavailable for conscious recall. The proportions of
participants endorsing various conscious and unconscious memory
processes in this study are also similar to those found by Melchert
(16). At the present time, it is not possible to definitively
identify the mechanisms responsible for many recovered memories of
childhood, and the survey methodology used in this study provides
limited data for this purpose. There also is no clear boundary between
conscious and unconscious mental processes. Nevertheless, the above
findings clearly suggest that multiple explanations, including both
conscious and unconscious processes, are responsible for the child
abuse memories that individuals report recovering in survey
questionnaires.
This study also found only minimal support for an association between
repressive or dissociative personality traits and recovered child
abuse memories. Scores on the repressive personality instrument
contained a large proportion of measurement error, so the findings
based on those scores must be interpreted cautiously. The DES scores
were internally consistent, however, and were weakly associated with a
history of EA, recovering greater numbers of childhood memories
generally, and recovering child abuse memories specifically, although
they were not significantly correlated with quality of general
childhood memory. Perhaps the repression or dissociation of
threatening child abuse memories is at most only weakly related to
repressive or dissociative traits, or the WRRS and DES measure aspects
of repression and dissociation that are unrelated to memory
impairments for psychologically threatening material. Although these
and other possibilities await further examination, the initial
findings of this study do not suggest a strong relationship between
dissociative and repressive traits and recovering child abuse memories
or the general quality of individuals childhood memory.
Autobiographical memory is an enormously complex phenomenon, and much
more research is needed before these questions will be thoroughly
answered. Our findings begin to address some of these questions, but
the limitations of the data also render the results tentative. In
addition to a lack of corroboration regarding the self-reported
memories that were examined, the data were obtained from undergraduate
students while much of the controversy regarding recovered abuse
memories has involved clinical cases. Many college students have been
or do become mental health clients, but clearly the present findings
are not generalizable to clinical populations with mental disorders
known to affect autobiographical memory (e.g., clients with
dissociative disorders). There are also limitations associated with
the measures used in this study, particularly with regard to what
participants meant when they referred to having poor childhood memory
or recovered childhood memories, or the self-identification and
severity ratings of the child abuse that was reported (severity of
sexual abuse was also rated differently than severity of physical or
emotional abuse). Gender differences with regard to all of these
processes also need examination. Therefore, replicating this study
with a variety of samples and with different methodological approaches
as well as continuing to investigate other aspects of autobiographical
memory is the only way that the recovered memory controversy will
eventually be satisfactorily resolved.
Authors Note The author is grateful to Kaylene Brown, Jennifer Main,
and D. Alan Woods for their assistance with data collection and entry
for this study.
NOTE
(n1.) Several terms have been used to describe recovered child abuse
memories (e.g., repressed, delayed, reinstated, discovered). The
nature of these memories is not yet well understood, however, and
there appears to be no consensus about the best term for referring to
these memories. The choice to use the term recovered in this study
is not meant to presume the superiority of any particular theoretical
perspective, but is used to refer to individuals subjective
experiences of having recovered the memories. It does not presume that
these memories are veridical, that they were once unavailable for
conscious recall, or that any particular memory mechanism is involved
in their recovery.
Table 1 Responses (in percentage) to the Childhood Memory Items
Legend for Chart
B - No memories at all
C - I can remember one or two things
D - I can remember several things
E - I can remember most of my (nd-10th) year
F - Very clear--there are no periods that I cannot remember
A B C D E F
1-4. What is your memory like for your childhood at...
Age 10? 14 50 5 8
Age 7? 5 0 4 14
Age 5? 51 7
Age ? 57 4 1 1
Legend for Chart
B - I cant remember at all
C - I can remember his/her face
D - I can remember his/her name
E - I can remember his/her face and name
A B C D E
5-6. Can you remember your...
Third grade teacher? 5 7 6 8
First grade teacher? 11 7 7
Legend for Chart
A - Age 1
B - Age
C - Age
D - Age 4
E - Age 5
F - Age 6
G - Age 7
H - Age 8
I - Age
J - Age 10
A B C D E F G H I J
7. How old were you in your earliest memory
that you have of your life?
7 1 15 4 1 1 1
8. How would you rate the events which happened
in your earliest memory in terms of them being
good versus bad experience?
Really good 4
Nice
Neutral 1
Bad 7
Really awful
. Was there a time when you had no memory
of something from your childhood, and then later
the memories came back to you?
I have never remembered new
things about my childhood 8
I have remembered one new thing 1
I have remembered two or three
new things
I have remembered several new things 15
I have remembered at least 10 new things 4
10. How would you rate the events which happened
in these recovered memories in terms of them being
good vs. bad experience?
Really good 40
Nice 1
Neutral 0
Bad 7
Really awful
11. Was there anything that happened that
triggered the recovery of these memories?[a]
Other people talked about the events and
reminded me of what happened. 58
I saw some photograph(s) of what happened,
and that reminded me. 50
I read my childhood diary, and that
reminded me. 7
I visited the place(s) where the events
happened, and the memories came back to me. 7
Nothing seemed to remind me of what
happened-the-memories just came out of nowhere. 18
Other (please write in) 5[b]
NOTE The first seven items comprised the general childhood
memory measure. Remembering nothing about ones first or
third grade teacher was coded one, remember either his or
her face or name was coded three, and remembering both his
or her face and name was coded five.
[a.] These percentages sum to more than 100% because many
respondents indicated that there had been more than one
trigger for their recovered childhood memories.
[b.] Three participants referred to dreams, referred to
seeing a particular person again, referred to smells that
triggered memories, referred to a fathers death, and there
were a variety of individual responses such as my boyfriend
and I were wrestling, relistening to music I had listened
to when I was little, and having to write a paper.
TABLE Responses to the Recovered Abuse Memory Items
Item n (%)
If you ever recovered memories of any form of
child abuse, please answer the following questions.
1. Which of the following is the most true of you?
a. I would not have been able to remember the abuse
even if someone had reminded me of it because
I simply did not have any conscious memories of
it for a period of time. 1 ()
b. I could have remembered it if someone or
something had reminded me, but without being
reminded, I would not have thought about or
recalled the abuse. (4)
c. I could have remembered it if I had wanted
to think about it, but I was intentionally
avoiding thinking about the abuse. 5 (66)
d. Other (please write in) ----- (8)[a]
Why do you think you lacked memories of the
abuse for a period of time?
a. I never really lacked the ability to remember
the abuse because I was intentionally avoiding
thinking about the abuse. 11 ()
b. I think I repressed those memories; they were
blocked out from my consciousness because they
were too painful, and I would not have been able
to remember the abuse even if someone told me
about it. 6 (16)
c. I think I just forgot about what happened,
and the memories came back to me later when
I was reminded of the abuse. 10 (6)
d. I could always remember what happened, but I
did not think of it as abuse until I was older. 8 (1)
e. I used a lot of alcohol and/or drugs or
engaged in other compulsive behaviors to help
me avoid thinking about it. 1 ()
f. It is possible that I just imagined that
the abuse happened though it never actually
did, and the memories that I have are not
based on real events. 0 (0)
g. Other (please write in) ----- (5)[b]
. How accurate do you think your
recovered abuse memories are?
a. Could be completely false 0 (0)
b. Maybe false (8)
c. Probably some significant errors 5 (14)
d. Mostly accurate 5 (68)
e. Perfectly accurate, exactly as I remember
it happening 4 (11)
Was there anything that triggered the recovery
of your abuse memories?
a. A book, article, TV show, or movie reminded me. (5)
b. Someone who knew about the abuse reminded me. (8)
c. In therapy or a support group, the memory
began to return. 1 ()
d. Nothing seemed to be related to my
remembering the abuse. (58)
e. Other (please write in) ----- 10 (6)[c]
5. Did you ever get confirmation that the
things that happened in your recovered
memories actually took place?
a. The abuser(s) acknowledged what he/she
had done to me. 7 (18)
b. Someone who knew about what happened
told me about it. 6 (16)
c. A diary that I kept (but that I had
forgotten about) described the abuse. 1 ()
d. Someone else reported abuse by the
same perpetrator. 1 ()
e. Medical or legal records referred to
or described the abuse. 1 ()
f. I have never received any support or
confirmation that the abuse occurred. 1 (50)
g. Other (please write in) ----- (8)[d]
[a.] Written in responses I had just forgotten
I can remember the event, but not exactly what
happened and I just remembered.
[b.] Written in response Recurring dreams reminded
me, familiar smells and places reminded me-(the other
participant did not write in a response).
[c.] Written in responses New abuse reminded me of
past abuse, Becoming romantically involved with men
It wasnt that long ago Someone else close to me
(best friend) going through it Someone else remembered
and told me their experience and I could relate, My
boyfriend The person who did it and I have talked about
it, Surveys, Dreams, and Getting abused a second time.
[d.] Written in responses My dad admitted my mother
emotionally abused my sister and me My memory has
always been accurate and I dont know who
he was, I was only - 4.
Please note that this sample paper on child memory is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on child memory, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on child memory will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
