Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 3 - Historical themes in the study of recovered and false memories of trauma

  • from Section 1 - Early life trauma: impact on health and disease
  • Edited by Ruth A. Lanius, University of Western Ontario, Eric Vermetten, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands, Clare Pain, University of Toronto
  • Book:
    The Impact of Early Life Trauma on Health and Disease
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    05 August 2010, pp 25-32

  • Summary

    This chapter explains why the loss and recovery of trauma memory is considered to be controversial. It also explores the historical themes that maintain or exacerbate the controversy. Consensus papers have appeared in scientific journals, at times written jointly by clinical researchers and non-clinical cognitive researchers. The chapter emphasizes that extremity is obviously in the eye of the beholder and details a few of the historical sources of the zealotry. The acrimony that has fueled the debate on recovered memory has abated in most arenas, clearing the way for scientific research that has clearly established the reality of the phenomena of both false memory (FM) and accurate recovered memory. Further work will benefit from a clearer distinction between the study of phenomena (both recovered and FM) and their mechanisms (suggestion, repression, and dissociation), and direct and forthright debate about the nature and weight of types of evidence.