![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Law Reform Commission - Reform Journal |
THE SUBCONSCIOUS ON THE STAND
comments on the reporting of recovered memories
- Controversy surrounding the 'recovery of memories' has gained momentum in recent years, and debate about recovered memories of childhood abuse, in particular, can be seen in the media and popular books, in the scientific and legal literature, and in the courts. Kevin McConkey explains why it is an issue that the courts should treat with care.
Kevin M McConkey is Professor of Psychology, and Head, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales. His major research and professional interests are in the areas of hypnosis, memory, and ethics.
The recovered memories being freshly reported - often after decades have passed - include physical, verbal, sexual, and emotional abuse during childhood. Such memories may be accurate, and we need to acknowledge that individuals themselves, those around them, professionals dealing with them, and society in general may have difficultly coping with this possibility.
Such memories, however, may be inaccurate in whole or in part, and their reporting may be a product of influences other than childhood events. In Australia, as elsewhere in western society, 'recovered memory' and 'false memory' advocates and movements have emerged. The strength of those movements underscores the substantial personal and societal emotion, and also the substantial professional and legal implications and consequences that this issue carries.
The debate about 'repressed', 'dissociated', 'recovered', and 'false' memory is a complex one that involves issues concerning; the nature of memory, the effects of trauma on memory, the ways in which memory influences personal adjustment, and the reliability and use of memory reports in settings, such as the clinic and the court.
The argument associated with the existence of repressed memory of childhood sexual abuse typically goes along the following lines. The child experiences a highly disturbing traumatic event, such as sexual abuse, and a defensive mental process (involving repression and/or dissociation) creates amnesia for this event. The traumatic event is nevertheless encoded and stored in memory, and it exerts a powerful influence in the behaviour and experience of the individual throughout life.
The existence of the traumatic memory is thought to be seen in the presence of various symptoms during adolescence and adulthood. Under some conditions, the traumatic memory is thought to be recovered, and the individual regains awareness of the original event. This lifting of the amnesia may occur spontaneously, in response to natural events that the individual experiences, or in response to particular therapeutic techniques intended to recover memories.
Despite this argument, and despite the support that can be seen in some clinical observations and personal anecdotes, empirical research on memory provides only limited evidence of the notion of repressed memory. Moreover, empirical research generally does not allow global statements to be made about a definite relationship between trauma and memory.
Rather, empirical findings indicate that what is reported about any past event is shaped by what occurred during that event, by what occurred during any attempts to remember, and by other things that happened between the original event and the attempted remembering.
Memories can be altered, deleted, and created by events that occur during and after the time of encoding, during the period of storage, and during attempts at retrieval. Sometimes our memories are perfect, and sometimes they are not; sometimes we remember things that we have forgotten, and sometimes we 'remember' things that we have never known. Memory is a constructive and reconstructive process; it usually serves us reasonably well, but sometimes we can mislead ourselves and others.
Recovered memories that are reported spontaneously, in response to events, or in response to therapeutic techniques may be accurate, inaccurate, fabricated, or a mixture of these. Empirical research tells us that the presence or absence of detail in a memory report does not necessarily mean that it is accurate or inaccurate. Similarly, empirical findings tell us that the individual's belief in memory or the emotion associated with reporting the memory does not necessarily relate directly to its accuracy.
Moreover, assumptions that particular problems in either adolescence or adulthood are necessarily linked to repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse can not be supported by existing scientific evidence. There is no definite way to distinguish accurate, inaccurate, and fabricated memories in the absence of independent corroboration.
Empirical research, clinical observations, and personal anecdotes all point to the need to be especially alert to the ways in which the reported memories of individuals can be shaped by others through the expectations that they convey, the comments they make, the questions they ask, and the responses they give. Reported memories are susceptible to subtle messages and reinforcements from a variety of sources, whether those messages are meant or not. Therefore, any examination of the reliability of a recovered memory should consider the possible influences from outside the individual (e.g., therapeutic procedures, self-help groups, family discussions, popular books, films, television programs) and should be alert to the role that they may play in creating or shaping the memory and/or belief in it by the individual.
Let me give an (hopefully rare) example of recovered memory. Ms C was 21 years old when she sought help to remember events that her older sister had said Ms C had witnessed about 10 years earlier. Her sister alleged that their father had sexually abused her as a young adolescent, and had said that Ms C had witnessed that sexual abuse. Ms C could not remember it, but underwent four hypnosis sessions at the request of her mother and her sister. The therapist (T) audio recorded the sessions. Early in Session 1, the following occurred:
Late in Session 1, after a series of suggestive techniques, the following occurred:
- T: Are you aware that in the case of your elder sister, ... in her relationship with her father, that there are various charges being brought about against him.
C: Yes.
T: Right. As [her] sister, I am asking you now, as to whether you are a witness in the past to any impropriety that your father may or may not have committed towards your sister, ... ?
C: No.
In Sessions 2 and 3, the therapist used various techniques to help Ms C feel sure and confident about whatever events came to mind. By the end of Session 3, Ms C was answering explicit questions about multiple sexual interactions between her father and sister. Moreover, she was giving details, such as the precise positioning and movement of the father's hands and genitals, that would have required extraordinary ability not only to witness (since they reportedly occurred under bedclothes), but also to remember so precisely (since they reportedly occurred approximately 10 years previously). In Session 4, the therapist went over the material that had been dealt with in the first three sessions. Ms C subsequently made a detailed statement to police about various sexual assaults on her sister by her father.
- T: Are you only aware for the moment at this your first subconscious session, are you only aware of that occasion when you walked into your father's room on a Saturday afternoon and was suddenly aware that [your sister] was in your father's bed with him under the blankets and sheets. Is this the only occasion that you noticed your father was not at all acting out the proper fatherly role?
C: Yes.
Following an analysis (see McConkey & Sheehan, 1995), the prosecution decided that the statements made by Ms C would not be given as evidence and that she would not be called as a witness. Notably, the therapist had made a statement to police that he had not used any leading questions or inappropriate procedures in his interactions with Ms C; that however, was not a view supported by close analysis.
This case highlighted the creativity, if not the recoverability, of memory. For whatever reason, Ms C constructed a meaning around a possibility of unremembered events, and she developed a strong belief in the accuracy of her memories; the fact that she held a genuine belief, however, does not make them genuine memories.
Although it is important to consider such cases, it is equally important to recognise that some recovered memories may be accurate. Sexual abuse against children is typically destructive of mental health, self esteem, and personal relationships, and people who have suffered abuse may use various psychological mechanisms to help them cope with the experience and consequences. Reports of abuse - whether following the recovery of once forgotten memories or following the reporting of never forgotten memories - long after the events are said to have occurred are difficult to prove or disprove in the majority of cases.
Independent corroboration of the statements of those who make (or deny) such allegations is typically difficult, if not impossible. Indeed a portion of the shame of the debate over recovered memory is that it may throw into question the reports of people who are genuine victims. Because of this, we all need to exercise special care in dealing with individuals, their family members, and the wider community when considering allegations of past abuse.
Reference
McConkey, KM & Sheehan, PW (1995). Hypnosis, memory, and behaviour in criminal investigation. New York: Guilford.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRCRefJl/1996/5.html