Abstract
AbstractIn this commentary on the paper, Psychotherapy and Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Cognitive Perspective, by Lindsay and Read, three points are addressed. First, although the bulk of Lindsay and Read's paper is devoted to elaborating an explanation for the phenomenon that ‘memory recovery therapies’ may ‘inadvertently lead some adult clients to create illusory memories of childhood sexual abuse’, this phenomenon itself has never been demonstrated. There is a logical flaw in inferring the existence of a phenomenon from the fact that there might be an explanation for it. Second, Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is proposed as a useful heuristic for conceptualizing the debate regarding true memory versus illusory memory for sexual abuse. SDT is applied to elucidate the phenomenon of memory for sexual abuse, and then several directions for future research on this topic using the SDT framework are proposed. Finally, the cognitive research literature on the prevalence of suggestively planted memories is discussed. It is proposed that ‘memory recovery therapy’ is not widespread in the field of psychotherapy and that the evidence for therapist‐implanted illusory memories for incestuous sexual abuse is very weak.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
