Adults’ retractions of childhood sexual abuse allegations: high-stakes and the (in)validation of recollection

Abstract

Retractors are individuals who have repudiated their earlier claims of having been sexually abused. There has been relatively little research conducted with this population. The growing literature on memory verification strategies and non-believed memories provide a conceptual and empirical lens through which to revisit the accounts of these individuals to try and learn more about the process of making and retracting high stake, consequential beliefs or recollections about the past. Do people attempt to validate or invalidate beliefs and recollections of such events in the same way as they do for the moderately significant events studied to date? The paper concludes by re-emphasising the social and contextual nature of remembering and argues for the primacy of belief over recollection.

Nonbelieved memories in the false memory archive.

“…Comparison with Scoboria et al (2015) and Ost (2017).To examine whether our data on the reasons for belief reduction mirrored previous work, we compared our observed percentages with those found inScoboria et al (2015) andOst (2017; see …”

“…Also, in line with previous findings (Scoboria et al, 2015), we predicted that social feedback would be the most frequently reported category for why participants decided that their memory was false. Finally, based on previous work (Ost, 2017;Wade et al, 2014), we expected that asking family members would be the most reported memory verification strategy, and we NONBELIEVED MEMORIES 10 explored whether previous categorizations of verification strategies fully captured the range of strategies present in the archive or whether previously undocumented memory verification strategies emerged.…”

“…In the third step, the coding scheme developed by Ost (2017) and the categories reported by Wade and Garry (2005) were used to identify memory verification strategies that were mentioned in submissions. Additionally, a check of whether a verification attempt was reported in general was included before coding the subcategories.…”

Defending or relinquishing belief in occurrence for remembered events that are challenged: A social‐cognitive model

“…A thorough accounting of decision making about memory following feedback thus requires attention to trustworthiness and credibility of messengers and of the messages that they communicate, as well as rememberers' appraisals of challenger's motivations for providing feedback. These social influences stand as contextual factors that likely influence many if not all aspects of decision making regarding belief in occurrence in this circumstance (see Ost, 2017, for more on social context and belief in occurrence).…”

Why “Trauma-Related Dissociation” Is a Misnomer in Courts: a Critical Analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b)

“…303) claim that "research has established the reliability of recovered memories of trauma." This cavalier way of summarizing the evidence ignores studies showing that many people have retracted trauma memories that they recovered in therapy (Maran, 2010;Ost, 2017). It also overlooks the vast literature on how certain therapeutic maneuvers have created false memories (e.g., imagination inflation, Thomas & Loftus, 2004;dream interpretation, Mazzoni et al, 1999;hypnosis, Lynn et al, 1997;suggestion, Loftus & Pickrell, 1995) -.…”