The controversy over recovered memories

The authors discuss 4 issues in this commentary: (a) the assumptions and evidence used to support the case for dissociated and recovered memories (noting that the evidence is weak and the assumptions internally inconsistent as well as contradictory to a mass of experimental evidence about human memory); (b) the process by which dissociated memories are said to be recovered (events that were originally very poorly encoded as fragmentary, kinesthetic memories cannot be recovered with accuracy later); (c) 4 bodies of relevant, but neglected, research on human memory (reminiscence and hypermnesia, effectiveness of retrieval cues, priming in implicit memory tests, and intentional forgetting); and (d) the issue of appropriate research strategies to gain evidence on the thorny issues of long-delayed retrieval of information. Current evidence does not support the conclusion that memories of repeated abuse are dissociated and recovered with accuracy years later.