When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review
Recovered memories (RM) of trauma remain a contentious issue in psychological research and clinical practice, with ongoing debates about their prevalence and validity. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence from 42 studies published post-2000, following the "Memory Wars", to examine the prevalence of RM and associated contextual factors across diverse populations. Prevalence rates vary significantly: 1-3% in legally documented childhood sexual abuse (CSA) cases, 22-39% in self-reported CSA survivor samples, 6-19% in therapy attendees, and 3-13% in general population samples. Variability is driven by differences in operational definitions (e.g., total amnesia vs. partial forgetting), sample types, and recovery contexts (e.g., therapy-induced vs. spontaneous triggers). Therapist reports indicate 27-78% have encountered clients with RM, with caseload proportions ranging from 0.56% to 20%, influenced by theoretical orientation and training. Purposive studies reveal no unique cognitive mechanisms for RM, with experiences often reflecting conscious suppression, meta-awareness failures, or environmental cueing rather than special dissociative processes. These findings support a reconstructive memory framework, emphasizing cognitive, motivational, and environmental factors. The review highlights the need for standardized definitions, cross-cultural research, and enhanced therapist training to address risks of suggestive practices and develop evidence-based guidelines for supporting clients reporting RM in the absence of concerns regarding suggestion.
Authors
- Gillian Murphy (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8898-139X)
- Maria Dempsey (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7001-0568)
- Keith Minihane
- Oisín G. Carey
Institutions
- University College Cork (IE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Memory
- Published
- 2025-12-22
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699
- Primary Topic
- Memory Processes and Influences
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00