Oversimplifications and Misrepresentations in the Repressed Memory Debate: A Reply to Ross.
Saved in:
| Title: | Oversimplifications and Misrepresentations in the Repressed Memory Debate: A Reply to Ross. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Otgaar, Henry1,2 henry.otgaar@kuleuven.be, Dodier, Olivier3, Garry, Maryanne4, Howe, Mark L.2,5, Loftus, Elizabeth F.6, Lynn, Steven Jay7, Mangiulli, Ivan1,8, McNally, Richard J.9, Patihis, Lawrence10 |
| Source: | Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Jan2023, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p116-126. 11p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Adverse childhood experiences, *Child sexual abuse, Repression (Psychology), Adult child abuse victims, False memory syndrome, Amnesia |
| Abstract: | Ross argued that false memory researchers misunderstand the concepts of repression and dissociation, as well as the writings of Freud. In this commentary, we show that Ross is wrong. He oversimplifies and misrepresents the literature on repressed and false memory. We rebut Ross by showing the fallacies underlying his arguments. For example, we adduce evidence showing that the notions of dissociation or repression are unnecessary to explain how people may forget and then remember childhood sexual abuse, stressing that abuse survivors may reinterpret childhood events later in life. Also, Ross overlooks previous critiques concerning dissociation. Finally, we will demonstrate that Ross misrepresents work by Freud and Loftus in the area of repressed and false memory. His article confuses, not clarifies, an already heated debate on the existence of repressed memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Child Sexual Abuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Ross argued that false memory researchers misunderstand the concepts of repression and dissociation, as well as the writings of Freud. In this commentary, we show that Ross is wrong. He oversimplifies and misrepresents the literature on repressed and false memory. We rebut Ross by showing the fallacies underlying his arguments. For example, we adduce evidence showing that the notions of dissociation or repression are unnecessary to explain how people may forget and then remember childhood sexual abuse, stressing that abuse survivors may reinterpret childhood events later in life. Also, Ross overlooks previous critiques concerning dissociation. Finally, we will demonstrate that Ross misrepresents work by Freud and Loftus in the area of repressed and false memory. His article confuses, not clarifies, an already heated debate on the existence of repressed memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10538712 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10538712.2022.2133043 |
