From Traumatic Memory to Traumatized Remembering: Beyond the Memory Wars, Part 1: Agreement

From the mid-1980s onwards, US courts have seen a dramatic increase in personal injury and criminal cases alleging harm caused by sexual abuse whose memories were ??recovered?? after decades of forgetting. These recovered memory claims were countered by the defense that they were false memories. Three types of personal injury cases have been the center of media attention: (1) adult daughters suing their fathers for alleged childhood incest; (2) families and patients suing psychotherapists for allegedly suggesting false incest memories; and (3) adults suing the Catholic Church alleging sexual abuse by priests. Legal outcomes have been inconsistent in part because scientific controversy has called the reliability of recovered memories into question. This article is the first in a three-part series that provides a forensic framework for understanding the current state of the recovered memory/false memory debate. It briefly describes the reasoning behind inconsistent legal decisions, identifying the minimum scientific issues that must achieve consensus to meet the needs of the legal system. It proposes epistemological criteria for determining whether a consensus has been achieved. It then identifies recovered memory issues about which there is now a consensus. The second article identifies recovered memory issues that lack consensus. The third article argues that the scientific controversy reflected confusion about different memory types. It proposes a phenomenological schema to integrate them and reduce legal confusion. It concludes that there is sufficient consensus about some recovered memory issues to meet minimal legal needs, while more research is needed for others.