Effects Of Abuse History On Childhood Memory example essay topic

Title: Relations Among Childhood Memory, a History of Abuse, Dissociation, and Repression. Subject (s): CHILD abuse; REPRESSION (Psychology); DISSOCIATION (Psychology) Source: Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Nov 99, Vol. 14 Issue 11, p 1172, 21 p, 2 charts Author (s): Melchert, Timothy P. Abstract: The author of this study investigated several questions regarding the relationships between a history of child abuse, recovered abuse memories, childhood memory in general, repression, and dissociation. Of the total sample (N = 560 undergraduate students), one quarter reported a history of child abuse, and 18% of these reported that they had a period when they lacked memories of their abuse. These participants endorsed a variety of descriptions of their recovered memories, many of which do not suggest a lack of conscious access to the memories.

General quality of childhood memory was found to be unrelated to a history of abuse, and most participants, regardless of their abuse history, reported recovering memories from their childhood in general. Repressive personality traits were found to be unrelated to recovering abuse memories, but dissociative traits were found to be weakly associated with recovering abuse memories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] AN: 2374281 ISSN: 0886-2605 Full Text Word Count: 8291 Database: Academic Search Elite RELATIONS AMONG CHILDHOOD MEMORY, A HISTORY OF ABUSE, DISSOCIATION, AND REPRESSION The author of this study investigated several questions regarding the relationships between a history of child abuse, recovered abuse memories, childhood memory in general, repression, and dissociation. Recovered memories of child abuse remain a controversial topic. Empirical evidence has begun to accumulate regarding some aspects of these memories, but there are still limited data available for addressing many of the questions that have been hotly debated recently. ' Many of these questions refer to very complex memory processes which will not be well understood until after much more research is conducted.

Nevertheless, this study initiated an exploration of some of these questions. The recovered-memory controversy initially focused almost entirely on childhood sexual abuse (SA). It was believed that the confusing and secretive nature of incest resulted in an altered psychological processing of those experiences, and consequently memories for these experiences were more frequently repressed (e. g., Courtois, 1988; Fredrickson, 1992). The first two empirical studies that investigated this issue also showed that incest survivors in therapy frequently reported recovering memories of child SA. Herman and Schatzow (1987) found that 64% of a sample of incest survivor group therapy members reported that they had recovered at least some memories of their abuse, and Briere and Conte (1993) found that 59% of a sample of SA therapy clients reported that there had been some period before they were 18 years old when they could not remember their abuse. The studies that have been conducted since then have shown lower rates of recovered SA memories, although all have shown that a minority of child abuse survivors report recovering at least some memories of their abuse (Elliott & Briere, 1995; Feldman-Summers & Pope, 1994; Loftus, Polonsky, & Fullilove, 1994; Melchert, 1996; Melchert & Parker, 1997; Polusny & Follette, 1996; Williams, 1995).

It was also recently found that those reporting histories of physical and emotional abuse were as likely as those reporting a history of SA to report recovering memories of their abuse (Melchert; Melchert & Parker). Several writers have hypothesized that not only are child abuse memories commonly repressed or dissociated, but that traumatic child abuse can also cause childhood amnesia (e. g., Blume, 1990; Courtois, 1988). The lack of firm evidence to support this hypothesis quickly led to substantial controversy (Loftus, 1993). Recent studies have shown large amounts of variation in the quality of individuals' childhood memories, with substantial numbers reporting that they have memories from very early ages while others report that they have no memories from their early childhood at all (Melchert, 1996; Melchert & Parker, 1997). In neither of these studies, however, was general quality of childhood memory related to a reported history of child abuse. These two studies also investigated the relationship between a reported history of abuse and recovering memories from one's childhood in general.

If child abuse can cause amnesia but the lost memories can subsequently be recovered, those with known child abuse histories would be more likely to recover greater numbers of childhood memories. This hypothesis also was not supported in these studies, however. Therefore, other than for cases involving organic disorders, to date the substantial individual variation in reported quality of childhood memory and the recovery of childhood memories is not well understood. The mechanisms underlying the memories of child abuse that individuals report recovering have been another focus of controversy. It has often been assumed that those who report recovering abuse memories had repressed or dissociated the memories for some period of time.

Repression involving the unconscious blocking of threatening memories initially received most of the attention in the recovered memory literature (e. g., Herman & Schatzow, 1987), while dissociation has since received most of the attention (e. g., Yates & Nas by, 1993). The defensive purposes of dissociation are similar to those of repression, but dissociation involves an alteration in consciousness or cognition which results in traumatic memories not being integrated into one's consciousness or self-schema (Reviere, 1996). There is much more empirical data supporting models of dissociation than there is regarding repression (Pope & Brown, 1996; Reviere), and there is also some consensus regarding the existence of memory impairments for traumatic events as represented by the inclusion of the dissociative disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Repression and dissociation have been controversial hypotheses ever since they were first proposed. There have been numerous conceptualizations of each of these concepts, and their validity remains unclear (Erdelyi, 1990; Holmes, 1990; Pope & Brown, 1996; Reviere, 1996). A variety of cognitive and neurophysiological evidence suggests that attentional and memory mechanisms are affected by extreme emotional arousal in ways similar to those posited by models of dissociation (Christianson, 1992; Nilsson & Archer, 1992; van der Kolk, 1994). van der Kolk and Fisher (1995) also found that dissociative traits were related to a longer duration of abuse, physical abuse and neglect, greater reliving of the abuse memories, and self-destructive behaviors such as bingeing and purging, substance use, and self-mutilation.

If child abuse results in a reliance on repressive or dissociative personality tendencies for coping and in impairments in childhood memory, then adults' repressive and dissociative traits should be associated with having poorer childhood memory in general and possibly with recovering greater numbers of childhood memories. These possibilities have not yet been explored. Ordinary forgetting and cued recall have also been offered as alternative explanations for recovered child abuse memories (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus, Garry, & Feldman, 1994). Their role in the recovery of child abuse memories has received little empirical attention, although cues have been found to be powerful aids for the recall of autobiographical information in general (Bower, 1990). Melchert (1996) and Melchert and Parker (1997) also found that individuals who reported recovering abuse memories described those memories in a variety of ways, some of which do not suggest repression or dissociation (e. g., several participants in the Melchert study indicated that "I could always remember what happened, but I did not think of it as abuse until I was older").

These findings suggest that there are varied explanations for recovered abuse memories, though the nature of the recovered memories reported in these two studies remains unclear. For example, when asked why they thought they lacked memory of their abuse for some period, 31% of the participants in the Melchert and Parker study indicated "I don't know why". In addition, nearly half of those in the Melchert study who indicated that they had repressed their abuse memories also indicated that they were primarily intentionally avoiding the memories. The present study addressed each of the questions discussed above. First, it replicated previous studies regarding the relationship of a reported child abuse history to poor childhood memory and recovering childhood memories in general. It also attempted to clarify the nature of individuals' recovered abuse memories and explore the role that cues play in these memories.

The relationship of repressive and dissociative personality traits to poor childhood memory, recovering childhood memories in general, and recovering child abuse memories specifically were also investigated. One specific hypothesis was also tested. It was hypothesized that participants' recovered childhood memories would include a disproportionate number of negative memories that had originally been repressed or dissociated. Repressed or dissociated memories are by definition psychologically threatening and presumably negative in valence. Therefore, to the extent that repressed or dissociated childhood memories are recovered, the valence of those memories should be disproportionately negative.

The control group to which these memories were compared included participants' first memories of their childhood. Of course, individuals' first memories could be generally distorted in terms of their valence, but currently there is no theoretical reason or empirical data to suggest that they are. Consequently, the valence of participants' first childhood memories was expected to be more representative of their childhood experiences than the valence of their recovered childhood memories. An undergraduate student sample was used to help avoid the possible effects of suggestive therapy techniques and demand characteristics which may exist in clinical samples. Both abused and non abused groups were included so that the effects of abuse history on childhood memory could also be examined. It must be emphasized, however, that this study relied on retrospective self-report data of unknown reliability.

Examining this type of data is useful for an initial exploration of the research questions, though it will be necessary to employ other research methodologies to eventually provide converging evidence regarding these questions. METHOD Participants The participant sample included 560 undergraduate students from a large research university in the southwestern United States. The mean age of the sample was 19.14 years (SD = 2.70) and 69% were female (which is representative of the population in the subject pool). The majority of the participants described their ethnic heritage as European American (80%), and 12% indicated Latin American, 3% indicated African American, 2% indicated Asian American, and 3% indicated other ethnic heritages.

Twenty-five percent (n = 140) of the participants reported that they had experienced one or more forms of child abuse. Eleven percent (n = 59) indicated a history of physical abuse (PA), 19% (n = 108) indicated a history of emotional abuse (EA), and 8% (n = 45) indicated a history of SA. Of the total study sample, 15% (n = 83) indicated that they experienced one of the three forms of abuse, 8% (n = 42) indicated experiencing two forms of abuse, and 3% (n = 15) indicated experiencing all three forms of abuse. The mean age when the SA was reported as beginning was 10.18 years (SD = 4.23), and the mean age when the abuse ended was reported to be 12.47 years (SD = 4.28). Instruments The participants were administered a survey questionnaire which was followed by the two psychological tests described below. The survey inquired about several aspects of their childhood memories, and all of the survey items are found in the text and tables following.

Participants identified themselves as having an abuse history by responding to the item, "If you ever experienced physical abuse [or "emotional abuse" or "sexual abuse (unwanted sexual activity) "] as a child, please answer the following questions". Participants who indicated a history of PA and EA were also asked to rate the severity of the abuse on a scale ranging from 1 (mild) to 5 (severe), and participants who indicated a SA history were asked to indicate the number of sexual contacts they had prior to age 18 with their mothers, fathers, other relatives, others who physically forced sexual contact on them, or others with whom they had other unwanted sexual contact. They were also asked at what age the SA occurred. Dissociative personality traits were assessed with the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) (Bernstein & Putnam, 1986). This instrument includes 28 items for assessing de realization, depersonalization, deja vu experiences, absorption, and disturbances of identify, memory, awareness, and cognition.

It uses a visual analogue response scale (from 0% to 100%) for indicating the amount of time the experiences referred to in each of the items is experienced by the respondent. Split-half internal consistency was found to be. 83, and test-retest stability was found to be. 84 over a 4- to 8-week interval (Carlson & Putnam, 1993; in the present study, Cronbach's alpha was. 93). DES scores have been found to discriminate between subjects with and without dissociative disorder diagnoses.

The median score of a normal adult control group was found to be 4.38, for a normal college student sample it was 14.11, for a clinical sample diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder it was 31.25, and for a clinical sample diagnosed with multiple personality disorder it was 57.06 (Bernstein & Putnam). Repressive personality traits were assessed with the Weinberger Repressive Restraint Scale (WRRS) (Weinberger, 1990). This instrument is based on research that has found that highly defensive repressor's report low levels of subjective distress but also show high levels of physiological reactivity to stress. The 12-item scale uses a true-false response scale, and higher scores indicate higher levels of repression. Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to be greater than. 85 across a variety of samples, and 7-month test-retest reliability was found to be greater than.

70. Scores were also found to be correlated in predicted directions with a variety of measures of personality and psychopathology (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). Luborsky, CritsChristoph, and Alexander (1990) concluded that the WRRS is a reliable measure of a specific type of repression, namely, a denial of negative and especially aggressive thoughts or behavior and a denial of not measuring up to extremely high standards of conduct. In the present study, however, the WRRS had low internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = . 62), which is at the lower boundary of usefulness for the initial stages of construct validation research (Nunn ally & Bernstein, 1994). Consequently, the findings based on this measure must be interpreted very cautiously.

Procedure Participants were randomly selected from a psychology department subject pool where they could obtain credit in an introductory psychology course by participating in the subject pool or by completing alternative activities. Signed informed consent was required for participation, but the consent forms were collected separately from the study questionnaires so that participants' anonymity could be maintained. No one refused participation. The questionnaires were administered in groups of 22 to 99 participants, and participants were not allowed to sit next to each other so that they had some privacy when completing the questionnaires. RESULTS General Childhood Memory Responses to the items inquiring about the quality of participants' childhood memory at various ages, their memory for their first and third grade teachers, and their age in their earliest childhood memory are found in Table 1. There was a significant increase in the reported amount of childhood memory from ages 2 to 5, 5 to 7, and 7 to 10, ts (553,554,550) = 15.73, 13.90, and 28.77, respectively, all ps