When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 14947671 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Oisín G Carey (0009-0002-3766-5906, University College Cork, corresponding author), Maria Dempsey (0000-0002-7001-0568, University College Cork), Keith Minihane (0000-0001-7064-7457, University College Cork), Gillian Murphy (0000-0001-8898-139X, University College Cork) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 238-259 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-07 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Memory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0965-8211 • E-ISSN: 1464-0686 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699 |
| PMID | 41424398 |
| OpenAlex | W7116749546 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 103 |
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
Amnesia · Child abuse · Cognition · Dissociative · Empirical evidence · Empirical research · Population · Sexual abuse · Identity, Memory, and Therapy · Memory Processes and Influences · Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data
Memory and the self☆
The Formation of False Memories
The weirdest people in the world?
Lost in the mall again
Recovered memories in psychotherapy
The classification of recovered memories
What research paradigms have cognitive psychologists used to study “False memory,” and what are the implications of these choices
Fantasy proneness, but not self-reported trauma is related to DRM performance of women reporting recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse
Psychogenic amnesia for childhood sexual abuse and risk for sexual revictimisation in both adolescence and adulthood
The repressed memory controversy
Memory
What's wrong with believing in repression
Prevalence of eating disorders over the 2000–2018 period
Reports of Recovered Memories in Therapy in Undergraduate Students
II. Violations of Power, Adaptive Blindness and Betrayal Trauma Theory
Recounting Graphic Sexual Abuse Memories in Therapy
The reality of repressed memories
Recovered memory practices in Ireland
Repressed memories and the body keeps the score
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |