Citation

Piper A, Lillevik L, Kritzer R. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2008; 14(3): 223-242.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, Publisher American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0014090

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Some courts in recent years have tarnished their credibility by willingly and blindly adopting the theory of repressed memory. Such acceptance can destroy the reputations of falsely accused individuals, and, by failing to pay due attention to scientific evidence, gives credence to pseudoscience and demeans the scientific method. This paper was written to inform judges and attorneys about the relevant evidence, which shows that: (a) the concepts of repressed and recovered memory are not generally accepted in the psychological and psychiatric community; (b) the studies cited to support these concepts reveal significant flaws; (c) much empirical evidence has been accumulated against the theory of repression; (d) the studies using the best methodology offer the least support for the repression hypothesis; and (e) there is no evidence that recovered memories accurately reveal the specifics of long-ago events. Repressed- and recovered-memory theory is not supported by science.