Memories of Sexual Abuse in the Distant Past: Subtypes and Corroboration in a Legal Context

Objective: Assessing the validity of testimony is critical in sexual abuse cases, particularly in case of recovered memories, whose authenticity has been considered controversial. The current study examined whether different types of memories (i.e., continuous, spontaneously recovered, recovered following an active search) could be reliably distinguished and whether they differed in the extent to which they are supported by evidence. Hypotheses: We predicted that three types of memories could be reliably differentiated: Continuous memories, spontaneously recovered memories, and recovered memories following an active search. We further predicted that continuous memories and spontaneously recovered memories would be more frequently corroborated by evidence than recovered memories following an active search. Method: We analyzed 140 police files on complex cases of sexual abuse in the distant past in which the prosecutor requested advice from an expert committee of behavioral experts. One pair of coders identified memory type based on continuity and retrieval, and another set of coders scored the degree of supporting evidence. Results: Memory types could be differentiated reliably. Statements from (alleged) victims in the continuous memory group were corroborated more often than those in the recovered memory-following-search group, which were rarely supported by strong evidence. The data were inconclusive regarding whether recovered memories following an active search and spontaneously recovered memories differ in the extent to which they were corroborated by evidence. Exploratory analyses showed that spontaneously recovered memories were more often related to single incidents, whereas recovered memories following an active search frequently involved sexual abuse over an extended period, including reports of multiple perpetrators. Conclusions: Reports of sexual abuse in the distant past can be reliably categorized into three types that help shed light on the likelihood of finding corroborating evidence in a criminal context. Recovered memories should not be treated as a homogeneous phenomenon because their phenomenology varies.