Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39973958›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025

The recovery and retraction of memories of abuse: a scoping review.

Henry Otgaar, Ivan Mangiulli, Chunlin Li, Marko Jelicic, Peter Muris

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Current state of 'lost in the mall': implications for expert witness testimony on the reliability of childhood memories.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Henry OtgaarFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Ivan MangiulliFaculty of Law and Criminology, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Chunlin LiFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Marko JelicicFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Peter MurisFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People who claim to have been abused sometimes retract these claims at a later point in time. Research on these so-called 'retractors' might provide critical insights into the processes involved in the recovery and retraction of traumatic memories. However, the literature on this topic is highly diverse in terms of, for example, methodology. Hence, the aim of the current scoping review was to amass the available literature on retractors and identify key themes. We identified 17 articles on the topic of retractors ranging from empirical studies to critical commentaries. A central theme that arose from the literature was the influence of therapy in the recovery of potentially false memories. That is, retractors noted that therapists frequently believed that they harboured unconscious repressed memories of abuse which had to be recovered during therapy. Furthermore, retractors repudiated their claims of abuse for various reasons such as physical evidence implying that their memory was false. Also, retraction took longer that the initial recovery of memories of abuse. Finally, after recantation, retractors' memories varied considerably in terms of belief and recollection of the traumatic event with some accounts qualifying as nonbelieved memories. This review offers critical knowledge of a rather understudied population providing further insight in how traumatic events can sometimes be misremembered.

Indexed as

false memorymemorymemory warsrecovered memoryretractortrauma

Identifiers

PMID39973958
PMCPMC11835833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.