↓ Skip to main content

True and false recovered memories : toward a reconciliation of the debate

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 6: Cognitive underpinnings of recovered memories of childhood abuse.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Cognitive underpinnings of recovered memories of childhood abuse.
Chapter number 6
Book title
True and False Recovered Memories
Published in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-1195-6_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-1194-9, 978-1-4614-1195-6
Authors

Geraerts, Elke, Elke Geraerts

Abstract

Recent research on recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse has shown that there are at least two types of recovered memory experiences: those that are gradually recovered within the context of suggestive therapy and those that are spontaneously recovered, without extensive prompting or explicit attempts to reconstruct the past. These recovered memory experiences have different origins, with people who recover memories through suggestive therapy being more prone to forming false memories, and with people who report spontaneously recovered memories being more prone to forgetting prior instances of remembering. Additionally, the two types of recovered memory experiences are linked to differences in corroborative evidence, implying that memories recovered spontaneously, outside of suggestive therapy, are more likely to correspond to genuine abuse events. This chapter highlights the background of the recovered memory debate, summarizes recent studies with individuals reporting recovered memory experiences and points towards applications in the justice system and in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 47%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Philosophy 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,810,396
of 23,495,502 outputs
Outputs from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#9
of 49 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,413
of 247,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,495,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one scored the same or higher as 40 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.