Recovered memories in psychotherapy: a survey of practicing psychotherapists in Germany.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Memory Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-29 DOI:10.1080/09658211.2024.2305870
Jonas Schemmel, Lisa Datschewski-Verch, Renate Volbert
{"title":"Recovered memories in psychotherapy: a survey of practicing psychotherapists in Germany.","authors":"Jonas Schemmel, Lisa Datschewski-Verch, Renate Volbert","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2305870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We report on a survey of 258 psychotherapists from Germany, focusing on their experiences with memory recovery in general, suggestive therapy procedures, evaluations of recovered memories, and memory recovery in training and guidelines. Most therapists (78%) reported instances of memory recovery encompassing negative and positive childhood experiences, but usually in a minority of patients. Also, most therapists (82%) reported to have held assumptions about unremembered trauma. Patients who held these beliefs were reported by 83% of the therapists. Both therapist and patient assumptions reportedly occurred in a minority of cases. Furthermore, 35% of participants had used therapeutic techniques at least once to recover presumed trauma memories. Only 10% reported assuming trauma in most patients and recovering purported memories in a majority of the attempts. A fifth believed memory recovery was a task of psychotherapy. This belief correlated with trauma assumptions, memory recovery attempts, and recovery frequency. Psychodynamic therapists more often reported to assume trauma behind symptoms and agreed more with problematic views on trauma and memory. No differences showed regarding suggestive behaviour in therapy. Most participants expressed interest in receiving support on dealing with memory recoveries. This interest should be taken up, ideally during therapist training.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2305870","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We report on a survey of 258 psychotherapists from Germany, focusing on their experiences with memory recovery in general, suggestive therapy procedures, evaluations of recovered memories, and memory recovery in training and guidelines. Most therapists (78%) reported instances of memory recovery encompassing negative and positive childhood experiences, but usually in a minority of patients. Also, most therapists (82%) reported to have held assumptions about unremembered trauma. Patients who held these beliefs were reported by 83% of the therapists. Both therapist and patient assumptions reportedly occurred in a minority of cases. Furthermore, 35% of participants had used therapeutic techniques at least once to recover presumed trauma memories. Only 10% reported assuming trauma in most patients and recovering purported memories in a majority of the attempts. A fifth believed memory recovery was a task of psychotherapy. This belief correlated with trauma assumptions, memory recovery attempts, and recovery frequency. Psychodynamic therapists more often reported to assume trauma behind symptoms and agreed more with problematic views on trauma and memory. No differences showed regarding suggestive behaviour in therapy. Most participants expressed interest in receiving support on dealing with memory recoveries. This interest should be taken up, ideally during therapist training.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理治疗中的恢复记忆:对德国执业心理治疗师的调查。
我们对来自德国的 258 名心理治疗师进行了调查,重点调查了他们在记忆恢复的一般经验、暗示治疗程序、恢复记忆的评估以及培训和指南中的记忆恢复。大多数治疗师(78%)都报告了包括消极和积极童年经历在内的记忆恢复案例,但通常只针对少数患者。此外,大多数治疗师(82%)报告说,他们对未记忆的创伤持有假设。有 83% 的治疗师报告说,患者持有这些观念。据报告,治疗师和患者的假设都发生在少数情况下。此外,35% 的参与者至少使用过一次治疗技术来恢复假定的创伤记忆。只有 10%的人报告说,他们在大多数患者身上假设了创伤,并在大多数尝试中恢复了假定的记忆。五分之一的人认为恢复记忆是心理治疗的一项任务。这种信念与创伤假设、记忆恢复尝试和恢复频率相关。心理动力学治疗师更倾向于假设症状背后存在创伤,也更同意关于创伤和记忆的问题观点。在治疗过程中的暗示行为方面没有差异。大多数参与者表示有兴趣在处理记忆恢复问题上获得支持。这种兴趣应该得到重视,最好是在治疗师培训期间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
期刊最新文献
Flashbulb and first-hand memories for campus closings due to COVID-19: consistency and change. Effectiveness of production and drawing as encoding techniques on recall using mixed- and pure-list designs. Inducing positive involuntary mental imagery in daily life using personalized photograph stimuli. Negative life events predict depressive trends: the moderating effect of overgeneral autobiographical memory and early parenting behaviour. You don't understand me! But, I do! Awareness of cross-generational differences in collective remembering of national historic events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1