Same concept, different label: the effect of repressed memory and dissociative amnesia terminology on beliefs and recovered memory admissibility in court.

Abstract

Controversy still surrounds recovered memories, centred around replacing the term repressed memory with dissociative amnesia. This study investigated whether exposure to these terminologies impacted legal opinions. In total, 886 participants were recruited across four experiments (1a/2a, followed by 1b/2b). In experiments 1a/1b, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: Repressed Memory, Dissociative Amnesia, and Control. They tested whether reading a paragraph/watching a video about one of these terms would impact their opinions on the admissibility of recovered memories in court. Experiments 2a/2b focused on dissociative amnesia's inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Participants were randomly allocated to either Dissociative Amnesia or DSM-5 Authority. Again, participants read a paragraph/watched a video corresponding to their condition, ascertaining any significant differences in opinions on recovered memory admissibility. Experiment 1a found that the Dissociative Amnesia condition was significantly more likely to support recovered memory admissibility than those in the Control condition. Experiment 1b found a significant difference between the Repressed Memory and Control condition. Experiments 2a/2b yielded no significant results. These results suggest that different terminologies affect opinions regarding recovered memory admissibility in students compared to the public (repressed memory on the public; dissociative amnesia in students).