Clinicians’ Trust in Science Impacts Willingness to Treat Individuals Reporting Recovered Memories

The concept of recovered memories has been controversial, though there is ample evidence that recovered memories occur. The controversy has left confusion among clinicians regarding the treatment of individuals reporting recovered memories, leading some clinicians to avoid treating them.
Recently, our lab interviewed 32 currently practicing mental health clinicians about their understanding of recovered memories and willingness to treat those reporting them. We also had participants complete several questionnaires, including the Dissociative Experience Measure – Oxford (DEMO), Mental Health Locus of Control (MHLOC), and Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory (TSSI).

Of our sample of 32, 27 clinicians reported a belief that recovering previously inaccessible traumatic memories was possible. However, only 18 clinicians reported a willingness to work with individuals reporting recovered memories, with 14 unwilling to do so. To better understand this difference, we examined demographic and questionnaire data. No statistically significant differences between the groups were observed in age, years in practice, terminal degree type, DEMO and MHLOC. A significant difference was found for TSSI, with unwilling providers reporting higher levels of trust in science than willing providers (t = -2.407, p = .022, d = -0.858).

These results provide insight into factors that influence a clinician’s willingness to work with individuals with recovered memories. Type of degree, age, and years-in-practice were not relevant. Belief about the locus of control in the clinical relationship and personal dissociative experiences were also not factors. The degree to which a clinician trusts science did relate to willingness to engage with individuals reporting recovered memories; those reporting higher trust were less willing. This may be a result of concern that the mechanisms of recovered memories remain relatively unknown despite solid evidence supporting their existence. Absence of a rigorously tested model may leave sufficient doubt to influence those with strong trust in science.