You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Perhaps no other issue in recent history has created such sharply divided opinions within the mental health field as recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. One has no difficulty finding exceedingly shrill statements made by believers and nonbelievers alike. On one hand, believers argue that, by refusing to accept recovered memories, we add to a political and psychological climate that muzzles victims and grants license to perpetrators. On
the other, nonbelievers decry the flimsy tissue of supporting evidence and argue that we are caught up in something akin to the Salem witch hunts. Although giving the appearance of common ground, to agree that false memories might be created and true memories recovered solves nothing, for no agreement exists as to which is which—as may be seen in the sharp split among the clinicians and researchers who wrote the American Psychological Association Final Report on Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse (Alpert et al., 1996). Moreover, recovered memories of abuse may be one of those issues where the truth lies not somewhere in the middle but rather much closer to one side than to the other. One version of these extreme positions may eventually win broad acceptance. In such circumstances, cautious reading is advised.
While clearly on one side of this acrimonious debate, Betrayal Trauma stands apart and claims our serious attention on several counts. It systematically presents a plausible theory to account for amnesia for childhood abuse and evidence to back up that theory; it makes sophisticated use of contemporary cognitive science; it is well written and avoids, for the most part, descent into hyperbole and belittlement; and, finally, it notes alternative interpretations of the assembled data and the possibility of error.
Betrayal trauma theory asserts that the betrayal of trust by an emotionally essential caregiver constitutes the core of the trauma of abuse. Trauma, then, is defined less by what happens than by whom it is perpet