ce. However, the weakness of many such studies is their reliance on uncorroborated, retrospective data (Lindsay & Read, 1994). Attempts have been made to address these criticisms. Widow & Morris (1993), in a longitudinal study, found a substantial proportion of a sample of documented child abuse cases to fail to recall the abuse at a follow-up. In an attempt to overcome the methodological weakness of a lack of external corroboration of abuse, Williams (1995) interviewed a sample of women whose earlier child abuse was well-documented in medical records. She found that 38 percent of 129 women with documented abuse histories did not recall the abuse on re-interview 17 years later. Of those recounting the abuse, 47 percent claimed that there had been a time when they had not remembered the abuse. Unlike most other retrospective studies, Williams’ study provides clear corroborative evidence that the abuse did occur. The shortcomings of the study, however, is that it relies on subjects retrospective reports of the forgetting of the abuse. It is unclear how reliable the individuals’ retrospective reports that they had not remembered the event for a period are, and there may be alternative reasons for those not recalling at the time of the interview. Failure to recount the memory does not imply forgetting, and may instead reflect the deliberate avoidance of painful recollections (Ceci & Loftus, 1994). This raises two main issues; firstly, the extent to which it is possible to determine between forgetting and underreporting of abuse and secondly, the extent to which it may or may not be helpful to remind individuals of painful memories which they may have good reason to wish to forget (Farrants, 1998)In order to support the notion that some individuals may forget, rather than simply not report, an experience of a abuse for a period of time, the proponents of recovered memory have outlined the mechanisms which may account for such for...
