Childhood abuse recollections in a nonclinical population: forgetting and secrecy

Pergamon

Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 791– 802, 1999 Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0145-2134/99/$–see front matter

PII S0145-2134(99)00049-6

CHILDHOOD ABUSE RECOLLECTIONS IN A NONCLINICAL POPULATION: FORGETTING AND SECRECY VINCENT FISH Family Therapy Center of Madison, Madison, WI, USA

CYNTHIA G. SCOTT College of Health, Department of Health Sciences, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA

ABSTRACT Objective: This study investigated the relationship of interrupted memories of childhood abuse with the secrecy of the abuse. Methodology: Fifteen hundred people were randomly selected from the membership of the American Counseling Association and sent a questionnaire regarding childhood abuse history. Four hundred and twenty-three usable questionnaires were returned and analyzed. Results: Thirty-two percent of the sample reported childhood abuse. Fifty-two percent of those reporting abuse also noted periods of forgetting some or all of the abuse. On the two survey items assessing secrecy, 76% of respondents reporting childhood abuse indicated there had been a time when no one but themselves and their abuser knew about the abuse; 47% indicated that an abuser tried to get them to keep the abuse secret. Forty percent endorsed both secrecy items. Respondents who reported forgetting abuse also reported one or both elements of secrecy more frequently than those who reported continuous memories of abuse. Conclusion: These findings are consistent with those of other studies that suggest that, among adults reporting childhood abuse, the experience of forgetting some or all abuse is common. Secrecy of the abuse appears to be associated with the experience of forgetting childhood abuse for many individuals. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd Key Words—Recovered memory, Child abuse, Secrecy, Childhood physical abuse, Childhood sexual abuse.

DELAYED MEMORIES OF childhood abuse are reported by significant proportions of both clinical (Briere & Conte, 1993; Loftus, Polonsky, & Fullilove, 1994) and nonclinical samples (Elliott & Briere, 1995; Feldman-Summers & Pope, 1994; Hovdestad & Kristiansen, 1996; Polusny & Follette, 1996; Williams, 1995). Although the validity of such recollections has been challenged, particularly when they occur in therapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus, 1993; Ofshe & Watters, 1994), there have been successful attempts to corroborate these memories (e.g., Dalenberg, 1996; Williams, 1995). What factors influence forgetting of childhood abuse? Some of the variables that have been examined empirically include the victim’s age at the time of abuse, her or his relationship to the

Submitted for publication December 18, 1997, final revision received December 15, 1998, accepted December 18, 1998. Requests for reprints should be sent to Vincent Fish, MSSW, Family Therapy Center of Madison, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 220, Madison, WI 53711. 791

792

V. Fish and C. G. Scott

perpetrator; the level of maternal support experienced by the victim; and the type, duration, and severity of the abuse. In Williams’ (1995) investigation of childhood sexual abuse, temporary forgetting was associated with early onset of abuse, little maternal support, and the victim knowing the perpetrator. In Feldman-Summers and Pope’s (1994) study of childhood physical and sexual abuse and Brieres and Conte’s (1993) study of childhood sexual abuse, interrupted memories were associated with early onset as well as duration of the abuse. However, early onset, frequency, and duration of the abuse did not predict forgetting among the participants in Elliott and Briere’s (1995) study of childhood sexual abuse, although early onset did discriminate those participants reporting complete forgetting from those reporting partial forgetting. Severity of the abuse was related to delayed memories in two studies of childhood sexual abuse (Briere & Conte, 1993; Herman & Schatzow, 1987), although neither Elliott and Briere (1995) nor Williams (1994) found a relationship between delayed recall and the use of force. However, Elliott and Briere did find that respondents who were threatened with harm and those who experienced the abuse as more stressful more often reported interrupted memories. Further, Feldman-Summers and Pope (1994) observed that respondents who reported more than one kind of childhood abuse (e.g., physical as well as sexual abuse; relative as well as nonrelative as perpetrator) more often said they had temporarily forgotten the abuse. Gender and current age do not appear to be related to interrupted memories of abuse (Briere & Conte, 1993; Elliott & Briere, 1995; Feldman-Summers & Pope, 1994). Although the inconsistency of findings among many of the studies cited above may, in part, be due to methodological artifacts or deficiencies, such inconsistent findings may also indicate that the phenomenon of interrupted recall of abuse is complex, and influenced by a number of factors which remain poorly understood. Some potentially relevant factors have not been systematically studied. One such variable is the secrecy of the abuse. Courtois (1992, p. 17) asserted that incest dynamics support not only “not telling” but also “not remembering,” and that this is particularly so when secrecy is enforced by threats. Enns, NcNeilly, Corkery, and Gilbert (1995), citing Courtois’s observation, suggested that abuse is more likely to be forgotten if it was a private event between the perpetrator and the victim. Secrecy, as a situational factor, is compatible with a number of proposed explanations for interrupted recall of childhood abuse. For example, if the abuse has occurred in secret, the abused individual will have less access to support from others and may necessarily resort to dissociative and self-hypnotic coping strategies that entail forgetting. Also, children who are abused in secret will be less likely to verbally process the abuse experiences with others and thus be less likely to encode these experiences verbally. Visual and other sensory information about the abuse that is encoded at that point may be verbally interpreted at a later date as “recovered memories” (Tessler & Nelson, 1994). The purpose of this investigation was to shed light on the possible role of secrecy of abuse, both as imposed by the abuser and stemming from the privacy of the experience, in interrupted memories of abuse. In accord with Courtois (1992) and Enns and colleagues (1995), we hypothesized that the secrecy of the abuse would be positively related to participants’ reported discontinuous memory for childhood abuse. We also examined some factors that have been addressed in other studies: the victim’s age at the time of abuse; her or his relationship to the perpetrator; the type of abuse; and a history of multiple categories of abuse. We expected that reported forgetting of childhood abuse would be associated with earlier onset and longer duration of the abuse, and with multiple categories of abuse. METHOD Procedure As part of a larger study of factors related to memory for childhood abuse, fifteen hundred (1,500) potential participants were randomly selected from the membership list of the American

Childhood abuse recollections

793

Counseling Association and were sent a cover letter requesting their participation, a questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope. The questionnaire used was a detailed 14-item survey designed to elicit information about factors that included demographics; participants’ history, if any, of physical and/or sexual childhood abuse; the type and extent of the abuse; relationship to the perpetrator(s); whether or not there was secrecy surrounding the abuse; and whether memories of the abuse were interrupted at any point. Definitions of physical and sexual abuse were provided at the beginning of the survey: Physical abuse is a nonaccidental physical injury, which results in bruising, tissue damage and/or orthopedic (bone) injury, by one or more people upon another person. Sexual abuse in a nonaccidental sexual offense which involves unwanted touching, exposure, conduct, exploitation, or otherwise indecent sexual behavior by one or more people upon another person.

Items varied in format. Some items were in response-tree format, where answering “yes” to a question would lead respondents to “fill-in-the-blank” type questions yielding more detailed information. Other items included lists of optional answers from which respondents could choose. Participants Of the 1,500 potential participants, 425 people (28.3%) responded. Two questionnaires did not yield enough information to be interpreted, leaving 423 questionnaires for analysis. Of this group, 76% were female and 24% were male, with an average age of 43.4 (n ⫽ 417). Seventy-five percent held a master’s degree, 11% a doctoral degree, and 9% a bachelor’s degree. Five percent had other educational histories. Thirty-five percent of participants were employed as counselors in mental health counseling settings and 27% were employed as school counselors in elementary, secondary, or college settings. Graduate students comprised 7% of respondents. The remaining respondents were employed in areas including college and university teaching, substance abuse treatment, social services/child protection, legal and correctional systems, medical settings, and developmental disabilities agencies. Measures Secrecy. Two questionnaire items assessed secrecy, and could be answered “yes” or “no.” One asked: “If you were physically or sexually abused, was there ever a period of time when, for any reason, you did not tell about the abuse and you believed no one else (except the abuser) knew about the abuse?” The other secrecy item asked: “If you were physically or sexually abused, did any abuser(s) ever try to get you to keep the abuse secret?” Type of abuse and relationship to perpetrator(s). In order to ascertain what type of abuse (physical, sexual, or both) participants may have suffered and the relationships they had to any perpetrators (nonrelative, relative, or both), participants were asked to indicate whether they had experienced any of the following categories of abuse: (1) physical abuse by a nonrelative, (2) physical abuse by a relative, (3) sexual abuse by a nonrelative, or (4) sexual abuse by a relative. Multiple categories of abuse. Individuals who reported both physical and sexual childhood abuse, or indicated that there were both perpetrators who were nonrelatives and perpetrators who were relatives, were counted as having suffered multiple categories of abuse. Age when abused. For any of the four categories of abuse (physical abuse by a nonrelative, physical abuse by a relative, sexual abuse by a nonrelative, or sexual abuse by a relative) that they endorsed, participants were further requested to indicate their age, in years, at the point when the abuse began

794

V. Fish and C. G. Scott Table 1. Gender and Abuse

Women (% of Abused Women) Men (% of Abused Men) Total (% of Abused)

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Physical Abuse Only

Sexual Abuse Only

Both Physical and Sexual

Total

44 (38.6) 14 (70.0) 58 (43.3)

95 (83.3) 10 (50.0) 105 (78.4)

19 (16.7) 10 (50.0) 29 (21.6)

70 (61.4) 6 (30.0) 76 (56.7)

25 (21.9) 4 (20.0) 29 (21.6)

114 (100) 20 (100) 134 (100)

and when it ended. The total duration of childhood abuse was computed, first, by subtracting the age at which abuse began from the age at which the abuse ended. Second, in cases in which there was abuse indicated in more than one category that was nonoverlapping in duration, the separate durations were added; in cases in which the durations of abuse in more than one category overlapped, the earliest age at which any category of abuse began was subtracted from the latest age at which any category of abuse ended. Continuous versus discontinuous memory for abuse. Participants were asked to check “yes” or “no” to the question, “If you were physically or sexually abused, was there ever a period of time when you could not remember all or part of the abuse?” Subsequent items asked participants who checked “yes” to this query to indicate what kind(s) of abuse had been forgotten (physical abuse by a relative, physical abuse by a nonrelative, sexual abuse by a nonrelative, and/or sexual abuse by a relative) and whether they had forgotten a small part of physical and/or sexual abuse, a lot of physical and/or sexual abuse, all physical and/or sexual abuse by one perpetrator, or all physical and/or sexual abuse whatsoever. RESULTS Reported Abuse Approximately 32% of respondents indicated a childhood abuse history of some sort. The number and percentage of women and men who reported physical and/or sexual abuse are presented in Table 1. Although men and women in this sample reported a history of childhood physical abuse at the same rate (13.7%: 14 of 102 men; 44 of 321 women), women more frequently indicated a history of childhood sexual abuse (29.6% versus 9.8%: 95 of 321 women; 10 of 102 men). Most respondents who reported abuse reported either childhood physical abuse or childhood sexual abuse, but about 22% constituted a third group that reported a history of both. Reported Forgetting Within each type of abuse, some individuals reported continuous abuse memories and others reported discontinuous abuse memories (Table 2). Overall, 70 (52%) of those reporting abuse said that there had been periods of time when they didn’t remember some or all of their abuse. Table 3 presents information on the gender and age of those who reported that they had forgotten

Table 2. Forgetting and Abuse Type Type of Abuse

Forgot Some or All Abuse

Physical Only

Sexual Only

Physical and Sexual

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Total n (%)

10 (7.5)

19 (14.2)

36 (26.9)

40 (29.9)

24 (17.9)

5 (3.7)

134 (100)

Childhood abuse recollections

795

Table 3. Forgetting, Gender, and Age Forgot Some or All Abuse Yes a

No

Total

Women (% of Abused Women) Age M SD

60 (52.6)

54 (47.4)

114 (100)

43.1 10.7

43.9 11.1

43.5 10.8

Men (% of Abused Men) Age M SD

10 (50.0)

10 (50.0)

20 (100.0)

49.3 13.4

45.7 10.3

47.5 11.8

Total n (% of Abused)

70 (52.2)

64 (47.8)

134 (100.0)

a

Two women who reported that they had forgotten abuse did not indicate their age, leaving 58 cases from which to calculate the mean and standard deviation for this cell.

childhood abuse and those who indicated they had not forgotten abuse. Forgetting abuse was not associated with respondents’ age, t(130) ⫽ .08, p ⫽ .935 (two-tailed), or gender, ␹2(1, n ⫽ 134) ⫽ .047, p ⫽ .83. Data on reported forgetting by particular categories of abuse is shown in Table 4. Twenty-one of the abused respondents reported forgetting more than one category of abuse. Physical and sexual abuse, and levels of forgetting. Respondents who indicated that they had forgotten physical or sexual abuse were asked whether they had forgotten a small part of that type of abuse, a lot of that abuse, all abuse of that type by one person, or all abuse of that type whatsoever (Table 5). None of the respondents reported forgetting all physical abuse and only three reported forgetting all physical abuse by one person. By contrast, 32% of those who responded to this item regarding sexual abuse indicated that they had forgotten all sexual abuse, and 21% indicated that they had forgotten all sexual abuse by one person. Secrecy As noted above, two questionnaire items assessed secrecy. The item “If you were physically or sexually abused, was there ever a period of time when, for any reason, you did not tell about the abuse and you believed no one else (except the abuser) knew about the abuse?” was based on the suggestion by Enns and colleagues (1995) that abuse that was a private event between victim and abuser is more likely to be forgotten for some period (this item will be referred to as “No one knew”). Seventy-nine percent of the 129 people who reported childhood abuse and responded to this item (n ⫽ 102: 88 women and 14 men) indicated that there was a time when no one but themselves and their abuser knew about the abuse. The other secrecy item, “If you were physically or sexually abused, did any abuser(s) ever try

Table 4. Forgetting and Category of Abuse

Forgot some or all abuse (% of n ⫽ 70)

Physical by Nonrelative(s)

Physical by Relative(s)

Sexual by Nonrelative(s)

Sexual by Relative(s)

2 (2.9)

29 (41.4)

22 (31.4)

43 (61.4)

Note. Percentages sum to more than 100% because some participants indicated they had forgotten more than one category of abuse.

796

V. Fish and C. G. Scott Table 5. Level of Forgetting Physical and Sexual Abuse Type of Abuse

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Level of Forgetting Abuse Forgot, at most: a small part (%) a lot (%) all abuse by one person (%) all abuse of that type (%)

12 (40) 15 (50) 3 (10) 0 (0)

11 (19) 16 (28) 12 (21) 18 (32)

30 (100)

57 (100)

Total (%)

to get you to keep the abuse secret?,” was based on Courtois’s (1992) speculation that secrecy that is imposed by the abuser, including by threats, is associated with forgetting abuse (this item will be referred to as “Keep abuse secret”). Slightly over 50% (n ⫽ 63: 57 women and 6 men) of the 125 individuals reporting childhood abuse who responded to this item answered affirmatively. Forty percent of those reporting childhood abuse (n ⫽ 54: 49 women and 5 men) checked “yes” for both secrecy items. Secrecy and Forgetting As hypothesized, an association was found between reported secrecy and reported forgetting of abuse. Respondents who endorsed a secrecy item more often reported forgetting part or all of their abuse, and those who indicated they had forgotten part or all of their abuse more often endorsed the secrecy items (Table 6). This relationship was significant for both “No one knew,” ␹2(1, n ⫽ 129) ⫽ 4.34, p ⬍ .05, and for “Keep abuse secret,” ␹2(1, n ⫽ 125) ⫽ 5.83, p ⬍ .05. Forgetting and Age When Abused Data on the age of abuse onset, duration of the abuse, and age at cessation of the abuse is presented in Table 7. As predicted, earlier age of onset of abuse perpetrated by relatives was significantly related to interrupted memory for abuse. However, this hypothesized association was not found for abuse perpetrated by nonrelatives. Also, although the mean durations of abuse in all categories of abuse were greater for those who reported forgetting, these differences did not reach statistical significance, except for the category of physical abuse perpetrated by nonrelatives. This category had a small number of participants, making the interpretation of this result problematic. No significant differences were found in the average age at which abuse ended between those who reported forgetting abuse and those who did not. The overall average reported age at which the

Table 6. Forgetting and Secrecy Forgot Some or All Abuse Secrecy Variable No One Knew Yes No Keep Abuse Secret Yes No

Yes

No

57 9

45 18

39 25

24 37

Childhood abuse recollections

797

Table 7. Forgetting and Mean Age of Abuse Onset, Duration, and Cessation, by Type and Category of Abuse Physical Abuse

Abuse Onset Relative(s) not forgotten Forgotten Nonrelative(s) not forgotten Forgotten Abuse Duration Relative(s) not forgotten Forgotten Nonrelative(s) not forgotten Forgotten Abuse Cessation Relative(s) not forgotten Forgotten Nonrelative(s) not forgotten Forgotten

n

M

SD

25 26

5.64 3.73

4.17 3.16

3 1

8.33 9.00

3.79 —

25 25

8.48 10.28

4 1

Sexual Abuse t

n

M

SD

t

25 40

7.64 5.93

2.98 3.79

1.92*

⫺.15

36 22

9.58 9.00

3.98 3.52

.57

5.67 4.83

⫺1.21

25 39

3.64 4.79

3.75 3.81

⫺1.19

1.00 8.00

1.41 —

⫺4.43*

34 22

1.47 2.41

2.42 2.32

⫺1.44

26 26

14.27 13.54

3.39 4.09

.70

25 41

11.28 10.78

3.77 3.79

.52

3 1

9.67 17.00

4.16 —

⫺1.53

34 22

11.12 11.41

4.31 4.14

⫺.25

1.85*

Note. Some participants indicated abuse in more than one category. * p ⬍ .05, one-tailed test.

abuse ended for those reporting continuous memories and for those reporting discontinuous memories of abuse was very similar: 12.34 and 12.24 years, respectively. Multiple Categories of Abuse and Forgetting The rate of forgetting for those 105 respondents who reported only physical abuse or only sexual abuse was 43.8%. Of the 29 reporting both physical and sexual abuse, 82.8% said they had experienced a period of forgetting the abuse. As expected, the relationship between forgetting and the combination of physical and sexual abuse was significant, ␹2(1, n ⫽ 134) ⫽ 13.82, p ⬍ .001. Of the 107 respondents who reported abuse either by relatives only or by nonrelatives only, 48.6% said there had been a period of forgetting the abuse. Of the 27 reporting abuse by both relatives and nonrelatives, 66.7% said they had forgotten abuse. This hypothesized association was not significant, although it approached significance, ␹2(1, n ⫽ 134) ⫽ 2.82, p ⫽ .093. Secrecy and Abuse Type, Relationship to Perpetrators, and Onset of Abuse Data on respondents reporting secrecy who indicated each type of abuse is shown in Table 8. There was a significant association between the type of abuse and both secrecy items: for “No one knew,” ␹2(2, n ⫽ 129) ⫽ 18.37, p ⬍ .001; for “Keep abuse secret,” ␹2(2, n ⫽ 125) ⫽ 18.60, p ⬍ .0001. There was also a significant association between perpetrator relationship categories and the secrecy item “Keep abuse secret,” ␹2(2, n ⫽ 125) ⫽ 6.19, p ⬍ .05, but not “No one knew” (see Table 9). Respondents who endorsed the secrecy item “Keep abuse secret” reported a significantly earlier average age at abuse onset (M ⫽ 5.73, SD ⫽ 3.67) than did those who did not endorse this item (M ⫽ 7.39, SD ⫽ 4.26), t(121) ⫽ 2.33, p ⬍ .05 (two-tailed). In contrast, those endorsing the item “No one knew” reported an average age of onset of abuse (M ⫽ 6.75, SD ⫽ 3.93) that was slightly,

798

V. Fish and C. G. Scott Table 8. Secrecy and Abuse Type Type of Abuse Physical Only

Sexual Only

Physical and Sexual

Variable

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Total n (%)

No One Knew (%) Keep Abuse Secret (%)

14 (10.9) 4 (3.2)

14 (10.9) 23 (18.4)

63 (48.8) 41 (32.8)

10 (7.8) 31 (24.8)

25 (19.4) 18 (14.4)

3 (2.3) 8 (6.4)

129 (100) 125 (100)

nonsignificantly later than did those who did not endorse this item (M ⫽ 6.22, SD ⫽ 4.57), t(125) ⫽ ⫺ .60, p ⫽ .551 (two-tailed). DISCUSSION Secrecy of Abuse and Reported Forgetting Both aspects of secrecy explored in this study—the victim’s belief that no one else except the perpetrator knows of the abuse, and attempts by perpetrators to persuade the victim to keep the abuse a secret—were associated with an increased likelihood of forgetting. However, neither variable appears to be a necessary or sufficient condition for the occurrence of the other. Of those who reported one or both sorts of secrecy (n ⫽ 111), 44.1% did not report forgetting any of their abuse, and 34.8% (n ⫽ 8) of those who did not endorse either secrecy item reported periods of forgetting. The relationship of secrecy items with other variables that, in turn, are associated themselves with forgetting, particularly the type of abuse, suggests that the impact of secrecy modifies, and is modified by, the effects of other factors in the abuse situation. Rates of Reported Abuse and Forgetting Our findings on the rates of reported abuse and forgetting of abuse are roughly consistent with those of other studies with similar participants (Scheflin & Brown, 1996), and add to an increasing body of evidence that the experience of forgetting is a common phenomenon among adults reporting childhood abuse. In this study, women and men reported childhood sexual abuse at rates of 29.6% and 9.8%, respectively, and both genders reported childhood physical abuse at a rate of 13.7%. These are similar to the rates reported by both Nuttal and Jackson (1994) and FeldmanSummers and Pope (1994) in their studies of psychologists. They contrast to some degree with the rates found in a sample of psychologists and marriage and family therapists by Follette, Polusny, and Milbeck (1994), who noted higher rates of reported childhood physical abuse than the other studies. Further, participants in this study reported childhood sexual abuse at rates similar to those reported in Elliott and Briere’s (1995) general population study.

Table 9. Secrecy and Relationship of Perpetrator Relationship of Perpetrator Nonrelative(s)

Nonrelative(s) and Relative(s)

Relative(s)

Variable

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Total n (%)

No One Knew (%) Keep Abuse Secret (%)

27 (20.9) 13 (10.4)

6 (4.7) 19 (15.2)

54 (41.9) 32 (25.6)

18 (14.0) 36 (28.8)

21 (16.3) 18 (14.4)

3 (2.3) 7 (5.6)

129 (100) 125 (100)

Childhood abuse recollections

799

Participants in this study indicated that they had forgotten some or all abuse at a higher rate than those in Feldman-Summers and Pope’s (1994) study (52% versus 40%), and the rate of forgetting childhood sexual abuse is also higher than that reported in Elliott and Briere’s (1995) general population study (57% versus 43%). The rate of reported complete forgetting of childhood sexual abuse in this investigation is comparable, though, to that found by Elliott and Briere (17% versus 20%). As in both the Feldman-Summers and Pope and the Elliott and Briere studies, neither age nor gender was associated with reported forgetting. The relationship between forgetting abuse and an earlier onset of abuse found by Williams (1995), Feldman-Summers and Pope (1994), and Briere and Conte (1993), was substantiated in our study only for abuse by relatives. As in the studies by Feldman-Summers and Pope (1994) and Briere and Conte (1993), the average duration of abuse was longer for those who reported forgetting than for those who indicated continuous memory for abuse, but this tendency did not reach statistical significance, except in a cell comprising only five individuals. Feldman-Summers’ and Pope’s (1994) observation that respondents who reported multiple categories of abuse (both physical and sexual abuse; relatives and nonrelatives as perpetrators) also reported more frequent forgetting of abuse was confirmed by our results with regard to the combination of sexual and physical abuse but not with the combination of related and unrelated perpetrators. Limitations This study relies on uncorroborated, retrospective data. Thus, the reliability and validity of the results may have been undermined by respondents’ biases and inaccurate perceptions. The direction of the effects of any such biases and distortions are impossible to ascertain. Also, it is possible that the 28.3% of the group we sampled who responded to the survey are significantly different on relevant variables from those who did not respond. Often, a response rate of 28% in a survey is considered quite low (Babbie, 1979; Kerlinger, 1986). However, the assumption that a lower response rate implies a nonresponse bias in the variables of interest has been questioned (Dillman, 1991). Summarizing the research on survey return rates and nonresponse bias, Boser and Clark (1994; Clark & Boser, 1995) found that the relationship between low response rate and nonresponse bias was inconsistent, and noted that a number of researchers have suggested that response rate is less important when surveying homogeneous populations. Boser and Clark observed that in their own survey of graduates of a university teacher education program, there was no significant difference among waves of responses to successive mailings, late responses, a telephone follow-up, and other data sources, on the variable of interest. Clark and Boser suggested that other factors, including increasing sample size, may be more important than concentrating on eliminating potential nonresponse bias. Moreover, our total questionnaire was lengthy and this may have been one of the factors in the low response rate (Roszkowski & Bean, 1990). Roszkowski and Bean concluded that lengthier forms of questionnaires that elicited a lower response rate were generally unbiased relative to shorter forms with a much higher response rate. Visser, Krosnick, Marquette, and Curtin (1996) compared results of forecasting election results using a mail survey and telephone surveys and observed that the mail survey, although it had a low response rate, was more accurate than the telephone surveys, which had high response rates. They concluded that, under some circumstances, mail surveys, despite low response rates, may be superior to telephone surveys. In light of these studies, it may be that our large sample size and the homogeneity of the population from which it was drawn mitigate the problem of potential nonresponse bias created by the low response rate. The homogeneity of the sampled population, on variables relevant to their membership in the American Counseling Association, may also limit the generalizability of our results. It is somewhat reassuring that certain of our results, such as the rates of reported childhood abuse and of forgetting

800

V. Fish and C. G. Scott

abuse, are not markedly different from those of other studies that have used both similar (Feldman-Summers & Pope, 1994) and broader (Elliott & Briere, 1995) samples of participants. Problems in the generalization of results due to the lack of uniformity in definitions of childhood abuse employed in studies is of some concern. Different definitions of childhood abuse are likely to yield different rates. However, although this has been recognized as a methodological problem for some time (see, for example, Peters, Wyatt, & Finkelhor, 1986), there are limitations on the extent to which reliability is undermined because the definitions of abuse used in studies of childhood abuse prevalence overlap a great deal. For example, a definition of childhood sexual abuse that includes both contact and noncontact sexual abuse overlaps, in part, with a definition that includes only contact abuse. Peters, Wyatt, and Finkelhor noted that the rate of childhood sexual abuse reported by Russell (1986) using a definition that included noncontact sexual abuse, 54%, drops to 38% if the definition is tightened to include only contact sexual abuse. Also, even noncontact sexual abuse has been found to be etiologically significant for some common syndromes (Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1996), making the higher base rates yielded by broader definitions of abuse relevant. Finally, because of the correlational nature of this study, the associations that were found between variables, such as secrecy of the abuse and forgetting abuse, do not in themselves establish direct or causal relationships. Suggestions for Future Research Attempts should be made to replicate our finding that the perceived secrecy of childhood abuse is related to reported forgetting of abuse. Future research in this area needs to address the following considerations. First, the construct “secrecy of childhood abuse” should be more thoroughly explored and its measurement refined. It may be that there are other dimensions to the experience of “secrecy of childhood abuse” that are salient to the continuity or interruption of memory for the abuse in addition to the two we studied. The development of a psychometrically sound “secrecy of childhood abuse” scale that measured relevant dimensions of this construct would aid in investigations of the construct’s possible impact on memory of the abuse and on other areas of adult functioning. Second, in developing theory that incorporates secrecy as a variable, any effects of secrecy must be differentiated from and related to the effects of other variables with which it may be statistically associated. For example, in this study one or both secrecy variables were associated with type of abuse, relationship of the perpetrator(s) to the victim, and the victim’s age at onset of the abuse. Hypotheses about the causal and incidental interrelationships of secrecy, other independent variables such as these, and dependent variables of interest should be developed and tested. Third, the generalizability of the relationship between secrecy and forgetting abuse must be studied in different and broader populations. Acknowledgements—The authors would like to acknowledge Bruce Wampold, Connie Kristiansen, and Ken Pope for the many helpful suggestions that improved this paper.

REFERENCES Babbie, E. R. (1979). The practice of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Boser, J. A., & Clark, S. B. (1994). Effect of response rate on results of a follow-up employment survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association (Nashville, TN, November 9). Briere, J., & Conte, J. (1993). Self-reported amnesia for abuse in adults molested as children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 21–31. Clark, S. B., & Boser, J. A. (1995). Reexamining traditional issues in survey research: Just how evil is the anathema of low response rate? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 18 –22). Courtois, C. (1992). The memory retrieval process in incest survivor therapy. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 15–31.

Childhood abuse recollections

801

Dalenberg, C. (1996). Accuracy, timing and circumstances of disclosure in therapy of recovered and continuous memories of abuse. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 229 –275. Dillman, D. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225–249. Elliott, D. M., & Briere, J. (1995). Posttraumatic stress associated with delayed recall of sexual abuse: A general population study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 629 – 647. Enns, C. Z., McNeilly, C. L., Corkery, J. M., & Gilbert, M. S. (1995). The debate about delayed memories of child sexual abuse: A feminist perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 181–279. Feldman-Summers, S., & Pope, K. S. (1994). The experience of “forgetting” childhood abuse: A national survey of psychologists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 636 – 639. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse and psychiatric disorder in young adulthood: II. Psychiatric outcomes of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1365–1374. Follette, V. M., Polusny, M. M., & Milbeck, K. (1994). Mental health and law enforcement professionals: Trauma history, psychological symptoms, and impact of providing services to child sexual abuse survivors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 275–282. Herman, J., & Schatzow, E. (1987). Recovery and verification of memories of childhood sexual trauma. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 4, 1–14. Hovdestad, W. E., & Kristiansen, C. M. (1996). A field study of “False Memory Syndrome:” Construct validity and incidence. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 299 –338. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lindsay, D. S., & Read, J. D. (1994). Psychotherapy and memories of childhood sexual abuse: A cognitive perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 281–338. Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518 –537. Loftus, E. F., Polonsky, S., & Fullilove, M. T. (1994). Memories of childhood sexual abuse: Remembering and repressing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 67– 84. Nuttal, R., & Jackson, H. (1994). Personal history of childhood abuse among clinicians. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 455– 472. Ofshe, R. J., & Watters, E. (1994). Making monsters. New York: Scribners. Peters, S. D., Wyatt, G. E., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Prevalence. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), A sourcebook on child sexual abuse (pp. 15–59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Polusny, M. A., & Follette, V. M. (1996). Remembering childhood sexual abuse: A national survey of psychologists’ clinical practices, beliefs, and personal experiences. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 41–52. Roszkowski, M. J., & Bean, A. G. (1990). Believe it or not—Longer questionnaires have lower response rates. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 495–509. Russell, D. E. H. (1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and women. New York: Basic Books. Scheflin, A. W., & Brown, D. (1996). Repressed memory or dissociative amnesia: What the science says. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 143–188. Tessler, M., & Nelson, K. (1994). Making memories: The influence of joint encoding on later recall by young children. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 307–326. Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., Marquette, J., & Curtin, M. (1996). Mail surveys for election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch Poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 181–227. Williams, L. M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1167–1176. Williams, L. M. (1995). Recovered memories of abuse in women with documented child sexual victimization histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 649 – 673.

RE´SUME´ Objet: Ce travail e´tudie la relation entre l’interruption des souvenirs d’abus infantile et le secret de l’abus. Me´thodologie: 1500 personnes ont e´te´ se´lectionne´s au hasard parmi les membres de l’american Counseling Association et ont rec¸u un questionnaire concernant l’histore d’abus infantils. 423 questionnaires valables ont e´te´ renvoye´s et analyse´s. Re´sultats: Trente deux pour cent des sujets de l’e´chantillon ont rapporte´ des abus infantiles. Cinquante deux pour cent ont aussi de´crit des pe´riodes d’oubli partiel ou total de ces abus. Dans les deux items de l’e´tude concernant le secret, 76% de ceux qui rapportaient des abus infantiles indiquaient qu’il y avait eu un moment ou` seuls eux-meˆmes et leur abuseur connaissaient l’existence des abus; 47% indiquaient que l’abuseur avait essaye´ d’obtenir d’eux de garder secret l’abus. Quarante pour cent avaient coche´ les deux items sur le secret. Ceux qui disaient avoir oublie´ l’abus, rapportaient aussi plus fre´quemment un ou les deux e´le´ments du secret par rapport a` ceux qui disaient avoir garde´ tout le temps la me´moire des abus. Conclusions: Ces re´sultats sont cohe´rents avec ceux d’autres e´tudes et sugge`rent que, parmi les adultes qui raportent des abus infantiles, l’expe´rience d’avoir oublie´ les abus en partie ou totalement est courante. Le secret de l’abus apparaıˆt associe´ pour beaucoup d’individus avec l’oubli de l’abus infantile pendant un certain temps.

802

V. Fish and C. G. Scott

RESUMEN Objetivo: Este estudio investiga la relacio´n entre los recuerdos interrumpidos de abuso en la infancia y el secreto del abuso. Metodologı´a: Se seleccionaron al azar mil quinientas personas de la membresı´a de la Asociacio´n Americana de Orientacio´n y se les envio´ un cuestionario sobre su historia de abuso en la nin˜ez. Cuatrocientos veinte y tres cuestionarios utilizables fueron devueltos y analizados. Resultados: Treinta y dos por ciento de la muestra reporto´ abuso en la infancia. Cincuenta y dos por ciento de los que reportaron abuso tambie´n anotaron perı´odos en que olvidaron algo o todo el abuso. En relacio´n con los dos items de la encuesta que evaluaban el secreto, 76% de los encuestados que reportaron abuso en la nin˜ez indicaron que hubo un perı´odo de tiempo en que solo ellos mismos y su abusador sabı´an del abuso; 47% indicaron que el abusador trato´ de que ellos mantuvieran el abuso en secreto. Cuarenta por ciento respaldaron ambos items sobre el secreto. Los encuestados que reportaron haber olvidado el abuso tambie´n reportaron uno o ambos elementos sobre el secreto con ma´s frecuencia que aquellos que reportaron tener recuerdos continuos del abuso. Conclusio´n: Estos hallazgos son consistentes con aquellos de otros estudios que sugieren que, entre los adultos que reportan abuso en la nin˜ez, la experiencia de olvidar algo o todo el abuso es comu´n. Para muchos individuos el secreto del abuso parece estar asociado con la experiencia de olvidar el abuso en la nin˜ez.