Most Helpful Customer Reviews
42 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Shattering clinical myths, June 14, 2003
This review is from: Remembering Trauma (Hardcover)
Traumatology is a field concerning the nature and treatment of traumatic stress reactions. Controversies in this field include theoretical contentions (e.g., do psychodynamic mechanisms like repression really exist?), diagnostic and phenomenological controversies (e.g., is psychogenic amnesia a common traumatic stress reaction?), treatment questions (e.g., are treatments like Eye Movement Desensitization really as powerful as their proponents claim?), and societal and political tensions (e.g., is it morally appropriate for scientists to disseminate findings showing that childhood sexual abuse is not as harmful as previously believed?). Each of these issues, along with many others, have been hotly debated, both in scientific journals and in the popular press. Although there are some rigorous, scholarly books in this field, there are probably more volumes of impassioned polemics, based more on vested interests and clinical folklore than on hard data. A welcome, scholarly addition is Richard McNally's new book, Remembering Trauma. This is a superb volume largely about the phenomenology, mechanisms, and modification of traumatic memories. McNally's book targets a broad audience - clinicians and the general reader - as is appropriate for a book on such an important, wide-reaching subject. The book focuses primarily on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which can be conceived as largely a disorder of memory; a disorder in which traumatic memories exert their influence in a variety of ways, such as by repeatedly intruding into the sufferer's stream of consciousness, and by coloring the way the person experiences and reacts to the world. McNally focuses on the empirical literature, including the numerous experimental studies conducted by his research group. However, his book is also liberally sprinkled with clinical examples and anecdotes, which complement the empirical reviews to bring the material to life. McNally does a good job of demonstrating the relevance of laboratory studies, which are often dismissed as irrelevant by some traumatologists. He demonstrates how lab findings are quite consistent with data from other sources, such as the methodologically sound field studies (e.g., naturalistic studies of children's memories for stressful medical procedures vs. other events) and the better-designed of the case studies. McNally goes where the data leads him, regardless of whether his conclusions are unpopular among some of the deans of traumatology. Among his important conclusions are the following: * People remember horrific experiences all too well. There is little, if any, compelling evidence for the repression (inability to recall) of traumatic memories. Trauma survivors, compared to others, do not have a superior ability to banish upsetting memories from awareness; "The notion that the mind protects itself by repressing or dissociating memories of trauma, rendering them inaccessible to awareness, is a piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support" (p. 275). * Some people do not think about disturbing events for long periods of time, but that does not mean that they were ever unable to recall the events. There is no reason to postulate a special mechanism of repression or dissociation to explain why people may not think about disturbing experiences for long periods of time - a failure to think about something does not entail an inability to recall it. * Contrary to the view voiced by some clinicians, there is no compelling evidence that repeated episodes of abuse lead to impaired recollection (repression or dissociation) of abuse. In fact, repetition strengthens memory for abuse, although the person may not be able to recall every specific instance of abuse. * Contrary to advocates of the concept of "recovered memories", there is evidence that many or perhaps all recovered memories are false memories of horrific trauma. Recovered memory therapies - involving suggestion and leading questions that the patient has been abused, along with guided imagery and hypnosis - can induce false memories. In turn, these memories can induce PTSD or other forms of psychiatric disturbance. * Contrary to some views, evidence indicates that very high levels of stress do not impair the formation of traumatic memories. With increasing levels of arousal, attention is directed to the central features of the arousing event, at the expense of peripheral features. A robbery victim, for example, may vividly recall the gun shoved in his or her face, but may not recall the face of the assailant. This is not repression or dissociation. * There is little convincing evidence that traumatic stress damages the brain. Preexisting (e.g., genetic) factors are the most likely explanation for the differences between the brains (e.g., differences in hippocampal volume) of PTSD sufferers compared to controls. The timeliness and importance of McNally's book is evident in widespread attention it has quickly garnered from the professional community and general public. In my view the book is among the best of its kind. McNally pulls no punches in shattering myths, and presents the reader with an accurate picture of the current state of scientific knowledge on the nature and consequences of traumatic memories. Although the book is outstanding, a limitation, at least for clinicians reading this book, is that the treatment implications could have been discussed at greater length. The pitfalls of "recovered memory therapies" are amply described, although I would have liked to have seen a discussion of other controversial treatments for traumatic memories, such as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, and Thought Field Therapy. Proponents have made extraordinary claims about the efficacy of these treatments. Such claims do not hold up under careful scrutiny. McNally and colleagues have described some of the concerns with these treatments elsewhere, in articles appearing in scholarly journals. These important critiques deserve a wider, general audience, such as the audience intended for Remembering Trauma.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
43 of 52 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, April 19, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Remembering Trauma (Hardcover)
We usually do not think of it this way, but ideas on how people remember trauma have had a profound impact on our society. Just ask the Boston Archdiocese, which now worries that people will come forward with "false memories" of abuse, greatly adding to their financial liability. How are we to know who is telling the truth and who is just making it up out of greed? Feminism, moreover, has been advanced by some writers based partially on the idea of "recovered memory" of widespread sexual abuse of daughters by fathers. The vast therapy and mental healh businesses also have a huge financial interest in whether or not there is merit to the psychoanalytic idea of repressed memory. Concerned parents, further, wonder if stress from war on trauma and related television images damage our children psychologically. What affect might the bombing of Baghdag have on the citizens? With so much at stake in terms of money, politics, health care, and criminal court proceedings, scholars have been under severe pressure to lean this way or that even when writing in scholarly and scientific journals. So many controversies and professional attacks have been launched that until now it has been hard for people who need to know the truth to find an objective account of the facts about memories of past trauma and recent trauma. In his book "Remembering Trauma," Harvard University Professor Richard McNally, one of the world's most distinguished behavioral scientist, has put forth a badly needed objective and balanced account of all major issues concerning how people remember traumatic events; he also covers postraumatic stress disorder and related issues. This is THE scientific, authoritative summary of what is really known about the psychological issues of trauma that have had political and legal impact in the last decade or so. Just the facts, no spin. The book is thoughtful, thorough, and deals even handedly with the major issues. The book is a must read for any thoughtful person with a professional or personal interest in trauma. What about, moreover, the people who say they remeber alien abduction?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Compelling, disturbing, expansive, September 21, 2003
This review is from: Remembering Trauma (Hardcover)
McNally's book is required reading for those interested in the controversies over "recovered memories of trauma." His tone is even, sometimes wry, but never accusatory towards those who may not share his conclusions. Of particular interest is his attention to various studies that have been used by both "sides" in the debates. For example, in his chapter "Traumatic Amnesia," a reader will find a sober evaluation of theories presented by such worthies as Terr, van der Kolk, and JJ Freyd -- here McNally drills down into the meat of the supporting data used to flesh out the theories, and in so doing, lays out the exact areas of dispute. Ms Crook's review makes one important error: The Freyd study she notes did not assess for PTSD, and so is not comparable to McNally's laboratory work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|