On post-traumatic stress disorder and the accessibility of memories: traumatic memories in refugees and asylum seekers

Abstract

Fifty-six refugees and asylum seekers, with and without post-traumatic stress symptoms, and their autobiographical memories about traumatic experiences were evaluated with the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, which allows the evaluation of traumatic symptoms and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and the Phenomenological Questionnaire on Autobiographical Memory (CCFRA/ PQAM) that allows analysing the characteristics of their memories about quality, associated emotions, and memory accessibility. Results showed that 30.4% of participants met criteria for PTSD, which affects the difficulty to put into words what had happened. Participants did not report cases of amnesia, but rather memories that met the criteria for flashbulb memories, in line with the Continuous Accessibility Model of Memory, where limitations in remembering could range from amnesia to PTSD, with flashbulb memories being the non-pathological prelude to the latter. The findings challenge misconceptions about trauma memory and highlight the role of resilience, with implications for justice and asylum procedures.

Introduction

In recent years, research on trauma, memory and mental health among refugees and asylum seekers has grown significantly. These studies have provided a deeper understanding of the factors underlying the development of pathologies such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Studying victims of traumatic events is highly challenging, with frequent ethical and methodological issues related to sample selection and size, their variability and the validation of their victim status, as may be the case with crime victims (Manzanero & Palomo, 2020).

The psychiatric nosography of mental disorders leads to two international classification systems: on the one hand, the Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (International Classification of Diseases–10th Revision; ICD–10) presented by the World Health Organization (WHO; 1993) and, on the other, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) from the American Psychiatric Association (American Psychiatric Association, APA, 2013). Both models are categorical, insofar as they imply a disjunctive qualitative classification of the diagnostic criteria and, consequently, group criticisms of the weakness and insufficiency of the diagnostic systems given the scarce separation between the symptomatology of some disorders, which translates into high comorbidity. As an alternative, the differential dimension has been proposed, which understands the psychological disorder as an extreme within a continuum of a latent variable, where the levels of intensity and functionality determine the distinction between normal and pathological (Borsboom, 2008). According to the description, for DSM–5, PTSD rests on four factorial blocks that arise as a reaction to traumatic experience: intrusive thoughts, avoidance of memories of the event, negative thoughts and feelings, and reactive symptoms of hyperarousal. On the other hand, the ICD 11th Revision (ICD–11) diagnostic classification groups the symptomatology around three clusters, which also require the experience of a threatening situation: re-experiencing, avoidance and persistent perception of threat. Faced with these polythetic criteria, in both classifications, traumatic or stressful events are the cause of the syndromic picture, which resolves the non-consideration of these experiences as predisposing factors to the symptomatology, but rather as actually causing it. However, the most outstanding consequences of trauma refer to the physical and psychological consequences that it causes, rather than to the event itself, as trauma exceeds the survivor’s abilities and disorganises his/her coping resources to deal with daily life. In addition, the mere traumatic experience does not imply suffering from PTSD but can lead to the development of other pathologies or even no pathology (Guarch-Rubio et al., 2021), which consolidates the mediating factor of genetics, the environment and resilience. Trauma coping strategies and social factors as resilience factors could play an important role in decreasing the prevalence of PTSD development (Manzanero et al., 2024). Thus, the variability of coping responses questions whether the event is the univocal criterion to diagnose this disorder. Consequently, a debate is opened regarding the conceptualisation and significance of the traumatic event (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Krupnik, 2019), yielding different focuses in the evaluation of PTSD (Gootzeit & Markon, 2011) and proposing traumatic memory as a determining factor for the development of PTSD (Rosen, 2004; Rubin, Berntsen, et al., 2008; Rubin, Boals, et al., 2008). This approach assumes the central character of re-experiencing in PTSD, insofar as it grants a crucial and outstanding role to the involuntary images of trauma that penetrate into consciousness in the form of memories (Brewin, 2013). Although the proposals by Rubin, Berntsen et al. (2008) have been debated (Brewin et al., 2024; Monroe & Mineka, 2008), there is evidence in favour of the memory model of PTSD (Brewin, 2011, 2014; Rubin et al., 2011). Furthermore, Van Marle (2015) emphasises the importance of memory consolidation failures in understanding PTSD symptoms such as flashbacks and hyperarousal. Thus, based on the existence of studies that locate the aetiology of PTSD as a memory disorder, the mnemic theory of PTSD is distinguished, which considers memory responsible for this pathology more than the event itself, and maintains that the greater the presence of the traumatic memory, the greater the possibility of post-traumatic symptoms. In any case, memory processes would not be solely responsible for PTSD, as other cognitive and emotional processes would play a relevant role (Foa & Kozak, 1986). PTSD is not a predictable disorder as its early intrusive memories do not have a foreseeable persistence (Iyadurai et al., 2019). In this way, the study of the phenomenological characteristics of memory is necessary for both normal and traumatic conditions (Bedard-Gilligan et al., 2017; Byrne et al., 2001; Manzanero et al., 2020, 2021).

A systematic review of 22 studies (Khan et al., 2021) examining the link between autobiographical memory and mental health in refugees and asylum seekers highlighted the profound impact of trauma on memory. The findings revealed that while some refugees struggled to provide detailed accounts of their experiences, others recalled events with striking specificity. Graham et al. (2014) investigated autobiographical memory specificity in refugees and asylum seekers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Their study found that individuals diagnosed with PTSD and depression often exhibited reduced memory specificity.

This impairment has significant implications, particularly in legal and asylum proceedings, where an applicant’s credibility is frequently assessed based on the precision and detail of their testimony (Herlihy & Turner, 2007). Several studies highlight the crucial role of autobiographical memory in the asylum process (Guarch-Rubio & Manzanero, 2020; Herlihy et al., 2012; Jobson, 2009). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR; 2013) insists on an objective and impartial individual evaluation of asylum and establishes the following indicators to analyse the credibility of testimonies in adults: quantity and specificity of details, internal consistency of statements, consistency between the statements made by other asylum-seeking relatives or witnesses, consistency of the report with other general or specific information available, plausibility of the testimony and analysis of behaviour and attitude. As can be observed, the main criteria of this test rest on memory and the asylum seeker’s narrative ability, and obtaining a positive asylum resolution prioritises a narrative with many, very specific, details. Mainly, the importance given to the quantity and precision of the details of the memory means that memories are stored in a detailed, active, accessible way, making them available to be recalled. However, this belief goes against what science has established regarding the functioning of human memory and on the accuracy of the testimonies (de Bruïne et al., 2023; Skrifvars et al., 2024). Memory is conceptualised as a fragile construct, which does not represent reality but only a part of it and which accepts that the accuracy of testimonies is altered by the passage of time, by multiple recovery and by other factors that distort memory (Jobson, 2009; Selim et al., 2023). In this way, it is explained that, in asylum application interviews, a single story is told by the same protagonist in different ways, focusing attention on different elements or sensations and thus resulting in the same experience varying in quantity and specificity of details (Kihlstrom, 2009; Schacter, 2013; Williams et al., 2007). Moreover, individuals with PTSD and depression may face greater challenges in being granted refugee status, as their memory difficulties could be misinterpreted as inconsistencies or unreliability. In this way, Memon (2012) emphasises that memory consistency and accuracy among refugees and asylum seekers are not strongly correlated, that traumatic memories can be highly complex and detailed, and the severity of PTSD symptoms may further affect recall accuracy.

The scientific study of memory establishes that it is a constructive, subjective process, subject to endless distortions (Rubin, Berntsen, et al., 2008; Schacter, 2013). The fact that the same episode is recalled on different occasions over time accounts for the alteration of the accuracy of the memories suffered due to the mere passage of time and other factors that distort them. At the same time, the multiple repetition of a story can lead to changes in the focus of attention, directing it towards different elements or sensations and thus varying in the amount of details given and in their specificity (Kihlstrom, 2009; Schacter, 2013; Williams et al., 2007). Therefore, autobiographical memories are more subject to distortion, as they tend to be recovered more frequently than other types of memories. In turn, in the emotion–memory continuum, it has been observed that the intensity (high/low) of an event determines to a greater extent the detail with which it is remembered, beyond the emotional valence (positive/negative) (Talarico et al., 2004). By extension, the emotional consequence of an important autobiographical event suggests greater precision in the memory than for a routine event with low emotional repercussion, which does not imply immunity to the passage of time or that all details will be accurately remembered.

Among the emotional memories, the ones that arouse the most attention due to the vividness with which they are experienced, their accessibility and the confidence with which they are recalled, are flashbulb memories, ‘as if they had just happened’ (Vallet et al., 2017). Brown and Kulik (1977) coined the concept of flashbulb memories and identified memories regarding events with a high level of surprise (unexpected) and with consequences for the person, observing that these properties give rise to extremely vivid memories around the details and the circumstances surrounding the event. In turn, the study of flashbulb memories led Talarico and Rubin (2003) to confirm that they are vivid, long-lasting, emotionally intense episodic memories, which entail some type of consequence for the person and which, beyond being precise, are recalled with high certainty regarding their precision. The results of this same study indicated that an initial negative and emotionally intense reaction to an aversive stimulus generates fear and predicts a greater development of PTSD. At the same time, stressful events are perceived more coherent than ordinary ones. However, despite that perception, it is not guaranteed that they are, indeed, more coherent.

The data on accessibility may be in conflict with theories that predict memory deficits (amnesia) regarding traumatic experiences in victims. According to the Continuous Accessibility Model of Memory (Manzanero & Morales-Valiente, 2024), the ability of victims to remember the event could range across a continuum from amnesia, in which victims would not be able to remember anything about the event, to PTSD, where they would not be able to forget. Amnesia would develop from head injuries that generate organic damage that affects the ability to generate a long-term memory of the events. It would be unlikely to develop amnesia based solely on psychological factors (Mangiulli et al., 2022; Otgaar et al., 2019). In the absence of this pathology, the encoding conditions and other retention factors could give rise to qualitatively and quantitatively poor memories (poorly detailed and schematic), with more semantic than episodic characteristics, which would be memories, nonetheless. At the other end of the continuum, most traumatic experiences would generate a memory whose characteristics and accessibility would be as expected according to the mechanisms of normal memory functioning. In general, primary and indirect victims would tend not to forget, due to the distinctiveness and meaning of the traumatic events. Thus, social and individual factors could give rise to memories with a greater degree of accessibility, vividness and association with the feeling that the passage of time does not affect them. These could be the prelude to PTSD, where mainly primary victims could develop a memory disorder that is the opposite to amnesia and that implies a chronic accessibility of the memories related to the traumatic experience in the form of flashbacks, ruminations or nightmares, with progressively more intense emotions associated with each recall (Rubin, Berntsen et al., 2008). The degree of detail with which the event is remembered would be related to the number of recalls carried out. The high accessibility of the memory of a traumatic experience in PTSD could be due to an over-generalisation of retrieval cues. The first recalls could occur by automatic (implicit) retrieval mechanisms caused by the presence of specific contextual (semantic and episodic) cues strongly associated to the experience. Progressively, less specific cues, but related to the previous ones, could trigger the recall of the memory of the events, in a transgression of the Encoding Specificity Principle (Tulving & Thomson, 1973). In the over-generalisation of the retrieval cues, each new recall of the traumatic memory would play a determining role, increasing its accessibility and generating new connections, giving rise to hypermnesia (Payne, 1987; Scrivner & Safer, 1988), which would be one step closer towards PTSD (Desmedt, 2021).

Although trauma can break the identity of survivors, and traumatic memories can accompany refugees for most of their lives, the desire to forget emerges as a resilience strategy. In this sense, Manzanero et al.’s (2015) study with refugees in the Gaza Strip found that positive memories were attributed greater importance than negative memories, which was identified as an element of protection. The lack of signs of affectation and the desire to ‘not go into details’ should not be considered in asylum trials as indicators of deception, as they may be due to both cultural factors and aspects related to the memory of the trauma and coping strategies. According to Akhtar et al. (2017), in order to facilitate an emotionally intense memory filled with detail, not only must it be recent, but the person must want to assume a possible phenomenological re-experiencing of the characteristics of the event through their recall, and not all refugees are willing to do so. In this sense, Ní Raghallaigh and Gilligan (2010) argued that emotional suppression acts as a resilient factor in unaccompanied refugee minors. Furthermore, forgetting is not the same as deliberately not wanting to remember (Manzanero & Palomo, 2020).

Finally, despite the fact that trauma is a predictor of the mental health of the displaced (Kenny & Procter, 2016), some studies suggest that the risk of suffering from PTSD decreases substantially over the years (Ehlers & Clark, 2003; Giacco & Priebe, 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2013). This evolution may be due, at least in part, to the effect that the passage of time has on the memories of traumatic events (Manzanero et al., 2021). If these findings are generalised, the paradigm of comparable memories would consolidate the acceptance of a natural decline in vividness for all memories, even traumatic ones.

The primary objective of this study was to analyse the phenomenological characteristics of autobiographical memories related to traumatic experiences in refugees and asylum seekers. Specifically, the study aimed to examine the quality, accessibility and emotional components of these memories, as well as the impact of PTSD on their recall. To achieve this, participants were assessed using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, a tool specifically designed for evaluating trauma symptoms and PTSD in refugee and asylum-seeking populations. Additionally, they completed the Phenomenological Questionnaire on Autobiographical Memory (CCFRA/PQAM), which allowed for an in-depth exploration of the vividness, emotional intensity and verbal accessibility of their memories. The study sought to determine whether individuals with PTSD experience specific difficulties in articulating their traumatic memories and whether these memories exhibit characteristics of flashbulb memories, a phenomenon aligned with the Continuous Accessibility Model of Memory. Rather than cases of amnesia, the findings aimed to clarify whether vivid, highly accessible memories might serve as a non-pathological precursor to PTSD-related memory alterations. Ultimately, this research aimed to provide insights that could contribute to a more accurate evaluation of asylum seekers’ testimonies in international protection procedures, ensuring a better understanding of how trauma affects memory recall in this vulnerable population.

Method

Participants

Fifty-six people participated in this study, 36 men (64.3%) and 20 women (35.7%). The mean age for the sample was 33.69 years old (SD = 11.15) with an age range of between 18 and 72 years of age. The majority of applications (67.9%) were legally considered to be asylum-seekers; 16.1% had obtained refugee status; 12.5%, subsidiary protection; and 3.6%, protection for humanitarian reasons. Every participant was residing in Ireland (53.6%) or Spain (46.4%) as destination countries. According to region of origin, 39.28% hailed from the Middle East, 28.57% from Latin-America and 21.42% from sub-Saharan Africa.

Instruments and procedure

The prevalence of PTSD was analysed by using the symptomatology collected from Part IV of the the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ; Shoeb et al., 2007). For a PTSD screening, participants must obtain mean scores of 2.5 or higher in the first 16 post-traumatic symptoms (Ibrahim & Hassan, 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2015). The responses to the questionnaire were cross-checked by a clinical psychologist who is an expert in disorders associated with traumatic experiences. She conducted individual interviews with the participants to confirm the possible diagnosis of PTSD.

In addition, the Phenomenological Questionnaire on Autobiographical Memory (CCFRA/PQAM) was administered, which is composed of 44 questions structured in two sets. The first section includes eight questions relative to information about the event (place of occurrence, implications, age, duration, . . . ). The second section contains 36 Likert-type questions from 1 to 5, where 1 = totally disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = totally agree (see Table 1). The assessed dimensions were quality of the memory (degree of detail, vividness, fragmentation, comprehension, definition, complexity, perspective of retrieval, doubts, visual information, colour, sound, odour, touch, taste); associated emotions (implications, intensity of feeling, valence, relevance, feelings during the event and now, thoughts during the event); and accessibility (retrieval effort, forgotten details, flashback, amnesia episodes, memory of previous and subsequent events, thinking and speaking about the event). The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and that was .83. Therefore, according to the classification by George and Mallery (2003), the internal consistency index of the questionnaire is good.

Table 1.

Statistical significance test (t and p statistic) in relation to the theoretical midpoint of each item.

	M	SD	t(39)	p
Quality
Definition	4.52	0.78	12.301	<.001*
Vividness	4.47	0.84	11.015	<.001*
Detail	4.20	0.96	7.856	<.001*
Fragmentation	2.85	1.59	−0.595	.555
Comprehension	2.62	1.67	−1.416	.165
Complexity	3.70	1.20	3.681	.001*
Doubts	2.20	1.36	−3.713	.001*
Memory impairment	2.57	1.53	−1.752	.088
Recall perspective	3.82	1.50	3.478	.001*
Colour	3.45	1.56	1.815	.077
Visual info	4.37	0.92	9.401	<.001*
Sound	4.10	1.29	5.364	<.001*
Smell	2.72	1.63	−1.065	.293
Haptic info	3.17	1.58	0.699	.489
Taste	2.05	1.56	−3.832	<.001*
Where	4.40	1.17	7.553	<.001*
When (year)	4.40	1.17	7.553	<.001*
When (day)	3.65	1.64	2.504	.017
When (hour)	3.92	1.42	4.116	<.001*
Associated emotions
Implications	4.35	1.09	7.769	<.001*
Valence	1.32	0.91	−11.556	<.001*
Intensity of feelings	4.32	1.16	7.204	<.001*
Relevance	4.70	0.79	13.593	<.001*
Feeling during event	4.52	0.81	11.818	<.001*
Feeling now	4.32	1.02	8.196	<.001*
Thoughts during event	3.72	1.41	3.243	.002*
Accessibility
Easy to recover	4.22	1.14	6.777	<.001*
Flashbacks	3.82	1.37	3.794	.001*
Amnesia	2.15	1.44	−3.728	.001*
Difficult to talk about	3.12	1.60	0.493	.625
Lack of details	2.05	1.31	−4.554	<.001*
Previous events	4.27	0.87	9.198	<.001*
Post events	4.27	0.93	8.640	<.001*
Think about	4.32	1.02	8.196	<.001*
Relive the event	3.42	1.48	1.812	.078
Talking about	3.22	1.56	0.912	.367

*p < .002 (Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).

All participants voluntarily took part in the study without any compensation. Recruitment of the participants was done in two ways: (a) through referrals provided by collectives working with refugees in Ireland and Spain, and (b) through snowball sampling by referral from other refugees or asylum-seekers. The assessments were made in Spain and Ireland by means of individual, confidential interviews administered by an interviewer in safe spaces appropriate for the task at hand. The interviewers were psychologists trained to minimise the risk of re-experiencing symptoms. Psychological support services were made available to all participants, ensuring their well-being throughout the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Complutense University of Madrid Ethics Committee (reference number 2016/17-023). Similarly to other studies (see, for example, Guarch-Rubio et al., 2021; Ibrahim & Hassan, 2017), free and voluntary consent to participation was collected in written or verbal form. Verbal consent was obtained using the same standard written document that collected information about the voluntary and confidential nature of participation for research purposes. Likewise, the document informed the participants about their freedom to ask for information about the study, not to complete some questions or to cease the assessment at any time without any consequences.

Results

PTSD diagnosis

Analysis of the HTQ showed that 30.4% of the participants met criteria for a PTSD diagnosis (see Table 2). Likewise, participants with PTSD presented a greater number of post-traumatic symptoms, with a mean of 5.23 (SD = 1.48) trauma symptoms, while participants without a PTSD diagnosis presented a mean of 3.72 (SD = 1.60) traumatic symptoms, whereas the mean score for the total of the sample was 4.18 (SD = 1.71) symptoms.

Table 2.

Prevalence of PTSD according to trauma symptoms.

	Trauma symptoms
	N	%	M	SD
PTSD	17	30.4	5.23	1.48
No PTSD	39	69.6	3.72	1.60
Total	56	100.0	4.18	1.71

Note: PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

The results also showed that the participants had been exposed to an average of 15.1 (SD = 7.0) traumatic situations in conflict contexts, and 32.1% had experienced at least one episode of torture (M = 5.8, SD = 4.9).

Factor analysis indicated no significant gender differences in the total number of post-traumatic symptoms, F(1, 54) = 0.009, p = .927, η² = .000, nor were there any gender differences in the diagnosis of PTSD, χ²(1, N = 56) = 40.422, p = .516.

Memory characteristics

The characteristics of memory were assessed in 40 (26 without PTSD and 14 with PTSD) out of the 56 participants, as the CCFRA was only applied to those persons who voluntarily agreed to self-assessment of their traumatic memories or to those who experienced a life-threatening event personally. The descriptive characteristics of the assessed memories may be observed in Table 1. If it is considered that the central point (3) could indicate that it is not possible to assert that one characteristic obtains, statistically significant lower values might indicate that that memory is characterised by the lack of that trait, and higher values that it is characterised by its presence (Bonferroni’s correction p < .002).

Quality

It may be claimed that memories of traumatic events experienced by refugees and asylum-seekers are perceived as well-defined, vivid, detailed and complex. They did not have any doubts as to the accuracy of their memories, and there was a certain tendency to recall events from observer′s perspective (in the third person). Regarding sensory characteristics, memories were visual, auditory and lacking taste. Contextually, the participants remembered where the events had taken place, the year and the time.

Associated emotion

With respect to the affect the refugees and asylum-seekers associated to the traumatic events, the results show great relevance, implications and negative, intense emotions associated to remembrance. Thus, they exhibited memories associated to the context, provided that they had expressed what they felt and thought at the time of the event. Also, when the memory was elicited, they reflected the presence of intense associated feeling.

Memory accessibility

Regarding the ability to recall traumatic events, the asylum-seekers and refugees expressed that in general they remembered them readily. However, the analysis of memory characteristics showed that some details of the event were often retrieved automatically (flashbacks) and that the participants had not had amnesia episodes. In fact, they did not feel that they had difficulties in recalling some of the important elements of the event. They reported remembering events prior and subsequent to the traumatic experience and thinking often about what had happened. It seems that these memories manifested themselves as very accessible.

The effect of the PTSD symptomatology as an independent variable affecting memory was obtained through the statistical analysis of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results showed statistically significant effects only in the difficulty to put into words what had happened F(1, 39) = 30.957, p < .001, η² = .449. The persons who did not present PTSD reached a mean value of 2.34 (SD = 1.41), below the cut-off point (3) whereas those who presented PTSD obtained a score of 4.57 (SD = 0.65). This means that the former had no difficulty when speaking about the events, t(25) = −2.360, p = .026, whereas those who had PTSD presented difficulties at the time of expressing what had happened to them, t(13) = 9.099, p < .001.

Discussion

Regarding PTSD, 30.4% of the participants met diagnostic criteria. PTSD was not attributed to gender, nor to the status of the asylum application. Thus, having received international protection or not did not result in either a predisposition or a protective factor relating to the development of PTSD.

On the other hand, taking into account the three assessed dimensions of memory characteristic (quality, emotion and accessibility), this study claims that the observed recall of traumatic events showed characteristics of vivid memories (flashbulb memories). The high accessibility and affect exhibited by these memories, together with their defining sensory and contextual ability, make them memories that are remembered very accurately, even when a long time has intervened since the event. However, the subjective feeling of security with which they are recalled does not reflect reality, but interpretations of it. In other words, the excessive trust in this kind of traumatic memory does not imply that the events happened the way they are remembered; as a matter of fact, despite the subjective certainty of the recaller regarding their memory, it has been seen that they are inaccurate. Thus, and in connection with a reliability analysis, traumatic memories may give rise to incongruous memories, remembered erroneously but confidently by asylum-seekers. The assessed memories fitted as expected with a PTSD diagnosis (third-person recall, dissociation, flashbacks, recurring thoughts, . . . ), and a higher difficulty in articulating the events was detected in those persons suffering from PTSD. Thus, this study reinforces the need to consider the presence of previous pathologies as factors influencing memory assessment.

Limitations and future research

This study, while shedding valuable light on the intricate relationship between memory and trauma in refugees and asylum seekers, is not without its limitations. The sample size, though appropriate for an exploratory study, could be a limiting factor in generalising the findings. Future research with larger and more diverse samples could bolster the external validity of the results. The voluntary nature of participation might have introduced selection bias, with participants differing systematically from non-participants in aspects like trauma levels or recall abilities. While the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and the Phenomenological Questionnaire on Autobiographical Memory are valid tools, other instruments might capture additional facets of memory and trauma in this population, suggesting that a multi-method assessment approach could yield a more holistic understanding. The study’s cross-sectional design, capturing data at a single point, precludes establishing causal links between variables, a gap that longitudinal studies could fill by examining the evolution of memory and trauma over time. Lastly, the study’s focus on a specific cultural context necessitates caution in generalising findings to other refugee populations with diverse cultural backgrounds and trauma experiences.

These limitations pave the way for several exciting avenues of future research. Longitudinal studies could track the interplay of memory and trauma in refugees and asylum seekers over time, examining the influence of factors like PTSD and coping strategies. Comparative studies across different refugee groups, segmented by cultural origin, trauma type or time elapsed since the traumatic event, could reveal variations in memory and trauma characteristics. Qualitative research, employing in-depth interviews or focus groups, could delve deeper into the lived experiences of memory and trauma, capturing personal narratives and meanings attributed to recollections. Interventions aimed at improving memory and alleviating trauma symptoms could be developed and evaluated, potentially optimising asylum processes and enhancing well-being. Finally, research on credibility assessment methodologies, considering factors like trauma, PTSD and cultural differences, could refine the evaluation of asylum seeker testimonies.

Conclusions

The present study investigated the phenomenological characteristics of autobiographical memories related to traumatic experiences in refugees and asylum seekers, specifically examining the quality, accessibility and emotional components of these memories and the impact of PTSD on recall. Our findings offer several key insights.

A significant proportion of the participants (30.4%) met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, highlighting the prevalence of this condition within this population. Interestingly, neither gender nor asylum application status (i.e. whether international protection had been received) appeared to be a significant factor in PTSD diagnosis or the number of post-traumatic symptoms experienced. This suggests that other factors, beyond these demographic variables, may be more influential in the development and manifestation of PTSD following traumatic experiences.

Our analysis of memory characteristics revealed that traumatic memories in this population often exhibit qualities consistent with vivid, flashbulb memories. These memories were perceived as well-defined, vivid, detailed and complex, often accompanied by strong emotional associations and a sense of certainty about their accuracy. Participants readily recalled these traumatic events, though some details were often retrieved automatically (flashbacks). However, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential for inaccuracy in these memories despite the subjective certainty of the recaller. This discrepancy between perceived accuracy and actual reliability has significant implications for credibility assessments in asylum proceedings. Our findings underscore the need for caution when relying solely on the perceived vividness and detail of traumatic memories as indicators of truthfulness. Incongruous memories, perceived erroneously but confidently, can arise from these traumatic memory recall processes.

We observed a statistically significant effect of PTSD on the ability to articulate traumatic experiences. Participants without PTSD reported no difficulty in speaking about the events, whereas those with PTSD experienced significant difficulties in expressing what had happened to them. This finding is consistent with previous research and suggests that PTSD may affect verbal expression and communication related to traumatic memories.

Finally, the assessed memories aligned with expected PTSD symptoms, including third-person recall (indicating possible dissociation), flashbacks and recurring thoughts. These findings, coupled with the difficulty in articulating the events observed in PTSD sufferers, reinforce the importance of considering pre-existing mental health conditions as crucial factors influencing memory assessment and testimony.

In sum, our research provides valuable insights into the complex interplay between trauma, memory and PTSD in refugees and asylum seekers. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration of the nature of traumatic memories in asylum procedures. The subjective vividness and detail of a memory should not be equated with objective accuracy. Furthermore, the presence of PTSD, which affects both the nature of traumatic memories and the ability to articulate them, necessitates a nuanced approach to credibility assessment. Future research should continue to explore the factors influencing memory recall in this vulnerable population and develop more refined methods for evaluating testimony that take into account the psychological impact of trauma. The complexities of traumatic memory, as demonstrated by our findings, call for a move away from simplistic interpretations of witness testimony, recognising the potential impact of PTSD and the inherent fallibility of human memory.

Funding Statement

This work is part of a research project on assessment of memories and psychological disorders associated to trauma in refugees and victims of war, developed by the UCM Research Group on Eyewitness Testimony (ref. 971672), in the framework of the projects financed by Santander-Universidad Complutense de Madrid [PR87/19-22576].

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Antonio L. Manzanero has declared no conflicts of interest.

Marta Guarch-Rubio has declared no conflicts of interest.

Rocío Vallet has declared no conflicts of interest.

Alba Vara has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, the Complutense University of Madrid Ethics Committee (reference number 2016/17-023), and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.