Recovered Memories and False Memories - Research Paper Example

? The Validity of Recovered Memories March 26, Recovered memories are those that have been forgotten for aperiod of time and then recalled, usually with the assistance of a therapist. Research indicates that memory in general and recovered memories in particular are malleable and prone to changing based on external stimuli. Such memories have nevertheless been used in countless civil suits claiming abuse, and most therapists will support their clients' claims of abuse made from recovered memory. Introduction Repressed memories are memories which were forgotten for a long period of time and recalled only as an adult, often with the help of a therapist or hypnotist. However, the validity of such memories is often called into question. The argument over such memories is one of the most contested positions in psychology, sometimes even referred to as the “memory wars” (Campbell, 2003). Many researchers claim that these memories are false, even implanted by incompetent therapists, while therapists most often stand behind the claims of their patients. Looking into the controversy surrounding recovered memories versus false memories, the process of memory repression, and some of the implications brings us to a realization of just how widespread and important this debate can be. Recovered Memories vs False Memories Individuals who recovered memories in therapy and with the help of a therapist were often unsurprised to recover memories of childhood sexual abuse. However, spontaneously recovered memories often surprised those who gained these memories. More tellingly, spontaneously recovered memories and continuous memories, those that were never repressed and therefore never had to be recovered, were much more likely to be corroborated by physical evidence than memories recovered in therapy (Geraerts et al., 2007). This could indicate that the presence of the therapist pushed people into “recalling” situations of sexual abuse that never occurred because the therapist expected to find such memories. In opposition to the situation of coaxed-out memory under the control of a therapist for the first time since the event occurred, people who report such spontaneous memory recovery may actually have “recovered” and then forgotten the same memory numerous time. This does not invalidate the correctness of the memory; however, such repeated incidences of forgetting and remembering does indicate the possibility that the memory was never truly repressed under the same system that would be used for completely repressed memories that require a therapist's assistance to recover (Geraerts et al., 2009). Research shows that memories of terrible events, including being the one to commit terrible crimes, can be created in the subject's mind from nothing, and researchers tend to believe that recovered memories are generally of this type. Therapists, however, are more inclined to believe that such vivid memories cannot be created wholesale and instead that recovered memories are memories of true events; they may understand the existence of false recovered memories but believe that the incidence is much lower than a researcher may believe (Davis & Loftus, 2009). Memories of events can also be altered or distorted by such experiences as leading questions, suggestions, and incorrect conversations with other witnesses of the same scene. Especially telling for the possibility of recovered memories involving childhood sexual abuse in research results is the possibility of remembering accomplices who weren't present during the original scenes. An additional research study on recovered memories resulted in up to one-quarter of the subjects believing that they had been lost in the mall as small children, when that event was presented as part of a series of actual events. This was only done on subjects whose parents stated that such an event had never occurred, so there was little possibility of confusing an actual childhood memory with the memory created as part of the research (Laney & Loftus, 2010). Individuals who report recovering repressed memories are also more prone to remembering statements in research that were never explicitly made than those who do not report such memories (Geraerts, Smeets, Jelicic, van Heerden, & Merckelbach, 2005). This indicates that such individuals have lower levels of reality monitoring; they are not as successful at differentiating between situations they had seen or experienced and situations they imagined than are adults who do not report repressed memories (McNally, Clancy, Barrett, & Parker, 2005). Such situations are not limited to memories of childhood sexual abuse. Individuals reporting recovered memories of “past lives” and of alien abductions were tested using the same scale of propensity for remembering suggested statements as explicit. Some of these individuals had recovered their memories of past lives under such impressible situations as hypnosis or guided imagery. These individuals were also more prone to confusing memories of reality with imaginary memories, according to the tests done in the research. (Meyersburg, Bogdan, Gallo, & McNally, 2009). Other repressed memories involve highly unlikely scenarios: alien abductions, infant cannibalism, and ritual torture. While it cannot be proven that these event have never occurred, proving such events occurred is the responsibility of those who claim it, not the other way around, as there currently exists no evidence. These memories are more likely related to episodes of sleep paralysis and hallucinations of invaders in the room, a not-uncommon combination of conditions for children. These events can lead to “memories” of being abducted, being restrained, and other strange events that most likely never occurred (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). All in all, it seems as if those who report recovering repressed memories under the treatment of a psychiatrist or other therapist may be under the influence of common memory distortions. Those reporting recovered memories may be more prone to changing their memories based on what others tell them, or may have recovered their memories under questionable situations. While not all such memories are false, they should be looked at carefully and compared to evidence that the situation had ever actually occurred as the individual recalls it occurring. However, failure to find physical evidence corroborating a story of abuse does not indicate that the story is untrue or a false memory (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). The Process of Memory Repression Three groups of people with memories of traumatic events or abuse are generally understood to exist: those who never forgot their memories of the abuse, those who recovered their traumatic memories in therapy, and those who recovered their memories spontaneously outside of therapy and did not necessarily feel the recalling of those memories to be traumatic in and of itself. This third group may not fall under the category of repressed memories but may be simply the condition of regular forgetting and recalling (McNally & Geraerts, 2009). The group who never forgot the event, called the “continuous memory” group, are often used as the control group in research on repressed and recovered memories. Repression may be more likely for severely traumatic forms of abuse, such as sexual abuse, for abuse by a trusted authority figure, and abuse that continues and repeats over time. Others contend that such events should be better and more vividly recalled, not repressed and then recovered (Davis & Loftus, 2009). Theorists claim that memories are repressed because the trauma cannot be dealt with at the time, and instead is buried and remembered at a time when it is “helpful instead of harmful” (Laney & Loftus, 2010). The basis of such repressed memory theories is that the repeated instances of trauma are what lead a “significant minority” of abuse sufferers to repress the memories, instead of the expected result of making the memories of such trauma more vivid and more easily recalled, as happens in a majority of memory. It is “precisely” the horrific and repetitive nature of the trauma that leads it to be repressed (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). Repression of traumatic memories occurs as a method of dealing with childhood trauma. Adults or other authority figures on whom children are dependent for their survival are especially prone to causing repression when they are responsible for such trauma. However, according to one prominent author in the area of memories, Elizabeth Loftus, most studies of repressed childhood memories have a questionable experimental procedure: Briere and Conte (1993) asked a group of 450 patients, all currently in treatment for child sexual abuse, whether there was a time in their childhoods when they could not remember their abuse. A majority of subjects replied affirmatively. The author continues by pointing out that the failed attempt at remembering the abuse indicates that the abuse had not been fully repressed, as the attempt to remember indicates that the person knew there was something to remember (Laney & Loftus, 2010). Conversely, however, research does exist that indicates that under the proper conditions, even events that should be strongly remembered can be forgotten. This forgetting is unintentional and usually reversible, a point in favor of recovered memories in this debate. However, this research was done on lists of words, not events, and involved using interference and distraction techniques to cause forgetting of the word lists (Smith & Moynan, 2008). Other research has been done on college students that indicates that recovering of childhood memories may be a normal experience at that age, and not simply limited to traumatic repressed memories. The quality of memories in childhood was found to be unrelated to the incidence of trauma, indicating that the ability to repress and recover memories may not necessarily involve abuse but may be a standard ability of children (Parker, 1998). Additionally, the ability to remember events from before the age of four or five years of age is strictly limited in most adults, meaning that forgetting incidences of trauma before that age is not representative of repressed and recovered memories but a function of regular childhood memories (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). Repressed memories are sometimes confused with ordinary forgetting of events. Short-term memory loss and difficulty concentrating are among the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and as such are obviously commonly experienced after a traumatic event. However, this should not be confused with the repression of the event. This type of memory impairment involves the days following a traumatic event and is not related to difficulty recalling the event itself. Additionally, organic amnesia, resulting from a physical trauma, such as a head injury, that happened during the traumatic event, is not at all the same type of clinical presentation as repressing memories of the event (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). Legal Implications of Recovered and False Memories Civil suits have been filed on the basis of recovered memories that cost millions of dollars and have widespread political implications for those accused (Davis & Loftus, 2009). For example, at least one of the priests implicated in the sexual abuse scandal involving the Catholic church was convicted on the basis of the recovered memories of the alleged victims (Geraerts & McNally, 2008). Another legal implication of the possibilities of false memories is in eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is highly trusted by jurors and judges in most cases, and can have a large effect on the final ruling in a case. However, even when they are very sure of making the correct identification, eyewitnesses are often incorrect. They can be influenced by many factors surrounding the case (Cutler, 2009). Eyewitness testimony is prone to the same problems as recovered memories. People will generally talk to other witnesses of a crime or other event, and it has been proven that mistaken co-witnesses can change the memory of an event in the mind of someone who originally remembered it correctly (Laney & Loftus, 2010). This brings great questions to the process of eyewitness testimony in the prosecution of a crime. If memory is as malleable as it would seem to be from the discussion of modified and implanted memories, sending someone to prison on the basis of another person's memory becomes a more questionable procedure. Conclusions The research on recovered memories seems fairly conclusive. Memory can be easily altered or created based on the later experiences of an individual. While this does not invalidate the truthfulness of all recovered memory scenarios, such memories should be correlated and corroborated with other evidence and testimony, rather than being considered gospel truth. This same position should perhaps be taken with regards to other situations that rely on the memory of an individual, such as eyewitness testimony to a crime. The implications of relying strictly on memory are clear: most people are not as capable of separating fiction from reality, or imagination from true events, as they would like to believe. References Campbell, S. (2003). Relational remembering: rethinking the memory wars: Rowman & Littlefield. Cutler, B. L. (2009). Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification: Oxford University Press. Davis, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2009). The Scientific Status of "Repressed" and "Recovered" Memories of Sexual Abuse Psychological science in the courtroom: consensus and controversy: Guilford Press. Geraerts, E., Lindsay, D. S., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Raymaekers, L., Arnold, M. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Recovered-Memory Experiences of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Psychological Science, 20(1), 92-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02247.x Geraerts, E., & McNally, R. J. (2008). Assessment of Recovered and False Memoories. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception: Guilford Press. Geraerts, E., Schooler, J. W., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., J.A. Hauer, B., & Ambadar, Z. (2007). The Reality of Recovered Memories. Psychological Science, 18(7), 564-568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01940.x Geraerts, E., Smeets, E., Jelicic, M., van Heerden, J., & Merckelbach, H. (2005). Fantasy proneness, but not self-reported trauma is related to DRM performance of women reporting recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(3), 602-612. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.01.006 Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). False Memory The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology: Cambridge University Press. McNally, R. J., Clancy, S. A., Barrett, H. M., & Parker, H. A. (2005). Reality Monitoring in Adults Reporting Repressed, Recovered, or Continuous Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 147-152. doi: Doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.114.1.147 McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). A New Solution to the Recovered Memory Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01112.x Meyersburg, C. A., Bogdan, R., Gallo, D. A., & McNally, R. J. (2009). False memory propensity in people reporting recovered memories of past lives. J Abnorm Psychol, 118(2), 399-404. doi: 10.1037/a0015371 Parker, R. L. (1998). An exploratory investigation of the nature of recovered childhood memories: eScholarship Repository. Smith, S. M., & Moynan, S. C. (2008). Forgetting and Recovering the Unforgettable. Psychological Science, 19(5), 462-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02110.x Read More