the queried information occurred in the original slide sequence. Thus
the retrieval environment does not closely match the original encoding
environment. The misleading information effect may occur because
subjects are unable to access the original information effectively
under these conditions and instead retrieve the postevent information.
They found that if the test reinstated the original environment more
fully, subjects are able to access the original information
effectively and misled subjects perform as well as control subjects.
It was thus concluded that the access of original memories depends on
the retrieval environment, especially features present at the time of
original encoding. There is therefore no loss in the original
information, but accessibility is impaired under conditions of the
random test.
McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985) later criticised all previous studies as
being inappropriate for assessing the effects of misleading
information on memory because of logical problems with the procedures
or methodological problems with the experiments reported. They
concluded from their modified experiment that misleading postevent
information has no effect on memory for the original event. However,
it was suggested that under some conditions, misleading postevent
information can affect or influence memory.
Hypnosis and Eyewitness Memory
The debate on whether forgotten memories still exist continues with an
influential review of the effects of hypnosis on eyewitness testimony
by Mingay (1987). Incidents which cause considerable stress or
physical injury may impair or prevent recall. However, studies which
involve the use of hypnosis to enhance recall were not found to be
significant. Forensic hypnotists have also consistently alleged that
new information have been provided in most cases where hypnosis have
been employed. However, further discussion have suggested that both
accurate and inaccurate information are elicited during the forensic
interview, probably due to a number of factors unrelated to the
hypnotic intervention. The numerous differences between the typical
hypnotic and non-hypnotic interview means that users of forensic
hypnosis cannot know whether the hypnotic intervention was a factor
influencing the performance of a witness. This consideration, and the
likelihood that users of forensic hypnosis will selectively attend to
and remember the successes, can adequately account for their strong
beliefs in the efficacy of hypnosis. The empirical evidence pertaining
to the effects of hypnosis on the recall of events after several
months have elapsed is also somewhat inadequate, but suggests that
hypnosis does not facilitate remembering under these circumstances.
Hence, it is evident that hypnosis fails to offer any insight into the
existence of "forgotten " memories.
Autobiographical Memory
Rsearch done on autobiographical and childhood memories reveal a
startling amount of long-forgotten memories mixed with the experience
of recalling something many years after it was last recalled. Brewer
(1986) defined autobiographical memory to be the memory for
information related to self, e.g. personal memory, autobiographical
facts, generic personal memory and the self-schema. He characterised a
personal memory as a recollection of a particular episode from an
individual's past which has strong visual imagery. Personal memories
are also accompanied by a strong belief that they are an accurate
record of the originally experienced episode.
Flashbulb memories were first discussed by Brown and Kulik (1977) to
be very vivid memories of personal and emotional events. They are of a
"photographic" quality and often contain visual, auditory and even
taste and smell components of the event. The events are always of
personal importance and are often surprising and emotional.
The problem with both personal and flashbulb memories is their
veridicality. Although individuals believe that their memory of an
event is absolute and accurate, there have been evidence (Neisser,
1982) to show that reconstruction and alteration of the original event
occurs and that minor and major errors are made unknowingly. Emotion
also play a major role in flasbulb memory and vivid memory formation.
The mood and the intensity of the emotion at that particular moment
can influence the memories that are retained of that event, thus
making recall not absolutely reliable. Regular rehearsal of the event
might further reaffirm the inaccurate new reconstructed version in
memory. Details from frequent rehearsals become incorporated in the
original memory and the composite memory constructed represents a
person's flashbulb memory of an event.
The description of autobiographical memory as reconstructive and
acquired through a schematization process may apply to many instances
of functional anomalies in everyday memories. Any situation resulting
in the false recognition of new information as previously experienced
may be explained in terms of similarities in surface features and
semantic properties between what is remembered and fact. Conversely,
failure to remember an event would also be due to a simlarity effect
because actual events merge into and become indistinguishable from
generic "events" compatible with what the person thinks could have
happened. Hence most autobiographical memories are true but
inaccurate. These errors, though, may be mediated by an accurate
"self-portrait" because not every memory can be accepted as one's own.
The sense of familarity created by an event is associated with a
judgement that the event is true to what most likely occured and
consistent with what should have happened.
Conclusion
In conclusion, forgotten memories are probably neither lost nor
irretrievable. The conditions on retrieval may possibly influence the
process. The integration of other information may also affect and
modify the original information. Also, personal judgement and
self-depiction of the event may also distort the memory of the event.
Hence, it is a host of inter-webbed factors that may cause the
phenomenon of "forgetfulness" and not one explanation is totally
satisfactory.
References
Bekerian, D and Bowers, J (1983) Eyewitness testimony: were we misled?
Journal of Experimantal Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition; 9,
139-145
Brewer, W.F. (1986) What is autobiographical Memory? In DC Rubin (Ed)
(1986) Autobiographical Memory. Cambridge UP.
Brown, R and Kulik, J (1977) Flashbulb Memories. Cognition, 5, 73-99
Cohen, G (1989). Memory in the Real World. LEA.
Conway, M (1990) Autobiographical memory: An Introduction. Open
University Press.
Loftus, E.F. and Loftus, G.R. (1980) On the Permanence of Stored
Information in the Brain. American Psychology; 35, 409-420.
Maurois, A (1929) Aspects of Biography. New York: Appleton.
McCloskey, M and Zaragoza, M (1985) Misleading Post-event Information
and Memory for Events: Arguements and Evidence against Memory
Impairment Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General;
114, 1-16
Mingay, D.J. (1987) The Effects of Hypnosis on Eyewitness Testimony:
Reconciling Forensic Claims and Research Findings. Applied Psychology:
An International Review; 36(2), 163-183