‘simply acknowledging that memory has the ability to render part of its contents inaccessible as a means of coping with distressing experiences’ and that ‘the mechanism by which memory achieves this…is an elusive one.’
It is important to note that repression is different from suppression. Suppression is the process of deliberate self-control, keeping impulses and desires in check (perhaps holding them in privately while denying them publicly) or temporarily pushing aside painful memories. Individuals are aware of suppressed thoughts but are largely unaware of repressed impulses or memories.
Scientists around the world are yet to understand the power our subconscious minds may possess. These ‘powers’ range from dissociation to the ability to repress memories. As a result of these unknowns, the legal society has been forced into many debates concerning ‘Repressed Memories’ versus ‘False Memory Syndrome’ in cases of childhood sexual abuse. Both suggestions have a valid reasoning behind them.
Childhood sexual abuse is horrendous. It is a wonder that children are able to cope with this type of violation. There are different ways an event is blocked out of the mind. These range from relatively ‘simple’ forgetting caused by lack of repetition, a conscious burial of memories within the brain, or repression and never consciously knowing the whole story (traumatic dissociation).
Repression is a scientific unknown. There has been no conclusive evidence as of yet to prove that there is a trigger in our brain which recognises harmful memories and ‘represses’ them until we are emotionally ‘strong enough’ to handle them. We cannot always rely on the details provided by recovered memories. This is especially the case for child sexual abuse before the age of four and doesn’t continue beyond that age. These memories may not be retrievable in the narrative (describable words) form. Very early memories are implicit rather than explicit and are reflected in behaviour outside conscious awareness. This means that we don’t need repression to explain the ‘forgetting’ of childhood experiences, but it also implies that some recovered memories could be either false or inaccurate.
A survey of 810 chartered psychologists indicated that 90 per cent believed recovered memories to be sometimes or ‘essentially’ correct, a very small percentage believed that they are always correct. In addition, 66 per cent believed that they are possible, and 14 per cent believed that one of their own clients has experienced false memories (British Psychological Society, 1995). Those who believe in repressed memories of childhood dramatic events cite evidence such as that of Williams (1994). (Please refer to Appendix 1.).
There has been a fierce and bitter controversy between those who believe that these recovered memories are genuine and those who argue that such memories are false. The ‘False Memory Syndrome’ has no well-established scientific recognition and is not a recognised medical condition. The idea of such a ‘disorder’ was developed by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1992. It was established to provide emotional support for accused parents themselves.
It has been said that therapists believe everything their clients say, without checking with outside sources to see if the information was correct. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation emphasises that this practice is immoral, because the therapist is working to develop memories of events, not even knowing if the memories are true. This may lead to false accusations and stress in the family.
Numerous research and clinical psychologists have raised grave concerns that the processes of excavating ‘repressed’ memories are fostering the creation of false beliefs and memories that implicate innocent people. Such techniques are guided visualisation, trance writing, dream work, body work, hypnosis, and sodium amytal (truth serum). What people appear to do, at the time they encounter false details, is to call up schematic knowledge that is closely related to the false event. Next they think about the new information in conjunction with the schema, possibly storing the new information with that schema. Now, when trying to remember the false event, they recall the false information and the underlying schema.
When you are under hypnosis, you are completely vulnerable and susceptible to influence. Memories can then be implanted by the use of descriptive details, inserted characters and fictitious plot elaboration. One must also be careful when using dream work. Information implanted during the day could cause that patient to dream of false memories. Those who believe that recovered memories are false, focus on research showing how easy it is for people to be misled into believing in the existence of events that never happened, like research performed by Ceci, (1995). (Please refer to appendix 2.). Other researchers like Hyman, Husband and Billings (1995) have also been able to induce ‘recollections’ of events that never happened. (Please refer to appendix 3.).
The American Psychiatric Association (1993) has acknowledged that:
‘Memories can be significantly influenced by a trusted person who suggests abuse as an explanation for symptoms/problems, and that repeated questioning may lead individuals to report memories of events that never occurred.’
People accused falsely for sexual abuse can have their lives ruined. Some lawsuits have been brought by ‘retractors’ who claim that they were led to believe they were sexually molested but now realise that their memories are false. As of 1994, some 300 individuals had retracted their sex abuse allegations; some had even sued their therapists (Lindsay & Read, 1995).
It is extremely difficult to support the suggestion that repressed memories are true or even false. Scientists still do not know the answer to most questions concerning memory, especially repressed memory. Both sides of the debate have good argument but until scientists uncover the secrets of storage and retrieval of memory, this debate will not end. However, after analysing the data and research on ‘repressed memory’ and ‘false memory’ positions, we can say that they are probably at least partially correct. The most important points made on both sides about memory is that there is no way of verifying the truth of memories without external corroboration. We can refer to the age-old question: ‘If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?’ and adapt it to suit our purposes: ‘If horrific sexual abuse occurs and there is no one there to witness it, did it really happen?’
Appendices
Appendix 1.
Williams interviewed 129 women who had suffered acts of rape and sexual abuse more than 17 year previously. All of them had been 12 or younger at the time, and 38% had no recollection of the sexual abuse they had suffered. Williams (1994, p.1174) concluded as follows: ‘If, as these findings suggest, having no recall of sexual abuse is a fairly common event, later recovery of memories of sexual abuse by some women should not be surprising.’ In fact 16% of those women who recalled being abused said that there had been periods of time in the past when they could remember the abuse. There was one finding that did not fit the Freud’s repression hypothesis: he would have expected those women who suffered the most severe abuse to show the worst recall, but the opposite is what was actually found.
Appendix 2.
Ceci (1995) asked preschool children to think about a range of real and fictitious but plausible events over a 10-week period. The children found it hard to distinguish between the real and fictitious events, with 58% of them providing detailed stories of fictitious events that they falsely believed had occurred. Psychologists who were experienced in interviewing children watched videotapes of the stories, and could not tell which events were real and which were false.
Appendix 3.
Hyman, Husband and Billing (1995) were able to induce about 25% of their undergraduate participants to falsely ‘recall’ different childhood events: being hospitalised for an ear infection, having a fifth birthday party with a pizza and a clown, spilling punch at a wedding reception, being in the grocery store when sprinklers went off, and being left in a parked car, releasing the parking brake and having the car role into something.
Bibliography
Atkinson, R. & Atkinson, R. & Smith, E. & Bem, D. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996) Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology, Florida USA: Harcourt Brace, 12th Edition
Eysenck, M. & Keane, M. (2000) Cognitive Psychology a Student’s Handbook, USA & Canada: Psychology Press, 4th Edition
Freud, S. (1915). Repression. In Freud’s collected papers (Vol. IV). London: Hogarth
Galotti, K. (1999) Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory, USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2nd Edition
Gross, R. & McIlveen, R. (1997) Cognitive Psychology, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Parkin, A. (1987) Memory and Amnesia, An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell
Course notes