What Do People Believe About Memory? Implications for the Science and Pseudoscience of Clinical Practice

An exploration of Italian laypeople's belief in how human memory works

We present the first study to measure the beliefs held by Italian laypeople about how human memory works, using a newly developed tool: the Italian Memory Belief Questionnaire (IMBQ). Research conducted in other countries has demonstrated that beliefs about memory vary widely between different professional and non-professional groups, indicating that limitations exist regarding the dissemination of empirically researched scientific knowledge. To ascertain what Italian people understand about memory-related topics, including eyewitness testimony, repression of traumatic memories and factors influencing memory recall, 301 native Italian participants completed the IMBQ in Study 1. In Study 2, 346 additional participants completed the IMBQ, alongside various additional measures, to examine the construct validity of our new instrument and investigate socio-demographic predictors of memory beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis in Study 1 identified three distinct belief factors that were present in the dataset: eyewitness and memory reliability, trauma and remembering and aspects that improve remembering. Study 2 partially confirmed this factor structure and found IMBQ scores to correlate with existing memory belief questionnaires. Correlations were also found between the IMBQ subscales and measures of fantasy proneness, but not dissociation. In both studies, many Italian laypeople strongly endorsed the notion that controversial topics (i.e., repression) are possible. Contrastingly, Italian laypeople do appear to understand the conceivable inaccuracies of memory in eyewitness settings. Sex, age and education were shown to predict beliefs about memory. Findings are discussed in relation to the importance of addressing misinformation about memory, especially in clinical and forensic settings.

False memories in forensic psychology: do cognition and brain activity tell the same story?

One of the most important problems in forensic psychology is the impossibility of reliably discriminating between true and false memories when the only prosecution evidence comes from the memory of a witness or a victim. Unfortunately, both children and adults can be persuaded that they have been victims of past criminal acts, usually of a sexual nature. In adults, suggestion often occurs in the context of suggestive therapies based on the belief that traumatic events are repressed, while children come to believe and report events that never occurred as a result of repeated suggestive questioning. Cognitive Researchers have designed false memory paradigms (i.e., misinformation effect, Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm, event implantation paradigm) to first form false memories and then determine whether it is possible to reliably differentiate between false and true memories. In the present study, we review the contribution of cognitive research to the formation of false memories and the neuropsychological approaches aimed to discriminate between true and false memories. Based on these results, we analyze the applicability of the cognitive and neuropsychological evidence to the forensic setting.

When is memory more reliable? Scientific findings, theories, and myths

The question of whether human memory is reliable generated extensive research. Memory is open to reconstruction and false retrieval of unpresented information or unexperienced events. These can create problems in judgments and decisions that rely on memory accuracy. In the case of eyewitness testimony, these problems can result in injustice. Then again, memory is also reliable enough. Information acquisition, processing, and retrieval capacity of our memory made it possible to survive the course of evolution. Our memory also makes it possible to continue our daily lives, most of the time without major problems. In the present review, we suggest that the right question to ask may not be whether memory is reliable, but rather to ask when and under what circumstances memory is more reliable. The review's educational aim is to identify the conditions under which memory is more versus less reliable, and its theoretical aim is to discuss memory reliability. We reviewed the literature on situational, emotional, social, and individual difference variables that affect memory reliability, identified the conditions under which memory is more versus less reliable, summarized these outcomes as easy-to-reach items, and discussed them in the light of major theories. Our discussion also touched upon the differentiation of societal myths about the reliability of memory from scientific findings, since believing in memory myths can also affect the reliability of memory. Awareness of the specific circumstances under which memory is more reliable can lead to the consideration of how much memory can be trusted under those specific circumstances.

False Memory Researchers Misunderstand Repression, Dissociation and Freud

Various authors have argued that dissociative amnesia is a synonym for repressed memories, recovered memories are almost always false memories, and dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder are not valid disorders. These authors commit numerous errors of logic and scholarship; they misunderstand Freud's thinking about childhood sexual abuse, dissociation and repression and blame both Freudian repression theory and Freudian therapists for an epidemic of false memories. In fact, however, Freudian repression theory is based on the assumption that the childhood sexual abuse never happened. Extreme skeptics about dissociative amnesia do not understand they are actually in agreement with Freudian repression theory. These errors and other failures of logic and scholarship are analyzed and critiqued in the present paper.

Impact on the legal system of the generalizability crisis in psychology

Overgeneralizations by psychologists of the research evidence on memory and eyewitness testimony, such as "memory decays with time" or "memories are fluid and malleable," are beginning to appear in legal judgements and guidance documents, accompanied by unwarranted disparagement of lay beliefs about memory. These overgeneralizations could have significant adverse consequences for the conduct of civil and criminal law.

Tilting at Windmills: Why Attacks on Repression Are Misguided

In the November 2019 issue of Perspectives, Otgaar et al. argued that the "memory wars" persist and that "the controversial issue of repressed memories is alive and well and may even be on the rise" (p. 1072). Their thesis overlooked the well-established consensus that recovered memories of trauma may be genuine, false, or a mixture of the two and instead focused on a disputed mechanism: unconscious repression. A formal cocitation analysis identified the major publications mentioning repressed memories, but none endorsed a theory of unconscious repression. Studies of beliefs about repressed memories by the general public and other groups do not support Otgaar et al.'s thesis either because these studies did not adequately assess the key ideas defining the theory of repression. Clinical evidence is consistent with recovered memories occurring in many different forms of therapy, including ones that do not use suggestive techniques or rely on the concept of repression. Thus, Otgaar et al. have proposed the existence of a problem for which little objective evidence can be found. Continuing theoretical uncertainties about the mechanisms responsible for forgetting are less important than the general recognition since the 1990s that suggestive therapy and attempts to exhume memories are hazardous and generally inappropriate.

Reports of Recovered Memories in Therapy in Undergraduate Students

Psychologists have debated the wisdom of recovering traumatic memories in therapy that were previously unknown to the client, with some concerns over accuracy and memory distortions. The current study surveyed a sample of 576 undergraduates in the south of the United States. Of 188 who reported attending therapy or counselling, 8% reported coming to remember memories of abuse, without any prior recollection of that abuse before therapy. Of those who reported recovered memories, 60% cut off contact with some of their family. Within those who received therapy, those who had a therapist discuss the possibility of repressed memory were 28.6 times more likely to report recovered memories, compared to those who received therapy without such discussion. These findings mirror a previous survey of US adults and suggest attempts to recover repressed memories in therapy may continue in the forthcoming generation of adults.

The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma

Can purely psychological trauma lead to a complete blockage of autobiographical memories? This long-standing question about the existence of repressed memories has been at the heart of one of the most heated debates in modern psychology. These so-called memory wars originated in the 1990s, and many scholars have assumed that they are over. We demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect and that the controversial issue of repressed memories is alive and well and may even be on the rise. We review converging research and data from legal cases indicating that the topic of repressed memories remains active in clinical, legal, and academic settings. We show that the belief in repressed memories occurs on a nontrivial scale (58%) and appears to have increased among clinical psychologists since the 1990s. We also demonstrate that the scientifically controversial concept of dissociative amnesia, which we argue is a substitute term for memory repression, has gained in popularity. Finally, we review work on the adverse side effects of certain psychotherapeutic techniques, some of which may be linked to the recovery of repressed memories. The memory wars have not vanished. They have continued to endure and contribute to potentially damaging consequences in clinical, legal, and academic contexts.

Reports of recovered memories of childhood abuse in therapy in France

Recovered memories of abuse in therapy are especially controversial if the clients were not aware they were abused before therapy. In the past, such memory recovery has led to legal action, as well as a debate about whether such memories might be repressed, forgotten, or false memories. More than two decades after the height of the controversy, it is unclear to what degree such memories are still recovered today, and to what extent it occurs in France. In our French survey of 1312 participants (M_age = 33; 53% female), 551 reported having done therapy at some point. Of that 551, 33 (6%) indicated they had recovered memories of abuse in therapy that they did not know about before therapy. Sexual abuse was the most commonly reported type that was recovered in therapy (79%). As in past research, discussing the possibility of repressed memories with therapists was associated with reports of recovered memories of abuse. Surprisingly, memory recovery occurred just as much in behavioural and cognitive therapies as it did in therapies focused on trauma. We found recovered memories in a proportion of clients who began therapy recently. Recovered memories in therapy appears to be an ongoing concern in France.

Testing Claims of Crime-Related Amnesia

Many violent offenders report amnesia for their crime. Although this type of memory loss is possible, there are reasons to assume that many claims of crime-related amnesia are feigned. This article describes ways to evaluate the genuineness of crime-related amnesia. A recent case is described in which several of these strategies yielded evidence for feigned crime-related amnesia.

Hypnosis Attitudes: Treatment Effects and Associations With Symptoms in Individuals With Cancer

Attitudes about hypnosis are associated with hypnotic responsiveness. However, little is known about how hypnosis attitudes change with treatment and if those changes are associated with better outcomes. This study examined whether an intervention based on the Valencia Model of Waking Hypnosis combined with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy changed attitudes about hypnosis in a sample of patients with a history of cancer. The results indicated that the intervention improved attitudes toward hypnosis, relative to a control intervention, and the improvements remained stable at 3-month follow-up. Analyses also showed that changes in some attitudes were associated with treatment-related improvements. The findings are consistent with the idea that attitudes about hypnosis play a role in hypnosis treatment outcome, supporting the importance of addressing such beliefs at the onset of and throughout treatment.