Recovered Memory Review Annotated Bibliography

 Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). False memories of childhood abuse. Psychologist, 48–52. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-ogl1.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123687930&site=ehost-live

Brewin and Andrews review previous literature to investigate whether therapists are to blame for false memories of child abuse. In one study, 15 per cent of participants fully accept a false memory and discusses how false memory implantation works. The repression memory hypothesis is critiqued as not having enough empirical evidence to support its validity but nonetheless scientifically plausible, especially in light of dissociative amnesia. Based on 11 surveys since 1994, therapists have a low 17 per cent belief in the validity of recovered repressed memories but 43 per cent of clinical practitioners were reported to believe that recovered memories were accurate sometimes. In short, clinicians are not as informed as they should be in terms of latest psychological knowledge. Therapists were more likely to not believe in the possibility of accurate repressed memory retrieval. Repressed memory recover should not be accepted as true at face value.

Colangelo, J. J. (2009). The Recovered Memory Controversy: A Representative Case Study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538710802584601

Contributing to the controversial debate on recovered memories, Colangelo discusses the Freudian theory of memory repression which is essentially being used by the proponents that suggest recovered memories are often true. Studies cited in the article suggest that interference is more likely than actual memory repression. However, a critic of that finding is cited as mentioning that it is difficult to falsify Freud’s theory of repression as much of what Freud suggested to be influenced by repressed memories are impossible to study in an experimental setting because it would be unethical. An alternative to repression is dissociation. Dissociation here means the memory encoded is not erased by stored in a different stream of consciousness but not consciously known about. Very similar to repressed how repressed memories are stored theoretically. This eventually to multiple forms of dissociation. Two “distinct types” are detachment and compartmentalization. A case study examined and with reference to a few previous studies, the author concludes that it is possible for people to recover memories once forgotten with about a 60 per cent veracity rate. The mechanism behind forgetting memories, however, is not understood here; another study I cite does research the mechanism, however.

Corsiglia McMahon & Allard. (2018). Child Sexual Abuse Repressed Memories. Retrieved from https://childmolestationattorneys.com/repressed-memories-child-sex-abuse/

This website page hosted by “Attorneys for Child Molestation Victims” explains why childhood sexual abuse may cause repressed memories to be retrieved as an adult many years after the actual abuse occurred. The page suggests that research has proven that traumatic experiences trigger a defense mechanism within the brain to block memories. Further, the page suggests that even if you have “only the vaguest memory of the incident”, that you should come forward to report the incident to the police.

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 (0956-7976), 20(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02247.x

Geraerts et al., attempt to remedy the lack of research done in how recovered memories come to be. According to previous research, recovered memories can be false or partly false but not always by suggestive therapy. The “forgot it all along” (FIA) phenomenon and “Deese-Roediger-McDermott false-memory task” test are tested hypotheses in this article. In a double dissociation study, the FIA task had significantly more false memory reports. Participants who spontaneously recovered memories were no more likely to have a false recall.

McNally, R. J. (2017). False Memories in the Laboratory and in Life: Commentary on Brewin and Andrews (2016). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3268

In rebuttal to Brewin and Andrews’ article, McNally provides relevant citations that may be referenced in writing the paper. There are about five mentioned factors that contribute to false recovered memories. Firstly, a person needs to have a belief in a repressed memory of, say, sexual abuse, but the belief alone is not enough. A retrieval cue or method must be accredited for recalling the memory. Psychotherapy or a clinician may increase the chances of recovering false memories. “Magical ideation and absorption” increase the likelihood of false memories as well as dissociation.

McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). A New Solution to the Recovered Memory Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01112.x

McNally and Geraerts explore a new solution to the recovered memory debate and the different interpretations that have been previously formed to explain why recovered memories of child sexual abuse was found to be false. These interpretations and the solution proposed by McNally and Geraerts will be examined and compared to various articles and their findings. One interpretation suggests that traumatic events can be repressed by the brain but is recovered years later. The false memory interpretation suggests that traumatic events are not encoded properly within the brain, however the two authors support the idea that empirical evidence does not support this interpretation. McNally and Geraerts then suggest a third interpretation that revolves around the idea that there is a lack of a memory retrieval cue in recovering the sexual abuse one experienced as a child and it is through recollective experiences that one recovers memories, but clinicians and psychotherapists can recover a patient’s memory in a suggestive way—thus misleading and causing one to think they remember something they had not gone through.

Sharman, S.J., & Scorbia, A. (2009). Imagination equally influences false memories of high and low plausibility events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 813. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1515

Sharman and Scoboria touch on the effects of event plausibility on participants’ false memories. Techniques and methods one can use to implant false memories of events are discussed, but what the authors want to further research is whether plausibility influences recovered memories. Previous experiments and their conclusions similar to the one the authors’ experiment are discussed. The experiment used students from an Australian university as their participants. Questionnaires were mainly used to gather various information such as how clearly the participants can clearly visualize their childhood memories and certain events such as losing a toy or witnessing ghosts or demons. The results are compared to previous research. The authors’ findings contrast what they had read and discussed prior to the experiment. Participants had clearer and “more complete memories” of imagined and highly plausible events. Imagination inflation was shown regardless of event plausibility. By questioning participants on highly plausible event, participants generated sensory details that were memory fragments of “genuine” experiences. Event plausibility affected memory but not confidence ratings. Some of the results were consistent with literature reviews such as that memory ratings increased confidence ratings. Further, event plausibility does not affect imagination inflation; participants had clearer memories for highly plausible events. Imagined memories are confidently held, regardless of plausibility.

As of now, the conclusion should be akin to the idea that memories can be recovered but they may be done so with a low veracity rate. Certain techniques and mechanisms behind the repression of memories and their recovery will be discussed. The main idea is to discuss what the common findings are from a decent sample size of articles on the topic of repressed memories and their experiments, literature reviews, or books. Repressed memories are usually defined as traumatic memory that is difficult memory to remember. Other interpretations as to how memories are lost will be included as well.

Community within Modernity

Modern society has often been credited with an emphasis on the individual rather than the community. This emphasis on the individual has caused worry and speculation that too much individualism will fragment and erode community. So, the modern challenge then becomes to find a way to a synthesis of both community and individualism by having communities without the establishment of unequal power hierarchies. This also poses a question of whether individualism and community are essential to understanding modernity. Communities and individuals, because they exist within relation to one another, are drawn into conflict. Most notably, there are conflicts between communities of peoples fighting for their self-interests. This starts with the Neolithic era producing men with leisure and can produce new ideas through the medium of language. One of the most notable examples of communities being drawn into conflict is noted within The Revolution within the Thirteen Colonies which featured different communities of people coming together to secede from the Crown. After The Revolution, there is a fragmentation of community again as people begin to care more for pluralistic, ethnic, and interest-based ideas and representation. While this is not so much focused on the individual and individualism, communities are formed by individuals with similar interests.

To begin, individualism and individuality will refer to the definition given by Crittenden (1992); the individualism is

“constituted by individuals whose goal is to fulfill private ends… whose principal characteristic is the possession of individual rights that have priority over societal needs.”

The individual, too, may alter the interests of a community or form new communities of people. In contrast, the community is defined as a general will or public interest of groups of people (e.g., sex, gender, class, nationality, and profession). The imagined community is similar in that there is a common interest, but many of the individuals within the community will never meet yet will acknowledge the community’s members whenever given the opportunity (Anderson, 2016, pg 6). These imagined communities may overlap with communities but also include communities revolving around ideas or abstracts such as music genres, bands, literature, artists, art, and the likes. One such community of people are the English.

            Englishmen, as Gordon S. Wood (1993) writes, during the eighteenth century were known to be unruly subjects but the English subject used the king as a “common tie” among other English subjects. The king served as the head of family and his children were all those who pledged allegiance to him, thus forming a community— “monarchial society”— among the English. The Englishmen and others in the Thirteen Colonies would grow tired of being under English rule and rebel to form a new community of Americans. Here, there is conflict between two communities of peoples. Those who wanted to be independent from the king and instill democratic-republican values in a new nation instead of continuing a sort of aristocratic and monarchial society. The common tie among the Americans in their newfound country is difficult to establish. The common tie can be the country for which it stands and the ability to purse life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all her citizens. This comes into conflict with what the king had wanted: complete dependency of the colonists on the crown. Individuals with their intended interests joined their factions and communities to either benefit from a community that wanted for more equality within its ranks or a community that preferred inequality and dependency on the crown. This presented an example of the modern dilemma: conflict between individualism, community, and equality.

            After the American Revolution, what remnants of the aristocracy had been done away with, communities and individuals were then able to pursue their self-interests and independency if they felt like doing so. This was a radical change from the monarchial society, as Gordon S. Wood (1993) writes, the making of every man to be independent could not be “more radical” and The Revolution was itself a revolt against dependency. For, the previous monarchial society depended on patrons and clients who were all subordinate to the king. The unruly English (and others) no long wanted to be subservient, for as Jefferson put it, “dependence begets subservience” (Wood, 1993, pg. 179) The English preferred instead to be independent peoples, meaning people who owned property and could live “of themselves” (Wood, 1993, pg. 179) Servants, then, are those who cannot live independently. Two communities had to have clashed for both the accessibility to independency and equal rights.

            Further, by extending equal rights and equal opportunity among all people within the then-new founded America, a new community a new and vast community was formed: the American people. This community, composed of by individuals, had their own self-interests and new opportunities afforded unto them to take. For instance, government positions were no longer accessible only to English aristocrats. Luxury goods were increasingly being imported for the consumption by all those who could afford them. In other words, what was only accessible to the aristocratic class under monarchial society was now accessible to those with means instead of class or of certain communities. Equality was won in The Revolution. Not total Equality was won in all her forms, but more equality than was available previously. Community and individual interests, however, became much stronger and arguably fractured the broad community of the American people. There was a turning point in American history that caused the “very staple” of American politics and that is “pluralistic, ethnic, interest-group politics” (Wood, 1993, pg. 245). Pluralistic representation became the norm. Communities would vie for political power and people would not trust those who were much different than themselves to represent them in government. This is a fragmentation of society into smaller communities, but the individual still shares common ties and interests with communities. That is, the individual is not yet separate from the community despite an individual’s self-interest, the self-interest aligns with communities of people. Individualism will also fall under a community’s interest. In this sense, for every interest, there is a community. The community of women during The Revolution, for example, comprised of female individuals and their role in supporting their statesmen.

            During The Revolution, public affairs were for men and the domestic affairs were left for women. It is during the boycotts against English goods did women have an increasingly important role of not purchasing English goods and making sure their husbands did not either. Women were given an opportunity to “share in the honor” of the country and be a patriotic force behind The Revolution (Norton, 1996, pg. 167) by producing goods from their jennies, defending sieged towns, providing intelligence networks, and the likes; roles afforded to women had then been raised in status and importance around this time. For, communities of women came together into one community in the interest of defeating the British and inevitably proved their patriotism by action. Equality here was extended unto women to allow them to take part in supporting their countrymen but were not given the same equal rights as man. Nonetheless, some equality and honor were won by women in. Like the broad then-new community of American people, there was a broad community of women formed; however, there were also fragmentations into ethnic and interest-based communities prompted by collections of individuals sharing a general will. A partial cause as to why these fragmentations exist is as Condorcet (1979) writes, agriculture and the birth of the Neolithic era allowed a surplus in food and

                        “If this surplus was absolute, it gave rise to new needs; but if it existed only in one commodity and at the same time there was a scarcity of another, this state of affairs naturally suggested the idea of exchange, and from then onwards, moral relations grew in number and increased in complexity. A life that was less hazardous and more leisured gave opportunities for meditation or, at least, for sustained observation.”

            Observation and the exchange of ideas of ideas allowed for people to divide into more communities. Previous to the Neolithic era, man did not have time for observation to where new ideas and communities revolving ideas could form. If we assume tribes are made up of a small number of individuals, then the amount of communities available is smaller than the amount enabled by a large nation-state like the Thirteen Colonies. The Progress of the Human Mind is one that involves the fragmentation of larger communities as ideas spread and individuals gather to meet their interest-based needs. Modernity is where we find ourselves in the progress made so far; tensions between the individual, community, and equality have found themselves at the forefront of the era’s defining traits as we look at the numerous amounts of communities (imagined or not), factions, and ideologies due to the agricultural revolution. The Revolution in the Thirteen Colonies is one example of communities forming and coming apart.

            To sum, to understand American modernity, the conflict between individualism, community, and equality is necessary. Communities form, split, and conjoin to meet the interest of people and when equality is afforded to communities of people, different roles and interests may be pursued. Once the ability to pursue something new occurs, another community is spawned. The Revolution, in this case, spurred the modern problem and tension between individual, community, and equality. Monarchial society was fought against and democracy took its place because it was in the interest of the American communities. This is where progress has taken us since the Neolithic era.  

References

Anderson, B. (2016). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Condorcet, J. D. (1979). Sketch for a historical picture of the progress of the human mind. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press.

Crittenden, J. (1992). Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self. New York: Oxford University Press.

Norton, M. B. (1996). Libertys daughters: The revolutionary experience of American women, 1750-1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wood, G. S. (1993). Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.

             Author unknown - Brown, Gerard Baldwin (1910). The arts and crafts of our Teutonic forefathers. London & Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, plate III. Digitized by the Internet Archive, available from https://archive.org/details/artscraftsofourt00brow. (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Jalo using CommonsHelper.)