This paper discusses the current state of research into false memories and memory manipulation as well the therapeutic applications of this research. The paper describes studies that demonstrate the susceptibility of memory to change and influence to establish the viability of memory manipulation. Current and proposed applications of memory modification are described through the chronicling of research in the area. The ethical concerns of such research are discussed as well as potential subjects of future research. Utilization of mnemonic elasticity is determined to be a valuable asset that has great potential for present and future interventions.
The Therapeutic Implications of False
Memories and Memory Manipulation
Research has demonstrated the vast implications of false memories for eyewitness testimony and therapeutic recall. However, there is also great potential for positive applications of this research. The plasticity of memories could have significant therapeutic implications. Positive false memories could be created as well as neutralizing traumatic ones. Researchers in cognitive psychology and neuroscience are currently researching these possibilities. This paper will discuss the current state of research on therapeutic memory manipulation.
Literature Review
False Memories
The malleability of memories has long been established through research conducted in a variety of context. The most well known context that individual predisposition for false memory development has been chronicled in is in the realm of eyewitness testimony. However, research into false memories has also focused on its implications in everyday life and in a variety of clinical settings as well. This background research is important beca...
... middle of paper ...
...ampening drugs depend on context and country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 675-681. doi:10.1002/acp.1740
Pitman, R. K., Milad, M. R., Igoe, S. A., Vangel, M. G., Orr, S. P., Tsareva, A., & ... Nader, K. (2011). Systemic mifepristone blocks reconsolidation of cue-conditioned fear; Propranolol prevents this effect. Behavioral Neuroscience, 125(4), 632-638. doi:10.1037/a0024364
Spiers, H., & Bendor, D. (2014). Enhance, Delete, Incept: Manipulating hippocampus-dependent memories. Brain Research Bulletin,
Torregrossa, M., & Taylor, J. (2013). Learning to forget: manipulating extinction and reconsolidation processes to treat addiction. Psychopharmacology, 226(4), 659-672.
van den Hout, M., Eidhof, M., Verboom, J., Littel, M., & Engelhard, I. (2013). Blurring of emotional and non-emotional memories by taxing working memory during recall. Cognition & Emotion,
Roediger III, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cogntion, 21, 803-814.
In Laurence Armand French Ph.D. and Thomas J. Young Ph.D.’s article The False Memory Syndrome: Clinical/Legal Issues for the Prosecution talks about memory recall being an unreliable form of evidence in the Criminal Justice System. French and Young state that hypnosis and lie detector tests are a misconception because “the cognitive interpretations of the emotional/autonomic aspects of the central nervous (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems are not true indicators of reality,” (p. 38).
The false memory and recovered memory literature is marked by controversy. It examines the phenomenon a variety of patients have exhibited: purportedly “losing” memories of trauma, only to recover them later in life (Gavlick, 2001). In these cases, temporary memory loss is attributed to psychological causes (i.e. a traumatic event) rather than known damage to the brain (Gavlick, 2001). While some assert that the creation of false memories through therapeutic practice is a serious concern and founded associations like the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) in the U.S. and the British False Memory Society (BFMS) in order to advocate against psychological malpractice, other researchers contend that the evidence for “false memory syndrome,” or the recovery of untrue memories, is weak (Brewin & Andrews, 1998; Pope, 1996). The debate arose largely in the 1990s, though a consensus in the literature still has not been reached.
False memories being created is obvious through many different ways, such as eye-witness testimonies and past experiments that were conducted, however repression is an issue that has many baffled. There seems to be little evidence on the factual basis of repressed memories, and many argue that it does not exist. The evidence for repression in laboratories is slowly emerging, but not as rapidly as the evidence for false memories. It has been hard to clinically experiment with repressed memories because most memories are unable to be examined during the actual event to corroborate stories. Experimenters are discovering new ways to eliminate this barrier by creating memories within the experiment’s initial phase. This is important for examining the creation of false memories during the study phase. This research study will explore the differences between recovered memories and false memories through research and experiments. Other terms and closely related terms will be discussed, while examining any differences, in relation to repressed memories. The possibility of decoding an actual difference between recovered memories and false memories, through biological techniques. Because false memories can be created, examining these creations in a laboratory setting can shed light on facts overlooked. Exploring these issues will also help with the development of better therapeutic techniques for therapists in dealing with memories. This can lead to an easier process for patients and therapists if they must go through the legal system in relation to an uncovered memory.
Psychological research shows, a witness's memory of details during the commission of a crime, has a high probability of containing significant errors. In response to these findings, the question is should witness testimony still be permissible in a court of law? Obviously, the answer to this question is an important one and is debatable. Consequently, what we know is many innocent people go to jail due to eyewitness misidentification. Therefore, it is imperative that all defense attorneys thoroughly evaluate the validity of eyewitness recollection events. Any defense attorney who does anything less is ignoring the findings of the psychological community and its’ study of how the brain functions. As a result, an intense analysis of an
Sight cues came as no surprise to me, as I had assumed since the start that those would be the most prevalent. What was surprising to me was that I had a memory cued by a memory. Although I did not think it impossible, I had assumed that such a cue would not happen to me. I also noted the pattern of influence on my emotional state. Five memories influenced me positively, one negatively, and six did not influence me at all. The emotional content of the memories lined up about the same as the influence it had on my emotional state. The only part that came as a surprise to me was that some of my memories had no emotional content. I had assumed that all of the memories I would write down would have emotion to them and influence my emotion in some way. All of the memories I recorded were dealing with unusual events in my life, which suggests there is no correlation between my emotion and the unusualness of the memory. I found this interesting, as I thought the purpose of most of my involuntary memories would be of things I do often and that is why they would be remembered out of the blue. Based on what I recorded, the purpose of my involuntary memories seems to be to make sure I remember things I do not think about that
False memories can be formed in many ways. Prior knowledge has been proven to impact perception. A study done by Hastorf and Cantril in 1954 explains this. They had two groups watch a game versus Princeton and Dartmouth and had participants count penalties. On average, the Dartmouth fans counted an equal amount of penalties while the Princeton fans claimed that Dartmouth had twice as many penalties. These results are consistent with a previous conception that Dartmouth fans thought the game was rough but reasonable and the Princeton fans had a previous conception that Dartmouth plays unreasonable (Hunt, 2004). People perceive and encode events differently, so stored memories can be influenced by intervening events and conditions during retrieval can lead to false memories (Roediger, 2002).
Research has shown that even though information may be committed to memory, what is retrieved can be altered during the encoding process. It has been said that, “the recollection of memory can be manipulated and or large aspects of the event can be confabulated.” (Cain,1997). Moreover, the recollection of past experiences can negatively affect future decisions, opinions, and more significant outcomes such as an eyewitness. This type of impact is due to something called, “false memories.” False memories can be defined as “an recollection of an event that never actually occurred.” False memories are said to be normal occurrences and have little impact on lives. However, Loftus and Palmer argue something different. In 1974, Loftus and Palmer conducted an experiment to test out the theory behind “false memories.” Their aim was to show that language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory. People in this experiment were asked to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different ways of questioning. Loftus and Palmer asked questions in regards to vehicle speed because typically that is something that most people are bad at estimating. Therefore these people would be more vulnerable and open to suggestions. The procedure of this experiment involved participants watching a video of cars. Participants were asked what they had seen in regards to how that car came in contact with the other car. Loftus and Palmer used words like “crashed, collided, hit, and smashed.” Their findings concluded that the estimated speed was affected by the verb used to describe the cars’ contact with one another. It seem as if participants saw that the verbs as clues of the speed the cars were going. Loftus and Palmer also came to the conclusion that there could only be two reasons for their findings. Those reasons were Response- bias factors or the fact that the memory representation is alter.
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W., & Nakash-Dura, M. (2001). The Credibility of Children’s Testimony: Can Children Control the Accuracy of Their Memory Reports?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 79, 405-437.
Loftus’s work and the studies that followed have demonstrated that an individual’s memory of an event can easily be distorted by post-event information, which is provided through questions that the researcher or police officer in case of a real life crime might ask the witness. But not only researchers’ questions have been found to distort memory. Several studies have indicated that when witnesses discuss an event together they can mistakenly incorporate elements of each other’s memories into their own memories (e.g., Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006). ...
There have been several experiments done to try to prove that false memories can indeed be formed. One experiment, for example, was tried with a 14-year-old boy. The boy was told four memories, one of which was falsely constructed but similar to that of a true memory. The memories that were suggested took place when the boy was about 10 years younger. As the false memory was retold to him, he was asked to explain in detail what he had remembered from that event. Surprisingly, he claimed to remember the event, even though it was falsely created by the interviewer and his brother, and went on to explain what he remember to have happened, details and all. After collecting everything he had said about the four memories, he was told that one of the suggested memories was made-up and he was asked to guess which one it may have been. When he couldn’t decide which one it was, he was told that it was in fact the memory of getting lost in a store. He was confused and had trouble believing the truth.
Sakaki, M., Kuhbandner, C., Mather, M., & Pekrun, R. (2014). Memory suppression can help people 'unlearn' behavioral responses—But only for nonemotional memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 136-141.
One of the most interesting phenomenon related to memory is memory distortions. One way in which they occur is through suggestibility, where people begin to remember false experiences if researchers suggested to them that they experienced it (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012). In real-life situations, this is caused in part by memory being constructive “in that prior experiences affects how we recall things and what we actually recall from memory” (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012). People’s prior experiences, including their bias and expectations, may influence how they experience false memory formations; the formation of false memories is also affected by several possible factors, one of which may be sleep deprivation (Frenda, Patihis, Loftus,
Eyewitnesses of an event, whether it is traumatic or not, can create false memories and insist a specific event happened when in reality, it did not happen. Their memories are vulnerable to an assortment of errors in remembering precise details and their memories can be manipulated, causing a distorted occurrence that on no occasion happened. After reading three research papers on memory blindness with eyewitnesses, it has been proven that eyewitness accounts are not completely accurate and also shows how attributions, choice blindness, and certain circumstances play a role when they are asked to recall the event.
Loftus has focused the bulk of her career on both the psychological and legal aspects of distorted or false memories, and her work demonstrates the facility with which memories and beliefs can be molded. Her findings regarding the strength of eyewitness testimony and repressed traumatic memories have helped change the notion that such testimony is absolutely reliable (Zagorski, N., 2005).”