Download 60 Years of Research

According to Dennett:
 Aware1-the ability to talk about a fact,
wish, proposition (P)
 Aware2-behave in a manner that an
observer would claim you were
taking P into account
The Theory of Repressed
Memory
 Triple Threat
 Sheila Krogh-Jespersen
 Alicia Briganti
 Victoria Cox
Outline:
 Repression and Awareness
 Negative Views
 Inhibition
Repression a.k.a. Motivated
Forgetting
 Motivated Non-Learning
 Motivated Overwriting of Memories
 Retrieval Failures
vehicles
According to Dennett:
 Aware1-the ability to talk about a fact,
wish, proposition (P)
 Aware2-behave in a manner that an
observer would claim you were
taking P into account
car
Illustrations:
 Automated Driving/Animals/SelfRegulating Machines
 Sperling’s (1960) T-scope-presents the
difference in perception (aware2) and
verbalization (aware1)
bus
Visual Input:
 Weiskrantz (1980)- lack of awareness1 of the
visual input, yet could still recognize
pictures
 Sakheim et al (1979)-effect of hypnotism
 Sperry (1968) and Gazzaniga(1970)-split
brain awareness
train
Unconscious Processes:







1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Fast, routine information processing
Physiological reflexes
“Slip of the tongue”
“Tics”
Behavior tendencies
Changing behaviors/attitudes
What influences behavior?
airplane
What about Retrieval
Failures?
 “They [memories] are like “responses”
waiting for the right “stimulus” to release
them”
 Free Association and Accuracy Issues
Bicycle
Posthypnotic Amnesia:
 Have awareness2 without awareness1
 Bitterman & Marcuse (1945)-no
memory, yet enhanced GSR
 Obligatory vs. Optional Memory
Performance
motorcycle
“True Amnesia”:
 2/3 of the adult population have no response
posthypnotic amnesia suggestions
to
 Spanos & Bodorik (1977)-about 40- to 60%
of
suggested amnesia subjects could be
broken
 What about the 1/6 of the population who
show “true amnesia”?
boat
Nonrecaller Categories:
 1. Mouths Locked Shut
(conscious)
 2. Lack of Motivation
(conscious)
 3. Distracting Thoughts
(conscious)
 4. “Really Trying”
(????????)
Roller skates
Bowers’ Final Thoughts:
 Post-hypnotic amnesia may not be the
best model for repression
 Does Gordon Bower Believe in
Repression?
moped
WARNING:
 “The concept of
repression has not been
validated with
experimental research
and its use may be
hazardous to the
accurate interpretation of
clinical behavior.”
Fruits
Holmes’ Take on 60 Years of
Research
 Has the role of “critic” at the conference on
“Repression, Dissociation, and the Warding
off of Conflictual Cognitive Contents”
 Claims there is no reliable evidence in
support of repression.
(Holmes, 1974)
Apple
ELEMENTS OF
REPRESSION
1. “Repression is the selective forgetting
of materials that cause the individual
pain”
2. “Repression is not under voluntary
control”
3. “Repressed material is not lost but
instead is stored in the unconscious and
can be returned to consciousness if the
anxiety that is associated with the
memory is removed”
(Freud [1915] 1957)
Kiwi
DIFFERENTIAL RECALL:
PLEASANT vs. UNPLEASANT
EXPERIENCES
 Early claim: unpleasant events are less likely to
be recalled; therefore, they are being repressed
(Jerslid, 1931; Meltzer, 1931; Stagner, 1931)
 Intensity of affect
 Alternative explanation: Reduced recall of
unpleasant experiences is due to a decline in the
affective intensity over time associated with the
experience, rather than to repression.
(Holmes, 1970)
Strawberry
DIARY STUDY
 Measured differential recall and changes in
affect for pleasant and unpleasant experiences.
 Affective intensity of unpleasant experiences
had greater declines than pleasant
experiences, and as a consequence,
unpleasant experiences were less likely to be
recalled.
 Why the decline in intensity of unpleasant
experiences?
Peach
TWO EXPLANATIONS
 The experience may not have been as bad as the
subject thought at the time of the experience, or it did
not result in the severe consequences that were
expected.
 Since people think more about intense experiences
than neutral ones, and repeated exposure results in
more positive attitudes toward the experience,
attention given to negative experiences results in
their becoming less unpleasant and less intense.
Orange
DIFFERENTIAL RECALL:
COMPLETED AND INCOMPLETED
TASKS
 Some tasks completed, some not
 Incompleted tasks = high stress
 Stress = repression
 Evidence for repression?
Cantaloupe
REPRESSING AND
UNCOVERING MEMORIES
 Claim: Repression follows stress,
but repressed material can be
returned to consciousness with
the removal of stress.
(e.g., Zeller, 1950, 1951; Merrill, 1954)
 Alternative explanation:
Decreased recall following stress
could be due to interference rather
than repression.
(Holmes, 1972)
Pear
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
 R-S Scale
(Byrne, Barry, and Nelson, 1963)
 Complete and Incomplete task recall
paradigm and the need for achievement
(Coopersmith, 1960; Weiner, 1965)
 Social desirability and anxiety
(e.g., Davis and Schwartz, 1987; Weinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson, 1979)
Grapes
PERCEPTUAL DEFENSE
 Primary repression
 Stressful vs. non-stressful words
(Eriksen and Pierce, 1968)
Banana
Where do we go from here?
 “Let’s Not Sweep Repression under the
Rug”
(Erdelyi and Goldberg, 1979)
 “Let’s Now Sweep Repression under
the Rug”
(Mischel, 1986 [534])
The Case for Inhibition
Vehicles
Question and Hypothesis
 What mechanisms permit people to limit
awareness of interfering memories?
Executive control mechanisms→
Response-override situations →
Inhibitory processes
(Levy and Anderson 2002)
Car
Evidence of inhibitory
processes
 Two memory situations:
 Need for selection during retrieval
 Need to stop retrieval
Bus
Selective Memory Retrieval
 Inhibitory control might be recruited to
override competition so that a target
trace can be retrieved.
 Demonstrated by the ‘retrieval practice
paradigm’
Train
retrieval
practice
paradigm
*percent items
recalled correctly on
final cued recall test
Airplane
Stopping retrieval: think-nothink
 Subjects studied pairs of weakly related
words
 Recall and say aloud the response word
 Or avoid thinking of the response word
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦
Recall of “no-think” words was impaired
compared to baseline pairs and was
independent of original vs. novel cue.
Anderson & Green 2001
Bicycle
Hmmm…
 Do these results provide a mechanistic
basis for the voluntary form of
repression proposed by Freud?
 Actively inhibited?
 What else could be at work other than
inhibitory processes?
Motorcycle
Kihlstom’s Response
 Repression operates unconsciously on
threatening mental contents.
 Repressed material continues to affect
the person’s experience
 Repressed memories have to be
recoverable
(Kihlstrom 2002)
Boat
Reply from Anderson and
Levy
 Evaluation of Freudian theory no our
goal – but Freud did write about
repression in terms that sometimes
allow for active intentional process.
 After only 1 minute of active
suppression, subjects were up to 10%
worse at recalling these memories
(Anderson & Levy 2002)
Roller Skates
Reply…
 With time and repeated effort, trying to keep
an unwanted memory out of awareness does
render that memory less accessible.
(Anderson & Levy 2002)
Moped
Smith et.al. finds…
 Filler items reduced the recall of critical items
as much as 63% on a free recall test
 Appropriate cues produced nearly complete
recovery on a cued recall test
 Forgetting effect does not appear to involve
inhibition
 Same results for emotional, memorable and
distinctive words