The Repressed Debate Over Repressed Memories Returns

Repressed memories have been controversial since they were first mentioned by Freud in 1896. Now you probably hear more about them on crime procedurals than anywhere else. But where do contemporary psychologists stand on this topic?

A group of researchers from the University of California Irvine, Penn State, and Emory University sought to examine prevalent attitudes about repressed memories and how those attitudes have changed, or not, over the past twenty years. The results of their efforts are published in the journal Psychological Science.

In the early 1990s, instances of repressed memories began popping up, sparking debate over whether or not they represented a legitimate psychological phenomenon. These “memory wars” seem to have abated as of late, but this study shows that opinions are still split.

In order to examine repressed memories perspectives, the researchers drafted a questionnaire for a self-selected group of 1,376 participants, which included psychological researchers and clinicians, undergraduates, and the general public. For the purposes of the study, repressed memories were defined as:

“something . . . that is so shocking that the mind grabs hold of the memory and pushes it underground, into some inaccessible corner of the unconscious. There it sleeps for years, or even decades, or even forever isolated from the rest of mental life. Then, one day, it may rise up and emerge into consciousness”

What they found indicated that while skepticism was on the rise from the early 1990s, there was a notable split in opinion between practitioners and researchers in the field.

When asked whether they agreed with the statement “traumatic memories are often repressed,” barely 30 percent of those involved with psychological research said they agreed. By contrast, around 60 percent of the remaining participants, including clinicians, agreed. When asked to respond to the statement “repressed memories can be retrieved in therapy accurately,” a similar split occurred, with 75 percent of researchers disagreeing and 43 percent of everyone else agreeing.

Why is a survey like this important? According to the researchers, the reasons are twofold. First, beliefs affect practice. A therapist who believes in repressed memories and their retrieval will approach a patient differently than one who does not. Second, beyond the world of clinical practice, how we perceive repressed memories can affect judicial activities.

How much influence the human brain and mind should have over legal proceedings is a question without easy answers. Layering on a controversial subject like repressed memories adds another kink in this seemingly intractable discussion. Should they or should they not be valued in the courtroom? If they should, what judicial value do they have? If they shouldn't, is it cruel and dismissive to ignore them?

Questions like these are not merely academic. In 2005, priest Paul Shanley was convicted of a raping young boy, who said his memories of the crime only popped up years later. Shanley’s 2007 attempt to challenge his conviction was based on the unreliability of those repressed memories, an attempt that failed in 2010 when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts eventually upheld the original outcome.

It wasn’t the researchers’ intention in this piece to answer grandiose questions or say whether or not repressed memories were used appropriately in cases like Shanley's. Save that for another day and another project. What we can say is that “the memory wars are not over” and the implications of that may have effects beyond the psychological realm.

@heyiamlex