1
Question Six: A large body of research demonstrates that memory is fallible and liable to be
distorted under some conditions. People sometimes fail to recall events that they really
experienced, and falsely recall events that they did not. Critically evaluate the research
evidence for the notion that traumatic memories can be unconsciously repressed and later
recovered in therapy and use it to answer the question: Should traumatic memories
recovered during therapy be trusted?
2
Annotated Bibliography
Costanzi, M., Cianfanelli, B., Santirocchi, A., Lasaponara, S., Spataro, P., Rossi-Arnaud, C. &
Cestari, V. (2021). Forgetting Unwanted Memories: Active Forgetting and Implications for the
Development of Psychological Disorders. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 11(4), 241-252.
https://doi.org//10.3390/jpm11040241
In their 2021 meta-analysis, Costanzi et al brought together biological and cognitive studies to
explain the active neurological processes that suppress traumatic memories. The review described
cognitive mechanisms behind incidental and intentional forgetting of emotional memories. It linked
deficits in memory regulation to the onset of psychopathological disorders. Further, it found that
memory forgetting and recall processes differed by psychopathology (depression, posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or schizophrenia). Importantly, the
review described neurobiological pathways and neurotransmitters involved in active forgetting.
The authors acknowledged weaknesses of this review, including its use of studies with small
participant numbers and no control groups. Plus, it skirted the edges of vast areas of research still to
be completed, including complex cross-disciplinary work at the intersection of cognitive and
biological science. Its strengths included its insights into cognitive and biological hallmarks for PTSD,
depression, schizophrenia and OCD. Further, the review suggested avenues of research to improve
therapeutic treatments. By explaining how the brain actively forgets, and sometimes recalls,
traumatic memories, neurobiological research may also ultimately provide a circuit-breaker for the
contentious debate on repressed memories. This article deserves inclusion for its insights into the
future directions of research into repressed traumatic memories.
3
Khan S. & Haque S. (2021). Autobiographical memory impairment among Rohingya refugee
people: roles of direct and indirect trauma exposures and PTSD symptom severity.
Cognition and Emotion, 35(8), 1573-1587, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2021.19900184
Khan and Haque’s study researched effects on autobiographical memory (AM) of resettlement time,
exposure to direct or indirect trauma, and PTSD in adult Rohingya refugees exposed to trauma. They
found accounts of direct trauma were likely to be more specific than those of indirect trauma,
supporting finding by Crespo & Fernandez-Lansac (2016) and others. However, more investigation is
required to reconcile this with conflicting research finding traumatic memories to be non-specific.
Importantly, the authors found that participants in Malaysia (n=50) whose median resettlement time
was 7.66 years, recalled more specific traumatic memories than those in Bangladesh (n=50) with a
median resettlement time of 10.44 months. They postulated that specific traumatic memory recall
improved in refugees who had repeatedly articulated their traumatic AMs to substantiate claims for
refuge. A cross-sectional study of traumatic recall over time could supply further evidence. Further,
because participants completed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) assessments, a cross-sectional
study could have whether repeatedly recalling traumatic memories affected PTSD symptoms.
This study found a correlation between higher PTSD-8 scale scores and recall of more non-specific
AMs, supporting research linking PTSD with AM impairment. However, participants’ PTSD-8 scores
were not validated, nor was a non-traumatised control group included.
This study aids my understanding of why individuals’ ability to recall traumatic memories may vary,
including due to PTSD and memory rehearsal.
4
Knafo, D. (2009). Freud’s memory erased, Psychoanalytic Psychology. 26(2), 171-190,
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015557
In her 2009 narrative review, Knafo argued that Sigmund Freud’s seminal work on memory remained
relevant to modern scientific research. The review focussed on areas of ongoing scientific dispute
including the recall of repressed memories. Knafo found that neuroscience had validated a number
of Freud’s findings on repressed memories, including his concepts around repression of memories as
a defensive mechanism and delayed recall of traumatic memories.
Weaknesses of this review included Knafo’s intellectual bias towards validating Freud’s legacy. Also,
recent cognitive and neuroscientific studies into issues including active forgetting and posttraumatic
stress disorder have partially superseded her findings. While her article lacked a formal structure,
making reader navigation complex, it hit the high notes of psychological and neurological research
into traumatic memory repression conducted between the 1970s and 2000s, including during the
1990’s heated debate on the validity of repressed memories. It supplied a useful thematic review of
scientific research into causes and symptoms of repressed traumatic memories, how these could be
distorted or induced, and how psychological practitioners may sometimes be able to discern false
memories from true. This foundational knowledge will complement and inform my analysis of recent
studies on the recall of traumatic memories.
5
Muschalla, B., & Schönborn, F. (2021). Induction of false beliefs and false memories in laboratory
studies – A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychology, 28(5), 1194-1209.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2567
Muschalla and Schönborn aimed to educate psychological practitioners about the likelihood of
inducing false memories or false beliefs through psychological treatments, with resulting potential
for personal and societal harm. This meta-analysis reviewed 59 studies and two qualitative sources
on false memory or false belief in psychological treatment contexts. The authors found that
suggestive statements and either free or guided imagery induced false beliefs or memories in
20%-50% of research participants. That figure exceeded 50% for dream interpretation or hypnosis.
They concluded that ‘memory work’ carried an inherent risk of inducing false memories or false
beliefs, but that aware practitioners could mitigate the risk through carefully designed and
implemented interventions.
A limitation of the review was that the underlying studies applied varying methodologies to review
multiple types of psychological treatments. This resulted in a wide spread of statistical data.
However, the broad range of psychological treatments reviewed was also a key strength, as it aided
my understanding of diverse interventions that could potentially induce false memories, and
techniques to avoid this. This review deserved inclusion as it gives psychological practitioners tools
to avoid inducing false memories, thereby improving trust in traumatic memories recalled during
therapy.