MOTIVATED FORGETTING THEORY
The motivated forgetting theory states that instead of being due to interference or lack of consolidation,
forgetting occurs because we are motivated to do so. Some experiences or memories are so painful or
upsetting that thinking about them would produce overwhelming anxiety. Instead, they are repressed
(pushed below conscious awareness) and so become inaccessible. If we try to remember or retrieve the
memory, we are not able to.
One way of accessing the repressed memories is through the use of Freudian techniques (such as free
association, where the patient is told to tell the analyst every single thought that comes into their heads,
no matter how small or bizarre).
Sometimes, however, repressed memories can be accessed by the person him/herself via a dream or via
parapraxes (slips of the tongue).
When the event or memory is finally recalled, it usually produces an unpleasant emotional reaction in
the individual in question (such as fear or guilt). Once the emotional tension associated with the
memory has been released, the memory can be retrieved (this usually happens during therapy).
Glucksberg and Lloyd – ELECTRIC SHOCK STUDY
Aim:
To investigate motivated forgetting.
Method:
Participants were first given a list of paired words to learn (A-B).
Then, they were given a second list of words which they had to read out. Some
of these were related to the B words of the previous list. When they read out a
related word, they would be given an unexpected electric shock.
Afterwards, they were asked to recall as many of the original A-B list of words as
they could.
Results:
The related B words were forgotten significantly more often than the control A
words.
Conclusion:
This evidence supports the motivated forgetting theory. The B words would have
had unpleasant associations and so would have been repressed.
Evaluation:
There are ethical implications to do with deception and the use of electric shocks
in the study.
The only way to investigate motivated forgetting in the laboratory is to make the participants suffer
something traumatic, which is unethical. However, when such studies have been carried out, the results
(like from the Glucksberg and Lloyd study above) have supported the theory of repression (also: a study
by Levinger and Clark found that participants found it difficult to remember associations to emotional
words like “anger”).
More recently, it has been suggested that the recall of emotionally-associated words could be down to
arousal rather than repression. If participants are in a high state of arousal when learning the words,
they can find it difficult to recall them immediately. However, if they are tested again seven days later,
they can remember the words better.