Category Archives: Memory

November 20, 2011 · 9:43 pm

Science, Misinformation, and Make-Believe Memories


In what we know about memory, our memories serve a purpose of enabling people to make sense of the past and incorporate it into the present experience of life.  This importance of memories according to Loftus (2003) explains that people are the sum of our memories: what we have thought, what we are told, and what we believe.  In addition, we are not only shaped by our memories, but existence is shaped by our personal experience.  Loftus argues that we “seem to reinvent our memories, and in doing so, we become the person of our own imagination”  (p. 872).

An important distinction made about the power of suggestion upon initial memory of an event and how memory that is manipulated impacts beliefs formed about events.  Information offered by Elizabeth Loftus in, Make-Believe Memories, advocates that memories are malleable and subject to distortion and suggestion.  The following observations about how memory is influenced through eyewitness accounts of crimes:

“Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events. Misinformation can sway people when they see biased media coverage about some event that they may have experienced themselves. This phenomenon would ultimately be called the misinformation effect [Loftus' italics]” (p. 868).

An apparent assumption about initial memory of an event is that it is influenced by suggestion and post-memory influences, but also by the weight of said influences upon the person holding the memory.  A good place to begin in an understanding what misinformation effect actually means.

A dictionary description of the misinformation effect given in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007) states, “a phenomenon in which a person mistakenly recalls misleading information that an experimenter has provided, instead of accurately recalling the correct information that has been presented earlier (VandenBos, 2007).  This theory often used in connection with eyewitness memory of events in the investigation procedure.  Loftus cites a cause and effect relationship between what is presented to witnesses to a crime responses to questions asked i.e., “Research on memory distortion has shown that post event suggestion can contaminate what a person remembers” (p. 867).  As a result, a fair assumption about recall of a crime or incident is that the further removed a witness is from the incident and the more times it is discussed the greater chance there is that misinformation effect jades original memories of the event and details.

The position of this article presents the opinion that memory can be distorted by interjecting information and by using techniques which may be misleading to distort original memory.  What can be learned is that misinformation exerts an influence upon what may have been sensed, experienced, and stored in the memory at the time of an event.  The inference is that memories can be altered or changed in intentional and unintentional ways i.e., “Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events”, as cited in (u04d2 Make-Believe Memories, 2010).  A rational conclusion suggests that changes in memories are connected to the suggestions made by the examiner and suggestibility of the person remembering the account.  As a result, an explanation of the misinformation effect contained within the statement made through: post event suggestion (Loftus, 2003) which alters original memory that is stored as suggestion, as well as exposure to other perspectives about the memory-event places influence upon perception.

One important factor in the process is described by Sternberg (2009), as encoding (p. 217). Based on this description, how a memory is encoded –one’s experience, conditions surrounding an event –factors contributing to retrieval, will affect acquisition of information: “the physical, sensory input into a kind of representation” (p. 217) which distorts original sensory input.  Therefore, the misinformation effect suggests that, “suggestion can lead to false memories being injected outright into the minds of people” (Loftus, 2003).

When questions are asked that are suggestive,  false memories are injected into the first impressions of the person being questioned.  Loftus (2003) reports, “that leading questions could contaminate or distort a witness’s memory … Related studies showed that memory could become skewed with various techniques that fed misinformation to unsuspecting individuals” (Make-believe memories).  This practice is associated with techniques which are used in police-witness interviews to a crime.  For example, “Three errors occurred universally: interrupting the witness, asking too many short-answer questions, and inappropriate sequencing of questions” (Fisher, 1995).  A conclusion can be made here that demonstrates that when rehearsal of the memory is interspersed with the injection of questions, interruptions, dialogue, and questions, the initial sensory perception will become adapted to misinformation that affects perception of the original occurrence.

It may seem on the surface that the misinformation effect presents a negative perspective of how memory can be manipulated and the impact upon a criminal investigation.   However, one application of this theory may be of value when applied to research, which could aid in better training for law enforcement professional when conducting witness interviews.  In addition, another application could be that when misinformation is used to correct distorted memories, it may hold properties of value, which present a therapeutic value.  Some examples could be in treatment with those who have experienced traumatic events that present with PTSD symptoms or anxiety related conditions.

Obviously, this article only scratches the surface and more needs to be written on such an important subject of interest.

References

Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of a crime. Psychology, Public Policy,  Law [electronic version] , 1 (4), 732-764, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.732.

Loftus, E. F. (2003, November). Make-believe memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied [electronic version] , 14 (3), pp. 255-265, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost, doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.255.

Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th Edition ed.). Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.

u04d2 Make-Believe Memories. (2010). Retrieved 5 2009, August , from Capella Universisty: http://courseroom2.capella.edu/

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Cognitive Psychology, Index, Memory, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 16, 2011 · 11:22 am

Science, Philosophy, Reason, and Life Without Memory


Watching this video is a very sobering look at the way that what the memory provides to an individual in the everyday activities is taken for granted and that without a functioning memory there is no connection with the past, identity, and a conscious way of relating to the present activities of life or the future. A line from the film says it clearly, “I think it is a very dramatic illustration particularly for the public of what it is like to being without memory. For example, this constant feeling that he has just waken up or he has not tasted anything before” (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). While the video, stimulated thoughts about the value of memory, there is also the thought about how many things could be different, if only some memories could be erased. However, a connection is implicit from the story that it is relative to every individual is and how functioning occurs in life within the environment.

One question which has already been discussed in previous posts in the connection between the brain and the mind. If consciousness and memory are functions of the brain, but also connected to the mind, then there is a relationship between the anatomical structure of the, how the mind operates, neurologically, function, and the wakening experience of awareness in behavior and response. The way that memory is encoded and retrieved forms an understanding of knowing, believing, and behaving. Sternberg (2009) says, “A memory is a mental experience taken to be veridical (truthful) representation from one’s past.  Memories can be false in relatively minor ways … and in major ways that can have profound implications for oneself and others” (p. 198).  In the case of Wearing’s condition, the damage to the brain through Encephalitis affected not only the encoding, but also the ability to recall because of the damage to the Hippo-campus. This raises another observation about the impact of chemical, biological affects to the brain, mind functioning.

It has been established that Teratogens, (Friedman J.M., 1999), affect development of the brain, and also how the introduction of disease destroys tissue, thus disabling explicit memory (Sternberg, 2009, p. 180) from engaging the mind in an experience of conscious recollection (p. 180). A question might be posed about the difference in the absence of explicit memory in contrast to implicit use of information (p. 180). This is discussed in the dialogue by Dr. Michael Oddy who stated, “We ask him if he would like the coffee … But it is all about current events, it is about the surroundings (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). The events seem to suggest that there is not a reference to past experiences that could have been encoded and recalled, but rather knowing through cognition of present observations in the moment.

The traditional model of memory referred to by Sternberg (2009), in William James (1890-1970) theory of primary memory and secondary memory; then later Waugh and Norman, 1965 (p. 182) give explanation of the components and functions of the memory that are not in tact as a result of disease which destroyed brain tissue. However, the theories as presented, do not adequately offer explanation of ingrained skill or the, “four or five things, he will if questioned appropriately tell you about” (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). In analysis, it seems evident that one working model of memory does not provide a complete picture without gaining insight from a Neuropsychology model that examines how dissociation of function, “to explain a link between a particular lesion or function” (Sternberg, 2009, p. 207). It seems that there is a correlational relationship to all of the activities, biology, physical structures, or trauma to the brain which in turn affects what happens in conscious awareness that is connected to how perception occurs, what is understood and believed, and what the experience of the life is in feeling and behavior.   How important is this to advancing understanding in the study of psychology?

It cannot be underscored enough that understanding what has been written and engaging with current and future research will build a bridge from the encoded memory that has been described by theorist to provide ongoing and enriched understanding of how the functioning of memory in the mind-brain relationship is enhanced by the value of ongoing research in Cognitive Affective Psychology.

                                                                                                                                           References

Friedman JM, a. J. (1999). Clinical Teratology: identifying teratogenic risks in humans. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Capella Library: http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu, doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.1999.560601.xJans,
Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th Edition ed.). Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.
The Anenburg Foundation. (2009). Life without memory: The case of Clive Wearing, Part 1. Washington, DC: Annenberg Media, Learner.org., DC.

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Cognitive Psychology, Index, Memory, Mental Health Issues, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 12, 2011 · 3:32 pm

Happiness: Guilt, Criticism, and Projection


Happiness: Guilt, Criticism, and Projection

An interesting thing that I have noticed about people who feel guilty is that they are not very happy and that they invest a huge amount of energy trying to hide– cover up painful or guilty experiences from being known.  Quite often, all of the efforts to hide something– not apparent on the surface has the opposite effect.  In stead of covering up guilt, it is like wearing a badge that says, “I am guilty”.  It does not take a psychologist to figure out that a person who engages in constant criticism of others is a demonstrating a behavior cue that points to unresolved guilt.  Often, the person who is constantly calling attention, implying, suggesting others weaknesses or faults may be shining a light upon something that obviously is wrong and unresolved in the accuser.

Good Guilt v. Bad Guilt

Developmentally, guilt is an emotional warning sign that most people learn during normal childhood social development.  Guilt’s purpose is to let us know when we have done something wrong—to keep life balanced.  Good guilt operates to help us develop a better understanding about bad choice and danger in our personal behavior.  Therefore healthy expressions of guilt prompts a person examine and to re-examine behavior to prevent making the same mistake twice.  Indeed, an examination of the pathology of unresolved guilt reveals negative perceptions of what others do that triggers distorted schemas, paralyzing emotions, and distorted reactions connected to a distorted sense of self that acts like a mirror reflecting what is not seen by others and known by the accuser.  Unfortunately, misunderstood and unresolved guilt leads to depression, anxiety, and frustration that is projected on someone else rather than becoming a positive force toward change or improvement.  Guilt is normally a negative focus coming from a perception of self that moralizes what others are doing and says, “I am a bad person.  I cannot bear myself.  I am unworthy.”

 

Internalized Guilt brings Externalized Behavior

Often I have said that “the things that we notice and hate about others and that we criticize so passionately, is connected to what we hate about ourselves.  Carl Jung said, “Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness’s of other people” Unfortunately, the guilt ridden accuser does not understand that criticism is a window into their own darkness.  Often, behavior is hidden so well beneath misdirected concern shared as a concern with confidants, family, friends that infers perceived wrongdoing.  What is really happening is that the guilty accuser uses inference to project their own secretive guilty behaviors on their mirror.  Unfortunately, many of the things that people feel so deeply and are so offensive –we speak so loudly, passionately, so convincingly about point back to self-perception embedded within the neurotic guilt.  Indeed, the ability of guilt to subconsciously influence how perceptions, beliefs, and beliefs about what is seen should not be underestimated, nor ignored.  For instance, in a perfect world of a developing infant, doing, something “bad” is equivalent to murdering all that is good.  As the child develops with a lived-experience of shame, performance based acceptance, and guilt ridden feelings, the inability to dispel the gnawing sense of guilt results in the child owning misunderstood feelings about guilt and he/she enters an “adult– normal society.”  In the adult world, the normal is distorted by the abnormal thinking from development filtered by a perception of life that skewed by feelings of guilt, low self-esteem, and projection.  What happens: the guilt that has been internalized, misunderstood, and unresolved is externalized in projecting behavior toward others when something is seen that feels like the internalized guilt. Then, undigested guilt triggers the guilt-projection system that regurgitates what feels like concern, looks like righteousness, demonstrating rescuing behavior upon others, while calling attention to what is hidden beneath the surface– unresolved guilt that wants to be discovered.

Psychological ProjectionCriticism and Conversations with Guilty People

When I listen to people’s conversations, it sounds like there is something not being said, but is implied.  Quite often it is what is not being said that is more important than what is being said.  For instance, when person helps someone with a situation and someone else gives the pretense of being helpful and recurrent suggestions come up about another person’s faults or problems or even a constant disdain for a particular act, at is the real issue in the conversation?  On the one hand, it may be a person who simply is genuinely concerned, but on the other hand it may be a semantically expressed language cue it that says the person talking is struggling with and projecting internalized guilt.   It makes me wonder if the concerned person really feels guilty about their own internal struggle or particular behavior that no one knows about.   While serving as a pastor, I have had those who felt duty bound to inform me about how certain people are living and taking advantage of their leadership positions and using others.  What is common to all of these conversations is that they are people who represent themselves as crusaders of right, justice, and truth is that they are guilt-ridden people who try to guilt others into conformity and want someone to take up their cause.  Personally, I think about this activity as the subtle work of Satan who is guilty and accuses others of what he is guilty of.  In the book of Revelation Satan is depicted as the one who slanders the innocent and in reality is the one who is guilty.  Therefore, a critical question about this kind of accusation and speculation is motivation.  At this point, a question important to ask is what lies beneath suspicion and why this behavior is happening at this moment?  It may be that there is really a problem that needs to be addressed, but what is the real problem? Consequently, the essential question is why do some people see things that are really not there and act on beliefs that have no substance, evidence, or possess any real real desire to help?  One answer may be that some people have a need to rescue others from what they believe is “bad behavior” because there is strongly embedded guilt that says how bad a person actually feels about self and is motivating criticism, i.e., –the person sees their own failure in the acts of others.  The effort to direct attention to someone else may simply be transference:  an effort to vicariously fix something that feels very wrong in their own life by self incriminating projection of guilt on others. … Neurotic Guilt.

Why does one person believe they are doing right by making someone else guilty– warning, judging, evaluating, devaluing, and invalidating the other persons?

The Voice of Guilt is Saying What?

When a person engages in this kind of destructive inference, crusading to gain support from others, what is the core issue in the accusation? According to Sigmund Freud, it may be projection, which is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one “projects” one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.  Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud that is used when someone feels threatened or feels afraid of their own impulses–, so the accuser attributes these impulses to someone else.  What is apparent among people, who make it their life’s mission to constantly criticize without sound reasoning and responsible approaches to relationships with others, is that the critic has an unresolved problem.  It is guilt– the feeling– that comes to the surface when something witnessed in others –a trigger activates  recognition of a feeling associated with a past behavior — “a been there done that experience.”  An important revelation  about constant accusing  is that recurring critical activity may be an open confession of unresolved feelings of guilt and self-esteem issues that are being attributed to someone else.

The Blame Game and What is Really Being Said

Throughout the history of the human race it is well documented that people have been struggling with guilt while denying responsibility.  The Bible records the story of creation when, Adam and Eve sinned; then, made leaves to cover up while knowing what they had done wrong.  Obviously, they did not want to take responsibility for what had happened. Therefore, the response of Eve was to pass the blame on, “it is the serpent that caused the evil act. “  The response of Adam was that it is the woman that you gave me Lord.  Guilt makes people project cover up because they are ashamed and understand that something is wrong and needs fixed.  Guilt makes people accuse because drawing attention to others behavior deflects attention away from the self –the guilty party.  Also, the fear of being exposed motivates people to project judgment for wrong doing upon someone else. Projecting guilt and packaging it in  criticism is a way of verbalizing how deeply perceptions of right and wrong— good and bad affects feelings of personal well being and personal security of the acuser.    Something to think about is that as long as attention is focused on what is wrong, what is being hidden, energy cannot be focused upon what is possible or what can make life effective, nor can you be happy.   Chaplain Murrill 04/27/2012

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Attitude, Communication, Happiness, Index, Influence, Memory, Mental Health Issues, Motivation, Perception, Relationships, Sociology, Spiritual Development

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,