In recent years there has been a blast of research on false memories in recalling events that did not happen. Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) define these memories as “a subjective experience of remembering something of that something did apparently not happen in reality” (p 12). Yet, children, adolescents and even adults continue to report that they had been sexually abused in the past or witnessed other crimes where even though they are earnest the memory is false. Whatever the case false memories are potentially related to many of the contemporary theories today such as Psychoanalysis and Disassociative Amnesia, however, even though there is an abundant amount of evidence that supports these theories there is still much research needed to maintain the hypothesis of false memories that are presented through the theoretical debate.

Introduction

As an introduction to the practical relevance of false memories Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) describe a woman who has been in therapy for many years because “she has trouble trusting men; has panic attacks; has a distant relationship with her father; and suffers from disturbing nightmares” (p 12). However, at some point in the therapy she “recovers” faint memories of early childhood abuse by her father. She is not sure if these are old memories or reconstructed memories of her beliefs and feelings. Yet, the self help literature for victims is quite clear. For instance, “you must believe that your client was sexually abused, even if she sometimes has doubts because no one invents abuse” (Steffens et al, p 12).

Memories like these are processed everyday in the brain. People recollect and reconstruct memories based on certain event using sights, words, sounds and taste. However, distinguishing what a person experienced and events that might have been imagined, heard of, thought of or even dreamed about could possibly have gaps in the reproduction of the event because a person’s imagination is filled with distortions.

This is why many researchers today are finding that the part of the brain that places memories determines whether a person’s memory is true or false. As humans our memories are not always completely correct or right all the time. There are many occasions where people might feel strongly about past events yet, the details of the event might be distorted or not have occurred. Therefore, what a person remembers about an event, especially if the event lacks witnesses or other corroborative physical evidence, has a significant impact on the memory.

Memories are a complicated process and the quality of a specific memory does not mean it is reliable or accurate. For example, vivid detailed memories are often inaccurate reconstructions of events. For that reason the continuity of the memory does not guarantee truth or falsity. This is because the memory is a reconstructed phenomenon that strongly influences a person’s emotions, social expectations, implied beliefs of others, or inappropriate interpretation. For instance, in a study conducted by Steffens & Mechklenbrauker, researchers found that strongly established memories often are confused with misleading post event information that was witnessed prior (2007). People were asked whether they “saw a car run over the stop signal,” yet in later questionnaire they indicated they saw a stop signal when there really had been none (p 14).

Whereas, in another study Zaragoza & Mitchell (1996) found that after people watched a movie of a burglary and questioned them on the beginning of the scene where a young man was dressed in jeans, t-shirt and gloves who entered the house, participants answered the question the young man wore gloves when actually he did not (p 295). This suggests that misguided information presented was zero in a control condition one out of three times. However, since the participants were told from the beginning that there was misguided information in the sentence, the self monitoring test (on whether the robber wore gloves) showed there was a false alarm rate 10% of the control condition along with an increase of 37% for false information presented once, and 56% three times (p 296).

Therefore, main reason for the phenomena is that there is little research on memory recollection than on perceptual recollection until the 1990s because it is tricky to obtain close control over the stimulus that is subject to a memory (Roediger, 1996). Memories of perception are created within minutes yet; the memory recollection lasts significantly longer. Therefore, the independent evidence is that the memories really occurred. However, in many of these cases there are inconsistencie such as patients reporting depression and recalling negative events that previously were seen as pleasant. Secondly, there were inconsistencies between people who witnessed verbal arguments somewhere in there past and years before.

Evidence of False Memories

Yet, there are many people have argued that false memories are only single events that have different memories such as in the case of abuse by relatives. While this may be true in some instances Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) find that there still remains an argument of interevent differences taken up by researchers who have, in turn, designed experiments to test whether false memories of unpleasant events can be created (p 14). In an investigation on whether children created false memories after receiving rectal enemas, Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) found that although unpleasant for some children, for others they felt helpless.

However, in a controlled event in the same study on whether children could get lost in a shopping mall, 14 of the children tested created false memories of being lost, but not of the hospital visit because the pattern was reversed for only one child (p 15). This shows that while there were differences between the actual events that influenced the probability of false memory creation the plausibility of the event is subjectively low because the false memories did not emerge. Therefore, the confidence estimate increased regarding the unlikely events.

Memory researchers also claim that the problem with traumatic experiences is not that the person has repressed or forgotten the memory but rather because the memory remains vivid in their mind and cannot be forgotten (Loftus, 2003). While the vividness can be disturbing and often causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), many therapists believe that repression follows the Freudian tradition because while memories cannot be assimilated into existing schemas they are fearfully repressed into a person’s unconsciousness. For this reason therapy is less threatening and memories can be recovered, especially in the case of alleged sexual abuse.

For example, in the past few years there has been much publicity on people who claim to suddenly recover memories of childhood sexual abuse. People experience memories that have not been there for years yet after time the repressed memories are recovered by therapists and other trained professionals. While some of these accounts may be true in some instances, Alison, Kebell & Lewis (2006) suggest that the memory of a traumatic event varies depending in the level of stress associated with the event (p 425). Moderating stressful events such as a near car accident results in memory impairment, with 80% of incidents forgotten within 2 weeks (p 425). However, with higher levels of arousal such as in the case of an actual collision rather than a near miss of a car accident lead to detailed memories.

While there is a considerable difference between a sexual abuse case and a car accident or near car accident the person affected would have less of a reason to rehearse a near accident than the actual accident. Therefore, there is a strong positive relationship between comprehending something of a specific event and what is perceived. However, some researchers argue that trauma inhibits and enhances the memory depending on the amount of stress involved and level of arousal therefore with moderate to extreme arousal it causes interference with encoding due to the reduction in attention. Nonetheless, there are currently no laboratory studies that support this hypothesis.

For this reason, Van der Kolk and Fisler (1995) argue that in order to demonstrate the “special” nature of traumatic events, studies need to measure the characteristics and content of traumatic memories over time and in comparison to non traumatic events (p 425). While many of the experimental studies of memory are of little significance because the studies do not involve highly stressful and traumatic stimuli, Van der Kolk et al, (1995) find that “if trauma is defined as the experience of an inescapable stressful event that overwhelms a person’s existing coping mechanisms, it is questionable whether findings of memory distortions in normal subjects exposed to videotaped stresses in the laboratory can serve as meaningful guides to understanding traumatic memories” (p 506). Therefore, false memories and other kinds of events cannot be generalized memories because in contrast non traumatic memories are loosely connected chunks of sensory information that flashbacks in a fragmented and confusing form. While the sensation does include visual images, sounds, smells and bodily sensations the traumatic experience still intrudes into a persons consciousness.

Psychoanalysis &, Dissociative Amnesia Theories

However, in theory repression and disassociation with a persons ability to recall false memories such as in the case of child sexual abuse, is something that Alison, Kebbell & Lewis (2006) stated Freud considered as a “question of things which people wish to forget, therefore, they intentionally repress from the unconscious thought that is inhibited and repressed” (p 420). For this reason, Freud argued that while some experiences are so traumatic and buried in the unconscious causing fear and pain, it is uncertain as to whether the mechanism of repression automatically occurs during the traumatic event itself or whether it occurs after the experience meaning that the unconscious suppresses the memory to protect the person from further harm by consciously recollecting the event (p 420). Yet, in spite of this other researchers say that repressed memories may or may not exist. Therefore, although amnesia from traumatic events is probable so are false memories. This may explain the hypothesis that repressed memories are unavailable to the conscious mind but these same memories could later be retrieved.

Whereas, when looking into the theory of Dissociative Amnesia, researchers are finding that while the memory repression is plausible there are speculative estimates that explain that at least ten percent of all people sexually abused during childhood suffer total amnesia from the abuse. This would explain the delayed recall experiences that people have in cases similar to natural disasters, bereavement, imprisonment, or with torture and war. However, other speculated theories suggest that repressed memories originate from traumatic memories stored in the hippocampus and amygdale but not in the neocortex. While this theory seems possible considering that the right brain stores a person’s memory and does not communicate it with the left side of the brain, there still is a continual effort by the unconscious to recover the information.

In both cases, the theories above describe characteristics in which they are common however, since they are only theories there is little scientific evidence to support one theory over the other. Since repressed memories are the memory of a traumatic event that is unconsciously retained in the mind, many psychologists believe that the unconscious repression of a traumatic experience such as in the case of sexual abuse is a defense mechanism that backfires when the person remembers. However, beneath the consciousness there are countless psychological and physical problems that cause the unpleasant experience which may be forgotten but not forgiven by the victim. Therefore, the theory of unconsciously repressing memories is controversial.

Lastly, while there is an abundant amount of evidence that supports false memories there is much research that is needed to maintain the hypothesis of false memories that present theoretical debate instead of focusing on empirical phenomena (Steffens & Mecklenbrauker, 2007). So consequently while experts cannot decide with certainty whether a specific memory is recovered or false it is best to have therapists avoid suggestions and instructions to imagine (p 20). While therapists believe the client’s reports researchers are skeptical on the validity of these reports.

Therefore, the myth of repressed memories according to Loftus (1995) is “something that has gone wrong with therapy, and because that something has to do with memory, there is increasingly bitter and fractious controversy” (Steffens & Mecklenbrauker, 2007, p 21). On one hand there are people who truly believe that the mind is capable of repressing memories whereas in the other side there are skeptics as to whether repressed memories even exist. Finally, where memory theories predict, and findings prove, that memories, even if held confidently, may be false (p 21). Memories theories have always predicted, and older as well as newer findings show, that things that once appeared forgotten can possibly be recovered under other circumstances (p 21). Therefore, as William James stated (and cited by Steffens & Mecklenbrauker, 2007) “memory is the feeling of belief in a peculiar complex object. . . .the recollected past and the imaginary past may be much the same. . . there is nothing unique in the object of memory. . . .” (p 21).

References

Arndt, J., Gould, C. (2006). An examination of two-process theories of false recognition. Psychology Press, 14, (7), p 814-833.

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology, 1. London: Macmillan

Lein, J. (1999). Recovered memories context and controversy, Social Work, 44, (5), p 47-68

Loftus, E.F. (2003). Make believe memories. American Psychology, 58, (4), p 867-873

Loftus, E.F., Feldman, J., & Dashiell, R. (1995). Memory distortion: how minds, brains, and societies reconstruct the past. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p 47-68.

Roediger, H.L., III. (1996). Memory Illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, p 76-100.

Steffens, M.C., Mecklenbrauker, S. (2007). False memories: phenomena, theories and implications. Journal of Psychology, 215, (1), p 12-24.

Van der Kolk, B. & Fisler, R. (1995). Disassociation and the fragmentary nature of traumatic memories: overview and exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, p 505-525

Zaragoza, M. S., & Mitchell, K. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and the creation of false memories. Psychological Science, 7, 294-300

近年来一直存在虚假回忆，在回忆的事件，没有发生爆炸研究。斯蒂芬斯Mecklenbrauker这些回忆（2007）定义为“一种主观体验，显然不会发生在现实中的东西记住的东西” （第12页） 。然而，儿童，青少年，甚至成人继续报告说，他们已经在过去或目睹其他罪行，即使他们是认真的内存是假的性虐待。无论是哪种情况，虚假的记忆可能涉及到许多今天的当代理论，如精神和Disassociative的失忆，然而，即使是一个丰富的证据支持这些理论还有很大的研究需要维持虚假记忆的假说通过理论辩论。

介绍

作为一个虚假的回忆斯蒂芬斯＆ Mecklenbrauker的（2007）描述一个女人谁一直在治疗多年，因为“她信任男人有麻烦的实际相关性;有恐慌发作，有一个遥远的关系，与她的父亲患有令人不安的恶梦“ （第12页） 。然而，在一些点在治疗的时候，她“恢复”淡淡的回忆滥用幼儿教育由她的父亲。她不知道，如果这些老人回忆或重建的回忆，她的信仰和感情。然而，自助文学的受害者是相当清楚的。例如， “你必须相信，你的客户是性虐待，即使她有时也有怀疑，因为没有人发明滥用” （斯蒂芬斯等，第12页） 。

喜欢这些记忆处理每天都在大脑。人们回忆和重建基于特定事件的记忆，使用的景点，文字，声音和味道。然而，区分什么是有经验的人，可能已想象的事件，听说过，想到了，甚至梦见可能有事件再现的差距，因为一个人的想象力充满了扭曲。

这就是为什么今天的许多研究人员发现，大脑的部分放置记忆决定一个人的记忆是真的还是假的。作为人类，我们的记忆并不总是完全正确的或右的所有时间。有许多场合，人们可能会感到强烈过去的事件，事件的细节可能被扭曲或不会发生。因此，一个人记得什么有关的事件，特别是如果该事件缺乏证人或其他佐证的物证，具有重大影响内存。

回忆是一个复杂的过程和质量的一个特定的内存并不意味着它是可靠的或不准确的。例如，生动详细的回忆往往是不准确的重建事件。出于这个原因，内存的连续性不能保证真或假。这是因为内存是​​一个重建的现象，强烈地影响一个人的情绪，社会的期望，隐含信仰的人，或不恰当的解释。例如，在斯蒂芬斯＆ Mechklenbrauker所进行的一项研究中，研究人员发现，强烈的记忆往往是具有误导性的事件后（2007年）之前被目击信息混淆。人们问他们是否看到一辆车碾过停止信号“，但在以后的调查问卷中，他们表示，他们看到了一个停止信号时，真的已经没有（第14页） 。

而在另一项研究中，萨拉戈萨和米切尔（1996）发现后，人们看了一部电影的一宗爆窃案，并问他们在现场一名年轻男子穿着牛仔裤，T恤和手套进入房子，参与者开始回答这个问题的年轻男子戴着手套时，实际上他没有（P 295 ） 。这表明，在控制条件三次被误导的信息为零。然而，由于从一开始，有误导的信息，在句子中，参与者被告知自我监控测试（强盗是否戴手套）表明有一个误报率控制条件下的10 ％ ，同比增长37 ％为虚假信息提交一次， 56 ％的三倍（P 296） 。

因此，现象的主要原因是，有记忆的回忆，而不是感性的回忆，直到20世纪90年代的研究很少，因为它是棘手的获得紧密的控制权，是受内存（洛蒂格1996 ）的刺激。在几分钟之内创建感知记忆内存回忆持续显着较长。因此，独立的证据是，回忆真的发生。然而，在许多情况下还有如inconsistencie报告抑郁症的患者，并回顾以前被视为愉快的负面事件。其次，人谁目睹口头论据的地方，在那里过去几年间有不一致。

错误记忆的证据

然而，也有很多人都认为，虚假的记忆仅是单一事件，如滥用亲属的情况下有不同的回忆。虽然这可能是真实的，在某些情况下，斯蒂芬斯＆ Mecklenbrauker的（2007）发现，仍然存在一个争论谁，反过来，设计实验，以测试是否可以创建虚假回忆不愉快的事件（第14页的研究人员采取了由interevent差额）。在调查中，对儿童是否接受直肠灌肠后创造了虚假的记忆，斯蒂芬斯Mecklenbrauker的（2007）发现，虽然为他人不愉快的一些孩子，他们感到很无助。

然而，在一个受控的事件迷路儿童是否可以在一个购物商场， 14名儿童在同一研究测试创建丢失的虚假记忆，但不是模式逆转的医院就诊，因为只有一个孩子（P 15）。这表明，虽然有实际影响的事件的概率创造虚假记忆之间的差异的合理性事件是主观低，因为虚假的记忆并没有出现。因此，增加，就不太可能事件的置信度估计。

记忆研究人员还声称，创伤经历的问题是没有人压抑或遗忘的记忆，而是因为内存仍然在他们的脑海中生动，不能忘记（洛夫特斯，2003年） 。虽然生动，可令人不安，经常导致创伤后应激障碍（ PTSD ） ，许多治疗师认为，压制按照弗洛伊德的传统，因为他们一边回忆不能融入现有模式的可畏压抑到一个人的无意识。出于这个原因治疗是减少威胁和记忆可以恢复，特别是涉嫌性虐待的情况下。

例如，在过去的几年中已经有很多的宣传，声称突然恢复记忆的儿童性虐待的人谁。人们经历的回忆，还没有去过那里多年的时间后还没有压抑的记忆恢复治疗师和其他训练有素的专业人员。虽然一些这些帐户在某些情况下可能是正确的，艾莉森Kebell刘易斯（2006）建议，创伤事件的记忆取决于应力水平与该事件相关联的（P 425） 。缓和紧张的事件，如近车祸导致记忆障碍， 80％的事件遗忘在2周内（P 425） 。然而，如觉醒的情况下，有惊无险一场车祸导致了详细的回忆，而不是一个实际的碰撞中具有较高水平。

虽然是一个相当大的区别性侵犯情况和车祸或附近发生车祸受影响的人会排练近比实际事故事故的原因。因此，理解一些特定的事件和被认为有很强的正相关关系。然而，一些研究人员认为，创伤抑制和增强的内存取决于涉及量的压力和觉醒水平，因此，它会导致中度至极度兴奋干扰编码由于减少关注。尽管如此，目前还没有实验室研究支持这一假说。

出于这个原因，范德科尔克和Fisler的（1995）认为，为了证明创伤性事件的“特殊”性质，研究需要测量的特点和创伤记忆的内容，随着时间的推移和非创伤性事件相比（ P 425 ）。虽然许多记忆的实验研究的研究意义不大，因为不涉及高度紧张和创伤性刺激，范德科尔克等（1995）发现，“如果创伤被定义为一个无法回避的压力事件的经验，压倒一个人的现有的应对机制，这是值得怀疑的正常受试者暴露录像应力在实验室中的内存扭曲的结果是否可以作为有意义的导游理解创伤记忆“ （P 506 ） 。因此，虚假的记忆和其他类型的事件不能是广义的回忆，因为相比之下非创伤性记忆是松散连接的感官信息块，在分散和混乱的形式重现。虽然感觉不包括影像，声音，气味和身体感觉的惨痛经历仍然侵入到一个人的意识。

精神分析与解离失忆理论

然而，在一个人的能力召回儿童性虐待的情况下，如虚假记忆的理论镇压和结社，是艾莉森·凯贝尔刘易斯（ 2006 ）指出，弗洛伊德认为是一个问题， “人们想忘记的东西因此，他们故意压制，被抑制和压抑的无意识思想“ （P 420 ） 。出于这个原因，弗洛伊德认为，而一些经验是如此的创伤和埋藏在无意识中造成恐惧和痛苦，它是不确定的，是否自动镇压的机制发生在创伤事件本身或者它是否发生后的经验意义无意识的抑制自觉地回味的事件（P 420 ）内存，以保护人免受进一步的伤害。然而，尽管这个其他研究人员说，压抑的记忆可能会或可能不存在。因此，虽然创伤性事件的失忆可能是虚假的记忆。这也许可以解释的假设，即压抑的记忆是无法有意识的头脑，但这些相同的回忆，以后可检索。

然而，当寻找到解离性失忆症的理论，研究人员发现，而内存镇压是合理的，有投机的估计解释说，至少10 ％在儿童时期遭受性虐待所有的人患有失忆总额的滥用。这可以解释延迟召回经验的情况下，人们有类似自然灾害，丧亲之痛，监禁，酷刑和战争。然而，其他的推测理论认为，压抑的记忆源于创伤记忆储存在海马和杏仁核，但不是在新大脑皮层。尽管这个理论似乎可以考虑，右脑的存储一个人的记忆和不沟通，它与大脑的左侧，仍是一个持续的无意识的努力来恢复信息。

在这两种情况下，上述的理论描述中，他们共同的，但是，因为它们是唯一的理论很少有科学证据来支持一个理论比其他的特性。由于压抑的记忆是创伤性事件，不自觉地保留在脑海中的记忆，许多心理学家认为，无意识压抑的创伤经验，如性虐待的情况下是一种防御机制，事与愿违，当人记得。然而，下方的意识，有无数的心理和生理上的问题，导致不愉快的经历，可能会被遗忘，但不能原谅受害者。因此，不自觉地压抑的记忆理论是有争议的。

最后，尽管有大量证据支持虚假的记忆有很多研究是需要维持虚假记忆的假说提出理论辩论，而不是侧重于经验的现象（斯蒂芬斯＆ Mecklenbrauker 2007 ） 。因而，专家肯定不能决定一个特定的内存是否被收回或假的，最好是避免治疗师的建议和指令，想象（第20页） 。虽然治疗师相信客户的报告研究人员对这些报告的有效性持怀疑态度。

因此，根据洛夫特斯（1995）压抑的记忆的神话“的东西出了毛病治疗，因为那东西做内存，有越来越苦，烦躁不安的争论” （斯蒂芬斯＆ Mecklenbrauker的， 2007年，第21 ）。一方面，还有人谁真正相信，头脑能够压抑的回忆，而在另一侧有怀疑论者甚至压抑的记忆是否存在。最后，在内存理论预测，结果证明，回忆，即使持自信，可能是假的（ P 21 ） 。回忆理论一直预测，和老年人以及更新的调查结果显示，在其他情况下（ P 21 ） ，一旦出现被遗忘的事情也可能会被收回。因此，作为威廉·詹姆斯说（引由斯蒂芬斯＆ Mecklenbrauker 2007 ） “记忆是信仰的感觉，在一个特殊的复杂对象。 。 。回忆过去和假想的过去可能是大同小异。 。 。没有什么独特的对象的内存。 。 。 “ （对21 ） 。

参考文献

阿恩特，J.，古尔德， C. （2006） 。检查虚假确认两个过程理论。心理出版社， 14 ， （7） ，第814-833页。

詹姆斯， W. （1890） 。心理学的原则，1。伦敦：麦克米伦

雷音， J. （1999） 。恢复了记忆的背景和争议，社会工作，44 ，（5） ，第47-68

洛夫特斯，E.F. （2003年） 。让相信的记忆。美国心理学， 58 （ 4 ） ，第867-873

洛夫特斯，E.F. ，费尔德曼， J. ， ＆开山鼻祖， R. （1995） 。记忆失真：如何解放思想，开动脑筋，和社会重建过去。剑桥，麻省：哈佛大学出版社，页47-68 。

洛蒂格， H.L. III 。 （1996） 。记忆错觉。 [记忆与语言，35 ，页76-100 。

斯蒂芬斯， M.C. ， Mecklenbrauker ， S. （2007） 。错误记忆现象，理论和影响。 [心理学，215， （1 ），页12-24 。

范德科尔克， B. ＆ Fisler的， R. （1995） 。离异和局部性质的创伤记忆：概述和探索性研究。中华创伤压力， 8，第505-525

萨拉戈萨，M.S. ，米切尔， K. （1996） 。反复接触的建议，并创建虚假的记忆。心理科学，7， 294-300