Chapter 8: Malleability in Memory: Processes of Forgetting, Editing, and Distortion

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Alright, so today we're diving into the world of memory, and specifically how much we can actually rely on what we remember.

I mean, you hear stories about eyewitness accounts being unreliable or people repressing traumatic memories, so it makes you wonder,

how's it all actually work?

Yeah, you've hit on some really important points.

It's not as simple as saying memory is a perfect recording of events.

In fact, it's far from it.

You're telling me.

Sometimes I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.

Right, and it gets even more complex when you consider the emotional weight of certain memories, especially traumatic ones.

Exactly.

So how do psychologists even begin to unravel all of this?

Where do you even start?

Well, a good place to start is by acknowledging that our memories can and do fail us.

In fact, psychologists even have a name for it, memory sins.

Memory sins.

Okay, now you got my attention.

It sounds like our memories are morally flawed or something.

What exactly are these sins?

It's a term coined by psychologist Daniel Schachter, and it's not about morality, don't worry.

It's more about categorizing the ways our memories can be less than perfect.

He divides them into two main categories,

sins of omission, which is basically what we forget, and sins of commission, which is more about distortions or even fabrications.

So forgetting versus remembering things incorrectly.

Exactly.

That makes sense on a basic level, but I'm guessing there's a lot more to it than that.

There is.

Take the sins of omission, for example.

We've got transience.

That's just a fancy way of saying we forget things over time.

Like what you had for dinner last week.

Exactly.

Or that embarrassing thing you said in high school.

Then there's absent -mindedness.

Okay.

That's more about attention lapses.

Like when you lose your keys.

Yes.

Or your phone or your wallet.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm very familiar with that one.

And then there's blocking.

Blocking.

That's the tip of the tongue phenomenon.

Oh, tell me about it.

It's the worst.

You know you know something, but you just can't retrieve it.

It's incredibly frustrating.

And those are just the sins of omission, the sins of commission, those distortions and fabrications can be even more troublesome, especially in legal contexts.

Okay.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I mean, those are high -stake situations where an accurate memory could be crucial.

So what are some examples of those memory sins in action?

Well, there's persistence.

That's when you have unwanted memories intruding on your thoughts, even when you'd really rather forget them.

Like that embarrassing thing I said in high school that we were just talking about.

Exactly.

Sometimes those memories just won't go away.

Then there's misattribution.

That's when you remember something accurately, like a fact or an event, but you attribute it to the wrong source.

Oh, like thinking a friend told you something, but you actually read it online.

Precisely.

And it can make those, wait, who told me that?

Moments.

Very confusing.

You're telling me.

I've definitely had my fair share of those head scratchers.

Then we've got suggestibility.

Suggestibility.

That's when questions or comments can actually implant false memories.

Wait, so you're saying someone could be led to believe something happened, even if it didn't, just because of how they're asked about it?

That's exactly what research has shown.

And it's particularly concerning when you think about eyewitness testimonies and the legal system.

It's like the whole foundation of someone's recollection could be manipulated.

It's definitely a cause for concern.

And then finally, there's bias.

Bias, okay.

Which means our own desires, expectations, and even our current beliefs can actually color our memories.

We have a tendency to remember things in a way that supports what we already believe, even if it means distorting the original event.

That's fascinating and a little scary if you think about it.

Absolutely.

So we've got these seven ways our memories can trip us up, but you mentioned legal cases specifically.

Are there any real world examples that illustrate how these memory sins can have serious consequences?

Oh, there are tons.

One classic study that really highlights the power of bias on memory is Carmichael's sketch study from 1932.

Okay, what did they do in that study?

They showed people a series of ambiguous sketches.

Each sketch could be interpreted in a couple of different ways.

Like a picture that could be a duck or a rabbit, depending on how you look at it.

Yes, exactly like that.

So they showed these ambiguous sketches, but each one was labeled with a specific object.

Like one might be labeled broom and another might be labeled gun, even though the images themselves were basically the same.

Tricky.

So they were trying to influence how people saw the pictures by giving them a label.

Exactly.

And you know what?

It worked.

Later on, when they asked people to draw what they remembered seeing, the drawings reflected the label, not the original ambiguous image.

So even though everyone saw the same image, the label made them remember it differently.

Wow, that's incredible.

So you're telling me something as simple as a word can actually change our memory of an event.

It's a powerful demonstration of how easily our memories can be influenced, often without us even realizing it.

And it helps explain why we might get into those memory fights with friends or family, where we each remember things completely differently, even though we both experienced the same event.

That makes a lot of sense.

So much for eyewitness accounts being the gold standard of evidence, huh?

But let's say you did witness a crime firsthand.

Does that guarantee an accurate memory?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

There are so many factors at play when it comes to how we encode, store and retrieve memories, especially of stressful or traumatic events.

Which witnessing a crime would definitely fall under that stressful category.

So does that mean stressful situations actually make memories less reliable?

You'd think that the more intense an experience, the more vividly you'd remember it, right?

Like, I'll never forget that face as long as I live.

It can work that way sometimes, like in cases of weapon focus, where a witness focuses so intently on a weapon, like a gun, that their memory for other details, like the perpetrator's face, actually suffers.

But other times, intense stress just seems to make memories worse overall.

So someone could be staring right at their attacker,

and the stress of the situation could still make their memory unreliable.

It seems counterintuitive, but that's what the research suggests.

There was this fascinating, albeit intense study by Morgan, Haslett and a whole team where they simulated a prisoner of war camp experience with soldiers.

Wow, that sounds intense.

It was designed to be stressful, to mimic real world scenarios.

They put some soldiers through these really high stress interrogations, and what they found is that those soldiers had a much harder time accurately identifying their later on, even after only 30 minutes, compared to those who were in less stressful conditions.

Wow, so even in those high -stakes situations, where you think your memory would be crystal clear, it can still be significantly impaired.

And I know it's not just stress and trauma that can impact memory, right?

I remember reading about something called the other race effect.

You're right.

That's another factor that comes into play, especially in eyewitness situations.

Studies have shown time and time again that people are just statistically worse at recognizing faces of different races than they are at recognizing faces of their own race.

I've definitely heard of that, but I always just figured it was, you know, just one of those things.

I didn't realize there was actual research backing it up.

Oh, yeah.

It's a real phenomenon, and it's something that has huge implications for eyewitness testimonies and the justice system as a whole.

I mean, think about the possibility of wrongful convictions based on faulty cross -racial identification.

It's definitely something to consider, especially given everything else we've talked about.

And we've only really scratched the surface here, haven't we?

I mean, we've talked about encoding issues like stress and the other race effect, but what about everything that happens after an event?

Can that impact our memories, too?

Absolutely.

Post -event information can be incredibly influential, even if we don't realize it's happening.

Elizabeth Loftus, who's a bit of a rock star in the memory research world, did groundbreaking work on something called the misinformation effect.

In one of her studies, she showed people slides of a car accident.

Later on, she subtly fed some participants misleading information, like telling them there was a stop sign when there was actually a yield sign.

Wait, are you saying that simply being told something different actually changed their memory of what they saw?

That's exactly what happened.

The people who were given that misinformation were significantly more likely to remember seeing a stop sign, even though they'd initially seen a yield sign.

It just goes to show you how malleable our memories can be, even after an event has happened.

That's incredible and a little unsettling.

It's almost like our memories aren't our own.

That's a really good way to put it, and it doesn't stop there.

Have you ever heard of unconscious transference?

Unconscious transference.

Hmm.

Doesn't ring a bell.

It's when you see someone and they seem familiar, maybe you pass them on the street or something, but later you see them again, this time in the context of a crime.

And even though they had nothing to do with it because they seemed familiar, your brain might mistakenly link them to the crime.

So you're saying just because I saw someone earlier in the day, if I see them again near a crime scene, I might think they're the perpetrator, even if they're completely innocent.

It might sound crazy, but yeah, that's the gist of it.

And it's not limited to just seeing someone in person.

You mean like with pictures?

Exactly.

There's actually something called photo bias, where even just being exposed to someone's picture, even if they're completely innocent, can make you more likely to identify them as someone involved in a crime later on.

It's like our brains just want to make connections, even if those connections are completely false.

Pretty much.

We're constantly trying to make sense of the world around us, and sometimes that means filling in gaps or making connections that aren't actually there.

And when it comes to memory,

those gaps and false connections can have huge consequences.

So we've talked about how our memories can be affected during the actual event, and even after the fact.

But what about the way we retrieve those memories?

Like when we're asked to recall what we saw or who we saw.

Oh, that's a whole other can of worms.

Retrieving memories is a lot more complex than people realize.

Take eyewitness lineups, for example.

You'd think it would be pretty straightforward, right?

Seems like it should be.

You see the suspect in a lineup, you point them out, case closed.

If only it were that simple.

It's not just about picking someone out of a lineup, it's about picking the right person.

And there are so many factors that can mess with that.

Like what?

Well, for starters, there might be distractors in the lineup, people who share similar features with the actual perpetrator.

And that can throw off a witness's memory, especially if the event was stressful, or if it's been a while since they saw the perpetrator.

Right, those seven sins of memory we talked about earlier are probably swirling around in there, too.

Exactly.

And it gets even trickier with the order in which people are presented.

You mean like if they see the suspect first versus last?

Exactly.

Sequential lineups, where you see one person at a time, can actually lead to different choices than simultaneous lineups, where everyone's presented at once.

And then there's the confidence trap.

The confidence trap, that sounds ominous.

That sounds ominous.

What's that all about?

It's this idea that the more confident a witness is, the more accurate their memory must be.

But research has shown that's not always the case.

People can misremember things with absolute confidence.

So you're telling me someone could point to someone in a lineup, be completely sure it's them, and still be dead wrong?

It happens all the time.

Our memories just aren't as reliable as we'd like to think.

But don't despair just yet.

There are some glimmers of hope in all of this.

Oh.

Tell me more.

Because right now, I'm not sure I trust my own brain.

Well, for one thing, research suggests that quick identification during a lineup is actually a pretty good indicator of accuracy.

If a witness doesn't hesitate,

if they immediately and confidently point someone out, there's a higher chance they're right.

Interesting.

So hesitation bad, speed good.

Basically, it suggests their memory is strong and hasn't been clouded by too much doubt or second guessing.

That makes sense.

But what about all those other factors we talked about, like stress, bias, and all those misleading questions that can be asked?

That's where things get really interesting.

Law enforcement agencies are starting to adopt techniques based on, well, good science, to improve the quality of eyewitness accounts.

One of these is the cognitive interview.

The cognitive interview.

Some kind of mind reading trick.

Not quite.

But it does involve understanding how the mind, and specifically memory, works.

The cognitive interview is based on creating the best possible conditions for accurate recall.

It starts with making the witness feel safe and comfortable, because stress can really interfere with memory.

Makes sense.

If I were being interviewed about a crime I'd witnessed, I'd be a nervous wreck.

The cognitive interview also emphasizes using open -ended questions, rather than leading questions, which we know can actually implant false memories.

So no more was the suspect wearing a blue hat.

Exactly.

Instead, they might ask, what can you tell me about what the suspect was wearing?

And to help trigger specific details, they might encourage the witness to mentally reinstate the context of the event.

The sights, sounds, even smells they might have experienced.

It's like setting the stage for their memory to come back as accurately as possible.

You got it.

So it's not about tricking the witness or forcing them to remember.

It's about using everything we know about memory to create the best possible environment for accurate recall.

But as fascinating and important as eyewitness accounts are, we still haven't tackled your initial curiosity about completely fabricated memories.

The things we vividly remember, even though they never actually happened.

Oh, right.

We've talked about how memories can be distorted or influenced.

But can they be straight up fabricated?

Absolutely.

And that's where things get really interesting and maybe a little creepy.

Okay.

Now you've got me hooked.

Tell me more.

Buckle up because we're about to enter the strange world of illusory memories.

Illusory memories.

That sounds like something straight out of a sci -fi movie.

Are we talking about remembering things that never actually happened?

You got it.

And it's more common than you might think.

One of the classic experiments that demonstrates this is called the dis -rhodogermic -dermit paradigm, or DRM for short.

Okay.

DRM.

Got it.

What's the deal with this paradigm?

It's actually pretty simple, but with mind -blowing results.

Researchers use these lists of words and all the words on a given list are related to a specific theme.

So let's say the theme is sleep.

Sleep.

Okay.

The list might include words like doze, rest, snore, dream, things like that, all very much related to sleep.

But the word sleep itself never actually appears on the list.

Okay.

So they're trying to trick people into thinking they saw the word sleep.

Kind of.

The participants study the list, and then they're asked to recall as many words as they can.

And get this, people frequently remember seeing the theme word sleep, even though it was never actually on the list.

Wait, are you serious?

They remember a word that wasn't even there.

How is that even possible?

It's incredible, isn't it?

And it's not just a vague sense of familiarity, either.

These participants will often insist that they have a clear and vivid memory of seeing the word sleep on the list.

Wow.

So our brains can just invent entire words and insert them into our memories as if they were always there.

It's a bit unsettling, isn't it?

And it's not limited to just simple word lists.

Remember Elizabeth Loftus, the researcher who did that study with the car accident and the misleading questions?

I do.

I'm starting to think she's behind all these mind -bending experiments.

Well, she certainly made a career out of uncovering the flaws in our memory.

She did another famous study called the Lost in the Mall study, where they implanted an entire false childhood memory into the minds of the participants.

The Lost in the Mall study.

I think I've heard of this.

They convinced people they'd gotten lost in a mall as a kid, right?

That's the one.

They worked with the participants' families to gather details about real childhood events, and then added a completely made -up event about getting lost in a shopping mall at a young age.

And people actually fell for it.

They believed they'd been lost in a mall, even though it never happened.

How is that even possible?

It's pretty wild, right?

But there are a few clever things at play here.

First, they used real -life information from the participants' childhoods, like the names of malls they would have gone to.

That makes the fake event feel more believable.

Second, they had the participants repeatedly imagine the event.

And as we talked about before, imagining something, especially over and over again, can actually increase its feeling of reality, making it feel more like a genuine memory.

And third, they had the participants' family members unknowingly corroborate the false event, saying things like, oh yeah, I remember that happening.

So it's like a perfect recipe for creating a false memory, suggestion, imagination, and external validation.

Precisely.

And those three ingredients together can be incredibly potent.

But it doesn't stop there.

There are even more factors that can contribute to these complex false memories, like how influential photos can be, for instance.

Right.

We've already talked about photos and how our brains tend to treat them as evidence, even if they've been doctored or taken out of context.

Are you saying photos can even be more powerful than stories when it comes to creating false memories?

It certainly seems that way.

There have been studies where they've shown people doctored photos of themselves as children, doing something they never actually did, like writing in a hot air balloon, for example.

Later on, many of them vividly remember details from this fake photo, describing it as if it was a real experience.

Wow.

Talk about a picture being worth a thousand false memories.

This is all so fascinating, but also a little terrifying.

It really makes you realize how vulnerable our memories are.

And speaking of vulnerable memories, we still haven't addressed the listener's question about repressed traumatic memories.

You're right.

And that's a whole other layer of this complex onion we need to unpack.

It's a sensitive and often controversial topic, especially when you're talking about memories related to abuse.

For sure.

It seems like there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate about whether repressed memories are real or not.

And that's because there are two main schools of thought on this.

On one hand, you have the concept of repression, a term that was coined by Sigmund Freud.

Right.

The idea that our minds can bury traumatic memories deep in the unconscious,

only for them to potentially resurface later in life.

Exactly.

And it's an idea that's really taken root in our culture.

On the other hand, you have what we might call ordinary forgetting.

This view suggests that traumatic memories are forgotten through the same mechanisms as any other memory.

So like just the passage of time, interference from other memories, that sort of thing.

Exactly.

It's the same forgetting process just applied to more difficult memories.

So one side says it's a unique process our brains use to protect us from painful memories.

And the other says it's just our brains doing what they do with all memories, regardless of how tough they might be.

But what does the evidence say?

Are repressed memories a real thing or not?

It's surprisingly tricky.

Some studies show that trauma is often vividly remembered, even more intensely than other memories.

And you'd think that would support the idea that trauma is harder to forget, maybe even defies the normal rules of forgetting.

That makes sense to me.

If something terrifying happens, wouldn't it be seared into your memory forever?

You'd think so, right.

But it's not always the case.

There are other studies that show the complete opposite, that severe trauma can actually lead to worse memory, especially for specific details because of the way stress affects the brain.

Wait, so trauma can make memories more vivid, but it can also make them worse?

It's complicated.

It seems like our brains have this weird balancing act going on, trying to process and make sense of these intense, overwhelming experiences.

And to muddy the waters even further, there's something called the forgot -it -all -along effect.

Okay, the forgot -it -all -along effect.

Tell me more about this, because it sounds like my brain is about to explode.

It's basically a phenomenon where we can actually forget that we ever remembered something, which might then create the false impression that we've just recovered a repressed memory.

So you're saying it was never actually buried in the first place.

We just forgot that we remembered it before.

That's the gist of it.

And that makes it really hard to study and understand, because how can you tell if someone's recovering a repressed memory, or just remembering something they'd previously forgotten?

This is a lot to take in.

It must be incredibly difficult for anyone who's experienced trauma to try to make sense of their own memories with all of this uncertainty.

To even question if your own memories are real must be a really heavy burden to carry.

It's a lot to wrap your head around, that's for sure.

I mean, we like to think our memories are accurate, that they define who we are.

But the more we dig into it, the more it seems like memory is this, well, this kind of fluid shifting thing, not this concrete record of the past.

It's definitely more complex than most people realize.

But that complexity doesn't have to be a bad thing.

In fact, I think there's a lot of hope to be found in understanding just how malleable and susceptible to influence our memories can be.

Okay, now you're gonna have to explain that one.

Because right now, I'm not seeing a lot of hope, mostly just feeling like I can't trust my own brain.

I get it, it can feel overwhelming.

But think of it this way.

The more we understand how our memories can be manipulated, the better equipped we are to protect ourselves from those manipulations.

So knowledge is power when it comes to memory too.

Absolutely.

If we know how easily we can fall prey to leading questions, or how our own biases can color our recollections, we can start to question our own memories more critically.

You mean, like, be a little more skeptical of our own minds, not just automatically accept everything we remember as the absolute truth.

Exactly.

We can start asking ourselves, where did this memory come from?

What evidence do I have to support it?

Could I be misremembering things?

Even just a little bit.

It's like we need to become our own memory fact checkers.

That's a great way to put it.

And it's not about dismissing our memories entirely.

It's more about approaching them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

That makes sense.

After all, we've seen how easily memories can be distorted or even fabricated.

Exactly.

And the more aware we are of those vulnerabilities, the better we can protect ourselves from falling prey to them.

Wow.

This has been an incredible deep dive.

I don't think I'll ever think about memory the same way again.

It's definitely a topic that can change your whole perspective.

And it reminds us that while memory is an incredibly powerful force in our lives, it's not infallible.

It certainly isn't.

And on that note, I think it's time to hand things over to you, our listeners.

Given everything we've discussed today, how much do you trust your own memories?

And how would you evaluate the reliability of someone else's?

Something to think about.

And we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Absolutely.

Keep those questions in mind as you navigate the world.

And remember, a little healthy skepticism can go a long way.

Couldn't agree more.

And a huge thank you to our expert for joining us today and sharing your incredible knowledge.

It was my pleasure.

Always happy to talk about the wonders and complexities of memory.

It's been fascinating, to say the least.

And to our listeners, thank you for joining us for another deep dive.

We'll see you next time.