Talk:Repressed memory/Archive 2

Repressed Memory is rejected by mainstream science. The article looks like it has been written by advocates of repressed memory therapy rather than objective editors. For any other subject this wouldn't be bad, but this is frankly dangerous. Editors should step in and do something.173.76.92.94 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dimitrova, L., Dean, S., Schlumpf, Y., Vissia, E., Nijenhuis, E., Chatzi, V., . . . Reinders, A. (2021). A neurostructural biomarker of dissociative amnesia: A hippocampal study in dissociative identity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 1-9. doi:10.1017/S0033291721002154

I believe this article is currently unbalanced and unclear. For the purpose of a universal language to describe repressed memories, I suggest this article refer readers to the topic for dissociative amnesia. In full disclosure: I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse with repressed memories with very strong evidence to backup their accuracy. It may be helpful to recognize that there has been controversy. The study above as well as other brain imaging studies are starting to yield information on brain differences between people with reported dissociative amnesia and a healthy controls. Suggesting that dissociative amnesia has been largely discredited is false.

Woodson, J. C., Macintosh, D., Fleshner, M., & Diamond, D. M. (2003). Emotion-induced amnesia in rats: working memory-specific impairment, corticosterone-memory correlation, and fear versus arousal effects on memory. Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 10(5), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.62903

In addition, recent animal studies have shown that when rats are exposed to a high stress situation, their memory at normal state is impaired. However, when placed again in a high stress situation, the animals are able to remember and respond accordingly to cues of an impending electric shock. This research is helping to advance understanding of memory storage in the brain. 2601:8A:200:B6B0:F59B:5E58:8FA8:CD64 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Studies done by Steve Porter at UBC have demonstrated that false memories can be suggested to participants who in turn will wager money on them that they are true even though they have been created by the experimenters. As a victim of child sexual abuse I can say that it is highly doubtful one would forget such an event under any circumstances. Also, it is interesting to note that some land mark cases have been about events occuring during a child's first year of life. The problem is that we do not remember the first year of our lives because of childhood amnesia. Letting quack "therapists" hypnotizing hihgly dissosiative individuals and implanting memories has ruined many people's lives. Beleiving in repressed memories is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however, this is your opinion and not fact. I beleive in this--I spent more than a year of my life researching how to cause myself to forget the previous year--and the year after that, I thought I was a year younger and had to re-meet six people. However, the article does not claim it to be true, just as it does not claim and religion or spirituality to be true. Equivamp (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble. I have recovered repressed memories. Many of the recovered memories have been corroborated. I did not recover them in the process of therapy. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing how to create a good page, not the subject itself. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011

(UTC) Yes, because a contributor to Wikipedia claims to have recovered repressed memories, this means repressed memories are a real phenomenon. 69.158.16.56 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Repressed memories and false memories are two different concepts. To insist that all repressed memories fall into the category of "false" would be to negate the concept of repressed memories and essentially censor the latter. This is not what Wikipedia is about. These should be two different articles.

I would like to add a few notes to this discussion.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ("Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.") Therefore, subjective opinions - such as those expressed here - about one's mental states are, in a word, irrelevant. Therefore, the following statements bear no weight in discussions about the article: "As a victim of child sexual abuse I can say that it is highly doubtful one would forget such an event under any circumstances." - There is ample (verifiable) evidence that forgetting of child sexual abuse occurs; "I have recovered repressed memories." - Not verifiable.

2. This discussion does not distinguish between recovering a memory (which implies a special mechanism), and suddenly remembering a memory. The article also fails to make this distinction.

3. I suggest this article be lifted to a semi-protected status, because of the controversial nature of the article and high likelyhood of vandalism. Vuorrem (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Regards the recent changes:

• This change undoes my removal of the reference to child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. My issue isn't that it's a relaible source, it's that CSAAS isn't recognized as an actual syndrome. Satan's Silence discusses how Summit himself states it is "impressionistic" rather than evidence based. In this source on page 142 in the "other child abuse syndromes" section, points out that it has recieved a great deal of attention but is rejected for some uses and accepted for others. I've also got a couple references here but I'll have to read through them a little more. My impression of CSAAS is that it's not well recieved or proven. This is another discussion which is rather critical. I removed the reference not because it's not a reliable source, but because it's undue weight on an unproven, poorly-accepted theory (and one that could probably have a page written on it, as I intended to do with the sources at talk:sra when I made the time).
• This is again not a problem with the reliability of the sources, it's a matter of weight. A statement with five (old) sources after it, while the counter-statement has none, gives the reader the impression that there is really only merit to one point of view. I didn't change the text at all, I merely took out the references. Alternative approaches could include collapsing all five into one reference with the five in it, selecting the best one and using only it, or finding a newer one. I don't think anyone disputes this is part of the debate in psychology and memory, but there are certainly better and newer sources (if I get a chance to re-read Paul R. McHugh's Try to Remember, I'll do so with an eye towards a better reference here. Good book by the way).
• The use of Pope is...OK... but he is pretty partisan and not primarily an academic. However, he does have a lot of publications. It's also just as old as the entry it replaced. My thinking is that the recent opinion on memory is considerably further from Pope's position than it was in the past. However, it's up to me to demonstrate that through citations rather than assertion.

Primarily, I'd like to see the number of sources to one statement in the lead reduced, the rest I'm happy to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undone DreamGuy's revert - I certainly agree with him that these sources are problematic (above) but they are not unreliable. The page really, really deserves a thorough re-write. It's too full of AbuseTruth's POV-pushing, lopsided referencing and source dumping to be a good page, but kicking off a revert war isn't the way to re-write it. Please let us discuss rather than drive away contributors. If we work together to find and summarize good, recent sources, we'll be doing a great thing for the page and community and can build a consensus version we're all willing to defend and trust. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In this diff I took out a couple sources but forgot to refer to them in my edit summary. This is a significant article with lots of scholarly debate. The recovered memory project at Brown is essentially a personal webpage, even if it has the imprimatur of Brown University, and is not published in a reliable source. The place where this is debated is scholarly books and journal articles, not on random sympathetic webpages that AbuseTruth managed to turn up while trolling the internet. There's a good book by Paul McHugh I've read, and another by Randy McNally that I've got on reserve, as well as a bunch at my local university library that I could pick up. Let's write the page with these, not with webpages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The theory section is terrible - two sentences with two sources, both by Pamela Freyd. The IJSTD or whatever it is called now is a bit of a walled garden with a dubious journal - McHugh states that the peer reivew process for the journal is more of a "consultation with peers" than actual peer review. Freyd is one of the people to kick off the recovered memory movement and it's counterpart the FMSF - her parents are two of the founders. Ethics and Behaviour is of dubious use in my mind as well, and certainly seems like a bad choice of publication venue for an ostensibly neurological theory. There must be better sources than this... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata has been creating an independent article (apparently from cz.wikipedia) at Recovered memory. I've been reverting, because much of the material is here, but perhaps a split is appropriate. I can't find a consensus for the redirect in any of the history, so I'm trying to determine whether there is a consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article from Citizendium is interesting and has some good sources. This could be either a merge or a split, but either way, the additional content is useful and should be kept while we work it out.

One thing to keep clear while we discuss this - although the other article is titled Recovered memory, it is not about Recovered memory therapy - that is a separate term for a short-lived set of practices that were never embraced by science and are not part of the scientific issues regarding the operation of memory in the presence of trauma. We should not allow the science topic to be distracted into the socio-political topic of RMT as it occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. That's a valid topic for the encyclopedia also, but it's a different topic, and it's not science.

A main point to consider in deciding whether to merge or split - is there enough information in the sources for separate articles (repressed memories & recovered memories), and is that information clearly differentiated enough - or do the sources mostly overlap and discuss the two concepts under one umbrella? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I still don't get what problem Rubin has. (i) The new article is not in a copyright violation. Period. What can I say more? (ii) You don't really have to discuss before you start a new article. However, if you want to delete it, then you have to discuss. If there are overlaps, then some materials moved around from here to there or there to here, as we do routinely. The most important question is, however, whether the topic "recovered memory" deserves a standalone article. An AFD is a place to discuss that. -- Taku (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do have to discuss a new article which contains (some of the) same material in an existing article, even if you do not use the existing article. That's a WP:CFORK, whether or not the material is copied from a CZ article. And AfD is inappropriate, as no one is requesting the article be deleted. The two articles need to be merged (by you), and then split if there is a rational way to split the articles on the interwined concepts. As an aside, is there a CZ article on this topic, repressed memory. If not, you are clearly the one violating Wikipedia guidelines. If there really are two CZ articles, then that might be different.

My claim of copyright violation is a mistake, as you put the CZ tag elsewhere than where I would have expected it. You may be correct as to placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the two can easlly be merged and that there is no reason to have to articals about the same subject.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been dead for over a year now and the same goes for the entire talk page of Recovered memory. If there aren't any objections I will be closing this discussion in about a week and start with the merger. JGM73 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was an accepted theory, but it is a theory that repressed memories exist and can be formed by traumatic events. The hypothesis would be that they merely exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Arthur Rubin and 188.221.109.57 have been going back and forth since 13 January 2011 on the use of Hypothesis v. theory. I thought I would put my 2-cents in. First I thought definitions might help. According to Wikipedia:

• Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon.
• Theory: The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it.

Additionally if you go to [http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm this page] it says "A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world.".

Given the statements "scientists agree on it," and "well-established principle" I would have to say that I agree with 188.221.109.57. "Repressed memory" is far from being accepted by "most scientists" or being "well-established", therefore it is a hypothesis. Even Arthur Rubin says "never said it was an accepted theory". In order to the a theory it has to be accepted, per "scientists agree on it," and "well-established principle".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to fix the Wikipedia articles "hypothesis" and "theory". "Theory" should include any complex explanation of an (observable) phenomenon, while a hypothesis should be restricted to the (proposed) cause of a phenomenon; if the theory includes more than one cause, it should be a "theory", not a ""hypothesis". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have honestly lost me. I'm not sure what you’re getting at? Everything I have read (after doing a search on Google of "Hypothesis v. theory" (, [http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm], , etc.) backs the idea that a Theory requires thoroughly testing that most scientists agree with. Just because something has more then one supposed cause, doesn’t make it a theory. However, again, I'm not sure what you’re getting at, so I may be way off.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that "The Butterfly Effect (film)" belongs in the "See also" section of this article. However, since Arthur Rubin dose, I thought I would bring this up on the talk page. I don't believe it belongs because:

• 1. I'm not so sure that "The Butterfly Effect (film)" has anything to do with Repressed memory. According to "The Butterfly Effect" page Evan Treborn has "blackouts" due to his altering his past (time travel). This is not the same as "Repressed memory" where has "motivated forgetting in which a subject blocks out painful or traumatic times in one's life". If the event never happened, because he changed it, then there was no memory in the first place. It has nothing to with "motivated forgetting".

• 2. Even assuming that it qualifies as "Repressed memory" or "motivated forgetting", the film only vague has anything to do with Repressed memory. Even the edit summery] say "It's a stretch, but the viewpoint character DOES have repressed memories". The film is more about the "Chaos theory", hence the name "The Butterfly Effect".

• 3. Even assuming I am wrong about 1 and 2, including this one film opens the issue, what about the many other films that have much more to do with "Repressed memory" then this film. For example, After Life (Hirokazu Kore-eda, 2001), Amateur (Hal Hartley, 1994), Amnesia (Margaret Harris, 2000), Anastasia (1956), As You Desire Me (George Fitzmaurice, 1932), Beware My Lovely (Harry Horner, 1952), The Black Curtain, The Blue Dahlia (1946), The Bourne Identity (2002) and all it's sequels. I can list 15 more (I have a nice list, but I don't want to include them all here). Unless someone wants to list all the films that have or will have anything to do with "Repressed memory" in the future, then including this one film and not the all the other is inappropriate.

The inclusion of "The Butterfly Effect (film)", which is purely a work of fiction, is just misplaced here. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1. IIRC correctly, Evan has blackouts due to the traumatic events in the "current" version of the subject. When he reads the diary entry (which he made at the time, as he no longer remembers the event), he can change it. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
2. The film is about the butterfly effect, which, itself, only has a loose connection to chaos theory.
3. Many of the films you list qualify as related to amnesia (the most common illness in soap operas), rather than to repressed memory.

Still, I probably won't restore it if it's removed again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion: should a link to the film A Nightmare On Elm Street (the page, of course) bhe included in the see also section? Or even a new "in popular culture" section? The film centres around the repressed memories of these children. Merely a suggestion. 94.15.207.239 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This subject is currently being worked on in three different places (Recovered memory and False memory syndrome). This is not working. If want to improve the quality we need to join our forces in one centralized article. It'd be a waste of time to copy and paste sources back and forth between articles that largely deal with the same subject.JGM73 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As an editor, I think of false memory syndrome, repressed memories, and amnesia as completely separate things so I would not merge False Memory Syndrome and Repressed Memory in one article. The topic of memory is too large to be contained in one article.

Also, on the topic of amnesia as the most common illness in soap operas, Harlequin had a whole series, not sure if it is still running, called the Amnesia Series, in which a woman is married to a man (or engaged or whatever) and then, for some reason, completely forgets that part of her life, then he finds her and gets to woo her all over again. Weird but fascinating. I read two of these though I don't usually read romances of this type. Bebhinn-Matrix (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Bebhinn

I would definitely not suggest to throw the entire topic of memory in one article but there is a content fork and POV fork between the repressed memory page and false memory syndrome page that needs to be addressed somehow. Whether or not merging is the best remedy (and if so whether or not this is the best destination page) is of course a topic of debate. JGM73 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe these sections should be kept separate. Each of these sections (repressed memory, Recovered memory, and false memory syndrome) have too many distinctive differences. For example, a false memory will sometimes feel like a repressed memory, but most often it does not. In addition, a recovered memory will sometimes be a false memory, but often it merely feels as if it has been recovered but is really a true memory that was never forgotten in the first place. In short, these three sections, while related, each have distinctively different lines of research, and have different root causes and implications in the real world. I do agree with JGM73 though that there should be good links between all of these articles. Jlfosternz (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

After looking around a little more, I do believe that the Repressed memory and Psychological repression should probably be merged together. Jlfosternz (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that repressed memory should be merged with false memory syndrome. Rather, the latter should be expanded beyond its narrow focus to include false memories that occur outside the therapist's office. For example, Person A is enraged at Person B, imagines harmful actions by Person B, and in a vicious cycle of imagining and rage, comes to believe, with utter conviction, that Person B did those harms. The consequences of the rage/illusion syndrome can be devastating. Example: the Holocaust. (See The Holocaust: Ideology and scale, first quotation box. Although the Nazis' hallucinations were as much about the present as about the past, they were very similar to rage-induced memories.) But I've seen it happen twice on a smaller scale, destroying friendships, estranging family members. "False memory syndrome" or "False memory" (which is currently only a disambiguaton page), or both, should be expanded.Scribe2u (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And then there's the closely related subject of memory distortion. I understand Wikipedia's difficulties here. This area is too complex for any encyclopedia.Scribe2u (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles with overlapping content and their respective sections:

Repressed memory

History / Research / Hypothesis / Controversy / Legal issues / Recovered memory therapy (with referral to the main article)

Psychological repression

Freud's theory / Later developments / Related concepts: repressed memories

Recovered memory

Authenticity / Medico-legal issues / Neurological basis of memory / Amnesia / Effects of trauma on memory / Professional organisations

Recovered-memory therapy

Terminology / Research / Professional guidelines / Legal issues

False memory syndrome

Definition / Recovered memory therapy (with referral to the main article) / Evidence for / Court cases

A repressed memory is not also know as a recovered memory. This is false. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it's a "repressed memory" until it's "recovered" and becomes a "recovered memory". The sentence could be better-written, but, it's not exactly wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not all repressed memories will be recovered, so I agree with MathewTownsend that it is wrong. Once the memory is recovered, it is no longer repressed. And as an answer to your question: you can know it is repressed memory when there are witnesses to the traumatic event, but the person cannot remember what happened. Lova Falk talk 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "you can know it is repressed memory when there are witnesses to the traumatic event, but the person cannot remember what happened" isn't quite correct, either. The memory may never have existed. Not only the event, but the victim's recollection of the event, must be witnessed. But it is possible, under some definition of "repressed memory". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is true, a memory might never have been created. But once a memory has been recovered, we know the memory was repressed-but-not-recovered prior to the moment of recovery. Lova Falk talk 11:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They are two different things, a recovered memory is no longer repressed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good idea for several reasons.

The first is that the ability to create false memories has been scientifically proven over and over, as referenced in the Wikipedia entry.

Repressed memory in of itself, is disputed as to its actual veracity.

Finally, even if repressed memories did exist, false memories and false memory syndrome have and can be created from events that absolutely could not have happened. Therefore, these events could not have been repressed in the first place.

Example one: "I Shook Hands With Bugs Bunny At Disney World" experiment. This could not be a repressed memory, because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brothers character and would not be at Disney World.

Synopsis: In Experiment 2, participants viewed an ad for Disney that suggested that they shook hands with an impossible character (e.g., Bugs Bunny). Again, relative to controls, the ad increased confidence that they personally had shaken hands with the impossible character as a child at a Disney resort. The increased confidence is consistent with the notion that autobiographical referencing can lead to the creation of false or distorted memory. � 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reference:http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/BraunPsychMarket02.pdf Make My Memory: How Advertising Can Change Our Memories of the Past Kathryn A. Braun,Harvard Business School -- Rhiannon Ellis,University of Pittsburgh -- Elizabeth F. Loftus, University of Washington

Example two: Car Crash Study

Synopsis: To date, research has shown that it is fairly easy to take advantage of our fallible memory. Elizabeth Loftus, cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory, has found that simply changing one word in a question can contort what we recall. In one experiment, Loftus had participants watch a film of a car crash, and then asked about what they saw. They were either asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other,” or “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other.” One week later the participants returned for some memory questions. Loftus asked whether or not there was broken glass at the scene of the accident. Those participants that heard the word “smashed” were more than twice as likely to recall seeing broken glass than those who heard the word “hit.” Keep in mind, there was in fact no broken glass at the scene[2].

Reference: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/11/14/how-long-will-a-lie-last-new-study-finds-that-false-memories-linger-for-years/ Scientific American How Long Will a Lie Last? New Study Finds That False Memories Linger for Years By Kyle Hill | November 14, 2012 |

Glenna1984 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Glenn Abelson

Hello everyone, we are a group of students from Florida International University working on a class project to help improve the quality of the Wikipedia Repressed Memory article. We propose the following:

First, we want to revise the first section of the article by replacing the first two sentences into an easier and faster to read definition of repressed memory. We also want to add a citation at the end of these sentences. Furthermore, we would like to add at least one more sentence discussing the belief that repressed memories are false. This will add a more neutral view on the topic. We propose deleting the sentence tagged as “dubious”. This section should have a clear definition of dissociative amnesia to prove that the two terms are very similar. Also, revise the definition of amnesia into an easier to read definition. In this section we would want to remove a citation and add two more secondary sources that the article is in need of.

In addition, we would like to expand the History section of this article. We would remove the second sentence because there is no appropriate citation. Then we would add information about Freud’s psychoanalysis philosophy and tie it into repressed memory. We would also discuss his study on the case of Anna O. Then, add more secondary references.

Next, in the Criticism section we propose adding more examples and information on case studies. Again, add more secondary references. In the Amnesia section we would like to revise the wording of certain sentences. Add more references to support our new added information.

The last entry on this articles talk page by Glenn Abelson in January 2013 was mainly based on primary sources which are not the best sources because it does not follow Wikipedia standards. We would not agree to change the article based on these primary sources. Rachelparra (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, and welcome! You have no idea how happy I am reading a sentence like this one: "We would not agree to change the article based on these primary sources." I wish you the best of luck and don't hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the specific edits you want to make, but that is the best description I've seen of how to edit within Wikipedia guidelines I've seen in some time. I should add that, though, with rare exceptions, Wikipedia accounts should be individual; edits done by different members of the class should be done under different editor names. I, too, wish you the best of luck, and don't hesitate to ask me for assistance in WikiFormating or other difficulties you may have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Florida International University/Advanced Experimental Psychology Lab (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Fiupsychology (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is controversial. It says "citation needed" in the first line. This has not been provided. Let's shed some light on this.

The events in Sweden that finally came to light on 26th November 2013 prove beyond doubt that there is no such thing as repressed memory. Elisabeth Lotus has been interviewed for the Swedish TV on the Thomas Quick case and the program became a revelation.

The world's leading expert on repressed memories (the now discredited Swede Margit Norell who died at 90 in 2006) had an influence on all those who dealt with Thomas Quick. Starting in 1992 Quick confessed to 39 murders and was convicted of 8. All of Quick's confessions were brought about in therapy sessions with physiatrists who had received training/therapy and guidance from Norell. One of the physiatrists even "revealed" her own repressed memory of child abuse sufferred at 1 to Quick, whom she identified with, in private letters.

Quick has now been cleared of all charges and pardoned from all murders. He has changed his name back to his birth name Sture Bergwall if anyone wants to google the case. The Quick saga has been an ongoing case for over 20 years. The belief in repressed memory led to all other leads in the murder cases being ignored. In Swedish law there is a statute of limitations on murder of 25 years and only one of the 8 murders files can be opened again. The other 7 are now prescribed and even a confession from the real murderer and DNA proof can not lead to a prosecution. The belief in the myth of "repressed memory" has thus created one of the biggest criminal injustices of all time. The families of seven murder victims will now never see somebody convicted. According to a legal expert at least 5 of the murders would have been cleared up if prosecutors had not been misled by what he called "repressed memory quacks".

In a number of the cases no body has been recovered. Quick was taken on outings to the forests to look for bodies and body parts. Despite the psychiatrists being present no body parts were ever recovered. Quick has now confessed to wanting day trips and everybody being all to eager to believe him because of the "need" by believers in "repressed memory" theory to prove what they believed in actually existed. The case became more about the existence or non-existence of repressed memory than about trying to find the murderers. Police with alternate theories were kept away from these cases.

It is my belief that the WIKI entry on repressed memory can therefore be changed to "proven myth". And in any case there needs to be a section on Thomas Quick as any scholars of theory need to take a deep look into this case. The falseness of the confessions is synonymous with the myth of repressed memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.246.25 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How could one case - a drug addict who found out that telling certain lies gave him access to more drugs - overturn an entire theory? Just because it is not true in Quick's case doesn't mean it cannot be true in other cases. We need good sources (please see WP:MEDRS) both for the claim that repressed memory is true or for the claim that it is a myth. Lova Falk talk 08:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This page has been modified so much to the belief that Repressed memory is real, it no longer looks NPOV. Repressed memory is pseudoscience and that page is written as if the scientific community thinks it is real. It really need to me move back to a NOPV page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

When was the article last more-or-less good? I haven't been watching, recently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. Is is definitely before the IP editors got their hands on it. However, when the opening sentence of a article has been tagged as needed a citation forever, then obviously there is an overall problem. The existence of repressed memory has never been accepted by mainstream psychology, yet this page has only two paragraphs in over 30 saying that. The page is written so that it appears that this is an accepted psychiatric idea, when it isn't. That should be right up top in the opining paragraph. Something like, "Repressed memory is a pseudoscience theory that memory can be unconsciously blocked by an individual due to the high level of stress or trauma contained in that memory." At a minimum it should be something like "Repressed memory the theory that memory can be unconsciously blocked by an individual due to the high level of stress or trauma contained in that memory."

However, the opening line isn't the over all issue. The issue is that this article is written with a POV slant that Repressed memory is accepted by they psychiatric community, it is not. However, I know that if I were to change the page it would cause a huge edit war, so I'm not going to--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article is a complete mess. It needs to be completely re-organized. Many of the sections overlap, and sort of say the same things. Other sections need to be broken up into smaller ones. It gives way too much credence to the fringe positions. Relies on primary sources. The lede is terrible. Many, many issues.

As a starting point, I've tried to simply remove the primary and low quality sources. Have I succeeded? Are there any more? If you see anymore, just outright remove them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@ARTEST4ECHO: I suggest as a start help organize and refine the current article. In addition, create a test page where you re-write the article. Then post the test page here for discussion. It can then be discussed, altered and some or all of your re-write can be incorporated into the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked some of the most problematic wording, but we could really use some larger studies. As far as I'm aware every large scale study has pointed towards the nonexistence of the phenomenon, and NPOV doesn't mean we need to weight this as heavily as the few studies that strengthen the hypothesis. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree fully. We also need to do something about the "criticism" section. It really should be "Research section" but there's already a section like that. A lot of these sections need to be merged, split up, etc. A full re-organizing. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also look at Recovered-memory therapy article. Possibly merge them. I dunno. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think merging them is necessary, even if we do I think after weeding out poor sources we can just about justify one article.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The articles seem to be mostly copies of each other. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Even though there is quite a strong argument that it is not possible to know if recovered memories are true or false I feel the article fails to bring up the viewpoint that it is impossible to recover memories. Looking into sources. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly upset that the section I spent so much time researching and writing was removed. The article was extensively cited and sourced, and is clearly related to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.226.254 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And you wonder why fewer people contribute to Wikipedia....

Lets take them one at a time, shall we?

WP:MEDMOS applies to medical articles. What I posted was clearly criminal justice. In addition, if you don't like the style of valid content, change the style, don't delete useful content.

WP:MEDRS I cited and sourced everything in that section with published and peer reviewed papers and common college textbooks. That sub-section was perhaps the best cited and sourced section in the whole topic. While the citations are not in wiki format, I will also note that I asked for the communities help in converting the citations when I posted it.

WP:UNDUE The article on investigative issues was very balanced. It outlined how criminal investigators should approach the issue so as to protect all involved. It did not take any side at all.

WP:RS The article extensively cited and sourced common criminal justice textbooks and peer reviewed papers.

Care to try again? or perhaps just admit you made a mistake and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.226.254 (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the article has been purged of a number of other inaccuracies in the same time-period which fall under those clauses. The reason your text was removed was not that it was poorly sourced, but because it was not entirely in the scope of the article. Also one editor expressed concern that it might be a copyright violation. It is possible to restore the text and create a new article, such as; Forensics of repressed memory or similar. (Take note not to make the name too long). Also it is preferable to use in-line citations. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you felt that it was not entirely within scope and belonged on a different page, deleting useful and high quality content is not the answer, but it is a great way of telling someone with subject matter expertise to go away. This kind of behavior is in large part why wikipedia sees fewer contributors than it used to, especially occasional contributes with subject matter expertise.

As to the accusation of it being a possible copyright violation, that really should have a bit of evidence first. Like what it was a violation of. A review of the article history shows several edits to the section, and show the article evolving. This is a good indication that the article was not completed when it was posted, and was still evolving. If it is evolving this way, the liklihood of it being a copyright violation is exceedingly low.

Now, I'll take one more stab at it on a new page, however the one you linked to does not exist. Can you assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The new article Forensics of repressed memory is in need of attention, and previous discussions on this talk page seem relevant. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no such page. So I guess it really does need a lot of attention... --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It was moved to Draft:Forensics of repressed memory, and it does still need a lot of attention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The only attention it needs is if it ever becomes an article it should be deleted. It's an essay, not an article, and it has no reliable sources to speak of. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This reads more like an how-to web-page than an encyclopedia article. I see no reason whatsoever that there has to be an article about the topic (as it is no topic, really), A few sentences, in the repressed memory article, about the procedure and the mistakes that were made in procedure and methodology in some Forensic cases should be more than enough.Die-yng (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise confused about the assertive stance, since the inclusion by the U.S. authority in the past three editions of DSM demonstrate scientific consensus for the legitimacy of this phenomenon. SocialButterflyAgency (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this has been ongoing for more than a year.

"Repressed memory" was a topic of active debate in the 1990s. Its now been thoroughly rejected by the courts, the APA, etc.

This article is an example of the reason for the NPOV rule that tiny minority viewpoints do not get as much credence as supermajority viewpoints.

There hasn't been any support for this idea in 15 years.

People today discuss it only in the context of miscarriage-of-justice cases from the 1980s and 1990s in which people were convicted in child-molestation hysteria cases of crimes that never occurred.

If someone can point me to the POV dispute discussion, I'll get involved there.

If not, I'm bringing the issue back up here: Is there any reliable source from the past 15 years that this phenomenon even exists? If not, I propose going through the page and radically trimming it to note that the theory had proponents, is now discredited, cite the cases, and provide links to the miscarriage-of-justice pages.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The APA still officially says it's a matter of debate: http://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/memories.aspx?item=1

So we cannot outright say there is *no* support for it. I would encourage you to edit the article to bring it more in line with current thinking (The Cause section is especially bad currently) and be less WP:WEASELly, but you cannot use the article to outright take your side. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by how assertive this article is that repressed memories is pseudo-science. Aren't there thousands of instances of returning soldiers who have lost memories of their time in the war, but are triggered by stimuli correlating with the absent memory and nightmares which express it (see: Judith Herman's Trauma and Recovery). What is this if not repressed memory? The article mentions the term dissociation amnesia, which is referred to in the DSM, but other sources (e.g. Harvard magazine) simply describe it as the diagnostic term for repressed memories. And other Wikipedia articles cite repressed memories and amnesia as symptoms of psychological trauma. Huh?

Shouldn't the article clarify the difference between repressed memories and dissociation amnesia, and why one is accepted by the psychology community and the other is not? Because I have no idea after reading it.

Dark_Wolf101 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Wolf101 (talk • contribs)

Hi all. Currently in the process of researching an update/rewrite/clean-up of the article to remove the flags and bring it up to standard. Its going to be a lot of work and take a while. Given the level of attention and detail that a proper treatment will demand please direct suggestions, help, concerns, and criticisms to my talk page or the talk page for my sandbox. CheersRap Chart Mike (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This sounds very good, the article surely needs much improvement. Do you mean that you are writing the draft of a new version in your sandbox? Could you provide a link to your sandbox? Aerkem (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You can find that here. It would be excellent if you could provide some tips. I'm kind of new at this and, while knowledgeable, not oncredibly familiar with wikipedia conventions yet. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In the rewrite I am going to attempt to address all the issues laid out above, clarify any issues I identify, and significantly expand and modernize the cited sources.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm considering just removing the section on neurological basis of memory. It's well covered in Memory as well as elsewhere and seems extraneous to the article. Thoughts on that?Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I think the rewrite is very close to complete. I've added some references, tried to clarify some of the issues discussed previously on the talk page, rearranged the sections a bit, clarified what is speculative and what is backed up by research to the best of my ability, and think I might take it live here soon. I'd like it if anyone that has this on their watchlist could take a look at and provide some constructive criticism and propose any changes you think ought to be made. The article can be found HERE. Cheers.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When I read through the lede, it read to me like a series of sentences written by different people, without a clear organization or connections between paragraphs. I did some rewriting to try to improve the section's clarity while retaining almost all of the information that had been there, and added reference to an important recent review paper by Otgaar et al in Perspectives in Psychological Science. Thanks to whomever it was who quickly caught, and fixed, the error I made when adding the Otgaar reference. Regutten (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In the United States, the DSM serves as the principal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. The inclusion of dissociative amnesia in the last three editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders proves the Scientific consensus repressed memories is a real phenomenon, albeit the change in verbiage used to refer to it. SocialButterflyAgency (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On the scientific consensus, the American Psychological Association has a Memories of Childhood Abuse page, which clearly states that "both memory researchers and clinicians who work with trauma victims agree that both phenomena occur, [i.e., a child abuse memory being forgotten and then remembered and false memories]," and "most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later."

On the reality of the phenomenon, there are many documented cases with corroborating evidence, including perpetrator confessions (here is a link to the "Case Archive" of Brown professor Ross Cheit's "Recovered Memory Project" — http://blogs.brown.edu/recoveredmemory/case-archive/ ).

Recently there was a podcast done on a real case of recovered memory for an adult sexual assault— https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/the-cut-on-tuesdays-the-story-of-a-lyft-ride-gone-wrong.html

There are also cases of recovered memories of child sexual abuse and adult sexual assault published by the memory researcher Jonathan Schooler: https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/sites/labs.psych.ucsb.edu.schooler.jonathan/files/pubs/schooler_et_al_1997_-_taking_the_middle_line.pdf SocialButterflyAgency (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Dissociative amnesia (or Psychogenic amnesia) may be the article in relation to the DSM entry. —PaleoNeonate – 05:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Section on Research:

"Another possibility is that traumatic events are pushed out of consciousness until a later events elicits or triggers a psychological response."

That can only be called "a possibility" if there is evidence that can be referenced that supports the claim. Moreover, as McNally has noted in several of his papers, seemingly forgetting an event until the memory is cued by an effective retrieval cue does not necessarily imply that the memory was "pushed out of consciousness"

" A high percentage of female psychiatric in-patients,[17][18][19][20][21] and outpatients [22][23][24] have reported experiencing histories of childhood sexual abuse. Other clinical studies have concluded that patients who experienced incestuous abuse reported higher suicide attempts and negative identity formation[25] as well as more disturbances in interpersonal relationships.[26]"

How are those sentences relevant to the topic? Given that the statements are presented as part of this page, the implication is that repressed memories play some kind or role in these responses to childhood trauma. Implying that without providing reference to supporting evidence violates NPOV standards.

The paragraph quoted above should simply be deleted.

Section on Cause

"Researchers have proposed that repression can operate on a social level as well.[33]"

Even though Freyd uses the term repression when describing what she argues has occurred at a social level, the phenomenon of social repression of information is a VERY different phenomenon than the purported phenomenon of memory repression occurring at the individual level. Moreover, without additional elaboration, it is impossible for anyone but an anlready informed reader to know what this sentence refers to. It *might* be worth keeping this reference as part of the page, but only if some additional explanation of "repression at the social level" is offered.

"Other theoretical causes of forgotten memories have stemmed from the idea of Retrieval-Influenced Forgetting,[34] which states that “false” memories will be more accurately recalled when rehearsed more, than when actual memories get rehearsed. In this scenario, the action of rehearsing a falsified memory can actually take precedence over the actual memory that a person experiences. Anderson et al.[34] discovered that rehearsal of novel information exhibits inhibitive processes on one’s ability to remember or recall the prior (real) memory. This conclusion indicates that past memories can be easily forgotten, simply by attending to “real”, novel memories that are brought into awareness."

This entire paragraph is borderline incomprehensible. I suspect (can't be bothered to comb through the history to find out) that it was written by a student as part of a course assignment. I wish faculty would not do that, because the end result is almost inevitably that the wikipedia page ends up poorly written and disorganized.

Section on Neurological Basis of Memory

As was noted by another editor, it is not clear why this section is here at all. It should only be retained only if the information provided adds to our understanding of issues regarding claims of repressed memories. The discussion of the study with mice by Radulovic is really the only part of the section that would seem to directly relate to a discussion of repression. A more recent article by Radulovic that could be discussed in this section can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429781

Regutten (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Much of this article slanted the research to encode bias against recovered memories, a well documented phenomenon.

In the context of disputing validity for recovered memories, one sentence under the In the context of disputing the validity of their Authenticity section stated:

“For example, one study where victims of documented child abuse were reinterviewed many years later as adults, 38% of the women denied any memory of the abuse.”

I have edited it and reorganized it under the Case Study section:

“A number of studies have reported data that could be used to estimate the prevalence of prior periods of non-remembering of childhood sexual abuse among adults who report such a history. In one such study involving 129 women who had documented cases of child abuse, 38% had no memories of the abuse when reinterviewed 17 years later.“

To provide a more balanced observation, and better topic flow I have made about a dozen such corrections/rearrangements.

PS Thank you for allowing me a chance to contribute to the wiki community, and I apologize in advance for any editing errors!! I’m a newb editor looking to grow and gain experience and willing to take direction! 🤓

Much love, Kat SocialButterflyAgency (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

SocialButterflyAgency, It sounds as if you are advocating for the view that recovered memory is a real phenomenon, when there's a substantial body of research showing the opposite. Guy (help!) 08:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the APA brochure can be considered a reliable source. I verified that it does include information about repressed memories. Some quotes that I found relevant: "The issue of repressed or suggested memories has been overreported and sensationalized by the news media. Media and entertainment portrayals of the memory issue have succeeded in presenting the least likely scenario (that of a total amnesia of a childhood event) as the most likely occurrence. The reality is that most people who are victims of childhood sexual abuse remember all or part of what happened to them." and important parts of the treatment seeking section: "not to steer you toward a particular conclusion or interpretation", "current knowledge does not allow the definite conclusion that a memory is real or false without other corroborating evidence". I find interesting that there is no mention of hypnosis, which is one of the traditional issues, but we could consider "to steer you toward a particular conclusion" as possibly being related to such questionable therapies.

So this brochure acknowledges that some memories may be better recalled later but that there also is consensus that total amnesia and later recovery is unlikely. It also acknowledges the existence of false memories. There are a few subtopics involved in this article: common facts about memory, therapies (some methods are considered problematic and fringe today and there's also the recovered-memory therapy article), media and therapy controversies (legal issues, criticism, cases of therapist/patient-induced memories or scenarios). I erroneously called recovery therapy "regression therapy" in a recent edit summary but that's of course something else... —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This article does not hold much scientific value. It cherrypicks the perspectives of people arguing against repressed memories IN THE CONTEXT OF FALSE MEMORIES while completely ignoring or worse, trying to patronize, the larger context of dissociative amnesia. The discourse is therefore shifted onto the existence of false memories, and while those of course are real phenonenon, so is dissociative amnesia which should be represented just as prominently. The narrative of this article is harmful towards people suffering from dissociative disorders or dissociative amnesia as well as people trying to inform themselves about this phenomenon, and does not accurately inform about different comprehensions of "repressed memory". 94.220.132.91 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with community policies and guidelines before making an edit. Please cite reliable sources for edits that will substantially change the current content. I have reverted your edits that were not adhering to these rules; in particular, WP:NPOV. Normchou ^💬 19:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What is "unbalanced" about that section? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The following information below is inconsistent with DSM-5 regarding the treatment of dissociative amnesia and it could be confusing to readers. In many cases, dissociative amnesia is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or another disorder. Psychotherapy is indicated for the management of dissociative amnesia according to DSM-5. In fact, when a person is recovering memories following dissociative amnesia, the experience can be extremely distressing and elevating the risk for self-harm including suicide. See section below:

Despite widespread belief in the phenomenon of repressed memories among laypersons and clinical psychologists,[4] most research psychologists who study the psychology of memory dispute that repression ever occurs at all.[5][6][7][8][9][10] While some psychologists claim that repressed memories can be recovered through psychotherapy (or may be recovered spontaneously, years or even decades after the event, when the repressed memory is triggered by a particular smell, taste, or other identifier related to the lost memory),[11] experts in the psychology of memory argue that, rather than promoting the recovery of a real repressed memory, psychotherapy is more likely to contribute to the creation of false memories.[12][13][9] According to the American Psychological Association, it is not possible to distinguish repressed memories from false ones without corroborating evidence.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:200:B6B0:F59B:5E58:8FA8:CD64 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"Memories can be accurate, but they are not always accurate. For example, eyewitness testimony even of relatively recent dramatic events is notoriously unreliable.[31] Memories of events are a mix of fact overlaid with emotions, mingled with interpretation and "filled in" with imaginings. Skepticism regarding the validity of a memory as factual detail is warranted.[32] For example, one study where victims of documented child abuse were reinterviewed many years later as adults, 38% of the women denied any memory of the abuse.[33]"

This paragraph cites LM Williams' article based on a prospective study involving cases of documented sexual abuse in which the victims were seen at a hospital. Here is the abstract:

"One hundred twenty-nine women with previously documented histories of sexual victimization in childhood were interviewed and asked detailed questions about their abuse histories to answer the question 'Do people actually forget traumatic events such as child sexual abuse, and if so, how common is such forgetting?' A large proportion of the women (38%) did not recall the abuse that had been reported 17 years earlier. Women who were younger at the time of the abuse and those who were molested by someone they knew were more likely to have no recall of the abuse. The implications for research and practice are discussed. Long periods with no memory of abuse should not be regarded as evidence that the abuse did not occur."

How exactly one gets "Skepticism regarding the validity of a memory as factual detail is warranted" from that is beyond me. The entire point of the article is that women with medically documented experiences of sexual abuse reported having lost memory of said abuse at some point, for some period of time. Moreover, the leap from "certain details of a memory can and do change over time" to "the memories are entirely made up and false" is pretty enormous! I'll have to do some digging to find the sources, but the majority of literature I've read on this subject suggests that the issue is with details being inaccurate in ways that compromise legal testimony - i.e. a mugging victim may misremember the race of their assailant, especially as a result of implicit bias. But, this is not to say, nor does the majority of research suggest (as far as I'm aware), that the entire memory of being mugged should therefore be called into question. Again, the issue is about particular details, not the general summary of the overall event.

Frankly, this article seems highly biased towards towards a "skeptic" position which frames itself as based on "the real science" while ignoring the many serious critiques of that position. For example, I just removed a line from the intro about repressed memory being "largely scientifically discredited" which cited, in part, this APA FAQ page which responds to the question,

"Can a memory be forgotten and then remembered? Can a 'memory' be suggested and then remembered as true?"

with,

"What we do know is that both memory researchers and clinicians who work with trauma victims agree that both phenomena occur."

Again, how we get from that to "largely scientifically discredited" is beyond me. What is clear is that some version of "repressed memory" is widely considered a real phenomenon in the mental health community and the actual controversy is around how often it occurs, its mechanisms, and the validity and safety of therapies intended to "recover" such memories. That debate should absolutely be represented in this article, but as it stands the article reads like it is denying the very existence of a phenomenon which has, at this point, but thoroughly empirically validated (see, for example, the Recovered Memory Project). I would hope that all the skeptics who claim they're "just following the science" would want to do just that and present a less biased picture of the current state of debate around this sensitive and controversial issue, rather than offering a polemic for one "side" or the other.

Donna's Cyborg (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this field, so I'm a bit reluctant to comment. However, I just visited the APA's page on repressed memory, at https://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/memories, where it says "But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later". My reading of this issue is that there are multiple questions being conflated together, such as whether or not memories are repressed, whether or not they can be recovered, and the reliability of recovered memories, all of which seem to be covered here on the one topic. But it seems to me that if the APA is not describing this as discredited, perhaps we shouldn't be wording it so conclusively either. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The most important aspect is the fact that therapists have been claiming to be able to recover memories using methods known to fabricate fantasies, such as hypnosis, leading questions, a request to fantasize with a subsequent claim that the fantasies are in reality memories. The result of such therapies are memories of alien abductions, of former lives, of future lives, of multiple personalities, of Satanic rituals, and of sexual abuse. People have gone to jail because such fantasies have been taken as memories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. But my question is whether or not repressed memories have been discredited in the same way that recovered memories are now considered to be unreliable. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recovered-memory therapy has it's own page and is not of primary importance when discussing the scientific consensus on whether repressed memories are "real", let alone what the scientific research and consensus on the issue says. I agree that Recovered-memory therapy should probably have stub (am I using that term correctly?) here, but this actually points to one of the serious issues in critiques of the repressed memory hypothesis, namely the assumption - lacking any empirical backing as far as I'm aware, but you're welcome to offer citations - that a significant number, let alone a majority, of recovered memories are a result of any kind of Recovered-memory therapy. See my reply to Bilby, specifically the paragraph about efforts to discredit survivor testimony. The existence of a handful of sensationalized cases (e.g. the McMartin preschool trial) largely dating back to a moral panic in the 80s/90s, most of which involved improper interviewing techniques with very young children, does not in any way invalidate the existence of recovered memories or the scientific consensus on this issue.

This is a common strawman among those who take the extreme (and minority!) total denial view of recovered memories, that is to imply that all or most recovered memories are the result of inappropriate therapeutic techniques. I am unaware of any research demonstrating that a majority of repressed memories were recovered in therapy, let alone in the specific quack therapies that opponents routinely point to, frequently with the implication that many - or even all! - recovered memories result from such quackery. Furthermore, to the extent that some survivors do recover memories in the context of therapy, that does not automatically prove that it was one of the quack therapies or even that the therapy was aimed at recovering memories at all. For example, someone might come into therapy to discuss abuse for which they have continuous memories and, as they begin thinking about a time and place in their life that they had previously avoided, begin to recover additional memories of that abuse. Such a situation wouldn't involve any prodding or probing by a therapist and in fact the recovered memory very well could return outside of therapy as the person is reflecting on parts of their past that were previously avoided.

Anyways, I stand by my assertion that this article is seriously biased and need significant reworking, if not a whole rewrite. Donna's Cyborg (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. It is an important aspect because repressed memories are a necessary (but not sufficient) component of the worldviews of a colorful mixture of lunatic fringes: a lunatic fringe of religion (recovered memories of Satanism), a lunatic fringe of feminism (recovered memories of child abuse), a lunatic fringe of esotericism (recovered memories of former lives) and a lunatic fringe of a lunatic fringe (recovered memories of alien abduction). Therefore, the literature in favor of its existence is expected to contain a lot of crap and needs to be checked more carefully than the literature in favor of most other scientific hypotheses. For example, WP:PRIMARY sources are right out, peer-reviewed or not. Any statements confirming the existence need to be based on very high-quality sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

Dalenberg (2006) is a review of the relevant literature which establishes/argues for the scientific consensus on the issue and surveys a variety of biological and psychological theories for its mechanisms. It is a secondary source. Further, can you provide evidence that the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is in any way fringe or disreputable? I believe Wikipedia maintains a list of predatory/fringe journals, is it listed there?

I have since collected roughly a dozen more sources, both secondary and primary, from reputable peer-reviewed journals and academically published books, representing a range of perspectives on this issue. I will be adding them here when I have time later today, along with relevant passages. At that point I plan to tag the article with a POV warning.

I hope we can have a polite and reasonable discussion as we strive for consensus. To that end, I would very much appreciate it if moving forward accusations of "fringe" or "pseudoscience" were backed up with quality sourcing and some kind of argumentation. Simply asserting it does not make it so.

-- Donna's Cyborg, editing from phone 2604:CA00:139:B65F:0:0:C60:B090 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

can you provide evidence that the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is in any way fringe or disreputable? Why on Earth should I do that? I did not say it was, I never even mentioned it. If you pull stuff out of your hat and demand I back up statements I never made about that stuff, a polite and reasonable discussion is going to be difficult.

moving forward accusations of "fringe" or "pseudoscience" were backed up with quality sourcing The fringe I was talking about is recovered memory therapy. Are you really demanding evidence that that one is fringe and pseudoscientific, or are you putting words into my mouth?

Also, please don't ping me. I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have some expertise in this field (emphasis on the some lol!) as a grad student doing research in medical anthropology, sociology of science and philosophy of science as they relate to PTSD research. My research doesn't necessarily address the repressed memory issue directly (yet! all this controversy is making me think it needs a section in my thesis lol!) but it does come up fairly frequently in the more contemporary research. As for the APA page, I would argue that it is far more conservative than warranted, but obviously that's not my/our call. Either way, it seems like that page hasn't been updated since 1995 - nearly three decades ago! - and indeed displays a disclaimer at the top which says, "[t]his page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly." While I think it's appropriate to include this page if no other, more recent commentary from the APA (or other relevant organizations) can be found, I don't think it should be given nearly the weight it currently receives in the article, especially in light of more recent research.

To that end, in trying to dig up sources on this issue to make sure my recollection was correct (i.e. that some version of repressed memory is widely accepted in the field) I honestly came away with the impression that this article is even more biased than I first thought. Constance Dalenberg's 2006 article 'Recovered Memory and the Daubert Criteria: Recovered Memory as Professionally Tested, Peer Reviewed, and Accepted in the Relevant Scientific Community' in the journal Trauma, Violence, and Abuse (happy to provide a PDF for anyone who doesn't have access!) does a fantastic job of bringing together and summarizing the relevant literature. Here's the abstract:

Research during the past two decades has firmly established the reliability of the phenomenon of recovered memory. This review first highlights the strongest evidence for the phenomenon itself and discusses the survey, experimental, and biological evidence for the varying mechanisms that may underlie the phenomenon. Routes to traumatic amnesia from dissociative detachment (loss of emotional content leading to loss of factual content) and from dissociative compartmentalization (failure in integration) are discussed. Next, an argument is made that false memory is a largely orthogonal concept to recovered memory; the possibility of one phenomena is largely irrelevant to the potential for the other. Furthermore, some aspects of the false memory research offer supportive data for the recovered memory researcher. Finally, the issue of error rates in making the Daubert case is explored. It is concluded that the weight of the evidence should allow the recovered memory victim to come before the court.

I think you're right that part of the issue is a confusion of terms. The term "repressed memory" has had multiple definitions since it's (supposed) origination with Freud and the basic concept - i.e. that abuse/traumatic memories can be rendered inaccessible to conscious awareness for some extended period of time - predates him. For example, Pierre Janet was developing a similar concept even before Freud (see Allan Young's excellent ethnography of PTSD 'The Harmony of Illusions' for more info). Freud himself defined "repressed memory" and indeed "repression" itself differently throughout his work - for example, sometimes describing repression as an unconscious process and at others as a conscious, willful forgetting. And all of this is to say nothing of the various ways it has been used in both the psy-disciplines and popular culture in the many decades since! All this to say that the history section of this article needs some serious updating and expanding in order bring greater clarity to these definitional issues.

Unfortunately, however, there has been a fairly concerted effort (by folks who imho have less than great motives) to undermine the validity of survivor testimony which started around the 1980's. This effort frequently engaged in strawmanning by employing a strictly Freudian (with all the baggage that implies!) definition, and a pretty narrowly constructed one at that. With this definition in hand they then "debunk" repressed memory in ways that imply the phenomenon in its entirety is illegitimate or unscientific. Dalenberg is helpful here:

One strategy to oppose recovered memory possibility, then, is to choose the mechanism that is most difficult to prove (in this case, repression) and pretend that evidence against the mechanism is evidence against the phenomena. As an analogy, some researchers believe that viruses play a role in schizophrenia. If this hypothesis proves to be false, it does not then follow that schizophrenia does not exist.

My contention, then, is that not only is this article poorly written - it seems like others who are aware of the critique I'm offering have just kind of inserted text here and there in an attempt at balance which has unfortunately led to a poorly written and structured article - but that it has fallen prey to a bias that seems common in the "skeptic" community. I am all about following the science, I wouldn't be studying the things I do if I weren't! I'm also committed to maintaining neutrality. As you can probably tell, I'm highly skeptical of the entire "false memory" notion (this is not to say false accusations aren't made or that people can't have false beliefs, but that's a whole other issue and honestly I don't think false memory needs more than a stub here and a link to its own page) and Loftus' work in particular. That being said, both that concept and Loftus are critical components of this whole debate and their views - at least to the extent that they are relayed in academic, peer-reviewed sources - ought to be included, alongside scholarly critique of those views. However, as it stands I would argue that this article puts way too much weight on the opinions of Loftus et al. while largely ignoring the actual consensus opinion among clinicians, researchers and clinician-researchers. Returning to Dalenberg again,

At the present point in time, in keeping with the many surveys on recovered memory and the hundreds of supporting empirical studies on stress, trauma and memory, the concept of recovered memory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. In a survey of psychologists by Pope and Tabachnick (1995), 73% stated that they had personally seen a case that they classified as a recovered memory. In a survey of both American and British professionals, Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull (1995) found a similar high rate of experience with the phenomena. Polusny and Follette (1996) found that 28% of psychologists reported that they had seen a case of repressed memory in the past year. In Dammeyer, Nightingale, and McCoy’s (1997) more recent survey, only 7% of experimental psychologists, 3% of clinical psychologists with research involvement, and 2% of clinicians with no research involvement reported that they held the view that accurate recovered memories of trauma are not possible (rating the possibility of loss and recovery of a trauma memory as 1 or 2 on a 1 to 10 point scale of validity). The majority of all groups view the current evidence as supporting a more probable than not decision (6 to 8 on an 10-point scale) or are certain of the validity of the phenomenon (9 to 10). The relevant percentages for experimentalists, clinical researchers and PhD clinicians who rated their belief in the validity of recovered memory at or more than 6 were 70%, 88%, and 93% respectively. If asked for their belief in repressed memory, the number dropped slightly, but the majority of each group still fell in the more probable than not category. Fourteen percent of experimentalists, 2% of clinical researchers, and 1% of nonresearcher clinicians take the position of the extreme false memory advocates and reject the concept (rating belief as 1 or 2).

Given the evidence I've provided thus far (and this is just what I could dig up in a few hours research, hopefully we can find even more up to date sources) I think that it is fair to say this article has serious NPOV issues. I'm fairly new to making significant edits, so I'll try to take things slow, familiarize myself with the process for disputing POV and make sure any edits I make are kosher. I suppose, then, that this is a bit of a heads up to anyone interested/watching this page that I'm raising this issue and planning on addressing it through whatever the proper procedures are. I'm also happy to take a look at any more recent research, especially meta-analyses and systematic reviews, on both repressed memory itself and current consensus in the field.

Donna's Cyborg (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps part of a solution is to include additional, reliable, secondary sources that support the claim largely scientifically discredited. How about sourcing to some combination of this, this, this, and this, none of which (I think) are currently referenced in the article? The final source on this list speaks to an alleged dichotomy between researchers (i.e., scientists) and clinicians, but that dichotomy supports the phrase "largely scientifically discredited." Along with adding some additional sources, perhaps appending to the quoted passage something along the lines of "but accepted by some therapists" (with appropriate sources, of course) would be acceptable? I know that wording is a bit weasely, but collaboration, consensus, and all that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at those sources when I get a chance, but wouldn't peer-reviewed scholarship take precedence here? I'm happy to include a criticisms section covering this work, but I don't think the assertion "largely scientifically discredited" is even remotely accurate. See Recovered Memory and the Daubert Criteria: Recovered Memory as Professionally Tested, Peer Reviewed, and Accepted in the Relevant Scientific Community for more info, specifically,

At the present point in time, in keeping with the many surveys on recovered memory and the hundreds of supporting empirical studies on stress, trauma and memory, the concept of recovered memory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. In a survey of psychologists by Pope and Tabachnick (1995), 73% stated that they had personally seen a case that they classified as a recovered memory. In a survey of both American and British professionals, Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull (1995) found a similar high rate of experience with the phenomena. Polusny and Follette (1996) found that 28% of psychologists reported that they had seen a case of repressed memory in the past year. In Dammeyer, Nightingale, and McCoy’s (1997) more recent survey, only 7% of experimental psychologists, 3% of clinical psychologists with research involvement, and 2% of clinicians with no research involvement reported that they held the view that accurate recovered memories of trauma are not possible (rating the possibility of loss and recovery of a trauma memory as 1 or 2 on a 1 to 10 point scale of validity). The majority of all groups view the current evidence as supporting a more probable than not decision (6 to 8 on an 10-point scale) or are certain of the validity of the phenomenon (9 to 10). The relevant percentages for experimentalists, clinical researchers and PhD clinicians who rated their belief in the validity of recovered memory at or more than 6 were 70%, 88%, and 93% respectively. If asked for their belief in repressed memory, the number dropped slightly, but the majority of each group still fell in the more probable than not category. Fourteen percent of experimentalists, 2% of clinical researchers, and 1% of nonresearcher clinicians take the position of the extreme false memory advocates and reject the concept (rating belief as 1 or 2).

Note that the Dammeyer, Nightingale, and McCoy (1997) study includes experimental psychologists, i.e. researchers, as well as clinician-researchers (people who both do clinical work and conduct research) and majorities of all groups expressed belief that recovered memory is likely or certain to be a real phenomenon. I'm more than happy to be flexible and make compromises where that makes sense. I think a criticisms section is absolutely warranted. But in light of this research I'm struggling to see how any claim that repressed/recovered memory is "largely scientifically discredited" is even remotely sustainable absent peer-reviewed research countering the source cited above. Again, I am very open to someone offering such sources, but until then I don't think opinion pieces should trump peer-reviewed scholarship.

Having looked over the NPOV tutorial, with specific attention to neutral language and space and balance, I believe that a POV dispute tag is warranted until we can come to some consensus?

P.S. I'm happy to share a copy with anyone who doesn't have access. I also plan on looking for more recent peer-review sources when I get the time and would appreciate recommendations, especially from those who might disagree with me! Donna's Cyborg (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The four articles you've provided are opinion pieces in journalistic/non-peer-review sources which represent a minority opinion. There is a wealth of better quality, secondary sources that ought to take precedence. Dalenberg (2006) in particular speaks directly to the issue of consensus. Critic views should get page space, but they should not be presented as consensus. I can reinstate my original edit (removing "largely scientifically discredited") but the issue is endemic throughout the whole article, which I believe needs a serious rewrite, merger or deletion. Hope that's concise enough. Donna's Cyborg (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)