Jump to content

Memory implantation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lieselm (talk | contribs)
64 edits
Lieselm (talk | contribs)
64 edits
Line 15: Line 15:


== Memory implantation research with children ==
== Memory implantation research with children ==
In 1998 Herrmann and Yoder published an article arguing for the cessation of memory implantation research with children. <ref name=herrmann and yoder>Herrmann, D., & Yoder, C. (1998). The potential effects of the implanted memory paradigm on child subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 198-206. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<198::AID-ACP1522>3.0.CO;2-Y</ref> The criticisms referred to several studies investigating the suggestibility of children written by Ceci and colleagues. <ref>Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403±439.</ref><ref>Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. and Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. The International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304±320.</ref>Herrmann and Yoer argue that the methods used can have negative implications for the children used such as lessen their respect for authority, be damaging for their concept of self (feel incompetent when it is pointed out that their memories are wrong) and cause stress.<ref name=herrmann and yoder/> This article created much debate and several commentaries to the article were published in the same June edition of the journal "Applied Cognitive Psychology" together with the original article. One of these was written by Ceci, Bruck and Loftus who disagree with the statements in Herrmann and Yoder's article. According to these authors there is no evidence that any children have been harmed in a memory implantation study and until such evidence exists there is no reason to stop using these techniques with children as long as it produces good research. <ref name=ceci et al>Ceci, S. J., Bruck, M., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). On the ethics of memory implantation research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 230-240. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<230::AID-ACP526>3.0.CO;2-1</ref> Ornstein and Gordon also replied to Herrmann and Yoder's article saying that although people conducting research with children have an ethical responsibility there is much to be gained from memory implantation research and the benefits outweigh the potential risk for children involved.<ref>Ornstein, P. A., & Gordon, B. N. (1998). Risk versus rewards of applied research with children: Comments on the potential effects of the implanted-memory paradigm on child participants by douglas herrmann and carol yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 241-244. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<241::AID-ACP527>3.0.CO;2-V</ref> Another commentary written by Goodman, Quas and Redlich argues that there is reason to believe that children in general enjoy participating in false memory studies and that the benefits of these studies for research into eyewitness memory are many. They also refer to several cases where memory implantation studies have been cited in court and contributed to convictions being overturned. <ref>Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Redlich, A. D. (1998). The ethics of conducting false memory research with children: A reply to herrmann and yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 207-217. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<207::AID-ACP523>3.0.CO;2-T</ref> Thompson and Jackson propose a modified version of the suggestions from Herrmann and Yoder and say that methods for being more ethically aware when doing research with children have to be developed. <ref>Thompson, R. A., & Jackson, S. (1998). Ethical dimensions of child memory research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 218-224. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<218::AID-ACP524>3.0.CO;2-M</ref> Also Westcott agrees with the general concerns about researchers having to take extra care when working with children.<ref>Westcott, H. (1998). Commentary on herrmann and yoders the potential effects of the implanted memory paradigm on child subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 225-229. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<225::AID-ACP525>3.0.CO;2-R</ref> In their responding article to all the commentaries Yoder and Herrmann again question whether memory implantation research with children is necessary and conclude that ethical guidelines should be put in place by Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition(SARMAC). <ref>Yoder, C., & Herrmann, D. (1998). Revisiting the ethics of implanted memory research with children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 245-249. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<245::AID-ACP528>3.0.CO;2-G</ref> Although all the researchers involved in these commentaries from this issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology put forward different argument the general consensus was that doing research with children calls for extra care and the benefits from the research must outweigh potential risk to the participating children.
In 1998 Herrmann and Yoder published an article arguing for the cessation of memory implantation research with children. <ref name=herrmann and yoder>Herrmann, D., & Yoder, C. (1998). The potential effects of the implanted memory paradigm on child subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 198-206. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<198::AID-ACP1522>3.0.CO;2-Y</ref> The criticisms referred to several studies investigating the suggestibility of children written by Ceci and colleagues. <ref>Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403±439.</ref><ref>Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. and Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. The International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304±320.</ref>Herrmann and Yoer argue that the methods used can have negative implications for the children used such as lessen their respect for authority, be damaging for their concept of self (feel incompetent when it is pointed out that their memories are wrong) and cause stress.<ref name=herrmann and yoder/> This article created much debate and several commentaries to the article were published in the same June edition of the journal "Applied Cognitive Psychology" together with the original article. One of these was written by Ceci, Bruck and Loftus who disagree with the statements in Herrmann and Yoder's article. According to these authors there is no evidence that any children have been harmed in a memory implantation study and until such evidence exists there is no reason to stop using these techniques with children as long as it produces good research. <ref name=ceci et al>Ceci, S. J., Bruck, M., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). On the ethics of memory implantation research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 230-240. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<230::AID-ACP526>3.0.CO;2-1</ref> Ornstein and Gordon also replied to Herrmann and Yoder's article saying that although people conducting research with children have an ethical responsibility there is much to be gained from memory implantation research and the benefits outweigh the potential risk for children involved.<ref>Ornstein, P. A., & Gordon, B. N. (1998). Risk versus rewards of applied research with children: Comments on the potential effects of the implanted-memory paradigm on child participants by douglas herrmann and carol yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 241-244. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<241::AID-ACP527>3.0.CO;2-V</ref> Another commentary written by Goodman, Quas and Redlich argues that there is reason to believe that children in general enjoy participating in false memory studies and that the benefits of these studies for research into eyewitness memory are many. They also refer to several cases where memory implantation studies have been cited in court and contributed to convictions being overturned. <ref>Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Redlich, A. D. (1998). The ethics of conducting false memory research with children: A reply to herrmann and yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 207-217. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<207::AID-ACP523>3.0.CO;2-T</ref> Thompson and Jackson propose a modified version of the suggestions from Herrmann and Yoder and say that methods for being more ethically aware when doing research with children have to be developed. <ref>Thompson, R. A., & Jackson, S. (1998). Ethical dimensions of child memory research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 218-224. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<218::AID-ACP524>3.0.CO;2-M</ref> Also Westcott agrees with the general concerns about researchers having to take extra care when working with children.<ref>Westcott, H. (1998). Commentary on herrmann and yoders the potential effects of the implanted memory paradigm on child subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 225-229. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<225::AID-ACP525>3.0.CO;2-R</ref> In their responding article to all the commentaries Yoder and Herrmann again question whether memory implantation research with children is necessary and conclude that ethical guidelines should be put in place by Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition(SARMAC). <ref>Yoder, C., & Herrmann, D. (1998). Revisiting the ethics of implanted memory research with children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 245-249. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<245::AID-ACP528>3.0.CO;2-G</ref> Although all the researchers involved in these commentaries from this issue of "Applied Cognitive Psychology" put forward different arguments the general consensus was that doing research with children calls for extra care and the benefits from the research must outweigh potential risk to the participating children.


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 08:28, 6 June 2012

Memory implantation is used in cognitive psychology to investigate human memory. In memory implantation studies researchers make people believe that they remember an event that actually never happened. The false memories that have been successfully implanted in people’s memories include remembering being lost in a mall as a child, taking a hot air balloon ride, and putting slime in a teacher’s desk in primary school.[1] [2] [3] Memory implantation techniques were developed in the 1990’s as a way of providing evidence of how easy it is to distort memory. Most of the studies on memory implantation were published in the context of the debate about repressed memories and the possible danger of digging for lost memories in therapy. Successfully implanting memories in people’s minds have implications for therapy and legal settings.

Successful memory implantation

Published studies

The first formal studies using memory implantation were published in the early 1990's, the most famous being "The Formation of False Memories" (commonly referred to as the "Lost in the Mall" study) by Loftus and Pickrell [1]. The basic technique used in this study involved getting family members of a participant to provide narratives of events that happened when they were young and then add another event that definitely did not happen. The participants got these four narratives and were told to try to remember as much as possible about each event. Across a number of studies using memory implantation about 37% of people have come to remember part of or entire events that never actually happened.[4] Other studies have expanded on this paradigm by introducing photos instead of narratives. Wade and colleagues found that 50% of people came to remember details of a hot air balloon ride that never happened after seeing a manipulated photo depicting the event.[5] Later it has been argued that photos by themselves do not produce more false memories than narratives but that both methods have the power to successfully implant false memories.[6] Real photos have also been found to increase the creation of false memories. In a study by Lindsay and colleagues people were shown a childhood photo from the same time period as the false event. Seeing the photo resulted in more false memories even when the photos did not depict the actual event.[7]

A real life example of memory implantation occurred during the criminal case against Paul Ingram. Ingram was accused by his daughters of recurring sexual abuse. Ingram denied all allegations at first but after being interviewed by police and therapists he came to remember multiple instances of abuse. Psychologist Richard Ofshe considered this confession a result of suggestive questioning and decided to test his theory. He told Ingram about a made up scenario and said it was another accusation made by his children. Ofshe asked Ingram to try and remember as much as possible about this new event. Ingram could not recall anything straight away but after thinking about it for some time came up with a written confession where he described in detail what had happened. His children confirmed to Ofshe that the event had never actually happened, Ingram had created an entirely false memory of an event after suggestions from Ofshe. Richard Ofshe considered this successful memory implantation evidence of Paul Ingram’s suggestibility and it also casts doubt on the other confessions Ingram has made.[8]


Implications

The methods used in memory implantation studies are meant to mimic those used by some therapists to recover repressed memories of childhood events .Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The high rate of people "remembering" false events shows that memories cannot always be taken at face value. Being told to go home and look at old photos to jog your memory can help you remember real events, but paired with suggestions from a therapist it might also lead to false memories. Memory implantation studies are also similar to recovered memory therapy in the way that they involved an authoritative figure claiming to know that the event actually happened and applying pressure on the participant/patient to remember.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Memory implantation techniques in general also illustrate how people can come to remember things that actually never happened relatively easy. This poses a big problem for confessions to crimes resulting from suggestive questioning by police and others and also for the accuracy associated with eyewitness memory. Some people have argued that memory implantation studies are not applicable to real life memories of trauma, such as childhood sexual abuse. As it is not ethical to try to implant false memories of sexual abuse researchers have tried to get around this by choosing other events that are seen as negative but not traumatic. Being lost in a shopping mall for example would be a negative experience for most children.[1] Hyman and colleagues used memory implantation techniques with emotional events such as a specific birthday party (positive) and being hospitalized overnight(negative). They found that using emotional events did not change the rate of false memory creation significantly compared with other studies.[9]

Memory implantation research with children

In 1998 Herrmann and Yoder published an article arguing for the cessation of memory implantation research with children. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The criticisms referred to several studies investigating the suggestibility of children written by Ceci and colleagues. [10][11]Herrmann and Yoer argue that the methods used can have negative implications for the children used such as lessen their respect for authority, be damaging for their concept of self (feel incompetent when it is pointed out that their memories are wrong) and cause stress.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). This article created much debate and several commentaries to the article were published in the same June edition of the journal "Applied Cognitive Psychology" together with the original article. One of these was written by Ceci, Bruck and Loftus who disagree with the statements in Herrmann and Yoder's article. According to these authors there is no evidence that any children have been harmed in a memory implantation study and until such evidence exists there is no reason to stop using these techniques with children as long as it produces good research. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Ornstein and Gordon also replied to Herrmann and Yoder's article saying that although people conducting research with children have an ethical responsibility there is much to be gained from memory implantation research and the benefits outweigh the potential risk for children involved.[12] Another commentary written by Goodman, Quas and Redlich argues that there is reason to believe that children in general enjoy participating in false memory studies and that the benefits of these studies for research into eyewitness memory are many. They also refer to several cases where memory implantation studies have been cited in court and contributed to convictions being overturned. [13] Thompson and Jackson propose a modified version of the suggestions from Herrmann and Yoder and say that methods for being more ethically aware when doing research with children have to be developed. [14] Also Westcott agrees with the general concerns about researchers having to take extra care when working with children.[15] In their responding article to all the commentaries Yoder and Herrmann again question whether memory implantation research with children is necessary and conclude that ethical guidelines should be put in place by Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition(SARMAC). [16] Although all the researchers involved in these commentaries from this issue of "Applied Cognitive Psychology" put forward different arguments the general consensus was that doing research with children calls for extra care and the benefits from the research must outweigh potential risk to the participating children.

See also


References

  1. ^ a b c Loftus, Elizabeth F (1995). "The Formation of False Memories". Psychiatric Annals. 25 (12): 720–725. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Wade, Kimberley A (2002). "A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 9 (3): 597–603. doi:10.3758/BF03196318. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Lindsay, D.S (2004). "True photographs and false memories". Psychological Science. 15 (3): 149–154. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503002.x. PMID 15016285. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Wade, Kimberly A. (2005). "Strategies for verifying false autobiographical memories". The American Journal of Psychology. 118 (4): 587–602. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Wade, K.A. (2002). "A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 9: 597–603. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Garry, Maryanne (2005). "Actually, a picture is worth less than 45 words: Narratives produce more false memories than photographs do". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 12 (2): 359–366. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Lindsay, D.S. (2004). "True photographs and false memories". Psychological Science. 15: 149–154. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Ofshe, Richard J. (1992). "Inadvertent Hypnosis During Interrogation: False Confession Due to Dissociative State; Mis-Identified Multiple Personality and the Satanic Cult Hypothesis". International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 40 (3): 125–156.
  9. ^ Hyman, Ira E. (1995). "False Memories of Childhood Experiences". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 9: 181–197. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403±439.
  11. ^ Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. and Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. The International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304±320.
  12. ^ Ornstein, P. A., & Gordon, B. N. (1998). Risk versus rewards of applied research with children: Comments on the potential effects of the implanted-memory paradigm on child participants by douglas herrmann and carol yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 241-244. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<241::AID-ACP527>3.0.CO;2-V
  13. ^ Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Redlich, A. D. (1998). The ethics of conducting false memory research with children: A reply to herrmann and yoder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 207-217. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<207::AID-ACP523>3.0.CO;2-T
  14. ^ Thompson, R. A., & Jackson, S. (1998). Ethical dimensions of child memory research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 218-224. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<218::AID-ACP524>3.0.CO;2-M
  15. ^ Westcott, H. (1998). Commentary on herrmann and yoders the potential effects of the implanted memory paradigm on child subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 225-229. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<225::AID-ACP525>3.0.CO;2-R
  16. ^ Yoder, C., & Herrmann, D. (1998). Revisiting the ethics of implanted memory research with children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 245-249. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<245::AID-ACP528>3.0.CO;2-G
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Memory_implantation&oldid=496241487"