ormation in the sentence, the self monitoring test (on whether the robber wore gloves) showed there was a false alarm rate 10% of the control condition along with an increase of 37% for false information presented once, and 56% three times (p 296).
Therefore, main reason for the phenomena is that there is little research on memory recollection than on perceptual recollection until the 1990s because it is tricky to obtain close control over the stimulus that is subject to a memory (Roediger, 1996). Memories of perception are created within minutes yet; the memory recollection lasts significantly longer. Therefore, the independent evidence is that the memories really occurred. However, in many of these cases there are inconsistencie such as patients reporting depression and recalling negative events that previously were seen as pleasant. Secondly, there were inconsistencies between people who witnessed verbal arguments somewhere in there past and years before.
Evidence of False Memories
Yet, there are many people have argued that false memories are only single events that have different memories such as in the case of abuse by relatives. While this may be true in some instances Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) find that there still remains an argument of interevent differences taken up by researchers who have, in turn, designed experiments to test whether false memories of unpleasant events can be created (p 14). In an investigation on whether children created false memories after receiving rectal enemas, Steffens & Mecklenbrauker (2007) found that although unpleasant for some children, for others they felt helpless.
However, in a controlled event in the same study on whether children could get lost in a shopping mall, 14 of the children tested created false memories of being lost, but not of the hospital visit because the pattern was reversed for only one child (p 15). This shows that while there were differences between the actual events that influenced the probability of false memory creation the plausibility of the event is subjectively low because the false memories did not emerge. Therefore, the confidence estimate increased regarding the unlikely events.
Memory researchers also claim that the problem with traumatic experiences is not that the person has repressed or forgotten the memory but rather because the memory remains vivid in their mind and cannot be forgotten (Loftus, 2003). While the vividness can be disturbing and often causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), many therapists believe that repression follows the Freudian tradition because while memories cannot be assimilated into existing schemas they are fearfully repressed into a person’s unconsciousness. For this reason therapy is less threatening and memories can be recovered, especially in the case of alleged sexual abuse.
For example, in the past few years there has been much publicity on people who claim to suddenly recover memories of childhood sexual abuse. People experience memories that have not been there for years yet after time the repressed memories are recovered by therapists and other trained professionals. While some of these accounts may be true in some instances, Alison, Kebell & Lewis (2006) suggest that the memory of a traumatic event varies depending in the level of stress associated with the event (p 425). Moderating stressful events such as a near car accident results in memory impairment, with 80% of incidents forgotten within 2 weeks (p 425). However, with higher levels of arousal such as in the case of an actual collision rather than a near miss of a car accident lead to detailed memories.
While there is a considerable difference between a sexual abuse case and a car accident or near car
