Two researchers have just published a striking paper on what it means to ‘remember’ something and whether you can trust your feelings or not when it comes to decide if you really lived what you claim to remember. Law and decision issues aside, the very concept of ‘false memories’ is enough to be curious about the evolved mechanisms of memory.
Many people believe that emotional memories (including those that arise in therapy) are particularly likely to represent true events because of their emotional content. But is emotional content a reliable indicator of memory accuracy? The current research assessed the emotional content of participants’ pre-existing (true) and manipulated (false) memories for childhood events. False memories for one of three emotional childhood events were planted using a suggestive manipulation and then compared, a long several subjective dimensions, with other participants’ true memories. On most emotional dimensions (e.g., how emotional was this event for you?), true and false memories were indistinguishable. On a few measures (e.g., intensity of feelings at the time of the event), true memories were more emotional than false memories in the aggregate, yet true and false memories were equally likely to be rated as uniformly emotional. These results suggest that even substantial emotional content may not reliably indicate memory accuracy.
Full text is available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1276481