This literature review examines a broad range of psychological research on human memory, spanning the early 21st century with select late-20th-century sources. The paper is organized into four thematic areas: memory distortion and Schacter's "seven sins" framework; autobiographical and repressed memories and their connection to self-identity; body memory and body psychotherapy as pioneered by Reich and developed by contemporary researchers such as Leijssen; and the implications of memory research for legal proceedings and psychotherapeutic practice. The review also addresses false memories, trauma's effect on memory storage and retrieval, and the emerging interdisciplinary dialogue between psychology and neuroscience. Throughout, the paper emphasizes that human memory is a fluid, reconstructive, and fallible process rather than a fixed record.
The paper demonstrates effective thematic organization of a literature review. Rather than summarizing sources sequentially, the author groups research around conceptual themes — distortion, autobiographical memory, body memory, trauma, and law — and uses each section to build toward an overarching argument about the fallibility and reconstructive nature of human memory. This approach models how to synthesize disparate sources into a coherent analytical narrative.
The paper opens with a detailed roadmap introduction, followed by a literature review body divided into clearly delineated thematic sections. Each section introduces a strand of research, presents key evidence through quotation and paraphrase, and connects it back to the paper's central claims. A conclusion synthesizes the major themes, flags remaining gaps in the research, and gestures toward future directions in neuroscience and interdisciplinary collaboration. The overall structure is that of a formal academic literature review.
This literature review on human memory covers a fairly wide spectrum of ideas regarding the subject. While there are a number of connections among the divisions or categories addressed, there are also several distinctions and differences. The psychological research included in the review spans roughly the duration of the 21st century thus far, with a few sources having been published in 1999, just before the turn of the century. The review approaches the selected body of psychological research on human memory by dividing the research loosely into the following sections: memory distortion, repressed memories, body memory, and the changes in perspective on memory with respect to appropriate psychological and psychotherapeutic treatment.
The section focusing on memory distortion identifies that memory distortion does, in fact, occur and attempts to describe the factors that produce it. Research in this section also discusses why memory distortion means that memory cannot serve as the only or primary evidence in a criminal investigation or in other matters of law. The section on repressed memories provides a definition of repressed memories, as well as theories on how they form, how they can be retrieved, and their vulnerability to external manipulation. This section additionally reviews research connecting repressed memories to experiences of trauma.
The section on body memory provides definitions and theories regarding the validity of body memory. Essentially, the theories are based on the premise that the brain is a muscle and the primary site of human memory storage, yet the body is full of muscles as well, which have their own kinds of memories. Researchers contend that the memories held in the body are just as valuable and valid as — and, arguably, more reliable than — those stored in the brain.
The literature review also includes a section on old and new perspectives on human memory, particularly as they relate to methods of psychotherapeutic treatment. This shift in thinking can be attributed to a number of factors, including the regular historical cycles of changing thought in any area of study, as well as the broader intellectual changes that accompanied the arrival of the 21st century.
As the 21st century approached, Daniel Schacter conducted and published research that seemed revolutionary — research that fell on the "wrong side" of prevailing arguments regarding the structure, capacity, and function of human memory. He observed:
"We are all affected by memory's shortcomings in our everyday lives, and scientists have studied them for decades. But there have been few attempts to systematically organize or classify the various ways in which memory can lead us astray and to assess the state of the scientific evidence concerning them. Given the scientific attention paid recently to the fallibility of memory, and the important real-world consequences that are sometimes associated with forgetting and distortion…" (Schacter, 1999, p. 183)
His research was an attempt to accomplish precisely what he identified as lacking in the contemporary psychological literature: to classify and organize, through scientific inquiry, the ways in which memory cannot be relied upon. Memory is so essential to human functioning that this kind of dedicated attention is not only warranted but necessary, since most of us rely on our memories more than we may consciously realize.
There is no doubt that functioning memory is essential to the completion of everyday tasks, from the most basic to the most complex. In the time that Schacter's work was current, as well as in the present moment in which this literature review is composed, there remains a great deal that is unknown regarding the workings of human consciousness and how it functions with specific respect to memory. The gap that Schacter detected is therefore somewhat expected: even fifteen years after his research was published, there is still more we do not know, despite advances in technology and perspective.
Based on this gap in the research, Schacter created an extended metaphor to structure and support his work, comparable to the "seven deadly sins" described in the Judeo-Christian tradition. He organized his findings into the "sins" of human memory, using this metaphor to reach readers who may not be as well versed in the complexities of memory as applied to psychology and neuroscience. His ideas are firmly grounded in cognitive, social, and clinical psychology, making this research compact yet dense with cross-disciplinary connections. He writes:
"I suggest that memory's transgressions can be divided into seven basic 'sins.' I call them transience, absent-mindedness, blocking, misattribution, suggestibility, bias, and persistence. The first three sins reflect different types of forgetting… The next three sins all involve distortion or inaccuracy… The seventh and final sin… refers to pathological remembrances: information or events that we cannot forget, even though we wish we could." (Schacter, 1999, p. 183)
This organization of memory's "sins" is revealing both about how we understand memory to work and about how we understand it to malfunction. Knowing how memory works — and fails — is of great assistance to psychological researchers and to those who practice psychotherapy. The greater significance lies not merely in the fact that memory malfunctions, but in the specific methods and patterns by which it does so.
Schacter's research demonstrates that understanding the vulnerabilities and fallibilities of memory helps us understand how memory functions and can provide insight into how to strengthen and stabilize it. He additionally raises the provocative possibility that these inaccuracies are actually normal — that forgetting, distortion, and persistence are the natural modes of human memory, and are not accidents or errors but part of how human memory is designed to operate.
Human memory is not important solely because we need it to perform tasks, including basic self-care. Memory is vital as it relates to individual identity: we need our memories in order to know who we are. Our memories help us construct and maintain a sense of who we think we are, who we have been, and who we may become. Conway and Pleydell-Pearce (2000) conducted psychological research on human memory with respect to its connection to self-identity and what they term "autobiographical memories" — memories we hold of ourselves from our pasts, or of past versions of ourselves. These form a kind of self-mythology that directly affects our present sense of self and our potential for future development. They assert:
"Nearly all researchers in this area consider there to be an important and strong relation between the self and autobiographical memory. Brewer (1986), for example, argued that the inherent self-referring nature of autobiographical memories was a defining feature that distinguished these memories from all other types of long-term knowledge. Robinson (1986) proposed that autobiographical memories were a 'resource' of the self that could be used to sustain or change aspects of the self. Indeed, memories have been found to be closely related to aspects of personality… trait information… patterns of adult attachment… and goal change and emotions…" (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000, p. 264)
Without autobiographical memories, people would not know who they are or who they have been. Autobiographical memories are essential to personality and identity cohesion. People rely heavily on their memories of who they were in order to explain who they are presently. These memories can serve as significant predictors and determinants across a person's entire lifespan: a person may choose whom to socialize with, or which educational or career path to pursue, based on autobiographical memories of a younger version of themselves. Keeping in mind the malleability of human memory in general, autobiographical memory has the potential to be either a great resource or a great impediment.
Another intriguing aspect of Conway and Pleydell-Pearce's research concerns not just the existence of autobiographical memories, but how they function. The authors contend that autobiographical memories are constantly present, yet are "activated" by events or occurrences in the present that trigger these memories and their influence:
"A fundamental premise of our approach is that autobiographical memories are transitory dynamic mental constructions generated from an underlying knowledge base. This knowledge base, or regions of it, is minutely sensitive to cues, and patterns of activation constantly arise and dissipate over the indexes of autobiographical memory knowledge structures. Such endogenous patterns of activation may not coalesce into 'memories,' nor do they necessarily or even usually enter into consciousness; instead this most often occurs when the system is in 'retrieval mode'…" (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000, p. 261)
There is also a great deal of psychological interpretation involved in specifying what mental process is signified by a given activation. Modern imaging studies report activations arising from differences between two tasks, and such differences are not only open to a variety of interpretations but are often confounded with other factors that influence outcomes. Autobiographical memories, as the authors envision them, are transient — not permanent or fixed. We are not constantly aware of them as such. It is only in moments that trigger or activate them that we become (or become re-)aware of them, and in the moment of activation lies their potential to influence the present self.
Overall, the authors argue that memory is a kind of reservoir with depth and contents largely unknown to the individual, even though the reservoir consists of his or her own memories. Memory is not always "on" or immediately accessible. It is triggered, activated, and retrieved by incidents occurring in the present, suggesting that access to memory is time-based — released, like a time-release capsule, only when something in the present cues the need for that knowledge. Autobiographical memories constitute a form of self-knowledge, which is among the most valuable and influential knowledge a person can hold.
Current developments in psychological research look toward connection to and coordination with other fields of study, such as neuroscience. Due to recent cooperative studies between psychology and neuroscience — for example, the emergence of functional neuroimaging techniques — this collaboration offers unprecedented opportunities to discover how the brain learns and remembers. Understanding of the brain's organization of memory had previously relied on the coincidence of brain injuries and scientists prepared to interpret the memory failures that followed. With modern changes in thinking and increased instances of collaboration, this need no longer be the case.
There has been, and currently is, a changing of the guard in the psychological study of human memory. For nearly a quarter of a century, our understanding of normal brain organization of memory depended upon studies of diseased or damaged memory. Now, functional neuroimaging studies of healthy brains can begin to illuminate how and why injuries to specific memory systems result in various diseases of memory.
The dialogue between psychoanalysis and the neurosciences is of outstanding importance, supported by an increasing number of fascinating empirical and experimental studies in psychotherapy research, developmental research, dream research, and many directly and indirectly related fields. This dialogue is fascinating, innovative, and intellectually rich — but also challenging and complicated. Incorporating new findings from another discipline requires enduring a period of uncertainty and unease, and it is always difficult to abandon "certainties" and entrenched beliefs developed within one's own field. To go through such a period of uncertainty is, however — as demonstrated by actual interdisciplinary experience — essential and unavoidable: it appears to be a prerequisite for a productive and constructive dialogue that goes beyond rediscovering already established disciplinary knowledge. Comparing models and subjecting them to competitive argumentation has driven development in both disciplines and has revealed complex and sophisticated problems at the intersection of the philosophy of science and epistemology.
This literature review demonstrates that while there is a substantial and growing body of modern literature on human memory, gaps in the research remain. There are areas of psychological research into memory that have yet to be explored or subjected to the rigors of scientific inquiry and competitive argumentation. The most effective psychological research on human memory is contingent upon interaction with real-world models and factors. For example, some psychology researchers have used computer simulations to develop models of different types of memory phenomena. One problem with most such simulations is that there is no direct interaction with the environment: the input and output of these models are typically feature vectors predefined by the designer of the model. This contrasts strongly with experienced reality: real humans interacting with their environment are exposed not to "feature vectors" but to continuously changing sensory stimulation — a distinction that is not taken seriously enough when applying computational models to memory theory. This literature review has aimed to offer a modern perspective on the psychological study of human memory while also validating the history of research in this area.
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288.
Health Services Commissioner. (2005). Inquiry into the practice of recovered memory therapy. Health Services Commissioner of Australia, Victoria, AU.
Johnson, M. K. (2001). Psychology of false memories. International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, 5254–5259.
Leijssen, M. (2006). Validation of the body in psychotherapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 46(2), 126–146.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.
Peres, J., Mercante, J., & Nasello, A. G. (2005). Psychological dynamics affecting traumatic memories: Implications in psychotherapy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78, 431–447.
Psychotherapy & Counselling Federation of Australia. (2005). PACFA: Draft guidelines for working with recovered memories. Retrieved from
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203.
The British Psychological Society. (2008). Guidelines on memory and the law. The British Psychological Society.
Vaccaro, G., & Lavick, J. (2008). Trauma: Frozen memories, frozen lives. The Body. Retrieved from http://www.thebody.com
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.