This paper offers a critical review of Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham's The Myth of Repressed Memory (1994), examining the authors' central argument that repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse are largely fabricated through suggestive therapeutic practices. The review evaluates the credibility of Loftus and Ketcham's empirical claims, considers counterarguments related to dissociative amnesia, and explores the cultural and historical factors that have fueled popular belief in repressed memory. The paper also discusses the ethical implications for psychological practice, the real harm caused by false memories, and why the authors chose to publish their findings as a trade book rather than a scholarly work.
At first glance, The Myth of Repressed Memory seems like it might be an offensive read that denigrates the experiences of millions of abuse and incest survivors. Yet according to Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, the phenomenon of repressed memory is largely a myth. The authors' motives for writing The Myth of Repressed Memory seem noble enough on the surface: to retain the credibility of their professions and prevent the unnecessary traumatizing of clients who were never abused but who are instead duped into believing so. Yet the reader cannot help but wonder why Loftus and Ketcham are so adamant — almost angry — about the scores of stories related to repressed memory.
What Loftus and Ketcham describe in The Myth of Repressed Memory is disturbing: that psychologists routinely tell their patients that buried deep within their psyche is a sexual abuse memory causing their current state of anxiety, addiction, or depression. Feeding a billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry, many such psychologists might mean well, but others could be doing a deliberate disservice to their patients and to the professional community of psychiatrists and psychologists alike. Loftus and Ketcham claim that the myth of repressed memory is essentially a type of popular (pop) psychology, not grounded in empirical research. The authors provide empirical research in order to persuade their readers that repressed memories rarely, if ever, exist.
The authors also rely on their credibility, hoping that readers will accept their case based on their expertise. Granted, the credibility of the material in The Myth of Repressed Memory is strong. The authors point out that they are indeed qualified to write the book, which — although ironically a trade book — is predicated on scholarly research and case study. In Chapter 2, the author asserts, "I am considered an authority on the malleability of memory, I've testified in hundreds of court cases where a person's fate depended on whether the jury believed" the testimony or not (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994, p. 3). If The Myth of Repressed Memory were a scholarly rather than a trade book, it would have added credibility because it would not seem as though there might be some ulterior motive behind its authorship.
Memory is a malleable thing. Few readers would disagree with this premise, and neither would the empirical evidence. While reading The Myth of Repressed Memory, numerous questions are raised about the efficacy of Loftus and Ketcham's claims. Surely some cases of repressed memory exist. Especially with regard to trauma, repression of a memory is a defense mechanism — the phenomenon is called dissociative amnesia. Yet Loftus and Ketcham stand firmly on one side of the argument: that it does not happen, or at least not with regard to repressing childhood sexual abuse.
In spite of — or because of — what Loftus and Ketcham claim, "the scientific validity of dissociative amnesia has remained contested ground" (Pettus, 2008). Whereas Loftus and Ketcham argue on the grounds that there is simply no evidence supporting the phenomenon, some researchers have claimed that dissociative amnesia is culturally bound — that is, unique to our modern and postmodern worlds, because there is no evidence of it in literature prior to 1800 (Pettus, 2008). This unique literary-historical analysis fits neatly alongside The Myth of Repressed Memory. Perhaps repressed memories do not exist after all.
The claims made in The Myth of Repressed Memory seem all the more plausible when one considers that dozens of people have come forward — risking public shame and humiliation — to speak out against childhood sexual abuse by priests and public figures. These actual memories were not repressed; they lingered in the psyches of these individuals, causing considerable psychological harm. The act of repression would not necessarily lead to complete forgetting. Perhaps Loftus and Ketcham are correct: memory is malleable, but it is not entirely erasable, only to resurface at the coaxing of a psychologist.
"Real-world harm, ethical violations, and therapist liability"
"Chapter framing, witch-hunt parallels, and pop psychology critique"
After reading The Myth of Repressed Memory, the repressed memory phenomenon seems sinister. The initial suspicion aroused by the title testifies to the deep-rooted cultural variables that are at play and which Pettus (2008) alludes to. Somehow, whether through film or gothic literature, people in North America have become fascinated with the theme of amnesia. The infatuation with the unconscious, fueled by Freud, also contributes to a fascination with what our minds are capable of and what hold our unconscious selves have on our daily lives. Interest in Jung and other theorists of the sub- and unconscious similarly foments interest in repressed memories.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.