Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):499-511 (2006)
|Abstract||Repression has become an empirical fact that is at once obvious and problematic. Fragmented clinical and laboratory traditions and disputed terminology have resulted in a Babel of misunderstandings in which false distinctions are imposed (e.g., between repression and suppression) and necessary distinctions not drawn (e.g., between the mechanism and the use to which it is put, defense being just one). “Repression” was introduced by Herbart to designate the (nondefensive) inhibition of ideas by other ideas in their struggle for consciousness. Freud adapted repression to the defensive inhibition of “unbearable” mental contents. Substantial experimental literatures on attentional biases, thought avoidance, interference, and intentional forgetting exist, the oldest prototype being the work of Ebbinghaus, who showed that intentional avoidance of memories results in their progressive forgetting over time. It has now become clear, as clinicians had claimed, that the inaccessible materials are often available and emerge indirectly (e.g., procedurally, implicitly). It is also now established that the Ebbinghaus retention function can be partly reversed, with resulting increases of conscious memory over time (hypermnesia). Freud's clinical experience revealed early on that exclusion from consciousness was effected not just by simple repression (inhibition) but also by a variety of distorting techniques, some deployed to degrade latent contents (denial), all eventually subsumed under the rubric of defense mechanisms (“repression in the widest sense”). Freudian and Bartlettian distortions are essentially the same, even in name, except for motive (cognitive vs. emotional), and experimentally induced false memories and other “memory illusions” are laboratory analogs of self-induced distortions. Key Words: avoidance; Bartlett; defense; denial; distortion; Ebbinghaus; false-memories; Freud; inhibition; repression; suppression.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Malcolm Macmillan (2006). Is Erdelyi's Swan a Goose? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):525-526.
David H. Gleaves (2006). Dialectical Repression Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):520-521.
Jennifer Earl (2003). Tanks, Tear Gas, and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression. Sociological Theory 21 (1):44-68.
Robert Langnickel & Hans Markowitsch (2006). Repression and the Unconscious. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):524-525.
Golan Shahar (2006). Repression, Suppression, and Oppression (in Depression). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):533-534.
Nick Medford & Anthony S. David (2006). Learning From Repression: Emotional Memory and Emotional Numbing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):527-528.
Joseph M. Boden (2006). Motive and Consequence in Repression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):514-515.
John F. Kihlstrom (2006). Repression: A Unified Theory of a Will-O'-the-Wisp. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):523-523.
Matthew Hugh Erdelyi (2006). The Return of the Repressed. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):535-543.
Steven M. Smith (2006). Resolving Repression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):534-535.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,467 of 722,750 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,750 )
How can I increase my downloads?