Abstract

Can purely psychological trauma lead to a complete blockage of autobiographical memories? This long-standing question about the existence of repressed memories has been at the heart of one of the most heated debates in modern psychology. These so-called memory wars originated in the 1990s, and many scholars have assumed that they are over. We demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect and that the controversial issue of repressed memories is alive and well and may even be on the rise. We review converging research and data from legal cases indicating that the topic of repressed memories remains active in clinical, legal, and academic settings. We show that the belief in repressed memories occurs on a nontrivial scale (58%) and appears to have increased among clinical psychologists since the 1990s. We also demonstrate that the scientifically controversial concept of dissociative amnesia, which we argue is a substitute term for memory repression, has gained in popularity. Finally, we review work on the adverse side effects of certain psychotherapeutic techniques, some of which may be linked to the recovery of repressed memories. The memory wars have not vanished. They have continued to endure and contribute to potentially damaging consequences in clinical, legal, and academic contexts.

Keywords: memory wars, repressed memory, repression, false memory, recovered memory, therapy

---

The past is never dead. It’s not even past.

Faulkner (1950/2011, p. 73)

More than 20 years ago, Crews (1995) coined the term “memory wars” to refer to a contentious debate regarding the existence of repressed memories, which refers to memories that become inaccessible for conscious inspection because of an active process known as repression. This debate raged throughout the 1990s and was widely assumed to have subsided in the new millennium. A number of prominent authors who were skeptical of repressed memories (e.g., Barden, 2016; McHugh, 2003; Paris, 2012) declared the memory wars to be effectively over, essentially arguing that most researchers and clinicians now understand that believing in such memories without reservation is at best questionable scientifically. The argument among these authors is essentially that the recovered-memory skeptics won. Others argue that the memory wars have been resolved in the opposite direction, stating that there is now better evidence for a trauma-dissociation model and less room for a skeptical stance toward repressed (dissociated; see below) memories (Dalenberg et al., 2012). Some proponents of the idea of dissociative amnesia (i.e., the inability to remember autobiographic experiences usually as a result of trauma) have even likened skeptics to climate-science deniers (Brand et al., 2018, in response to Merckelbach & Patihis, 2018). Their argument appears to be that they have won the memory wars, and further proof of this is the continued inclusion of dissociative amnesia in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; see also Spiegel et al., 2011).

In this article, we present evidence that the debate concerning repressed memories is by no means dead. To the contrary, we contend that it rages on today and that the term dissociative amnesia is being used as a substitute term for repressed memory. To buttress this point, we present converging lines of evidence from several sources suggesting that the concept of repressed memories has not vanished and that it has merely reappeared in numerous guises (e.g., in the context of dissociative amnesia). Admittedly, some researchers have argued that the memory wars have persisted (e.g., Patihis, Ho, Tingen, Lilienfeld, & Loftus, 2014), but no review has systematically and critically evaluated this proposition. In this article, we amass evidence from multiple sources showing that beliefs associated with repressed memories and related topics such as dissociative amnesia, far from being extinguished, as claimed by some scholars, remain very much alive today. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these beliefs carry significant risks in clinical and legal settings.

Repressed Memories and the Memory Wars

As Ellenberger (1970) explained in his classic monograph, the concept of repressed memories traces its roots to the psychoanalytic theory and practice of Sigmund Freud, who in turn was influenced by physician-hypnotists, such as Jean-Martin Charcot, in the final decades of the 19th century. At the heart of this concept is the idea that traumatic experiences are often so overwhelming that people use defense mechanisms to cope with them. One of these mechanisms involves the automatic and unconscious repression of the traumatic memory with the consequence that people no longer recollect or retain awareness of the experience that triggered it (e.g., Loftus, 1993; McNally, 2005; Piper, Lillevik, & Kritzer, 2008). Nevertheless, according to this view, the repressed trauma ostensibly exacts a serious mental and physical toll (Hornstein, 1992), manifesting itself psychologically and somatically in a wide array of symptoms (e.g., fainting, amnesia, mutism). This influential body-keeps-the-score hypothesis implies that trauma can be “entirely organized on an implicit or perceptual level, without an accompanying narrative about what happened” (van der Kolk & Fisler, 1995, p. 512). The goal of therapy is thus to make the implicit—the repressed—explicit (Yapko, 1994a), following Freud’s famous tenet that psychoanalysis aims to make the unconscious conscious. Thus, the notion of repressed memories encompasses three ideas: People repress traumatic experiences, the repressed content has psychopathological potential, and recovering traumatic content is necessary for engendering symptom relief.

In the 1990s, as we demonstrate in a review of data of surveyed clinicians, the belief in repressed memories was endemic in therapeutic circles. Even when patients did not recollect the trauma, such as sexual abuse, some therapists suggested that their unconscious may harbor repressed memories. When clients presented with symptoms of, for example, anxiety, mood, personality, or eating disorders, many clinicians seemed to take these symptoms as signs of long-repressed memories of abuse. Furthermore, in the 1990s, dream interpretation, hypnosis, guided imagery, repeated cuing of memories, and diary methods, among other recovered-memory techniques, were used by many practitioners to ostensibly uncover repressed memories and bring them to the surface of consciousness. As a result of these treatments, patients started to recover purported memories of abuse, typically sexual abuse, and some filed criminal or civil suits against their alleged perpetrator (Loftus, 1994; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994).

During these therapeutic interventions, suggestive techniques were commonly used to recover the alleged repressed memory. At that time, laboratory research began to show the deleterious effects of suggestion on autobiographical recollections of childhood episodes. In one of the first such studies, Loftus and Pickrell (1995) asked students to report on four events that happened in their childhood. One event was fabricated and involved being lost in a shopping mall at about 5 years old. Students were told that their parents provided these narratives to the experimenters, while in fact, parents had confirmed that the event did not happen. After three suggestive interviews, 25% (n = 6) of the participants claimed that the false event in fact had occurred. This and other studies during the 1990s indicated that false autobiographical memories1 can be implanted with suggestive interviewing techniques (e.g., Hyman, Husband, & Billings, 1995; for earlier relevant work, see Laurence & Perry, 1983; for a review of false memories before 1980, see Patihis & Younes Burton, 2015).

Many memory scholars have argued on the basis of this research that repressed memories recovered in therapy may not be based on true events but could be false memories (Lindsay & Read, 1995; Loftus & Davis, 2006). An additional scenario offered by researchers is that some people may reinterpret childhood events as a result of therapy and come to experience this reinterpretation as a recovered memory of abuse (McNally, 2012). For example, Schooler (2001) argued that individuals may initially not experience their abuse as traumatic but later come to reevaluate it in this fashion. This change in meta-awareness may be experienced as a recovery of a memory when it instead comprises a new interpretation of a memory that was accessible all along. Schooler offered several case descriptions suggestive of this intriguing process, but strictly speaking it does not involve the reemergence of repressed memories into consciousness. Nevertheless, the reinterpretation account may be a plausible explanation of certain recovered memories of events that were genuinely experienced.

Still, not all cases that were described by Schooler (2001) can be interpreted in terms of reevaluation. Wagenaar and Crombag (2005), for example, noted the inherent problems that such descriptions have to demonstrate the existence of recovered memories. They criticized Schooler’s case descriptions on the grounds that many assumptions needed to be met to confirm the existence of recovered memories in these cases. For example, Wagenaar and Crombag observed that alleged victims sometimes received therapy that may have influenced their memories. In addition, Wagenaar and Crombag noted that claiming to have forgotten sexual abuse is not the same as having forgotten the abuse.

Apart from suggestive techniques that might lead to the creation of memory aberrations, some memory researchers noted that the concept of repressed memories is difficult to reconcile with studies on the effects of trauma on memory. Specifically, a large body of data suggests that the central aspects of trauma tend to be relatively well remembered (McNally, 2005). Several authors concluded that complete memory loss for traumatic events is rare among trauma victims, such as Holocaust survivors (Wagenaar & Groeneweg, 1990), survivors of Japanese/Indonesian concentration camps (Merckelbach, Dekkers, Wessel, & Roefs, 2003), and victims of sexual abuse (Goodman et al., 2003). Furthermore, the idea of repressed memories runs counter to well-established principles of human memory. For example, purported repressed memories are often about repeated experiences of abuse, but repeated events are generally well recollected. In addition, people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently experience flashbacks and intrusive memories of the trauma and hence do not typically report repressed memories, at least of their triggering traumatic event. In addition, the idea of apparent recovered memories suggests that experiences can be forgotten and “recovered” following retrieval cues. This common memory phenomenon does not require the idea of repressed memories (for an overview, see Roediger & Bergman, 1998).

The recovery of mundane childhood memories is a perfectly normal phenomenon, although people may find it difficult to estimate how long they have not thought about a childhood experience (Parks, 1999). The recovery of a purportedly long-forgotten trauma is less plausible in light of everything that we know about traumatic memories (see above), and in such cases the question is whether there is independent evidence to corroborate the memory. Thus, a central issue concerning recovered memories is whether they can be independently corroborated. Studies examining corroborative evidence of recovered memories are often limited because they rely exclusively on victims’ characterizations of corroboration (e.g., Chu, Frey, Ganzel, & Matthews, 1999; Herman & Harvey, 1997). Research in which at least partial independent corroboration has been sought demonstrated that continuous memories of child sexual abuse recalled outside of therapy were more often corroborated than discontinued memories of abuse recovered in therapy (Geraerts et al., 2007; see also McNally, Perlman, Ristuccia, & Clancy, 2006). Another key point concerning recovered memories is that people may not think about the abuse for many years or may forget their previous recollections of their traumatic experience. Such people might then spontaneously recover memories of abuse when reminded about the abuse outside of therapy. However, such a phenomenon, psychologically important as it is, is a far cry from repressing a richly detailed memory in its entirety and later recalling it in therapy or everyday life (McNally & Geraerts, 2009).

One way to examine how clinicians think about the reality of repressed memories is to survey them about their beliefs on the topic and on their technical knowledge of how memory works. In this respect, a summary of practitioner-survey studies since the 1990s is informative.

Memory Beliefs About Repressed Memories: From Then to Now

Beliefs among clinical psychologists

Scientific interest in what therapists and other mental-health professionals know about the functioning of memory originated because incorrect beliefs about memory could catalyze suggestive clinical practices and flawed treatment plans (Gore-Felton et al., 2000). Yapko (1994a, 1994b) conducted one of the first surveys of memory beliefs of psychology professionals. He found that 34% (n = 190) of master’s-level psychotherapists and 23% (n = 48) of PhD psychotherapists agreed that traumatic memories uncovered via hypnosis are authentic. Moreover, 59% (n = 513) of clinicians agreed that “events that we know occurred but can’t remember are repressed memories” (Yapko, 1994a, p. 231). Yapko (1994a) also found that 49% (n = 419) agreed that “memory is a reliable mechanism when the self-defensive need for repression is lifted” (p. 232). Dammeyer, Nightingale, and McCoy (1997) found that 58% (n = 64) of PhD-level clinicians, 71% (n = 74) of PsyD-level clinicians, and 60% (n = 43) of MSW-level clinicians agreed that repressed memories are genuine. Merckelbach and Wessel (1998) detected an even higher percentage: 96% (n = 25) of licensed psychotherapists endorsed the view that repressed memories exist. Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull (1995; Survey 2) found that 71% (n = 37) of clinical psychologists reported that they had encountered at least one case of a recovered memory (see also Polusny & Follette, 1996).

These studies were performed in the 1990s, which is considered to be the zenith of interest in repressed memories. After that period, a wealth of research published in psychological, psychiatric, and more legally oriented journals concluded that the notion of repressed memories is a highly problematic concept, particularly in the courts (Loftus, 2003; McNally, 2005; Piper et al., 2008; Porter, Campbell, Birt, & Woodworth, 2003; Rofé, 2008; Takarangi, Polaschek, Hignett, & Garry, 2008). Despite these critical articles, many psychologists, especially clinical and counseling psychologists, continue to harbor the idea that traumatic memories can be buried for years or decades in the unconscious and later recovered. Magnussen and Melinder (2012) surveyed licensed psychologists and found that 63% (n = 540) believed recovered memories to be “real.” Kemp, Spilling, Hughes, and de Pauw (2013) demonstrated that 89% (n = 333) of surveyed clinical psychologists believed that memories for childhood trauma (such as sexual abuse) can be “blocked out” for many years. Patihis et al. (2014) found that 60.3% (n = 35) of clinical practitioners and 69.1% (n = 56) of psychoanalysts agreed that traumatic memories are often repressed. Kagee and Breet (2015) found that 75.7% (n = 78) of 103 South African psychologists responded probably or definitely true to the statement that “individuals commonly repress the memories of traumatic experiences” (Kagee & Breet, 2015, p. 5).

Ost, Easton, Hope, French, and Wright (2017) showed that 69.6% (n = 87) of clinical psychologists strongly endorsed the belief that “the mind is capable of unconsciously ‘blocking out’ memories of traumatic events” (p. 60). Wessel (2018) recently examined memory beliefs among eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) practitioners. EMDR is thought to be effective in making traumatic memories less vivid and emotionally negative (Lee & Cuijpers, 2013). Wessel asked EMDR practitioners whether access to traumatic memories can be blocked and found that 93% (n = 457) responded affirmatively.

Beliefs among other professionals

Researchers have surveyed other professionals for whom it would be important to possess accurate knowledge concerning memory. Many of these studies did not specifically ask about professionals’ beliefs concerning the existence of repressed memories but instead asked about issues related to eyewitness memory (e.g., confidence-accuracy relationship; see Magnussen, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Raja, 2010). Exceptions to this trend include the study by Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2006). In an American sample, they demonstrated that 73% (n = 81) of jurors, 50% (n = 21) of judges, and 65% (n = 34) of law-enforcement personnel believed in long-term repressed memories. Odinot, Boon, and Wolters (2015) asked Dutch police interviewers about whether traumatic memories can be repressed. They found that 75.7% (n = 108) agreed that they could. In a recent study, 84% (n = 133) of Dutch child-protection workers indicated that traumatic memories are often repressed (Erens, Otgaar, Patihis, & De Ruiter, 2019).

Beliefs among laypersons

Laypeople such as undergraduates have also been asked in a number of studies to indicate their levels of belief concerning the existence of repressed memories (Lynn, Evans, Laurence, & Lilienfeld, 2015). Golding, Sanchez, and Sego (1996) reported that (a) 89% of 613 undergraduates were familiar with a circumstance in which someone recovered a repressed memory, (b) 75% of these students noted that the source of this information was television, and (c) belief in repressed memories was positively correlated with the amount of media exposure. Merckelbach and Wessel (1998) found that 94% (n = 47) of students endorsed the idea that repressed memories exist. Magnussen et al. (2006) surveyed 2000 Norwegian people from the general public. They found that 45% (n = 900) of respondents believed that traumatic memories can be repressed. Strikingly, 40% (n = 800) believed that people who committed a murder can repress the memory of that event. Finally, Patihis et al. (2014) found that 81% (n = 316) of undergraduates believed that traumatic memories are often repressed.

On the basis of these survey data, we calculated the overall percentage of people who believe in the existence of repressed memories in the combined samples (see Table 1). Although caution needs to be exercised when collapsing data across such surveys because the samples may vary on many dimensions, aggregated data can be informative given they can generally be expected to cancel out largely random differences in participant characteristics. On average, 58% (n = 4,745) of those who were surveyed indicated some degree of belief in the existence of repressed memories. When we examined the prevalence of these beliefs across subgroups within the combined sample, interesting results emerged. Among clinical psychologists, 70% (n = 2,305) believed in the existence of repressed memories. This percentage was somewhat lower in the 1990s (61%; n = 719) and increased to 76% (n = 1,586) from 2010 onward. Furthermore, 75% (n = 377) of other professionals expressed a strong belief in repressed memories, as did 46% (n = 2,063) of laypersons.

Table 1.

Percentages of People Who Believe in the Concept of Repressed Memory Among Various Studies

Study	N	%	Statement	Scale	Country
Clinical psychologists
Yapko (1994a)	869	59	“Events that we know occurred but can’t remember are repressed memories.”	Agree–disagree	U.S.
Dammeyer, Nightingale, and McCoy (1997)	111	58a	“Do you believe that repressed memory exists?”	1 = definitely no, 10 = definitely yes	U.S.
Dammeyer et al. (1997)	105	71	“Do you believe that repressed memory exists?”	1 = definitely no, 10 = definitely yes	U.S.
Dammeyer et al. (1997)	75	60	“Do you believe that repressed memory exists?”	1 = definitely no, 10 = definitely yes	U.S.
Merckelbach and Wessel (1998)	27	96	“[Does] repression exist?”	Yes, no, don’t know	The Netherlands
Magnussen and Melinder (2012)	858	63	“Sometimes adults in psychotherapy remember traumatic events from early childhood, about which they previously had absolutely no recollection. Do you think such memories are real or false?”	All are real, most are real, most are false, all are false-uncertain	Norway
Kemp et al. (2013)	375	89	“Can memories for childhood trauma (i.e., sexual abuse) be ‘blocked out’ from conscious memory for many years?”	Yes, but rare; don’t know; no, don’t believe this	England and Wales
Patihis et al. (2014)	58	60.3b	“Traumatic memories are often repressed.”	Strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree	U.S.
Patihis et al. (2014)	82	69.1	“Traumatic memories are often repressed.”	Strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree	U.S.
Kagee and Breet (2015)	103	75.7	“Individuals commonly repress the memories of traumatic experiences.”	Definitely untrue, probably untrue, probably true, definitely true	South Africa
Ost et al. (2017)	125	69.6	“The mind is capable of unconsciously ‘blocking out’ memories of traumatic events.”	1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree	U.K.
Wessel (2018)	492	93	“It is possible that access to trauma memory is blocked.”c	Agree, disagree, no opinion	The Netherlands
Other professionals
Benton Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2006)	111	73	“Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years for many years and then recovered.”	Generally true, generally false, I don’t know	U.S.
Benton et al. (2006)	42	50	“Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years and then recovered.”	Generally true, generally false, I don’t know	U.S.
Benton et al. (2006)	52	65	“Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years and then recovered.”	Generally true, generally false, I don’t know	U.S.
Odinot, Boon, and Wolters (2015)	143	75.7	“Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years and then recovered.”d	Agree, disagree	The Netherlands
Erens Otgaar, Patihis, and De Ruiter (2019)	158	84	“Traumatic memories are often repressed because of their painful content.”	Agree, disagree	The Netherlands
Laypersons
Merckelbach and Wessel (1998)	50	94	“[Does] repression exist?”	Yes, no, don’t know	The Netherlands
Magnussen et al. (2006)	2,000	45	“Sometimes adults in psychotherapy remember traumatic events from early childhood, about which they previously had absolutely no recollection. Do you think such memories are real or false?”	All are real, most are real, most are false, all are false-uncertain	Norway
Magnussen et al. (2006)	2,000	40	“Sometimes adults in psychotherapy remember traumatic events from early childhood, about which they previously had absolutely no recollection. Do you think such memories are real or false?”	All are real, most are real, most are false, all are false-uncertain	Norway
Patihis et al. (2014)	390	81	“Traumatic memories are often repressed.”	Strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree	U.S.

Note: U.S. = United States; U.K. = United Kingdom.

a

Refers to people scoring 8, 9, or 10. bRefers to people who chose slightly agree, agree, or strongly agree. cTranslated from the Dutch: “goed mogelijk dat toegang tot traumaherinnering is geblokkeerd.” dTranslated from the Dutch: “Traumatische ervaringen kunnen jarenlang worden verdrongen (d.w.z. geheel vergeten zijn) en dan toch nog worden hervonden.

We also performed additional analyses. For example, when we focused only on survey items using the word “repression,” we found a prevalence of 65% (n = 1,265) in the belief of repressed memories. In addition, because the items used differed to some extent among survey studies, we concentrated on statements for which people were asked specifically about the frequency of repressed memories (e.g., “Traumatic memories are often repressed”). When we focused on these statements (Erens et al., 2019; Kagee & Breet, 2015; Patihis et al., 2014), we found that 78% (n = 618) of surveyed people believed that traumatic experiences are often repressed. We also compared the rates of belief in repressed memories in the 1990s with those of all studies performed after the 1990s. A prevalence of 62% (n = 766) was observed for studies in the 1990s; this rate was slightly lower for studies performed after the 1990s (57%; n = 3,979).

Taken together, our data suggest, perhaps surprisingly, that mental-health professionals in our combined samples were not more critical about repressed memories than were laypeople. This finding underscores our argument that a belief in repressed memories is deeply rooted in modern Western societies. Moreover, the data suggest that despite a plethora of scientific work calling the existence of repressed memories into question (e.g., Loftus & Davis, 2006), clinical psychologists’, other mental-health professionals’, and the general public’s views on repressed memories remain strong. Furthermore, it seems that belief in repressed memories even increased within clinical psychologists.

Still, in certain groups of professionals, notably those working in legal psychology, skepticism regarding repressed memories is high. For example, Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, and Memon (2001) found that 22% of experts opined that repressed memories are “reliable enough” to present as evidence in the courtroom. Likewise, some recent research suggests that memory scientists tend to harbor strong reservations concerning the existence of repressed memories (only 12.5% agreed that repressed memories can be retrieved in therapy accurately; 27.2% of experimental psychologists agreed to some extent that traumatic memories are often repressed; Patihis, Ho, Loftus, & Herrera, 2018). It is important to emphasize that many informed scientists are skeptical: It counters the argument that repressed memories must exist because so many people believe in them, a tempting logical error termed the bandwagon fallacy (Briggs, 2014).

Many of these surveys relied on the terms repression or repressed memories. These terms may have all kinds of connotations, leading to artificially raised endorsement patterns suggestive of belief in repressed memories. Brewin, Li, Ntarantana, Unsworth, and McNeilis (2019; Study 3) recently argued that high endorsement rates in the belief in repressed memories (to the statement “Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years and then recovered”) actually reflect a belief in conscious memory suppression (see section below on retrieval inhibition). They found that when members of the general public were asked about their belief in conscious repression and were questioned regarding repressed memories (“Traumatic experiences can be repressed for many years and then recovered”), similar endorsement rates were found. However, because Brewin and colleagues did not include a survey item on unconscious repression, it is unknown which endorsement rates would be detected for such a controversial statement. To remedy this omission, Otgaar et al. (2019) specifically inquired about people’s belief in unconscious repression. They found high endorsement rates for belief in both conscious and unconscious repression (around 60%), implying that the belief in repressed memories is still widespread. In what follows, we show that, as is true for the belief in repressed memories, dissociative amnesia, a conceptual twin of repression, has been deeply embedded into psychology lore in such a way that it could be the most potent threat to extending the memory wars.

Dissociative Amnesia = Repressed Memories?

Despite the widespread belief in repressed memory, the term “repression” became controversial in the memory wars and is now seldom used in a credible context in scientific publications. After the concept became intensely controversial, many clinicians adopted a new and perhaps more palatable term dissociative amnesia. This term became the preferred and more widely used appellation for the process whereby traumas are rendered inaccessible. For example, dissociative amnesia is mentioned in DSM–5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), whereas repressed memory or repression is not.

There might be several reasons for why dissociative amnesia is listed in the DSM–5. One likely reason is that the substantial majority of the Task Force members of the DSM–5 were psychiatrists rather than psychologists, and the Task Force did not include memory experts (see Yan, 2007). This Task Force also did not adequately reflect the full range of scientific opinions regarding the empirical status of dissociative disorders, including dissociative amnesia. Indeed, as Lilienfeld, Watts, and Smith (2012) noted the following:

It is troubling that the DSM–5 Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group contains no members who have expressed doubts in scholarly outlets regarding the etiology of dissociative identity disorder and related dissociative disorders (e.g., dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue), despite the fact that these disorders are exceedingly controversial in the scientific community. (p. 831)

Case studies of patients claiming dissociative amnesia have also figured prominently in the clinical literature, in turn perhaps contributing to the prima facie validity of the construct of dissociative amnesia (e.g., Staniloiu, Markowitsch, & Kordon, 2018).

We propose that during and after the 1990s, when the term repressed memory was widely criticized, proponents began to favor the term dissociative amnesia instead. Perhaps Holmes (1994) was one of the first to notice this trend:

In the absence of good laboratory or clinical evidence for repression, proponents of the concept have begun to emphasize dissociation instead. But that is simply another name for repression; if one dissociates oneself from an event (is no longer aware of it), one has repressed it. Dissociative amnesia is supposed to occur after certain traumatic experiences. Yet alleged cases of this phenomenon are very rare. (p. 18)

Consistent with this idea, dissociative amnesia was not mentioned in pre-1990s work on repression by Holmes (1972, 1974) and Holmes and Schallow (1969). This subtle but significant name change has muddied the waters and provided a cover for the continued practice of psychotherapy that involves repressed memories, albeit under new terminology.

Dissociative amnesia is defined in the DSM–5 as the “inability to recall autobiographical information” that (a) is “usually of a traumatic or stressful nature,” (b) is “inconsistent with ordinary forgetting,” (c) should be “successfully stored,” (d) involves a period of time when there is an “inability to recall,” (e) is not caused by “a substance” or “neurological . . . condition,” and (f) is “always potentially reversible because the memory has been successfully stored” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 298). These defining features serve as an umbrella set of criteria for three types of dissociative amnesia listed in the DSM–5. Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.” In selective dissociative amnesia, the individual “can recall some, but not all, of the events during a circumscribed period of time” (p. 298). Generalized dissociative amnesia involves “a complete loss of memory for one’s life history” and “is rare” (p. 298). The DSM–5 indicates “histories of trauma, child abuse, and victimization” as features that support a diagnosis of dissociative amnesia (p. 299).

Although dissociative symptoms can manifest themselves in contexts quite different from trauma—for example, after the ingestion or administration of the anesthetic ketamine (Simeon, 2004) or ecstasy, cannabis, and cocaine (van Heugten-van der Kloet et al., 2015)—Table 2 illustrates similarities in the definitions of dissociative amnesia from the DSM–5 and definitions advanced by scientific skeptics of repressed memory (text from Loftus, 1993; and Holmes, 1974). We contend, on the basis of striking parallels in definitions, that skeptical arguments against repressed memories should apply with equal force to dissociative amnesia. More specifically, definitions of both dissociative amnesia and repressed memory share the idea that traumatic or upsetting material is stored, becomes inaccessible because of the trauma, and can later be retrieved in intact form.

Table 2.

Side-by-Side Comparisons of the Definitions of Dissociative Amnesia and Repressed Memory

Dissociative amnesia	Repressed memory	Repression	DSM–5 (APA, 2013, p. 298)	Loftus (1993, p. 518)	Holmes (1974, p. 632–633)
“inability to recall autobiographical information”	[implied indirectly in quotes]	“repression is a loss [of memory] which. . .”
“usually of a traumatic or stressful nature, that is inconsistent with ordinary forgetting”	“something happens that is so shocking. . .”	“is specifically designed to selectively eliminate from consciousness those memories which cause the individual [affective] pain . . . rather than being a general loss due to simple decay”
“and that it should be successfully stored”	“that the mind grabs hold of the memory and pushes it underground”	“material which is repressed is not lost but rather stored in the unconscious [emphasis in original]”
“involves a period of time when there is an inability to recall”	“into some inaccessible corner of the unconscious. There it sleeps for years, or even decades, or even forever isolated from the rest of mental life”	[implied indirectly in quotes]
“not caused by ‘a substance’ or ‘neurological . . . condition’ ”	[implied indirectly] Implied cause: an event “that is so shocking”	[implied indirectly] Implied cause: “repression is a process motivated by a need to avoid the disturbing affect associated with certain memories”
“always potentially reversible because the memory has been successfully stored”	“Then, one day, it may rise up and emerge into consciousness”	“the material can return to consciousness without having to go through the process of being relearned”

Note: DSM–5 = fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; APA = American Psychiatric Association.

Although repressed memory as a concept is rarely defended in scientific circles these days, the idea of dissociative amnesia has become popular, especially in some psychiatric quarters. For example, between 2010 and 2019, the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation has published 71 articles related to dissociative amnesia; between 1990 and 1999, no such articles were published.2 This ascension appears to be a major reason for the revitalization of the memory wars and for the continuation of therapies that attempt to exhume traumatic memories. In the first two editions of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1952, 1968), neither dissociative amnesia nor psychogenic amnesia was listed or mentioned, although dissociative types of neurosis were. Psychogenic amnesia first appeared in the third edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1980; mentioned 19 times). Dissociative amnesia appeared for the first time in the fourth edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; mentioned 50 times). In DSM–5, dissociative amnesia appeared 75 times (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Interestingly, in no edition of the DSM have the words repress, repressed memory, or repression been used.

The DSM has codified and widely disseminated the concept of dissociative amnesia. In some quarters of psychology and psychiatry, dissociative amnesia is apparently taken as a valid and totally unproblematic concept (with notable exceptions; see Pope, Poliakoff, Parker, Boynes, & Hudson, 2007). Nevertheless, the definition of dissociative amnesia is scientifically fraught in many respects, just as is repressed memory. There are inherent problems when trying to ascertain whether a trauma has been stored but is nevertheless inaccessible. First, there is the complex problem of the lack of falsifiability: The only way we can determine whether a memory was stored is by memorial report, but a memorial report instantly disproves the claim that the memory is inaccessible. Second, it is difficult to test, or falsify, whether psychological trauma is the reason why an event is not remembered. How this is established depends in part on the theoretical orientation of the psychologist and whether she or he interprets an inability to recall as having been caused by psychogenic trauma or mundane encoding failures or forgetting mechanisms.

Indeed, one key question is whether cases that seem to document dissociative amnesia or repressed memory can be explained in terms of ordinary memory mechanisms. An example is provided by McNally (2003), who commented on two alleged cases of dissociative/psychogenic amnesia in children who had witnessed a lightning strike. McNally concluded that the memory loss could plausibly be explained by the fact that

both amnestic youngsters had themselves been struck by side flashes from the main lightning bolt, knocked unconscious, and nearly killed. Given the serious effects on the brain of being knocked unconscious by lightning, it is little wonder that these two children had no memory of the event. (p. 192)

The presence of a history of (mild) brain injury in case descriptions of patients diagnosed with dissociative amnesia has also been noted by other authors (Staniloiu & Markowitsch, 2014).

Consider another example that is illustrative of many similar clinical reports. Harrison et al. (2017) claimed to have documented 53 cases of, as the authors preferred to call it, “psychogenic amnesia.” These cases are cited by others as evidence for the existence of dissociative amnesia (Brand et al., 2018). Harrison et al. (2017) asked the amnesics several questions concerning their autobiographical memory. Note that none of these cases adequately satisfied the six tenets of dissociative amnesia discussed earlier. For instance, amnesia due to neurological damage, such as “traumatic brain injury” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 298), substance use, or other physical causes were not ruled out, which would preclude memory loss from being diagnosed in the DSM–5 as dissociative amnesia. The possibility of head injury causing memory impairment is particularly relevant here, especially because Harrison et al. found that a history of head injury was common in the “psychogenic” cases. In addition, Harrison et al. did not establish whether psychological shock or trauma caused the reported memory problems or that any recalled memories really were inaccessible for a period of time (see also Patihis, Otgaar, & Merckelbach, 2019).

Another issue is that Harrison et al. (2017) did not exclude the possibility that the dissociative amnesia was the result of feigning. This omission is remarkable because many of the patients with dissociative amnesia described by these authors were plagued by financial problems, and it would have been relatively easy to administer symptom-validity tests to them. With these tests, one can gauge whether patients endorse atypical or bizarre symptoms in an attempt to exaggerate their problems (Lilienfeld, Thames, & Watts, 2013; Peters, van Oorsouw, Jelicic, & Merckelbach, 2013). Other authors have found that overreporting of bizarre and implausible symptoms (e.g., “When I hear voices I feel as though my teeth are leaving my body”) is prevalent among those who claim dissociative amnesia (Cima, Merckelbach, Hollnack, & Knauer, 2003). Claiming dissociative amnesia is not the same as suffering from it (see also Peters et al., 2013). With this consideration in mind, Staniloiu and Markowitsch (2014) acknowledged in their review article that “the main challenge posed by the differential diagnosis of dissociative amnesia is to distinguish between true and feigned or malingered amnesia” (p. 237).

Key to our argument is that the evidence that scholars put forward for dissociative amnesia is typically subject to more plausible explanations. McNally (2007) listed several alternative and perhaps more plausible interpretations of the evidence for dissociative amnesia. First, memory problems that emerge after trauma might be caused by everyday forgetfulness and should not be confused with amnesia for the trauma. Second, some dissociative-amnesia theorists have confused organic amnesia with dissociative amnesia. Third, people who have experienced trauma and cannot recollect all of it might have failed to encode relevant parts of the traumatic experience. Fourth, victims of abuse commonly fail to disclose the abuse (e.g., because they feel ashamed), a reporting decision that should not be confused with dissociative amnesia. Fifth, when people cannot recollect any events (even traumatic ones) before the age of about 3 years old, it likely reflects the well-established phenomenon of childhood amnesia (Fivush, Haden, & Adam, 1995; Howe, 2013) rather than dissociation. Sixth and finally, victims of abuse understandably often do not want to think about their traumatic experiences but often cannot help it because of flashbacks and intrusive memories. This phenomenon of suppression should not be confused with repression, and it falls well outside the domain of dissociative amnesia.

The Purported Empirical Evidence for Repressed-Memory Mechanisms

Three main areas of research are typically used to support repressed memories or dissociative amnesia: retrieval inhibition, motivated forgetting, and the relation between trauma and dissociation. Nevertheless, none of them fully supports all six parts of the definition of either concept shown in Table 2.

For example, the phenomenon of retrieval inhibition (M. C. Anderson & Green, 2001; Anderson & Hanslmayr, 2014; M. C. Anderson et al., 2004) suggests that some mechanism inhibits some memories whereas others come to consciousness, and that trying not to think about a memory can make it harder to remember. However, this phenomenon does not meet the six tenets of dissociative amnesia, such as the principle that the event is often traumatic in nature (see also Kihlstrom, 2002). Likewise, some research has shown limbic inhibition via the frontal cortex among individuals with a subtype of PTSD that involves emotional suppression (Lanius et al., 2010). Although interesting, cases of PTSD involving inhibited emotions do not establish that a memory is stored, that it is inaccessible because of trauma and then later becomes accessible. One can inhibit one’s emotions regarding a painful memory while retaining a full recollection of this memo