Oversimplifications and Misrepresentations in the Repressed Memory Debate: A Reply to Ross

ABSTRACT

Ross argued that false memory researchers misunderstand the concepts of repression and dissociation, as well as the writings of Freud. In this commentary, we show that Ross is wrong. He oversimplifies and misrepresents the literature on repressed and false memory. We rebut Ross by showing the fallacies underlying his arguments. For example, we adduce evidence showing that the notions of dissociation or repression are unnecessary to explain how people may forget and then remember childhood sexual abuse, stressing that abuse survivors may reinterpret childhood events later in life. Also, Ross overlooks previous critiques concerning dissociation. Finally, we will demonstrate that Ross misrepresents work by Freud and Loftus in the area of repressed and false memory. His article confuses, not clarifies, an already heated debate on the existence of repressed memory.

KEYWORDS:

• Repressed memory
• false memory
• repression
• dissociation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ See Ross demonstrate how he captures the energy beam that comes out of his eyes, at https://vimeo.com/1449829

Additional information

Funding

This manuscript is funded by grants awarded to the first author: C1: C14/19/013 and FWO: G0D3621N.