How could it be possible for people to have detailed and convincing memories of events that never happened? Memory is surrounded by many theories, one of the oldest being the quantitative theory, this is the idea that memory is a storehouse in which information is stored and then retrieved when the individual desires it. Another approach is the accuracy-oriented approach, in which memory is built on reconstructions of past events and experiences (Koriat, Goldsmith, & Pansky, 2000). Both approaches, as well as others, raise the question of the reliability of memories. How do we know that the memories we retrieve and reconstruct are true, or if the information we encode is correct? False memories are phenomena whereby the individual believes that information or event occurred, when in reality it did not. The individual must remember the false event, rather than thinking that the event could have happened (Newman and Lindsay, 2009). There are many theories about this, and many experiments suggest that people have false memories. The occurrence of false memories depends on the individual and the situation, but it is clear that they occur frequently. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe Dees-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm is a way to study false memories. In laboratory conditions, participants are orally presented with words related to each other, asking them to memorize as many words as possible. During recall, participants typically remember a word that is related to these words but was not on the list, thus creating a false memory (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). However, because it is a laboratory experiment, many people have questioned its real-world application. Freyd and Gleaves (1996) believe that the DRM paradigm is not relevant in real life because they are only laboratory experiments and therefore not rich in content and not related to the individual personally. Misinformation can sometimes affect memory, and it can come in two types. ; false and misleading information. One of the most famous fake news experiments had participants watch a video showing a car stopping at a “Give way” sign. After that, participants were told that the sign was a stop sign instead of a crossing sign. More people who received this false information thought they saw a stop sign instead of a crossing sign (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). It was felt that new information modified and sometimes replaced old information, which is why false information predominated in altering participants' memory and participants generally accepted the false information, thus creating a false memory. However, McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985) suggest that the difference between these is a response bias and not a misinformation effect. They explained that if the participant did not encode the first (correct) piece of information, then if they encoded the second (wrong) piece of information, they would believe that it was the correct information. They also said that people may have chosen it because they thought the experimenter would be right, known as demand characteristics. Therefore, this challenges the assumption that misinformation causes false memories. Their study indicated that if Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978)were right, then it would not matter if the false information in the questionnaire was the same as the false information in the story, because it would overwrite the information received first anyway, so the individual would not remember the original information (correct). They used objects such as a hammer as the correct item, a screwdriver in the story, and a wrench in the question. However, the items remembered during the control experiment and the misled experiment were shown to be similar, showing that misleading information does not replace or affect previous information. Loftus responded to this by stating that the objects used were not similar enough to account for small memory alterations. Therefore, misinformation could affect memory on a small scale and only similar events could be mixed into memory (Loftus, Schooler, & Wagenaar, 1985). An experiment by Hyman, Husband, and Billings (1995) had students remember 2 to 5 events from their childhood, plus one false event. Approximately 20% remembered the false event and a higher amount if the background information had been discussed beforehand, suggesting that more descriptive external information may impact susceptibility to false memories. This called into question whether rich information and time periods could affect whether an individual remembers a false memory. One study used doctored photographs and found that when the use of the photos was introduced, 62.5% of those surveyed had some sort of false memory of the childhood event. However, this was a week after the first interview and during this week participants were asked to reflect on the pseudo-event. This suggests that the more detailed the external information provided to the individual, the more likely the individual is to remember the false event. Likewise, as time passes, the individual thinks more about it and is more likely to reconstruct the false event in his or her mind (Lindsay, Hagen, Read, Wade & Garry, 2004). Fuzzy trace theory is a theory built on by Brainerd and Reyna (2002), which explains that there are two types of memory traces encoded in parallel. Gist traces are more meaning-based, while textual traces contain detailed information. Essential traces last longer in memory. Therefore, once textual traces are lost, meaning can become blurred, as specific details of the event are lost. This can lead to confusion between events and therefore misattribution of sources, because the individual cannot assign meaning to specific events. In the case of events that occurred some time ago, only essential traces may remain, showing how time can affect susceptibility to false memories. Likewise, external information can easily influence memories, and the individual can reconstruct them based on essential traces and external information, thereby creating a false memory. The experiences discussed above were all plausible events that could have occurred during childhood. Pezdek, Finger, and Hodge's (1997) experiment aimed to remember plausible and implausible events. They used false memories of being lost at a mall as very likely and of receiving an enema as a child as implausible. They found that participants were more likely to remember the plausible event thanthe improbable event. However, Braun, Ellis, and Loftus (2002) explored this issue further by showing participants an advertisement suggesting that they shake hands with Bugs Bunny during a trip to Disney Land. 16% said they did, even though Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros character and not a Disney character. This shows that plausibility is not necessary for false memories to occur, but can facilitate their creation. It has been criticized by the fact that many experiments do not measure memory, but measure belief. People can have vivid memories of things they don't believe happened, suggesting that many experiments measured an individual's belief, not memory. This was tested by a simple experiment, which asked participants to perform actions and then watch a doctored video of them performing additional actions that they had not done, which caused false memories. After that, a debriefing session took place, telling them that the video was fake. People always reported memories of performing these actions, but they did not believe they performed these actions, because they knew it was wrong. However, the memory is retained, even if they think it is false. Therefore, it is important to determine whether individuals have false memories or are simply made to believe that events occurred (Clark, Nash, Fincham, & Mazzoni, 2012). There are many cases of individuals who experienced traumatic events in their childhood having false memories of abuse that never happened. Although it is generally thought that highly emotional memories are more likely to be true, Laney and Loftus (2008) suggest that the level of emotion does not affect the accuracy of a memory, showing that highly emotional events Traumatic childhood memories can also be false memories. McNally (2005) suggests that it is important to understand the individual's feelings at the time of the abuse and neglects the notion of repression. Instead, it is suggested that if the person is very emotional at the time of the abuse, very frightened or upset, then they are very likely to remember it as a real memory. However, many children do not recognize the event as abuse and therefore are not very emotional, which can result in incorrect encoding and not remembering the event. This lack of coding can cause problems in the future, making the original memory (if recovered) susceptible to external information and the implantation of false memories. Memory over time is susceptible to distortions; over time, more similar information is collected, which may be confused with information currently held. Humans use processes to monitor sources of information and attribute them to specific events. However, over time, these can be distorted (Schmolck, Buffalo & Squire, 2000). Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay (1993) suggest that there is a source monitoring error because people may require a large amount of perceptual detail for events to accept it as a real event. However, the longer the period since the event, the less perceptual detail there is. is necessary for the event to be accepted as a real event. Therefore, childhood events only need a small amount of information for the individual to believe them to be real. This is why they are so fragile, because they can easily be distorted by external information, which can change or create new memories. greater imagination and creativity are more likely to createfalse memories because they imagine in more detail, thereby creating more information that may distort true memories (Ost, Foster, Costall, & Bull, 2005). There is also ample evidence that if people imagine doing something, then they are more likely to believe that they have done it (Anderson, 1984). Therapists must be careful not to provoke an inflation of the imagination. This happens when they ask someone to remember an event vividly, which will cause them to fill in the blank memory gaps with false information. This increases their confidence in this improvised memory, leading them to believe it more (Garry, Manning, Charles, Loftus, & Sherman, 1996). Mazzoni and Memon (2003) suggest that this is the case, showing that imagining events can increase false memories of them. There are many cases where therapy has effectively recovered memories that have been verified to be true. However, without independent evidence, no one can verify whether certain memories are true or not. This ambiguity is a real implication in real-life cases of false memories, especially those that have enormous consequences for individuals, such as childhood sexual abuse (Gleaves, Smith, Butler, & Spiegel, 2004). However, in recent years, scientists have studied the neurophysiological activity between false and retrieved memories. Their studies investigate brain activation using FMRI, suggesting that different areas of the brain are activated for false or retrieved memories. However, many areas see equal activity for true and false memories. Although this is only the beginning of research on this topic, current research shows positive signs of being able to scientifically separate true and false memories (Slotnick & Schacter, 2004). Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayThe experiments and literature discussed above provide good evidence that false memories can arise and are modulated by many factors; misinformation, misattribution of sources, and poor monitoring of sources. These can be intensified over longer durations, more plausible events and richer external information. However, the real problem is with people who need therapy to recover memories. People who experienced traumatic events in childhood and receive therapy are more likely to have false memories, due to longer periods between the event and the recall or high levels of imagination. Therapists must understand this possibility of accidentally creating false memories and treat it with caution. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know whether a memory is true or false unless there is someone who can independently verify it. Therefore, objectively, any memory must be doubted. Although it becomes possible to distinguish between false and true memories via FMRI, there is still a long way to go. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the extent to which individuals have false memories and it can be extremely difficult to differentiate between belief in an event and false memories. References Anderson, R. (1984). Did I do it or did I just imagine doing it? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 594-613. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.594Brainerd, C. and Reyna, V. (2002). Fuzzy trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 164-169. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00192Braun, K., Ellis, R. and1252