Memory, a cornerstone of our daily lives, is paradoxically prone to errors and illusions. Two decades ago, the concept of the “seven sins of memory” was introduced, categorizing common memory errors into seven fundamental types: transience, absent-mindedness, blocking, misattribution, suggestibility, bias, and persistence. These “sins” are not simply flaws, but rather offer profound insights into the constructive nature of human memory, revealing its adaptability and functionality. This article delves into these seven sins, summarizing key advancements in our understanding of their nature, consequences, and surprisingly, their adaptive roles over the past twenty years.
The Seven Sins of Memory: New Developments and Insights
Psychology has long recognized that memory is not a perfect recording device, but rather a reconstructive process susceptible to various forms of error. This understanding dates back to pioneers like Bartlett and Neisser, who emphasized the constructive nature of memory. To systematically categorize these memory missteps, the “seven sins” framework was proposed, offering a structured way to understand how and why our memories can fail us.
These seven sins are broadly divided into sins of omission and sins of commission. The sins of omission involve different types of forgetting:
- Transience: The fading of memories over time, making information less accessible as time passes.
- Absent-mindedness: Lapses in attention during encoding or retrieval, leading to forgetting at the attention-memory interface.
- Blocking: Temporary inability to retrieve information that is, in fact, stored in memory.
The sins of commission involve distortions and inaccuracies in memory:
- Misattribution: Assigning a memory to the wrong source, time, or person.
- Suggestibility: Incorporating false information from external sources into our memories.
- Bias: Distorting memories based on our current knowledge, beliefs, and feelings.
Finally, persistence, also a sin of commission, refers to the unwanted, intrusive recollection of events, often traumatic ones. While each of these sins can cause problems in everyday life, the crucial insight of the seven sins framework is that they are not fundamental design flaws. Instead, they are often byproducts of memory processes that are essential for adaptive functioning.
Since the initial conceptualization of these seven sins, significant research has expanded our knowledge of their causes and consequences. Recent work further reinforces the idea that these “sins” are intertwined with the very mechanisms that make memory efficient and adaptive. Let’s explore the recent developments within each category, focusing on the first six sins that most directly relate to memory reliability.
Transience: The Fading Trace and Anti-Transience
Transience, the natural decline of memory over time, was one of the first memory phenomena studied experimentally by Ebbinghaus. Interestingly, recent research has uncovered evidence of “anti-transience,” highlighting factors that can mitigate or even reverse forgetting.
One compelling line of evidence comes from studies of Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM). Individuals with HSAM possess an extraordinary ability to recall specific details from their personal past. Research comparing HSAM individuals to controls revealed that while there was no difference in recall for recent events (within a day or a week), HSAM individuals showed significantly reduced forgetting for events from months, years, and even decades past. This suggests that HSAM is characterized by a mitigation of transience over long periods.
Another phenomenon demonstrating anti-transience is the retrieval practice effect, also known as the “testing effect.” Studies have shown that practicing retrieval of information, compared to simply restudying it, doesn’t necessarily improve immediate recall. However, retrieval practice significantly enhances memory retention over longer delays (days or weeks). Interestingly, HSAM individuals often engage in frequent, self-initiated retrieval of past experiences, suggesting a link between retrieval practice and reduced transience in HSAM.
These findings highlight that while transience is a pervasive aspect of forgetting, it is not immutable. Factors like retrieval practice and individual differences in memory strategies can influence the rate of forgetting. However, the very existence of transience likely serves an adaptive purpose, allowing us to prioritize relevant and recent information while discarding less important details from the past.
Absent-mindedness: When Attention Lapses
Absent-mindedness arises from failures at the intersection of attention and memory. Early research and everyday examples illustrated how forgetting to perform intended actions (prospective memory) can occur when retrieval cues are absent and attention is diverted. However, tragic real-world events have highlighted a particularly devastating form of absent-mindedness: parents forgetting their infants in hot cars.
These horrific cases, which tragically increased after recommendations to move infant car seats to the rear of vehicles (reducing visibility), underscore the severe consequences of cue-dependent absent-mindedness. These situations often involve a confluence of factors: changes in routine, preoccupation with other concerns, reliance on automatic behaviors, and a lack of salient retrieval cues. It’s now understood that such forgetting can affect anyone, even highly responsible individuals. Fortunately, the development of external cuing systems has emerged as a crucial intervention to prevent these tragedies by providing the necessary retrieval prompts.
Beyond these extreme examples, research on mind wandering has provided further insights into absent-mindedness. Mind wandering, the shift of attention away from the primary task to task-unrelated thoughts, is a common phenomenon. Studies in educational settings have demonstrated that frequent mind wandering during lectures is associated with poorer retention of lecture material. This highlights how attentional lapses during encoding, caused by mind wandering, can lead to absent-minded forgetting of important information.
Despite the serious implications of absent-mindedness, both in tragic cases and everyday learning, interventions like external cues and strategies to reduce mind wandering (e.g., brief quizzes) offer promising avenues for mitigating these memory lapses.
Blocking: The Tip-of-the-Tongue and Retrieval Inhibition
Blocking refers to the temporary inaccessibility of stored information. Prior to 2001, research focused on phenomena like tip-of-the-tongue states and retrieval-induced forgetting. However, a groundbreaking development emerged with the introduction of the think/no-think paradigm, revealing a new form of retrieval inhibition.
The think/no-think paradigm, developed by Anderson and Greene, demonstrated that actively suppressing the retrieval of a specific memory (“no-think” condition) can lead to a small but measurable reduction in its later recall compared to both intentionally retrieved memories (“think” condition) and baseline memories. While initial replication attempts were mixed, meta-analyses have confirmed a modest but significant impairment of memory for suppressed items.
Neuroimaging studies have provided valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying retrieval inhibition. fMRI research has shown that suppressing retrieval is associated with: 1) increased activity in prefrontal brain regions linked to cognitive control, 2) decreased activity in the hippocampus, a region crucial for successful memory recollection, and 3) a correlation between these brain changes and the degree of retrieval-induced forgetting. Furthermore, recent research suggests a role for the neurotransmitter GABA in retrieval inhibition. Higher levels of GABA in the hippocampus are associated with a greater ability to suppress unwanted memories and stronger communication between the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex during suppression attempts.
These findings from the think/no-think paradigm and neuroimaging studies have significantly advanced our understanding of blocking, revealing the active inhibitory mechanisms involved in controlling memory retrieval.
Misattribution: Source Errors and Déjà Vu
Misattribution involves errors in remembering the source of a memory. Before 2001, research extensively explored source memory confusion, false recall, and false recognition. However, déjà vu, a striking form of misattribution, remained largely a clinical curiosity. This has changed dramatically with the development of experimental methods to study déjà vu systematically.
Cleary and colleagues pioneered the use of virtual reality paradigms to elicit déjà vu in the lab. Their research suggests that déjà vu can arise from structural similarities between a novel scene and a previously experienced, but not consciously remembered, scene. This structural overlap can create a sense of familiarity and the unsettling feeling of having experienced the present moment before. Furthermore, this sense of familiarity can lead to an illusory feeling of knowing what will happen next in a new environment. The development of these paradigms has even enabled the study of déjà vu using fMRI, further contributing to our understanding of its neural basis and implications for constructive memory theories.
Beyond déjà vu, fMRI studies of misattribution, particularly false recognition, have proliferated. Early research suggested that true recognition could be distinguished from false recognition by increased activation in sensory-perceptual brain regions during true recognition, reflecting the reactivation of sensory details. More recent studies have refined our understanding of these sensory reactivation effects, clarifying the conditions under which they are observed. Importantly, neuroimaging studies have also begun to pinpoint brain regions consistently associated with false retrieval, providing insights into the neural correlates of these subjectively compelling but inaccurate memories.
Suggestibility: Implanted Memories and Misinformation
Suggestibility refers to the susceptibility of memory to external influences, leading to the incorporation of misinformation or suggestions into our recollections. During the 1990s, researchers developed experimental paradigms to induce what Loftus termed “rich false memories” – detailed, yet inaccurate, memories of events. The “lost-in-the-mall” paradigm, pioneered by Loftus and Pickrell, and similar procedures demonstrated that suggestive techniques (e.g., visualization, social influence) could lead a significant proportion of participants (20-30%) to develop false memories of various everyday events.
More recently, Shaw and Porter reported a study with a surprisingly high rate of false memories. Using potent suggestive techniques involving visualization and social pressure, they induced 70% of college students to develop a false memory of committing a crime as an adolescent. However, Wade, Garry, and Pezdek challenged the interpretation of these findings, arguing that many of these reports might be better classified as false beliefs rather than true false memories. False beliefs involve accepting a suggestion as true and speculating about related details, without necessarily experiencing a subjective sense of actually remembering the event. Re-analyzing Shaw and Porter’s data using stricter criteria to distinguish between false memories and false beliefs reduced the false memory rate to a more typical 25-30%, consistent with earlier research.
Despite this re-evaluation, Shaw and Porter’s work highlights the powerful influence of social coercion and imagination in shaping memory reports and potentially leading to false beliefs, even about significant life events. It underscores the vulnerability of memory to suggestion and the importance of distinguishing between genuine recollection and implanted beliefs.
Bias: Rewriting the Past in the Present
Bias reflects the distorting influence of our current knowledge, beliefs, and feelings on our memories of the past. Consistency bias, a common form of retrospective bias, involves unconsciously revising past memories to align them with our present state. Recent research has revealed the impact of consistency bias in the domain of political cognition.
For example, Frenda, Knowles, Saletan, and Loftus investigated memory for real and fabricated political events. They found that a significant percentage of participants claimed to remember fabricated news events, with consistency biases influencing these false memories. Conservative participants were more likely to falsely remember negative fabricated news about President Obama, while liberal participants showed the opposite pattern for negative news about President Bush.
Murphy, Loftus, Grady, Levine, and Greene further explored this phenomenon in the context of the 2018 Irish abortion referendum. They presented participants with true and fake news stories related to both sides of the referendum campaign. False memories were frequent for fake news stories, and consistency bias played a role: “yes” supporters were more likely to falsely “remember” negative fake news about the “no” side, and vice versa. These findings are particularly relevant in today’s polarized political landscape, highlighting how biases can shape our memories and even contribute to the acceptance of false information as “truth.” Consistency bias reveals how our current perspectives can unconsciously rewrite our past recollections to maintain a coherent narrative.
An Adaptive Perspective: Finding Function in Flaws
A central tenet of the seven sins framework is that these memory errors, rather than being mere flaws, are often byproducts of adaptive memory functions. This perspective, initially based on functional and evolutionary analyses, has gained substantial empirical support over the past two decades.
Growing evidence suggests that memory errors, including those categorized as sins, can actually serve adaptive purposes. For example, research has shown that false memories in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm can enhance performance on subsequent creative problem-solving and analogical reasoning tasks. This suggests that the constructive processes underlying false memories may also contribute to flexible thinking and creative insights.
Furthermore, studies indicate that source misattributions can be a consequence of adaptive associative inference. When we correctly infer new associations based on overlapping features of related experiences, we may also mistakenly combine contextual details from those experiences, leading to source errors. This suggests that the mechanisms supporting efficient associative learning can also contribute to misattribution.
Finally, research on episodic simulation and future thinking, processes that rely on memory to imagine future scenarios, reveals a fascinating link to memory errors. The very processes that enable us to adaptively simulate future events can also increase memory errors and biases. This suggests that the constructive and flexible nature of memory, essential for future-oriented thinking, inherently involves a trade-off with perfect accuracy of past recollections.
Conclusion: Constructive Memory and Adaptive Function
The past twenty years of research on the seven sins of memory have solidified the constructive perspective on memory. New examples and insights into the mechanisms underlying each sin further demonstrate that these errors are not random malfunctions, but rather systematic byproducts of adaptive constructive processes. A constructive memory is not always a perfectly reliable one, but it is arguably a highly functional one. The very processes that can sometimes undermine memory’s accuracy are often the same processes that enable memory to effectively support a wide range of cognitive functions, from learning and problem-solving to future planning and creative thought. Understanding the seven sins of memory allows us to appreciate the delicate balance between memory’s fallibility and its remarkable adaptive utility.
Funding
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by National Institute on Aging [grant number R01 AG008441] and National Institute of Mental Health [grant number RO1MH060941] to DLS. I thank Ethan Harris for assistance.
References
[R1] Aitken, M. R. F., & O’Connor, A. R. (2020). Déjà vu: A metacognitive perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 77, 102846.
[R2] Anderson, J. R., & Milson, J. A. (1989). Human memory: An adaptive perspective. Psychological Review, 96(4), 703–719.
[R3] Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2(6), 396–408.
[R4] Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087.
[R5] Anderson, M. C., & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410(6826), 366–369.
[R6] Anderson, M. C., & Huddleston, E. (2012). Towards a cognitive and neurobiological model of motivated forgetting. In R. N. Spreng & A. L. Levine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 785–813). New York: Oxford University Press.
[R7] Anderson, M. C., Ochsner, K. N., Kuhl, B., Cooper, H. M., Robertson, E., Gabrieli, S. W., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2004). Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science, 303(5655), 232–235.
[R8] Baldwin, A. L. (2019). Preventing vehicular hyperthermia deaths of children: A review of systems and strategies. Injury Prevention, 25(Suppl 2), ii39–ii45.
[R9] Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[R10] Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). When forgetting helps memory: An interpretation of spacing effects. Psychological Science, 19(2), 438–442.
[R11] Bulevich, J. B., Balota, D. A., Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2006). Retrieval-induced forgetting in semantic memory: Evidence for retrieval-specific mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 757–774.
[R12] Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 542–579.
[R13] Carpenter, A. C., & Schacter, D. L. (2017). Flexible recombination: Constructive memory and episodic counterfactual thinking. Memory & Cognition, 45(6), 940–953.
[R14] Carpenter, A. C., & Schacter, D. L. (2018). Constructive episodic simulation: Evidence from source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(1), 137–148.
[R15] Cleary, A. M., Brown, A. S., Tillman, B. C., Wilkins, A. D., & Siekmeier, B. M. (2012). Déjà vu experience and illusory predictions in virtual environments. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1285–1292.
[R16] Cleary, A. M., & Claxton, L. J. (2018). Déjà vu and predictions about the immediate future. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 761–767.
[R17] Devitt, A. L., & Schacter, D. L. (2018). False recall of imagined events: Evidence for a common mechanism underlying episodic simulation and false memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(7), 1015–1028.
[R18] Devitt, A. L., & Schacter, D. L. (2019). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Evidence for shared and distinct processes. Memory, 27(1), 1–15.
[R19] Dewhurst, R., Anderson, S. J., Grace, L., & van Esch, J. (2016). The effect of future imagining on episodic memory. Memory, 24(8), 1087–1097.
[R20] Dewhurst, R., Anderson, S. J., Grace, L., & Howe, M. L. (2019). Future imagining increases susceptibility to misinformation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 270–278.
[R21] Ditta, A. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). Retrieval practice and false memories: Functional and theoretical implications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 582–599.
[R22] Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885)
[R23] Fawcett, J. M., & Hulbert, J. C. (2020). Adaptive functions of episodic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(1), 60–73.
[R24] Frenda, S. J., Knowles, E. D., Saletan, G. G., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). False memories of fabricated political events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 280–286.
[R25] Howe, M. L. (2011). The adaptive nature of memory errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 171–187.
[R26] Howe, M. L., & Garner, S. R. (2018). False memories can promote creative problem solving. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 1–11.
[R27] Hyman, I. E., Jr., & Pentland, J. (1996). The role of mental imagery in the creation of false childhood memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(2), 116–130.
[R28] Howe, M. L., Garner, S. R., Threadgold, E., & Ball, L. J. (2015). False memories promote analogical reasoning. Memory, 23(6), 851–860.
[R29] Kurkela, K. A., & Dennis, N. A. (2016). Neural correlates of true and false recognition: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Neuropsychologia, 90, 1–16.
[R30] LePort, A. K. R., Mattfeld, A. T., Dickinson-Anson, H., Fallon, J. H., Stark, C. E. L., Kruggel, F., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (2012). Behavioral and neural correlates of highly superior autobiographical memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17831–17835.
[R31] LePort, A. K. R., Stark, S. M., Kruggel, F., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (2016). The many ways of not forgetting: Understanding the memory phenotype of highly superior autobiographical memory. Memory & Cognition, 44(2), 254–266.
[R32] Lindquist, S. I., & McLean, J. P. (2011). Mind wandering and media multitasking: Cost and benefits. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1079–1085.
[R33] Loftus, E. F. (2003). Our changeable memories: Legal and ethical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234.
[R34] Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725.
[R35] Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J., & Greene, C. M. (2019). False memories for fake news during the Irish abortion referendum. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1475–1484.
[R36] Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[R37] Pan, S. C., Schmitt, R. M., Bjork, E. L., & Sana, F. (2020). Pretesting enhances learning and reduces mind wandering in online video lectures. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1433–1455.
[R38] Parker, E. S., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (2006). A case of unusual autobiographical remembering. Neurocase, 12(1), 35–49.
[R39] Patihis, L., Frenda, S. J., LePort, A. K. R., Petersen, D., Nichols, R. M., Stark, C. E. L., Bernstein, D. M., Loftus, E. F., & Cahill, L. (2013). False memories in highly superior autobiographical memory individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20947–20952.
[R40] Porter, S., Yuille, J. C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted, and imagined memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 517–537.
[R41] Risko, E. F., Anderson, N. C., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Mind wandering and computer use during lectures. Computers & Education, 58(3), 1123–1131.
[R42] Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
[R43] Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814.
[R44] Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E. (1999). It feels like yesterday: Self-esteem, emotion regulation, and biases in autobiographical memory. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 519–540). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
[R45] Santangelo, A. M., Cavallo, M., Hidalgo, J., LePort, A. K.,ндез, R. S., Rosenberg-Lee, M., & McGaugh, J. L. (2018). Enhanced memory for detail and emotional intensity in individuals with highly superior autobiographical memory. Memory, 26(2), 208–219.
[R46] Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Implications for the psychology of memory distortions. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 649–660). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[R47] Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
[R48] Schacter, D. L. (2012). Adaptive constructive processes and the seven sins of memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1257(1), 1–23.
[R49] Schacter, D. L. (in press). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
[R50] Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive and neural bases of constructive episodic simulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773–786.
[R51] Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2020). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Retrospective and prospective episodic simulation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 32, 9–16.
[R52] Schacter, D. L., Carpenter, A. C., Devitt, A. L., & Thakral, P. P. (in press). Memory distortion. In K. J. Hockley & J. P. Norman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of human memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
[R53] Schacter, D. L., & Szpunar, K. K. (2015). Mind-wandering and distraction during lectures. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 433–436.
[R54] Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., & St. Jacques, P. L. (2011).
