The Building Blocks
of
Memory: Its Fragile Power Gives us an Emotional Link to Our
Past
By Daniel L. Schacter
In Hawaii, a man awakes after an
apparent mugging unable to identify himself, believing that it is
1988 and Ronald Reagan is president. The news reports describe how he
gradually recalled his name, Social Security number, hometown and
college alma mater. But routine checks showed that none of the
information was accurate.
Halfway around the world, families
grieve for victims of the TWA Flight 800 crash. Questions from
reporters bring forth a flood of vignettes confirming the reality of
the deceased through the lives they had lived.
Viewed together, these two seemingly
unrelated events contrast memory's strengths and weaknesses: at times
highly elusive and occasionally dead wrong, but still our most useful
tool for maintaining our most strongly held beliefs about and
cherished ties to the past.
We are not cameras
To comprehend the fragile power of
human memory, we need to go beyond the myth that memory operates like
a movie camera, passively recording the details of our past
experience for future viewing. Try to remember the last time you
dined in a restaurant or your first day of kindergarten. Do you see
yourself in the scene?
For most people, their memory of that
first day of kindergarten will include an image of that most
important character: ourselves. This is called an observer memory.
But a recent visit to a restaurant will likely be remembered from the
perspective that we originally viewed the scene.
That we have observer memories at all
shows that what we remember is not a literal record of a past
event--we cannot have seen ourselves in the event at the time the
record was made. But even more telling, experiments have shown that
when people are instructed to focus on how they felt during a past
episode, they tend to recall it from a field perspective. When
instructed to focus on the objective circumstances of an event, they
tend to report it from the observer perspective. The way we
re-experience our pasts depends on our purpose in remembering it. We
don't replay memories; we construct them.
Research in neuroscience has found
that memories are not stored in any single location in the brain.
Instead, the elements we need to reconstruct the past are scattered
in bits and pieces in different parts of the cortex, and we must
retrieve and assemble them.
The constructive nature of memory
provides clues concerning its fragility. Mounting evidence has shown
that we are often vulnerable to confusing the sources of our
recollections: whether we heard about an incident on the radio, read
about it or learned about it from a friend.
In everyday life, source confusions
can lead to disaster, as in the case of an Australian psychologist
who was accused of rape when the victim provided police with a nearly
exact description of him. Fortunately, the psychologist had an
airtight alibi: At the precise moment of the rape he was in the midst
of a television interview (ironically, about eyewitness memory). The
victim had been watching the show and had confused the source of her
memory, linking the psychologist's clearly recalled appearance with
that of the rapist.
Fortunately, in the absence unusual
conditions such as amnesia source confusions tend to occur mainly at
the level of individual incidents. Our recollections of the general
contours of our lives--how happy we were as children, the
characteristics of parents, siblings, classmates and friends--while
not entirely free of subjective biases, are basically accurate.
Families of the TWA Flight 800
victims can count on their memories of their loved ones as true and
powerful allies in their attempts to deal with the loss.
Memory's usefulness does not lie its
ability to replay the details of our lives with total accuracy, but
in its power to recreate and sustain the important emotional
experiences of our lives. As such, its power can be a useful survival
tool, maintaining a strong link between the lives we have lived and
the persons we are now.
Daniel L. Schacter chairs Harvard
University's psychology department and wrote "Searching for Memory:
The Brain, the Mind, and the Past." He wrote this article for the Los
Angeles Times.