Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-4dqq5 Total loading time: 0.191 Render date: 2021-05-07T05:21:30.801Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The unified theory of repression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2006

Matthew Hugh Erdelyi
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate School, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract:

Repression has become an empirical fact that is at once obvious and problematic. Fragmented clinical and laboratory traditions and disputed terminology have resulted in a Babel of misunderstandings in which false distinctions are imposed (e.g., between repression and suppression) and necessary distinctions not drawn (e.g., between the mechanism and the use to which it is put, defense being just one). “Repression” was introduced by Herbart to designate the (nondefensive) inhibition of ideas by other ideas in their struggle for consciousness. Freud adapted repression to the defensive inhibition of “unbearable” mental contents. Substantial experimental literatures on attentional biases, thought avoidance, interference, and intentional forgetting exist, the oldest prototype being the work of Ebbinghaus, who showed that intentional avoidance of memories results in their progressive forgetting over time. It has now become clear, as clinicians had claimed, that the inaccessible materials are often available and emerge indirectly (e.g., procedurally, implicitly). It is also now established that the Ebbinghaus retention function can be partly reversed, with resulting increases of conscious memory over time (hypermnesia). Freud's clinical experience revealed early on that exclusion from consciousness was effected not just by simple repression (inhibition) but also by a variety of distorting techniques, some deployed to degrade latent contents (denial), all eventually subsumed under the rubric of defense mechanisms (“repression in the widest sense”). Freudian and Bartlettian distortions are essentially the same, even in name, except for motive (cognitive vs. emotional), and experimentally induced false memories and other “memory illusions” are laboratory analogs of self-induced distortions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Anna Freud might have agreed. In a telling conversation with Joseph Sandler (Sandler & A. Freud 1985), published posthumously, she anticipates one of Daniel Holender's (1986) criticisms of experimental psychology's efforts to demonstrate nonconscious priming: The prime might have been fleetingly conscious but forgotten by the time the experimenter tests for it. Here is how Anna Freud treats the conundrum in an interchange on the defense mechanism of reaction formation:

Anna Freud: Heinz Hartmann would say that it can become automatic.

Joseph Sandler:… I still think that there must be an awareness of the impulse to evoke the response.

Anna Freud: Hartmann and I discussed it at the time, in 1936 and 1937. There must be a momentary awareness. (Sandler & Freud 1985, pp. 22–23)

Charles Eriksen, the great critic of subliminal perception, later proposed also the idea of “automatization” of highly practiced behaviors (Eriksen & Pierce 1968), now a common notion in cognitive psychology.

2. A foreshadowing of the present twofold organization of repression can be found in Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams (1900/1953): “There can be no doubt that the censoring agency, whose influence we have so far recognized in limitations and omissions in the dream-content, is also responsible for interpolations and additions to it” (Freud 1900/1953, p. 489).

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The unified theory of repression
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The unified theory of repression
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The unified theory of repression
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *