Letter | Published:

Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control

Nature volume 410, pages 366369 (15 March 2001) | Download Citation



Freud proposed that unwanted memories can be forgotten by pushing them into the unconscious, a process called repression1. The existence of repression has remained controversial for more than a century, in part because of its strong coupling with trauma, and the ethical and practical difficulties of studying such processes in controlled experiments. However, behavioural and neurobiological research on memory and attention shows that people have executive control processes directed at minimizing perceptual distraction2,3, overcoming interference during short and long-term memory tasks3,4,5,6,7 and stopping strong habitual responses to stimuli8,9,10,11,12,13. Here we show that these mechanisms can be recruited to prevent unwanted declarative memories from entering awareness, and that this cognitive act has enduring consequences for the rejected memories. When people encounter cues that remind them of an unwanted memory and they consistently try to prevent awareness of it, the later recall of the rejected memory becomes more difficult. The forgetting increases with the number of times the memory is avoided, resists incentives for accurate recall and is caused by processes that suppress the memory itself. These results show that executive control processes not uniquely tied to trauma may provide a viable model for repression.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud 1 (ed. J. Strachey) 117–128 (Hogarth, London, 1966).

  2. 2.

    & Human prefrontal lesions increase distractibility to irrelevant sensory inputs. Cog. Neurosci. Neuropsychol. 6, 1605–1610 (1995).

  3. 3.

    & (eds) Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language (Academic, San Diego, 1994).

  4. 4.

    & Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science 283, 1657–1661 (1999).

  5. 5.

    & Working memory, comprehension and aging: A review and a new view. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 22, 193–225 (1988).

  6. 6.

    & On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychol. Rev. 102, 68–100 (1995).

  7. 7.

    in Varieties of Memory and Consciousness: Essays in Honour of Endel Tulving (eds Roediger, H. L. & Craik, F. I. M.) 309–330 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1989).

  8. 8.

    Higher Cortical Function in Man (Basic Books, New York, 1966).

  9. 9.

    & On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychol. Rev. 91, 295–327 (1984).

  10. 10.

    & The attention system of the human brain. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 25–42 (1990).

  11. 11.

    , , & Prefrontal cortex regulates inhibition and excitation in distributed neural networks. Acta Psychol. 101, 159–178 (1999).

  12. 12.

    & Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychol. Rev. 99, 45–77 (1992).

  13. 13.

    , & The contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex to executive processes in cognition. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 49–57 (1999).

  14. 14.

    & Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 4–26 (2000).

  15. 15.

    et al. A developmental functional MRI study of prefrontal activation during performance of a go-no-go task. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 9, 835–847 (1997).

  16. 16.

    , & Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8301–8306 (1999).

  17. 17.

    et al. Motor response suppression and the prepotent tendency to respond: A parametric fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 38, 1280–1291 (2000).

  18. 18.

    & Spatial selectivity of go/no go neurons in the monkey prefrontal cortex. Exp. Brain Res. 100, 165–169 (1994).

  19. 19.

    Ironic processes of mental control. Psychol. Rev. 101, 34–52 (1994).

  20. 20.

    Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).

  21. 21.

    , & Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: A link with posthypnotic amnesia. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 112, 58–72 (1983).

  22. 22.

    , , , & The disruption and dissolution of directed forgetting: Inhibitory control of memory. J. Mem. Lang. 43, 409–430 (2000).

  23. 23.

    & in Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory (eds Davison, R. J., Schwardz, G. E. & Shapiro, D.) 1–18 (Plenum, New York, 1986).

  24. 24.

    , , & Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science 288, 1835–1838 (2000).

  25. 25.

    The role of the prefrontal cortex in dynamic filtering. Psychobiology 28, 207–218 (2000).

  26. 26.

    et al. The prefrontal cortex: Response selection or maintenance within working memory. Science 288, 1656–1660 (2000).

  27. 27.

    et al. Functional MRI studies of spatial and nonspatial working memory. Cogn. Brain Res. 7, 1–13 (1998).

  28. 28.

    & Medial temporal lobe activations in fMRI and PET studies of episodic encoding and retrieval. Hippocampus 9, 7–24 (1999).

  29. 29.

    Memory and awareness. Science 280, 59–60 (1998).

  30. 30.

    Active Forgetting: Evidence for functional inhibition as a source of memory failure. J. Agression Maltreatment Trauma (in the press).

Download references


The research reported here was supported by a grant from the US National Institute of Mental Health.

Author information


  1. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1227, USA

    • Michael C. Anderson
    •  & Collin Green


  1. Search for Michael C. Anderson in:

  2. Search for Collin Green in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Anderson.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.