Repression Part II Of II

Let me turn now to some exciting recent experimental research on repression and “repressive style.” It has been common to argue for the influence of psychology and psychological research on psychoanalysis (e. g., Barron, Eagle, & Wolitzky, 1992). There has been less concern, particularly recently, with the influence of psychoanalytic ideas, concepts, and formulations upon psychological research and theory. The so-called “New Look” in psychology, particularly the work on “perceptual defense,” certainly reflects the influence of the psychoanalytic ideas of repression and defense on psychological research. Other examples of the influence of psychoanalytic ideas on psychological research and theory include the early research program of Sears (e. g., ), in which he attempted to demonstrate experimentally certain psychoanalytic concepts; the research program of Silverman and his colleagues (e. g., Weinberger & Silverman, 1987) on “psychodynamic subliminal activation”, and, in an indirect way (because it partly constituted a reaction against Freudian theory), attachment research and theory (e. g., Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980).

Through the years, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of repression, much of it concerned with attempts to demonstrate repression in the experimental laboratory. A good deal of this work consisted of reports of differential perceptual thresholds (i. e. “perceptual defense”) and differential recall for taboo, unpleasant, and/or ego threatening material (e. g., see Erdelyi, 1990; Erdelyi & Goldberg, ; Eriksen & Pierce, 1968; Holmes, 1974, 1990; MacKinnon & Dukes, 1964; Madison, 1956). In 1974, after reviewing the experimental work on repression, Holmes concluded that he could find no convincing evi