How Our Understanding of the Past Changes and Why That Does Not Mean Our Experiences Were Wrong
Have you ever remembered a conversation differently than someone else?
Maybe you remember exactly where you were sitting, how the other person looked at you, and the feeling you had when they said something that hurt.
The other person remembers the conversation, too.
But their version is different.
They remember saying something else. They recall a different tone. Perhaps they remember the conversation as relatively ordinary, while you remember it as a defining moment in the relationship.
Both of you may feel certain about what happened.
And both of you may be genuinely surprised that the other person remembers it differently.
How is that possible?
We often think about memory as though it functions like a recording. Something happens, our brains store the experience, and later we retrieve it.
But human memory is considerably more complicated.
Remembering involves reconstructive processes. We retrieve information about an experience, but our understanding of that experience can also be influenced by what we have learned, felt, and experienced since it occurred.
This does not mean our memories are inherently unreliable.
It means remembering and interpreting are closely connected, and understanding that connection can help us become more thoughtful about the interpersonal maps we carry.
Memory Is More Than a Collection of Facts
Imagine attending a family gathering.
Several relatives are present. Conversations unfold throughout the evening. Someone makes a comment that creates an uncomfortable moment.
You notice the comment immediately.
Perhaps it reminds you of previous interactions with that person. Maybe you feel embarrassed, angry, or disappointed.
Another family member hears the same comment but barely notices it.
A third person remembers the moment because of something that happened immediately afterward.
Several weeks later, the family discusses the gathering.
You remember the comment clearly.
Another person remembers the laughter that followed.
Someone else remembers the conversation taking place in a different part of the room.
Each person encountered the same general event, but their attention, emotional experiences, and prior expectations influenced which aspects became most meaningful.
Our memories are not simply inventories of everything that happened.
They are representations of experiences shaped by what we noticed, understood, and retained.
This is an important part of the Cartographic Model of Interpersonal Meaning-Making.
We construct interpersonal maps using information from direct observation, emotional experience, memory, inference, expectations, and what we learn from others.
Memory contributes to those maps, but it does not operate independently of the other processes.
Remembering an Event and Remembering Its Meaning
Consider a situation in which a friend makes a comment about your work.
At the time, you interpret the comment as helpful feedback.
You feel appreciative and continue the conversation.
Several months later, the friendship becomes strained.
You discover that your friend had been expressing frustration about your work to other people.
Now you remember the earlier comment differently.
What once seemed supportive begins to feel critical.
You may wonder whether the person was being sarcastic, whether there was an underlying intention you missed, or whether the comment was part of a larger pattern.
The original interaction has not changed.
But your understanding of it has.
This distinction is essential.
Learning new information can legitimately change how we interpret something that happened in the past.
Sometimes that new information reveals a pattern we did not previously recognize.
Sometimes it causes us to reconsider assumptions that were never fully supported.
And sometimes it introduces additional possibilities without establishing which interpretation is correct.
Our understanding of an event can evolve even when our memory of its central features remains relatively stable.
In other words, remembering what happened and understanding what it meant are related but distinct processes.
How New Information Becomes Part of an Old Story
Think about a time when you told someone about a difficult interaction.
Perhaps you described an argument with a partner, an uncomfortable conversation with a supervisor, or a disagreement with a friend.
The person listening offered an interpretation.
"That sounds like they were trying to embarrass you."
Or perhaps:
"Maybe they were feeling overwhelmed."
You may not have considered either possibility before.
But now you have additional information to think about.
The next time you remember the interaction, that interpretation may become part of how you understand it.
Over time, you may discuss the experience with several people.
Each conversation introduces additional perspectives, questions, and possible explanations.
Some of those perspectives may help you recognize important details.
Others may reflect assumptions made by people who were not present.
Research on source monitoring and social memory suggests that information acquired after an event can become incorporated into later remembering. People do not always perfectly preserve the distinction between information they directly experienced and information they subsequently learned, inferred, or discussed.
This does not mean that talking about experiences automatically creates inaccurate memories.
Social conversations can provide valuable context, correct misunderstandings, and help people make sense of complicated events.
The important question is where the different parts of our understanding came from.
Did I observe this directly?
Did I remember it independently?
Did someone tell me about it later?
Did I infer it based on what I subsequently learned?
Did my interpretation change after discussing the experience with someone else?
These questions help us understand how our interpersonal maps develop over time.
Where Did This Part of the Map Come From?
In my Cartographic Model, I use the term epistemic provenance to describe the informational origin of a particular feature of an interpersonal map.
The term may sound complicated, but the idea is relatively straightforward.
Where did this information come from?
Consider these statements:
"I remember that she raised her voice."
"I remember feeling frightened when she raised her voice."
"I believe she was trying to intimidate me."
"Someone later told me that she had been angry before the conversation."
Each statement contributes something different to the understanding of the event.
The first describes a remembered observation.
The second describes a remembered emotional experience.
The third involves an inference about intention.
The fourth introduces information learned from another person.
These sources may all be relevant.
But they are not interchangeable.
For example, feeling frightened during an interaction does not automatically establish that the other person intended to create fear.
At the same time, uncertainty about intention does not diminish the reality of the fear or the possibility that the behavior was threatening.
We can acknowledge what we experienced while recognizing the limits of what we know about another person's internal state.
This is not about questioning whether our experiences matter.
It is about becoming more precise in how we understand them.
Why Emotionally Significant Memories Can Feel So Certain
Some experiences leave a particularly strong impression.
We may remember where we were, what someone said, or how our body responded.
A humiliating comment, a frightening encounter, or an unexpected betrayal may remain emotionally significant for years.
The intensity of that emotional experience can contribute to a strong sense of certainty about the memory.
But emotional intensity and memory accuracy are not identical.
Research on memory suggests that emotionally significant experiences can be remembered vividly while some details remain incomplete, uncertain, or subject to reconstruction.
This does not mean that emotionally intense memories are necessarily inaccurate.
It means that vividness alone cannot establish the accuracy of every detail or interpretation.
For example, a person may clearly remember feeling terrified during an argument while remaining uncertain about the exact sequence of statements.
Another person may remember the words that were spoken but have difficulty recalling the order in which events occurred.
These differences do not automatically establish that either person is being dishonest.
Memory is complex, and different aspects of an experience may be encoded and retrieved differently.
This becomes particularly important when discussing trauma.
Trauma, Memory, and the Meaning of an Experience
Traumatic experiences can influence attention, emotional processing, and memory.
During overwhelming situations, people may focus intensely on certain aspects of what is happening while attending less to others.
A person might remember a facial expression, a sound, a physical sensation, or a particular moment with striking clarity.
Other details may be less accessible.
Some trauma survivors also experience dissociative symptoms that can affect their sense of continuity, awareness, or access to autobiographical information.
However, there is no single memory pattern that establishes whether trauma occurred.
Some people remember traumatic experiences with substantial detail.
Others experience gaps, uncertainty, or changes in how they understand what happened.
Still others remember events clearly but struggle to make sense of their emotional responses.
These differences require careful, individualized understanding.
It would be inappropriate to assume that fragmented memory proves trauma, just as it would be inappropriate to assume that inconsistency disproves someone's experience.
Memory science cannot be used as a shortcut for determining whether a particular interpersonal account is true or false.
And the reconstructive nature of memory should never become a reason to dismiss reports of abuse, coercion, exploitation, or harm.
The purpose of understanding memory is not to undermine people.
It is to appreciate the complexity of how experiences are remembered and understood.
When Our Understanding of the Past Changes
Sometimes people revisit an experience years after it occurred and recognize something they did not understand at the time.
Perhaps a person remembers a childhood interaction that once seemed ordinary.
As an adult, they develop a different understanding of boundaries, power, and responsibility.
They begin recognizing that the interaction involved dynamics they could not have fully understood as a child.
Their interpretation changes.
That does not mean the experience was invented.
It means the person now has knowledge and perspective that were not available earlier.
Something similar can happen in adult relationships.
A person may initially understand repeated criticism as concern.
Later, after learning more about emotional abuse or coercive control, they may recognize a broader pattern.
Alternatively, someone may initially interpret another person's behavior as intentional rejection but later discover information that supports a different explanation.
In both situations, new knowledge changes the interpersonal map.
Sometimes revision increases our recognition of harm.
Sometimes it reduces misunderstanding.
Sometimes it simply makes our understanding more nuanced.
The important point is that changing our interpretation is not necessarily evidence that our earlier experience was invalid.
It may reflect learning.
What Happens When We Become Attached to One Version of the Story?
As we develop an understanding of an experience, that understanding may become increasingly familiar.
We tell the story to ourselves.
We discuss it with others.
We connect it to previous experiences.
Over time, the interpretation may become an established part of how we understand a person or relationship.
This can be useful.
Recognizing patterns helps us make informed decisions.
If someone has repeatedly violated our boundaries, remembering those experiences may help us protect ourselves.
But difficulties can arise when our interpretation becomes resistant to credible new information.
In the Cartographic Model, I propose the concept of cartographic foreclosure to describe reduced openness to revising an interpersonal representation when credible contradictory information becomes available.
Imagine that someone believes a friend has always been intentionally dismissive.
Every remembered interaction is interpreted through that understanding.
If the friend behaved warmly, the warmth is interpreted as insincere.
If the friend behaved distantly, the distance is interpreted as rejection.
If the friend apologizes, the apology is interpreted as manipulation.
If the friend does not apologize, the absence of an apology becomes further evidence of disregard.
Any individual interpretation might be correct.
The concern arises when no credible information could possibly change the conclusion.
At that point, the map may become insulated from the territory.
Cartographic foreclosure is a proposed conceptual construct rather than an established diagnosis or independently validated psychological measure.
It provides a way to examine how interpersonal interpretations may become difficult to revise.
Importantly, refusing to abandon a well-supported conclusion is not the same as foreclosure.
Sometimes the available evidence continues to support the original understanding.
The question is whether credible new information can still be considered.
Therapists Have Maps, Too
This process is not limited to clients or personal relationships.
Therapists also construct interpersonal maps.
When working with a client, a clinician develops an understanding of the person's experiences, symptoms, relational patterns, and emotional responses.
These formulations help guide treatment.
But clinicians can also become attached to particular explanations.
Once a therapist understands a client as avoidant, they may begin noticing avoidance more readily.
Once a therapist conceptualizes someone as reassurance-seeking, they may interpret ambiguous questions through that framework.
Once a clinician develops an attachment-based, trauma-based, or personality-based formulation, subsequent information may seem to fit neatly within it.
Sometimes the formulation is accurate.
Sometimes it explains too much.
This is one reason consultation, supervision, and ongoing clinical curiosity are important.
A useful formulation should help us understand the client while remaining responsive to information that challenges our assumptions.
The same question applies to clinicians:
What would make me revise my map?
If the answer is nothing, the formulation may no longer be functioning as a flexible clinical tool.
Radical Openness and Remembering Differently
Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy, or RO-DBT, emphasizes openness to new information, flexible responding, and self-enquiry.
These principles can be particularly helpful when examining how we understand past experiences.
Radical openness does not require us to abandon memories or distrust our perceptions.
It does not mean assuming that someone else's account is more accurate than our own.
And it certainly does not mean repeatedly exposing ourselves to harmful people or situations in order to test our interpretations.
Instead, radical openness encourages us to consider whether there is credible information that could expand our understanding.
Perhaps we discover that an event had a different context than we originally believed.
Perhaps we recognize that a later conversation influenced how we interpreted an earlier interaction.
Perhaps we identify a repeated pattern that makes our original concerns more convincing.
Or perhaps we simply recognize that there are aspects of an experience we cannot know with certainty.
All of these possibilities can be approached with curiosity rather than self-doubt.
The goal is not to erase the map.
It is to understand how the map was drawn.
A Small Exercise: Surveying a Memory
Think about an interpersonal experience that continues to influence how you understand a relationship.
Choose something you feel comfortable reflecting on. There is no need to revisit a traumatic experience for this exercise.
Consider the following questions.
What do I remember directly observing?
Focus on the actions, words, or circumstances you recall.
What do I remember feeling?
Identify the emotional experience associated with the event.
What did I believe the event meant at the time?
Consider your original interpretation.
What do I believe it means now?
Notice whether your understanding has changed.
What information did I learn afterward?
Think about later conversations, experiences, or discoveries that influenced your interpretation.
Which parts of my understanding involve inference?
Consider what you believe about another person's thoughts, intentions, or motivations.
Is there credible information that might change or expand my understanding?
This does not require abandoning a well-supported conclusion. It simply invites you to consider whether your map remains responsive to meaningful information.
You may discover that your current understanding is strongly supported.
You may recognize that certain details remain uncertain.
Or you may notice that your interpretation has evolved as you have gained experience and perspective.
The purpose is not to determine whether your memory is right or wrong.
It is to understand the different sources contributing to the meaning you have created.
We Remember, and We Continue to Make Meaning
Memory allows us to carry our experiences forward.
It helps us recognize familiar people, maintain relationships, learn from mistakes, and protect ourselves from repeated harm.
Without memory, our interpersonal maps would have little continuity.
But memory is not simply a recording that we replay without change.
Our understanding of the past can evolve as we encounter new information, develop new perspectives, and recognize patterns we previously overlooked.
Sometimes those changes confirm what we already believed.
Sometimes they challenge our assumptions.
And sometimes they help us understand an experience with greater clarity and compassion.
Recognizing that memory involves reconstruction does not mean abandoning trust in ourselves.
It means acknowledging that remembering an event and understanding its meaning are complex processes.
We can know what we experienced while remaining uncertain about another person's intentions.
We can recognize genuine harm without knowing every detail.
We can revise an interpretation without invalidating our original emotional response.
And we can remain confident in a well-supported understanding while still being willing to learn something new.
The maps we carry are shaped by our memories.
But they are also shaped by what we learn after those memories are formed.
Perhaps the question is not whether our memories have changed.
Perhaps it is whether we understand how our interpretations have developed and whether we remain capable of distinguishing what we remember, what we learned, and what we believe.
Because the past does not change simply because we understand it differently.
But our relationship with the past sometimes does.
Coming Next in The Maps We Carry
In our next article, "When Expectations Become Self-Fulfilling: How Our Beliefs Change Our Relationships," we will explore how interpersonal expectations influence our behavior, how other people respond to those behaviors, and why certain relationship patterns can seem to repeat themselves.
We will also examine how recognizing these feedback loops can create opportunities for more flexible communication and connection.
The Maps We Carry is an educational series based on the Cartographic Model of Interpersonal Meaning-Making, developed by Emily Williams, LPC/S, LAC/S, MAC, DBT-LBC, of Upstate Integrative Mind Counseling.
Foundational Reading
Williams, E. (2026, October). When the map becomes the territory: A model of interpersonal meaning-making. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 62(1).
Johnson, M. K. (1997). Source monitoring and memory distortion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 352(1362), 1733–1745.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28.
Maswood, R., & Rajaram, S. (2019). Social transmission of false memory in small groups and large networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(4), 687–709.
