Pain is a big component in most personal injury cases. When we’re asked about pain, we “remember” it. But when we’re asked for specifics—especially about pain that lasts for days, weeks, or months—it becomes apparent that we really don’t remember the full experience. Psychologists have studied our memory of pain. Research shows that we only remember the very worst moments of pain and when the pain subsides. We don’t remember the full experience.

There’s a name for this phenomenon: it’s called the Peak-End Rule. It explains why our memory of pain seems so incomplete compared to the actual experience. (And, interestingly, it applies to more than just pain.)

According to the Peak-End Rule, people remember an experience based on how they felt at its peak (its most intense point) and at its end. Basically two snapshots of the experience. They don’t remember it based on the total sum of the pain they experience.

Information other than the peak and end of the experience is not used to form the memory. Because it’s not used, the memory of it degrades and becomes difficult or impossible to retrieve in any palpable form. As a result, the duration of an experience is not remembered in a vivid or easily retrievable way.

The limitations of our memory don’t change the fact that we experienced it. Living through that experience leaves a mark, even if we can’t remember the details.

It begs the question (in personal injury): If we don’t “remember” days or weeks or months of pain between the peak and the end, do we deserve to be compensated for it?

I'm curious to know, what do you think?