False Memory Syndrome

False Memory Syndrome

False Memory Syndrome

Discussion False Memory Syndrome

Discussion False Memory Syndrome

Help me study for my Psychology class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

A great deal of controversy has surrounded the phenomenon of “false memory syndrome” and the implications that it has had in our society, particularly in the legal realm. One of the most influential psychologists in the area of memory and eye witness testimony is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who has spent three decades as a research psychologist and memory expert in legal cases. To learn more about the controversy surrounding “false memory syndrome,” visit the online LA Weekly website at

Based on the points that the Loftus article brings up and research this week respond to the following:

What kind of implications do particular limitations of human memory have on the use of eye-witness testimony in criminal and civil court cases?

In psychology, false memory syndrome (FMS) describes a condition in which a person’s identity and relationships are affected by false memories, recollections that are factually incorrect yet strongly believed.[1] Peter J. Freyd originated the term,[2] which his False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) subsequently popularized. The principle that individuals can hold false memories and the role that outside influence can play in their formation is widely accepted by scientists.[3][4][5][6] However FMS is not recognized as a psychiatric illness[7] in any medical manuals including the ICD-10[8] or the DSM-5.[9]

False memory syndrome may be the result of recovered memory therapy, a term also defined by the FMSF in the early 1990s,[10] which describes a range of therapy methods that are prone to creating confabulations. Some of the influential figures in the genesis of the theory are forensic psychologist Ralph Underwager, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, and sociologist Richard Ofshe.

Definition
False memory syndrome is a condition in which a person’s identity and interpersonal relationships center on a memory of a traumatic experience that is objectively false but that the person strongly believes occurred.[11]

The FMS concept is controversial,[12][13] and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not include it. Paul R. McHugh, member of the FMSF, stated that the term was not adopted into the fourth version of the manual due to the pertinent committee being headed by believers in recovered memory.[2]

Recovered memory therapy
Main article: Recovered memory therapy
Recovered memory therapy is used to describe the therapeutic processes and methods that are believed to create false memories and false memory syndrome. These methods include hypnosis, sedatives and probing questions where the therapist believes repressed memories of traumatic events are the cause of their client’s problems.[14] The term is not listed in DSM-IV or used by any mainstream formal psychotherapy modality.[10]

Memory consolidation becomes a critical element of false memory and recovered memory syndromes. Once stored in the hippocampus, the memory may last for years or even for life, regardless that the memorized event never actually took place. Obsession to a particular false memory, planted memory, or indoctrinated memory can shape a person’s actions or even result in delusional disorder.

Mainstream psychiatric and psychological professional associations now harbor strong skepticism towards the notion of recovered memories of trauma. The American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association condemn practices fitting the description of “Recovered Memory Therapy”.[medical citation needed] In 1998, the Royal College of Psychiatrists Working Group on Reported Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse wrote:[15]

No evidence exists for the repression and recovery of verified, severely traumatic events, and their role in symptom formation has yet to be proved. There is also striking absence in the literature of well-corroborated cases of such repressed memories recovered through psychotherapy. Given the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, even if only a small proportion are repressed and only some of them are subsequently recovered, there should be a significant number of corroborated cases. In fact there are none.

That such techniques have been used in the past is undeniable. Their continued use is cause for malpractice litigation worldwide.[16] An Australian psychologist was de-registered for engaging in them.[17]

Psychiatric controversy concerning recovered memories
In psychiatry, confabulation is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Psychotherapists tried to reveal “repressed memories” in mental therapy patients through “hypnosis, guided imagery, dream interpretation and narco-analysis” in the 1980s. The reasoning was that if abuse couldn’t be remembered, then it needed to be recovered by the therapist. This type of therapy became popular in the 1990s. Many victims don’t remember their abuse, making the underlying phenomenon of trauma-induced amnesia nonetheless legitimate.

Therapists who subscribe to recovered memory theory point to a wide variety of common problems, ranging from eating disorders to sleeplessness, as evidence of repressed memories of sexual abuse.[18] The legal phenomena developed in the 1980s, with civil suits alleging child sexual abuse on the basis of “memories” recovered during psychotherapy. The term “repressed memory therapy” gained momentum and with it social stigma surrounded those accused of abuse. The “therapy” led to other psychological disorders in persons whose memories were recovered.

Evidence for false memories
Human memory is created and highly suggestible, and can create a wide variety of innocuous, embarrassing, and frightening memories through different techniques—including guided imagery, hypnosis, and suggestion by others. Though not all individuals exposed to these techniques develop memories, experiments suggest a significant number of people do, and will actively defend the existence of the events, even if told they were false and deliberately implanted. Questions about the possibility of false memories created an explosion of interest in suggestibility of human memory and resulted in an enormous increase in the knowledge about how memories are encoded, stored and recalled, producing pioneering experiments such as the lost in the mall technique.[19] In Roediger and McDermott’s (1995) experiment, subjects were presented with a list of related items (such as candy, sugar, honey) to study. When asked to recall the list, participants were just as, if not more, likely to recall semantically related words (such as sweet) than items that were actually studied, thus creating false memories.[20] This experiment, though widely replicated, remains controversial due to debate considering that people may store semantically related items from a word list conceptually rather than as language, which could account for errors in recollection of words without the creation of false memories. Susan Clancy discovered that people claiming to have been victims of alien abductions are more likely to recall semantically related words than a control group in such an experiment.[21]

The lost in the mall technique is a research method designed to implant a false memory of being lost in a shopping mall as a child to test whether discussing a false event could produce a “memory” of an event that did not happen. In her initial study, Elizabeth Loftus found that 25% of subjects came to develop a “memory” for the event which had never actually taken place.[22] Extensions and variations of the lost in the mall technique found that an average of one third of experimental subjects could become convinced that they experienced things in childhood that had never really occurred—even highly traumatic, and impossible events.[23]

Experimental researchers have demonstrated that memory cells in the hippocampus of mice can be modified to artificially create false memories.[24][25]

Court cases
Sexual abuse cases
The question of the accuracy and dependability of a repressed memory that someone has later recalled has contributed to some investigations and court cases, including cases of alleged sexual abuse or child sexual abuse (CSA).[26][27][28] The research of Elizabeth Loftus has been used to counter claims of recovered memory in court[22] and it has resulted in stricter requirements for the use of recovered memories being used in trials, as well as a greater requirement for corroborating evidence. In addition, some U.S. states no longer allow prosecution based on recovered memory testimony. Insurance companies have become reluctant to insure therapists against malpractice suits relating to recovered memories.[22][29][30]

Supporters of recovered memories believe that there is “overwhelming evidence that the mind is capable of repressing traumatic memories of child sexual abuse.”[31] Whitfield states that the “false memory” defense is “seemingly sophisticated, but mostly contrived and often erroneous.” He states that this defense has been created by “accused, convicted and self-confessed child molesters and their advocates” to try to “negate their abusive, criminal behavior.”[32] Brown states that when pro-false memory expert witnesses and attorneys state there is no causal connection between CSA and adult psychopathology, that CSA doesn’t cause specific trauma-related problems like borderline and dissociative identity disorder, that other variables than CSA can explain the variance of adult psychopathology and that the long-term effects of CSA are non-specific and general, that this testimony is inaccurate and has the potential of misleading juries.[33]