False Memory And Trauma: Forensic And Methodological Issues

By Donald A. Eisner, Ph.D. J.D.

 

Abstract

There are several false memory debates or battles. At the beginning of the 1990’s, a number of adult therapy patients who initially claimed during psychotherapy to have been sexually abused subsequently recanted. So-called recantation and retraction were viewed as an indication that false memories of abuse could be induced, at least in the therapeutic arena. Thus, the original debate essentially focused on whether false memories of sexual abuse may have been implanted and then recovered in the present. A secondary debate concerns not only what constitutes false memory, but what is the appropriate research or clinical tool to ascertain the veridicality of false memories. Six different false memory research and clinical scenarios are presented. There is an examination of what type of evidence should be admissible in a trial involving recovery of childhood sexual abuse.

Background

Over the last century, the concept of repression has held that certain perceived events and memories can be blocked from conscious awareness. However, psychotherapy can help a patient to accurately retrieve memories and bring the events back to consciousness. If the experience is quite traumatic, it was theorized that the memory could be repressed, such that the individual can no longer bring the event to the forefront. The concept of repression of traumatic events can be traced back to the early days of psychoanalysis. Thus, Freud opined that the etiology of anxiety, depression, and various mental disorders could be based on repressed or forgotten trauma (Eisner, D.A., 2000).

The search for childhood sexual abuse that was forgotten or blocked intensified in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The recovery of childhood sexual abuse was influenced by publication of The Courage to Heal by Bass and Davis (1988). The well known philosophy or framework was: if a person thinks they were abused, and there are symptoms present, then you were abused.

In the early 1990’s, Fredrickson (1992) contended that repression of childhood sexual trauma is a valid phenomenon, but by using various uncovering therapy techniques there could be improved psychological functioning. At that point in time many psychotherapists took the position that a viable task was to search for and uncover the underlying cause of the patient’s psychopathology. The notion was that the patient has repressed the earlier childhood traumas. In some instances, the patient may have developed Multiple Personality Disorder (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder) in order to cope with the horrible earlier episodes. Some woman revealed to the therapists that they were victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse, and witnessed their own child being sacrificed.

There were a number of techniques used in recovered memory therapy in order to access the alleged repressed memories. For example, according to Fredrickson (1992), hypnosis is one way to uncover repressed memories. Even age regression may be used in order to take an adult patient back to an earlier point in time. Under hypnosis, the patient may be able to retrieve hitherto forgotten memories.

A second technique includes dreams. Of course, it is well know that the interpretation of dreams is a basic foundation of psychoanalysis and has been called the royal road to the unconscious. Repressed memories could be accessed via dreams by looking at nightmares which possibly represent places where the abuse might have occurred. According to Fredrickson (1992), indicators of abuse could be dreams that have genital or erotic objects portrayed in the dreams.

Another technique that was used in order to access blocked memories involved body work. The specific techniques included Rolfing or bioenergetics. It was thought that a sensation in the genitals or a muscle cramp in the thigh could be a significant message from one’s body memory.

Additionally, there can be pharmacologically assisted interviews. Thus, if a person is not sure whether the abuse occurred when they were younger, it may be possible to retrieve the material through the use of drug assisted interviews. In order to ascertain if emerging memories are real, a patient who begins to suspect that they may have been abused may be offered a session using sodium pentothal or what is colloquially called “truth serum”.

With the rash of persons claiming to have recovered memories of abuse, some clinicians and researchers began to question the validity of the recovered memories. Many mental health clinicians as well as family members were quite skeptical that recovered memory therapy was actually uncovering real abuse. In 1992, Pamela Freyd and others formed the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. There were family members who were being accused by their adult children to have recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. The parents alleged that the accusations are untrue. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation posited that it the therapeutic arena wherein the false memories emerged. Namely, it is contended that the adults who claim that they have uncovered or recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse while in therapy are not accurate. A number of civil lawsuits emerged in the 1990’s on behalf of patients who later recanted their belief of memory that they had been sexually abused.

A number of researchers and clinician were concerned that many of the so called repressed memories that were being produced were actually the product of suggestive psychotherapy techniques (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Pope & Brown, 1996).

Measuring False Memories

As the 1990’s ended and 2000 began, a secondary debate emerged involving not only the definition of false memory but also about what is the proper way to investigate false memories of traumatic episodes. At the heart of this question is what are the methods or approaches that are helpful in ascertaining the veridicality of recovered memories of abuse? There are a number of clinical, experimental, and forensic scenarios that involve examination of false memory. What follows are some of the main approaches.

Scenario No. 1

In this scenario, the traumatic episode happens years earlier, but there is confirmatory evidence such as a hospital record. Many years later, the patient or witness is interviewed, either in a hospital setting or as part of a research project. Scenario No. 1 is exemplified by the research of Williams (1994). The first part of the study was an attempt to authenticate sexual abuse via hospital records. Thus, the issue was not whether the abuse occurred, since there were hospital records that served to confirm the actuality of the sexual abuse. The concern was whether years later the participants were able to recall the abuse. It was found that of the 129 women who were in the study, 38% did not report the abuse that apparently was previously documented in the hospital records. It was concluded by Williams that this study offers significant support for the notion of repression in childhood sexual abuse in that an appreciable number of persons did not recall the previous documented abuse.

There have been critiques of the Williams study (Eisner, D.A., 2000; Kihlstrom, 2004). The essential question is whether there was significant evidence of trauma induced amnesia regarding the abuse. One criticism offered by Kilhstrom is that the events in question were mainly subject to a normal forgetting process. This may be particularly so if the participants were very young. Another explanation that has been offered is that in some instances, subjects were reluctant and embarrassed to tell a stranger about past embarrassing events (Eisner, D.A. 2000).

Scenario No. 2

Scenario No. 2 occurs in the therapeutic arena. These are examples that would be considered as a clinical case study. Namely, a person is currently seeing a therapist, and recalling after several sessions recalls sexual abuse many years earlier. Some of these patients may also have claimed that they were victims of satanic ritual abuse. In therapy, the patients may have been asked to attend various support groups which include survivors of childhood sexual abuse. During therapy, the focus is on attempting to recall the instances of childhood sexual abuse that had been blocked from consciousness awareness. These patients never had any prior memory of the abuse. It is thought that the trauma caused the memory to be repressed. The uncovering methods, as noted above might include hypnosis, guided imagery, journaling, or bibliotherapy.

However, in Scenario No. 2, unlike in Scenario No. 1, there appears to be little or no corroboration or confirmatory evidence that the abuse may have happened long ago. The various techniques used in therapy tend to be highly suggestive. In fact, hypnosis is, in essence, another form of suggestion. Even sodium pentothal cannot be used to release true and accurate memories. The patient or witness can make up an imaginary scenario as a result of being placed under sodium pentothal (See Piper, 1993).

After the memories emerge, the matter may leave the therapeutic arena and end up in litigation. The patient may be involved in a criminal matter against the alleged perpetrator. If the patient later recants the abuse, they may bring a civil lawsuit against their psychotherapist alleging the implantation of false memories of sexual abuse. In the latter instance, it is alleged that the patient was subjected to implantation of false memories of sexual abuse. What occurs at trial is a battle of the experts. On one side, the expert forensic psychologist states that recovered memory is a valid phenomenon. On the other side, the expert testifies that recovered memory is not reliable and cannot be verified. A controversial forensic issue is whether evidence of recovered memory subsequent to therapeutic intervention will be admissible at trial (See Daubert considerations discussed below).

Scenario No. 3

In this scenario, the subjects are given wrong or incorrect information in an attempt to implant a false memory. Usually children, but at times adults, are told in the laboratory or clinic setting that something a bit unusual happened a while back in their history. In these laboratory studies, the research utilizes a protocol that intentionally misleads the subjects. Prototypical studies are of the lost in the mall variety (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). What happens is that family members inform the subjects that there was a time they were lost in the mall. However, this did not really happen. A fairly significant number of the participants seem to recall this event, even though it never actually occurred. Some of the subjects even gave additional details that were not offered by the investigators.

Individual differences in false memory were examined by (Zhu et al. 2010). Subjects were given cognitive, perceptual, memory, and face judgments tasks. The cognitive tests were the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Ravens’ APM), and six subtests from the Chinese version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R (WAIS). The memory tests were the Wechsler Memory Scale- Recognition (WMS- Recognition) and the working memory test. The facial judgment tests were the Cambridge Face Memory Test and the Facial expression recognition test.

Perceptual tasks were the Motor Free Visual Perception Test, Change blindness test, and a tone discrimination test. The subjects were shown slides for very brief periods followed by a narrative. After a 30 minute interval, the subjects were given erroneous information, then a follow up ten minutes afterwards.

The results reflected that there were individual differences in the level of false recall when college students are presented with misinformation. Thus, persons with more intellectual and perceptual abilities as well as facial judgment were less likely to demonstrate false recall on the follow up session. However, there was no relation between false memory and on the memory tasks. Future studies would be aimed at extending research on individual differences in the laboratory on false memories to real life experiences.

Scenario No. 4

In Scenario No. 4, the setting is generally a research lab or college clinic. A prototypical study by Brainerd, Stein, Silveira, Rohenkohl, and Reyna (2008) found that remembering negative events in a laboratory situation can stimulate high levels of false memory. These types of studies have been labeled DRM (Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001). The subjects are given word lists that vary in either emotional arousal or valence. Subjects are then given distracters or lures, namely words that are not on the original list. The subjects, unlike in Scenario No. 3, are not given misinformation. The Brainerd et al. study found that attempting to remember emotionally negative word lists does stimulate levels of false memory. The level of false memory exceeded that for the neutral lists. The implications included neuroscience aspects. Thus, it was thought that the results may translate into activation differences in various regions of the brain other than the amygdala.

A follow-up study attempted to use pictures rather than word lists. It was also found that positively valenced pictures increased the effect of distracters or lures compared to a neutral valenced group (Eisner, C., 2010). Further studies found that there are differences with respect to false memory (Piguet, Connally, Krendl, Huot, & Corkin, 2008). The negative lures in this experiment included hell, trash, and bitch. The study found an effect of age and emotion on false alarms.( ie. Recall of a word not on the list.) The results were in a different direction that what was predicted by their hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that there would be a greater production of so-called false alarms in the older adults compared to younger adults. That was not supported. It was noted that the older adults endorsed positive critical lures more than either negative or neutral critical lures.

Brainerd. Holliday, Reyna, Yang, & Toglia (2010) examined the effect that emotional arousal has with respect to age differences. The ages of the subjects were 7, 11, and 20. On the DRM task, there was an increase in false memory/alarms for the critical lures in the negative valence group between the 7, 11, and 20 year old group. The results suggest that the younger subjects showed less memory distortion under certain conditions. The implication in the legal arena is that somewhat paradoxically, the older subjects seem to be more vulnerable to false alarms. Nevertheless, the authors mention that at this point in time caution is needed before generalizing to a real life traumatic scene such as a criminal event. As in Scenario 3, the subjects are in a calm and secure setting.

Scenario No. 5

Whether there may be differing cognitive mechanisms underlying recovered memories in two types of situations was investigated by Geraerts, Lindsay et al. (2009). One group of participants recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse after a prolonged series of therapeutic interactions. A second type of recovered memory included participants who spontaneously recovered memories outside of therapy.

The spontaneously recovered group stated that they had forgotten memories of an earlier trauma, but spontaneously recalled the incident of abuse. The subjects in the therapy recovered memory group gradually recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse during therapy. Included in the therapy recovered memory group were persons who received hypnosis, guided imagery or dream interpretation.

The procedures followed the DRM methods. The subjects were given lists of words, followed by so called lures. In addition there was a “forget it all along (FIA)” part of this study. This refers to remembering an event in a new way such that the person does not recall remembering it previously.

In the therapy recovered memory group the results indicated that there was a pronounced tendency to incorrectly claim experiences of events that did not actually happen. The implication is that the recovered memories should be viewed somewhat cautiously in that they may have been induced by the interaction of suggestive therapy techniques in conjunction with source memory deficits.

In the spontaneous recovered memory group, there was no heightened susceptibility of false recall on the DRM protocol. Interestingly, subjects in the spontaneously recovered memory group showed a significant tendency to forget in the FIA task. These participants tended to forget the prior recall under differential cuing. As suggested by Geraerts, Arnold et al. (2006), there may be at least some recovered memories which reflect actual episodes of trauma, but the may be instances where the person simply forgot having prior thoughts about the episode.

Scenario No. 6

Scenario No. 6 envisions what may happen in the future. In the year 2020 for example, a patient at a hospital or a clinic may be claiming that he or she has been involved in sexual abuse in the year 2010. If litigation is involved, the patient/plaintiff may be subjected to a forensic evaluation. Thus, there are some elements here of scenario 1 and scenario 2.

The task of the forensic mental health specialist is to ascertain if the events actually occurred. In therapy, the therapist may generally accept the patient’s narrative as literally true and accurate. However, in the litigation arena, an expert witness may have available a variety of documents and can assess in a more inquisitive manner.

What will be different in the next decade or so is that there is likely to be the addition of potentially extensive confirmatory information. Since the advent of the internet, including e-mailing, Facebook, My Space, Linked In, as well as video cameras, cell phone photos, texting and so on, there can be a more comprehensive record of what occurred in the patient’s life (see Recupero, 2010). Information that may be available can help to corroborate or refute what the potential or current plaintiff and/or patient is asserting. Furthermore, with the synergistic explosion of technology (see Kurzweil, 2005), it is likely that there will be enhanced techniques and approaches in the near future.

What Is False Memory?

As the scenarios above demonstrate, there can be a variety of situations that relate to the development of false and true memory. Each piece of research or clinical observation can add a brick to the memory puzzle. However there is another view that memory flaws should only refer to the laboratory studies such as DRM, but false memory should refer to a long repressed emotional event that re-emerges into awareness( Pezdek and Lam, 2007).

Thus, Pezdek and Lam assert that there are at least two different definitions of false memory. One definition involves a memory for an entirely new event that never actually occurred. A second definition relates to changes in memory for an observed event. For example, it does not seem to Pezdek and Lam that misstating a word in a laboratory study is congruent with a false memory of an event that never happened. On the other hand, DRM studies, for example, only assess mistakes that happen concurrently in adulthood. The divide is so large that lumping all the memory research or scenarios into the false memory category is confusing.

The critique by Pezdek and Lam deals with laboratory or experimental studies. One criticism has to do with the potential bias of the researchers. As to why the DRM methods are so popular, it is thought that this has to do with personal predisposition of researchers. Furthermore, it is contended that it is virtually impossible to get negative or disconfirmatory results in a DRM task. Another critique is whether such laboratory studies as DRM can be generalized to the so-called real world.

The other side of the methodology and definition debate is offered by Wade et al. (2007). Their position is that a study that is well constructed has internal validity. Even if conducted in a laboratory, it should be considered to be a scholarly contribution.

The studies in the various laboratory scenarios presented information and stimuli that subsequently led to a false recall. In Scenario No. 3, there was actual implantation of erroneous information. As Wade et al. point out, distinctions can not easily be made between false memory and memory flaws. A false memory can range from an innocuous event such as recalling that Ingrid Bergman said “Play it again Sam” in Casablanca to a horrific one as in childhood sexual abuse.

Secondly, Pezdek and Lam (2007) questioned whether there is bias in the DRM type studies, as described in Scenario No.4. As shown seen in the Piguet study, the research hypotheses were not supported. The Brainerd et al. (2010) study showed a development reversal of sorts. Thus, it is not accurate to state that the hypotheses of these robust designs will always be supported. Certainly, it does not appear that every single investigator who looks at the DRM types of protocols is necessarily going to find support for their notion.

What can undermine an experimental study is whether or not there is a lack of experimental controls, including demand characteristics. In the well known Orne studies (Orne & Scheibe, 1964), persons who had no particular symptoms of a mental disorder were apparently induced to have at least some sort of psychotic symptoms as a result of the various demand characteristics in the laboratory. Looking at Scenario No. 2, in the therapeutic crucible wherein a highly regarded authority figure is attempting to suggest to a patient that he or she may have been abused, certainly raises the issue of demand characteristics. Thus, it cannot be said that there is really any so-called experimental control in Scenario No. 2. In Scenario No.1, where there is some confirmatory evidence and the patient is seen in a hospital setting perhaps on one occasion or so, there is less in the way of demand characteristics or suggestibility. Looking at the DRM studies, if simple lures or distracters in an essentially non-threatening situation could lead to so-called false alarms, why would it be surprising that in a therapeutic arena where there may be various suggestive cues that a patient would also be led down a false pathway. This is not quite clear what actual sort of bias has crept into these laboratory studies, at least with respect to demand characteristics or other artifacts.

The issue of generalizabilty and extrapolation is a concern that can be raised in almost any study. Brainerd et al. (2010) note that caution is clearly needed with respect to extrapolation to more serious scenarios. However, Brainerd et al. (2010) have pointed out that their study involves a mildly upsetting circumstance. At present, stress inducing and deceptive studies are not usually allowed in the Untied States by Institutional Research Boards. Therefore, analogues may have to suffice as the research unfolds. (However, see Burger, 2009).

It appears that overall the distinction between false memory and flawed memory as posed by Pezdek and Lam (2007) may be too narrow. It may be premature to bifurcate memory research into several segments or categories at this point in time. As noted by Zhu et al. (2010) various types of false memories may or may not have the same underlying cognitive or neurophysiological mechanisms. Further, there appear to be differences in persons who are subject to suggestive therapeutic intervention versus those who spontaneously recall episodes of abuse (Geraerts et al. 2009).

Daubert Considerations

In 1993 the Daubert case (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals 1993) presented four criteria regarding admissibility of evidence at trial. With respect to recovered or repressed memory, the issue is whether the concept can be, or has been, tested. The second test involves whether the particular topic has been subjected to peer review and published. The third aspect is whether it has been established that there is reliability regarding repressed and recovered memory which is generally accepted within the scientific community. Lastly, the question is whether the reliability of the theories involving repressed and recovery memory have an established rate of error.

Dalenberg (2006) concluded that there is substantial evidence to warrant the admissibility of recovered memory under a Daubert standard. A number of published and peer reviewed surveys are provided that reported evidence regarding the phenomenon of repressed or recovered memory in sexual abuse. One of the studies referenced as providing evidence for the validity of recovered memory was Williams (1995). It is noted that 16% of the sample stated that there was a prior period in which the individual did not recall the abuse. Regarding the acceptance of accurate and recovered memory, a survey found that 73% of psychologists stated that they personally have seen a case which they classified as recovered memory. Further, Dalenberg asserts that it is beyond doubt that based on the hundreds of studies that recovered memory is based on several scientifically tested theories. Furthermore, the theories have been peer reviewed and the concept of recovered memory has been conceptually accepted. Regarding ascertaining the error rates in a recovered memory case, Dalenberg suggests five relevant arguments that may suggest what the criteria may be for an error rate.

One of the arguments is called “equal accuracy”; Dalenberg states that recovered and continuous memory is equally likely to be valid. Dalenberg states that the probability is less than 5% that there is a significant difference between continuous memories and recovered memories. There did not appear to be any actual support offered for this contention. A study by Geraerts et al. (2007) found that there was virtually no corroboration in cases of discontinuous recovered memories that arose out of therapy.

Secondly, the issue of the validity of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is offered as evidence for establishing the error rate in recovered memory cases. This argument is unclear and unconvincing. DID may be part and parcel of the therapeutic Zeitgeist in the 1990’s and beyond where patients may have been subjected to aggressive therapeutic intervention (Spanos, 1996). Fundamentally, how does an adult diagnosis of DID directly relate to childhood dissociation? Why would adults suddenly develop “alters?” The diagnosis is made after the fact and would seem to have little relevance in adult cases of recovered memory. Furthermore, the data presented as to testing and diagnosis of DID are essentially irrelevant and unreliable if only made in a therapeutic setting in adulthood. A court would likely see the flaw in this evidence and would not consider a diagnosis of DID as helpful in establishing a so called error rate of accurate recovered memories.

Thirdly, it is argued that ubiquitous cases of recovered memory are proof that not everyone is lying. The issue is not whether anyone is lying. The issue is that at present, there are no tools to discern who is or is not lying. There may be cases of persons who have repressed memories who suddenly recall traumatic earlier events. However, what should engender pause in blithely accepting the presence of widespread repression in adult woman is that some cases have been embellished with wild tales of satanic ritual abuse and sacrifices of the women’s own children.

A number of courts have taken a dim view with respect to introducing recovered memory into evidence. For example, in State v. Hungerford (1997), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire did not find that recovered memory was reliable enough in terms of its scientific validity in order to be introduced into evidence. The court stated: “The indicia of reliability present in the particular memories in these cases do not rise to such a level that they overcome the divisive state of the scientific debate on this issue.”

A Nebraska case (Doe & Rivers v. Father Flanagan’s Boys Home 2005) also addressed the issue of admissibility of repressed memory testimony. This case involved a motion in limine to exclude expert witness testimony regarding the issue of repressed memory. The plaintiff contended that the theory of repressed and recovered memory was properly tested, had been subjected to peer review, and was generally accepted in the field and that the various techniques used to establish its existence were acceptable. The plaintiff relied on expert witness testimony which covered a number of reviewed articles and textbooks that allegedly demonstrated the existence of repressed and recovered memory. The defendants relied on expert witness testimony and articles to support their position that the theory of repressed memory and recovered memory was controversial, was not adequately tested, was not generally accepted, has no known error rate, and is not scientifically reliable.

Using Daubert as a foundation, the court stated that the theory of repressed and recovered memory involved a three stage process: 1) First, the traumatic event has to be experienced; 2) a memory of the traumatic event becomes unavailable to consciousness; and 3) subsequent to the original trauma, a previously repressed memory becomes available to consciousness and the recovered memory is as accurate as an ordinary memory.

The first part of the Daubert test to be examined was whether the reliability of repressed and recovered memory can be, or has been, tested. Testimony during the motion in limine clearly had established that there was no empirical test that can demonstrate the existence of repressed memory or the reliability of the recovered memory. They did, of course, note that it is not ethically possible to conduct a laboratory study on human subjects that purposely creates a traumatic event in order to assess the existence of recovered memory.

The next issue to be addressed by the Nebraska court was whether the reliability of repressed memory and recovered memory was subjected to peer review and publication. Both sides relied on various articles and case reports. A number of studies, such as those by Williams and Dalenberg, were offered by the plaintiff. The defendants focused on various articles that challenged or questioned the methods used in the studies that were relied upon by the plaintiff’s experts. This court determined that the studies were retrospective and many were based on trauma victims where there was no corroboration. Furthermore, the court found that many of the studies did not distinguish between ordinary forgetting and the psychoanalytic concept of repression. The subject was simply asked if they remembered that they forgot the abuse. The other studies did not exclude alternative reasons for victims saying they forgot the abuse, which may include lying about the traumatic event or lying about forgetting about the traumatic event or having an implanted memory.

The court was quite critical of the Williams study which purported to show that one/third of the 129 women studied forgot their childhood molestation. However, the court notes that the study did not conduct follow-up interviews in order to ascertain why in fact they did not report the previously documented abuse. This court concluded that the Williams study did not conclusively validate the theory of repressed memory. The Nebraska Court, on the other hand, provided some support for the theory that some individuals who were exposed to documented childhood sexual abuse were not able to recall the memories of the abuse. As noted above (Eisner, D.A. 2000), the Williams (1994) study did have some potential weaknesses.

The next issue addressed by the Nebraska court is whether the reliability of the theory of repressed and recovered memory had an established error rate. Apparently, the plaintiff did not present any evidence in this regard. Implied in the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony is that the known or potential error rate cannot be applied to behavioral sciences, such as psychology and psychiatry. On the other hand, the defendants presented evidence showing that there were a number of false or pseudo memories and that there were a number of cases where people claim to have repressed their recovered memories but later recant or retract those memories. In some of these cases, the memories were implanted during therapy or hypnosis. It was concluded that there is no error rate regarding the reliability of repressed and recovered memories.

The next issue is whether the reliability of repressed and recovered memories is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. Although repressed memory or dissociative amnesia is listed in the DSM-IV, this does not in and of itself establish reliability of repressed and recovered memory as being accepted in the relevant scientific community. Overall, it was concluded by the court that the theory of repressed and recovery memory has not gained general acceptance in the psychological and psychiatric community. Lastly, it was noted that there was no evidence presented in this case as to when the plaintiff forgot or had the memories submerged into the unconscious. As a result of the court’s overall findings, it was concluded that the defendant’s motion in limine was sustained.

A law review article (Fletcher, 2003) focuses on spontaneously recovered memory versus therapy involved recovered memory. In the former, it is argued that there is less likelihood for falsification or implantation or memories. The reason is that there is little interaction with others, especially therapists. In Fletcher’s view, psychotherapists may unwittingly implant such memories in the patient’s mind. Some therapists believe that bulimia and other mental disorders are due to earlier instances of trauma. Fletcher’s conclusion is to allow spontaneously recovered memory in as evidence without corroboration. Therapy involved recovered memories could be allowed but only with corroboration.

The problem with this analysis and distinction is that there is research indicating that spontaneously recalled memories may include forgetting of having recalled the earlier abuse (Geraerts et al., 2009.) Under Daubert, it seems that corroboration should accompany spontaneously recalled memories, let alone therapy involved recovered memories.

Conclusion

What emerged from the false memory debate of the 1990’s has been a vigorous battle as to what actually the contours of false memory are and what is an appropriate methodology to assess the accuracy of false memory. On one side of the research design debate are those who suggest that experimental laboratory studies are essentially not helpful. However, as shown above, it may be that experimental studies that can shed some light on what is occurring in basic memory processes. Certainly the future holds out the possibility that there may be neuropsychological correlates that can point in helpful directions. Secondly, as noted in scenario No. 6, it is anticipated that with further advances, not only in research and clinical methods but also with the digital age and other technologies, there will be enhanced possibilities for assessing the veridicality of a person’s memory of past trauma.

References

Bass, D.E. and David, L. (1988) The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Sexual Abuse, New York: Harper and Row

Burger, J.M. Replicating Milgram: Would people still Obey Today? (2009) American Psychologist, (2009) 64, 1-11.

Brainerd, CJ., Holliday, .R. E, Reyna, V.F. , Yang, Y & Toglia, M.P. (2010). Developmental Reversals in False Memory: Effects of Emotional Valance and Arousal. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 107, 137-154

Brainerd C.J., Stein L.M., Silveira R.A., Rohenkohl G., Reyna V.F. (2008), How Does Negative Emotion Cause False Memories, Psychological Science, 19,. 919-925

Dalenberg, C., Recovered Memory and the Daubert Criteria: Recovered Memories as a Professionally Tested, Peer Reviewed and Accepted in the Relevant Scientific Community, Trauma, Violence, Abuse (2006) 7,274-310

Daubert v. Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 599 U.S. 579

Doe and Rivers v. Father Flanagan’s Boys Home (2005), Doc. 1024, No. 743

Eisner, C. (2010), Remembering Emotional Pictures, Honors Thesis, Cornell University

Eisner, D.A. (2000), The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions, Westport Connecticut: Praeger

Fletcher,C L. (2003) Repressed Memories: Do Triggering Methods Contribute to Witness Testimony Reliability? Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 13, 335-356.

Fredrickson, R. (1992), Repressed Memories: A Journey to Recovery From Sexual Abuse, New York: Fireside/Parkside

Geraerts, E, Arnold, M.M., Lindsay, S, Merckelbach, H., Jelicic M., & Hauer, B. (2006) Forgetting of Prior Remembering in Persons Reporting Recovered Memories of Childhoods Sexual Abuse. Psychological Science, 17, 1002-1008

Geraerts, E., Lindsay, D.S., Merckelbach, H Jelicic, M, Raymaeekers, L. Arnold, M.M., & Schooler, J.W. (2009) Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Recovered-Memory Experiences of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Psychological Science, 20, 92-98

Geraerts, E., Schooler, J.W., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M. Hauer, B.J.A., & Ambadar, Z. (2007) Psychological Science, 18, 564-568.

Kihlstrom, J.F. (2004), An Unbalanced Balancing Act: Blocked, Recovered and False Memories in the Laboratory and Clinic. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 34-41.

Kurzweil, R., (2005) The Singularity is Near: when Humans Transcend Biology. London: Viking

Loftus, E. and Ketcham, K. (1994), The Myth of Repressed Memories: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse. New York: St. Martin’s Press

Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995), The formation of false memories Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.

Ofshe, R & Watters, E (1994) Making Monsters: False memories, psychotherapy and Sexual hysteria. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Orne, M.T. and Scheibe, K.E., The contribution of Non-Deprivation Factors in the Production of Sensory Deprivation Effects: The Psychology of the “Panic Button”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 3-12

Pezdek, J. and Lamb, S., What Research Paradigm Can Cognitive Psychologists Use to Study “False Memory”, and What Are the Implications of These Choices, Consciousness and Cognition (2007), 16, 2-17.

Pope, K.S. & Brown, L.S. (1996) Recovered Memory of Abuse: Assessment, therapy, Forensics. Washngton,D.C. American Psychological Association.

Piguet, O., Connally, E., Krendl, A.C., Huot, J.R. and Corkin, S. (2008), False Memories in Aging: Effects of Emotional Valence and Word Recognition Accuracy, Psychology and Aging, 23, 207-314.

Piper, A., Jr., (1993) ” Truth Serum” and “Recovered Memory” of Sexual Abuse: A Review of the Evidence” The Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 21, 447-471

Recupero, P.R., (2010) The Mental Status Examination in the Age of the Internet, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry of Law, 38, 15-26

Roediger, H.L., III, Watson, J.M., McDermott, K.B. and Gallo, D.A. (2001), Factors That Determine False Recall: A Multiple Regression Analysis, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 385-405

Spanos, P. (1996), Multiple Identities and False Memories: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

State v. Hungerford (1997) 697 Atlantic Rptr.2d 916

Wade, K.A., Sharman, S.J., Garry, M., Memmon, A., Mazzoni, G., Merckelbach, H. and Loftus, E.F. ( 2007), False Claims About False Memory Research, Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 18-28.

Williams, L.M. (1994), Recall of Childhood Trauma, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62, 1167-1176

Williams, L. (1995), Recovered Memories of Abuse in Women With Documented Child Abuse, Sexual Victimization Histories, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 649-673

Zhu, B.I., Cheng C, Loftus, E.F. Lin, C, He, Q., Chen, C. Li, H. Xue, G. Lu, Z & Dong, Q. (2010) Individual Differences in False Memory from misinformation: Cognitive Factors, Memory, 18, 543-555.