Memory Wars and Torture; Parents Or Other Close Fam- Lished About Social Inßuences and Cults

Home , Elizabeth Loftus, Repressed memory, Richard Ofshe

BOOK REVIEWS by Daniel L. Schacter

Memory Wars and torture; parents or other close fam- lished about social inßuences and cults. ily members are typically recalled as the Elizabeth Loftus (The Myth of Repressed MAKING MONSTERS: FALSE MEMORIES, perpetrators. Patients frequently be- Memory, co-authored with writer Kath- PSYCHOTHERAPY, AND SEXUAL HYSTE- come overwhelmingly convinced of the erine Ketcham) is a memory researcher RIA, by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Wat- reality of their recovered memories; the who has made numerous pioneering ters. Charles ScribnerÕs Sons, 1994 accused often deny the memories with contributions to the cognitive study of ($23). THE MYTH OF REPRESSED MEMO- equal fervor. memory distortion and suggestibility. RY: FALSE MEMORIES AND ALLEGATIONS Are these memories accurate recollec- And Mark Pendergrast (Victims of Mem- OF SEXUAL ABUSE, by Elizabeth F. Lof- tions of terrible traumas or phantoms ory) is a writer and journalist who is tus and Katherine Ketcham. St. MartinÕs of events that never happened? Have himself an accused parent. Despite their Press, 1994 ($22.95). VICTIMS OF MEM- therapists developed eÝective new mem- disparate backgrounds, the authors ORY: INCEST ACCUSATIONS AND SHAT- ory-retrieval techniques, or have they share a critical view of what they refer TERED LIVES, by Mark Pendergrast. Up- employed misguided procedures that to as recovered-memory therapy. per Access Books, 1995 ($24.95). actually help to create the memories? Ofshe and Watters adopt the most And are the patients who recover mem- confrontational approach. The scathing debate is ragingÑin courtrooms, ories of sexual abuse being empowered tone of Making Monsters surfaces in in journals and in the popular to speak out, or are they being diverted the Þrst paragraph of its preface: ÒOur A pressÑabout the validity of re- from the problems that brought them to goal is to prove beyond doubt that dev- covered memories of long-past events. therapy in the Þrst place? astating mistakes are being made with- Because these memories often involve These questions have sparked pas- in certain therapy settings.... This work sexual abuse and other horrible experi- sionate, sometimes acrimonious dis- is intended as an exposŽ of a pseudo- ences, the dispute has stimulated broad putes. Memory researchers have been scientiÞc enterprise that is damaging interest in what is known about how astonished to Þnd their world of exper- the lives of people in need.Ó Ofshe and the mind records events. Fascination iments, theories and laboratory para- Watters lay the blame squarely at the with the workings of memory is noth- digms intertwined with high-proÞle is- feet of incompetent, even morally rep- ing new, of course. Aristotle oÝered a sues of incest, new-age psychotherapy rehensible therapists. ÒIf, for no defen- wide-ranging discourse on memory and even satanic cults. sible reason,Ó they write, Òsome thera- more than 2,000 years ago, and numer- The books discussed in this review pists are causing the same emotional ous philosophers since have pondered delve into the recovered-memories de- and psychological trauma as an actual the mindÕs capacity to travel backward bate from diverse perspectives. Richard rape or sexual assault, then they, like in time. But, as recent events reaÛrm, Ofshe (Making Monsters, co-authored those who physically victimize people, science has long had a hard time grap- with writer Ethan Watters) is a social deserve moral condemnation.Ó pling with that remarkable ability. psychologist who has studied and pub- These are serious charges. In support Serious research into the nature of memory did not begin until 1885, when the German psychologist Hermann Eb- binghaus applied scientiÞc method to the analysis of memory. The past de- cade has been particularly exciting, as scientists from a number of disciplines have begun to develop a thorough understanding of memory. The new anal- yses range from detailed models of how experiences are recorded to broader theories about the brain systems involved in various forms of memory. Those of us studying human memory feel optimistic that we are Þnally at the threshold of understanding some of the deepest enigmas of the mind. Yet this exploration has also developed a dark side. During the past half a dozen years, there has been an explosion of Jayne Baum Gallery (all photographs from collection of D. Schacter and S. McGlynn) cases in which adult men and womenÑ most frequently, young women under- 1987 going psychotherapyÑhave seemingly remembered childhood sexual abuse that they had forgotten for years or “Fragments,” even decades. Those memories include everything from single episodes of in-

appropriate touching to years of rape LORIE NOVAK,

Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN April 1995 135 of their case, Ofshe and Watters begin the inßuence of a therapist who uses a case in which a therapist supposedly with a cursory review of experiments suggestive techniques to hunt for re- discovered that a patient was suÝering showing that suggestive inßuences can pressed memories. Such recovered from multiple personalities and re- alter a memory and that people can memories, the authors judge, are most pressed memories of satanic-ritual have vivid recollections of events that likely spurious. abuse. Once the patient ended therapy, never happened. They make this point most convinc- she retracted her memories and aban- No laboratory studies have ever at- ingly when discussing recovered mem- doned her personalities. tempted to demonstrate the possibility ories of satanic ritual abuse, which they In an attack on the underpinnings of of implanting false memories of sexual characterize as Òthe AchillesÕ heel of the recovered-memory therapy, Ofshe and trauma. Indeed, it seems safe to assume recovered memory movement.Ó Many Watters attempt to discredit the notion that such studies never will, because it therapists have reported on patients that there is a special mechanism, which would be unethical for a researcher to who have clearly recalled savage acts they label Òrobust repression,Ó that attempt to do so. Ofshe and Watters carried out by satanic cults: rapes, mur- could cause someone to forget com- consider perhaps the closest analogue, ders, cannibalization of fetuses and re- pletely about years of repeated sexual an experiment published in 1991 by trauma. The authors distinguish ro- the late Canadian researcher Nich- bust repression from the weaker olas Spanos in which he hypno- mental repression (which some tized his subjects, ÒregressedÓ psychologists refer to as suppres- them to Òpast livesÓ and suggest- sion) that occurs when people con- ed to some that they could have sciously avoid thinking about un- been abused in a past life. Spanos pleasant experiences. The idea that found that those who received this people sometimes deliberately put suggestion were later more likely aside painful recollections is not to ÒrememberÓ being abused than controversial. Such conscious those who had not. avoidance could decrease the like- The authors of Making Mon- lihood that someone would later sters also examine the controver- remember the unpleasant experi- sial memory-retrieval techniques ence, because it would not beneÞt (including hypnosis and visualiza- from the postevent rehearsalÑ tion) advocated by some recovery thinking and talking about the therapists. Ofshe and Watters dis- pastÑthat ordinarily strengthens cuss the mounting evidence that memories. But the mere lack of re- hypnosis oÝers a potent method Ruth Bachofner Gallery hearsal probably cannot produce for inducing compelling but inac- 1993 profound amnesia for traumatic curate pseudomemories. They also events that happen repeatedly for eÝectively criticize therapy tech- years. A more potent mechanism niques that involve visualizing or is required; this is where the con- imagining abusive incidents as a cept of robust repression comes in. Þrst step toward remembering “Fugitive Memory III,” Ofshe and Watters eÝectively them. Ofshe and Watters argue criticize the concepts of robust re- that a therapist who believes in pression advanced by several ad- the reality of forgotten abuse can YL CALLERI, vocates of recovered memory. The help validate imagined experi- CHER authors refer to a review article by ences as bona Þde memories. David Holmes of the University of Therapists sometimes infer that Kansas that concludes that there is forgotten abuse has occurred based no good experimental evidence for on symptoms that advocates of recov- lated atrocities. Yet in most instances, repression. The laboratory studies con- ered memory consider telltale signs of no memories of ritual brutality existed sidered by Holmes necessarily use rela- abuseÑattributes ranging from low self- prior to therapy, and no one has pro- tively sterile manipulations, however. It esteem and depression to avoidance of duced hard evidence of such acts. Of- is diÛcult to convince even a laborato- mirrors and the desire to change oneÕs she and Watters note that investiga- ry researcher such as myself that these name. As Ofshe and Watters assert, tions by the Federal Bureau of Investi- studies bear more than a remote rela- there is little evidence to link such be- gation of more than 300 cases have tion to real emotional traumas. haviors to a history of actual abuse. failed to turn up any proof. There is also some information no- Moreover, many of the alleged signs of The lack of empirical support does tably missing from Making Monsters. abuse are observed in people who were not necessarily mean that no satanic Ofshe and Watters do not discuss the almost certainly not abused. cults exist or that no ritual abuse has extensive literature on psychogenic am- Ofshe and Watters also draw on ever occurred. But Ofshe and WattersÕs nesia, whereby traumatic events tem- wrenching case studies of patients who central claimÑthat recovered memories porarily blot out certain memories, have recovered memories in therapy, of ritualistic horrors are very likely to ranging from single episodes to an in- some of whom later retracted those have been created during therapyÑis dividualÕs entire personal past. In addi- memories. We will probably never know convincing. They also link therapist-in- tion, because the authors focus on ex- what truly happened in these situations, duced pseudomemories with the recent treme cases that involve forgetting years so their usefulness as scientiÞc data is explosion in diagnoses of multiple-per- of ongoing trauma, they say little about questionable. Ofshe and Watters exam- sonality disorder, which was once the possibility that a person could for- ine the most extreme cases, in which thought to be exceedingly rare. The au- get and recover memories of a single patients recount memories of extended, thors claim that such personalities are abusive episode or a few such episodes. horriÞc abuse only after coming under often fabricated in therapy and discuss They touch on this important question

136 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN April 1995 Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc. only in an appendix. Moreover, Ofshe of scientiÞc evidence that extensive, se- they encourage patients to blur the line and Watters do not seriously address vere sexual trauma can be pushed into between imagination and memory. In- forgotten memories of abuse that may the unconscious through a special mech- deed, I was so surprised that a therapist be recovered outside of therapy. anism of memory repression. Clinical would advocate such techniques that I Ofshe and Watters apply their con- and laboratory research indicate that checked the original source to deter- clusions broadly, indicting the entire emotionally traumatic experiences tend mine whether Loftus had portrayed Òrecovered memory movementÓ of to be well remembered. FredricksonÕs approach fairly; she had. faulty reasoning and hazardous prac- Loftus does brießy consider the phe- I would have welcomed more such tices. The judgment is justiÞed when nomenon of psychogenic amnesia, de- thorough treatments of the key issues applied speciÞcally to the material in scribing a case that my colleagues and I in the recovered-memories debate. Al- the book. The authorsÕ grand generaliz- reported some years ago, which involved though the autobiographical material ation is unconvincing, however, because a young man who temporarily forgot in The Myth of Repressed Memories and they never deÞne exactly who is part of almost all his personal past after a trau- LoftusÕs moving descriptions of fami- the recovered-memory movement, nor matic experience. She correctly points lies shattered by recovered memories do they provide much evidence that out several diÝerences between this make for gripping reading, they tend to their conclusions deserve such wide ap- kind of amnesia and the kind of forget- crowd out the kind of rigorous analy- plication. Even if some recovery thera- ting implicated in cases of recovered ses of central disputes that are so sore- pists have engaged in dangerous prac- memoryÑdiÝerences that limit the ex- ly needed in this mineÞeld. tices, it is possible that genuine cases Personal experience lies at the very of forgetting and recalling sexual abuse core of the third book, Mark Pender- do exist. grastÕs Victims of Memory. Pendergrast Loftus and KetchamÕs book, in con- attempts to integrate an insiderÕs ac- trast, is entirely devoid of the contemp- count of the recovered-memories con- tuous tone adopted by Ofshe and Wat- troversy with a scholarly analysis of it. ters. The Myth of Repressed Memory is He begins the task with two daunting written in LoftusÕs Þrst-person voice and strikes against him: he has been accused Clarke Gallery frequently takes on an autobiographical of unspeciÞed abuse by his two daugh- 1992 quality as she relates her experiences as ,” tersÑcharges he deniesÑand he is a an expert witness, memory researcher journalist who has no credentials in psy- and participant in recovered-memory esterday chology or psychiatry. He is therefore debates. Her outspoken views on the readily perceived as someone who has malleability of memory have made Lof- an ax to grind and little else to oÝer. In tus something of a lightning rod in “Looking for Y an impressive display of scholarship these disputes. At a memory sympo- and sheer determination, Pendergrast TERS, sium held in Boston last year, a group AL has surmounted these obstacles to write of incest survivors picketed her appear- a comprehensive treatment of the re- ance. Yet in The Myth of Repressed Mem- covered-memories controversy. ory, Loftus comes across as genuinely CANDACE W Victims of Memory covers much of interested in trying to understand the the same territory as do the other two other side of the issue. books and oÝers many of the same ar- In a revealing interlude Loftus re- guments, but Pendergrast oÝers a counts a meeting with Ellen Bass, co-au- tent to which one can serve as a model broader portrayal of the social and cul- thor of the controversial ÒbibleÓ of the for another. In a disappointing omis- tural contexts of the recovered-memo- recovery movement, The Courage to sion, however, Loftus fails to discuss ries phenomenon. His treatment is also Heal. This book has been disparaged by the studies speciÞcally concerning loss distinguished by some welcome histor- virtually every critic of recovered mem- of memory of sexual abuse, even though ical perspective. For instance, he de- ory for its sweeping and unsubstantiat- she lists several in her bibliography and scribes the evolving role of therapeutic ed claims (such as an extraordinary ad- has published such a study herself. suggestion in the genesis of multiple- monition to those who have no memo- The Myth of Repressed Memories is personality disorder, and he exhibits ry of abuse: ÒIf you think you were most eÝective when it delves into sub- throughout a ßair for digging out rele- abused and your life shows the symp- stantive topics in depth. For example, vant quotes from pioneering psycholo- toms, then you were.Ó) Nevertheless, Loftus gives a detailed critique of the gists and psychiatrists. LoftusÕs account of her conversation memory-retrieval techniques advocat- Pendergrast demonstrates a laudable with Bass reßects a good-faith attempt ed in a popular book by recovery thera- ability to lay out all sides of the argu- on both sides to consider the perspec- pist Renee Fredrickson. These tech- ment. He analyzes evidence for and tive of the other. Although the exchange niques include hypnosis and visualiza- against repression, carefully acknowl- ends at something of an impasse, it il- tion, as well as methods for contacting edging the limitations of laboratory re- lustrates the kind of dialogue that is Òbody memoriesÓ (memories that are search but oÝering a thoughtful exami- needed to resolve the controversies sur- alleged to have been stored in body tis- nation of studies concerning the forget- rounding recovered memories. sue) and procedures such as a Òquick ting of sexual abuse. He also considers Loftus also uses her encounter with list,Ó in which patients jot down what- several cases in which memories of Bass to make a crucial point. Loftus ever comes to mind when pondering abuse resurfaced without therapy. Cit- states that she does not dispute the va- possible abuse without attempting to ing the literature on psychogenic amne- lidity of abuse memories that have nev- assess the accuracy of the retrieved sia, Pendergrast concedes that people er been lost, nor does she rule out the thoughts. Loftus notes that there is no can sometimes forget traumatic experi- possibility that people can forget and scientiÞc documentation of the eÛcacy ences. But he rightly points out that ev- later reclaim some memories of abuse. of these techniques but good reason to idence from such cases must be treated She is concerned primarily with the lack believe that they pose a danger because cautiously because in some instances

Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN April 1995 137 amnesia may be feigned deliberately. this debateÑproponents of recovered Much of Victims of Memory is devot- memory versus advocates of false mem- ed to interviews with incest survivors, ory, winner take allÑis simplistic and therapists, retractors and accused par- needlessly divisive. Understanding the ents. Although it is diÛcult to draw gen- current situation requires distinguishing eral conclusions from a small and se- among several intertwined questions. lected sample, Pendergrast allows the First, there is the question of whether reader to see the issues from a variety false recollections can originate in ther- COMING of perspectives. Despite the authorÕs apy. Extensive laboratory research indi- IN THE personal situationÑhis daughtersÕ alle- cates that suggestion and other factors gations originated in therapyÑPender- can lead to memory distortion. A start- MAY grast renders a sympathetic portrayal of ling number of patients ÒrecoverÓ mem- recovery therapists as well-intentioned ories of satanic-ritual abuse despite an ISSUE... but misinformed players in a drama absence of evidence for such abuse. that has veered out of control. Hypnotically based therapy has helped In the end, however, PendergrastÕs induce recollections of exceedingly im- THE EVOLUTIONARY critique of recovered-memory therapy probable events (such as past lives and DYNAMICS OF HIV is no less damning than that of Ofshe alien abductions). And a growing num- INFECTION and Watters. He extends his discussion ber of people have retracted their recov- of suggestion-induced false recollec- ered memories. Taken together, these Martin Nowak tions to include bizarre but fascinating considerations lead inexorably to the and Andrew McMichael cases in which people ÒrememberÓ be- conclusion that some recovery thera- University of Oxford ing abducted by aliens, which demon- pists have helped createÑprobably un- strate the power of hypnosis to induce intense but inaccurate memories. DID BOHR “SHARE” Pendergrast also links the way that The standard depiction NUCLEAR SECRETS? therapists interpret patientsÕ symptoms with contemporary research on implicit of the recovered-memories Kurt Gottfried memoryÑthat is, nonconscious eÝects debate is simplistic and and Hans A. Bethe of experience on subsequent behavior needlessly divisive. Cornell University and cognition. Some therapists have cited this research (which is a major fo- Roald Z. Sagdeev cus of my own work) as justiÞcation University of Maryland, for interpreting their patientsÕ fears, wittinglyÑpseudomemories of sexual College Park dislikes or attractions as unconscious abuse that never occurred. The phe- ÒmemoriesÓ of abuse. Although such nomenon may be too widespread to at- an interpretation could possibly be val- tribute to a few bad-apple therapists, TRENDS IN id in some cases, inferring the existence but it is unjustiÞed to indict the entire ARCHAEOLOGICAL of implicit memories is a complex pro- Þeld of psychotherapy for the excesses PRESERVATION cess, so alternative explanations need of some practitioners. to be scrupulously considered. As Pen- At the same time, I cannot emphasize Marguerite Holloway dergrast notes, the fact that implicit too strongly that the foregoing conclu- Staff writer memory has been established in con- sions do not imply that all recovered trolled experiments Òdoes not mean memories are inaccurate. A proper eval- that a woman who hates bananas is uation of recovered memory phenome- ALSO necessarily reacting subconsciously to na will require further inquiry into the IN MAY... a memory of her fatherÕs erect penis, as evidence for robust repression, which many trauma therapists believe.Ó currently lacks credible scientiÞc sup- The Global Tobacco Epidemic Pendergrast occasionally misses his port. Studies of psychogenic amnesia, targets. In a section entitled ÒScientists though inconclusive, indicate that trau- as True Believers,Ó he critiques an article matic experiences can sometimes lead Binary Neutron Stars co-authored by the eminent neurobiol- to extensive forgetting; researchers ogist Eric R. Kandel that considered need to analyze more fully the condi- possible neurobiological bases for re- tions that produce memory loss. The Ocean’s Salt Fingers pressed memories. Kandel acknowl- Whether or not robust repression ex- edged, however, that false memories ists, there is the related question of can be created and is hardly a Òtrue be- whether individual incidents of abuse Silicon Microstrip Detectors lieverÓ in recovered-memory therapy. can be forgottenÑand it seems clear Fortunately, Pendergrast is rarely so that they can. Such forgetting could re- sloppy. The book concludes with a mov- sult from ordinary processes of memo- Niels Bohr and the Drawing ing letter to his daughters (he no long- ry decay or interference and might be er knows where they live or what their exacerbated by conscious avoidance of names are); the reader cannot help but the trauma and consequent lack of re- hope that reconciliation is still possible. hearsal. Another question is whether ON SALE Where does all this leave us in at- such forgotten incidents can later be APRIL 27 tempting to make sense of an impor- recalled accurately. Although there is tant and painful issue? Perhaps the key little well-documented evidence from point is that the standard depiction of clinical research for recovery of accu-

138 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN April 1995 Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc. rate memories of abuse, several credible cases have been reported. Further clariÞcation of the recovered- memory controversy will require sys- tematic study of memory processes. Some investigators have claimed that traumatic memory operates in a funda- mentally diÝerent manner than does nontraumatic memory, yet there is little experimental support for this asser- tion. Basic psychological research is just beginning to uncover the memory mechanisms that underlie intense false recollections. There are solid indications that a phenomenon known as source amnesia (in which a person forgets the source or context in which a memory originated) renders people vulnerable to memory distortions. When people cannot remember the source of a memory, they are apt to confuse whether it reßects an actual event, a fantasy or something that was said or suggested. The role of source amnesia in therapeu- tically induced false recollections re- mains to be explored. The stakes here extend far beyond improved understanding of the mind. Research and eÝective communication are needed to minimize the possibility that people who were not abused will come to the psychologically devastat- ing conclusion that they were. It is also imperative to avoid false accusations that can fracture lives and shatter fam- ilies. And a better awareness of the workings of memory will bolster the credibility of the memories reported by survivors of sexual abuse. CORRESPONDENCE One unacceptable outcome of the Reprints are available; to order, write Reprint Department, ScientiÞc American, 415 present situation is that the memories Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017-1111, or fax inquiries to (212) 355-0408. of genuine incest survivors may be called into question. The only way to Back issues: $6 each ($7 outside U.S.) prepaid. Most numbers available. Credit card avoid this travesty is to encourage all (Mastercard/ Visa) orders for two or more issues accepted. To order, fax (212) 355-0408.  participants to adhere to rigorous stan- Index of articles since 1948 available in electronic format. Write SciDex , ScientiÞc dards of scientiÞc inference and logic. American, 415 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017-1111, fax (212) 980-8175 or Neglect of science has contributed to call (800) 777-0444. the present diÛculties. In an interview ScientiÞc American-branded products available. For free catalogue, write Sci- with Ellen Bass, Ofshe and Watters entiÞc American Selections, P.O. Box 11314, Des Moines, IA 50340-1314, or call asked the co-author of The Courage to (800) 777-0444. Heal if she could cite any scientiÞc sup- Photocopying rights are hereby granted by ScientiÞc American, Inc., to libraries and port for her ideas. She responded can- others registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy articles in didly: ÒLook, if we waited for scientiÞc this issue of ScientiÞc American for the fee of $3.00 per copy of each article plus knowledge to catch up, we could just $0.50 per page. Such clearance does not extend to the photocopying of articles for forget the whole thing. My ideas are promotion or other commercial purposes. Correspondence and payment should be not based on any scientiÞc theories.Ó addressed to Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA The events of the past several years 01923. Specify CCC Reference Number ISSN 0036-8733/95. $3.00 + 0.50. suggest that the price of not waiting for scientiÞc knowledge may be disastrous- Editorial correspondence should be addressed to The Editors, ScientiÞc American, ly high. It is imperative that all involved 415 Madison Avenue, New York , NY 10017-1111. Manuscripts are submitted at the authorsÕ risk and will not be returned unless accompanied by postage. in this debate work hard to ensure that the standards of science, not rhetoric Advertising correspondence should be addressed to Advertising Manager, ScientiÞc or pseudoscience, constitute the frame- American, 415 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017-1111, or fax (212) 754-1138. work for future discussion. Subscription correspondence should be addressed to Subscription Manager, Scien- tiÞc American, P.O. Box 3187, Harlan, IA 51537. The date of the last issue of your subscription appears on each monthÕs mailing label. For change of address notify us DANIEL L. SCHACTER is professor of at least four weeks in advance. Please send your old address (mailing label, if possi- psychology at Harvard University. ble) and your new address. E-mail: [email protected].