---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:16:43 -0500
From: Adriaan J.W. Mak <adriaanjw
...@home.com>
To: adriaanjw
...@home.com
Subject: Bernice Andrews' remarks in the Times
Dear Friends
I would like to bring to your attention a very recent development that
should not go unchallenged.
As many of you know, Bernice Andrews recently has certainly been making a
splash with her latest "research" . I have good reason to put the word
research in quotation marks. Publicity, to my surprize, first appeared in
a
professional journal: CHARACTERISTICS, CONTEXT and CONSEQUENCES of MEMORY
RECOVERY among ADULTS in THERAPY Andrews, B., Brewin, C.R., Ochera,J.,
Morton, J.,Bekerian, D.A., Davies, G.M. and Mollon, P., British Journal of
Psychiatry (1999) 175, 141-145.
Few who knew about the research would believe that this publicity would go
beyond this journal because criticism from other professionals would
surely
point out the grave shortcomings of the research. The False Memory
Syndrome
newsletter of October/November 1999 described these shortcomings as
follows:
"Andrews et al. report on what a selected group of therapists reported to
them about what a selected group of patients reported to the therapists.
[1] None of the researchers ever actually interviewed a patient.
[2] One of the conclusions of the study was that "more (78%) of the
clients' initial recovered memories either preceded therapy or preceded
the
use of memory recovery techniques used by the respondents."
An obvious problem with this conclusion is that the therapists could be
expected to be motivated to minimize their role in the recovery of the
memories."
The FMSF Newsletter continues to describe what happened for instance in a
trial (The Hess case):
Here "the defending psychiatrist claimed that the patient came to him with
memories of abuse. When the dates of the therapy sessions were actually
compared to the onset of the satanic memories, however, the influence of
the psychiatrist became clear. The first mention of any childhood abuse
was
after the patient had 37 outpatient sessions with the psychiatrist and
another therapist and almost a month of hospitalization with psychotherapy
and hypnosis.
In other words, we must have more information to draw the sorts of
conclusions claimed in this study. The history of psychiatry has many
examples of other retrospective studies that have been used to support
faulty conclusions. For example, retrospective case studies were used to
suggest that schizophrenia and infantile autism could be cured by
psychotherapy.
The FMSF Newsletter continues with:
"The claims of the Andrews et al. study must be confirmed by prospective
studies in order to be deemed valid."
[ So far the best of these prospective studies, which would mean a study
where there is solid evidence that the subjects of the study were indeed
sexually abused and subsequently had no memory that the abuse took place,
have failed to prove the existence of the repression of memories.]
Notes
[1] p.145 The therapists differed from non participating therapists
by virtue of "having high case-loads, having seen more clients
reporting satanic abuse and having a greater belief in the
accuracy of recovered memories."
[2] p.145 "The reliability of therapists' observations and memories
is unknown." 3.p.217 Trial Testimony of David Spiegel, M.D.,
Wausau, WI, August 20, 1999.
This week, The Daily Mail uncritically picked up the main message of the
study and gave as its news article the headline: 'Myth' of False Memory
Syndrome, March 14, page 7. The article then was put on the Reuters wire
and picked up all over the world appearing in such papers as:
The Vancouver Sun as Recovered memories often true,
The Toronto Star : False Memory Theory Jolted and
USA TODAY: Recovering Real Memories
Yesterday, again, rather than presenting a critique of the study, the
Times Higher Education Supplement, a publication read internationally by
many academics, allowed Bernice Andrews free rein to spout her theories in
that very prestigious forum and indeed giving it the most offensive of
headlines yet. That act should not go unchallenged. Here is the article:
Times Higher Education Supplement, 17 March 2000
BANKING ON MEMORIES
by
Bernice Andrews
There is no evidence that patients are being prompted to invent memories,
says Bernice Andrews
False memory syndrome hit the headlines in the early 1990s. Though it
has never enjoyed official medical or scientific status, it has
captured the public imagination. There have been several stories of
families being destroyed after children have "remembered" being
sexually abused.
The condition was originally described by the US False Memory Syndrome
Foundation, which was set up to protect the interests of parents whose
children had accused them of abuse. It was taken up by organizations
world-wide. including Britain's False Memory Society. The false memory
societies s define the syndrome as a condition where someone's identity
is centred on a memory of a traumatic experience that is objectively
false but in which that person strongly believes. They see the chief
villains in this scenario as therapists and social workers. Through
self-help books and techniques, therapists apparently convince
vulnerable patients that their emotional problems are the result of
repressed sexual abuse in childhood. In other words, they claim that
the therapy causes a new condition centred on false beliefs.
If false memory syndrome exists, there should be compelling
evidence. The evidence we do have centres on parents' insistence that
their children's recovered memories are false and that thousands of
people have been damaged by inappropriate therapy.
Yet a recently published survey of British False Memory Society
members showed that their numbers were relatively small (282
responded). Some even reported that there was some truth in their
children's allegations of abuse.
Research cited in support of false memory syndrome conies from
laboratory experiments that show it is possible to implant false
memories. But the more implausible the false event, the more difficult
it is to implant. It is almost impossible to convince people they have
endured an uncommon and unpleasant childhood experience such as being
given an enema.
Our research, published this week, casts further doubt on the
existence of false memory syndrome. We interviewed 100 qualified
psychologists who had between them seen and made case notes on 236
clients with "recovered" memories.
The memories did not appear to he solely the result of an
inappropriate focus on child sexual abuse. About a third involved
other types of trauma. Therapy could often not be blamed, since about
a field of clients had recovered memories before entering therapy. The
claim that these recollections were invariably false was not supported
- more than 40 per cent had been independently corroborated.
Our research found that the most common triggers to memory recovery
were situations involving the clients' own children, and recent
dangerous or frightening events. Memories were less commonly triggered
by self-help books or by therapists using memory-recovery techniques.
In fact, the therapists we interviewed rarely used these techniques
and were often as surprised as the clients when traumatic memories
spontaneously emerged. One reason for the therapists, concern is the
dramatic way in which the memories often appeared in fragments
accompanied by fear and experienced as a reliving of the original
event in the present. Traumatic memories of patients diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder following a car or train crash emerge
in a similar way.
Our research joins a growing body of evidence that suggests that many
recovered memories cannot be explained by false memory syndrome, which
is just a theory that has as yet received little objective support.
Bernice Andrews is senior lecturer in psychology, Royal Holloway,
University of London.
Does false memory syndrome exist? Email us at soap...@thes.co.uk
=====================================================
As you can see, the Times Higher Education Supplement gives you the chance
to respond, and I hope that you will do so.
A few days ago, not having seen the full article in the British Journal of
Psychiatry, I suggested the following to a discussion group:
Let's wait for the present research and see:
(1) how the study defines a "recovered memory"
(2) what corroboration is supplied, other than the therapists' say so,
that the memories indeed were totally absent from
consciousness until they were triggered back into consciousness, and
(3) what constituted the corroboration that the belatedly remembered
events had indeed happened.
One of the correspondents, Stephen Finley responded:
Here's five bucks that says the answers are roughly as follows:
1. Any "memory" of abuse that allegedly occurred a long time ago but was
not acted on at the time, including but not limited to those influenced
and
possibly generated by therapists. (i.e. not just memories that were
repressed or hidden from consciousness)
2. Because they said so, as Adriaan suggests.
3. The mere fact that the therapists believed the client is "evidence"
enough, in many or most cases. There will be a completely circular
quality
to the "corroboration" here.
Although I hope that many people will respond by writing a note to:
Times Higher Education Supplement"
soap...@thes.co.uk ,
in the present case a note directly to the editors is in order as
...
