The following article appears in TREATING
ABUSE TODAY magazine, November-December 1995/January-February
1996
__________________________________________________________________________________
NOTES FROM THE CONTROVERSY
ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST PROMINENT FMSF BOARD MEMBER: APA DECLINES TO INVESTIGATE
In December 1995, two women filed ethics complaints with the
American Psychological Association (APA) against Elizabeth
Loftus, PhD, regarding her published statements about two legal
cases involving delayed memories of sexual abuse. Citing
procedural considerations, however, the APA has declined to
investigate the women's ethics complaints.
Jennifer Hoult (a concert harpist living in New York) and Lynn
Crook (a Washington State consultant) each filed separate
complaints with the APA, alleging that Loftus mischaracterized
the facts of their legal cases in published articles. Both women
brought successful civil suits because of the sexual abuse that
the fathers (and the mother, in Crook's case) perpetrated against
them during their childhoods. At their trials, they presented
corroborative evidence that met the requirements for judicial
proof of their allegations.
Loftus serves on the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board
of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, Inc (FMSF). She also
had been an active member of the APA since 1973, but she resigned
in January 1996, shortly after the filing of the complaints. In
a brief telephone interview with TREATING ABUSE TODAY, Loftus
confirmed her resignation from the APA, but she denied any
knowledge of the ethics complaints. She also cautioned that
TREATING ABUSE TODAY should not state or imply that she resigned
from the APA to avoid investigation of the ethics complaints.
When the ethic complaints were filed against Loftus, Jeffrey N.
Younggren, PhD chaired the APA Ethics Committee. During his
tenure in this position, Younggren appeared as an expert witness
in many trials involving so-called "false memory syndrome,"
generally as a witness for accused perpetrators or against
therapists accused of implanting "false memories." At the time
Hoult and Crook filed their complaints, Younggren and Loftus were
both working as expert witnesses on the same side of the same
case. When asked about this coincidence, however, Loftus stated
that she had no knowledge of the fact, because she worked on many
cases simultaneously and didn't always know which expert
witnesses were scheduled to testify in any particular case.
Responding to a query from Crook regarding the relations between
Loftus and Younggren, Marguerite Schroeder, a senior investigator
in the APA Ethics Office, stated that, if Younggren had faced
such a conflict of interest, he would have recused himself from
the matter. She further stated that Younggren hadn't been made
aware of the ethics complaints against Loftus, and so had played
no role in the decisions regarding them. According, however, to
the Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Office, "complaints
are evaluated initially by the Chair of the Ethics Committee
[Younggren] and Director of the Ethics Office" ("Rules," 1992, p.
1614). Crook and Hoult filed their complaints on or before
December 18, 1995, and Loftus submitted her resignation on
January 16, 1996. In her response to Crook's query, Schroeder
offered no explanation as to why Younggren hadn't been informed
of the two complaints, even though they were filed nearly a month
before Loftus's resignation.
According to both Crook and Hoult, Schroeder stated that APA
policy generally bars the resignation of members when they're
under the scrutiny of the Ethics Committee. Schroeder, however,
further stated that Loftus hadn't yet come under the Committee's
scrutiny, and that she hadn't been informed of the complaints
against her, even though Crook and Hoult filed their complaints
nearly a month before Loftus submitted her resignation.
Based on these procedural considerations, the APA Office of
Ethics declined to investigate the ethics charges. Schroeder
told Crook and Hoult that it's "unusual" for a member to resign
in the time frame between receipt of a complaint and a committee
decision regarding appropriate action. When such a resignation
does occur, however, Schroeder indicated that the APA no longer
has any authority to pursue ethics complaints against the member.
Both Hoult and Crook have contested the APA's decision. In a
strongly worded letter of objection to Schroeder, Crook argued
that APA policy clearly bars the resignation of a member under
the scrutiny of the Committee. She asked that the APA
immediately rescind Loftus's resignation and proceed with an
investigation of her complaint. Hoult asked for the same
actions, as well as asking the Ethics Office to send her the
procedures for filing an ethics complaint against the Ethics
Committee.
A review of the APA's published guidelines regarding
investigation of ethics complaints seems to bear out the
objections lodged by Hoult and Crook. Information provided to
complainants states that "the date of filing is the date on which
we [staff of the Ethics Office] receive the correctly complete
APA [ethics complaint] form" (APA, 1995, p. 2, emphasis added).
The Rules and Procedures further state, "Plenary ethics
proceedings against a member are initiated by the filing of a
complaint" (APA, 1992, p. 1 622, emphasis added). These two
statements taken together would seem to indicate that Loftus came
under the scrutiny of the Ethics Committee on the date of the
filing of the complaints, and thus the APA should have barred her
resignation, as stated in the Rules and Procedures.
REMEMBERING DUBIOUSLY
In her complaint, Hoult alleges that Loftus used distortion and
misstatement of fact to seriously misrepresent Hoult's legal
case. In 1988 Hoult brought a civil suit against her father,
alleging that he had raped and otherwise sexually abused her
throughout her childhood. After several years of legal
wrangling, the case finally went to trial in June 1993. On July
1, 1993, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jennifer Hoult,
awarding her $500,000 for the suffering caused by her father's
incestuous abuse. All higher courts have upheld the jury's
decision, including the first circuit appellate court. When
Hoult's father petitioned the US Supreme Court, his petition was
rejected as untimely. At some point during all these
proceedings, Hoult's father joined the FMSF.
In the March/April 1995 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (a
publication of the Committee for the Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal, or CSICOP), Loftus published an article titled
"Remembering Dangerously." Subsequently, this article appeared
as a resource document on separate Internet home pages maintained
for CSICOP, for the FMSF, and for Loftus at the Department of
Psychology, University of Washington. In the article, Loftus
reviews a number of high-profile cases involving delayed memories
of child abuse. The introduction to the article, giving a
cartoon view of the legal process, indicates Loftus's general
approach to the cases she reviews.
We live in a strange and precarious time that resembles at its heart the hysteria and superstitious fervor of the witch trials of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Men and women are being accused, tried, and convicted with no proof or evidence of guilt other than the word of the accuser. Even when the accusations involve numerous perpetrators, inflicting grievous wounds over many years, even decades, the accuser's pointing finger of blame is enough to make believers of judges and juries. (p. 20)
Of the several cases reviewed in the article, Loftus includes
"the case of Jennifer H" (p. 26). Though Loftus ostensibly
offers Hoult a degree of anonymity by using an initial for her
last name, she actually identifies Hoult by citing the case
(Hoult v. Hoult) in the article. In an interview with TREATING
ABUSE TODAY, Hoult stated that Loftus's article distorts her case
through a broad range of unethical practices. Among others,
Hoult asserts that Loftus misrepresents her competence,
expertise, and personal motivation to speak as an expert on
trauma and abuse. As many others have already pointed out,
Loftus has never worked as a clinician and thus lacks training or
clinical experience in child psychology, trauma, the processes of
traumatic memory, the evaluation of alleged sex offenders, and
child sexual abuse generally. In this regard, Hoult alleges that
Loftus violated a number of APA ethics guidelines, including the
need for truthfulness and candor, misuse of influence, and making
claims outside the area of her expertise.
Hoult also alleges that Loftus used mischaracterization and
omission of facts to misconstrue Hoult's legal case against her
father. She pointed out many inaccuracies that support this
allegation. In the article, for instance, Loftus claims that
"Jennifer was a 23-year-old musician who recovered memories in
therapy of her father raping her from the time she was 4" (1995,
p. 26). Actually, Hoult began to remember the abuse at 24, at
which time she was an artificial intelligence software engineer.
Records in the case show that the bulk of her memories emerged
outside of therapy. Furthermore, Hoult never stated that the
rapes began when she was four, a "fact" apparently created by
Loftus for the purposes of her article.
In another passage, Loftus claims that Hoult "remembered one time
when she was raped in the bathroom and went to her mother wrapped
in a towel with blood dripping" (1995, p. 27). A review of court
records, however, shows that Loftus has added two elements of her
own making: the memory of the rape itself (the trial transcript
shows that Hoult never claimed to remember a "rape") and the
blood-soaked towel (again the transcript shows that Hoult only
reported a small amount of blood between her legs, which wasn't
visible to the mother until Hoult dropped the towel from around
her body). Hoult argues that these misstatements by Loftus put
her in violation of several APA ethics guidelines, among them
ethics in media presentations and ethics regarding matters of
law.
IT'S MAGICAL. IT'S MALLEABLE. IT'S . . . MISREPRESENTATION.
In October 1991, Lynn Crook brought a civil suit against her
parents based on her delayed memories of childhood sexual abuse
perpetrated by her parents. Loftus testified as an expert
witness for the defense. On March 4, 1994, the judge in the case
ruled in Crook's favor, awarding her $149,580 in damages against
her parents, who chose not to appeal the case to any higher
court.
In the January/February 1995 issue of PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, Jill
Neimark published an article titled "It's Magical. It's
Malleable. It's . . . Memory." In her article, Neimark quotes
Loftus, who gives an abridged and (according to Crook) seriously
distorted account of her case against her father. In this part
of the article, at the heart of Crook's ethics complaint, Loftus
summarizes the legal case as follows:
Sometimes [Neimark states, summarizing Loftus] the memories become so seemingly fantastical that they lead to court cases and ruined lives. [Quoting Loftus] "I testified in a case recently in a small town in the State of Washington," Loftus recalls, "where the memories went from 'Daddy made me play with his penis in the shower' to 'Daddy made me stick my fist up the anus of a horse,' and they were bringing in a veterinarian to talk about just what a horse would do in that circumstance. The father is ill and will be spending close to $100,000 to defend himself." (Neimark, 1995, p. 80)
In an interview with TREATING ABUSE TODAY, Crook stated that
Loftus's 79-word direct quote describing her case contained nine
misstatements. "Loftus reworded events I recalled, and
incorrectly claimed that a 'fantastical' memory had resulted in
my filing this case." Crook pointed out, for instance, that
Loftus contradicted her father's own sworn testimony that his
health was "excellent." Crook also argues that Loftus should
have pointed out that she (Crook) won the case, after presenting
evidence that included testimony from two of her sisters who
also remembered incestuous abuse perpetrated against them by
their father.
Among other ethical concerns, Crook alleges that Loftus
introduces the idea of memory progression ("from . . . to"), even
though this claim had failed to hold up during the trial itself.
During Crook's trial, Richard Ofshe, PhD, another prominent FMSF
board member who testified for the defense, claimed to see a
"progression" in her memories that called them into doubt. The
judge in the case specifically dismissed Ofshe's attempt to cry
"false memory" based on memory progression:
Finally, Dr. Ofshe characterizes plaintiff's memories as a progress toward ritual, satanic cult images, which he states fits a pattern he has observed of false memories. It appears to the Court, however, that in this regard, he is engaging in the same exercise for which he criticizes therapists dealing with repressed memory. Just as he accuses them of resolving at the outset to find repressed memories of abuse and then constructing them, he has resolved at the outset to find a macabre scheme of memories progressing toward satanic cult ritual and then creates them. (Lynn Crook v. Bruce Murphy and Lucille Murphy, Superior Court of the State of Washington In and For the County of Benton, #91-2-0011-2-5)
Despite the judge's statement, rendered from the bench, Loftus
resurrected the "progression theory" in the PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
article. According to Crook, Loftus should have indicated that
her opinion had been rejected by the court, and that her failure
to do so constitutes a violation of APA ethics guidelines dealing
with truth and candor.
According to Crook, Loftus also transformed another memory, her
recollection of the event involving the horse. In the quoted
passage, Loftus does seem to imply that the memory involving the
horse emerged as an elaboration and distortion of Crook's earlier
memory involving her father, an implication that Crook denies.
Crook also points out that Loftus omitted important information
given by the veterinarian who testified during the trial. Though
Loftus chose to present the possibility of anal penetration of
the horse as a wholly fantastical absurdity, the veterinarian
(who testified for the defense) pointed out that it's a common
practice in veterinary medicine.
JUST TO BE BELIEVED
Crook told TREATING ABUSE TODAY that she hopes Loftus will be
asked to corroborate all cases that she reports to the media.
"I'm dismayed," she stated, "that Loftus would use her position
as an expert witness in my case to try to prove to the public
that I was yet another victim of 'repressed memory' therapy."
Crook further stated that PSYCHOLOGY TODAY should have contacted
her to check the facts of the case before they published
Neimark's article.
While researching this story, TREATING ABUSE TODAY contacted the
magazine's editor, Hara Moreno, to ask about the magazine's
formal fact-checking policies. Oddly, Moreno became extremely
hostile. She demanded to know "on whose authority" we had
undertaken our investigation. She further stated that we didn't
"know anything about anything," and that she would only speak
with the APA about the ethics complaint. We tried in vain to get
Moreno to understand that we didn't want her to discuss Crook's
complaint, that we only wanted to know the formal fact-checking
policy of PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. We never did get an answer. The
editor of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER never returned our call to discuss
that magazine's fact-checking policies, despite a promise from
Brian Karr, the executive director of CSICOP, that the editor
would speak with us.
In "Remembering Dangerously," Loftus warns that "supposedly
de-repressed" memories could "trivialize the genuine memories of
abuse and increase the suffering of real victims who wish and
deserve, more than anything else, just to be believed" (1995, p.
29). Hoult argues that Loftus used her scientific credentials in
an unscientific effort to trivialize her memories of violent
abuse. "I've proven the charges against my father in a court of
law," Hoult stated, "before a jury of his peers. I am believed,
by my family and my friends." Hoult went on to say that she
expects ethical treatment from people who call themselves
scientists, including Loftus.
Loftus in fact cites scientific considerations as the reason for
her resignation from the APA. In her letter of resignation, she
claims that the organization had "moved away from scientific and
scholarly thinking." Loftus further stated that she had decided
to resign "to devote her energies to the numerous other
professional organizations that value science more highly and
more consistently." During her tenure as an APA member, Loftus
served "as President of two distinguished divisions (Experimental
Psychology and Psychology/Law)," a fact she points out in her
letter of resignation.
Alice Eagly, PhD, who presently chairs the APA Board of
Scientific Affairs, expressed puzzlement over Loftus's abrupt
resignation from the APA. Eagly dismissed Loftus's attempt to
draw a "global judgment" regarding APA's commitment to science.
She pointed out that the APA fosters a great many scientific
endeavors, and that it publishes the premiere scientific journals
in psychology.
Loftus stated in her resignation letter that she resigned largely
because of the increasing drift of the APA "away from scientific
and scholarly thinking and . . . towards therapeutic and
professional guild interests." The APA, however, recently
approved the FMSF as a continuing education sponsor, [for more
information on the APA's action, please see "APA Approves FMSF as
CE Sponsor" in the same issue of TREATING ABUSE TODAY (Vol 5 No
6/Vol 6 No 1).] and one of Loftus's colleagues on the FMSF
Scientific and Professional Advisory Board (Ulric Neisser, PhD)
also serves on the APA Board of Scientific Affairs. Neisser
declined to comment on Loftus's resignation. TREATING ABUSE
TODAY sent written requests for comment to the other members of
the Board of Scientific Affairs; with the exception of Eagly,
none responded.
Peter Freyd, PhD, co-founder of the FMSF, issued a puzzling
Internet statement (February 8, 1996) regarding Loftus's
resignation. Under the subject heading, "It's their stupidity,
stupid," Freyd stated:
The RMT ["recovered memory therapy"] people certainly go in for believing whatever rumors they like. For the record: there are no ethics complaints against Elizabeth Loftus. She resigned from the APA because it has moved too far from science.
From his brief statement, Freyd appears to endorse
Loftus's claim that the APA no longer holds a strong, consistent
commitment to science. The APA, however, recently recognized
Freyd's organization as a continuing education sponsor, a move
that many see as evidence of Loftus's claim that the APA has
indeed moved away from science by entering into a partnership
with an organization (the FMSF) that promulgates pseudoscience.
Pamela Freyd, PhD, the FMSF executive director, declined to
comment on the ethics charges filed against Loftus and her
resignation from the APA.
REFERENCES
- American Psychological Association. (1995). INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUALS FILING APA ETHICS COMPLAINTS [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.
- American Psychological Association. (1992). Rules and procedures. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 47, 1612-1628.
- Loftus, E. (1995, March/April). Remembering dangerously. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 19, 20-29.
- Neimark, J. (1995, January/February). It's magical. It's mystical. It's . . . memory. PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, 28, p. 44-85.
