-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- 2/10 Hi ! Below please find information on memory studies. Sincerely, Neil Brick The following is from "Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law" by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond, C 1998, W. W. Norton Pub. Chapter 12, "The False Logic of the False Memory Controversy and the Irrational Element in Scientific Research on Memory" p. 383-384 "...In particular, the following positions asserted by extreme false memory proponents are mistaken: 1. All or most therapists working with childhood sexual abuse believe in the tape-recorder theory of memory. 2. Repressed memory does not exist, or, as Ofsche has stated, "repressed memory is the scientific quackery of the twentieth century." (Ofsche, cited in Loftus and Ketchum, 1994, p. 206) 3. There is only one "normal" model for memory, whether traumatic or nontraumatic. 4. Memories of events are stored the way books are stored on library shelves - as an entire unit. Many trauma advocate and almost all memory researchers...adhere to a multidimensional view of memory systems, and they correctly point out that false memory advocates who apply research findings on normal autobiographical memory to the domain of trauma have incorrectly assumed a unitary model of memory.... There is a growing corpus of scientific and clinical data in support of the view that traumatic experiences are encoded and stored both as behavioral memory and verbal memory, and that in certain instances the implicit, behavioral memory for the trauma make take primacy over the verbal memory in the form of behavioral reenactment and intrusive reexperiencing..... normal behavioral memory in children and behavioral memory for trauma in children and adults have been the subjects of numerous scientific investigations. Some false memory advocates consistently ignore these data. To ignore the entire corpus of scientific data on implicit, behavioral memory because it might lend credence to clinicians' description of unconscious behavioral reenactments of trauma, which in turn might even justify memory recovery techniques, is poor science....Dismissing the validity of recovered memories of abuse on the grounds that the memory is accompanied by somatic distress (or a body memory) is neither logical nor scientific...Implicit memories, which are not currently available to consciousness, nevertheless exert influence on thoughts and behaviors (Graf & Masson 1993)..." >From "Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond," W.W. Norton and Co. New York and London, C 1998 (http://www.wwnorton.com) Page 365-366 "WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT MEMORY FALLIBILITY? Loftus's claim that human memory in general is fallible (1979a,b) and that therefore memories recovered in psychotherapy are equally fallible (1993) is both overstated and oversimplified (Koss et al., 1995). Conclusions in a textbook that negative emotional arousal "hinders accurate...memory" (Loftus, 1980, p.78) is misleading in that the statement fails to specify the conditions under which arousal hinders or enhances memory. Her conclusion correctly applies only to laboratory simulation studies of memory for complex visual presentations and only when a particular type of information is assessed. These simulation studies rarely show memory fallibility with respect to the emotional arousing event itself. Moreover, it is misleading to generalize findings on memory fallibility for certain types of visual information presented in the laboratory to autobiographical memory of patients in psychotherapy. What do the laboratory simulation studies actually demonstrate? Heuer and Reisberg (1990) have correctly pointed out that negative emotional arousal has multiple effects on memory, depending on the type of memory information assessed. Claims about memory fallibility are only valid, when considered in terms of the type of memory information assessed. Negative emotional arousal has different effects on different types of memory information. As we have seen, memory for visual information is different from memory for verbal information about a negative emotional arousing event (Christianson & Fallman, 1990; Christianson & Nilsson, 1984). The early studies on emotional arousal and memory performance led to a distorted view of memory fallibilty because they were biased toward assessing memory performance in terms of the total information contained within a complex visual stimulus presentation (Clifford & Hollin, 1981; Clifford & Scott, 1978) or because they assessed memory for peripheral background details like the number on the football jersey of an innocent eyewitness to a crime (Loftus & Burns, 1982). More sophisticated studies that clearly distinguish between plot-relevant central information, basic level visual information, and plot-irrelevant central and background details (Burke et al., 1992) have clearly demonstrated that memory is well and accurately retained for the gist of a central action (plot-relevant action) or a negative emotional event even over long retention intervals, while only the peripheral background details are poorly retained. These findings are consistent with Bartlett's (1932) original studies on memory for the War of the Ghosts, in which gist memory was well preserved while memory for minor details was highly inaccurate. General, overstated claims about memory fallibility fail to take into consideration the complex interaction of variables that affect memory performance." http://www.jimhopper.com/memory-decision (the first page (.com) links to other pages of interest also) "The Validity of Recovered Memory: Decision of a US District Court" Judge Edward F. Harrington, Presentation by Jim Hopper, Ph.D. The legal documentation citation is: 923 Federal Supplement 286 (D. Mass. 1996), United States District Court - District of Massachusetts Ann Shahzade, plaintiff Civil Action No.: V. 92-12139-EFH George Gregory, Defendant. Some quotes from the decision: "The factors to be considered when deciding if proffered testimony is valid 'scientific knowledge,' and therefore reliable, are..." (p.3) "This Court finds that the reliability of the phenomenon of repressed memory has been established" and will allow the plaintiff to introduce evidence related to their recovered memories (p.3). "Dr. van der Kolk testified that repressed memories is not a scientific controversy, but... a political and forensic one" (p.5). "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, 1994)...also recognizes the concept of repressed memories" (p.7). "in considering the admissibility of repressed memory evidence," the court must rule on the "validity of the theory itself... for the law to reject a diagnostic category generally accepted by those who practice the art and science of psychiatry would be folly." (p.9). >From "Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond," W.W. Norton and Co. New York and London, C 1998 (http://www.wwnorton.com) Page 393 Pages 390 - 394 deal with repressed memories : "Our conclusion is similar to that recently drawn by Gleaves (1996a)... "A wealth of clinical and experimental data do support the concept of extensive traumatic amnesia and the subsequent recovery of accurate memories. This is not to imply that such recovered memories are always accurate or that more research on this challenging topic is not needed. However, the frequently repeated statement that there is no scientific support for the reality of "repressed" memories should be understood as being based on one review article out of context while at the same time ignoring decades of relevant data." (p. 16) " - Gleaves Memory Validation The information for the following article came from "Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law" by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond, W.W. Norton and Co. New York and London, C 1998 (http://www.wwnorton.com) Page 370-381 and is written by the editor of S.M.A.R.T. The base rates for memory commission errors are quite low, at least in professional trauma treatment. The base rates in adult misinformation studies run between zero and 5 percent for adults and between 3 - 5 percent for children. Out of about seven to 10% of the general population that may be highly hypnotizable, four to 6 percent of high hypnotizable subjects may "produce hypnotic psuedomemories for peripheral details (of a memory) in response to suggestions" in a waking state or hypnotized with controlled situational influence. The 4-6 percent may rise in terms of report rates to 80% under some conditions of social influence. Extreme social influence can be compared to brainwashing or social influence to the following criteria, several of which must happen for the possibility of an untrue memory to occur: patient is highly suggestible (in terms of memory), with low to moderate suggestibility a therapeutic situation must contain a number of the following: patient is quite uncertain about the past event, suggestions of peripheral details (not central plot actions of a memory), source credibility (an authority figure), patient bias (previous information), authority figure bias (has set belief about what happened), systematic misleading (rather than free recall), emotional manipulation (blame or rejection for not producing the desired result or praise for the desired result), behavioral response (individual journal or oral narrative to group of trauma or action against perpetrators), milieu control (total information control in and out of therapeutic or other context) and psychophysiological manipulation (breaking down the subject's defenses, assaults self esteem or person's core or causes subject to regress). "Occasional unwitting misleading suggestions (Yapko, 1994a), even the suggestion of a diagnosis of abuse, cannot adequately explain illusory memories of child sexual abuse." (p. 379) Occasional suggestions about abuse are not generally effective, except in highly suggestible people. Some child abuse interrogations might come close to some of the above conditions. Those that have retracted claims due to influence from their accused families, if they have internalized the systematic information of the FMSF, and were coached by FMSF members may also meet many of the above criteria of social influence. Three to six percent of people possess a trait of high memory suggestibility (related or unrelated to hypnotizability). They may make errors for at least peripheral information, but under the certain social conditions listed before they might make errors for central information also. One to two thirds of people could possibly make memory errors in an interrogatory social interaction with many of the social influence conditions listed before. About one third of the population are resistant to memory commission errors except under extreme conditions. My conclusion is that memory contamination is very unlikely, except under extreme conditions. From the data presented, it sounds like it is almost totally impossible for anyone to make a memory error for the central plot of a memory simply by hearing disinformation. A variety of other factors would have to be in place. Even under hypnosis without several social influence factors, it sounds like it is extremely rare (4-6% of 7-10%, less than one percent of people) may be influenced by disinformation. It sounds like most people would almost have to be in a cult or in a cult like situation or under considerable duress to produce an untrue memory. Theories that claim that a "false" memory can be created simply by hearing an erroneous statement or because a person is looking for "filler" to complete the central plot of their memory, are probably wrong. But, if all the information in the media and society available to most survivors is biased toward the incorrect position that memories of abuse are false. And a survivor is manipulated and pressured by their family emotionally and cognitively, it is very possible that a survivor may wrongly believe that their memories are not true. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
