FORA.tv

Fuel the Enlightenment

FORA.tv Series: Best of Chautauqua 2009

Elizabeth Loftus: What's the Matter with Memory?

Chautauqua Institution
Rate It
46,143 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Murphy8 Avatar
Murphy8
Posts: 11
Posted: 08.02.09, 09:54 AM
Loftus appears better prepared than when I saw her give an earlier version of this talk a few years ago. But she still manages to mention the “sex with dog” memory a few times. And someone should ask her to confirm that a therapist testified to that cupcake dream interpretation. Can she cite this?

While Loftus repeats the idea of false memories of child sex abuse, in reality, her research doesn’t seem to address this.

For example, in the lost in a mall study she mentioned, the researchers got true information from family members about family shopping trips. Then they added a story (including true details from family members) about getting lost at the mall. Do therapists contact family members for information to make the false memories they allegedly plant more plausible?

In another experiment, a photo of a hot air balloon was doctored to included a childhood head shot of the subject. Do therapists show clients doctored family photos of abuse?

There’s the study that asks subjects to evaluate a colorful ad about meeting Bugs at Disneyland. Then researchers ask subjects if they shook hands with Bugs at Disneyland. Does this mean that some adults who read about child molestation then think their priest or coach or father raped them? I’m not so sure.

As for the audience experiment when they were tricked with a doctored photo, when would this be relevant? How often are we shown doctored photos?

And surely there must have been a psychologist in that audience who knew about some of the studies that corroborate repressed memories.

Maybe a future Chautauqua speaker can address some of these issues.
Permalink
adambl Avatar
adambl
Posts: 31
Posted: 08.02.09, 03:48 PM
Yeah, I think she does a bad job of explaining why this stuff works. When asked point blank at the end, she hemmed and hawed a bit, and ended by saying "maybe it's to make us happier" or something. What it really is, it seems, is that if an authority figure tells you something is true, and you don't have an opinion one way or the other, you're going to listen to them. So if it's a scientist telling you you were lost in a mall or a therapist telling you you were raped, if you don't remember it, you're probably going to take their word on it.
Permalink
Murphy8 Avatar
Murphy8
Posts: 11
Posted: 08.02.09, 09:04 PM
If you mean that Loftus did a bad job of explaining to the audience how any of her studies relate to what therapists can, and can’t, do--I’d agree. I’m not even sure that’s possible.

As for the mall study. Do you think anyone there would believe Loftus if she told them, as she told subjects in the mall study, a detailed story about their getting lost and then said a family member told her this story? Would tell her they believed this because she’s a scientist? Or would they first try to remember the story?

This moderator didn’t tell the audience about Loftus’s other work. Defendants charged with raping or murdering women or children hire Loftus to testify on the stand and support their defense that the accusations are false memories or the eyewitnesses are wrong. Guys Ted Bundy and the Hillside Strangler paid Loftus to testify. More recently defendants like Phil Spector, and ex-priests like Shanley paid Loftus $500 an hour to cite her research to support their defenses. Loftus’s testimony was pretty much discredited under cross-examination, and these defendants ended up in prison.
Permalink
mike78 Avatar
mike78
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.03.09, 04:28 AM
Elizabeth Loftus has been touting the same crappy studies for 20+ years. There is a reason why she is the *only* major person making the claims she does; her research bears almost no relevance to the subject of repressed memory of childhood sexual abuse, yet that is what she constantly makes references to.

There is voluminous evidence by a number of professionals that repression of memory does exist, and apart from Loftus' flawed and nearly worthless studies, there is no credible evidence that traumatic memories can be implanted.

Furthermore, there has been extensive additional study in the past 20 years relating to the use of hypnosis and other memory recovery techniques, and it is clear that if language-neutral approaches are used that are not suggestive of any particular outcome or idea, then no memory implantation can occur.

Additionally, this woman has never worked with patients clinically, and as far as I'm aware, possesses no clinical knowledge or experience whatsoever; all of her work is isolated in the laboratory under artificial settings.

It would indeed be nice if in the future, both fora.tv and the institutions that pay her large sums of money to promote her psuedoscience would also offer opposing points of view from reputable and credible researchers who have actually worked with people clinically, rather than made up ill-thought-out studies that are in no way comparable to the sort of experience someone suffering from sexual abuse would experience.

This woman should be ashamed of herself.
Permalink
Frith Woodward Avatar
Frith Woodward
Posts: 4
Posted: 08.04.09, 04:35 AM
excellent work. false memories are a real problem for both victims and the accused. Having worked with guided imagery I was amazed at how pliable the mind is especially if they see the administrator as a power figure.
pliable memories are a good case for living in the moment not as a composite of our dubious personal history.
Permalink
L. Riki Cheever Avatar
L. Riki Cheever
Posts: 10
Posted: 08.04.09, 09:59 AM
I’ve noticed that there are a few animate detractors from Elizabeth Loftus’ work. Would you be one of these consistent detractors? Actually, the question I wish to ask is whether or not you have posted other comments on other boards or have you spoken through other venues, in general, against Loftus’ work, or the person?

You made mention that Loftus was paid to cite her research to support Ted Bundy, the Hillside Strangler, Phil Spector, and ex-priests such as an individual called or named Shanley (?); how were you made aware of these testimonies, and the fees paid to Loftus? I ask this question because surely you are aware that it is common to use science in a courtroom; and it is also common to pay for expert testimonies; therefore, are you suggesting science should not enter the courtroom or that experts should not be paid?

Furthermore, you state that Loftus’ work was discredited under cross-examination for at least one of these trials; once again, I am hopeful that you would agree that science is available for all to use in a criminal trial, including the prosecutor(s). In other words, isn’t it science that is neutral and wouldn’t this leave the prosecutor and the defense attorneys to use research data in support of his or her case; or is it your contention that Loftus manipulated her data in support of the defense and then simply caved after 20+ years of memory research, on the stand…?

You see, I too believe that critical thinking is very important (you made some very good comments above—such as how often are photographs altered before they are shown to us, yada, yada, yada); and I cannot help but wonder why you appear to have a vested interest.

I disclose that I have only a passing interest in Loftus’ work, due to the nature of memory; and that I have no pre-prejudice; although, I do know her name and I have seen bits and pieces of her work in magazines, on memory and reviews by others, on her research.

I happened to have liked this lecture very much.
Permalink
L. Riki Cheever Avatar
L. Riki Cheever
Posts: 10
Posted: 08.04.09, 10:02 AM
Sorry, these comments were meant for Murphy8, Mike78 and adambl.
Permalink
adambl Avatar
adambl
Posts: 31
Posted: 08.04.09, 11:28 AM
No, I'd never heard of her before now, though I had heard of the lost in the mall experiment. I think she makes some interesting points, and it's definitely good to question eyewitness testimony. But I mean, convincing people that they did something as a kid by showing them a photo of it? Who wouldn't believe that? I mean, I don't remember anything from when I was 5, and if someone shows me a photo of something, I'll assume it's true. And then taking experiments like that and jumping to the conclusion that repressed memories don't exist is a bold, bold move.
Permalink
L. Riki Cheever Avatar
L. Riki Cheever
Posts: 10
Posted: 08.04.09, 12:05 PM
Agreed, Adambl.

I am 44 now.

Let’s say If a qualified individual, such as a solid relative, with whom I had built a certain degree and level of trust, showed me a picture of me, at the age of five, along with a picture of my uncle at age 26—shown side-by-side; and began prodding and asking me if I had remembered that I had been sexually assaulted, at this age; and along came a police officer asking me if I had experienced any “abnormal touching” or the likes—because, this uncle is currently being held on charges of child abuse --- I might rack my brain on the subject and begin to question myself; I’d quiz other relatives, and begin to conjure up all sorts of images—and I would agree with you. I would soon be singing like a canary on a subject I knew nothing of.

However, if I must stipulate that I agree that false memories might be manufactured let’s say—yes, I agree that this it is possible to create heart-felt claims.

Would that equate to a belief that repressed memories are not possible? ---No. I too believe that repressed memories are possible.

Is this what she is claiming? I have not heard this.
Permalink
Murphy8 Avatar
Murphy8
Posts: 11
Posted: 08.04.09, 12:16 PM
As for me, I’ve presented on false memory issues at various conferences. Loftus is one of the most prolific researchers in that field. I challenge people’s assumptions about false memories, and encourage them to think critically. Why? Because 45 million US adults, 15%, were molested as children. I’m one of the 45 million, if that helps. “False memories” has turned out to be a popular, and occasionally successful, defense for people accused of molesting children. When false memory research enters the legal arena, it should be examined thoroughly. People’s futures, and perhaps a community's future safety, depend on this.

Where does all this information come from about cases, testimony and research? It’s online. The cross-exam in ex-priest Shanley’s trial was on Court TV. The cross by US AG Fitzpatrick in the Libby case was in the news. Cross-examinations of experts can be instructive. Judging by what I’ve seen, expert cross-examinations require a higher standard of evidence than peer review.

If you’re interested in how I fact-check false memory claims, here’s an example.

The woman who introduced Loftus mentioned the Rodney King and Bosnia cases. Google shows nothing worth noting online about King, but many of the court documents on the second case are online.

Croatian military officer, Anto Furundrija, was charged with war crimes by the International Crime Tribunal. The witness testified that when she failed to provide her interrogator, Furundrija, with information, Furundrija orchestrated rapes by another soldier “vaginally, orally and anally; forced to swallow sperm and urine; forced to strip naked in front of about forty armed soldiers; and had a knife rubbed against her vagina accompanied by the threat that it ‘might be cut out.’”

In her expert testimony, Loftus said that Loftus and Burns (1982) showed that subjects who saw a video of a bank robbery with a violent ending were less accurate when asked what happened. Therefore, the witness’s id of Furundrija was questionable since she was under stress at the time of the crime.

Next, find Loftus and Burns (1982) and see the findings reported on p. 320. Average them. Subjects who saw the violent ending got 80% of the questions right. The other group got 84%. Not very conclusive for the defense. Next, since researchers can ethically interpret their findings as they choose in the abstract, see how the authors interpreted these findings in the abstract. (I presented this exercise to university psych students who had, of course, been taught to trust peer review. It took them a while to figure it out.) NOTE: The 1982 inconsistency was first reported by Koss, Tromp and Tharan in 1995.

The Court found Furundrija guilty, stating that witnesses can’t “be expected to recall every single element of a complicated and traumatic sequence of events” and that inconsistencies may “indicate truthfulness and the absence of interference with witnesses.”

.
Permalink
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

Race vs. Class: The Future of Affirmative Action Race vs. Class: The Future of Affirmative Action
01:31:44 min | 13,198 Views
David Mutton: Policing Our Minds David Mutton: Policing Our Minds
00:58:18 min | 5,521 Views
Levin Enters the Fray, Lashes Out at Cheney Levin Enters the Fray, Lashes Out at Cheney
00:21:05 min | 3,997 Views
Ted Olson: Annual Supreme Court Roundup Ted Olson: Annual Supreme Court Roundup
01:05:32 min | 3,082 Views
Whistle-Blowers: A Conversation with Ellsberg and Dean Whistle-Blowers: A Conversation with Ellsberg and Dean
01:51:52 min | 14,924 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement