Stream Your Event | Partners | Speakers CART ITEMS: - | CHECKOUT

Elizabeth Loftus: What's the Matter with Memory?

Watch Full Video | previews

Chautauqua Institution

Info
Bio
Chapters
Preview
Download
Zoom In

The Power of Suggestion: How to Implant False Memories

04 min 19 sec

Add to Profile

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus discusses studying the power of suggestion, including implanting false memories in test subjects.

After three suggestive interviews, Loftus found she was able to convince subjects they had been lost in a shopping mall as a small child.
Brainwashing: The Key to Weight Loss?

04 min 33 sec

Add to Profile

Elizabeth Loftus discusses her psychological work using false memories to influence food choices.

By embedding a false food experience, Loftus found subjects avoided fattening foods after being convinced the food caused them to be extremely sick.
Influencing Food Choices

01 min 45 sec

Add to Profile

Elizabeth Loftus explains how embedding false memory in the brain can influence the way a person perceives certain foods.
Testing Memory Under Stress

03 min 08 sec

Add to Profile

Dr. Loftus presents results from a published study that tracks soldiers' memories of stressful interrogations.
Watch Full Program

01 hr 10 min 55 sec

Add to Profile

There are 34 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.

Previous FORAtv comments:

Page 3 of 4

L. Riki Cheever

Posted: 08.06.09, 10:07 AM

- Murphy8 - I'd rather say something rather than nothing right about now; although, I have not followed up on your recommended 'readings', as of yet. I will, with an emphasis. Recently, someone extremely close to me revealed under less than optimal terms that she had been sexually assaulted as a child—by a family member. Oddly enough, we had a conversation in parallel; for her—it turned out to be an accidental confession; as for me, I was referencing…something far less sinister—our wires had certainly crossed. Once I realized what was being said by her, I had to do a double-take, due to the subject matter. I assure you, listening to someone’s assault/abuse detail is very difficult—regardless of the degree of assault or duration or year. I began to question the authenticity of the abuse due to my own inability to comprehend. I question her age and understanding. I questioned passed Christmas’ we spent with this individual, the events attended next to this individual… I even became a skeptic. Mind you, all of these thoughts of mine, happened in under a second; and the abuse happened over 20 years ago. Next thoughts after a very quiet review: Find-my-keys. Get-in-car. Drive-to-house. Confront-this-person. Improvise-from-there. I had very primitive thoughts and I would have carried out my plan except for one very confusing and disturbing thing—she didn’t want me to do it. Everyone in the family knew; and, obviously, I was asked to pretend I knew nothing; and, the truth is, life was easier before I knew—however, I now know. I don’t participate when this individual is around and I make sure he has left prior to my arrival or the other way around. I do my best; this is all I can say at the moment. I don’t know what you and the millions of people who have been sexually abused felt or feel; but I do know that we need educated in how to respond, as innocent bystanders and friends. I am a bystander and a friend and I simply cannot cope with my feelings—isn’t abuse perpetual… What I want is to respect my friend again; and not because of the sexual abuse, per se; but from the inability to stand up and say that this was not and is not, acceptable; and for whatever reason, I feel it needs to be said in front of me, so I can hear it. Odd, I know. How can she stand there in those picture-perfect family photos, next to this idiot? Collective selective amnesia…? I would like to understand my feelings on this, and it isn’t easy—and to know me, you might understand why, I am so confused by my own reactions. I'm off to Italy for about 25 days--I wanted to respond and 'spond' with you before I left. Goodbye for now, Riki

sactownjudge

Posted: 08.05.09, 06:23 AM

I just think it's amusing that she wants to attribute HRC's inflated account of the Bosnia landing to "memories" - hilarious. Um, how about this.... she...made....it...up. Her self-interest caused her to invent and elaborate and ultimately share an account of the moment which constituted an LIE, not a false memory - why is this hard to admit? HRC wanted voters to view her as the seasoned, veteran, fearless foreign policy hand. Not even a hail of anti-aircraft fire can keep her from landing when there is work to be done in rescuing Bosnians!!! Good fun.

Murphy8

Posted: 08.04.09, 01:37 PM

First, I apologize for double-posting. My post hadn’t appeared--I thought. Then I noticed there was a second page notification at the bottom there. . Many people seem to think that if a therapist tells you were molested, then you’ll probably believe it. I agree that you might try see if you could remember something. But we’re talking about a crime here, and the credibility threshold is very high. The first hurdle: What friends, family and others may say: “Forgive him (or put this behind you) and get on with your life, I don’t believe he would do something like that, What good does it do bring all this up, Are you sure it wasn’t a false memory…. They’ll ask you how you remembered. “I was in therapy and my therapist said I was molested” just isn’t going to fly. Detectives and attorneys, if any, will expect a detailed story that hangs together as to time, location, and the person you accuse. Next are the symptoms. Can you convince yourself you’re afraid around people, places or things that remind you of the abuse? Can you experience nightmares and/or panic attacks. Perhaps a fear of, or addiction to, sex….etc. I suppose someone might be able to accomplish all this. But why would they want to?

Murphy8

Posted: 08.04.09, 12:41 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 our 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.” .

Murphy8

Posted: 08.04.09, 11:16 AM

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.” .

L. Riki Cheever

Posted: 08.04.09, 11:05 AM

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.

adambl

Posted: 08.04.09, 10:28 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.

L. Riki Cheever

Posted: 08.04.09, 09:02 AM

Sorry, these comments were meant for Murphy8, Mike78 and adambl.

L. Riki Cheever

Posted: 08.04.09, 08:59 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.

Frith Woodward

Posted: 08.04.09, 03:35 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.

Page 3 of 4