Prevention and management of false memory syndrome

As with most issues in medicine, the prevention and management of a problem is best understood when the origins are known. The term ‘false memory syndrome’ (FMS) came into use in March 1992 with the foundation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), a non-profit-making organisation established in the USA by a group of families in which one or more of the parents was accused. The parents in these families were reacting to a phenomenon which developed in a characteristic form in the preceding decade and had become common enough by 1991 for a number of them to realise that they were not alone, and to join in setting up the Foundation with a professional and scientific advisory board.

What's in a Name for Memory Errors? Implications and Ethical Issues Arising From the Use of the Term "False Memory" for Errors in Memory for Details

The term "false memories" has been used to refer to suggestibility experiments in which whole events are apparently confabulated and in media accounts of contested memories of childhood abuse. Since 1992 psychologists have increasingly used the term "false memory" when discussing memory errors for details, such as specific words within lists. Use of the term to refer to errors in details is a shift in language away from other terms used historically (e.g., "memory intrusions"). We empirically examine this shift in language and discuss implications of the new use of the term "false memories." Use of the term presents serious ethical challenges to the data-interpretation process by encouraging over-generalization and misapplication of research findings on word memory to social issues.

Repressed memories. When are they real? How are they false?

The precise mechanisms by which such false memories are constructed awaits further research. Much is left to learn about the degree of confidence and the characteristics of false memories created in these ways. We have more to learn about the types of individuals who are particularly susceptible to these forms of suggestion, and conversely, who is resistant. As we are learning more, it is probably important to heed the cautionary tale in the data already obtained; mental health professionals, interviewers, and others need to know how much they can potentially influence participants in research, clinical, and forensic contexts and take care to avoid that influence when it might be harmful. Periodic re-reading of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, with a small substitution (change "poet" to "therapist" or to "biased interviewer"), might help keep these important ideas in mind, reminding us how hard it can sometimes be to distinguish a bush from an imagined bear: The poet's eye, in fine fanciful rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven; And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. Such tricks hath strong imagination, that if it would but apprehend some joy, it comprehends some bringer of that joy; Or in the night, imagining some fear, How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

Memory recovery and repression: what is the evidence?

Both the theory that traumatic childhood memories can be repressed, and the reliability of the techniques used to retrieve these memories are challenged in this paper. Questions are raised about the robustness of the theory and the literature that purports to provide scientific evidence for it. Evidence to this end is provided by the authors which surveyed New Zealand families in which one member had accused another (or others) of sexual abuse on the basis of recovered memories. It is shown that a number of these allegations involve very low probability events. Since memory repression theory is not currently scientifically substantiated it is argued that care needs to be taken in the mental health, legal and insurance compensation arenas. Memories recalled during therapy may be treated as metaphorical but, in the absence of corroborative evidence, should not be considered factually true. Clinicians who wish to use memory recovery techniques should inform patients of their experimental and controversial nature, point out adverse effects, and obtain consent before proceeding.