top of page

‘Recovered Memory Therapy:’ Analyzing the rhetoric surrounding a non-existent practice

Despite the fact that the majority of recovered memories of abuse are recalled outside of a therapist’s office [1], FMS proponents often claim that recovered memories are actually false memories of abuse ‘implanted’ by therapists. They claim that such therapists are practicing ‘Recovered Memory Therapy’ (RMT), and falsely claim that there are millions of RMT therapists harming their patients.

"We all know that sexual abuse does occur - but the [recovered] memories we are seeing have all been produced by the same therapeutic process." – Pamela Freyd [2]

 

“Recovered memory therapy [is] a technique that has damaged many thousands of families and former patients…  Repressed memory therapy is harmful. It is dangerous. It is a waste -- a waste of time, of energy, of resources, of emotions, of arguments, of creativity, of words, of talent, of relationships, of minds, of health, of families and even of lives. Like any pernicious waste, repressed memory therapy should be disposed of carefully and permanently… Recovered memory therapy is the kind of demon about which [Carl] Sagan was warning. What is so frightening about this demon is that the very mental health institutions that are supposed to train their members in science and human behavior have themselves unleashed and nourished the demons.” – Pamela Freyd [3]

 

There is no practice in the clinical world known as ‘Recovered Memory Therapy,’ nor are therapists trained to perform such therapy. When the Australian government was requested to investigate and report to Victoria’s Minister for Health about the practice of ‘Recovered Memory Therapy,’ their report concluded that “the term, RMT, is not used by health professionals but has been created by false memory associations for political purposes.” [4] Those who coined and used the term are critics of recovered memory, not practicing therapists treating abuse survivors.

The Therapist’s Intent: anyone can be suggestive by asking a single intake question

It is difficult to find a concrete definition of ‘recovered memory therapy’ provided by any organization or person campaigning against it. Many descriptions are vague, non-specific, or overgeneralized.

 

The first column published in the FMSF newsletter that describes recovered memory therapy (RMT) in 1993 is titled “HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED TO MY CHILD? MIND CONTROL?” Therapy is likened to “coercive persuasion” and “brainwashing,” stating that “psychotherapy is a culturally accepted thought-reform process.” Therapists are described as “overzealous,” when looking for abuse, resulting in therapists “producing what they expect to find.” Little is said specifically about a particular kind of therapy, other than “Recovered memory therapy externalizes problems” and blames it “on our parents” which “solves the problem… of what to do during therapy.” [5]

 

In the following month, John Hochman described “memory recovery therapy” in an article reprinted in the FMSF newsletter:

“People involved in memory recovery therapy have been convinced by misguided self-help books or therapists that they are "survivors" of totally forgotten sexual crimes. They are told that their eating or sexual or marital problems will clear up once the "lost memories" are found. The real message being sold by these new therapy messiahs is the ultimate crybaby solution to everyone's pitiful human problems: It's all someone else's fault.” [6]

 

Hochman clarifies and expands on his definition 6 months later in 1994. His article featured by the FMSF in a column titled “ATTENTION READERS.” 

“Recovered memory therapy (RMT), [is] a hodge-podge of techniques varying with each therapist. The purpose of RMT is to enable the patient to recover into consciousness not only wholly accurate recollections of ancient sexual traumas, but also repressed body memories (such as physical pains) that occurred at the time of the traumas. In actuality, RMT produces disturbing fantasies which are misperceived by the patient and misinterpreted by the therapist as memories.” [7]

 

A similar definition is published by Richard Ofshe in his 1994 book, Making Monsters: False Memory, Psychotherapy and Sexual Hysteria, featured and reviewed in the FMSF newsletter.

“The recovered memory specialists maintain that patients often carry buried memories of having been sexually abused as children or infants and that those abuses, while hidden, are the root to their current troubles. Further, these therapists believe that helping their clients unearth these repressed memories can cure the disorder the patient presents.” [8]

 

However, Ofshe continues to say that “This treatment is not specific to one branch of psychotherapy. Recovered memory specialists come from the ranks of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, new-age gurus, marriage and family counselors, and those who, without a degree, simply proclaim themselves "therapists." … recovered memory therapy can be found in psychoanalysis, hypnotherapy, gestalt, new-age counseling, and many other of the two hundred talk therapies that populate our social landscape.” [8]

 

Based on these definitions, recovered memory is less about what happens in therapy, and more about the intent of the therapist. According to FMS proponents, regardless of how the therapist was trained, what techniques they use, or how they approach their patient, all therapists have the capacity to implant false memories if they want to.
 

The Suggestibility of a Single Intake Question

 

During the first session with a new client, often called an intake session, therapists ask a variety of questions about the client’s history to gain a base understanding of what issues may affect therapy. These simple self-report questions often inquire about one’s family background, prescribed medications, previous diagnoses, family history of mental illness, relationship status, history of suicide attempts, and previous experiences in therapy. Among these questions, many therapists ask about a client’s possible history of abuse.

 

Numerous FMS proponents have claimed that simply asking an intake question about a client’s history of abuse demonstrates sufficient intent of the therapist to find hidden memories, and in some cases, could cause false memories in and of itself:

 

"The problem arises, however, when counselors overtly ask the question, 'Were you ever sexually abused as a child?'" – Harold Lief, FMSF Scientific Advisory Board Member. [9]

 

"Individuals are being imprisoned on the 'evidence' provided by memories that come back in dreams and flashbacks--memories that did not exist until a person wandered into therapy and was asked point-blank, 'Were you ever sexually abused as a child?'" – Elizabeth Loftus, FMSF Scientific Advisory Board Member. [10]

 

Ken Pope’s article “Pseudoscience, Cross-examination, and Scientific Evidence in the Recovered Memory Controversy” is an excellent analysis of why asking a single question inquiring about abuse history is not sufficient to create false memories. Upon reviewing the scientific evidence FMS proponents use to support their claims, he found that the studies cited as evidence “did not involve the therapy, therapist, or patients” and cannot “be reasonably and validly generalized to the therapeutic process.” [11] The ‘false memories’ claimed to be implanted in such studies were of a different caliber than recovered memories, and were accompanied by a purposeful pattern of misinformation. [11] Pope concluded:

“It is scientifically inappropriate to conclude that a few questions or comments or other behaviors by a therapist can implant a false memory of a sex abuse history solely based on research using a different set of factors with a different outcome measure (i.e., not an implanted memory of sex abuse) in a different (i.e., nontherapeutic) situation with a different population.” [11]

 

Regardless, the rhetoric employed by FMS proponents allege that any therapist who simply inquires about a history of abuse in their clients is actively searching for memories and could be classified as a ‘recovered memory therapist.’ This framing groups therapists who ask a single question about abuse history in the same category as therapists who repeatedly urge their patients to discuss abuse despite previous denials and pressure them to uncover details of abuse. As a majority of therapists regularly ask such questions during intake sessions, large swathes of clinicians would be condemned as practicing ‘recovered memory therapy.” 

Techniques: All-Inclusive, with No Inherent Risk

FMSF proponents defined ‘recovered memory therapy’ primarily by the intent of the therapist, but then they consistently focused on so-called “recovered memory techniques” – usually specific therapeutic tools or forms of therapy – as true culprit behind ‘false memories’ in patients:

 

“Families are being destroyed on the basis of memories recovered from hypnosis, sodium amytal, dream interpretation, trance writing and other similar techniques.” - Pamela Freyd, in the FMSF Newsletter. [12]

 

An incomplete list of the techniques labeled by FMSF proponents as inducing ‘false memories’ includes:

  • Journaling [13]

  • Yoga [14]

  • Relaxation techniques  [15]

  • Meditation [14]

  • Massage Therapy [12]

  • Reflexology [14]

  • Pictures drawn in “Art Therapy” [7]

  • Family photos [16]

  • Group Therapy [17]

  • Workbooks [17]

  • Reading self-help books [18]

  • Participation in survivor meetings or groups [18]

  • reading survivor literature [13]

  • Body work [17]

  • Inner child work [19]

  • Guided imagery [15]

  • Body memories [12]

  • Psychodrama [14]

  • Free association [20]

  • Imagination [16]

  • Handwriting analysis [21]

  • Stream of consciousness writing [22]

  • Trance writing [18]

  • Dream Interpretation [18]

  • Age regression [18]

  • Hypnosis [13]

  • Repeated visualization [23]

  • Exorcizing the devil [18]

  • Sodium amytal interviews [12]

  • Primal scream therapy [14]

 

FMS proponents identified many of these so-called ‘recovered memory techniques' from surveys sent to the FMSF’s membership base. Parents claiming to be falsely accused reported to the FMSF their knowledge of the therapy techniques used on their children, which supposedly spurred the claimed ‘false accusations.’ [14] This is despite Pamela Freyd stating that “we do not know the truth or falsity of any of the [survey] reports that we receive.” [24]

 

Beyond claiming that supposed ‘recovered memory techniques’ have the ability to create false memories, Kihlstrom’s 1995 definition of ‘recovered memory therapy’ implied that the techniques themselves are designed to uncover repressed memories: 

"Recovered memory therapy" is a term covering a wide variety of therapeutic techniques which assume that the patient's current symptoms are caused by traumatic events which have been lost to conscious recollection.” [25]

In one example, journaling was commonly cited by FMS proponents as a technique used to uncover repressed memories. It is inappropriate to conclude that journaling was conceived by ‘recovered memory therapists’ for the purpose of recovering memories of abuse, as it is a broad practice that encompasses many different uses. Yet, frequent excerpts from the FMSF newsletter state that this is the case for all ‘recovered memory techniques:’

“Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any "memory recovery techniques" which are based upon the expectation of past sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such "memory recovery techniques" may include… hypnosis… and journaling.” [26]

The issue of diverse techniques being conflated and labeled as a ‘recovered memory technique’ is also raised by Olio (1996), where she notes that “In the professional literature, for example, hypnosis is not considered a singular (or uniform) intervention, and it certainly is not limited to use as a memory recovery technique.” [27] Describing such techniques as inherently designed to recover memories allows for further condemnation of any therapist associated with said techniques, regardless of why or how they are being used.

 

So-Called ‘Recovered Memory Techniques’ Do Not Carry Inherent Risk

 

There have been few attempts to prove that any of these techniques truly implant memories. Stephen Porter’s dissertation was featured in the FMSF newsletter, which claimed that “guided imagery and other techniques” could be used to elicit false memories of emotional childhood events. [28] However, interviewers purposefully attempted to elicit false memories from the study participants. In the first and second sessions with participants, interviewers claimed that a family member had affirmed the truth of the memory, provided details about the false memory from the perspective of a family member, and socially pressured the participant to recall the false memory. In the final session, participants were “instructed to fabricate a memory to the interviewer.” [28] In a meta-analysis of scientific literature related to recovered memories, Brown et al. note that:

“So-called "risky memory recovery techniques" per se are not unduly suggestive unless accompanied by a pattern of misinformation suggestion. For example, over a dozen laboratory studies consistently have shown that guided imagery combined with free recall significantly enhances the recall of new information… without significantly increasing the memory error rate. However, guided imagery combined with suggestive interviewing, in which misinformation has been systematically supplied by the interviewers, results in a significant increase in the memory error rate. False-memory proponents who have considered guided imagery to be a risky memory recovery technique have committed the error of misplaced emphasis; they have incorrectly blamed the technique for the memory error rate while failing to correctly identify systematic suggestive interviewing as the primary factor contributing to the memory error rate. The issue is not whether a technique like guided imagery or hypnosis is used, but whether the interviewing accompanying the use of imagery or hypnosis is unduly suggestive in the sense that the interviewer has supplied a good deal of the content about fictitious abuse-related themes within and across sessions." [29]

Stephen Porter’s interviewers served as a major source of suggestion and social pressure to participants, contaminating any conclusions drawn about the technique of guided imagery. Furthermore, the study is not externally valid: the suggestion Porter used in the laboratory does not reflect what occurs in a therapeutic setting. Therapists do not purport to represent the perspective of family memories, nor do they instruct their clients to fabricate memories. As such, Porter’s research does not support his blanket condemnation of guided imagery as a therapeutic technique – on the contrary, all research to date supports the conclusion that such techniques cause false memories only when combined with suggestive interviewing and a pattern of misinformation. [29]

 

There is no research that empirically defines what constitutes a ‘recovered memory technique,’ what a risky frequency would be to use such techniques, or that such techniques pose an inherent and unique risk in the development of false memories. [27] Instead, all research supports the idea that ‘recovered memory techniques’ are not inherently risky, but only become so when used by a therapist actively supplying false information. [29]

Any Therapist Could be Construed To Be At Fault

The wide variety of techniques claimed to create false memories and the inability to empirically assess a therapist’s intent meant that nearly any therapist could be labeled as practicing ‘recovered memory therapy.’ Any therapist who asked a single intake question about a client’s history of abuse or who was associated with so-called ‘recovered memory techniques’ was suspect. 

 

In one case, a FMSF Scientific Advisory Board member stated that “the therapeutic context itself” – regardless of techniques used or therapist intent – could generate false memories of abuse. [23] This sentiment was repeated multiple times in various columns of the FMSF newsletter. With this logic, all therapists are sources of suggestion, and any therapist who was willing to discuss abuse with their clients could be reasonably accused of implanting false memories of abuse.

 

By vaguely describing ‘recovered memory therapy’ in terms and techniques that could implicate nearly every therapist, FMS proponents created an excuse to call into question all memories of abuse held by anyone who had any contact with a therapist. Anyone who recovered memories remotely associated with therapy – either with a therapist, at home outside of a session, or after the conclusion of therapy – would be described by the FMSF as having undergone ‘recovered memory therapy,’ regardless of whether therapy had an impact on their memories or not. 

 

It’s not uncommon for people who have memories of childhood abuse to seek therapy to process the resulting symptoms of traumatic stress. Thus, ‘recovered memory therapy’ served as an excuse to claim that swaths of abuse memories were false and further deny the extent of abuse within the family context. 

 

While it is important to acknowledge that there were therapists who were inappropriately suggestive, only a small number of clinicians truly fit that description. [30] There is a considerable difference between a therapist who repeatedly coerces clients who deny a history of abuse to recount memories of incest, and therapists who ask once whether clients have a history of abuse upon intake or suggest their clients keep a regular journal. [27] The therapists who had unhealthy or intrusive relationships with their clients are not representative, nor do they invalidate the many cases of true memories recovered within a therapeutic context. 

 

Since the 80’s, the standard for therapeutic practice has evolved to recognize and try to avoid the potential for suggestion. In 1998, The American Psychological Association’s Working Group on recovered memory advised therapists to exercise “care, caution, and consistency,” particularly [with clients] who experience what is believed (by either the client or the therapist) to be a recovered memory of trauma.” [31] What follow are a few excerpts from the working group’s recommendations for clinicians:

  • “When clients report what they phenomenologically experience as memories of previously unrecollected trauma, therapists should take a number of steps to avoid imposing a particular version of reality on these experiences and to reduce risks of the creation of pseudomemories.” [31]

  • “It is important to remember that the goal of therapy is not archeology; recollection of trauma is only helpful insofar as it is integrated into a therapy emphasizing improvement of functioning.” [31]

  • “Therapists should avoid endorsing such retrievals as either clearly truthful or clearly confabulated.” [31]

  • “Therapists should carefully consider all alternative hypotheses, including that the retrieved material is (a) a reasonably accurate memory of real events; (b) a distorted memory of real events, with distortions due to developmental factors or source contaminations; (c) a confabulation emerging from underlying psychopathology or difficulties with reality testing; (d) a pseudomemory emerging from exposure to suggestions; or (e) a form of self-suggestion emerging from the client's internal suggestive mechanisms.” [31]

  • “Clients who seek hypnosis as a means of retrieving or confirming their recollections should be advised that it is not an appropriate procedure for this goal because of the serious risk that pseudomemories may be created.” [31]

The number of ‘Recovered Memory Therapists’ was Significantly Overstated

The number of therapists practicing so-called ‘Recovered Memory Therapy’ has been significantly exaggerated by FMS proponents, with some notable figures claiming that ‘millions’ of therapists across the country could be described as such. However, it is important to interrogate how these claims emerged and whether or not they accurately reflect therapist practices in the US. A closer look reveals that such claims are based on artificially inflated and scientifically unsupported statistics.

 

Poole et al: inaccurate assessment of how many therapists practiced ‘memory focused therapy.’

 

In 1995, Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull conducted a survey of therapists to assess how many therapists practiced ‘memory focused therapy’ and the use of ‘recovered memory techniques.’ Both descriptions were considered by the authors a “grave risk” to clients [32], despite lacking a clear definition of either term throughout the paper. [27] They concluded that:

“25% of the members of those organizations who conduct psychotherapy with adult female clients believe that recovering memories is an important part of therapy, think they can identify clients with hidden memories during the initial session and use two or more techniques to help such clients recover suspected memories of CSA.” [32]

However, in 1996, Karen Olio published an intensive analysis of Poole et al.’s findings, eventually concluding that it is “impossible to use these data to draw scientific conclusions about the nature and outcomes of clinicians' practices.” [27] The survey was largely constituted by vague and leading questions; the endorsement of which would not inherently require therapists to hold the beliefs Poole et al. characterized as “memory focused:” 

  • The claim that “recovering memories is an important part of therapy” stems from the endorsement of the question "How important is it that a client who was sexually abused acknowledges or remembers the abuse in order for the therapy to be effective?” A therapist could endorse this question on the belief that clients who do not acknowledge their continuous memories of abuse would not make progress in therapy – which has nothing to do with memory recovery. [27] 

  • The claim that therapists “think they can identify clients with hidden memories during the initial session” stems from an endorsement of the question "Of adult female clients whom you suspected were sexually abused as children, what percentage initially denied any memory of childhood abuse?” and how frequently they were "fairly certain about this abuse diagnosis after the initial session.” Being ‘fairly certain’ of a ‘suspicion’ is much different than claiming the ability to accurately identify hidden memories. [27] Secondly, patients who admit to having memories of abuse after initially denying them does not necessarily indicate that such memories were recovered. A client with continuous memories of abuse may simply be reluctant to discuss them.

  • To assess if therapists used ‘recovered memories techniques,’ they were offered a checklist of techniques used “to help clients remember childhood sexual abuse,” and were prompted to “Check any technique that you have used with abuse victims in the last two years.” There was no operational definition of any of the techniques listed, which included ‘journaling’ and ‘family photos.’ No justification was given for the inclusion or exclusion of techniques, nor for what might constitute a risky frequency of use. [27] Olio noted that the “checklist is satisfied with the use of two techniques on any (even a single) occasion during the last two years. Thus, a therapist who allows one client to keep a journal and bring in family photos as a way to decrease the anxiety and pain of the remembering process is categorized in the same group as the therapist who repeatedly coerces clients with all the listed techniques.” [27]

All aspects of the 25% statistic were drawn from broad questions that cast a much wider net than what the authors intended to assess. It is clear that Poole et al. did not accurately describe the number of therapists practicing ‘memory focused’ therapy, as their study did not accurately assess therapists’ approach to recovered memories nor operationally define ‘memory focused therapy.’ [27]

 

For a full analysis of Poole et al. (1995), see Olio (1996), who concluded that the study had a “lack of operational definitions, flawed survey construction, lack of face validity, misclassification of techniques, and fallacious inferences about causality.” [27]

 

Poole et al: Inaccurate Assessment of How Many Patients Recovered Memories Through Therapy. 

​

Poole et al. also asked therapists “what percentage [of clients] came to remember

childhood sexual abuse during the course of therapy?” and from that question, concluded that 34% of clients recovered memories “through” therapy. [32] Poole et al.’s conclusion assumes that therapy had a direct influence on clients’ memory recovery, which is a remarkably different claim than ‘during the course of therapy.’ Olio notes that:

“This reasoning is an example of the logical fallacy Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In this instance, the fallacy takes the form "during this, therefore through this," which confuses correlation with causation. If, for example, a study was made of clients and it was noted that all clients grew older during the course of psychotherapy, the reasoning with this fallacy would claim that the practice of psychotherapy causes clients to grow older. Even if 100% of the therapists reported that their clients became older during therapy, it does not provide evidence that the aging process was attributable to or even differentially associated with therapy… Thus even if some might argue that intuitively it would seem that psychotherapy represented an influential factor in recovering memories of childhood abuse, it might well be that such influence comes from different aspects of therapy (e.g., the establishment of a safe environment, support for reflection on one's history) that commonly occur as part of the process of psychotherapy, rather than from the use of particular techniques as Poole, Lindsay et al. suggest.” [27]

Beyond logical fallacies, there is ample reason for concern about the validity of the 34% statistic. The Poole et al. study sent out two versions of their survey, with the second version slightly rewording a few questions. In the first survey, 42.97% of therapists reported clients who recovered memories during the course of therapy. When the question was reworded in the second survey, only 13.16% of therapists reported such clients. Minor variations in word choice creating such major differences is concerning, and indicates that these questions may not have accurately assessed the true prevalence of recovered memories during the course of therapy. 

 

The “1 million” Cases Claim.

 

Despite the flaws in the study, the results from Poole et al. were used widely by FMS proponents. In one case, Mark Pendergrast claimed to do “simple math” with the results to conclude that there were “over 1 million cases of 'recovered memories' each year'' – implying that ‘recovered memories’ were false memories implanted by therapists. [33] This claim of millions of cases was widely cited in the FMSF newsletter, FMSF sponsored conferences [34], and high-impact news articles written by Fred Crews. [35] 

To reach this number, Pendergrast takes 25% of all therapists (62,500) and assumes that each sees 50 clients a year – leading to around 3.125 million ‘cases.’ As Poole ‘concluded’ that 34% of clients recover memories ‘through’ therapy, Pendergrast is left with a little over a million supposed ‘cases’ of recovered memory. [33]

As previously mentioned, the 25% statistic reached by Poole et al. is scientifically unsubstantiated, completely lacks operational definitions of what classifies as ‘memory focused therapy’ or a ‘recovered memory technique,’ and overstates the amount of therapists who could be described as ‘memory focused.’ [27] Due to the errors in Poole et al.’s study, it is certain that Pendergrast’s resulting number of ‘cases’ is also an exaggeration. 

 

Furthermore, 38% of survey results in the Poole et al. study were thrown out, as such clinicians saw less than 10 clients a year. [27] Pendergrast does not remove any of this massive chunk from the base population of therapists – nor does he provide any reasoning for the decision that 50 clients constituted an average therapist’s client base.

 

While the number of therapists, if any, who actually practice suggestive therapy is unclear, the ‘1 million cases’ that Pendergrast reaches is clearly wildly exaggerated. 

 

The proliferation of Pendergrast’s ‘1 million’ statistic served two purposes for FMS proponents. Firstly, it primed the media and the public to believe that ‘false memories’ and ‘recovered memory therapy’ posed an enormous risk that needed swift action to resolve. Secondly, by overstating the prevalence of false memories and malicious therapists, it served to minimize the reality of abuse in the family context. By claiming that there were ‘1 million cases’ of false memory each year, they had the grounds to dismiss 1 million claims of childhood sexual abuse each year.

Fear Mongering and Anti-Therapist Sentiment

Therapists were consistently demonized by FMS proponents. Throughout the FMSF newsletter, therapists were described as ‘cult-like’ [36] ‘creepy’ [37] and ‘disturbing,’ [38] people who destroy other people’s lives [12] by ‘brainwashing’ young women. [5] Some examples of such language in the FMSF newsletter follow:

“Therapists who believe in such massive repression are dangerous.” - Mark Pendergrast, in the FMSF Newsletter. [39]

 

"The therapists who are doing this [Recovered Memory Therapy] are a new kind of sexual predator. Without ever touching their victim, they move them as close as you can possibly get to experience rape and brutalization....And they get paid by the hour for doing it.” - Richard Ofshe, FMSF Scientific Advisory Board Member, in the FMSF Newsletter. [40]

 

“Recovered-Memory Therapist: Definition: A predator who preys upon vulnerable and unsuspecting clients for his/her own gratification… destroying the lives of others with impunity. Synonym: A thief, a charlatan, a criminal.” - A Recovering Mom, in the FMSF Newsletter. [41] 

 

“Don't get upset with the wrong person. Don't blame your daughter for all the grief that has been wrought. Blame Recovered Memory Therapy!” [42]

 

“Let us never forget our human, parental imperfections are unrelated to the incubation and cultivation of the hate disease spread by toxic therapists and now ravaging and laying waste to the love that once bound our families." [43]

 

“In my opinion, the therapists who are promoting these False memories are guilty of murder!” [44]

 

Therapists deemed to be practicing any form of recovered memory therapy could be indiscriminately targeted, even if they were aligned with FMS ideals. One accused parent wrote in the FMSF newsletter about her experience as therapist in FMSF spaces:

“I was at the April, '93 FMSF Conference. I was pained at the prevailing "Anti-therapist" attitudes, although there were exceptions. I was personally attacked on two different occasions by other parents at lunch when I acknowledged that I, at times, used hypnosis and guided imagery with my panic disordered clients with much success. (And yes, I am well trained in both modalities).” [45]

 

As all therapists could be implicated in ‘RMT,’ the demonization of therapists served to incite anti-therapist sentiment against all therapists.

 

Anti-therapist sentiment had legal implications, with numerous suits being brought against therapists alleging malpractice based on supposed ‘recovered memory therapy.’ Despite such suits being legally unprecedented [30] and many being unsuccessful, [29]  the pro-FMS sentiments, implying that any therapist who discussed abuse with their clients was guilty of practicing ‘recovered memory therapy,’ deterred therapists from accepting clients with a history of trauma. Dallam notes that “false memory rhetoric has also had a chilling effect on the willingness of therapists to believe and appropriately treat abuse survivors... Because of the risk of being charged with implanting false memories, some insurance providers are advising practitioners to refuse to take clients who allege delayed recall.” [46]

 

The resulting increase in anti-therapist sentiment supported the FMSF’s continued efforts to discredit therapy as a whole through political lobbying efforts against therapy practices, third party lawsuits against therapists, and targeted harassment campaigns against therapists.

Citations

[1] Elliott, D. M. (1997). Traumatic events: Prevalence and delayed recall in the general population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 811–820. 

[2] McKenna, M.A.J. (1992, October 18). Researchers at odds over repressed memories. Boston Herald. NEWS p.016

[3] Freyd, Pamela. (1998, April). Dear Friends. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 7(3), 1.

[4] Australian Health Services Commissioner (2005, September). Inquiry into the practice of recovered memory therapy. Office of the Health Services Commissioner. 

[5] FMSF Staff. (1993, November 3). How Could This Have Happened To My Child? Mind Control? FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(10), 3-4.

[6] Hochman, John. (1993, December 7). "Recovered" Memory's Real Victims. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(11), 9.

Reprinted from: Hochman, John. (1993, November 18). "Recovered" Memory's Real Victims. The Los Angeles Times.

[7] Hochman, John. (1994). Recovered Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome. Skeptic Magazine. 2(3). 58-61 

Featured in: FMSF Staff. (1994, May 4). Attention Readers. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 3(5), 13.

[8] Ofshe, R., & Watters, E. (1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria. Charles Scribner's Sons/Macmillan Publishing Co.

[9] Peck, R.I. (1993). Confronting the "false memory": An interview with Harold Lief. Addiction & Recovery, p. 20.

[10] Loftus, E.F. (1995, March/April). Remembering dangerously. Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 20-29.

[11] Pope, K. S. (1998). Pseudoscience, cross-examination, and scientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(4), 1160–1181. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.4.4.1160

[12] Freyd, Pamela. (1992, August/September). Dear Friends. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(8), 1.

[13] Freyd, Pamela. (1998, January/February). A Reminder. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 7(1), 2-3.

[14] FMSF Staff. (1992, May 1). Responses About Therapeutic Techniques. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(4), 2.

[15] FMSF Staff. (1993, February 5). Dear Prime Time Live. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(2), 1-2.

[16] FMSF Staff. (1996, July/August). Professionals Lack Consensus About the Use of Hypnotic Techniques for Recovering Memories. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 5(1), 6.

[17] Goldstein, Eleanor. (1993, January 8). Appended to Archives: Letters in Response. Incest Stories. [Letter to the editor] FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(1), 16.

[18] FMSF Staff. (1992, November 5). Trauma Theory. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(10), 2-5.

[19] FMSF Staff. (1997, April 1). Unlicensed Therapist Settles Out of Court with Former Patient. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 6(4), 9.

[20] Goleman, Daniel. (1992, July 21). Childhood Trauma: Memory or Invention. New York Times. C1 

Reprinted in: Childhood Trauma: Memory or Invention. (1992, July 21). FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(7), 7.

[21] Freyd, Pamela. (1993, March 5). Our Critics: Dear Editor [Letter to the Editor of APS Observer]. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(3), 2-3.

[22] Piper, August. (1999, April/May). Comments on First Person Plural: My Life as a Multiple. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 8(3), 16.

[23] Orne, Martin & Orne, Emily. (1992, November). On the modification of memory in relaxed and hypnotic states. [Conference Presentation]. Cogniscience Section, National Center for Scientific Research. Paris, France.

Quoted in: FMSF Staff. (1993, June 3). Memory Enhancement. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(6), 8.

[24] FMSF Staff. (1993, January 8). Our Critics; Constructive Criticism: FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(1), 3.

[25] Kihlstrom, John. (1995, January 18). Recovered Memory Therapy Defined. [Electronic Mail Posting]. Traumatic-stress@netcom.com; Message-Id: Pine.SOL.3.91.950117112532.9979B-100000@minerva.

[26] Freyd, Pamela. (1997, November 1). Dear Friends. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 6(10), 1.

[27] Olio, K. A. (1996). Are 25% of clinicians using potentially risky therapeutic practices? A review of the logic and methodology of the Poole, Lindsay et al. study. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 24(2), 277–298.

[28] FMSF Staff. (1998, November). But It’s In The DSM. An Architectural Mind: The Nature of Real, Created, and Fabricated Memories for Emotional Childhood Events Dissertation by Stephen Porter. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 7(9), 3.

[29] Brown, D., Scheflin, A. W., & Whitfield, C. L. (1999). Recovered Memories: The Current Weight of the Evidence in Science and in the Courts. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 27(1), 82. 

[30] Bowman, Cynthia & Mertz, Elizabeth. (1996, January). A Dangerous Direction: Legal Intervention in Sexual Abuse Survivor Therapy. Harvard Law Review. 109 (3) pp. 576. 

[31] American Psychological Association, Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse. (1998). Final conclusions of the American Psychological Association Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Child Abuse. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(4), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.4.4.933

[32] Poole, D. A., Lindsay, D. S., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1995). Psychotherapy and the recovery of memories of childhood sexual abuse: U.S. and British practitioners' opinions, practices, and experiences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(3), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.3.426

[33] Pendergrast, Mark. (1996). Victims of Memory: Incest Accusations and Shattered Lives. Upper Access Books. ISBN 978-0-942679-16-8 

[34] Pendergrast, Mark. (1997, January 14). Don’t Demonize: A Message Of Compassion And Hope. [Conference Presentation]. Day of Contrition Revisited, Salem, MA, USA.

[35] Crews, Frederick. (1994, November 17). The Revenge of the Repressed. New York Review of Books. 

[36] Freyd, Pamela. (1992, October 5) Dear Friends. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 1(9), 1.

[37] Ostrow, Joanne. (1995, April 4). The Denver Post.

Quoted in: FMSF Staff. (1995, May 2) Reviews of Frontline’s Divided Memories. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 4(5), 3.

[38] FMSF Staff. (1993, August 30) Logical Thinking? FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(8), 12.

[39] Pendergrast, Mark. (2002, September/October). The Memory Room [Book Review]. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 11(5), 5.

[40] Ofshe, Richard. (1994, September 1). Sidebar. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 3(8), 10.

[41] A Recovering Mom. (2002, November/December). From Our Readers: Recovered-Memory Therapist: Definition. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 11(6), 11.

[42] Mom of a Retractor. (1996, September). Reconciliation with Your Daughter: Excerpts from the Indiana Conference. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 5(8), 14.

[43] A Mom. (1994, February 8) From Our Readers). FMS Foundation Newsletter. 3(2), 10.

[44] A Widow (1993, November 3). From Our Readers. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 2(10), 8.

[45] A Professional And A Mom (1994, October 1). From Our Readers: Rare Bird. FMS Foundation Newsletter. 3(9), 9-10.

[46] Dallam, Stephanie. (2002). Crisis or Creation: A systematic examination of false memory claims. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 9(3/4), 9-36.

bottom of page