Of the several cases reviewed in the article, Loftus includes "the case of Jennifer H" (p. 26). Though Loftus ostensibly offers Hoult a degree of anonymity by using an initial for her last name, she actually identifies Hoult by citing the case (Hoult v. Hoult) in the article. In an interview with Treating Abuse Today, Hoult stated that Loftus's article distorts her case through a broad range of unethical practices. Among others, Hoult asserts that Loftus misrepresents her competence, expertise, and personal motivation to speak as an expert on trauma and abuse. As many others have already pointed out, Loftus has never worked as a clinician and thus lacks training or clinical experience in child psychology, trauma, the processes of traumatic memory, the evaluation of alleged sex offenders, and child sexual abuse generally. In this regard, Hoult alleges that Loftus violated a number of APA ethics guidelines, including the need for truthfulness and candor, misuse of influence, and making claims outside the area of her expertise.

Hoult also alleges that Loftus used mischaracterization and omission of facts to misconstrue Hoult's legal case against her father. She pointed out many inaccuracies that support this allegation. In the article, for instance, Loftus claims that "Jennifer was a 23-year-old musician who recovered memories in therapy of her father raping her from the time she was 4" (1995, p. 26). Actually, Hoult began to remember the abuse at 24, at which time she was an artificial intelligence software engineer. Records in the case show that the bulk of her memories emerged outside of therapy. Furthermore, Hoult never stated that the rapes began when she was four, a "fact" apparently created by Loftus for the purposes of her article.

In another passage, Loftus claims that Hoult "remembered one time when she was raped in the bathroom and went to her mother wrapped in a towel with blood dripping" (1995, p. 27). A review of court records, however, shows that Loftus has added two elements of her own making: the memory of the rape itself (the trial transcript shows that Hoult never claimed to remember a "rape") and the blood-soaked towel (again the transcript shows that Hoult only reported a small amount of blood between her legs, which wasn't visible to the mother until Hoult dropped the towel from around her body). Hoult argues that these misstatements by Loftus put her in violation of several APA ethics guidelines, among them ethics in media presentations and ethics regarding matters of law.

IT'S MAGICAL. IT'S MALLEABLE. IT'S . . . MISREPRESENTATION.

In October 1991, Lynn Crook brought a civil suit against her parents based on her delayed memories of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by her parents. Loftus testified as an expert witness for the defense. On March 4, 1994, the judge in the case ruled in Crook's favor, awarding her $149,580 in damages against her parents, who chose not to appeal the case to any higher court.

In the January/February 1995 issue of PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, Jill Neimark published an article titled "It's Magical. It's Malleable. It's . . . Memory." In her article, Neimark quotes Loftus, who gives an abridged and (according to Crook) seriously distorted account of her case against her father. In this part of the article, at the heart of Crook's ethics complaint, Loftus summarizes the legal case as follows:

Sometimes [Neimark states, summarizing Loftus] the memories become so seemingly fantastical that they lead to court cases and ruined lives. [Quoting Loftus] "I testified in a case recently in a small town in the State of Washington," Loftus recalls, "where the memories went from 'Daddy made me play with his penis in the shower' to 'Daddy made me stick my fist up the anus of a horse,' and they were bringing in a veterinarian to talk about just what a horse would do in that circumstance. The father is ill and will be spending close to $100,000 to defend himself." (Neimark, 1995, p. 80)

In an interview with Treating Abuse Today, Crook stated that Loftus's 79-word direct quote describing her case contained nine misstatements. "Loftus reworded events I recalled, and incorrectly claimed that a 'fantastical' memory had resulted in my filing this case." Crook pointed out, for instance, that Loftus contradicted her father's own sworn testimony that his health was "excellent." Crook also argues that Loftus should have pointed out that she (Crook) won the case, after presenting evidence that included testimony from two of her sisters who also remembered incestuous abuse perpetrated against them by their father.

Among other ethical concerns, Crook alleges that Loftus introduces the idea of memory progression ("from . . . to"), even though this claim had failed to hold up during the trial itself. During Crook's trial, Richard Ofshe, PhD, another prominent FMSF board member who testified for the defense, claimed to see a "progression" in her memories that called them into doubt. The judge in the case specifically dismissed Ofshe's attempt to cry "false memory" based on memory progression:

Finally, Dr. Ofshe characterizes plaintiff's memories as a progress toward ritual, satanic cult images, which he states fits a pattern he has observed of false memories. It appears to the Court, however, that in this regard, he is engaging in the same exercise for which he criticizes therapists dealing with repressed memory. Just as he accuses them of resolving at the outset to find repressed memories of abuse and then constructing them, he has resolved at the outset to find a macabre scheme of memories progressing toward satanic cult ritual and then creates them. (Lynn Crook v. Bruce Murphy and Lucille Murphy, Superior Court of the State of Washington In and For the County of Benton, #91-2-0011-2-5)

Despite the judge's statement, rendered from the bench, Loftus resurrected the "progression theory" in the PSYCHOLOGY TODAY article. According to Crook, Loftus should have indicated that her opinion had been rejected by the court, and that her failure to do so constitutes a violation of APA ethics guidelines dealing with truth and candor.

According to Crook, Loftus also transformed another memory, her recollection of the event involving the horse. In the quoted passage, Loftus does seem to imply that the memory involving the horse emerged as an elaboration and distortion of Crook's earlier memory involving her father, an implication that Crook denies. Crook also points out that Loftus omitted important information given by the veterinarian who testified during the trial. Though Loftus chose to present the possibility of anal penetration of the horse as a wholly fantastical absurdity, the veterinarian (who testified for the defense) pointed out that it's a common practice in veterinary medicine.

JUST TO BE BELIEVED

Crook told Treating Abuse Today that she hopes Loftus will be asked to corroborate all cases that she reports to the media. "I'm dismayed," she stated, "that Loftus would use her position as an expert witness in my case to try to prove to the public that I was yet another victim of 'repressed memory' therapy." Crook further stated that PSYCHOLOGY TODAY should have contacted her to check the facts of the case before they published Neimark's article.

While researching this story, Treating Abuse Today contacted the magazine's editor, Hara Moreno, to ask about the magazine's formal fact-checking policies. Oddly, Moreno became extremely hostile. She demanded to know "on whose authority" we had undertaken our investigation. She further stated that we didn't "know anything about anything," and that she would only speak with the APA about the ethics complaint. We tried in vain to get Moreno to understand that we didn't want her to discuss Crook's complaint, that we only wanted to know the formal fact-checking policy of PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. We never did get an answer. The editor of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER never returned our call to discuss that magazine's fact-checking policies, despite a promise from Brian Karr, the executive director of CSICOP, that the editor would speak with us.

In "Remembering Dangerously," Loftus warns that "supposedly de-repressed" memories could "trivialize the genuine memories of abuse and increase the suffering of real victims who wish and deserve, more than anything else, just to be believed" (1995, p. 29). Hoult argues that Loftus used her scientific credentials in an unscientific effort to trivialize her memories of violent abuse. "I've proven the charges against my father in a court of law," Hoult stated, "before a jury of his peers. I am believed, by my family and my friends." Hoult went on to say that she expects ethical treatment from people who call themselves scientists, including Loftus.

Loftus in fact cites scientific considerations as the reason for her resignation from the APA. In her letter of resignation, she claims that the organization had "moved away from scientific and scholarly thinking." Loftus further stated that she had decided to resign "to devote her energies to the numerous other professional organizations that value science more highly and more consistently." During her tenure as an APA member, Loftus served "as President of two distinguished divisions (Experimental Psychology and Psychology/Law)," a fact she points out in her letter of resignation.

Alice Eagly, PhD, who presently chairs the APA Board of Scientific Affairs, expressed puzzlement over Loftus's abrupt resignation from the APA. Eagly dismissed Loftus's attempt to draw a "global judgment" regarding APA's commitment to science. She pointed out that the APA fosters a great many scientific endeavors, and that it publishes the premiere scientific journals in psychology.

Loftus stated in her resignation letter that she resigned largely because of the increasing drift of the APA "away from scientific and scholarly thinking and . . . towards therapeutic and professional guild interests." The APA, however, recently approved the FMSF as a continuing education sponsor, [for more information on the APA's action, please see "APA Approves FMSF as CE Sponsor" in the same issue of Treating Abuse Today (Vol 5 No 6/Vol 6 No 1).] and one of Loftus's colleagues on the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board (Ulric Neisser, PhD) also serves on the APA Board of Scientific Affairs. Neisser declined to comment on Loftus's resignation. Treating Abuse Today sent written requests for comment to the other members of the Board of Scientific Affairs; with the exception of Eagly, none responded.

Peter Freyd, PhD, co-founder of the FMSF, issued a puzzling Internet statement (February 8, 1996) regarding Loftus's resignation. Under the subject heading, "It's their stupidity, stupid," Freyd stated:

The RMT ["recovered memory therapy"] people certainly go in for believing whatever rumors they like. For the record: there are no ethics complaints against Elizabeth Loftus. She resigned from the APA because it has moved too far from science.

From his brief statement, Freyd appears to endorse Loftus's claim that the APA no longer holds a strong, consistent commitment to science. The APA, however, recently recognized Freyd's organization as a continuing education sponsor, a move that many see as evidence of Loftus's claim that the APA has indeed moved away from science by entering into a partnership with an organization (the FMSF) that promulgates pseudoscience. Pamela Freyd, PhD, the FMSF executive director, declined to comment on the ethics charges filed against Loftus and her resignation from the APA.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1995). INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUALS FILING APA ETHICS COMPLAINTS [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Rules and procedures. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 47, 1612-1628.

Loftus, E. (1995, March/April). Remembering dangerously. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 19, 20-29.

Neimark, J. (1995, January/February). It's magical. It's mystical. It's . . . memory. PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, 28, p. 44-85.