Memo to Pope: Ask the real questions, please.

Science as careful questioning: Are claims of a false memory syndrome epidemic based on empirical evidence?

“…Pendergrast (1997) takes issue with the following sentence in my article: “A relatively recent set of claims hold that many therapists—for reasons as diverse as well-meaning naiveté, greed, incompetence, and zealotry—suggest a history of childhood sexual abuse to clients who have no actual abuse history” (Pope, 1996, p. 957). He writes, “Contrary to Pope’s (1996) implication, I do not believe that such therapists are motivated primarily by money.…”

“…It is possible that this controversy’s deep divisions are reflected in characterizations of my article and its approach: one set of letters confining themselves to such descriptions as “thoughtful” and “careful” (Spiegel, 1997, this issue), “scholarly” (Alpert, 1997, this issue), “admirably reasoned and thorough” (Gold, 1997, this issue), and “scientific” and “bring[ing] reason and civility into an emotionally charged … debate” (Saakvitne, Pratt, & Pearlman, 1997, this issue); the other seasoning positive comments with use of such terms as “deep disdain” (P. Freyd, 1997, this issue), “pious” (Pendergrast, 1997, this issue), “outrageous” (P. Freyd, 1997), “verged close to ad hominem” (Kihlstrom, 1997, this issue), “an effort to mislead people” (Poole, Lindsay, Memon, & Bull, 1997, this issue), and defamation of over one million people (P. Freyd, 1997; for an example of a more extreme response and its aftermath, see also “Correction Notice and Apology,” 1997).…”

“…Pendergrast (1997) states that the real scientific question is whether what he calls “massive repression” of child abuse is possible. He claims that there is “no good science to back up such an assertion, and I could not find even one clear-cut corroborated case of massive repression in my research” (Pendergrast, 1997, p. 990).…”

“…Pendergrast (1997) states that the real scientific question is whether what he calls “massive repression” of child abuse is possible. He claims that there is “no good science to back up such an assertion, and I could not find even one clear-cut corroborated case of massive repression in my research” (Pendergrast, 1997, p. 990). Pendergrast’s conclusion is similar to that stated by FMSF as early as 1992 in its discussion of legal aspects of FMS: “Psychiatrists advising the Foundation members seem to be unanimous in the belief that memories of such atrocities cannot be repressed.…”

Does Repression Exist? Memory, Pathogenic, Unconscious and Clinical Evidence

“…However, despite tremendous research efforts, the psychology community is polarized regarding the validity of this concept. On the one hand, in line with harsh criticism against psychoanalysis in general (e.g., Crews, 1998;Gross, 1978;Grü nbaum, 1984Grü nbaum, , 1998Grü nbaum, , 2002Macmillan, 1997Macmillan, , 2001, numerous investigators question the validity of repression, claiming that it needs to be abandoned (e.g., Bonanno & Keuler, 1998;Court & Court, 2001;Pendergrast, 1997;Piper, Pope, & Borowiecki, 2000; H. G. Pope, Oliva, & Hudson, 1999). On the other hand, psychoanalysis continues to be one of the central theories of psychopathology, and many investigators believe that repression is a valid concept (e.g., Bowers & Farvolden, 1996;Brown, Scheflin, & Whitfield, 1999;Cheit, 1998;Eagle, 2000aEagle, , 2000bTalvitie & Ihanus, 2003;Westen, 1998aWesten, , 1999.…”