User:Donna's Cyborg/sandbox

History
In 1990 Jennifer Freyd privately accused her father Peter Freyd of sexually abusing her throughout her childhood, allegations which Peter denied. Peter and Pam Freyd reached out to Pam's former therapist Harold Lief for support in understanding how their daughter could believe what they considered to be false memories of abuse. Based on his conversations with Peter and Pam, Lief doubted any incestuous abuse had taken place and arranged for Peter to take a lie detector test with his colleague Dr. Martin Orne. Both Lief and Orne believed that poorly trained therapists could potentially implant false memories in their clients. The accusations between the family members escalated after Pamela Freyd published an article in 1991 titled “How Could This Happen? Coping with a False Accusation of Incest and Rape” in an obscure journal called Issues in Child Abuse Accusations edited by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield. Pam Freyd used the name Jane Doe but details made it obvious who the author was, thus outing daughter Jennifer Freyd. Pam's article caught the attention of Philadelphia Inquirer journalist Darrell Sifford, who wrote an article about their story which generated a significant response from parents claiming to be similarly falsely accused.

The responses to Sifford's article convinced Peter and Pam that an organization for those claiming to be falsely accused of incest was necessary, and in March 1992 they formed the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) out of their home in Center City, Philadelphia. Harold Lief, Martin Orne, Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield encouraged the couple and provided early support to the foundation, helping the FMSF attract academics to join its scientific advisory board.

Drawing on a talk given by research psychologist and then FMSF advisor John Kihlstrom, the foundation coined the term False Memory Syndrome to define allegedly false memories of trauma and/or sexual abuse which, according to the FMSF, had been recovered as an adult during therapy using a variety of therapeutic techniques, commonly referred to as Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT), which the foundation considered dangerous and likely to produce false memories. The FMSF claimed such therapies were commonplace and had created an epidemic of false accusations, supporting the need for an organization to provide research and advocate for others claiming to have been falsely accused. Critics of the FMSF have challenged the claim that RMT, such as the use of hypnosis, guided imagery and sodium amytal, were ever in common usage among mainstream clinicians.

Initially the Foundation sought to document the phenomena of false memories, relate to other parents accused by their adult children, and to raise awareness in the media. Other founding members of the FMSF were psychiatrists from Philadelphia, Martin Orne, Harold Lief and Ray Hyman.

Reception and impact
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation had a swift and significant impact on media coverage of child sexual abuse. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, investigative reporter Mike Stanton described the FMSF as "an aggressive, well-financed p.r. machine" and attributed a significant shift in media coverage from a largely sympathetic focus on survivors to an overwhelming focus on false accusations to the foundation. Sociologist Katherine Beckett published research analyzing media coverage of child sexual abuse from 1980 to 1994, finding that in 1991 82% of stories in the media were supportive of alleged survivors and described forgetting and later remembering sexual abuse as normal. By 1994, however, the trend reversed to 85% of stories focusing on allegedly false accusations, with a significant majority of these stories emphasizing false memories, a trend Beckett attributed largely to the FMSF.

The FMSF gained support from among experimental researchers who agreed with the foundation's claims that dangerous therapeutic practices were widespread among mental health clinicians, that these practices could implant false memories in clients, and that this was causing an epidemic of false accusations of childhood sexual abuse. Researchers associated with, or sympathetic to, the FMSF have published research claiming to validate such claims and the existence of False Memory Syndrome as a distinct diagnosis. Based on this research FMSF and supportive researchers claimed that tens of thousands, or even millions, of therapy clients likely suffered from false memories of childhood sexual abuse.

Claims made by the FMSF and the research published by the foundation's supporters have come under scrutiny. The term Recovered Memory Therapy is rarely, if ever, used by clinicians and has been criticized as a pejorative that does not designate "a specific or a generally accepted category of psychotherapy," which "is not found in textbooks on psychotherapy" and is not "taught in graduate programs." Critics have raised a number of methodological concerns about research purporting to show large numbers of clinicians implant false memories in clients through the use of dangerous techniques and have thus created an epidemic of False Memory Syndrome. Such critics allege concepts like Recovered Memory Therapy and repression are not well operationalized in this research; that surveys of clinicians conflated suspicion of abuse with certainty; that FMSF survey research assumed an overly simplistic connection between clinician beliefs and practices; that techniques considered potentially beneficial when used properly were assumed harmful regardless of context and without sufficient evidence; that this research assumed all memories of abuse resulting from delayed recall were "objectively false" without corroboration; that such research relied on diagnosing False Memory Syndrome without examining those supposedly suffering from the disorder; and that experiments using the Lost in the mall technique lack ecological validity when applied to clients claiming delayed recall of alleged sexual abuse....

Paragraph on lawsuits

Paragraph on how this affected clinicians and patients.

Maybe a paragraph on feminist/survivor crits and pam freyd's response.

place holder/cut text
Critics have also argued that concepts like Recovered Memory Therapy and repression are not well operationalized in survey research purporting to show a significant proportion of clinicians employ dangerous techniques as a result of an unscientific belief in repressed memories. Critics have also questioned the methodology by which the FMSF and its scientific advisory board decided which memories of abuse were "objectively false".

J.A. Walker claimed the FMSF reversed the gains made by feminists and victims in gaining acknowledgment of the incestuous sexual abuse of children. Responding to this criticism the Foundation stated, "Is it not 'harmful to feminism to portray women as having minds closed to scientific information and as being satisfied with sloppy, inaccurate statistics? Could it be viewed as a profound insult to women to give them slogans rather than accurate information about how memory works'". S.J. Dallam criticized the foundation for describing itself as a scientific organization while undertaking partisan political and social activity.

The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized as lacking evidence and disseminating alleged inaccurate statistics about the problem.

While the existence of a specific diagnostic "syndrome" is debated, including amongst FMSF members, researchers affiliated with the FMSF have said that a memory should be presumed false if it involves accusations of satanic ritual abuse due to the unsubstantiated nature of reports and the 1992 FBI investigation on the matter. They further say that memories for events beginning between "birth and age 2" should be considered "with extreme caution". A distinguishing feature of FMS is that the memories were discovered after starting specific forms of therapy and considerable effort and time was taken to recover them through methods such as hypnosis, guided imagery, or attendance in groups that have a specific focus on recovering memories. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality. Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy. The claims of supposed abductees and ritual abuse victims became a powerful reminder of how false ideas can become incorporated into an explanation of one’s life problems.

Astrophysicist and astrobiologist Carl Sagan cited material from a 1995 issue of the FMS Newsletter in his critique of the recovered memory claims of UFO abductees and those purporting to be victims of Satanic ritual abuse in his last book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Accusations against Peter Freyd
A primary impetus for the formation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was allegations made privately by memory researcher Jennifer Freyd against her father Peter Freyd. Jennifer claimed to have recovered memories of abuse shortly after seeking treatment by a therapist for issues related to severe anxiety regarding an upcoming visit from her parents. In 1991, Pamela Freyd published an anonymous first-person account of the accusation in an obscure journal that focused on false accusations of child sexual abuse. The article was reproduced and circulated widely, including to Dr. Freyd's psychology department at the University of Oregon where she taught. Jennifer Freyd later stated that copies sent to her workplace contained notes de-anonymizing the article and that it contained numerous inaccuracies, including the circumstances of the original memories of abuse and the portrayal of her personal life. In particular, Jennifer claimed that while she had experienced the return of some previously dissociated memories, she also had ongoing memory of a pattern of boundary violations and inappropriate sexualization on the part of her father Peter. Peter and Pam have largely affirmed this description of Peter's behavior, while insisting that no physical boundaries were ever crossed. Jennifer's sister and paternal uncle, both of whom are also estranged from Peter and Pam, have said they believe Jennifer's allegations.

The Paidika Interview
The controversy surrounding the Paidika interview can go here, extra space should let us more fully include Underwager and Wakefield's response to the criticism they received.

Criticisms of FMSF claims of an epidemic
This section should include scholarly criticisms of empirical claims made by FMSF, i.e. that "recovered memory therapy" was common and that those who "recover" memory primarily do so in therapeutic settings.

<!-- This whole section needs a rewrite

The FMSF was formed one year later by Pamela and Peter Freyd, with the support and encouragement of therapists Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager. Initially the early membership and advisory board of the FMSF consisted of parents who had been accused of sexually abusing their now-adult children when they were younger, but it rapidly expanded to include professionals with expertise in the area of memory.

Ralph Underwager was a member of the foundation's scientific advisory board in 1993 when his comments from a 1991 interview he and his wife Hollida Wakefield gave to Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia came to public awareness. The article contained statements which were interpreted as supportive of paedophilia. In particular, when asked "Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?" Underwager responded, Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made." Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs). In the controversy that followed, Underwager resigned from the FMSF's scientific advisory board. Underwager later stated that the quotations in the Paidika article were taken out of context, used to discredit his ability to testify in courts and, through guilt by association, damage the reputation of the FMSF.

The founders of the FMS Foundation were concerned alleged 'recovered memories' were being reported after the use of controversial therapy techniques, including hypnosis, relaxation exercises, guided imagery, drug-mediated interviews, body memories, literal dream interpretation and journaling. It is the position of the FMSF that there is no scientific evidence that the use of consciousness-altering techniques such as these can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information about previously forgotten past experiences, including sexual abuse.

According to the FMS Foundation, "The controversy is not about whether children are abused. Child abuse is a serious social problem that requires our attention. Neither is the controversy about whether people may not remember past abuse. There are many reasons why people may not remember something: childhood amnesia, physical trauma, drugs or the natural decay of stored information. The controversy is about the accuracy of claims of recovered "repressed" memories of abuse. The consequences profoundly affect the law, the way therapy is practiced, families and people's lives." -->