Title: Experience and belief regarding childhood sexual ...



Recovered memories, satanic abuse, dissociative identity disorder and false memories in the United Kingdom: A survey of Clinical Psychologists and Hypnotherapists.

James Ost* ¥, Daniel B. Wright^, Simon Easton*, Lorraine Hope* and Christopher C. French+.

* Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

^ Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, USA.

+ Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK.

¥Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, King Henry Building, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK, PO1 2DY (e-mail: james.ost@port.ac.uk).

Acknowledgements: The authors thank all the respondents who completed the questionnaire. Thanks also to Julie Udell and Hartmut Blank for assistance with the project and to two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author note: This project was funded by a grant from the Odin Trust.

Recovered memories, satanic abuse, dissociative identity disorder and false memories in the United Kingdom: A survey of Clinical Psychologists and Hypnotherapists.

Abstract

An online survey was conducted to examine psychological therapists’ experiences of, and beliefs about, cases of recovered memory, satanic / ritualistic abuse, Multiple Personality Disorder / Dissociative Identity Disorder, and false memory. Chartered Clinical Psychologists (n=183) and Hypnotherapists (n=119) responded. In terms of their experiences, Chartered Clinical Psychologists reported seeing more cases of satanic / ritualistic abuse compared to Hypnotherapists who, in turn, reported encountering more cases of childhood sexual abuse recovered for the first time in therapy, and more cases of suspected false memory. Chartered Clinical Psychologists were more likely to rate the essential accuracy of reports of satanic / ritualistic abuse as higher than Hypnotherapists. Belief in the accuracy of satanic / ritualistic abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder / Dissociative Identity Disorder reports correlated negatively with the belief that false memories were possible.

The last fifteen years have witnessed one of the most contentious debates in the history of psychology (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005). This debate, referred to by some as the ‘memory wars’ (Crews, 1995; McHugh, 2008), centred on the validity of claims made by adults that they had recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse that they had previously been unable to recall (Davies & Dalgleish, 2001; Geraerts, Raymaekers & Merckelbach, 2008; McNally, 2003; Read & Lindsay, 1997). While the majority opinion was that the sexual abuse of children was more prevalent than had previously been thought, psychological opinion concerning the validity of claims based on recovered memories was divided on two key points. The first was whether individuals cope with traumatic experiences such as sexual abuse by blocking out conscious memory of the abuse (see Brown, Scheflin & Hammond, 1998; see also Erdelyi, 2006, and commentaries; cf. McNally, 2003; Piper, Lillevik & Kritzer, 2008). The second was whether certain therapeutic techniques might contribute to an individual developing a belief, or apparent memory, about having been sexually abused as a child when no such abuse had occurred (Lynn et al., 2003; Ost, 2010; Poole, Lindsay, Memon & Bull, 1995; Wade & Laney, 2008). This was far from being a dry academic debate – the legal implications were, and still are, substantial (Alison, Kebbell & Lewis, 2006; Lewis, 2006).

In reaction to the growing controversy, several psychological associations put together working parties to assess the evidence for these claims. In the US, the American Psychological Association’s working party, consisting of three clinical psychologists and three memory researchers, were unable to agree on a joint statement and consequently published two separate reports (see Alpert, 1996). Poole, Lindsay, Memon and Bull (1995) published the results of two surveys which, they argued, indicated that a substantial number of therapists were using potentially ‘risky’ practices. Not surprisingly these findings generated considerable controversy (e.g., Olio, 1996; and the reply by Lindsay & Poole, 1998). In the United Kingdom, a report written by the working party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was published as an academic article, rather than as an official statement of the college, due to disagreements among members of the working party (see Brandon et al., 1997). In fact, the British Psychological Society was the only professional body to produce a report and guidelines that met with the approval of all the members of their working party (Andrews et al., 1995), though not all members of the academic psychological community (Memon, 1995; Weiskrantz, 1995).

One criticism of the British Psychological Society survey was that it focussed on society accredited therapists (Weiskrantz, 1995) thus “ignoring unqualified therapists” (Memon, 1995, p. 156). Thus, the first aim of the present survey was to examine the extent to which psychological therapists’ experiences of, and beliefs in, key issues related to the recovered / false memory debate might reflect differences in training and clinical experience. We investigated this by targeting two samples. The first sample consisted of Chartered Clinical Psychologists registered with the British Psychological Society. The second sample consisted of Hypnotherapists who advertised their services in a classified directory, the Yellow Pages™. While advertising one’s services in the Yellow Pages™ does not mean one is unqualified, it is suggested that the majority of these individuals would have a different background with respect to training and engagement with more formal routes and accreditation processes. It is also suggested that such therapists may tend to be less familiar with the academic literature and research methods of clinical psychology than the Chartered Clinical Psychologists (although see Baker, McFall & Shoham, 2009).

In recent years a substantial body of experimental data has accrued that address directly some of the key issues that originally divided the field. However, no new data have emerged which reflect the extent to which recovered memories are still being encountered. Furthermore, only limited data exists with respect to the credibility such cases are afforded (see Gore-Felton et al., 2000). This was the second aim of the present survey.

Another contentious issue concerned claims of satanic / ritualistic abuse (Bottoms, Shaver & Goodman, 1996). Extensive investigations in North America (Lanning, 1992) and the United Kingdom (La Fontaine, 1998) found no evidence of widespread satanic abuse. Despite this, anecdotal accounts continued to appear (e.g., Scott, 2001). The existing data on the prevalence of satanic ritual abuse claims (e.g., Qin, Goodman, Bottoms & Shaver, 1998) is now more than ten years old and based on North American samples. Thus, determining a contemporary perspective as to the prevalence of such claims was a third aim of the present survey.

As McHugh (2008) notes, recovered memories of abuse were often tied to another diagnosis – that of Multiple Personality Disorder (now Dissociative Identity Disorder). The argument was that, rather than blocking out (or repressing) memories of trauma, children learned to cope by dissociating themselves from the abuse as it was happening (e.g., imagining themselves being somewhere else, see Giesbrecht, Lynn, Lilienfeld, & Merckelbach, 2008, for a critical review). If this dissociation occurred over an extended period of time, some authors argued that it could lead to a permanent splitting of personality (Gleaves, 1996). Historically this was a very rare diagnosis, yet the number of cases of reported MPD/DID began to increase rapidly after the mid 1970s (Hacking, 1995; Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003; Piper, 1995; Piper & Merskey, 2004). Many authors have questioned both the extent to which proposed alter personalities were distinct from each other (e.g., Allen & Movius, 2000; Huntjens et al., 2005, 2006; Kong, Allen & Glisky, 2008), as well as the underlying causes of MPD/DID-like behaviour. Is it a defensive reaction to trauma (Gleaves, 1996; Mollon, 1998; Morton, 1994), or is it iatrogenic (Aldridge-Morris, 1989; Lilienfeld et al., 1999; Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003; Mair, 1999; Merckelbach, Devilly & Rassin, 2002; Spanos, 1996; Sarbin, 1997)? Estimates of the prevalence of such diagnoses are difficult to obtain and vary between 1% and 7% in psychiatric samples (see Foote et al., 2006). Furthermore, there are limited data on the extent to which psychological therapists in the United Kingdom encounter clients who meet the diagnostic criteria. The collection of data pertaining to these aspects was the fourth aim of the present survey.

The fifth aim of the present survey was to examine the extent to which therapists encounter what they regard to be cases of false memory. Data from the British Psychological Society survey (Andrews et al., 1995) showed that while 67% of respondents believed in the possibility of false memories, only 15% had ever seen a case in their own practice. Given the extensive body of research on memory errors (e.g., Brainerd & Reyna, 2005) that has accrued since the publication of that report we wanted to gather data on the number of cases of suspected false memory seen by psychological therapists, and the extent to which they are thought to be possible.

Method

Sampling procedure

Chartered Clinical Psychologists (CCP): These were members of the British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology which requires Chartered Clinical Psychologist status[i]. Members of the Division were targeted using two methods. The first was via a full-page advert placed in a monthly publication (Clinical Psychology Forum) which is sent to all members of the Division of Clinical Psychology. Three adverts were placed in three consecutive issues (December 2007 through February 2008) containing a short statement of the aims of the research, a website for participants to access and complete the online questionnaire, and details of a prize draw. The exact wording of the advert was as follows:

“We have developed an online survey to obtain data on professional psychologists’ experiences, beliefs and practices regarding working with adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.”

As of 4th March 2008 a total of 57 responses had been received. Therefore, further potential respondents were targeted directly via email using contact details available from the Directory of Chartered Psychologists on the British Psychological Society’s website[ii]. This search resulted in a list of 1339 Chartered Clinical Psychologists who were offering their services to the public using this facility. Of these, 1170 included an email address in their contact details. These potential respondents were sent an email that contained the same text as the advert and a hypertext link to the online questionnaire. Of these, 181 emails were returned as undeliverable leaving a final contactable sample of 989. One hundred and twenty-six of these potential participants responded, representing a response rate of 12.7%. The two sets of responses (from the email and the advert) were combined to produce the final sample of respondents (n=183).

Hypnotherapists (HT): These were defined as those individuals who advertised in the ‘Hypnotherapists’ section of the Yellow Pages™ directory. Details of everyone who advertised their services in this section in all 110 directories for the UK were gathered. Their details were entered into a spreadsheet and each entry was numbered separately. To avoid double counting, entries were deleted if it was clear from the advert that the person was a Chartered Clinical Psychologist, or a member of the British Psychological Society. This resulted in a total sample of 2646. One thousand entries were then selected randomly from the spreadsheet using an online random number generator (). Every person in this sample was then mailed a postcard advertising the study giving a web address for the online survey and the details of the prize draw (the wording of the advert was identical). This initial postcard was sent in December 2007, with two reminder postcards sent in January and February 2008. Forty-three postcards were returned as undeliverable resulting in a potential sample of 957. One hundred and nineteen online questionnaires were completed, representing a return rate of 12.4%.

Questionnaire

Two versions of the survey[iii] were posted using an online survey tool (). The Chartered Clinical Psychologist email directed participants to one version, and the Hypnotherapist email to the other. The first section was entitled ‘You and your practice’ and respondents were asked to record demographic information, including their age, gender, years of post-qualification practice, therapeutic orientation and how clients were referred to them. The second section was entitled ‘Your clients’ memories of childhood sexual abuse’. Respondents were asked to give details of the types of abuse reported, the extent to which clients reported prior amnesia for the abuse and how reliable such memories were. Respondents were then asked whether it was possible that someone could come to believe falsely that they were abused if no such abuse had occurred (and to indicate how many cases they had seen). Next they were asked to indicate how many cases of satanic / ritual abuse, and dissociative identity disorder they had treated during all their years of practice. In both cases they were asked to rate the extent to which clients’ reports of such problems could be taken as essentially accurate.

Characteristics of the respondents

There were 302 respondents. Of these, 183 were from the Chartered Clinical Psychologist list and 119 were from the Hypnotherapist list. There were significantly more female respondents who were Chartered Clinical Psychologists (70.3%) than Hypnotherapists (57.7%), χ2(1, N=300)=5.10, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download