The private practice of misleading deflection.

My publications were cited numerous times by Brown (April 1997). The extent to which my ideas were repeatedly and grossly misrepresented makes it difficult to conclude that some accident or misunderstanding occurred. I write to set the record straight and to correct those misrepresentations. Brown (1997) described what for her is a troublesome standard being imposed by individuals who have voiced concerns over false accusations, the standard of "banning of talk of violence" (p. 460). In the same paragraph, she quoted from my article "Remembering Dangerously" (Loftus, 1995) as supposed support for this "ban." I have never suggested or even thought about recommending the banning of talk of violence in therapy. Moreover, I am deeply resentful that Brown removed critical portions of my paragraph that would have shown that banning violent talk was not at all what the paragraph was about. To set the record straight, it is important for me to emphasize that although I am not a clinician, I have had the privilege of working with and teaching alongside many talented clinical psychologists (e.g., Loftus, Milo, & Paddock, 1995; Loftus & Yapko, 1995). I look to these colleagues for their ideas and advice on how to develop treatment strategies that will not inadvertently harm patients. When ideas come from a particular individual with clinical training and experience, I try to give credit where credit is due. One of the most respected members of my academic department, John Gottman, offered some excellent advice when he suggested that patients might be reminded that negative events in their lives do not completely cancel out all the positives (Gottman, 1994, p. 182). This origin for the advice was removed from Brown' s alteration of my paragraph and her misrepresentation of my views. Brown also left out this critical portion of the paragraph I wrote: "The glass that's half empty is also half full. Gottman recognized the need for some real basis for positive thoughts, but in many families, as in many marriages, the basis does exist" (Loftus, 1995, p. 28). The point of Gottman's advice, and my recounting of it, is that patients who are troubled by unhappy memories might also be encouraged, if it seems appropriate, to remember some happier times, assuming in fact there were some. This recommendation in no way bans talk of violence in therapy; it merely suggests that talk of positive aspects of childhood may be a beneficial part of therapy. Brown (1997) expressed her disdain for those who she claims forbid therapists from believing their clients' memories of abuse: "One of the prohibited acts is the suggestion that clients who are dealing with delayed recall of trauma be believed in any way" (p. 459). The very next sentence, offered to support her claim that people are actually giving this advice to therapists, is a quote from me that mentions fanciful guesses, fantasies, and confabulation. The quote was attributed to page 11 of a book called Confabulations: Creating False Memories, Destroying Families (Goldstein & Farmer, 1994). Although no quote from me could be found on page 11 of the cited book, I did find the "quote" on a list of quotations concerning confabulation in the book's front matter. Brown did not even quote the entire excerpt from the book's front matter, let alone make clear that the origin of the quote was obviously a longer discussion of hypotheses regarding recovered-memory experiences. Moreover, t h e r e is nothing in any of this material that warrants Brown's suggestion that I believe that therapists should be prohibited from believing clients' memories of abuse in any way. Why did Brown use a quote out of context to suggest that I hold a belief that I do not hold? Why did .she not choose to quote from another article that I had actually published in the American Psychologist, in which I said about memories that return in therapy: "Despite lack of corroboration, some of these recollections could be authentic. Others might not be" (Loftus, 1993, p. 533). Brown (1997) commented that "parents of adult clients are suing and complaining about therapists in growing numbers" (p. 460) and, in the same sentence, claimed that I had described this development as "a positive outcome of their struggle." She cited a personal communication in December 1994, as support for this alleged claim by me. Because I had no recollection of making this statement, nor is the language the kind of language that I use, I asked Brown for documentation. Brown said she had no documentation: "You talked about this at the first meeting of the working group. So you wouldn't have put this in writing. It was in context of comments that were being made in reference to the Gary Ramona case" (personal communication, April 26, 1997). I have no idea what Brown means by "a positive outcome of their struggle." These are not my words. I would not have said that "suing and complaining about therapists" was a positive outcome of Gary Ramona's struggle. Moira Johnston (1997) recently published a comprehensive and important new book about the Ramona case, Spectral Evidence. Spectral Evidence is about a landmark case in the mental health field. It is about a once successful winery executive whose daughter uncovered "repressed memoties" of her father molesting and raping her between ages 5 and 16. After the accusations spread through Napa Valley, Gary Ramona lost everything---his family, his home, his career, his reputation. Johnston wrote that although Ramona won a $500,000 verdict from the jury in his third-party suit against the therapists who he believed had destroyed his family and his life, "Gary Ramona saw nothing but loss" (p. 377).