Alleged false accusations of abuse: characteristics, consequences, and coping.

ABSTRACTWe have very little knowledge about the characteristics and consequences of false abuse accusations. Sixty-one members of a German support organisation for allegedly falsely accused individuals provided information about themselves, the accuser, the accusation, the consequences of the allegation, and their coping strategies. The majority of respondents were male (90%), accused of sexual abuse (89%), and a parent of the accuser (71%). The initial allegations were frequently (72%) associated with the accuser undergoing psychotherapy. The consequences for the accused were psychological, physiological, familial, job-related, personal, and legal in nature. These included a loss of contact (98%), altered family dynamics (92%), depressive symptoms (48%), and problems focussing at work (44%). Eleven accused (18%) faced legal prosecution, but none of them were charged. Frequent strategies to cope with the allegation included contacting the victim support organisation (100%), seeking therapy (51%), contacting counselling centres (43%) and other victim support organisations (23%). Most of the accused felt supported by their environment (84%). Supporting and elaborating upon previous studies, this study exposes the potential consequences of alleged false accusations.

A Scale for Measuring Positive and Negative Experiences of Psychotherapy (PNEP): First Psychometric Findings of a New Instrument for Monitoring Clients' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Clients' adverse experiences during psychotherapy are rarely monitored in clinical practice or research trials. One obstacle here is the lack of a measure to gauge both positive and negative experiences during psychotherapy. We developed and evaluated a new instrument for measuring such experiences. METHOD: The Positive and Negative Experiences of Psychotherapy (PNEP) questionnaire was developed based on pilot data, a literature review, and two existing scales for measuring primarily adverse experiences during psychotherapy. Mental healthcare clients (N = 200) anonymously completed and evaluated the PNEP. Subsequently, a sample of professionals (N = 34) who underwent psychotherapy in the context of their training filled in the PNEP twice, with a 2-week interval in between. RESULTS: The positive and negative experiences subscales of the PNEP were found to possess excellent internal consistencies (αs ≥ 0.90). The PNEP test-retest reliability was 0.93 for the positive experiences subscale and 0.78 for the negative experiences subscale. For the positive subscale, four factors were extracted: symptom reduction and positive well-being, high quality of therapy and therapeutic relation, personal growth and acceptance and interpersonal functioning. For the negative subscale, exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor solution: escalation of symptoms and emotional distress, low quality of therapy and therapeutic relation and (self-)stigmatization and dependency. Participants related a median of 13 positive and six negative therapy experiences to their most recent treatment. The most frequently endorsed negative experiences were having more negative thoughts and memories, feeling emotionally overwhelmed and an increase in stress due to the therapy. A minority of participants (10.5%) reported no negative treatment experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In the field of psychotherapy, the evaluation of risks and benefits is crucial for assessing safety and effectiveness. The PNEP could be a promising instrument for achieving this objective, although further research is needed to replicate and expand upon the current findings.

Memory and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy: a potentially risky combination in the courtroom.

Does Eye Movement and Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy affect the accuracy of memories? This recurrent issue in recent memory research bears relevance to expert witness work in the courtroom. In this review, we will argue that several crucial aspects of EMDR may be detrimental to memory. First, research has shown that eye movements undermine the quality and quantity of memory. Specifically, eye movements have been shown to decrease the vividness and emotionality of autobiographical experiences and amplify spontaneous false memory levels. Second, a sizeable proportion of EMDR practitioners endorse the controversial idea of repressed memories and discuss the topic of repressed memory in therapy. Third, in the Dutch EMDR protocol, patients are instructed to select the target image by using flawed metaphors of memory (e.g., memory works as a video). Such instructions may create demand characteristics to the effect that people over-interpret imagery during therapy as veridical memories. Collectively, the corpus of research suggests that several components of EMDR therapy (i.e., performing eye movements, therapist beliefs and therapeutic instructions) may undermine the accuracy of memory, which can be risky if patients, later on, serve as witnesses in legal proceedings.

Psychological Myths as Therapeutic Instructions in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing.

The Dutch protocol for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) uses two psychological myths as part of the therapeutic instruction: memory works as a video camera and individuals can have a photographic memory. This study explored how participants experience and evaluate such instructions and if these instructions affect their beliefs on memory. Participants received a video, photo, or a control instruction. Participants indicated on a visual analog scale how vivid and emotional they expected to recall the traumatic memory, how credible the therapeutic instruction was, and how reliable they would consider a therapist providing such an instruction. Next, participants completed a memory belief survey. Participants who received the video instruction were most likely to expect to vividly recall a memory. The credibility of the instructions and the reliability of the therapist providing the instruction were at chance level, which might pose problems for the therapeutic alliance and therapy outcome.

Increases of correct memories and spontaneous false memories due to eye movements when memories are retrieved after a time delay.

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. However, literature on possible adverse memory effects of EMDR is scarce. Using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) false memory paradigm, we examined the susceptibility to spontaneous false memories after performing eye movements, as used in EMDR. In Experiment 1, 72 undergraduates received word lists containing negative and neutral associated words and immediately after this they were given a free recall and recognition test. In Experiment 2, 68 undergraduates underwent the free recall and recognition test 48 h later. During the free recall phase in both experiments, participants either performed eye movements or not (control condition). In Experiment 1, the two conditions did not differ statistically with regard to correct and false recall/recognition. In Experiment 2, correct memory rates were higher in the eye movement than in the control condition and this was accompanied by an increase in spontaneous false memories on both free recall and recognition. Although our experimental approach is far removed from clinical practice, our findings suggest that eye movements as used in EMDR might amplify both correct and false memory rates.

Lateral Eye Movements Increase False Memory Rates.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a popular treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. However, little is known about the memory effects of EMDR. Using a misinformation paradigm, we examined whether lateral eye movements, as used in EMDR, enhance susceptibility to false memories. Undergraduates (N = 82) saw a video depicting a car crash. Subsequently, participants either performed eye movements or held their eyes stationary. Afterward, all participants received misinformation in the form of an eyewitness narrative. The results indicate that eye movement participants were less accurate and were more susceptible to the misinformation effect than controls. Our finding suggests EMDR may have risky drawbacks in an eyewitness context and therefore urgently needs follow-up research.

Investigating the memory reports of retractors regarding abuse / Investigando la memoria de testigos que se retractan en casos de abuso

Background: Legal cases and research have shown that due to suggestive therapeutic interventions, people can start to remember abuse that they never experienced. Some of these people eventually retract their claims of abuse. This study examined the memory reports of self-defined retractors of abuse and the prevalence of nonbelieved memories. Method: In this study, a retrospective survey method was used to investigate 56 individuals who had retracted their claims of abuse. We examined details, plausibility, beliefs, and recollections of the abuse before and after retraction, as well as the reasons for withdrawing their belief and the outcomes of both recovered and retracted memories. Results: Twenty-four participants took significantly longer to retract the memories than to initially recover them. The belief in the occurrence of the abusive event and personal plausibility scores were significantly lower after the retraction, whereas the recollection scores were similar before and after the retraction. The main reason for withdrawing the belief in the abuse-related memory was the emergence of external evidence putting doubt on the retractors' claims. After the withdrawal of the memories, some retractors (n = 17, 70.83%, 95% CI [52.6%, 0.89%]) believed that they gained more benefits (e.g., giving them a new chance to re-build their lives and to establish new relationships with others). Conclusion: While the reliability of retractors' reports is unclear, these findings support related work on retractor memory reports and highlight the presence of nonbelieved memories within retractors' memory reports. (AU)

Antecedentes: Los casos judiciales y la investigación han demostrado que debido a intervenciones terapéuticas sugestivas, los pacientes pueden recordar abuso que no han sufrido. Algunos de estos se retractan de las denuncias de abuso. En esta investigación se analizan las memorias de testigos que se retractaron de las denuncias de abusos y la prevalencia de memorias implantadas. Método: Se investigó mediante un método de encuesta retrospectiva a 56 pacientes que se retractaron de la denuncia de abuso. Se analizaron los detalles, la verosimilitud, creencias y recuerdos del abuso antes y después de retractarse, así como los motivos por los que desistieron de la creencia en el abuso y los resultados de las memorias recuperadas y retractadas. Resultados: 24 participantes tardaron significativamente más en asumir la memoria de retractación de la denuncia que en la recuperación inicial de la memoria de abuso. La creencia sobre la realidad del evento de abuso y la plausibilidad de este fueron significativamente menores después de retractarse, mientras que los recuerdos eran semejantes antes y después de retractarse. El motivo principal para retractarse de la creencia en el recuerdo relacionado con el abuso fue la aparición de la prueba externa que sembró dudas en la declaración de quienes se retractaron. Tras haber desistido del recuerdo implantado, algunos de los que se retractaron (n = 17, 70.83%, 95% CI [52.6%, 0.89%]) manifestaron haberse beneficiado (e.g., les había dado una nueva oportunidad para reconstruir su vida y establecer nuevas relaciones con otros). Conclusión: Aunque no está clara la fiabilidad de los informes de los testigos que se retractan, los resultados avalan la investigación de la memoria de los testigos que se retractan y destacan la presencia de memorias implantadas en las declaraciones de los que se retractan. (AU)