Jane Doe case

Last updated

The Jane Doe case is an influential childhood sexual abuse and recovered memory case study published by psychiatrist David Corwin and Erna Olafson (1997). [1] The case was important in regards to repressed and recovered traumatic memories because, being a well-documented study, it had the potential to provide evidence for the existence of the phenomena. [1] [2] The case served as an educational example of childhood sexual abuse and recovered traumatic memory [3] until further investigation by Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin J. Guyer revealed serious concerns about its background and validity. [4] [5] The original article appeared in Child Maltreatment in 1997, [1] accompanied by a series of articles by five additional psychologists and memory experts: Paul Ekman, [6] Stephen Lindsay, [2] Ulrich Neisser, [7] Frank W. Putnam, [8] and Jonathan W. Schooler, [9] giving their own comments and interpretations about the case.

Contents

Background

First interviews

Forensic psychologist David Corwin first interviewed Jane Doe in 1984 at age six, to evaluate sexual and physical abuse claims by her father and stepmother, allegedly committed by Jane's biological mother. [1] [3] At the time of these interviews Jane's parents were going through a custody battle, and both accused each other with wrongdoings such as tax fraud, failing to comply with visitation orders and physical abuse of the children. [4] In the absence of conclusive evidence about these allegations, Corwin was left to decide about their credibility, believing the father's version and discarding the mother's. [4] Corwin met Jane Doe three times as a child, videotaping the conversations with her, using the tapes and transcriptions as the basis of his analysis and evaluation of the abuse. [1] Six-year-old Jane stated on the videotapes several times that her mother repeatedly abused her, [1] but it was evident that this was not the first time she was asked to talk about what happened, raising the possibility for previous suggestions that could have influenced her. [2] [4] She reported instances of digital penetration while the mother was bathing her, and other physical abuse such as hitting her, pulling her hair, and burning her feet on the stove. [1] On the basis of these interviews, Corwin concluded that the mother was abusing Jane Doe, and as a result she lost custody over her daughter, including visitation rights. [3] [4]

Second interview

The second interview took place eleven years later, when Jane Doe was seventeen. [1] After her father and step-mother separated, she lived with her father until he became seriously ill and died. [1] [4] She was now living with a foster mother, and had some relationship with her biological mother. [1] [4] Jane wanted to see the old tapes because she was having trouble remembering what had actually happened. [1] [3] Corwin interviewed her in the presence of the foster mother. [1] She did not have any memories of the abuse such as the foot-burning episode, but she remembered the interviews and the accusations. [1] However, after further questioning Jane recalled some memories about a single episode in the bathtub, being hurt by her mother. [1] [3] Although still unsure whether her mother intentionally hurt her or not, the memories seemed vivid and powerful. [1] She also recalled accusing her mother of taking pornographic photographs of her and her brother, and selling these. [1] The origin of this recollection was uncertain, as it was not previously documented. [1] [7] Based on the lack of prior documentation, Loftus and Guyer later proposed that the memory was false and induced or suggested by outside sources. [10] [7] During the meeting, Corwin showed the old videotapes to Jane. [1] After watching the tapes, Jane was reluctant to believe that she would have lied as a child, and concluded that her mother must have hurt her. [1]

Interpretations

Corwin used the videotape and the transcript for educational purposes about childhood sexual abuse since the first interview, with consent given by Jane Doe's father. [1] The second session was later added and consent from Jane was acquired. [1] The recollection about the bathroom episode in the second interview was interpreted by Corwin as a repressed and recovered traumatic memory, [5] and the case-study was published in the May 1997 issue of the quarterly psychological journal Child Maltreatment (CM), the official journal of APSAC. [1] Several other psychologists (Paul Ekman, Stephen Lindsay, Ulrich Neisser, Frank W. Putnam and Jonathan W Schooler) also commented on the case in the journal, mostly in agreement with Corwin's interpretation, [6] [8] [9] and with some criticism from Neisser [7] and Lindsay. [2] After publishing this article, the Jane Doe case became influential, frequently used as an example in psychology and law, as an evidence for the repressed memory phenomenon.

Further research

Loftus and Guyer, skeptical of Corwin's evidence, conducted extensive research into the case, which involved finding the family through legal databases, as well as talking to friends and relatives. [5] They found additional information that Corwin had omitted, [4] indicating that the full story was more complicated than originally thought. They revealed details about the custody battle between the parents, with the situation eventually leading to the sexual abuse allegations. [4] They also discovered that the marks on Jane's feet and hand, serving basis for the claim that her mother burned her feet on the stove, were probably a result of a previous skin infection that looked ambiguous. [4] They also found a clinical psychologist report, which doubted the sexual abuse at the time, and a documented Child Protection Services investigation, that did not find reason to take action against the mother. [4] In addition, they found evidence of the father being a problem drinker and abusive towards Jane's older brother. [4]

Consequences

After the research and the interviews with the family members, Loftus and Guyer decided that Jane's mother did not abuse her daughter and that the case was based on false premises. [5] Jane Doe became convinced that the abuse happened, after Corwin showed her the eleven-year-old videotapes. [4] [5] She broke all contact with her biological mother, and complained about invasion of privacy at the University of Washington where Loftus worked as a professor. [5] The university started an investigation about the research, which went on for nearly two years hindering the publication of the findings that had great importance for the public. [3] [5] When Loftus and Guyer were eventually able to publish the case (2002) in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, [4] Jane Doe filed a civil suit against Loftus (Taus v. Loftus) and others involved in the research, revealing her real name (Nicole Taus) in the process. [5] Twenty of Taus' twenty-one claims were dismissed as strategic lawsuit against public participation, and in 2007 the lawsuit was largely settled, with just one defendant remaining (Harvey Shapiro, a private investigator who had obtained court records and arranged for the interview with the foster mother). [5]

Conclusion

The two part articles in the Skeptical Inquirer describing the underlying circumstances of the case presented quite a different picture from the abuse hypothesis published by Corwin in 1997. [4] This alternative explanation was supported by considerable evidence, indicating that Jane Doe was not abused by her mother, and her allegations and "memories" were probably the result of suggestions and coercions from her father and step-mother. [4] [5] Refuting the validity of the Jane Doe case ultimately challenged the repressed and recovered memory hypothesis, which was dominant in psychology for years, including the time when Jane Doe's father and stepmother first accused her biological mother of abuse. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Satanic panic is a moral panic consisting of over 12,000 unsubstantiated cases of Satanic ritual abuse starting in the United States in the 1980s, spreading throughout many parts of the world by the late 1990s, and persisting today. The panic originated in 1980 with the publication of Michelle Remembers, a book co-written by Canadian psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder and his patient, Michelle Smith, which used the controversial and now discredited practice of recovered-memory therapy to make claims about satanic ritual abuse involving Smith. The allegations, which arose afterward throughout much of the United States, involved reports of physical and sexual abuse of people in the context of occult or Satanic rituals. Some allegations involve a conspiracy of a global Satanic cult that includes the wealthy and elite in which children are abducted or bred for human sacrifice, pornography, and prostitution.

In psychology, false memory syndrome (FMS) was a proposed "pattern of beliefs and behaviors" in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by false memories of psychological trauma, recollections which are strongly believed by the individual, but contested by the accused. False memory syndrome was proposed to be the result of recovered memory therapy, a scientifically discredited form of therapy intended to recover memories. Originally conceptualized by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, the organization sought to understand what they understood as a general pattern of behaviors that followed after a patient underwent recovered memory therapy and to come up with a term to explain the pattern. The principle that individuals can hold false memories and the role that outside influence can play in their formation is widely accepted by scientists, but there is debate over whether this effect can lead to the kinds of detailed memories of repeated sexual abuse and significant personality changes typical of cases that FMS has historically been applied to. FMS is not listed as a psychiatric illness in any medical manuals including the ICD-11, or the DSM-5. The most influential figure in the genesis of the theory is psychologist Elizabeth Loftus.

Repressed memory is a controversial, and largely scientifically discredited, psychiatric phenomenon which involves an inability to recall autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature. The concept originated in psychoanalytic theory where repression is understood as a defense mechanism that excludes painful experiences and unacceptable impulses from consciousness. Repressed memory is presently considered largely unsupported by research. Sigmund Freud initially claimed the memories of historical childhood trauma could be repressed, while unconsciously influencing present behavior and emotional responding; he later revised this belief.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elizabeth Loftus</span> American cognitive psychologist

Elizabeth F. Loftus is an American psychologist who is best known in relation to the misinformation effect, false memory and criticism of recovered memory therapies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child abuse</span> Maltreatment or neglect of a child

Child abuse is physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological maltreatment or neglect of a child, especially by a parent or a caregiver. Child abuse may include any act or failure to act by a parent or a caregiver that results in actual or potential wrongful harm to a child and can occur in a child's home, or in organizations, schools, or communities the child interacts with.

The "lost in the mall" technique or experiment is a memory implantation technique used to demonstrate that confabulations about events that never took place – such as having been lost in a shopping mall as a child – can be created through suggestions made to experimental subjects that their older relative was present at the time. It was first developed by Elizabeth Loftus and her undergraduate student Jim Coan, as support for the thesis that it is possible to implant entirely false memories in people. The technique was developed in the context of the debate about the existence of repressed memories and false memory syndrome.

<i>The Courage to Heal</i> 1988 book by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis

The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse is a self-help book by poet Ellen Bass and Laura Davis that focuses on recovery from child sexual abuse and has been called "controversial and polarizing".

Susan A. Clancy is a cognitive psychologist and associate professor in Consumer behaviour at INCAE as well as a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University. She is best known for her controversial work on repressed and recovered memories in her books Abducted and The Trauma Myth.

Recovered-memory therapy (RMT) is a catch-all term for a controversial and scientifically discredited form of psychotherapy that critics say utilizes one or more unproven therapeutic techniques to purportedly help patients recall previously forgotten memories. Proponents of recovered memory therapy claim, contrary to evidence, that traumatic memories can be buried in the subconscious and thereby affect current behavior, and that these memories can be recovered through the use of RMT techniques. RMT is not recommended by professional mental health associations. RMT can result in patients developing false memories of sexual abuse from their childhood and events such as alien abduction which had not actually occurred.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) was a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 and dissolved in late 2019.

In psychology, memory inhibition is the ability not to remember irrelevant information. The scientific concept of memory inhibition should not be confused with everyday uses of the word "inhibition". Scientifically speaking, memory inhibition is a type of cognitive inhibition, which is the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or without intention.

In psychology, a false memory is a phenomenon where someone recalls something that did not actually happen or recalls it differently from the way it actually happened. Suggestibility, activation of associated information, the incorporation of misinformation, and source misattribution have been suggested to be several mechanisms underlying a variety of types of false memory.

Memory and trauma is the deleterious effects that physical or psychological trauma has on memory.

Child sexual abuse (CSA), also called child molestation, is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of child sexual abuse include engaging in sexual activities with a child, indecent exposure, child grooming, and child sexual exploitation, such as using a child to produce child pornography.

Trauma bonds are emotional bonds that arise from a cyclical pattern of abuse. A trauma bond occurs in an abusive relationship, wherein the victim forms an emotional bond with the perpetrator. The concept was developed by psychologists Donald Dutton and Susan Painter.

Linda Meyer Williams is an American sociologist and criminologist. She is senior research scientist at Wellesley Centers for Women and director of the Justice and Gender-Based Violence Research Initiative. She is also professor emerita of criminal justice and criminology at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on child maltreatment, research methods, and gender, race and crime. Williams has researched in the field of psychology on topics including child abuse, family violence and violence against women, and trauma and memory.

David L. Corwin is a board-certified psychiatrist, child and adolescent psychiatrist, and forensic psychiatrist. Corwin has done extensive work into the long-term impact of child violence and abuse on health, and has promoted family support and treatment programs. Corwin has worked as a consultant, a lecturer, a trainer, and an evaluator of suspected or known child sexual abuse cases throughout many countries, as well as serving as an expert witness of child sexual abuse cases. Corwin has founded, directed or chaired groups that serve to advance prevention and protection against child violence and abuse, as well as furthering the education and research of the impact of child abuse.

Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's name and that Nicole Taus had disclosed it herself when she filed the case under her own name. The court did find that Taus had alleged a prima facie case that Loftus had misrepresented herself during the investigation and that this one count may proceed to trial.

Simona Ghetti is Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, where she is affiliated with the University of California Davis Center for Mind and Brain. She is known for her research on the development of episodic memory, reconstructive memory, and metamemory in youth, with a specific focus on individuals who have had traumatic experiences.

The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse is a 1994 book by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, published by St. Martin's Press.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Corwin, David; Olafson, Erna (1 May 1997). "Videotaped Discovery of a Reportedly Unrecallable Memory of Child Sexual Abuse: Comparison with a Childhood Interview Videotaped 11 Years Before". Child Maltreatment. 2 (2): 91–112. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002001. S2CID   143444117.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Lindsay, D. Stephen (1 August 1997). "Jane doe in context: Sex abuse, lives, and videotape". Child Maltreatment. 2 (3): 187–192. doi:10.1177/1077559597002003001. S2CID   145227558.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Loftus, Elizabeth F. (Fall 2003). "On Science under legal assault". Daedalus. 132 (4): 84–86. doi: 10.1162/001152603771338823 . JSTOR   20027886. S2CID   57571903.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Guyer, Melvin J. (May–June 2002). "Who Abused Jane Doe? The Hazards of the Single Case History Part 1". Skeptical Inquirer . Vol. 26, no. 3. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. pp. 24–32. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tavris, Carol (January–February 2008). "Whatever Happened to 'Jane Doe'?". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 32, no. 1. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. pp. 28–30. ISSN   0194-6730. Archived from the original on 17 August 2017.
  6. 1 2 Ekman, Paul (1 May 1997). "Expressive behavior and the recovery of a traumatic memory: Comments on the videotapes of jane doe". Child Maltreatment. 2 (2): 113–116. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002002. S2CID   144434188.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Neisser, Ulric (1 May 1997). "Jane doe's memories: Changing the past to serve the present". Child Maltreatment. 2 (2): 123–125. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002005. S2CID   144924153.
  8. 1 2 Putnam, Frank W. (1 May 1997). "Commentary". Child Maltreatment. 2 (2): 117–120. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002003. S2CID   220341426.
  9. 1 2 Schooler, Jonathan W. (1 May 1997). "Reflections on a memory discovery". Child Maltreatment. 2 (2): 126–133. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002006. S2CID   145694407.
  10. ↑ Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Guyer, Melvin J. (July–August 2002). "Who Abused Jane Doe? The Hazards of the Single Case History Part 1". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 26, no. 4. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. pp. 24–32. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.