Elizabeth Loftus

100

Elizabeth Loftus : biography

1944 –

Loftus’ first study using the lost in the mall technique was criticized by Lynn Crook and Martha Dean based on the ethics of the subject recruitment method used. Also, Kenneth Pope has argued she inappropriately generalized the findings to draw conclusions about false memories and therapeutic techniques. Loftus published a rebuttal to these criticisms which purported to point out errors, exaggerations, and omissions regarding her research and stated that the criticisms appeared to be based on personal animosity rather than a valid understanding of the research. Regarding the ethics of the creation of the study, Loftus stated that it was primarily a colleague who piloted the study with his daughter, and later revisited the idea as part of an undergraduate class she was teaching. She also emphasized that participants demonstrated no adverse effects upon follow-up and pointed out that the study design and findings had been replicated repeatedly, demonstrating the soundness of the conclusions. In addition to opposition from fellow researchers, Loftus has been insulted by a prosecutor, attacked by an airplane passenger who recognized her, received hate mail and death threats, and has had to have protection from security guards while giving invited addresses.

After criticizing the theory of recovered memory and testifying about the nature of memory and false allegations of child sexual abuse as part of the day care sex abuse hysteria, Loftus was subject to on-line harassment by conspiracy theorist Diana Napolis, who believed Loftus was engaged in satanic ritual abuse or assisted in covering up these crimes as part of a larger conspiracy.

"Jane Doe" case

The case that has arguably had the biggest negative impact on Loftus is that of "Jane Doe" (real name Nicole Taus). In 1997, David Corwin and his colleague Erna Olafson published a case study of an apparently bona fide case of an accurate, recovered memory of childhood sexual abuse. Skeptical, Loftus and her colleague Melvin Guyer decided to investigate further. Using public records and interviewing people connected to Taus, they uncovered information Corwin had not included in his original article—information that they thought strongly suggested Taus’ memory of abuse was false. While Loftus and Guyer were conducting their investigation, Taus contacted the University of Washington and accused Loftus of breaching her privacy. In response, the university confiscated Loftus’ files and put Loftus under investigation for 21 months, forbidding her to share her findings in the mean time. She was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing by the university, and allowed to publish her findings

  • in 2002.

In 2003, Loftus, the University of Washington and a few others were sued by Taus regarding the 2002 publication. The suit initially involved allegations of invasion of privacy, defamation, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress; 21 counts and causes of action in total. However in February, 2007 the Supreme Court of California dismissed all but one count under strategic lawsuit against public participation legislation. The single remaining count was Taus’ claim that Loftus had misrepresented herself as Corwin’s supervisor in interviewing Taus’ foster mother. The case was settled in August, 2007 when Loftus’ insurance company agreed to a nuisance settlement of $7,500 rather than cover the cost of a trial for the one remaining allegation. Taus’ legal bill was $450,578.50. Loftus published her own analysis of the case in 2009.

In 2002, Loftus left the University of Washington and her Seattle home of 29 years to work at the University of California, Irvine where she is a Distinguished Professor of Social Ecology, and a Professor of Law, and of Cognitive Science in the Departments of Psychology and Social Behavior, and Criminology, Law, and Society. She is also director of The Center for Psychology and Law and a Fellow of The Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. Loftus’ work since arriving at UCI has looked at the behavioral consequences and potential benefits of false memories, such as the ability of false memories to reduce the desire to eat certain foods.