beliefs of British Psychological Society (BPS) practitioners revealed that many psychologists believe their clients' reports of ritual satanic abuse, despite the La Fontaine report (1994), which found no evidence of satanic abuse and despite any lack of police or other corroborative evidence for the practice. In addition more than 90 percent of those reporting such ritual abuse first “uncovered” the memories during dreams or hypnosis, mental states that are fertile ground for the formation of false memories. It has been argued, therefore, that recovery of false memories is a function of suggestive probing by the therapist or the influence of popular culture (Lindsay & Read, 1994). However, such claims are not supported by any systematic, empirical or ecologically valid evidence (Berliner & Williams, 1994). Indeed Elliott (1994), found only 15 per cent of subjects recalling abuse to have done so during psychotherapy, contrary to the figure of two-thirds from Roe et al. (1994), suggesting that more often than not factors other than therapy or the therapist are triggering the recall (Farrants, 1998).False memory proponents ignore the fact that there is a standard of care in psychotherapy literature, and unfairly deploy selective references to anecdotal accounts of bad practice to support their stance (Brown, 1995). The suggestion that therapists deliberately plant false memories has been criticized by McKissack (1996) on the basis that, if false memories are created by unscrupulous therapists, their motives would be, at the least, puzzling (Withers & Mitchell, 1995). Indeed, most professionally trained therapists are aware of the dangers. The fact that the BPS have issued guidelines to help prevent the creation of false memories in therapy is an indication of the awareness within the psychology profession of such risks (BPS, 1995). While the BPS guidelines suggest ways in which practitioners can minimize the risk of false memor...
