ABSTRACT
In psychology, interesting empirical effects have a way of accumulating more rapidly than theoretical understanding. This gap can become very wide when a topic captures broad scientific attention, provoking simultaneous experimentation in many laboratories. The burgeoning literature on false memory is a case in point. At the moment, spontaneous and implanted false memories are being intensively studied, outside as well as inside the laboratory, new research paradigms are being developed, and variables are being identified that affect levels of false reporting (see other chapters in this volume). Although the clinical community is still vigorously debating the pervasiveness of potentially falsifying therapeutic techniques (e.g., Berwin, 1997; Pope, 1996), there is no longer any serious doubt about the pervasiveness of memory falsification in the scientific (e.g., Loftus, 1995) and legal (e.g., State v. Hungerford, 1995; State v. Morahan, 1995) communities.
