The ethics of conducting ‘false memory’ research with children: a reply to Herrmann and Yoder

Child witness research has two central yet complementary goals: (1) to advance scienti®c knowledge, and (2) to address real-world problems. Research on children's eyewitness memory, including research on `implanted' or `false' memory, integrates the two goals well. In regard to scienti®c advances, valuable knowledge about how children encode, store, and retrieve information is gained. In regard to addressing real-world problems, important information is provided about children's capabilities in forensic interviews and courtroom encounters, information that is potentially relevant to the guilt or innocence of individuals accused of crimes against children. It is essential to weigh the utility of `false memory' research in relation to these two goals when discussing its future and ethics. In the present commentary, we respond to concerns raised by Herrmann and Yoder about the ethics of conducting implanted memory studies. We welcome discussion of ethical issues in eyewitness memory research with children, especially false memory research, and we agree with a number of general points made by Herrmann and Yoder. For example, the authors rightfully state that `future development of memory paradigms to be used with children should from the outset include consultation of the relevant child development literature'. As Thompson (1990, 1992) notes, the ability to conduct ethically sound research with children depends largely on consideration of children's cognitive and socio-emotional development. Another point raised by Herrmann andYoder is alsowell justi®ed: `Although the implantedmemory paradigm has increased knowledge about memory, we believe this research as it has been used with children raises ethical issues that should be examined'. We concur that empirical research should address the issues raised byHerrmann andYoder, and that researchers who have already conducted implanted memory studies should take the lead. However, we contend that such an examination should co-occur with: (1) appreciation of the signi®cance of implanted memory research for societal intervention into child maltreatment, particularly child sexual abuse, and for psychological theory; (2) more critical and complete analysis of the actual methodologies and results of false memory studies; (3) discussion of possible bene®ts to children of participating in child eyewitness studies; and (4) evaluation of other types of child witness research that may be more deserving of ethical scrutiny. We discuss these issues in turn. Finally, at the end