Despite the Underwager flap, the FMSF continued to gain momentum and prestige, mostly through its academic and professional connections.  Peter and Pamela Freyd enlisted the support of their psychiatrist, University of Pennsylvania Medical School professor Dr. Harold Leif who joined their Scientific and Advisory Board.  The network of illustrious researchers who came to the Foundation’s aid hailed from around the US and elsewhere, among them: Drs. Jean and Loren Chapman (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Drs. Harrison Pope and Fred Frankel (Harvard University), Dr. Richard Green (Charing Cross Hospital; London, UK); Dr. Ernest Hilgard (Stanford University), Dr. Robert Karlin (Rutgers University), Drs. Jolyon West and John Hochman (University of California, Los Angeles), Dr. Susan McElroy (University of Cincinnati), Dr. Harold Merskey (University of Western Ontario), Dr. Ulric Neisser (Cornell University), Dr. Michael Simpson (Centre for Psychological & Traumatic Stress; Pretoria, South Africa), Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (University of Washington) and Drs. Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe (University of California, Berkeley). In addition, the board included such non-academics as writer Martin Gardner, and famed stage magician James Randi (“The Amazing Randi”).

Dr. Leif also managed to bring in other supporting academics from the University of Pennsylvania, including Dr. Lila Gleitman, Dr. Henry Gleitman, Dr. David Dinges, and Dr. Aaron Beck.  In addition, two more UPenn faculty members joined the board: Emily Carota Orne, and her husband, Dr. Martin Orne. 

The heavyweight academic support for the concept of false memory syndrome gave it growing credibility to the public.  In a 1996 book published by the American Psychological Association (APA) titled Recovered Memories of Abuse, authors Dr. Kenneth Pope and Laura Brown emphasized the critical importance the Scientific and Advisory Board had in popularizing the concept of false memory, and the implications of its opinions:*

[These experts‘]  contribution of time, money, reputations, and credibility to the goals and work of FMSF may represent a significant, if not crucial factor in the Foundation’s success.  The Scientific and Professional Advisory Board’s implicit endorsement of the FMS diagnosis may help explain why such FMSF claims are so vividly reflected in the professional literature, expert testimony, and the popular media.  If widely accepted, claims about an FMS epidemic traced to therapeutic malpractice may influence diagnosis and treatment for many people, the access or lack of access that intervals have to various services, and the clinical, forensic, and public response to those who report memories of childhood abuse.

The Freyds initially found success in publicizing their plight in their local newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer.  Due to the public relations efforts of their newly founded organization, the FMSF, over 300 articles on false memory would reach the mainstream from 1992-1994.  In 1995 the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a two-part Frontline documentary titled "Divided Memories," which cast huge doubt on the validity of recovered memories by conflating them with such issues as past-life regression, and by looking at some of the means by which they surface.  Journalist Mike Stanton, in a 1997 Columbia Journalism Review paper characterized the television special as “...a four-hour polemic, including an interview with the Freyds, that gave short shrift to confirmed cases of recovered memories.”  Stanton went on to give further speculation as to why the FMSF PR machine proved so successful, especially during this early stage:

A reporter making an honest effort to tell both sides finds it difficult to penetrate a world where many victims are reluctant to surrender their privacy.  Instead of digging out the story for themselves, reporters take a soft-news approach--just as many did earlier with implausible stories of victimization--and allow themselves to be swayed by tearful parents, leaving the FMSF to package the hard news in a slick press kit.

The overwhelmingly positive press coverage, and the prestige lent by such academic stars as Dr. Orne, helped the FMSF amass funds.  While some of the Foundation’s income came from membership dues, it received tremendous outside support, in substantial part from wealthy patrons.  While at their height boasting a figure of between 13,000-21,000  members in 1994, Stephanie Dallam and other researchers reviewing their tax records over this time, proved these numbers were inflated.  Because it is an officially recognized as a 501 (c) (3) charity, whose benefactors are allowed to declare their contributions as tax deductions, the FMSF was required to make its tax records public.  Although not required to do so, the Foundation listed its membership at this time at 2,385 members. 

Currently, FMSF membership dues are $100 per family, per year.  Assuming that membership dues were approximately the same as they are now, then their annual income would be about $238,500.   During this time (the early to mid-90s), however, their annual operating budget was $700,000-$750,000 per year.  So approximately two-thirds of their budget came from private sources. 

Summarizing this post and the one before it, Pamela and Peter Freyd relied upon the authority of Ralph Underwager, both as a psychologist/expert witness and as Lutheran minister, to legitimize their claim that recovered memories of abuse are usually false.  When an interview with Underwager and his wife cast doubt on the Underwagers’ true attitudes about pedophilia, the Freyds turned to other experts who were closer to home.  These experts networked with other like-minded academics who gave the fledgling FMSF even more prestige than it had before.  This prestige helped them wage a public relations campaign to put false memory syndrome in the public eye as scientific fact.  The publicity garnered additional funding allowing the Foundation to engage in even more PR.

Yet despite the accolades and achievements of the FMSF’s advisory board members, many academics have viewed the organization and its claims with a high degree of skepticism.  At the center of their concerns are a number of tough questions.  What is false memory?  What is false memory syndrome?  Are memories easily “implanted” by naive, incompetent or unscrupulous shrinks?  Are traumatic memories the same as normal memory?  Can people actually recovery memories after suppressing them, and if so could those memories be accurate?

_____________________
*Dr. Pope was formerly the Chair of the APA’s Ethics Committee.