I wrote several weeks ago about psychologist Lauren Slater’s new book, Opening Skinner’s Box –
Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. In a fascinating chapter about David Rosenhan’s “On Being Sane in Insane Places”, psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, the ‘godfather’ of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the Bible of psychiatric classification, is the subject of some very unflattering description. It appears that Slater has taken on a very formidable opponent; Spitzer has put his response to her portrayal of him in the public domain on the evolutionary psychology listserv. If Slater chooses to defend herself, we may be in for a monumental scientific-literary catfight. Be sure not to miss Spitzer’s final paragraph.
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D.Professor of Psychiatry
Chief, Biometrics Research Department
Unit 60, 1051 Riverside Drive
New York State Psychiatric Institute
College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University
New York, N.Y. 10032
Tel: (212) 543-5524
Fax: (212) 543-5525
E-mail: RLS8@COLUMBIA.EDU
February 21, 2004
Drake Mc Feely,President, WW Norton & Company
W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, INC.
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10110
Dear Mr. Mc Feely,
In the third chapter of Lauren Slater’s new book, Opening Skinner’s Box –
Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, she has extensive
quotes from a telephone conversation that we had several years ago. Several
colleagues who have read the book have asked me if the quotes are accurate,
since they found it hard to believe that I had actually made so many
outrageous statements. The quotes of me that appear in the book are either
outright fabrications or represent what Slater imagines I could or would
say.
It is of note that Slater could have – but did not – record our
conversation.
Here are some of the statements that Slater claims I made and why I am sure
I never made them.Spitzer pauses. “So how is David Rosenhan?” he finally asks. “Actually, not
so good,” I say. “He’s lost his wife to cancer, his daughter Nina in a car
crash. He’s had several strokes and is now suffering from a disease they
can’t quite diagnose. He’s paralyzed.” That Spitzer doesn’t say, or much
sound, sorry when he hears this reveals the depths to which Rosenhan’s study
is still hated in the field, even after 30 years. “That’s what you get,” he
says, “for conducting such an inquiry.” (p. 68)I never said this. I would certainly not have gloated over Rosenhan’s
illness.Spitzer says: “The new classification system of the DSM is stringent and
scientific.” (p. 80)You can search all of the many papers I have written about DSM-III. I have
never said it was “scientific” or “stringent.” DSM-III facilitates
scientific study but it makes no sense to say that it is itself
“scientific.” “Stringent” is a word I never use and incorrectly
characterizes DSM-III.“I’m telling you, with the new diagnostic system in place, Rosenhan’s
experiment could never happen today. It would never work. You would not be
admitted and in the ER they would diagnose you as deferred.”. “No,” repeats
Spitzer, “that experiment could never be successfully repeated. Not in this
day and age.” (p. 80)I would never have referred to Rosenhan’s study as an “experiment” nor would
I talk about it being “successfully repeated.” Slater seems to be saying
that I claimed that now, with the DSM, psychiatrists would not diagnose a
pseudopatient as having a mental disorder. I would not make such a claim. If
there were no reason to suspect the pseudopatient of malingering, I guess
that most psychiatrists now would also make an incorrect diagnosis – just as
the psychiatrists in Rosenhan’s study did. It would not make sense for me to
have made a blanket prediction (twice!) that it could never happen now.
Since DSM-III was published in 1980, why would I have referred to it as “the
new diagnostic system?”
This is a serious matter. As a reputable publisher you have an obligation to
investigate this matter and take appropriate action to stop these damaging
misrepresentations by your author.
I am enjoying reading Slater’s book, Lying: A Metaphorical Memoir (Penguin
Books, 2000). I am up to the part where she describes how she went through a
period of her life when she was a compulsive liar.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Elizabeth Loftus, the subject of another of Slater’s chapters, has also written to Slater’s publisher claiming misrepresentation:
University of California – Irvine
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697-7085
Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Psychology & Social Behavior
Criminology, Law & Society
(949) 824-3285 (TEL)
(949) 824-3002 (FAX)
E mail: eloftus@uci.edu
February 21, 2004
Drake McFeely,President, WW Norton & Company
W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, INC.
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10110
dmcfeely@wwnorton.com
Dear Mr. McFeely,
I am writing to inform you about a number of factual errors and serious
misrepresentations in Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box: Great
Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. Her Chapter 8, entitled
“Lost in the Mall”, is about my research. The chapter is riddled with
errors – some minor but others extremely serious. Moreover, quotes are
attributed to me that I have never said, nor would ever say. Here is a
sampling of some of Slater’s errors:
p. 183: Slater quotes me as saying that Ted Bundy“was wrongly identified in
a kidnapping charge.”I have never said that Bundy was wrongly identified.
During his trial I pointed to some of the difficulties with the
identification. However, I never said he was wrongly identified.
p. 184: Slater quotes me as saying that 25% of the sample is a
“statistically significant minority.”
I have called this figure a
significant minority of the sample, but would never say something so
scientifically improper as to call it a “statistically significant
minority.”
p. 184: I am also astounded that Slater would refer to my sometime co-author
and ex-husband, Professor Geoffrey Loftus, as “Gregg.” One would think that
someone who sets out to publicly explain and review a scientific literature
would be familiar with the names of its major contributors. Lest you think
that this sloppiness with names is an isolated case, let me quote from a
published review of Slater’s book in the London Mail on Sunday (February
15, 2004):
“It does not boost one’s confidence in her judgment, for instance, that
within the space of two lines she manages to spell the names of two famous
psychologists wrong: Thomas Szasz she spells ‘Sasz’ and R. D. Laing she
spells ‘Lang’. She also writes ‘per se’ as ‘per say’, which makes you wonder
if she knows what it means.”
p. 185: I did not claim that George Franklin’s daughter went to“some
new-age therapist who practiced all sorts of suggestion.”I did not make
subjects in the lab think that red signs were yellow. I did not say, as to
Eileen Franklin’s memories,“Untrue. All these details Eileen later read
about in newspaper reports.”The details included in Eileen Franklin’s
account were in fact available in newspapers, television accounts, and other
public places. As to where she might have been exposed to them I cannot say,
since I never interviewed her.
p. 191: Slater has a long quote attributed to me that uses words that I
would never have said. It beings:“The real facts are sometimes so subtle
as to defy language.”– I’m not ever sure I can even figure out what this
means.
p. 192: Slater refers to“the woman who yelled ‘whore’ [at me] in the
airport a few years back”.No woman has ever yelled “whore” at me in an
airport.
p. 192: Slater refers to“the egged windows of her home, the yolks drying to
a crisp crust”. No one has ever egged my home or its windows.
p. 193: Slater’s account of the Paul Ingram case is sloppy to the point of
leaving the reader with completely incorrect impressions. For example,
Slater writes of me“when she heard about this case, and the kind of
questioning Ingram underwent. She got in touch with her friend and cult
expert Richard Ofshe, who trundled down to see Paul in his jail cell.”Contrary to the impression conveyed by these words and those that follow,
namely that I had played some role in connecting Ofshe with Ingram, or in
Ingram’s subsequent decision to recant his confession, the truth of the
matter is that Ofshe had been working on the Ingram case and meeting with
Ingram in his jail cell, and Ingram had recanted his confession, years
before I had ever met Dr. Ofshe or had become involved with the Ingram case
at all. I first became interested in the case years after these events
occurred, when a television reporter who was suspicious about the case asked
me to help examine transcripts. Dr. Ofshe, and not I, deserves the sole
credit for his innovative work in this case.
p. 196: Slater makes a point of the fact that“..by the end of the
interview, I know not only Loftus’s shoe size but her bra size too.”The
reason Slater knows that is that she explicitly asked me for each of those
pieces of information. It makes me wonder what questions she asked of her
other interviewees.
p. 202: Slater claims that I slammed the phone down on her. I have no
recollection of ever slamming the phone down on anyone, let alone her. If
there was an accidental disconnection that occurred I would have explained
or apologized.
As you will become aware when you hear from other scientists and scholars,
there are additional serious factual and scholarly errors in other chapters
of Slater’s volume. Historically, W.W. Norton’s publications have been known
for matching the highest standards of factual accuracy of any scholarly
publisher, but I worry that lately these standards may have slipped. Could
you either confirm that my impression is accurate, or else let me know what
steps Norton will be taking to correct the factual error it has published in
Slater’s volume?
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.
