Loftus Elizabeth F
Ethics Behav. 1999;9(1):51-60. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0901_4.
Readers of Ethics and Behavior have been treated to a misrepresentation of my research on planting false memories, to a misstatement of the actual empirical finidngs, and to a distortion of the history of the development of the idea for this line of research. The partisan essay by Crook and Dean which appears in this issue ("'Lost in a Shopping Mall' -- A Breach of Professional Ethics") is disturbing not only because of its errors, exaggerations, and omissions, but because, in some instances, the quality of the argument makes one wonder whether these were innocent mistakes or a deliberate attempt to distort my work. Some of these errors can be explained by simple lack of scientific competence. However, others are sufficiently bizarre that they cast doubt on the process that led to the acceptance of a manuscript written by an individual who has continually made her animosity toward me very publicly known (e.g., Boerner, 1996; Neimark, 1996).
《伦理与行为》的读者们看到的是对我关于植入虚假记忆研究的歪曲,对实际实证结果的错误陈述,以及对这一研究思路发展历程的扭曲。本期中克鲁克和迪恩所写的党派性文章(《“迷失在购物中心”——违反职业道德》)令人不安,不仅因为其中的错误、夸张和遗漏,还因为在某些情况下,其论证质量让人怀疑这些是无心之失还是蓄意歪曲我研究成果的企图。其中一些错误可以用科学能力的简单欠缺来解释。然而,其他一些错误却极为离奇,让人对导致一篇由一个一直将她对我的敌意公之于众的人所写的稿件被接受的过程产生怀疑(例如,博纳,1996年;内马克,1996年)。