Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Forensic Hypnosis

    Uploaded by

    Erika Arroyo Salas
    39 views40 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    39 views40 pages

    Forensic Hypnosis

    Uploaded by

    Erika Arroyo Salas

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 40
    Clinical Hypnosis and Memory: Guidelines For Clinicians and For Forensic) Hypnosis by D. Corydon Hammond, Ph.D., Richard B. Garver, Ed.D. Charles B. Mutter, M.D., Harold B. Crasilneck, Ph.D. Edward Frischholz, Ph.D., Melvi A. Gravitz, Ph.D., Neil S. Hibler, Ph.D., Jean Olson, MSN, RN, CS, Alan Scheflin, J.D., LUM, Herbert Spiegel, M.D., and William Wester, Ed.D. Second Printing, August 1995 “Third Printing, January 2008 AMERICAN SoctETY oF Ch IERF EDUCATION & RESE. INICAL HYPNOSIS RCH FOUNDATION ‘The pubicaon hn en cent by ene fe Hips nd Menory Canes be An Say of nel pn, who ack coon fr contre Al opin ered here hoe eho. Teil reeatred ot he soni tenes inany ren seo wl hg dpendct pon he ‘eet es tnd ceunmones bree et Seni, Acting he Anan Sccy of Ctl pase {Ett Recah Fons li ny an al marae expe ple, esngay e mae ‘einem coed nthe een. Cepsigis ©2004 Amen Sse of Ck Hypo Bacon Rach Fondation asf nthe Unie Soe rca No pt ot pun may be epee amen any frm oy 97 ean, ces: or etic, ‘lng psbcnon, eee adn sored rena en, mou te eae ween onset (te Aeron Soy Cal pons Edin 8 Reeth Fado. bay of Congres Cag in Pubcon Dat Gin yee memanypees ie e ‘ere ypsons yD. Conten Hamed) Pee Ince boggles). ISBN L6si0010 1 Iii ~Thenpeie we Sunda. 2 Foes pein Send 5. Menor. Bepeion (yedo) 5 Repesion (pedo) I Hmmond Cao Amer Se ok thal tip ‘1609 ea: 420 95.652 cP ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Definition of Hypnosis Section 1: Current Concepts About Memory an: Influencing Memory Section 2; Hypnosis and Memory Hypnosis, Nonhypnosis and Pseudomem ‘The Memory alteration Hypathesis ‘The Memory Coexistence Hypothesis wand Characteristics Hypothes ‘The De ‘The Response Bias Hypothesis Hypnosis and Pseudomeniory ASCH, Recommendations for Cl Hypnosis and Memory With Patil Have Been Abused 1, Evaluating the Patient 2 Qualifications 3, Preconditions for Hypnotle Uncover 4 Creating Neutral Expectations C of New or Accurate Memories 5. Bvaluaing Hypnotic Responsvity 6 Documentation and Record Keeping 7. Inquiry Dusiag Hypnosis 8 9. Section 3: Use of Dissociative Regression Tech Supportiveness to Patients 10. Inappropriate Confrontation & Issues 11, Cautions Summary of the AS.C1H, Recommendatio ‘Working with Hypnosis and Memory with Victims of Abuse Section 4: Recommendations for the Conduct 1. Responsibility and Qualifications 2. Decision to Use Forensic Hypnosis 3. Role & Involvement of Other Person Forensic Interviews AL The Federal Model BL The State Mode! C. Hypnosis with Defendants 4 Video and Audio Taping Conduct of the Forensic Interview Pr Factors ‘The Current State of Scientific Rejearch on iclans Working With ts Who May 18 & Informed Consent ing the Production iques of Litigation ts for Clinicians Potential of Foreasic Hypnosis Informed Consent to Hypnosis iL Use of Objective Tests of Hypnotic Responsivity ‘The Existence of Spontaneous Trance Without Formal Hypnosis The Hypnosis Interview Self-incriminating Statements Hypnosis is Not More Distorting Than Other Retrieval Methods Posthypnotic Evaluation Appendix A: Sample Informed Consent Document Appendix B: Sample Informed Consent for Forensic Hypnosis Interviews Appendix C: Forensic Hypnotic Interview Outline and Checklist References 2 45 4% % 46 a 48 50 52 56 INTRODUCTION The American Society of Clinical Hypposis (ASCH) is the largest profesional scientific society and ceifying body/of licensed health and menial health cate pracitioners using hypnosis in North America, One ofthe Society's and Purposes isto set high standards for train rzctice in the field of clinical hypnosis. The ASCH is committed to scientifcally assessing all potential applications of hypnosis. Considerable researc topic. of bypaosis and memory since the AM fas been published on the Scientific Report in 1985, Citcisms have also appeared about the validity df the AMA tepor. conclusions ‘eas; 1988; Reiser, 1986; Rock v. Arkansas, 1987; Scheflin & Shapiro, 1983, Spiegel, 1987; Spiegel & Spiegel, 1987; Watkins also limited in its scope to examining labora guidelines for forensic work. Therefore, the Exec 1989). The AMA report was ny research and suggesting tive Committee of the ASCH established a committee, which included three shembirs of the original AMA panel. The objectives of the committee included éxploring and evaluating both the older and more current scientific and clinical data on the nature of memory, the role of hypnosis in accessing memory, and Concerning hypnosis and memory. The comm reviewed research findings concerning hypnosis a created two sets of recommendations, one for lc hypnosis and updated recommendations for the interviews, The interdisciplinary committee involved in preparing this report consisted of Richard B. Ga} Charles B, Muter, M.D., ABMH, Co-Chair, D. Gory Coordinator; Harold B. Crasilneck, Ph.D, ABPH Melvin A. Gravitz, Ph.D., ABPH, Neils, Hibler, PhiD., Jean Olson, M3 Alan Scheflin,j.D., LLM, Herbert Spiegel, M.D.| ABPH. The authors have donated all royalties froa fhe current status of the law tee cttically evaluated and id memory, and subsequently sed therapists using clinical conduct of forensic hypnosis evaluating the literature and et, Ed-D., ABPH, Co-Chair, jon Hammond, Ph.D., ABPE, Edward Frischholz, Pb.D., BN, CS, and William Wester, ED., the sale ofthis document 10 ‘the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, whi¢h financially supported this expensive project, After many months of work, an earlier drift of our repét was sent to many national and international specialists and] a ‘memory research, hypnosis, trauma treatment and|research, a thoriies in the fields of 1d the law. About Two-thirds of them took the cime to provide us wlth feedback. We are grateful for their generosity and responsiveness to our requests for consultation, Their insight into complex issues, Ovr consultants wer achieve a balanced perspective and in creating a takes into account biases and limitations in scienti individval viewpoints. The committee made a sine: examine empirical findings in an excesses or the taking of exten ellectually or limited Quite favorable, and their cfiical feedback furthered our invaluable in assisting us to evenhanded document that ic research paradigms and in e effort to synthesize and nest manner and t avoid sitions that are sometimes associated with single, cicumscrbed theoretical orientations in the fields of ‘memory and hypnosis. We extend our gratitude to Ernest R. Hilgard, Ph.D., David Spiegel, M.D., John G. Watkins, Ph.D,, Erika Fromm, Ph.D, Jean Holroyd, Ph.D. Kevin Mt McConkey, Ph.D,, Daniel Brown, Ph.D., Steven Jay iynn, Ph.D. Peter Bloom, MD. Andre Weitzenboller, Ph.O., Fred Hl. Frankel, M.D., Frederick J. Evans, PhD., Helen Pettinat, Ph.D., Elizabeth Lofius, Ph.D., Sven-Ake Christianson, Ph., Joha Yuille, Ph.D, Bessel A. van der Kolk, M.D., Jennifer J. Freyd, Ph.D., Richaed P, Kluft, MD. Ph.D, Joan Turkus, M.D,, Christine A. Courtols, PhD. ‘Thurman Mot, MD, Richard Horevitz, PhD, Joan Murray-Jobsis, PhD, Dabney Ewin, M.D., Gary R. Elkins, Ph.D., Michael J. Diamond, Ph.D, Irving Kirsch, PhD. Valerie J. Wall, Ph.D., Clorinda Mages, Ph.D," Moshe Torem, M.D.) Michael A, Haberman, M.0., Marlene Steinberg, M.D., Sheldon B. Cohen, MD., Louis L Dubin, D.DS., PhD., Alvin Scott, Fh.D,, j. Michael Marcum, MD. PhD., Donald W. Schafer, M.D, O. Brandt Caudill, je, Michael D. Yapko, PhD., and Jordan Zarren, MSW. Definition of Hypnosis The term hypnosis Was first used in the 1820's and'it was soon identified as “conttoled imagination’ (Gravit, 1993). Since then, there have been a variety of different definitions of hypnosis based upon various theoretical and research orientations (Lynn & Rhue, 1991), many of which are reflected by ‘members of our committee. Many of the existing *thearies" of lypnosis are descriptive rather than explanatory concerning hypnosis. Much ofthe apparent divergence among various definitions has centered around three basi sues 2) features of hypnosis; 2) stte/trat concepts; and 3) contextual factors, Regarding the diversity of opinions about the nature of hypnosis, a large rhumber of the definitions refer to three concurrent, overlapping components ‘Wide individual differences are found in each of these components, and it has been suggested that all three should de present in some degree to identify bypnosis (Spiegel & Greenleaf, 1992). although sometimes refecred to with different labels, these three components are: 1) dissociation; 2) absorption; and 3) suggestbilty. Thus, we see, for example, that dissociation is sometimes ‘referred to as invotuntariness, uaconscious response, of levels of consciousness (eg, Bowers & Davidson, 1991; Crasineck & Hall, 1985; Erickson, 1980, ‘Hilgard, 1978, 1986; Watkins & Watkins, 1979-1980, 1982, Weitzenhoffer, 1985), Others emphasizing this general concept discuss alterations in brain processes feg, Crasifneck, McCranie, & Jenkins, 1956; Crawford & Gruzeley, 1992, DeBenedittis & Sironi, 1986, 1988; DePascalis & Penna, 1990; Rossi, 1993). Likewise, absorption (Tellegen, 1979) has also been referred t0 25 imaginative involvement (Hilgard, 1970), focused concentration (Spiegel & Spiegel. 1978), and imagery vividness (Spanos, Brett, Menary, & Cross, 1987). Suggest (Gull, 1935; Weitzenhoffer, 1953) has often been|alluded to asa “suspension of ctitical judgement” (ilgard, 1965; Kline, 1958; Meares, 1961; Orme, 1977) Another area of debate concerning the nathre of hypaosis has to do with the disagreement over whether hypnosis is defintd as involving an altered state of consciousness (e.g, Fromm, 1992; Hilgard] 1977/1986, 1992, Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978), or is defined in terms of social pkychologicai variables (Spancs & Chaves, 1989) such as expectations (Kirsch, 1991), role taking (Coe & Sabin, 1991), compliance (Wagstaff, 1991), and confextual factors. AS a way of avoiding theoretical conflicts over whether typaosis involves an altered state, some persons have preferred to define hypnosip according to what occurs in hypnosis (Spiegel, 1963). Thus, it has been defined as a procedure wherein alterations in sensations, perceptions, feelings oF behavior may be suggested Gertinly, siwational factors, demand tharactristics, expectancies, goal-directed role playing or believedin imaghning, and motivation are all Contextual isues which influence the degree tb which individuals tap theit capacity For hypnosis With so many interactive atures determining behavioral and subjective responses, ii important to make distinctions between external influences, phenomenology, reports of the subject, technique, therapeutic strategy theoretical and clinical orientation of th therapist, and diflerences in potenti for given individual to experience hfpnosis The courts have leaned coward defining hypnosis in terms of it antecedents, ic, whether or nota hypnotic inductipa ceremony was administered (Schefln & Shapiro, 1989) Unfortunately, this hab downplayed the imporance of defining hypnosis by its consequences (.., hypnotizability). The committee agrees that there are wide individual differences in responsivity to hypnosis, and that hypnotic response may also occur sponianeously or through informal encouragement, without the presence of a form4l induction. ft seems logia, then, that the coun’s definition of fypaoss in|terms of whether of not at induction ceremony has been administered is poblematic (Schein, 19946) We believe that it should be demonstrated that both a hypnotic induction was administered, and thatthe subject was responsife to such a procedure (eg, through the elicitation of phenomena ether inforally, ot formally through the administration of a hypnotizability scale) SECTION 1 CURRENT CONCEPTS ABOUT MEMORY AND ‘FACTORS INFLUENCING MEMORY Understanding the limitations of current scientific knowledge and after reviewing the large body of current research on memory we believe tha, in brief, the following conclusions are currently justified, Literature on nornal memory (eg, partially summarized by Loftus, 1993; fonsterberg, 1908) demonstrates that memory may be imperfect, adaptive and teconetrctive rather reproductive, and documents the potential malleability (Spiegel, 1974) of normal memory. Some degre of memory alteration appears tovinevitably oceur as part of daily living (Bardett, 1982). The request that 2 person provide information about the past is always to some extent suggestive Mihethet the request 18 made in therapy, for forensic purposes, or otherwise Gpiegel, 1980), Furthermore, individual diferences exist in the capacity 10 remember fora varity of reasons, But a balanced and accurate understanding Sf memory processes also requizes one to be aware that research likewise Strongly demonstrates that emotional memories may be encoded diferent Sind be relatively accurate and persistent with regard torcentral detail, which seem better retained and less susceptible to forgetting (e.g, Christianson, 1992c, 19924). In addition, the scientific community iself is divided as to. whether memory isa unitary phenomenon, of whether unique subsystems of memory nist hat perform specfic functions, and there are over twenty different theories of memory that have been proposed. Some ofthe literature describes this as state-dependent (Bower, 1981; Tulving & Thomson, 1973), sensory-motor fr somatic (Paget, 1950, explicit or implicit (Schacter, 1987), episodic or Semantic memory CTuiving, 1972, There does seem to be relative agreement that there are three phases (0 the memory process: encoding, storage and fuarieval (eg, Loftus, 1979). Memory may be influenced by problesss during wea one of these three phases, and bya variety of memory principles (Kikstrom, 1999). rhe commitee wishes to emphasize that esearch focused on malleablty cof normal memory teaches us that there is potential for inaccuracy of recall of Gas, whether or not enhancement procedures have been used, sO that the total accuracy of 4 memary cannot be claimed of assumed unless the memory ts comroborated by independent sources and methods, At the same time, however other simulation and autobiographical memory research bas shown tr there i often considerable accuracy of memory, especially in the real of tmotionaV/‘raumatic events, Thus, seems imperative for professionals (0 take S balanced view of memory and fot become influenced by extreme positions dat represent an overgeneraliation from studies of normal, unstressed memory processes ‘We believe that just such a balanced posi year by the American Psychiatric Association memories of sexual abuse. On the one hand, repressed and delayed memories, saying: “Child been abused cope with the trauma by usin mechanisms. In some instances, these coping rf conscious awareness of the abuse for varyin thoughts and feelings sterzming from the abuse 26). At the same time, they emphasized that influenced by questioning, and that may includ cements However, they added that “hesitancy in following the report can occur in victims of these seemingly contradictory findings do not report is based on a true event” (p. 24). Simila follow in Section 3, they emphasized maintain patients alleging abuse, and avoidance of pre for that the memories are or are not the cause of expressing disbelief in patent symptoms could cd of cautioning the patient against making major li phase of treatment. They aso emphasized that spe} are needed in working with patients who repor through the use of hypnosis, ‘The American Medical Association Coun has likewise issued a report oa memories of cil professionals may be found on both sides of tl Observed that "repeated questioning may lead in fn fact never occurred” (p. 3). But, in addition 1 flawed, they also acknowledged the existe ‘Notwithstanding these findings, other research i abuse do not remember, atleast temporarily, éempivcal evidence can be cited for both sides o all would agree that memories ae malleable ana there is no consensus about the extent or source is far ftom setled, and under such circumstan care in tating thet patients, raitaining an en (G3) Their final conclusion was that “the AMA of childhood sexual abuse to be of uncertain Subject 0 external vrifieation”(p. 4); a concusi Intheirrepor, the AMA quoted and reafirm idving been abused. ion was what was taken this 1994) in theis statement on hey affirmed the existence of in and adolescents who have a variety of psychological fechanisms result in a lack of periods of ime. Conscious ay emerge at a later date” (p femory is a complex process, ‘some false or contradictory fnaking a report and recanting peumented abuse. Therefo clude the possibility thatthe to the recommendations that ig an empathic stance toward ing the veracity of memories Isymptoms. They stesse use harm, and the importance fe decisions whea in the acute “al knowledge and experience the emergence of memories il on Scientific Affairs (1994) thood abuse. They noted that le false memory issue. It was viduals to report events that noting that memory may be ice of repressed memories: dicates that some survivors of In shor, the argument. While virtually not necessarily fully accurate, of this malleability. The issue , therapists should exercise thie and supportive posture ‘ansiders recovered memories tthenticity, which should be Jn mirrored by this committee sd their 1984 recommendations concerning the use of hypnosis in forensic (aot clinical) settings with witnesses and viesins of crimes, emphasizing the impo ‘those elaborated in the last section of this v teallirmed a8 an accurate summary of the en} perspective of their decade old policy that *t actually appear to be less reliable than nonhypt ince of guidelines similar to ume. The report, howe pirical literature, the limite Wonosis-induced recollections otic recall” (p. 2). as will be sutentional focusing, perhaps because of the distinctiveness of some emotional fevents, and pethaps because emotional arouspl slows forgetting (Hever & Reisbetg, 1992) or some combination ofthese vatiables along with physiological factors, Research with childcen (¢.g,, Goodman, Hirschman, Heeps, & Rudy, 1991; Jones & Krugman, 1986; Ornstein, Gordon, Baker-Ward, & Merrit, in press; Teer, 1990; Warren & Swrartwood, 1992) fikewise documents the same pattern that is found in adult laboratory and real-life studies: children tend to remember cftical details of traumatic events very well. And although children’s ‘memories of real events may ceraily be influerjed by misleading suggestions Gog, Bruck, Ceci, Francover, & Bar, in press; Omnstein, Gordon, & Baler Ward, in press), seldom does a single suggestion conderning an important, personal autobiographical event influence the child's report (e.g., Rudy & Goodman, noted in the remainder of this volume, we disagree with this item in the AMA report. While their 1984 statement and 1985 report may have accurately Teported laboratory research on normal memory (often for nonmeaning! Ut Trateril, it would be a violation of basic research standards to generalize and draw condusions from one population to an entitely different population, Just ge one cannot overgeneralize that a poll of colfege freshmen is predictive of how the general electorate will vote in a national election, so itis inapproptite to overgeneralize from laboratory studies of normal memory to clinical population of abuse victims with emotion-ladea, traumatic memories. ‘Traumatic Memory ‘The evidence from numerous real life ané simulation studies suggests that traumatic memory appears different from the relatively unstressed exemony processes offen studied in laboratories. Traumatic memories may be encoded Gfferenly doe to both attentional and psychological variables, as well as physologtcal facts (Cahill, Prins, Weber, & McGaugh, 1994 Christianson, Tytaar Horowite & Reidbord, 1992; LeDous, 1992, 1994; McGaugh, 1992; Nilsson & Archer, 1992: Pitman, 1994, Saporta & van der Kolk, 1992; van der KRolk 1984, 1987, 1988, van der Kolk & Saposta, 1993; van der Kol & Van der Hart, 1991; Weinberger, Geld, & Sternberg, 1980). ‘Thus, for example, van der Kolk (van der Kolk & van der Hast, 199) notes that while memory is ustally active and constructive, in cases involving PTSD, a falure of declarative memory may lead to organization of the trauma fon 2 somatosenscty level in the form of visual images or physical sensations that may be relatively impervious to charge, a concept supponed by Terr (2988), The committe recognizes that a majot Finding in both recent experimental Godiee and the clinical literature is that traumatic or emotion-laden memories tend to be accurate and persistent concerning the traumatic, critical details (Christianson, 19928), although accessibility and accuracy of traumatic memories may be poteataly influenced by other conscious, uncouscious or physiclogie fretore (eg, sateeyond the population on whom the existing research was pesformed-normal individuals with normal memory. For example, samples in studies of hypnosis and memory ate not random samples of victims of abuse or trauma, oF of witnesses to actual crimes, whose memories have been blocked by emotional factors. The relevance of personally experienced trauma and emotion have been ignored in laboratory studies of hypnosis and memecy. While trauma may enhance encoding, it may also block retsieval. Subjects in memory and hypnosis studies have been college students, not representative of a population suffering ‘with traumatic blocks to memory, on whom no hypnosis laboratory studies exist, Due to the profound limitations and the completely different population and problem that has been studied, areceat law review article (Kanovivz, 1992) fon hypnosis, memory and the law concluded: Because the research community has not studied the impact of childhood sexual abuse or any other major traumas on memory or he impact of hypnosis on subjects who have beer traumatized, experimentalist testimony about the unreliability of memory may bear litle relevance to the trustworthiness of memories restored in psychotherapy (p. 1226). Another major problem with existing studies alin to find hypermnesia. Gincreased memory accessibility ot memory enhancement is that they have 100 often used questionable criteria such’ as nonsense syllables, paired-assocate ‘words, faces, slides of objects, aumbers, word iss and line drawings. Such criteria are not likely o be associated with negative emotion orto be so affect laden that they would be blocked from memory, and their lack of persona relevance would aot be anticipated to cause the data to imprint itself in someone's mind. Even when videotapes of staged rebberies are used, research Suggests that this type of stimulus material may not always genuinely produce the same kind of impact on research subject “witnesses” as it does upon real ‘witnesses (Christianson & Hubinete, 1993; Cutshall & Yuille, 198%; Fishes, Geiselman, & Amador, 989; Yuille & Cutsal, 1986, Yuille & Kim, 1987) However, it has been discovered that the teal life uses of hypnosis, the more likely hypn« increase in errors (Geiselman & Machlovitz, 1 found that hypnosis interviews by experienced| loser the research design is 10 sis facilitates memory without 987), Geiselman et al, (1985) persons produced 35 more correct facts than standard police interviews, ahd Geiselman and Machlovitz (1987) concluded that while it is conceivabi inefiective of cause confabulation, their analys suppor this claim and the differences in experi that a hypnotist could be sof 38 experiments did not ental methodology were what predicted the success or faiture of hypnosis alded recall, *Rathet, hypnosis memory recall was most likely to be successful abiained” (p. 45). Reluedly, researchers who tak retrieved memories are likely to be distorted ant forensic interviews must be Fully videotaped to have not applied these same strict criteria to th ostchypnotic wosk with research subjects. Th hen more natural conditions te position that fypaotically who, therefore, insist that all uate potential contamination, ‘own hypnotic and pre- and they fail 10 control for the Potential contamination that their own skeptical viewpoints have on experimental outcomes (Watkins, 1993). In many instances, th given to subjects are not even provided to allo Potential experimental bias, Erdelyi (1994) concluded that hypermnesi specific, detailed suggestions further scientific sceutiay for or enhanced memory exists ‘nd “occurs with or without hypnosis," but he believes that “hypnosis does not luniquely add to (or subtract from) hypermnesia ‘memory. He believes that simply repeated retrieval efforts (whet ( not) are what is responsible for increase Geiseiman et al. (1985) found a nonhypnotic gui took twice the time and used three’ times as increased correct recall as much as a hypnotic more than a police interview). But, the fact remal (p. 386) with non-traumatie rin hyphosis recall. Thus, for example, led memory interview (which iny questions as hypnosis) procedure (and both yielded Ins that the repeated retrieval effore was more effective in enfiancing recall, whether it was conducted with or ‘without hypnosis. Even if this conclusion of equi traumatic memory as well (which it may not), w ‘ne or the other technique matter? Academicians lency were found to hold for should one’s preference fo vith theoretical inerests may be concemed with what aspect of a procedufe is effective in enhancing hon-traumatic memory recall, but whether that hypnotic procedure, or a much longer “cogniti actual life circumstances, as long as it produces riable is embedded within a fe interview" is irrelevant in wypermnesia, Relate, several extensive reviews of lterajure on memory’anc hypnosis (Ranovitz, 1992; Relinger, 1984; Scheflin & Shap|ro, 1989; Scheflin, Brown & Hammond, in press; Smith, 1983; Weitzenhotter, 1 that although hypnosis does not aid in the recall facilitate recall of personally meaningful infor ‘with emotional situations. This conclusion was al Hanis in 1940, cing that the type of stimulus us ‘would determine the nature of recall-yet, Stimuli continued into the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 3) all reached the conclusion meaningless stimuli, it may tion or material associated reached by White, Fox, and d by a hypnosis researcher reseach using such meaningless ind even the 1990s! ‘We believe that clinically relevant research is needed. Frankel (1988, p. 250) expressed similar perceptions and suggested that narrow laboratory Sdies "might best be regarded as beacons, not bartiess. Part oftheir purpose ig to illuminate, not to dicate, the paths that we follow clinically (p. 263) MeConkey’s (1992) review of this lierature concluded that, “The varying findings [about hypnosis and memory] that have been reported inthe literature appeat 0 have a8 much to do with the experimental methods used as they do ‘vith the phenomena being investigated. This san important point to underscore" 40, Problems lke those cited above have plagued eyewitness memory research in general, even apan from hypnosis (eg, Zaragoza & Koshmidir, 1989). There sag such a consistent pattern of reliable differences between laboratory results of memory with uninvolved bystander witnesses and the witness of real-life emotional events, that these types of results led Fisher etal. (1989) o conclude: if this difference between laboratory and field studies continues to appeas, one may question the validity of describing in cout the accuracy rates found in the laboratory as evidence of the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony in id cases” (p. 725). However, Christiansnn (19924) notes that recent seal life studies and simulation studies of memory for emotional events are consistent in finding that centrally important information is better setained and less likely to be forgotten. Christianson and Hubinette (1993) pointed out that the discrepancy in studies in many instances seems due 0 what certain researchers concentrate ‘on in their studies, with the incongruence often due to differences in the type ‘of memory test, time of test, and type of detail examined, Thus certain researchers examine accuracy and persistence of memory (e.g, Christianson, 1984, Hever & Reisberg, 1990; Reisberg, Heuer, McLean, & O'Shaughnessy, 4988, Yuille & Culshall, 1986), while other investigators focus on errors in memory and deterioration of memory overtime (e.g. Clifford & Holln, 198 Clifford & Scott, 1978; Loftus & Burns, 1982, Neisser & Harsch, 1990; Wagenaar & Groeneweg, 1990) ‘The laboratory literature on hypnosis and memory is also characterized by another major flaw: it fails to distinguish between the global concept of hypnosis and the many techniques, types of suggestions, and ways hypnosis ‘may be used. This i similar tothe failing that has been commonplace for many ‘yetts throughout the general psychotherapy research literature of only discussing the effectiveness of psychotherapy" or "hypnotic teatments,” without explicating the specific methods, individual suggestions, and techniques used in each study of “psychotherapy” or “hypnosis.” inasmuch as studies and real world cases do seem to suggest that tnypnotic eons do improve reall under some conditions for some indvidals (ep, Block, 1976, Kavzniak, ea, 1988; Kroger & Douce, 1979, Raginsy, 1565), investigations with improved ecological validity should adress why and ‘when memory may be enhanced, Furthermore, instead of only pursuing @ Decided research orientation of evaluating the faliblity of memory fr 4 detail, balanced research is needed that also accuracy of recall of highly emoxion-ladea memor by many people in the field to be a controlled dis 1986; Spiegel, 1993; Spiegel & Greenleaf, 1992), hat many lrauma and abuse victims enter trance. and after trauma (e-., Bla & Pynoos, 1985; Krystal ‘an emotional and dissociative context throug Psychotherapy may facilitate both the recovery and working through of taumatic memories (Spiegel, 1993). * and remembered considerable additional detail fi (1976) similarly describes the sucressful role of ctmioa cases and ina variety of cases reponed Hypnosis may particularly ait in the recall ‘events, for eximple, in situations where emotional 19 memory, because of the state-dependent natur ‘mannes in which the encoding context and moo i areater in persons responsive 1 hypo Allen, 1983; Sander, 1963, Sheehan 197 Sp ‘ebtepretation,egostrengihening, tnd sugges aie perceived as being of pancular therapeutic of teauma, iene eninge materal we hee Evento ceiy reve bell with sce ii Steno cater what meiod wet 0 sa _luerel by waking or poe segs ate concluded "Py cedjname poetic |, 1993; Ter, 1991), recreating Thus, for example, Kroger and Douce (19 , ind Douce 41979) cited the real worl exam of «idappng and rae whe a esapedwcim wos bypass sod nen he recalled unique rust spots on, the cartes inside theca, a spec dt! about a gear shit nab, 4 joke made by a window when rolled up, a serve sation location, a physical pion ofa creditcard used and what gas sation repairman sid needed ing on he a. These hypacdcally obained das were al independent

    You might also like