SwimmingRiddles was interested in the legitimacy of claims that hypnosis can boost memory, so I dragged down a couple of references. Now, I haven’t looked into this recently, so most of my references are quite old. If anyone has more recent evidence on the subject, I’d like to see it.
Much of the reports of successful use of hypnosis were published by Eugene Block (1976) in a book called "Hypnosis: A new Tool in Crime Detection. Hypnotic recall is widely used as evidence of the permanence of memory Cheek and LeCreon (1968) wrote in their book, Clinical Hypnotherapy: “Regression under hypnosis can bring out completely forgotten memories.”
However:
It has been argued that hypnosis encourages peoiple to relax more, or makes them more willing to report inofrmation than they would be otherwise. According to some researchers (Barber, 1965; Neisser, 1967) recall during hypnosis is no more accurate or complete than waking recall. Some evidence suggests (Kline, 1958; Rubenstein& Newman, 1954) that people can recall events from the FUTURE as well as the past.
And there is evidence that much of what is ‘recalled’ is fabricated. Putnam (1979) illustrated that hypnotized subjects were MORE likely to make errors in recalling than waking subjects.He hypothesized that hypnotized subjects are more suggestible, and therefore, more susceptible to misleading questions.
Complete references available upon request.
Now, as I said, all the literature I have immediately at hand is quite old. Anybody got more recent news, pro or con?
Felice, Nicolas Spanos wrote a great book on the dangers of professional therepists using hypnosis (as opposed to people using it for past-life regressions, or party games, which are pretty harmless. It’s called “Multiple Identities and False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective” Despite the title, he does a lot of work discrediting hypnosis. The Diagnosis Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, discusses the use of hypnosis in Dissociative Identity Disorder entry: “Controversy surrounds the
accuracy of such reports, because childhood memories may be subject to distortion and individuals with this disorder tend to
be highly hypnotizable and especially vulnerable to suggestive influence. (APA, 485)” The fact that the DSM, the authority on psychological disorders, connects hypnotizablity and suggestibility makes warning bells go off in MY mind.
So what if someone is suggestible? Stanley Milligram’s work in the 1960s
with Obedience to Authority (in which subjects believed they were administering electric shock to another person, on the
orders of an authority figure) provides one piece of the answer. Nearly two-thirds of the subjects ended up administering the
strongest shock possible to the “learner,” because they “believed the experimenter would be responsible for any potential ill
effects that befell the learner." (Feldman, "Elements of Psychology, 1992)
Hypnosis as a parlor trick? No problem. But when it starts being used by authority figures, it gets messy. Imagine you were an eye witness to a crime. You want to help the cops catch the bastard. Unless you have photographic memory, your memory has holes in the chronology of what happened. But the cops are looking for an answer, so your brain makes connections that seem obvious. But your obvious connections are NOT what you saw, they are created memories. And they may seem just as real as anything else. Now imagine you are in an highly suggestible state, and this same thing is going on. You may make even LARGER connections, all the while you are convinced what you are saying is the truth.
The reason polygraphs are not admissable is similar. Because a person BELIEVES they are telling the truth does not necessarily mean they are telling the whole truth, or the actual truth. Same with memories. Because you remember something does not mean you remember the whole incident, or the actual incident.
One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche
California Evidence Code section 795 provides restrictions on the testimony of witnesses who have undergone hypnosis. Specifically, such a witness may testify only to “matters which the witness recalled and related prior to the hypnosis.” The substance of the pre-hypnotic recall must have been recorded by audio or videotape, or written form, and the hypnosis must be conducted under specified procedures. Further, prior to admission of the testimony:
Clearly the California Legislature is skeptical of memories recalled under hypnosis.
I don’t recall if this case took place in California, but a famous murder case was overturned for just the reason Melin notes.
George Franklin’s repressed-memory-based murder conviction was overturned by an appeals court. Franklin’s daughter claims to have suddenly recalled witnessing him kill a friend of hers when she was a young girl (the girl’s body was found, bludgeoned to death, but the case was never solved). As it turns out, the “memories” did not return suddenly, but under therapy in a “relaxed” state close to hypnosis. She revised her tale to fit in any discrepancies (for example, she originally “recovered” a memory of being raped by a black man, but changed it to her white godfather).
Felice, Nicolas Spanos wrote a great book on the dangers of professional therepists using hypnosis (as opposed to people using it for past-life regressions, or party games, which are pretty harmless. It’s called “Multiple Identities and False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective” Despite the title, he does a lot of work discrediting hypnosis. The Diagnosis Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, discusses the use of hypnosis in Dissociative Identity Disorder entry: “Controversy surrounds the
accuracy of such reports, because childhood memories may be subject to distortion and individuals with this disorder tend to
be highly hypnotizable and especially vulnerable to suggestive influence. (APA, 485)” The fact that the DSM, the authority on psychological disorders, connects hypnotizablity and suggestibility makes warning bells go off in MY mind.
So what if someone is suggestible? Stanley Milligram’s work in the 1960s
with Obedience to Authority (in which subjects believed they were administering electric shock to another person, on the
orders of an authority figure) provides one piece of the answer. Nearly two-thirds of the subjects ended up administering the
strongest shock possible to the “learner,” because they “believed the experimenter would be responsible for any potential ill
effects that befell the learner." (Feldman, "Elements of Psychology, 1992)
Hypnosis as a parlor trick? No problem. But when it starts being used by authority figures, it gets messy. Imagine you were an eye witness to a crime. You want to help the cops catch the bastard. Unless you have photographic memory, your memory has holes in the chronology of what happened. But the cops are looking for an answer, so your brain makes connections that seem obvious. But your obvious connections are NOT what you saw, they are created memories. And they may seem just as real as anything else. Now imagine you are in an highly suggestible state, and this same thing is going on. You may make even LARGER connections, all the while you are convinced what you are saying is the truth.
The reason polygraphs are not admissable is similar. Because a person BELIEVES they are telling the truth does not necessarily mean they are telling the whole truth, or the actual truth. Same with memories. Because you remember something does not mean you remember the whole incident, or the actual incident.
One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche
[quote]
…on the dangers of professional therepists using hypnosis (as opposed to people using it for past-life regressions, or party games, which are pretty harmless.) Emphasis by Polycarp{/quote]
I’d be interested in what you can report regarding this. I brought up the issue in passing some months ago, and David, with his skeptical orientation, indicated there had been refutations of virtually every case seriously brought forward, but, understandably, didn’t supply details at that time.
Would you who have some background in the subject care to address the issue? Should it perhaps be a new thread?
I’d also be interested in anybody’s experience with (from either side of the table) using hypnosis to alter behavior. I’ve seen the ads for using hypnosis to help stop smoking, change eating patterns, etc. I assume this is more “parlor trick” but I’m curious about it.
From Robert Allen Baker in, They Call it Hypnosis, 1990 - Prometheus Books
Current research points to the conclusion that there is no state of altered consciousness produced by hypnosis and that what we term hypnosis is in fact a complex hybrid of social compliance, relaxation, and suggestibility that can account for many esoteric behavioral manifestations, including such occult behavior as past-life regression, UFO “abduction,” channeling, and glossolalia (speaking in “tongues”).
So, is there any more recent evidence that would contradict this?
And, on what may be an interesting side note, we have a local hypnosis clinic currently running TV ads offering a free first visit. Now, if I believed that hypnosis actually worked, this would shock the hell out of me. If I were to assume subliminal suggestions could be implanted through hypnosis, and were the least bit cynical, wouldn’t I come to a conclusion that says, the first session would implant a mental artifact which compels me to return to the clinic?
Sounds about right to me. From what I gather (and I am not an expert or anything, just someone who’s aware of how phony it is in a thereputic setting) it is just a state of being both extremely relaxed and extremely focused. But there are subtle hypnotic techiques that some people just do naturally (Heaven’s Gate cult leader. From what I understand, it’s a combination of the timber of the voice (somehow I doubt Fran Drescher could ever be a hypnotist…) and unflinching, deep eye contact. It both relaxes the other person and forces them to listen to what the hypnotist is saying.
**{quote]And, on what may be an interesting side note, we have a local hypnosis clinic currently running TV ads offering a free first visit. Now, if I believed that hypnosis actually worked, this would shock the hell out of me. If I were to assume subliminal suggestions could be implanted through hypnosis, and were the least bit cynical, wouldn’t I come to a conclusion that says, the first session would implant a mental artifact which compels me to return to the clinic? **
[/QUOTE]
I think the lesson with hypnosis is the amazing power of suggestion. If someone walked up to you on the street and said “you don’t want to smoke.” You’d think they were a nut and walk away. But if you THINK you are in a “altered state of being” and someone tells you to stop smoking, you might be more apt to think you really DON’T want to smoke. Power of suggestion.
One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche