Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 37
induction usually involves the suggestion that some part of the body, often the eyelids, will
move without conscious volition and close “by themselves.” After completing the formal
induction, the subject is usually asked to make some gross motor movement, that, once
again, will occur “by itself.” For example, it may be suggested that one‟s arms and hands,
held out at shoulder height, will feel a force pulling them together and “they will move
together.”
Obviously, the only way for the subject‟s arms to make a major movement without the
nonexistent external force is for the subject to move them. Even attempting to comply with
this suggestion necessitates testing whether one‟s arms will move without volition, thus
putting one‟s critical judgment on temporary hold so as to ignore the logical absurdity of the
suggestion. A large majority of cooperative subjects will accept the absurdity, respond to
such suggestions, and feel the force and their hands moving without experiencing volition.
More difficult hypnotic suggestions require acceptance of even more logically absurd
instructions, again requiring lowered critical judgment.
The second factor noted above is the false sense of familiarity with the remembered
material provided by increased vividness of recall (Dywan, 1995). Vivid memories tend to
convince everyone of historical accuracy, especially the person remembering them. This is
one reason why flashbacks are frequently viewed as veridical representations of past
events, when, in fact, often they are not (Frankel, 1994). If a subject experiences a vivid
revivification of the past during age regression or confabulates details after direct
suggestions for hypermnesia, he or she is not unlike someone who is able to view his or her
own very personal videotape. Previous memory of the event will be contaminated or
usurped by this experience. Of course, the vivid mental videotape contains all the problems
of memory creation and distortion noted above. However, it is understandable that the
subject accepts the hypnotically influenced vivid images as playbacks of events as they
actually occurred earlier, especially if the social environment supports this view.
The belief that hypnosis allows the subject to transcend the ability to remember is endemic
to our cultural view of hypnosis. There is no reason to induce hypnosis and give
hyperamnesia suggestions unless the hypnotist expects hypnosis to allow greater access to
memory. Even if the subject is not explicitly told that hypnosis will increase recall, the
message is inherent in the use of the procedure.
Finally, agreeing to be hypnotized is accepting an invitation to engage in fantasy. To the
degree a “neutral” form of hypnosis can be induced, it involves greater openness to fantasy
and primary process (idiosyncratic) thinking (Fromm, 1978-79 Fromm &Kahn, 1990).
Such thinking is less reality oriented and subject to social constraint than ordinary,
secondary process thought.
Each factor contributes to the unreliability of hypnotically influenced testimony. Their
cumulative effect makes it clear why hypnotically influenced recall is less reliable, but often
presented more credibly than ordinary recall.
Civil Suits and Hypnosis
Until recently, landmark cases involving forensic hypnosis have been criminal prosecutions.
If one grants that hypnosis has largely proved detrimental to the cause of justice when
influencing testimony in criminal cases, what will be its effects in civil litigation? As Scheflin
and Shapiro (1989) predicted, the civil arena is becoming the setting for more litigation
involving hypnotically influenced testimony. The present authors have encountered two
types of civil cases: (1) those involving the attribution of blame and liability in automobile
accidents, and (2) those involving recovered memories of incestuous child abuse (ICA).
Given the issues raised by Borawick v. Shay, most of the rest of this article will discuss ICA.
induction usually involves the suggestion that some part of the body, often the eyelids, will
move without conscious volition and close “by themselves.” After completing the formal
induction, the subject is usually asked to make some gross motor movement, that, once
again, will occur “by itself.” For example, it may be suggested that one‟s arms and hands,
held out at shoulder height, will feel a force pulling them together and “they will move
together.”
Obviously, the only way for the subject‟s arms to make a major movement without the
nonexistent external force is for the subject to move them. Even attempting to comply with
this suggestion necessitates testing whether one‟s arms will move without volition, thus
putting one‟s critical judgment on temporary hold so as to ignore the logical absurdity of the
suggestion. A large majority of cooperative subjects will accept the absurdity, respond to
such suggestions, and feel the force and their hands moving without experiencing volition.
More difficult hypnotic suggestions require acceptance of even more logically absurd
instructions, again requiring lowered critical judgment.
The second factor noted above is the false sense of familiarity with the remembered
material provided by increased vividness of recall (Dywan, 1995). Vivid memories tend to
convince everyone of historical accuracy, especially the person remembering them. This is
one reason why flashbacks are frequently viewed as veridical representations of past
events, when, in fact, often they are not (Frankel, 1994). If a subject experiences a vivid
revivification of the past during age regression or confabulates details after direct
suggestions for hypermnesia, he or she is not unlike someone who is able to view his or her
own very personal videotape. Previous memory of the event will be contaminated or
usurped by this experience. Of course, the vivid mental videotape contains all the problems
of memory creation and distortion noted above. However, it is understandable that the
subject accepts the hypnotically influenced vivid images as playbacks of events as they
actually occurred earlier, especially if the social environment supports this view.
The belief that hypnosis allows the subject to transcend the ability to remember is endemic
to our cultural view of hypnosis. There is no reason to induce hypnosis and give
hyperamnesia suggestions unless the hypnotist expects hypnosis to allow greater access to
memory. Even if the subject is not explicitly told that hypnosis will increase recall, the
message is inherent in the use of the procedure.
Finally, agreeing to be hypnotized is accepting an invitation to engage in fantasy. To the
degree a “neutral” form of hypnosis can be induced, it involves greater openness to fantasy
and primary process (idiosyncratic) thinking (Fromm, 1978-79 Fromm &Kahn, 1990).
Such thinking is less reality oriented and subject to social constraint than ordinary,
secondary process thought.
Each factor contributes to the unreliability of hypnotically influenced testimony. Their
cumulative effect makes it clear why hypnotically influenced recall is less reliable, but often
presented more credibly than ordinary recall.
Civil Suits and Hypnosis
Until recently, landmark cases involving forensic hypnosis have been criminal prosecutions.
If one grants that hypnosis has largely proved detrimental to the cause of justice when
influencing testimony in criminal cases, what will be its effects in civil litigation? As Scheflin
and Shapiro (1989) predicted, the civil arena is becoming the setting for more litigation
involving hypnotically influenced testimony. The present authors have encountered two
types of civil cases: (1) those involving the attribution of blame and liability in automobile
accidents, and (2) those involving recovered memories of incestuous child abuse (ICA).
Given the issues raised by Borawick v. Shay, most of the rest of this article will discuss ICA.
