Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 39
emerged during hypnosis. The results varied, at least in part, because of adherence, or lack
of it, to the Hurd safeguards. The Hurd safeguards are directed toward establishing a record
of the extent of suggestion present in the hypnotist‟s technique and the specific hypnotic
context. Even if such safeguards are followed, they cannot protect against self-suggestion
when the hypnotized subject knows precisely what he wants to remember in hypnosis.
Forensic hypnotists are being used when they agree to use hypnosis to refresh recollection
and thereby promote wishes into highly remunerative memories. In more general terms,
the auto accident cases show that suspicions and feelings may be turned into memories and
the change legitimized by the hypnotic procedure. This bears directly on the use of hypnosis
in incestuous child abuse cases.
Incestuous Child Abuse
Compared to the relatively straightforward situation in automobile accidents, suits about
recovered memories of incestuous child abuse (ICA) are loaded with complex and subtle
issues. Many states altered their statutes, so that victims of alleged sexual abuse can sue
long after time has lapsed for ordinary torts. These statutes were usually passed without
any attempt to determine the prevalence of mistaken memories of abuse, many of which
may have been caused inadvertently by well-meaning therapists.
Psychotherapy, ICA, and False Memories
The major increase in reported ICA in recent years is especially problematic for
psychotherapists as a profession, we have played a critical role in the increased reports of
ICA. For some therapists, this role is a source of pride, but for the authors, it is a grave
concern. It is important here to remember that, with rare exceptions, psychotherapy has
been a beneficent force during the past 100 years. Meta-analytic studies of the outcome of
psychotherapy have shown that the average psychotherapy patient shows more
improvement across a variety of measures of well-being than approximately 80% of
untreated controls (Smith, Glass, &Miller, 1980).
Newer treatments ordinarily produce even better results. For example, meta-analytic
research has shown that psychotherapy patients show an improvement of about .85
standard deviations as compared to controls. In the first 3 or 4 years a new treatment is
available, the effect size rises to approximately 1.1 to 1.2 standard deviations. Thus, the
average patient in a new form of therapy does better than almost 90% of untreated
controls. In comparison, a 9-month reading program causes a change of about 0.61
standard deviations in children‟s reading skills (Lindsay &Read, 1994). Ranging from .85 to
1.2 standard deviations, the effects of psychotherapy are far from trivial.
Rare exceptions to this rule of generally beneficent effects for “talk therapy” have occurred
when psychotherapy focused blame on specific types of individuals outside the therapeutic
alliance. The profession‟s castigation of so-called “schizophrenogenic” mothers and of the
intellectual and rigid parents of autistic children for their children‟s largely biochemically-
based, devastating disorders has produced untold misery. As a profession, we were wrong
in those cases and blamed the innocent we must be aware of and avoid repeating such
harmful errors.
Whenever psychotherapists occasion a patient‟s recovery of a forgotten memory of ICA, a
perpetrator takes the blame for the patient‟s misery. The patient and the people who
believe her may punish the remembered perpetrators without remorse. If the recovered
memories of ICA were correct, it would be difficult to fault this position. But all too often,
the “recovered memories” are destructive fantasies, shaped and elicited by a therapist who
believes that ICA is at the root of the disorder and memories of it await uncovering by
hypnosis. Exploring this hypothesis often devastates the accused, the accuser, and other
family members (cf. McElroy &Keck, 1995). This harm is occasioned by the transfer of
emerged during hypnosis. The results varied, at least in part, because of adherence, or lack
of it, to the Hurd safeguards. The Hurd safeguards are directed toward establishing a record
of the extent of suggestion present in the hypnotist‟s technique and the specific hypnotic
context. Even if such safeguards are followed, they cannot protect against self-suggestion
when the hypnotized subject knows precisely what he wants to remember in hypnosis.
Forensic hypnotists are being used when they agree to use hypnosis to refresh recollection
and thereby promote wishes into highly remunerative memories. In more general terms,
the auto accident cases show that suspicions and feelings may be turned into memories and
the change legitimized by the hypnotic procedure. This bears directly on the use of hypnosis
in incestuous child abuse cases.
Incestuous Child Abuse
Compared to the relatively straightforward situation in automobile accidents, suits about
recovered memories of incestuous child abuse (ICA) are loaded with complex and subtle
issues. Many states altered their statutes, so that victims of alleged sexual abuse can sue
long after time has lapsed for ordinary torts. These statutes were usually passed without
any attempt to determine the prevalence of mistaken memories of abuse, many of which
may have been caused inadvertently by well-meaning therapists.
Psychotherapy, ICA, and False Memories
The major increase in reported ICA in recent years is especially problematic for
psychotherapists as a profession, we have played a critical role in the increased reports of
ICA. For some therapists, this role is a source of pride, but for the authors, it is a grave
concern. It is important here to remember that, with rare exceptions, psychotherapy has
been a beneficent force during the past 100 years. Meta-analytic studies of the outcome of
psychotherapy have shown that the average psychotherapy patient shows more
improvement across a variety of measures of well-being than approximately 80% of
untreated controls (Smith, Glass, &Miller, 1980).
Newer treatments ordinarily produce even better results. For example, meta-analytic
research has shown that psychotherapy patients show an improvement of about .85
standard deviations as compared to controls. In the first 3 or 4 years a new treatment is
available, the effect size rises to approximately 1.1 to 1.2 standard deviations. Thus, the
average patient in a new form of therapy does better than almost 90% of untreated
controls. In comparison, a 9-month reading program causes a change of about 0.61
standard deviations in children‟s reading skills (Lindsay &Read, 1994). Ranging from .85 to
1.2 standard deviations, the effects of psychotherapy are far from trivial.
Rare exceptions to this rule of generally beneficent effects for “talk therapy” have occurred
when psychotherapy focused blame on specific types of individuals outside the therapeutic
alliance. The profession‟s castigation of so-called “schizophrenogenic” mothers and of the
intellectual and rigid parents of autistic children for their children‟s largely biochemically-
based, devastating disorders has produced untold misery. As a profession, we were wrong
in those cases and blamed the innocent we must be aware of and avoid repeating such
harmful errors.
Whenever psychotherapists occasion a patient‟s recovery of a forgotten memory of ICA, a
perpetrator takes the blame for the patient‟s misery. The patient and the people who
believe her may punish the remembered perpetrators without remorse. If the recovered
memories of ICA were correct, it would be difficult to fault this position. But all too often,
the “recovered memories” are destructive fantasies, shaped and elicited by a therapist who
believes that ICA is at the root of the disorder and memories of it await uncovering by
hypnosis. Exploring this hypothesis often devastates the accused, the accuser, and other
family members (cf. McElroy &Keck, 1995). This harm is occasioned by the transfer of
