Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 50
mother, the father, the child, or the same child, now an adult, and a therapist two or three
decades later? There are no ready answers to these and other similar questions.
Given the lack of incidence and prevalence data and the problem of obtaining good
estimates in the immediate future, we are forced to view the problem from an alternative
angle. To date, there are no published studies indicating the success of therapy oriented to
recovery from ICA as compared to alternative treatment strategies. Thus, we have no clear
data supporting the notion that therapy focusing on these issues is helpful (cf. Levitt &
Pinnell, 1995 McElroy &Keck, 1995).
On the other hand, it is obvious that the discovery of and focus on decade or more delayed
reports of ICA uncovered in therapy emotionally devastates families and isolates children
from parents. It also results in bizarre, cultlike formulations (e.g., SRA) among a sizable
minority of patients. The medical rule is “First, do no harm.” A psychological parallel might
be “First, do not increase error.” If these are considered first principles, the search for
evidence of ICA in psychotherapy would seem to serve neither of them.
Notes
1 Although the new terminology of dissociative identity disorder avoids some excess
meaning, the older, more descriptive term, multiple personality disorder (MPD), reflects the
way this disorder is still conceptualized by both the lay public and a large number of
professionals. Since such conceptions may govern a good deal of expressed symptomology,
we prefer to use it here.
2 We see Ms. Borawick as a victim of inappropriate suggestions in hypnotic treatment.
Further, we see actual and documented ICA as more widespread and horrific than the
creation of false memories of ICA. Nevertheless, the creation of false memories in therapy
results in tragedy for both the accuser and the accused in many families. Therapists should
be aware of the factors that inculcate false memories in order to assiduously avoid
contributing to their creation.
3 Hypnosis research has been at the leading edge in developing research methods in the
social sciences since the 1950s (cf. Orne, 1970). Hypnosis researchers study a robust,
complex, and somewhat spectacular set of phenomena easily produced and examined under
controlled laboratory conditions. Perhaps any set of robust and interesting phenomena that
isn‟t easily explained by current paradigms will attract increasingly rigorous investigators.
Since Hull‟s (1933) work, we have had the good fortune to have this occur in hypnosis
research (cf. Hilgard, 1975 Kihlstrom, 1985).
4 A number of studies appeared in the late 1980s by Spanos and his colleagues (cf. Spanos
et al., 1991) and others that seemed to show that similar effects on recall to those found
with hypnosis could be obtained without hypnotic induction when sufficiently motivating
instructions were given. There are, however, a number of problems with these studies.
First, instructions like Barber‟s task-motivating instructions usually increase compliance
beyond that obtained with hypnosis, but fail to provide equivalent subjective experiences.
Second, only hypnosis provides the ingrained cultural expectation that legitimizes memory
change. Imagine the automobile accident victim who publicly blames himself for the crash,
but, after talking to his lawyer and learning precisely what he must say to win a lawsuit,
thinks hard about what happened and remembers that it was really the other party‟s fault.
Now imagine the same situation, but now he is hypnotized, age regressed, relives the
accident, and discovers that it was the other party‟s fault. Most people, including the
hypnotic subject, find this latter situation more believable being hypnotized provides a
rationale for the memory alteration where an instructional set would not.
5 The Hurd safeguards are so named because they were adopted by the New Jersey
Supreme Court in State v. Hurd (1981). Since elaborated, they require that a qualified
mother, the father, the child, or the same child, now an adult, and a therapist two or three
decades later? There are no ready answers to these and other similar questions.
Given the lack of incidence and prevalence data and the problem of obtaining good
estimates in the immediate future, we are forced to view the problem from an alternative
angle. To date, there are no published studies indicating the success of therapy oriented to
recovery from ICA as compared to alternative treatment strategies. Thus, we have no clear
data supporting the notion that therapy focusing on these issues is helpful (cf. Levitt &
Pinnell, 1995 McElroy &Keck, 1995).
On the other hand, it is obvious that the discovery of and focus on decade or more delayed
reports of ICA uncovered in therapy emotionally devastates families and isolates children
from parents. It also results in bizarre, cultlike formulations (e.g., SRA) among a sizable
minority of patients. The medical rule is “First, do no harm.” A psychological parallel might
be “First, do not increase error.” If these are considered first principles, the search for
evidence of ICA in psychotherapy would seem to serve neither of them.
Notes
1 Although the new terminology of dissociative identity disorder avoids some excess
meaning, the older, more descriptive term, multiple personality disorder (MPD), reflects the
way this disorder is still conceptualized by both the lay public and a large number of
professionals. Since such conceptions may govern a good deal of expressed symptomology,
we prefer to use it here.
2 We see Ms. Borawick as a victim of inappropriate suggestions in hypnotic treatment.
Further, we see actual and documented ICA as more widespread and horrific than the
creation of false memories of ICA. Nevertheless, the creation of false memories in therapy
results in tragedy for both the accuser and the accused in many families. Therapists should
be aware of the factors that inculcate false memories in order to assiduously avoid
contributing to their creation.
3 Hypnosis research has been at the leading edge in developing research methods in the
social sciences since the 1950s (cf. Orne, 1970). Hypnosis researchers study a robust,
complex, and somewhat spectacular set of phenomena easily produced and examined under
controlled laboratory conditions. Perhaps any set of robust and interesting phenomena that
isn‟t easily explained by current paradigms will attract increasingly rigorous investigators.
Since Hull‟s (1933) work, we have had the good fortune to have this occur in hypnosis
research (cf. Hilgard, 1975 Kihlstrom, 1985).
4 A number of studies appeared in the late 1980s by Spanos and his colleagues (cf. Spanos
et al., 1991) and others that seemed to show that similar effects on recall to those found
with hypnosis could be obtained without hypnotic induction when sufficiently motivating
instructions were given. There are, however, a number of problems with these studies.
First, instructions like Barber‟s task-motivating instructions usually increase compliance
beyond that obtained with hypnosis, but fail to provide equivalent subjective experiences.
Second, only hypnosis provides the ingrained cultural expectation that legitimizes memory
change. Imagine the automobile accident victim who publicly blames himself for the crash,
but, after talking to his lawyer and learning precisely what he must say to win a lawsuit,
thinks hard about what happened and remembers that it was really the other party‟s fault.
Now imagine the same situation, but now he is hypnotized, age regressed, relives the
accident, and discovers that it was the other party‟s fault. Most people, including the
hypnotic subject, find this latter situation more believable being hypnotized provides a
rationale for the memory alteration where an instructional set would not.
5 The Hurd safeguards are so named because they were adopted by the New Jersey
Supreme Court in State v. Hurd (1981). Since elaborated, they require that a qualified
