Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 58
Third, the panel found that when hypnosis is used for recall of meaningful past events, there
is often new information reported. Thus, importantly, the AMA acknowledged a hypermnesia
effect with hypnosis for the recall of meaningful material. This fact alone justifies its use.
The fact that the material remembered may include accurate information as well as
confabulations and pseudomemories is true also of prodded memory without hypnosis. The
AMA also found that In some cases, these pseudomemories may be the result of hypnosis
transforming the subjects „prior belief into thoughts or fantasies that they come to accept as
memories. Furthermore, since hypnotized subjects tend to be more suggestible, they may
become more vulnerable to incorporating any cues given during hypnosis into their
recollections.
Several points are worth noting about these latter findings. Most importantly, the panel
does conclude that hypnosis is capable of producing additional truthful information. The fact
that the material produced might contain fantasies, confabulations, or imaginative
generations is true of memory without hypnotic retrieval. The panel did not conclude that
hypnosis was less effective than other memory retrieval techniques, nor did it conclude that
hypnosis generates more fantasy, and so on, than other techniques. Thus, the panel in fact
is concluding that, if used properly, hypnosis can retrieve unavailable truthful memories.
At the time the report was published, there was inadequate data to support the panel‟s
negative concerns about pseudomemories. As McCann and Sheehan (1988) have observed
after an examination of the relevant literature, “only three studies to date, however, bear
directly on the experimental creation of false memories in hypnotically responsive subjects”
(p. 339). In fact, by 1985, when the AMA Report appeared, only one study was available.
This study (Laurence &Perry, 1983, which was drawn from Laurence, 1982, and which is
more fully discussed in Laurence, Nadon, Nogrady, &Perry, 1986), used a population of 27
high hypnotizables and involved the creation of a pseudomemory of awakening in the night
to the sound of loud noises. Bernheim (1891/1980), a century ago, had conducted this
same experiment and Orne in 1982 had demonstrated it before BBC cameras for a
documentary on forensic hypnosis (Barnes, 1982). This experiment was widely reported but
little analyzed. The media reports were grandiose: hypnosis produces pseudomemories! The
results, however, were significantly more modest. Only 13 of the 27 highly hypnotizable
subjects accepted the pseudomemory in a waking state. Thus, slightly less than half of the
most vulnerable population were induced to accept a misinformation suggestion. On closer
look, however, only 6 of the 13 subjects were “unequivocal in their confidence that the
suggested event had actually taken place” (McCann &Sheehan, 1988, p. 339). Thus, less
than 25% of the most vulnerable population was willing to accept a pseudomemory of a
peripheral detail in a nontraumatic setting.
A second study from the same Canadian laboratory appeared in 1986, one year after the
AMA Report. Labelle and Perry (1986) replicated the earlier study, but this time they added
that imagery and absorption were significant predictors of the likelihood that subjects would
accept created memories. This point is very important for two reasons. First, it suggests
that the problem of memory creation is not a problem with hypnosis, but may be inherent in
those people with traits of imagination and absorption. Thus, hypnosis is not the culprit, we
must look to individual differences. Second, this finding serves as a basis for using objective
testing as a prelude to memory retrieval, including memory retrieval with hypnosis, just as
the ASCH Guidelines require.
In addition to the paucity of reports available to the panel, there is the further problem that
the initial Canadian study was not carefully examined. The third study referred to by
McCann and Sheehan (1988), conducted by Spanos and McLean in 1986 also reported a
high incidence of false memory acceptance in high hypnotizables (9 out of 11 subjects)
but, when “hidden observer” instructions were given, only 2 of the 11 subjects continued to
adhere to their pseudomemories. According to McCann and Sheehan (1988):

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 59
Spanos &McLean claimed that highly hypnotizable subjects exposed to the
pseudomemory creation paradigm remain able to discriminate their pseudomemory
imaginings accurately from actual memories and provide “memory” reports accord-
ing to the expectations conveyed to them. Consequently, when the situation allows
them to refute earlier pseudomemory reports while maintaining their self-
presentation as deeply hypnotized, they can do so. (p. 340)
McCann and Sheehan (1988) further demonstrated that social influence context factors, not
hypnosis, accounts for the acceptance of pseudomemories, thus disproving the Karlin and
Orne thesis that hypnosis inevitably contaminates memory:
Pseudomemory response, like other hypnotic responses, is clearly shaped and
determined by psychological factors of influence. It also appears that
pseudomemory response should not be viewed as a standard posthypnotic
reaction. (p. 345)
When these social influence factors are controlled, as they are in the ASCH Guidelines, the
production of suggested pseudomemories disappears as a problem, except for the general
issue of the malleability of ordinary memory. Furthermore, again refuting the Karlin and
Orne inevitability premise, McCann and Sheehan‟s studies show that (1) the
pseudomemories are not really memories at all, and (2) contrary to the false memory
position, the original memories do not get destroyed (see also McCann &Sheehan, 1987
McCloskey &Zaragosa, 1985):
Results from the present study and this independent study both indicate that
hypnotic pseudomemory can be breached by exposure to incontrovertible evidence
relating to original events, and that pseudomemory elements are not irreversibly
integrated with original memories. (1988, p. 345 n. 4)
Thus, the AMA Report suffers from two significant deficiencies. First, there were almost no
relevant studies available from which to draw scientifically acceptable conclusions. Second,
the study that was available on pseudomemory production led the AMA researchers to
incorrect conclusions about (1) the ease of hypnotically implanting memories, (2) the
confidence in those memories, and (3) the issue of whether the original memories were
retrievable or forever lost.
By contrast, the ASCH Guidelines had the advantage of an additional decade of experiments
directly related to the central issues, and also had the advantage of direct input from over
80 of the world‟s most significant authorities in the major fields of hypnosis, memory, social
influence, and suggestion.
Karlin‟s (1997) preference for the 1985 AMA Report is not benefited by the fact that the
AMA reaffirmed that report in 1994 (American Medical Association, 1994) because the later
Report did not involve hypnosis and did not involve examination, analysis, discussion, or
even citation to post-1985 scientific studies. Rather, the 1994 Report on Memories of
Childhood Abuse simply states that the old Report is still accurate and is reaffirmed. The
1994 AMA Committee must be seriously faulted for their scientific sloppiness in failing to
discover that the earlier Report was substantially in error. To reaffirm a document after a
decade without checking and reporting on its continuing scientific validity constitutes a
violation of the prevailing standard of care for research because it implies knowledge where
there is none.
While Karlin (1997) and others may continue to support the 1985 AMA Report, it is
interesting to note that half of the eight-member committee that wrote that Report no
longer considers its conclusions to be accurate. Three of the original members of the 1985
AMA Report helped write the ASCH Guidelines, and another member of the 1985 AMA
Report has privately (not yet in print) expressed substantial doubts about its accuracy and