Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 8
make memories of abuse unlike memories of all other kinds. These range from the
seemingly absurd view that if abuse happens once you will remember it if it happens many
times you will forget it (cf. Terr, 1991), to the highly speculative and entirely unsupported
notion that betrayal is so awful that children must forget it (cf. J. Freyd, 1996). Again, this
is not to say that cases of traumatic amnesia do not occur we have seen them. They are
simply very rare.
Unfortunately, those arguing that psychogenic amnesia is common often fail to distinguish
between the inability to remember, consciously deciding to avoid thinking about unpleasant
experiences, ordinary amnesia for childhood events, unwillingness to discuss embarrassing
events, and simple forgetting (Lindsay &Read, 1994). For example Terr‟s (1991) view is
more parsimoniously explained by the fact that when multiple similar events occur, we
remember what happened in general, but forget many of the details of specific instances
(Hudson &Nelson, 1986 Linton, 1975). Recent work on children‟s memories about Voiding
Cystourethrogram Fluoroscopy, a medical procedure involving painful, forced contact with
the genitals (i.e., catheterization through the urethra and liquid infusion into the bladder
that may be repeated a number of times) failed to reveal Terr‟s (1991) hypothesized
multiple incident forgetting effect (Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, &
Kuhn, 1996).
The lack of distinction among these very different reasons for not reporting an event may be
seen throughout the literature in this area (e.g., Harvey &Herman, 1996). For example, in
the often cited study by Williams (1994), a large majority of those did not mention the
specific abuse incident remembered abuse on other occasions than the one that precipitated
their inclusion in the study. As for unwillingness to report embarrassing events, Williams
(1994) interviewed her subjects at length, but on only one occasion. Other research
(Femina, Yaeger, &Lewis, 1990) has clearly shown that multiple interviews often result in
information being revealed that subjects were unwilling or unable to share during an initial
session.
Additionally, as Dawes (1997) has recently pointed out, those who support the veridical
nature of reports based on previously repressed memories universally seem to
misunderstand what can be concluded from correlational research. Almost all the
nonanecdotal research in this area compares allegedly traumatized subjects to controls. In
such studies, the differences among subjects were there prior to the study (not created
during the study) these studies are correlational research, comparing participants differing
in history and physiology. Any such preexisting differences, measurable and unmeasurable
(literally an infinite number), may be responsible for the relationship between the studied
variables. As an illustration, consider the fact that early morning awakening and suicide are
related, but waking early does not cause people to become suicidal. Rather, both the
circadian phase advance signaled by early wakening and suicidal dysphoria are caused by
the (still elusive) biochemical lesion underlying major depressive disorder (Davison &Neale,
1996).
Few would mistake causality in the case of suicide and early awakening, but the limitations
of correlational research that studies the effects of trauma are sometimes not so obvious.
For example, van der Kolk (1996) frequently views differences in brain function between
patients with PTSD diagnoses and their controls as caused by trauma and its consequences.
However, there are multitudinous differences between the PTSD and control groups, and
any one of these unobserved and/or unimagined differences may be responsible for the
relationship he, in our view mistakenly, reports as causal.5
Finally, we described recovered memory therapy. In a typical scenario, a therapist sees a
patient with a common problem, such as physical symptoms of unclear etiology. Associating
the problem with the possibility of a history of childhood sexual abuse, the therapist asks

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 9
the patient to explore the possibility of sexual abuse, using hypnotic age regression or
forms of “disguised hypnosis” (Perry, 1995) such as guided imagery and regression work. In
some dyads, a strongly suggestive environment is created, in which the therapist assumes
that the patient must remember childhood sexual abuse in order to get better (cf. Lindsay &
Read, 1994). Failure to remember is seen as resistance to facing the awful truths of the
past. Once “memory” has been created, the patient is often encouraged to have little or no
contact with her parents, or even with siblings who do not support her view of the past.
Years of alienation routinely follow. As social support, the patient is encouraged to join
“survivors‟ groups,” with inclusion dependent on support for the belief that oneself and all
the other group members have been sexually abused as children. The similarity to the
familial alienation typical of cults is unmistakable.
Does Hypnotically Influenced Testimony, Elicited Under Optimal Conditions,
Routinely Aid or Injure the Fact-finding Process?
Although claims for the accuracy of testimony based on hypnotically influenced recall have
been made (cf. Reiser, 1980), they remain unsubstantiated. With published exceptions so
rare that they may be considered historic oddities, we do not know of cases in which
hypnotically influenced testimony in court clearly has aided the cause of justice. In the
famous Chowchilla kidnapping (Kroger &Doucé, 1979), where hypnosis seemingly helped a
witness remember enough of a license plate to facilitate solving the crime, the witness was
never needed to testify at trial. Rather, hypnosis was used as we and the AMA task force
suggest it be used: to generate leads, but not testimony in court. (Analogously, you can use
a medium to generate leads but you do not put the medium on the witness stand.) Even in
Rock v. Arkansas (1987) in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a defendant had a
constitutional right to tell her story though it had been elicited through hypnosis, the role of
hypnosis in the service of fact finding was questionable. The Rock case finally ended in a
plea bargain, and many found Rock‟s hypnotically influenced memory that the shooting was
accidental both self-serving and improbable.
On the other hand, hypnotically altered memory has often proved misleading (e.g., People
v. Shirley, 1982) or simply incorrect (e.g., People v. Kempinski, 1980) whether that
memory is a change from previous recall, or entirely de novo (see also Karlin, 1983, 1997).
Our own experience is negative enough for us to favor a per se exclusion of hypnotically
influenced testimony (cf. Orne et al., 1984).
In considering the question of the frequency with which hypnosis has a greater probative
than prejudicial value, it seems reasonable to examine the series of cases recently reported
by McConkey and Sheehan (1995) in a monograph Scheflin (1996) recognized as
authoritative. This small series of cases is important, as McConkey and Sheehan have been
among the foremost researchers in the field of memory and hypnosis, and their forensic
work was done in accord with an intricate and relatively comprehensive set of safeguards
for the use of forensic hypnosis. So their work is “as good as it gets.”
There are nine case histories in McConkey and Sheehan‟s (1995) text. The first three, in
which hypnosis was done by lay hypnotists, are used as examples of how not to perform
forensic hypnosis. The authors then suggest safeguards to avoid the types of egregious
errors found in such cases. Following their safeguards, the authors report hypnotizing
witnesses in three murder cases. All three cases remained unsolved, with forensic hypnosis
merely providing an inefficient venue for aid with the witnesses‟ emotional reactions to the
murders.
The two other cases in which the authors induced hypnosis involved sexual assaults. In the
first case, a young woman (AP) was unable to remember what had happened before she
awakened naked in a public park. A subsequent medical examination revealed semen in her
vagina. Hypnosis was used to help her recall what had happened, and the full set of