3.
How reliable are things remembered under hypnosis?
This has often arisen as both
a legal issue (as in the reliability of testimony obtained during or after
hypnotherapy) and also a social issue(regarding the use of hypnotherapy
to establish evidence of early child abuse, for example).
It is entirely true that subjects
under hypnosis frequently recall past forgotten events (or 'repressed'
memories in the jargon of psychoanalysis indicating an active role of
the individual in forgetting as a defense mechanism).
It is also true that people
under hypnosis often 'remember' things quite vividly that never actually
happened, but which have great personal significance nonetheless. Psychiatrist
William Sargent was one of the first to document the therapeutic benefit
of emotionally charged experience, or abreaction, of fantasized life events.
This is one of defining characteristics
of deep trance hypnosis in fact, the intensity of fantasies as well as
memories, and the inability to distinguish the two. This characteristic
of trance is what makes is possible to usehypnotherapy to alter personal
history in order to reduce the traumaticeffects of past events on an individual's
functioning. Not simply a relivingor 'catharsis' of the trauma, but a
sometimes a lasting modification of theinterpretation of the memory can
and does occur in many cases.
This apparent violability and
fallibility of human memory is frequentlydownplayed in discussions of
hypnotic recall because of the already difficulttime that legitimate victims
of abuse have in proving what happened to them.It's not the intention
here to make life more difficult for abuse victims,only to point out that
hypnosis doesn't neccessarily solve their problem ofdigging out facts
from old memories as neatly as we'd like it to.
The illusion of unusual veracity
of hypnotic recall appears to come from atleast two main sources:
- Older models of human memory
as a simple recording and playback mechanismwhich preserved extreme
details of everything perceived, and which could beplayed back in an
enhanced way under certain conditions, like hypnosis.
- The vividness and subjective
meaningfulness often attributed toexperiences under hypnosis partly
as a result of the unique characteristics ofhypnotic imagery.
Recognizing the potential difficulties
arising from what some call 'falsememory syndrome,' several states in
the U.S. now confine legal testimony tothat obtained prior to any systematic
hypnotic treatment.
In 1985, a committee commissioned
by the American Medical Associationcautioned against the systematic use
of hypnosis for recollection for both itsunreliability (the possibility
for example of 'confabulation,' the creation ofstories out of whole cloth
to help fill in missing memories) and its potentialto create vivid false
memories with an artificially induced sense ofcertainty.
In addition to the previously
provided references for hypermnesia, here aresome more specifically devoted
to the limitations of hypnotic recall:
- D. Spiegel et al, 1989,
"Hypnotic alteration of somatosensory perception,"American Journal
of Psychiatry.
- Loftus and Loftus, "On the
permanence of stored information in the humanbrain," American Psychologis"t,
35(5):409-420 (May,1980), criticallyevaluates the data gathered by neurologist
Wilder Penfield who had oncebelieved he had discovered during the probing
of the brains of epilepticpatients a 'sequential record of consciousness'
similar to the oldtape-recorder model of human memory.
No one yet knows exactly how
human memory works in all its details, but theview of hypnotic recall
as potentially highly fallible is also supported byclinical experience
and experimental data.
Milton Erickson called the
vivid experiences under hypnosis 'vivification,'and describes how a vivified
image is experienced, regardless of whetherremembered or constructed:
"... They are subjectively
experienced as external events rather than asinternal processes, with
a consequent endowment of them as realityexperiences."
"... They identified it with
actual past experiences and thus endowed it witha subjective validity."
"... They 'created a reality'
that permitted a responsive functioning inaccord with the demands of
the experiment."
Are there identified physiological
correlates for such vivid recollections orre-creations of past events?
One controversial researcher, Michael Persinger,has written hundreds of
articles on the subject of neurophysiologicalcorrelates of extraordinary
experiences of all kinds. He has reportedlyreproduced something like ecstatic
mystical states with the help ofelectromagnetic stimulation of the cortical
temporal lobes of human subjects,and facilitated vivid imagery akin to
UFO abduction experiences. He is notalone in the observation of what is
sometimes known as 'clinical mysticism,'which is seen in some forms of
temporal lobe epilepsy and in mechanicalstimulation of areas of the temporal
lobes, but he is somewhat unique in hisrepeatedly published insistence
that all or virtually all unexplainedpheonomena and seemingly false memories
can be traced to electromagneticeffects on the brain. For an article particularly
pertinent to the issue ofhypnotic recall, see:
- Persinger MA. Neuropsychological
profiles of adults who report "suddenremembering" of early childhood
memories: implications for claims of sex abuseand alien visitation/abduction
experiences. Perceptual & Motor Skills.75(1):259-66, 1992 Aug.
- "Six adults, who had recently
experienced sudden recall of preschool memoriesof sex abuse or alien
abduction/visitation, were given completeneuropsychological assessments.
All experiences "emerged" when hypnosis wasutilized within a context
of sex abuse or New Age religion and were followedby reduction in anxiety.
As a group, these subjects displayed significant (Tgreater than 70)
elevations of childhood imaginings, complex partialepileptic-like signs,
and suggestibility. Neuropsychological data indicatedright frontotemporal
anomalies and reduced access to the right parietal lobe.MMPI profiles
were normal. The results support the hypothesis that enhancedimagery
due to temporal lobe lability within specific contexts can facilitatethe
creation of memories; they are strengthened further if there is alsoreduction
in anxiety." (Taken from an on-line abstract).
If there is anything to this
'temporal lobe lability' hypothesis, it seemswell worthwhile investigating
its relationship to hypnotic suggestibility, andthe hypothetical 'Fantasy
Prone Personality' of Barber and Wilson.
As for recall under hypnosis,
the experimental observation seems to be thatthe subject is uniquely motivated
to remember details, but also uniquelycapable of making up details and
experiencing them as if they were remembered.
In Lynn and Rhue's 1991 Theories
of Hypnosis, Robert Nadon et al.discuss a representative example of
experiments in eyewitness recall with theaid of hypnosis. Subjects were
shown a videotape of a mock armed robbery.They were then asked to recall
specific aspects 6 times:
- Twice immediately after
seeing the film.
- Twice a week after seeing
the film.
- Once during hypnosis.
- Once after hypnosis.
The result was that high hypnotizability
subjects (SHSS:C) recalled morecumulative items in hypnosis than they
did just before hypnosis. Lowhypnotizability subjects did not remember
more during hypnosis. Thismatches our expectation of hypermnesia, that
hypnosis facilitates recall forgood hypnotic subjects.
Most interestingly, both
high and low hypnotizability subjects alsomade more cumulative errors
during hypnosis than just before hypnosis,though the effect was stronger
with highly hypnotizable subjects.
One explanation of this kind
of result from experiments is that the hypnoticcontext causes subjects
to adopt a looser reporting criterion, and they aremotivated to produce
more information, containing both correct and incorrect(where there is
no clear memory) details. See Klatzky and Erdely, 1985, "Theresponse criterion
problem in tests of hypnosis and memory," InternationalJournal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis", 33, 246-257 for furtherdiscussion
of this report criterion issue.
|