Influence of rapport on hypnotically induced pseudomemory.

Abstract

Three studies examined the influence of rapport on pseudomemory. Study 1 tested eight groups of 22 subjects in a 2 (level of susceptibility: high, low) x 2 (state instruction: hypnosis, waking) x 2 (rapport: present, reduced) design, rapport being inhibited by the hypnotist criticizing subjects' performance. Pseudomemory was tested by a second experimenter who also criticized subjects. Study 2 varied level of susceptibility and rapport for 88 hypnotically instructed subjects where criticism was offered only by the second experimenter. Study 3 analyzed effects among 44 highly susceptible hypnotic subjects where the second experimenter refrained from criticizing subjects. Data indicated a significant association between rapport with the hypnotist and pseudomemory in cued recall, strength of pseudomemory being appreciably lowered when negative hypnotist rapport was reinforced by the person testing pseudomemory.

Supreme Court of Canada addresses admissibility of posthypnosis witness evidence: R. v. Trochym (2007).

“…Hypnosis can produce false memories (Laurence & Perry, 1983); of course, many studies have examined false memories in nonhypnotized eyewitnesses (e.g., Wade, Garry, Read, & Lindsay, 2002; see Loftus & Bernstein, 2005 for a review). False or distorted memories can be identified or reduced when individuals who have been previously hypnotized are offered a financial incentive for distinguishing between veridical and suggested information (Murrey, Cross, & Whipple, 1992) and when the rapport between the hypnosis interviewer and the witness is minimised (Sheehan, Green, & Truesdale, 1992). Another factor that can help witnesses distinguish between veridical and suggested reports is cross-examination (Spanos, Quigley, Gwynn, Glatt, & Perlini, 1991).…”

Is there a future for investigative hypnosis?

“…Also, as noted previously, other research suggests that hypnotically induced inaccuracies may often refl ect reporting biases rather than genuine irreversible memory distortions (that is, subjects report false information because they think the situation requires it of them, rather than because their memories are impaired). Thus, hypnotically created pseudomemories and false confi dence effects can be signifi cantly reduced and/or reversed to non-hypnotic levels under conditions that encourage more cautious and truthful reporting (Barnier & McConkey, 1995;McConkey et al, 1990;Murray, Cross, & Whipple, 1992;Sheehan, Green, & Truesdale, 1992;Spanos et al 1989;Wagstaff & Frost, 1996). Thus, instead of dismissing the whole of the testimony of the witness who has previously been 'hypnotized', perhaps we might more usefully ask what might be the effects of this particular hypnosis session on particular statements made by this particular witness?…”

“…Such conditions include telling interviewees that a 'hidden-part' of them can describe their 'real' memories, cross-examining them under oath (Spanos et al, 1989), giving them a fi nancial incentive for accurate reporting (Murray, Cross, & Whipple, 1992), or providing them with an opportunity to deny being in a 'trance' (Wagstaff & Frost, 1996). False memory reports with hypnosis are also reduced when it is implied that the experiment is terminated (Barnier & McConkey, 1995), when subjects are contacted by telephone at their home after the experiment (McConkey, Labelle, Bibb, & Bryant, 1990), and when rapport with the hypnotist is downgraded (Sheehan, Green, & Truesdale, 1992). It should be noted that rarely are pseudomemory effects eliminated entirely using such procedures; however, the central issue here is not whether all pseudomemory effects (including those created outside the context of hypnosis) result from response bias, but why they appear to be more prevalent when hypnosis procedures are employed.…”

Hypnosis and the Law

“…In support of this view, a variety of evidence suggests that hypnotically created pseudomemories and false confidence effects can be reduced to nonhypnotic levels under conditions that encourage more cautious and truthful reporting, such as when participants are told that a "hidden-part" of them can describe their "real" memories, when they are cross-examined under oath (Spanos, Gwynn, Comer, Baltruweit, & de Groh, 1989), when they are given a financial incentive for accurate reporting (Murray, Cross, & Whipple, 1992), or when they are given an opportunity to deny being in a trance (Wagstaff & Frost, 1996). False memory reports with hypnosis are also reduced when it is implied that the experiment is terminated (Barnier & McConkey, 1995), when participants are contacted by telephone at their home after the experiment (McConkey, Labelle, Bibb, & Bryant, 1990), and when rapport with the hypnotist is downgraded (Sheehan, Green, & Truesdale, 1992).…”