Recall and recognition memory during posthypnotic amnesia: A failure to confirm the disrupted-search hypothesis and the memory disorganization hypothesis.

Abstract

Recent research has led some investigators to hypothesize that posthypnotic amnesia is characterized by a disruption in the memory search process and, more generally, by disorganization in memory retrieval. Data to test these hypotheses were provided by 141 male and female undergraduates administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms B and C. Amnesia was assessed by the usual recall criterion and by a batch recognition-testing procedure. The disruptedsearch hypothesis, tested by comparing the effects of the amnesia suggestion on recall and recognition, was not supported. The use of recognition items, rank ordered by subjects according to their judgment of order of administration, furnished data to test the memory disorganization hypothesis. In support of this hypothesis, analyses of the temporal rankings of recognized items revealed greater disorganization in the memory of subjects who were initially amnesic by recall criteria than those who were partially amnesic or nonamnesic. Nevertheless, a number of other findings, including the fact that fewer than 50% of the initially amnesic subjects showed disorganized recognition and that the disorganization effect during recall was weak and inconsistent, call into question the explanatory power of this hypothesis. Recent research in posthypnotic amnesia has sought to identify its underlying processes. Much of this work has been done by Kihlstrom and Evans (Evans & Kihlstrom, 1973; Kihlstrom, 1977; Kihlstrom, 1978; Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979), who have come to view posthypnotic amnesia as a disruption in the retrieval functions of memory. According to Anderson and Bower's (1972) two-stage theory of memory, retrieval involves (a) a search for critical material, and

Detection of simulated hypnotic amnesia.

“…As in previous studies, simulators exhibited higher levels of recall and recognition amnesia than nonsimulating hypnotic subjects (Williamsen et al, 1965), and both hypnotic subjects and simulators showed higher levels of recall amnesia than of recognition amnesia (Barber & Calverly, 1966; St. Jean & Coe, 1981; Williamsen et al, 1965).…”

“…A number of investigators (Barber & Calverley, 1966; Kihlstrom & Shor, 1978; St. Jean & Coe, 1981; Williamsen, Johnson & Eriksen, 1965) have reported that hypnotically amnesic subjects exhibit larger deficits on recall than on recognition tasks.…”

Mood, recall, and sensitivity effects in normal college students.

“…Bower's research (1981; Bower et al., 1981) was conducted with subjects selected via a screening procedure for hypnotic susceptibility. Depending on the test used, anywhere from 15% to 45% of adults are termed highly susceptible (e.g., Radtke & Spanos, 1981; St. Jean & Coe, 1981).…”

Hypnotic amnesia and temporal organization: Effects of learning set, stimulus type, number of presentations, and hypnotic susceptibility.

“…S CI C OMP . 20 (2), 1988 susceptibles (Evans, 1980; Evans & Kihlstrom, 1973; Geiselman et al, 1983; Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979), two others failed to confirm this finding (Radtke & Spanos, 1981; St. Jean & Coe, 1981), and two recent studies found a significant relationship between temporal recall organization and hypnotic susceptibility but no significant differences between amnesics and non-amnesics on organization (Radtke, Spanos, Della Malva, & Stam, 1986; Spanos, de Groh, & Bertrand, 1986).…”