This study compared the relative efficacy of four popular methods of memory retrieval: hypnosis, “Guided Memory,” “Cognitive Interview,” and spontaneous free recall. These retrieval methods, tested in an academic setting, were paired with different intake methods, utilizing audio, visual, audio-visual, and reading inputs. All interview sessions, including hypnosis induction, were conducted individually and only free recall (as opposed to forced recall) techniques were used by the interviewers. The number of subjects' correct responses was converted to a percentage of the total of potentially remembered items. These data, through the use of a Treatment ö Block ANOVA, showed a statistically significant difference between intake methods but a nonsignificant difference between recall methods, suggesting that guided memory and cognitive interview techniques may be as effective as hypnosis in short term free recall. This study indicates that when contributing cognitive features are extracted, hypnosis by itself does not lead to further memory improvement Confabulations and distortions, though present in any type of reconstructed memory, are minimal when force, pressure, or persuasion is absent from the retrieval process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
StagerG. L.LundyR. M., Hypnosis and the Learning and Recall of Visually Presented Material, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, pp. 38–39, 1985.
2.
SmithM. C., Hypnotic Memory Enhancement of Witnesses: Does it Work?Psychological Bulletin, 94, pp. 387–407, 1983.
3.
ErdelyiM. H.DingesD. F.OrneD. F.WhitehouseM. T.OrneE. C., The Stimulus and the Test in Hypnotic Hypermnesia, manuscript submitted for publication, 1987.
4.
ReiserM., Hypnosis as a Tool in Criminal Investigation, Police Chief, 43, pp. 39–40, 1976.
5.
SchaferD.RubioR., Hypnosis to Aid the Recall of Witnesses, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 26, pp. 81–91, 1978.
6.
KrogerW. S.DounceR. G., Hypnosis in Criminal Investigation, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, pp. 358–374, 1979.
7.
RelingerH., Hypnotic Hypermnesia: A Critical Review, American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23, pp. 75–84, 1984.
8.
RelingerH., Hypnotic Hypermnesia: A Critical Review, American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 26, pp. 212–225, 1984.
9.
SloaneM. C., A Comparison of Hypnosis vs. Waking State and Visual vs. Non-Visual Recall Instructions for Witness/Victim Memory Retrieval in Actual Major Crimes, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee (0 356), Dissertation Abstract International, 42, 2251B, 1981.
10.
GibbonH. B., The Use of Hypnosis in Police Investigations, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 35:5, pp. 138–142, 1982.
11.
NeisserU., John Dean's Memory: A Case Study, Cognition, 9:1–22, pp. 255–273, 1981.
12.
NeisserU., Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, California, 1982.
CampbellP.LaurenceJ., The Enhancement of Memory by Hypnosis in the Legal Investigative Situation, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 24:3, pp. 155–167, 1983.
15.
American Medical Association, Scientific Status of Refreshing Recollections by the Use of Hypnosis, Journal of the American Medical Association, 253, pp. 1918–1923, 1985.
16.
American Medical Association, Council Report: Scientific Status of Refreshing Collection by the Use of Hypnosis, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34:5, pp. 1–12, 1986.
17.
MalpassR. S.DevineP. G., Guided Memory in Witness Identification, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, pp. 343–350, 1981.
18.
GeiselmanR. E.FisherR. P.MackinnonD. P.HollandH. L., Eyewitness Memory Enhancement in the Police Interview: Cognitive Retrieval Mnemonics Versus Hypnosis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70:2, pp. 401–412, 1985.
19.
FisherR. P.GeiselmanR. E., Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview, Charles C. Thomas Publishing, Springfield, Illinois, 1992.
20.
HullC. L., Hypnosis and Susceptibility: An Experimental Approach, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1933.
21.
HilgardE. R., Hypnotic Susceptibility, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1965.
22.
WeitzehofferA. M., Hypnotism: An Objective Study in Suggestibility, Wiley, New York, 1953.
23.
UdorfR., Handbook of Hypnosis for Professionals, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987.
24.
NadonR.HoytI. P.RegisterP. A.KilstromJ. F., Absorption and Hypnotizability: Context Effects Reexamined, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, pp. 144–153, 1991.
25.
FrommE.LombardL.SkinnerS. H.KahnS., The Ego in Self-Hypnosis, Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 7:4, pp. 335–349, 1988.
26.
BartholomewR. E.BasterfieldK.HowardG. S., UFO Abductees and Contactees: Psychopathology or Fantasy Proneness?Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 22:3, pp. 215–227, 1991.
27.
ShorR. E.OrneM. T.O'ConnellD. N., Psychological Correlates of Plateau Hypnotizability in a Special Volunteer Sample, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, pp. 80–95, 1966.
28.
BentinS.MoscovitchM., Psychophysiological Indices of Implicit Memory Performance, Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 28:4, pp. 346–352, 1990.
29.
FouldsF. J.McAllisterH.FouldsS., The Relationship between Socialization and Electrodermal Activity in Normal Subjects, Journal of Psychophysiology, 2:3, pp. 227–230, 1988.
30.
WallaceA. F. C., Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Personality (Cassette Recording), McGraw Hill, Hightstown, New Jersey, 1970.
31.
RatherD., Commentator, Documentary on Police Brutality, CBS, New York, 1991.
32.
American Psychological Association, Discovering Psychology (Video Cassette), Boston: WGBH, 1990.
