|
This article is an electronic version of an article originally
published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1997, Volume 14, Number 2, pages 172-206.
Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from
that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic
information in papers that you may write.
Hypnosis and the Iatrogenic Creation of Memory:
On the Need for a Per Se Exclusion of Testimony Based on Hypnotically Influenced
Recall
Robert A. Karlin, Ph.D.
Martin T. Orne, M.D., Ph.D.
Abstract
An overview of Karlin and Orne (1996) and related research shows why
hypnotically influenced testimony is more unreliable and misleading than
testimony based on ordinary recall. McConkey and Sheehan’s (1995) report on a
recent series of forensic hypnosis cases is then used to illustrate the need for
a per se exclusion. Next, several points raised by Scheflin (1996) are
discussed. First, as in Amytal interviews -- whose per se exclusion most
scholars accept -- testimony influenced by hypnosis tends to be believable,
vivid, and misleading. Second, Scheflin’s (1994, 1996) challenge to per se
exclusion based on the case of an abused child is answered. Third, the time
course of Ms. Borawick’s hypnotically influenced retrieval of putative abuse
memories is examined. Fourth, consideration is given to the inherent
incredibility of Ms. Borawick’s claims and the costs of debating the
admissibility of such testimony on a case-by-case basis. Combining clinical
hypnosis and psychotherapy will not result in objectively reliable memories,
since each procedure encourages recall that may be subjectively important, but
is often historically inaccurate. In the therapeutic context a lack of
understanding of iatrogenic effects is hazardous, and hypnotically influenced
testimony, with rare and easily specifiable exceptions, should be automatically
excluded at trial.
Full text available through
ICSA E-Library.
|
