The authors argue that mnemonic lapses of this kind represent a failed attempt to remember rather than a successful attempt to forget.pontaneous forms of forgetting as well.

Spiegel, David; Cardena, Etzel (1991). Disintegrated experience: The dissociative disorders revisited. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100 (3), 366-378.

Presents proposed changes to the dissociative disorders section of the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and reviews the concept of pathological and nonpathological dissociation, including empirical findings on the relations between trauma and dissociative phenomenology and between dissociation and hypnosis. The most important proposals include the creation of 2 new diagnostic entities, brief reactive dissociative disorder and transient dissociative disturbance, and the readoption of the criterion of amnesia for a multiple personality disorder diagnosis. Further work on dissociative processes will provide an important link between clinical and experimental approaches to human cognition, emotion, and personality.

Gwynn, Maxwell I.; Quigley, Celia; Perlini, Arthur; Glatt, Richard; Spanos, Nicholas P. (1990, August). Eyewitness testimony: Effects of hypnotic interrogation and witness preparation. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.

There is notable absence of empirical research on the effects of witness preparation on subsequent testimony. The present study investigates the separate and combined effects of hypnotic recall procedures and witness preparation on subjects’ confidence in, and maintenance during cross-examination, of mug-shot identifications.
Session 1: Subjects viewed a 65 second videotape of a mock crime involving a shooting. The offender in this video was a male approximately 40-50 years old, whose face was partially obscured by the brim of a baseball cap.
Subjects were then taken individually to another room, where a second experimenter presented them with a series of five photographic mug shots. Half of the series contained the mug shot; the other did not. Subjects indicate if any portrayed the offender and then to rate their confidence in their identification.
Subjects for Session 2 were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
Hypnotic condition … followed by “reliving” instructions modeled after Reiser’s procedures used in training police detectives.
Nonhypnotic condition … Each subject was then presented with the mug shot lineup and rated their confidence as in Session 1 with the same second experimenter.
Subjects who in Session 2 identified any mug shot as portraying the offender returned about one week after for a mock courtroom appearance. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a “prepared” condition, or a “nonprepared” condition, with the restriction of equal numbers of offender-present vs. offender-absent lineups and hypnotic vs. nonhypnotic subjects in each condition … The subject-witness was questioned by the third same experimenter under direct examination and then cross-examined by a fourth experimenter in the role of defense attorney.
Subjects in the prepared condition were given pointers concerning their courtroom appearance. These pointers included counseling to answer all of the questions fully, to speak in complete sentences, and to present themselves confidently.
The videotapes of the subjects’ testimonies were then shown to independent blind raters who rated the degree of confidence displayed by the subject-witness at two points, first after direct examination, and again after cross-examination.
To summarize the results: 1) As in a number of previous studies, eyewitness confidence was unrelated to mug shot identification accuracy. 2) The use of hypnotic techniques as practiced by many police investigators did not lead to an increase in the frequency or accuracy with which subjects identified a mug shot as portraying a previously viewed offender. 3) Again consistent with previous research, the use of hypnosis did lead to an increase in eyewitness confidence, without a corresponding increase in accuracy, and this confidence increase was correlated with pretested levels of hypnotic susceptibility. 4) Contrary to the speculation of researchers such as Orne, Laurence & Perry, hypnotic procedures _did not_ lead to the creation of unshakable witnesses who were impervious to cross-examination. And, 5) The usual practice of pre-trial preparation of witnesses _did_ lead to a resistance of witnesses to be broken down under cross-examination.
In conclusion, the key factor found to affect eyewitness confidence and mug shot identification was _not_ the use of hypnotic memory enhancement techniques, but rather the usual practice of pre-trial witness preparation.

Spiegel, David; Cardena, Etzel (1990, October). New uses of hypnosis in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Supplement), 51, 39-43.

Vietnam veterans with PTSD and those abused as children have above average hypnotizability. Hypnosis provides controlled access to memories that may otherwise be kept out of consciousness. New uses of hypnosis with PTSD victims involve coupling access to the dissociated traumatic memories with positive restructuring of those memories. Hypnosis can be used to help patients face and bear a traumatic experience by embedding it in a new context, acknowledging helplessness during the event, and yet linking that experience with remoralizing memories, such as efforts at self-protection, shared affection with friends who were killed, or the ability to control the environment at other times. In this way, hypnosis can be used to provide controlled access to memories that are then placed into a broader perspective. Patients can be taught self-hypnosis techniques that allow them to work through and thereby reduce spontaneous, unbidden, intrusive recollections.
Weekes, John R.; Lynn, Steven Jay (1990). Hypnotic suggestion type, and subjective experience – the order-effects hypothesis revisited: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 38, 95-100.

In a replication and extension of Field, Evans, and Orne’s (1965) research, no support was found for the hypothesis that suggestion order is related to hypnotic responding. Confirming earlier findings, subjects were no more responsive to suggestions ordered from easy-to-difficult than they were to suggestions ordered from difficult-to- easy. Measures of subjective involvement in suggestions, involuntariness, and archaic involvement with the hypnotist were no more sensitive to order effects, nor were order effects more apparent with subjects who received direct versus indirect suggestions. Confirming earlier research, direct suggestions did facilitate suggestion-related involuntariness and response to the hypnotic amnesia item after cancellation, whereas indirect suggestions enhanced fears of negative appraisal by the hypnotist. Thus, authoritative suggestions enhance responding to a cognitive-delusional item relative to more permissive suggestions. Finally, female subjects were more involved in suggestions than were males, particularly in response to more difficult tests items.
Ganaway, George K. (1989). Historical versus narrative truth: Clarifying the role of exogenous trauma in the etiology of MPD and its variants. Dissociation, 2, 205-220.
The author notes a current trend toward viewing multiple personality disorder (MPD) and its variants as a form of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder based solely on exogenous childhood trauma, and cautions against prematurely reductionistic hypotheses. He focuses on Kluft’s Third Etiological Factor, which includes the various developmental, biological, interpersonal, sociocultural, and psychodynamic shaping influences and substrates that determine the form taken by the dissociative defense. He hypothesizes a credibility continuum of childhood and contemporary memories arising primarily from exogenous trauma at one end, and endogenous trauma (stemming from intrapsychic adaptational needs) at the other. The author offers alternative multidetermined explanations for certain unverified trauma memories that currently are being accepted and validated as factual experiences by many therapists. He describes some potentially deleterious effects of validating unverified trauma memories during psychotherapy, and recommends that the MPD patients’ need for unconditional credibility be responded to in the same manner as other transference-generated productions.

Kunzendorf, Robert G. (1989-90). Posthypnotic amnesia: Dissociation of self-concept or self-consciousness?. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 321-334.

Two studies of posthypnotic amnesia tested predictions derived from the ‘source’ monitoring theory of self-consciousness. Experiment 1 tested the prediction that posthypnotic source amnesia is irreversible, because hypnosis attenuates self- consciousness of whether one’s sensations have an imaginal source or a perceptual source. In this initial study, recall amnesia was reversed by posthypnotic cueing with a prearranged signal, but source amnesia was not reversed by such cueing. Experiment 2 examined whether the cued reversal of recall amnesia is attributable, in part, to the hypnotic attenuation of self-conscious ‘source monitoring’ and, in part, to the reversal of recall criteria: from a criterion rejecting ‘seemingly imaginary’ or ‘sourceless’ memories, to a criterion accepting ‘sourceless but familiar’ memories. In this latter study, posthypnotic recall amnesia was breached when subjects were instructed to trust their seemingly imaginary memories, but not when they were instructed to try harder to remember [emphasis removed from quoted text].

Pillemer, D. B.; White, S. H. (1989). Childhood events recalled by children and adults. In Reese, H. W. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Authors discuss a dual memory theory. The first memory system is prominent in early childhood, and is a system in which are organized and evoked by persons, locations, and emotions. Such memories are not easily “transportable” outside the original experience. These memories are accessed through images of face and place, actions, or feelings. The second memory system begins to develop in early childhood, is verbally mediated, and stores experiences in narrative form. Such memories are accessible through verbal interaction, and can be reviewed and shared with others verbally. For a small child, to access all of a memory one would need to tap into both memory systems. The authors suggest that the first memory system continues to be available throughout one’s life, especially when strong emotion was associated so that verbal cues are not attached. [This has implications for retrieval of “lost” memories using imagery-based approaches like hypnosis.]

Schuyler, Bradley A.; Coe, William C. (1989). More on volitional experiences and breaching posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 320-331.

: Highly responsive hypnotic subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects’ reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis.

The authors suggest that subjects observe themselves not remembering (i.e. not reporting memories) and conclude that they therefore could not remember. Such subjects, they say, are deceiving themselves in so far as they could remember if they were to direct their attention to salient cues.

Spanos, Nicholas P.; Lush, Nancy I.; Gwynn, Maxwell I. (1989). Cognitive skill-training enhancement of hypnotizability: Generalization effects and trance logic responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (5), 795-804.

Compared low-hypnotizable subjects who simulated hypnosis, underwent cognitive skill training, or served as no- treatment controls to subjects who scored as high hypnotizables without training (natural highs) on response to analgesia, age-regression, visual hallucination, selective amnesia, and posthypnotic suggestions. Subjects who attained high hypnotizability following skill training (created highs) did not differ from natural highs on any response index. Natural and created highs scored lower than simulators but higher than controls on the behavioral and subjective aspects of test suggestions. Simulators, however, were significantly less likely than natural highs or skill- trained subjects to exhibit duality responding or incongruous writing during age regression or transparent hallucinating. Results suggest that the hypnotic responses of natural and created highs are mediated by the same cognitive variables and that enhancements in hypnotizability produced by skill training cannot b

Van Denberg, Eric J.; Kurtz, Richard M. (1989). Changes in body attitude as a function of posthypnotic suggestions. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 15-30. e adequately explained in terms of compliance.
Hypothesized that highly hypnotizable subjects who remained amnesic for posthypnotic suggestions to improve body attitude would show greater changes than subjects who were not amnesic. Subjects given simulating instructions were used as a comparison group to assess experimental demands. 48 females were screened with the Harvard and assigned to one of 4 conditions: (a) high hypnotizable with amnesia suggestions, (b) high hypnotizable without suggested amnesia, (c) low hypnotizable simulator with amnesia, and (d) low hypnotizable simulator without suggested amnesia. A fifth group was formed of those high hypnotizable subjects who remembered the suggestion despite instructions to the contrary. The Body Attitude Scale (Kurtz, 1966) was administered prior to and 3 days after the experimental suggestions. Results generally demonstrated that high hypnotizable amnesic subjects manifested the greatest attitudinal and phenomenological changes as a result of the posthypnotic suggestion, although conclusions were tempered by performance of simulating subjects. The implications for hypnosis research and clinical practice are discussed.

“The hypothesis that hypnotized subjects would report greater positive changes in affect, self-esteem, and social functioning than simulators was tested using a brief structured questionnaire. An analysis of Subjects responses to the questionnaire while with the ‘blind’ research assistant (simulators in role) revealed number significant differences between groups (N = 48) on six of the seven questions. … An analysis of Subjects’ responses to the questionnaire while being debriefed by the primary investigator (simulators out of role) revealed significant differences among groups (N = 48) on three of the seven questions. … High hypnotizable subjects with maintained amnesia demonstrated a strong tendency to be the most responsive of all groups of subjects on the first and second assessment. In contrast, the high hypnotizable Ss for whom amnesia ‘broke down’ reported the fewest phenomenological changes of any of the five groups during the first assessment, and comparatively few during the second assessment. Also of note is that once out of their role, simulators in both conditions dramatically reduced their reporting of positive change” (pp. 23-24).
“Moreover, a closer examination of the data demonstrated that phenomenological and behavioral differences in the groups did appear at several points during the experiment. For example, the 10 high hypnotizable subjects told to explicitly remember the suggestion did so, while 3 of the 10 simulators in this condition claimed to have forgotten it. On debriefing, these Subjects reported they did this because they believed ‘really hypnotized subjects wouldn’t be able to remember anything, even if they were told they could.’ Further, no simulator in the amnesia condition reported they could recall the suggestion, in contrast to the high hypnotizable subjects, 44% of whom said they did remember it. With regard to phenomenological differences, simulators stated during debriefing with the primary investigator that they intentionally faked changes on BAS, and that they experienced no true effects from the suggestion for positive body attitude change. In contrast, high hypnotizability amnesic subjects reported global, pervasive changes in their mood and self-esteem that went beyond specific alterations in attitudes toward their appearance. By comparison, high hypnotizable subjects told to remember the suggestion reported greatly increased self-absorption and acute awareness of the suggestion, ‘sort of like a broken record in my head'” (pp. 25-26).
“As shown by the present study, amnesia maintenance can be quite problematic. Of 18 high hypnotizable subjects for whom amnesia was suggested, only 10 remained fully amnesic for the suggestion after 3 days. In addition, those 8 subjects for whom amnesia ‘broke down’ showed minimal shifts on BAS, or in reports of phenomenological changes. Such frequent amnesia failure has been reported by other researchers, although the effectiveness of the suggestion is not always so compromised” (p. 26).
Van der Kolk, Bessel A.; Van der Hart, O. (1989). Pierre Janet and the breakdown of adaptation in psychological trauma. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1530-1540.
Reviews Janet’s investigations into mental processes that transform traumatic experiences into psychopathology. He was the first to systematically study dissociation as the crucial psychological process with which the organism reacts to overwhelming experiences and show that traumatic memories may be expressed as sensory perceptions, affect states, and behavioral reenactments. Janet provided a broad framework that unifies into a larger perspective the various approaches to psychological functioning which have developed along independent lines in this century. Today his integrated approach may help clarify the interrelationships among such diverse topics as memory processes, state-dependent learning, dissociative reactions, and posttraumatic psychopathology.

Nadon, Robert; D’Eon, Joyce; McConkey, Kevin M.; Laurence, Jean-Roch; Perry, Campbell (1988). Posthypnotic amnesia, the hidden observer effect, and duality during hypnotic age regression. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 19-37
The present study ought to explore potential response differences to a suggestion for posthypnotic amnesia between those high hypnotizable Ss who do and those who do not manifest the hidden observer effect. In line with the hypothesis that Ss who responded to the hidden observer suggestion are more highly engaged in cognitive monitoring of their experience and behavior (Nogrady, McConkey, Laurence, & Perry, 1983), it was predicted that these Ss would recall more Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962) hypnotic items, and in greater detail, following the reversal of amnesia than would their no-hidden observer counterparts. In this regard, both the quantity and the quality of posthypnotic recall was examined in 15 high, 11 high-medium, and 11 low hypnotizable Ss. Data on posthypnotic recall from low and high-medium hypnotizable Ss revealed the comparability of the present sample to samples of other studies that have investigated posthypnotic recall using standardized hypnotizability scales. Contrary to prediction, hidden observer Ss recalled significantly fewer hypnotic items and in less detail. Similar results were found when high hypnotizable Ss were dichotomized with respect to the presence or absence of duality in age regression (Perry & Walsh, 1978). Results are discussed in terms of implications for future research

Spanos and colleagues attribute amnesia to directing attention away from the target material; others “emphasize individual differences and subjective experiences over and above Ss’ interpretations of, and responses to contextual demands” (p. 20).
Evans & Kihlstrom (1973) pose a ‘disrupted retrieval’ hypothesis, stating that it is a result of retrieval functions rather than acquisition or storage processes (because so easily reversed), and there is considerable support for this. A number of studies show that partially amnesic Ss have disorganized temporal sequencing in their recall of hypnotic events (and the disorganization of recall appears to be related to the suggestion for posthypnotic amnesia and not to hypnosis per se, as it isn’t observed in Ss who haven’t received a suggestion for post hypnotic amnesia).
Two studies of videotape playback support the disrupted retrieval hypothesis and the hypothesis that what high hypnotizable Ss’ recall is qualitatively different from what other Ss recall (McConkey & Sheehan, 1981; McConkey, Sheehan, & Cross, 1980). 1/3 of the amnesic Ss in both studies “acknowledged their hypnotic behavior when watching the playback, while spontaneously reporting that they were unable to comment on the corresponding subjective experiences” (p. 21). None of the simulators made this behavior/experience distinction, and McConkey & Sheehan (1981) suggested that different memory retrieval mechanisms may exist for behavior vs. experience.
Hilgard (1973, 1977, 1979) has suggested that mental functioning may be regulated by a hierarchy of cognitive control systems rather than by a single mental apparatus such as consciousness–the neo-dissociation theory. He uses the metaphor of a hidden observer to describe how Ss with hypnotic analgesia may be ‘aware’ of pain outside of their immediate conscious awareness. He suggests that the hypnotic analgesia process is like that of posthypnotic amnesia, since the information is ‘temporarily unavailable’ for retrieval in both cases.
In the present study the authors developed a scoring system to assess quality of recall in responses to post hypnotic amnesia suggestion. They scored details (bits) recalled, as well as the conventional number of test items recalled.
Ss were screened by Harvard and modified SHSS:C, to yield 15 high hypnotizable Ss (9-12), 11 high-medium Ss (8-10), 11 low Ss (1-3). Amnesia data were gathered from the SHSS:C sessions. The hidden observer effect was assessed in a subsequent session. Raters classified the 15 highs as containing 6 with hidden observer experience and 9 with duality of experience in age regression.
The hidden observer instructions were different from Hilgard; they stated that “just as there are bodily processes such as heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature control that are not fully represented in consciousness, there also may be a hidden part of the person of which the hypnotized person is unaware … [and] that this part may be registering the pain (administered by a Take-Me-Along electrical stimulator) that is not accessible to the hypnotized part during analgesia” (p. 25). Contrary to expectations, “the hidden observer Ss gave evidence of experiencing greater residual amnesia (Kihlstrom & Evans, 1977) than their no-hidden observer counterparts” (p. 30).
The authors note in their discussion that this research provides further evidence of the heterogeneity of response pattern of highly hypnotizable people, in respect to passing very difficult test items, and they provide a review of that literature. They remark on the need to investigate cognitive style differences of Highs outside the hypnosis context, just as cognitive style differences have been studied comparing Highs to Lows. “Differences among Ss of varying hypnotic abilities have been found on measures of ‘absorption’ (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974); ‘imaginative involvement’ (J. R. Hilgard, 1970, 1979); ‘fantasy proneness’ (Wilson & Barber, 1982); imagery abilities (Perry, 1973; Sutcliffe, Perry, & Sheehan, 1970); preference for an imagic cognitive style (Isaacs, 1982; Nadon, 1984, 1985); and sleep and dreaming patterns (Belicki & Bowers, 1982; Evans, 1977; Gibson, 1985; Nadon, 1985). An extension of this type of work to the study of high hypnotizable Ss should lead to heuristic findings concerning the nature of hypnosis and the different ways that high hypnotizable Ss experience the suggested subjective alterations in perception, memory, and mood (Orne, 1980) that are associated with high hypnotic responsiveness” (p. 31). For example, perhaps the no-hidden observer Ss prefer an ‘absorption’ style and the hidden observer Ss prefer a ‘dissociative’ style as different pathways into hypnosis.
The results of this study combined with a study by Laurence, Nadon, Nogrady, & Perry (“Duality, dissociation, and memory creation in highly hypnotizable subjects,” published in International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1986, 34, 295- 310) “may point to a complex relationship among types of suggestion (e.g., hidden observer, pseudo-memory, & amnesia), and indices of specific cognitive style (e.g., duality in age regression)” (p. 32). However, measurement error cannot be ruled out.
“As with memory processes within hypnotic contexts, individual differences in hypnosis need to be explained within a broader framework. Hypnotic responses do not occur in isolation of individuals’ abilities, beliefs, preferred thinking styles, and past experiences. As with the study of cognitive style differences among individuals differing in hypnotizability, the study of daily life experiences among high hypnotizable Ss who do and those who do not give evidence of dissociative type phenomena in hypnosis may shed further light on the mechanisms implicated in hypnotic responding” (p. 33).

Spanos, Nicholas P.; Cross, Wendi P.; Menary, Evelyn; Smith, Janet (1988). Long term effects of cognitive-skill training for the enhancement of hypnotic susceptibility. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 5 (2), 73-78.

Twelve initially low susceptible subjects, who scored in the medium or high susceptibility range on the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) following skill training, were posttested 9 to 30 months later with a group version of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Skill trained subjects scored significantly higher on behavioral and subjective dimensions of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C than low susceptible untrained control subjects who were posttested after an equivalent interval. Furthermore, the posttraining CURSS scores of the skill trained subjects were matched to those of subjects who received the same CURSS scores without training. Matched subjects were posttested on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C after only a brief delay. Skill trained and matched subjects failed to differ significantly on Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C susceptibility dimensions, but skill trained subjects showed higher levels of suggested amnesia than matched subjects. These findings support the idea that hypnotic susceptibility is modifiable and that training induced gains in susceptibility can be enduring
Spanos, Nicholas P.; Gwynn, Maxwell I.; Della Malva, C. Lori; Bertrand Lorne D. (1988). Social psychological factors in the genesis of posthypnotic source amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 (3), 322-329.
Three experiments assessed the role of social psychological variables in source amnesia. Experiment 1 found that low-hypnotizable subjects instructed to simulate partial amnesia were more likely to exhibit source amnesia than high-hypnotizable hypnotic or task-motivated subjects. Experiment 2 found equivalent rates of source amnesia in low-hypnotizable simulators and high-hypnotizable hypnotic subjects. In addition, the findings of Experiment 2 failed to support the idea that the instructions for partial amnesia given to simulators cued for the occurrence of source of amnesia as well as for the occurrence of partial amnesia. In Experiment 3, preliminary instructions that legitimated source amnesia as a role-appropriate response produced significantly more posthypnotic source amnesia than did neutral or no instructions. Together, the findings of the 3 experiments support the relation of source amnesia to experimental demands and subjects’ expectations.
Hilgard, Ernest R. (1987). Research advances in hypnosis: Issues and methods. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 35, 248-264.

There are substantial areas of agreement upon the classical phenomena of hypnosis, illustrated by what we now have learned about hypnotic talent, amnesia, hallucinations, analgesia, and dissociative processes. While genuine advances in knowledge about hypnosis have been made in recent decades, differing orienting attitudes have kept some controversy alive, particularly in the interpretation of empirical findings. Differences of interpretation of the phenomenal and behavioral facts are to be expected in the present stage of developmental, cognitive, and social psychology.

The author writes of the “domain of hypnosis” as within the larger domain of social psychology (because it is usually interpersonal); cognitive psychology (because of alterations in perception, imagination, memory, and thought); developmental and personality psychology (because of individual differences); and physiological psychology (because of neurophysiological aspects).
In terms of what we know about hypnotic talent, he notes that high hypnotizability is not generally associated with psychopathology; that it may however be associated with a personality measure called absorption; and that there may be some inherited ability (Morgan, 1973). In the author’s view, hypnosis is no longer considered simply a response to suggestion, since imagination and/or fantasy are very important.
In reviewing evidence of posthypnotic amnesia the author writes, “Subtleties in language require making careful distinctions among concepts such as compliance, suggestion, compulsivity, belief, self-deception, automaticity, the voluntary, the involuntary, and a happening. If these distinctions are glossed over, the choice of words (e.g., substituting compliance for response to suggestion) may give the impression that a finding departs more widely from conventional views than it does. We, too, have found that Ss used varied strategies or skills during amnesia, but this need not deny augmentation by suggestion.
“It takes genuinely high Ss to illustrate truly high posthypnotic amnesia… Many of the truly high hypnotizable individuals cannot break amnesia, no matter how hard they try” (p. 253).
Regarding the evidence for hypnotic hallucinations and trance logic, the author suggests that trance logic is not a clear concept because the Subject is capable of good logic while tolerating some inconsistencies. “It is ordinary logic to assume that if your hallucination is your own construction, it is you who can influence it by your own wishes. In the rare cases of transparent or diaphanous hallucinations there is still an ‘out there’ quality. People who report that they see wispy ghosts also see them as ‘out there,’ so that they qualify as hallucinations. The distinction appears to be one of perception and perception-like experiences within hypnosis rather than of logic” (p. 256).
In reviewing the evidence for hypnotic analgesia, the author acknowledges that pain relief is available with other kinds of interventions, or by using other kinds of psychological processes, but that does not diminish the contribution of hypnosis (which has a long and impressive clinical history). Following laboratory studies, it is noted that “the amount of alleviation of pain through hypnosis is positively correlated with the hypnotizability of the candidate for pain reduction. This result is not universally accepted, because some clinicians are convinced that those unsuccessful in hypnotic pain reduction are resisting hypnosis” (p. 256-257). In the present paper he acknowledges but does not review physiological literature on hypnoanalgesia.
Regarding the concept of dissociation, the author indicates that he considers it a more useful concept than the concept of trance or hypnotic state “when a person is only slightly or moderately involved in hypnosis … . The advantage is that dissociations, as compared with altered states, can be described according to limited or more pervasive changes in the cognitive or motor systems that are being activated or distorted through suggestion in the context of hypnosis. Perhaps when all-inclusive enough, such changes can justify the use of the term trance or altered state, but I believe that these terms should be used, if at all, only for those for whom the immersion in the hypnotic experience is demonstrably pervasive” (pp. 258-259).
The author goes on to describe his initial discovery of the ‘hidden observer’ in an experimental context, and to relate the ‘hidden observer’ to others’ earlier observations of a secondary report of an experience previously concealed from S’s consciousness (Binet, 1889-1890/1896; Estabrooks, 1957; James, 1899; Kaplan, 1960). “The issues are still being worked on, but as in the case of trance logic the heart of the problem is not whether to speak of a hidden observer, but to recognize that there may be cognitive distortions in hypnosis even while some more realistic information is being processed in parallel, so that everything is not reportable by S” (p. 260).

Radtke, H. Lorraine; Thompson, Valerie A.; Egger, Lori A. (1987). Use of retrieval cues in breaching
hypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96 (4), 335-340.

We conducted this study to determine whether hypnotically amnesic subjects would breach amnesia when forced to attend to powerful retrieval cues. Following a standard hypnotic induction procedure, 113 subjects attempted to recall a 48- item word list. The list consisted of instances of taxonomic categories presented in blocked format and was presented only once. A forced-recall procedure required subjects to recall 48 items even if that involved guessing. Next, 85 subjects were administered an amnesia suggestion and recalled the list a second time. The remaining 28 subjects served as controls and recalled the list a second time without the intervening suggestion. On Trial 3, the breaching trial, subjects were given the 12 category names and were required to recall 4 items under each. Finally, the suggestion was canceled for subjects in the suggestion condition, and all subjects completed a final cued recall. Subjects in the suggestion condition who showed amnesia on the second trial breached completely on Trial 3. We argue that the task demands prevented them from using the cognitive strategies that, under other circumstances, maintain amnesia. Limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Silva, Christopher E.; Kirsch, Irving (1987). Breaching hypnotic amnesia by manipulating expectancy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96 (4), 325-329.

Prior to hypnotic induction, subjects selected for high hypnotizability and ability to experience hypnotic amnesia were read one of two expectancy manipulations designed to convince them that deepening of hypnosis either would or would not allow them to breach amnesia. After memorizing a list of six words, subjects heard a hypnotic induction, an amnesia suggestion, a challenge to remember, a trance-deepening procedure, and a second challenge to remember. On the first challenge, subjects in both conditions demonstrated considerable and equivalent degrees of amnesia. Following the trance- deepening procedure, subjects in the amnesia-expectancy condition displayed even more amnesia, whereas 80% of the Ss in the memory-expectancy condition completely recovered their memory of the word list. The data demonstrates that for most subjects in whom hypnotic amnesia can be elicited, it can be completely breached by manipulating Ss’ expectancies.

Spanos, Nicholas P.; McLean, Joanne; Bertrand, Lorne D. (1987). Serial organization during hypnotic amnesia under two conditions of item presentation. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 361-374.

Hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects learned a 16 item list of unrelated words using either a standard presentation order (all items presented in the same order on all trials) or an incremental order (on Trial 1 only the first item was presented, on Trial 2 the first item followed by the second, etc.). Following criterion learning, the hypnotic subjects were administered an amnesia suggestion and challenged to recall, while nonhypnotic subjects engaged in a distraction task while attempting to recall. Hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects who exhibited reduced recall (i.e., nonrecallers) showed equivalent decrements in seriation on the amnesia/distraction trial. Incremental presentation produced initial levels of seriation higher than those of standard presentation. Among nonrecallers, the incremental presentation was associated with a substantially larger reduction in seriation than was the standard procedure. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Spanos, Nicholas P.; de Groh, Margaret; de Groot Hans (1987). Skill training for enhancing hypnotic susceptibility and word list amnesia. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 4 (1), 15-23.

Subjects who pretested as low on hypnotic susceptibility received either cognitive skills training aimed at inculcating positive attitudes and interpretations concerning hypnotic responding, or no treatment. Trained subjects scored significantly and substantially higher on subjective and behavioral dimensions of susceptibility than controls. A second posttest assessed amnesia for a previously learned word list. Trained subjects showed more word list amnesia than either no treatment controls or subjects who had been matched to the trained subjects in terms of posttest susceptibility. Theoretical implications for theories of hypnotic susceptibility are discussed

American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs (1986). Scientific status of refreshing recollection by the use of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 1-12.

The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than nonhypnotic recall. The use of hypnosis with witnesses and victims may have serious consequences for the legal process when testimony is based on material that is elicited from a witness who has been hypnotized for the purposes of refreshing recollection.

The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than nonhypnotic recall. The use of hypnosis with witnesses and victims may have serious consequences for the legal process when testimony is based on material that is elicited from a witness who has been hypnotized for the purposes of refreshing recollection.
Davidson, Thomas McCabe (1986, January). Recall organization and volitional/non-volitional experiencing in posthypnotic and intrahypnotic amnesia: Inattention versus dissociation hypotheses (Dissertation, University of Waterloo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (7), 3103-B.
“Two studies are reported which seek to evaluate the relative merits of two differing hypotheses concerning the cognitive processes underlying suggested hypnotic amnesia. The inattention hypothesis maintains that amnesia effects are produced when subjects volitionally divert attention from relevant retrieval cues so that recall is inefficient. The dissociation position is that amnesic subjects are prevented from utilizing normally relevant retrieval cues by a dissociative barrier that blocks access to target memories — a forgetting over which subjects experience no volitional control. The two hypotheses were evaluated by means of a selective amnesia suggestion in the recall organization paradigm. “In the first experiment, high, medium, and low hypnotic susceptible subjects were administered either hypnotic induction or task-motivating instructions. Results indicated that there was no disorganization of amnesia trial recall or forgetting of words not targeted for amnesia, contrary to predictions from the inattention hypothesis. “In the second experiment, high hypnotizable subjects received the selective amnesia suggestion in both posthypnotic and intrahypnotic conditions. Intrahypnotic subjects were also separated into one group that received a ten second interval between the administration of the amnesia suggestion and the amnesia trial, and another group that had a delay between the suggestion and the amnesia trial equivalent to the posthypnotic group. Eight subjects who had testified that they were volitionally amnesic on a pre- screening amnesia test were also included in the posthypnotic condition. Again, the results indicated no recall disorganization or reduction in recall of words not targeted for amnesia. Subjects also uniformly provided evidence that their amnesia was experienced as non-volitional. There was, however, evidence that some amnesiacs were aware during the amnesia trial of the specific category targeted for amnesia. “The most important finding of both experiments is that subjects may attend to normally relevant retrieval cues and yet continue to evidence amnesia. The evidence is therefore consistent with the dissociation hypothesis, but disconfirms the inattention account of hypnotic amnesia. It appears that the selective amnesia context effectively prevents the successful use of volitional forgetting strategies. (Abstract shortened with permission of author)” (p. 3103).

Meagher, Christopher Roberts (1986). Suggestion and posthypnotic amnesia: Altered context or altered state? (Dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (n1-B), 409-410. (Order No. DA 8605846)

“Posthypnotic amnesia has been investigated in the past and subsequently alluded to as either role enacted behavior or evidence for an altered state of consciousness. In order to gain further understanding of the circumstances which facilitate amnesic behavior, an experiment was carried out which was designed to vary the usual context in which recall and recognition memory are observed during posthypnotic amnesia. The suggestion for posthypnotic amnesia was altered from its usual form in that specific suggestions for recall amnesia and recognition amnesia replaced the usual general suggestion for overall memory impairment. Some Ss received the amnesia suggestion before presentation of the stimulus material rather than after stimulus presentation. In addition to the usual verbal stimuli, nonverbal stimuli were used. “A group of 44 highly hypnotizable, undergraduate Ss was divided into four treatment conditions. Three groups were hypnotized and given instructions to repeat a list of nine words taken from the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and to copy the nine figures of the Bender Gestalt Test. A fourth group performed these tasks in a normal waking state. One hypnotic group was given prestimulus suggestions for recall and recognition amnesia. Another was given poststimulus suggestions for recall and recognition amnesia, and the third hypnotic group received no amnesia suggestions. The dependent measures consisted of the scores on tests of recall and recognition of the stimulus words and figures. “A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed significant effects for hypnosis /suggestion condition, type of stimulus, and type of test. Further analysis determined that the two hypnotic groups given amnesia suggestions did not differ from each other but did show significantly greater amnesia than did either the no suggestion hypnotic control group or the waking control group. Recognition performance was significantly better than was recall performance for all groups in both stimulus situations. Nonverbal recall was significantly better than verbal recall for the two control groups given no amnesia suggestion. There was no stimulus effect for any other group and testing condition. The results of this experiment are discussed in terms of theories of hypnosis and memory, contextual variables of the hypnotic situation, and previous germane research” (pp. 409-410).

Radtke, H. Lorraine; Spanos, Nicholas P.; Malva, C. Lori Della; Stam, Henderikus J. (1986). Temporal organization and hypnotic amnesia using a modification of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 41-54.

The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962) was modified to permit better assessment of amnesia and changes in temporal organization during amnesia. First, a baseline measure of recall was obtained before administration of the amnesia suggestion. Second, on the recall trial following cancellation of the suggestion, Ss recalled everything they could remember. Amnesia was assessed by comparing recall during the suggestion with recall before it and after it was canceled. Temporal organization was assessed by correlating the order of item administration with Ss’ recall orders. Hypnotic susceptibility and amnesia were independently related to temporal organization. Overall, high hypnotizable Ss organized less than medium or low hypnotizables, and amnesics showed less temporal organization than nonamnesics, but neither of these variables interacted with recall trial. The results are discussed in terms of recent theories of hypnotic amnesia.

Subjects in general tended to use less temporal organization during the suggestion compared to the baseline and postsuggestion trials. Although they did not obtain a disorganization effect comparable to that found in the clustering studies (e.g., Spanos & Bodorik, 1977), the results “replicated past studies that found differences in the recall organization of high and low hypnotizables during an amnesia suggestion” (p. 50), while suggesting that “the previous findings were not due to hypnotic amnesia” (p. 50).
“The baseline differences replicated Schwartz (1980) who found similar differences between high and low hypnotizable Ss following a hypnotic induction procedure but in the absence of an amnesia suggestion. Since we also found differences posthypnotically, it is questionable whether the hypnotic induction procedure was a causal factor in the Schwartz study. Furthermore, the presence of such differences on the postsuggestion trial represents a failure to replicate Evans’s (1980) finding of no differences between high and low hypnotizable Ss under comparable nonhypnotic conditions. The present results are also contrary to those of two other studies that found no differences between high and low hypnotizables on rho scores on the amnesia trial (Radtke & Spanos, 1981; St. Jean & Coe, 1981) and a recent study using word stimuli which found a significant correlation between hypnotizability and temporal organization only during the amnesia suggestion (Kihlstrom & Wilson, 1984). Taken together these studies suggest that temporal organization (at least when hypnotic experiences are recalled) varies as a function of hypnotizability and therefore may be attributed to an individual difference factor” (p. 50).
The authors go on to say they have replicated other studies (p. 50), noting that the Harvard may not be the best method for investigating this issue, and individual testing of memory may be better (p. 51).

Schacter, Daniel L. (1986). Amnesia and crime: How much do we really know?. American Psychologist, 41, 286-295.
Claims of amnesia occur frequently after the commission of violent crimes and can have a significant bearing on the outcome of criminal trials. This article considers the relation between amnesia and crime within the broader context of research on memory and amnesia and provides a critical evaluation of current knowledge concerning the issue. Particular attention is paid to the problem of distinguishing between genuine and simulated claims of amnesia. It is suggested that reliable data concerning the nature of amnesic episodes that occur after the commission of a crime are sparse, and that there is as yet little evidence that genuine and simulated amnesia can be distinguished in criminal cases. The results of several laboratory studies are summarized that indicate that feeling-of- knowing ratings distinguished between genuine and simulated amnesia under conditions in which psychologists and psychiatrists did not.
Sheehan, Peter W.; Tilden, Jan (1986). The consistency of occurrences of memory distortion following hypnotic induction. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 122-137.
The present study examined a range of circumstances for their effects on the vulnerability of hypnotic Ss to memory distortion. 26 high and 26 low hypnotizable Ss were tested individually in a design in which Ss received information that was either misleading or not misleading about a series of events depicting an apparent robbery. The information was presented prior to Ss being given hypnotic instructions, and low hypnotizability Ss were especially motivated for positive response in the session. Memory for the robbery was studied across a range of measures that included forced choice recognition, free recall, and response to leading questions. Results demonstrated predictably variable effects. The 2 groups performed appreciably differently in free recall, for example, while in recognition testing, data indicated that high and low hypnotizable Ss both incorporated misleading information into their memories to the same degree. Some implications of the data for the forensic context are discussed.

56 Ss were prescreened with Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, defining highs = 9-12, lows = 0-3. Used Loftus materials for testing memory (wallet snatching sequence, on a series of slides). Errors were classified as errors of fact, of inference, or conjectures. Highs had more intrusions that were errors of fact than lows did (p<.05), confirming the earlier results published by Sheehan & Tilden, 1984. There was no significant association between hypnotizability level and intrusion of central detail (description of robber and victim), but 57% of highs and only 18% of lows intruded peripheral objects incorrectly into their own narrative reports (i.e. descriptions given of the surroundings), p<.01. There were trends for high hypnotizable Ss to recall more objects correctly than low hypnotizable Ss during narrative reporting (p<.06) and to recall more central objects (p<.06), but not more peripheral objects. There may have been a loosening of criteria for memory among high hypnotizables, because they appeared to produce both greater accuracy and inaccuracy in recall of certain types of detail. During the recognition testing, high hypnotizables exhibited significantly greater confidence in their responses than low hypnotizable Ss, but there was no group difference for accuracy. "Results for both tests of integration then (recognition and free recall) confirmed the prediction that hypnotic Ss incorporate false information into their memory, and the effect did not differentiate high from low hypnotizable Ss" (p. 131). When a leading question implied that traffic lights were present in the scene, 34% responded in some way to that suggestion, and 20% said that they could see the lights in their minds eye; but 14% said that "although they could not see the lights, they nevertheless remembered they were there" (p. 132). Response to the leading question did not differ between high and low hypnotizable Ss. In their discussion, the authors note that hypnosis did not enhance memory in this study. "Results overall suggest that hypnotic induction lowers the correspondence between confidence and accuracy. In the present study, hypnotic Ss were confident about their recall when the degree of accuracy of their reports suggested they should have been quite uncertain. Hypnotic instruction itself would appear, then, to establish conditions that spuriously facilitate a high degree of confidence in the reports that Ss produce. "A major point to be made about the present study is that both general distortion and confidence effects observed here cannot necessarily be attributed to hypnosis. There was no independent comparison condition, for example, to contrast results for hypnotic Ss with results for Ss receiving no induction procedures. Effects, then, could be attributed to the hypnotic context as much as to the effects of induction per se, and context rather than state may be responsible for the vulnerability of hypnotic Ss that has been observed. The influence of context is seen at least in the clear evidence for an interaction between situational factors and hypnotizability. In free recall, hypnotizable Ss were more prone to distortions than unhypnotizable Ss, while in recognition, hypnotizable and unhypnotizable Ss were equally prone. Mode of testing is, therefore, a major contextual variable that is related to the nature of the distortion and confidence effects that can be observed. Present data further indicate that the hypnotic context is associated with memory distortion even in Ss who have little capacity for being hypnotized, but who are instructed to believe that they can, in fact, experience much of what is being suggested" (pp. 133-134). Forensic implications need to be tempered because of difference between laboratory and real life, but practitioners nevertheless should be cautious. "While it is not true that hypnotized persons, by virtue of their hypnotizability level, will always distort their reports more obviously than nonhypnotic Ss, so as to bring their recollections into line with what is implied or suspected, parameters do exist that clearly increase the risks of distortion that can occur after hypnotic instruction. This is evidenced, for example, by the distinctive distortion effects that have been demonstrated for high hypnotizable Ss when they are given induction instructions and later requested to tell their story in their own way. Overall, the present data imply that the law needs to closely evaluate the impact of the different settings in which hypnosis takes place and the different ways in which misleading information can be communicated to persons who are later asked to testify. The potential risks of hypnosis--as well as its utility--will depend critically on how that information has been conveyed, and the way in which Ss' memories are tested" (pp. 134- 135). Spanos, Nicholas P.; de Groh, Margaret M.; Bertrand, L. David (1986). Serial organization during posthypnotic amnesia using a modified version of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Psychological Reports, 58, 311-322. A version of the SHSS:C modified for group testing was administered to 108 subjects. The final item on the scale was modified to enable (a) computation of a continuous amnesia score for each subject and (b) the measurement of serial organization on the recall trials during amnesia and after the cancellation of amnesia. Scores on the SHSS:C (computed without the amnesia item) and amnesia were significantly correlated. Furthermore, SHSS:C scores correlated significantly and negatively with three of four indexes of seriation during amnesia. Amnesia scores, however, correlated significantly with only one of the seriation measures, and in regression analyses the addition of amnesia to SHSS:C scores did not enhance prediction of any organization index. Methodological and theoretical implications are discussed. Wilson, L.; Kihlstrom, J. F. (1986). Subjective and categorical organization of recall during posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95 (3), 264-73. Conducted 2 experiments to determine the fate of organization of recall during posthypnotic amnesia. In both studies, amnesia suggestions were administered to undergraduate Ss of low, medium, and high hypnotic susceptibility who had learned a word list by the method of free recall while they were hypnotized. In Exp I (n = 44), words were unrelated to each other, and subjective organization was measured by raw and adjusted pair frequency. In Exp II (n = 59), words were drawn from various taxonomic categories, and category clustering was measured by repetition ratio, modified repetition ratio, and adjusted ratio of clustering. Results indicate that, compared to baseline levels, subjective organization and category clustering did not decrease reliably during the time the amnesia suggestion was in effect. Moreover, these aspects of strategic organization were not significantly correlated with the number of items recalled during amnesia. Both findings contrast with previous results concerning temporal organization of a word list memorized by the method of serial learning. Findings suggest that the disruption of retrieval processes in posthypnotic amnesia may be limited to certain organizational schemes. (43 ref). 1985 Coe, William C.; Yashinski, Edward (1985). Volitional experiences associated with breaching posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 716-722. Highly responsive hypnotic subjects classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia were compared during posthypnotic recall. Subjects rerated their voluntariness after the experiment. Two contextual conditions were employed (2 x 2 design): a lie detector condition meant to create pressure to breach amnesia and a relax control condition. In contrast to earlier findings, the recall data showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under the lie detector condition compared with their counterparts in the relax condition; however, the degree of breaching was not great in any condition. The results are discussed as they relate to studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia and characteristics of the voluntary-involuntary dimension. Eich, Eric; Reeves, John L.; Katz, Ronald L. (1985). Anesthesia, amnesia, and the memory/awareness distinction. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 64, 1143-1148. Several studies have shown that surgical patients cannot consciously recall or recognize events to which they had been exposed during general anesthesia. Might evidence of memory for intraoperative events be revealed through the performance of a postoperative test that does not require remembering to be deliberate or intentional? Results of the present study, involving the recognition and spelling of semantically biased homophones, suggest a negative answer to this question and imply that intraoperative events cannot be remembered postoperatively, either with or without awareness. NOTES 1: "In this experiment, we attempted to apply the distinction between memory and awareness of memory to the question of whether adequately anesthetized and apparently unconscious patients can register and retain what is said in their presence during surgery. Prior research relating to this question has focused, for the most part, on the ability of postoperative patients to recall or recognize a specific item....The inference need not be drawn, however, that 'patients in so-called surgical planes of anesthesia cannot hear' (15, p. 89) or that anesthetized patients cannot encode and store in memory events that transpire during their surgery. The possibility remains that even though the effects of memory for intraoperative events may not--and probably cannot--be revealed in postoperative tests of retention that require remembering to be deliberate or intentional, such effects might be evident in the performance of tests that do not demand awareness of remembering. "To explore the possible dissociation between memory and awareness of memory for intraoperative events, we modeled our experiment after a recent neuropsychological study by Jacoby and Witherspoon (5)" (p. 1143). " appears that the prior presentation of a word has a substantial impact on its subsequent interpretation and spelling, regardless of whether or not the word is correctly classified as 'old' in a later test of recognition memory" (p. 1144). "Approached from the standpoint of anesthesia theory and practice, the idea that recognition and spelling tap different memory processes or systems raises an interesting question for research. Specifically, suppose that during surgery, an anesthetized patient listens to a series of short, descriptive phrases, each consisting of a homophone and one or two words that bias the homophone's less common interpretation (e.g., war and PEACE, deep SEA). Suppose further that several days after surgery, the patient is read a list composed chiefly of old and new homophones (i.e., ones that either had or had not been presented intraoperatively) on two successive occasions. On one occasion, the patient is simply asked to spell each list item aloud; on the other occasion, the patient is asked to state aloud which list items he or she recognizes as having been presented during surgery. Given the situation sketched above, might the patient spell significantly more old than new homophones in line with their less common interpretations, and yet fail to reliably discriminate between the two types of items in the test of recognition memory" (p. 1144). Klatzky, Roberta L.; Erdelyi, Matthew H. (1985). The response criterion problem in tests of hypnosis and memory. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 246-257. Past experimental research on the effects of hypnosis on memory indicates both that hypnosis produces increases in correct recalls and that hypnosis produces increased vulnerability to misleading information and intrusions in recall. The present paper uses the framework of signal detection theory to account for this pattern of data. It suggests that the effects of hypnosis on memory cannot be ascertained from previous work, because of a general failure to discriminate between effects on the amount of information retrieved from memory and the criterion adopted by Ss for reporting what they remember. NOTES 1: Past experimental research indicates that hypnosis produces increases in correct recalls and as well as increased vulnerability to misleading information and intrusions in recall. This paper uses signal detection theory to account for the data. Signal detection theory describes performance as reflecting two underlying parameters--the information accessible to S at any point in time (designated as d') and the criterion adopted by S when making decisions about memory reports (report or decision criterion, response bias, or Beta). They review the recent literature on hypnosis and memory and conclude: 1. When the response output is not controlled, hypnotic instructions and/or hypnotizable have been found to produce increases in the number of correct recalls but his does not mean that the accessible information in memory has increased. What may be changing is the criterion for report. 2. When the response output is not controlled, hypnotic instructions and/or hypnotizable have been found to produce increases in incorrect recalls, i.e., intrusions, and compliance with leading questions, but this does not mean diminution or distortion of accessible memory (d'). What may be changing is the criterion for report. 3. When response bias is controlled, hypnosis has been found to produce no enhancement of recognition but this does not imply that (a) Beta cannot change in recognition tests where it is allowed to vary, nor that (be) hypnosis has no effect on recall. 4. The proper experiment to determine whether hypnosis affects the accessibility of information in memory should place demands on the retrieval process and control the criterion for memory report. The most decisive experimental outcome for the forensic situation would be a null or negative one: the demonstration that hypnosis does not enhance measures of memory accessibility. Then there would be no reason to use hypnosis to enhance memory. 1985-1986 Kunzendorf, Robert G.; Benoit, Michelle (1985-86). Spontaneous post-hypnotic amnesia and spontaneous rehypnotic recovery in repressors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 5 (4), 303-310. The Salpetriere school of hypnosis posited that _true_ hypnotic effects occur spontaneously in people with repressive tendencies. Consistent with this early position, the current study indicates that both spontaneous amnesia after hypnosis and spontaneous recovery during rehypnosis are statistically associated with repression (but not with hypnotic suggestibility). In contrast, both suggested forgetting and suggested recovery are statistically associated with hypnotic suggestibility (but not with repression). Whereas the latter effects of suggestibility are attributable to the demand characteristics of hypnotic suggestions, the spontaneous effects of hypnosis on repressors' memories are not reducible to social psychological principles. 1985 Simon, Michael J.; Salzberg, Herman, C. (1985). The effect of manipulated expectancies on posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 40-51. The effects of manipulated S expectancy and direct suggestions for amnesia on posthypnotic amnesia were assessed. 120 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to 6 groups: negative expectancy (for amnesia)/suggestions (for amnesia); no expectancy/suggestions; negative expectancy/no suggestions; no expectancy/no suggestions; and 2 control groups. The results indicated that the expectancy manipulation had no effect on the occurrence of posthypnotic amnesia measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959), whereas suggestions for amnesia were found to have a significant effect. Hypnotized suggestion and no suggestion Ss remembered significantly less than Ss in the nonhypnotized control groups. The implications of the findings are discussed.