Psychology

The article, Hypnotic Pseudomemories, Prehypnotic Warnings, and the Malleability of Suggested Memories (Green, Lynn, and Malinoski 1998), is a report of the experiment done to test the reliability of Ornes nocturnal events paradigm.  It seems that a large number of hypnotized patients report pseudomemories, or memories that did not actually happen but appear from suggestion.  To counteract this trend, the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis has suggested rules of neutral questioning and patient informed hypnosis.

This study attempted to try a more proactive means of stopping pseudomemories by informing patients beforehand of the tendency for them.  Prehypnotic expectations have often been shown effective in treated other issues and this should extend to pseudomemories as well, but few studies have proven this to be true.

In the experiment, Green, Lynn, and Malinoski used Ornes nocturnal events paradigm to test if pseudomemories can be reduced by warning.  Participants were asked if they had heard a loud noise during the night to see if the participants believed the suggestion of the hypnotist, even if they were forewarned
Method

Two hundred twenty seven undergraduates took the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility Form A to test their ability to be hypnotized and of these forty-eight were chosen to participate.  Finally, the number was whittled down to two groups of twelve.

Procedure
Before the experiment, each group was presented with three facts about hypnosis.  The experimental group was warned that hypnosis can make people remember things that are not true and people can be influenced into pseudomemories.  The control group was given another fact totally unrelated to pseudomemories.

Participants were then taken to their hypnotist and, after participants reviewed the thirty minutes before they went to bed, they were hypnotized and age regressed through the night.  As they were regressed, the hypnotist asked if they were awakened by a loud noise during the night.  The hypnotist knew this had not happened from interviews before hypnosis.  After awakening, participants were asked if they remembered a loud noise and if they answered yes they were asked if it was real or imagined.  For the pseudomemory to be scored, the participant had to report the noise and confirm it did occur.  Afterwards, the participants completed the Archaic Involvement Measure and were assured their answers would be confidential.

Then the participant was rehypnotized and informed that even if a participant creates a false memory there is a part that remembers the truth, called the hidden observer.  After the hidden observer was contacted, the questions about pseudomemory were reasked.  Then participants were told that they would be reconnected with their hypnotized part and they would not remember the hidden part.  Once this was done, the questions about pseudomemories were asked again.  The amnesia of the hidden part was then removed and the questions asked again.

After waking up, the participants were asked how deeply they were hypnotized and how realistic the experiences of the age regression were.  Before leaving the participants were asked to answer written questions asking if they believe the noises happened, how confident they were the noises occurred, and what they believed the experiment was about.  It was only after this they were debriefed.

Results and Discussion
Despite testing on many aspects of pseudomemory, there was not a significant difference between the groups in the existence of false memories.  This led the researchers to conclude that warnings about pseudomemories do not in fact stop them.  Participants tended to insist on the pseudomemories despite different testing conditions.  The researchers were unable to reproduce the results of Spanos and McLean that pseudomemories could be reversed, even using Spanos and McLeans hidden observer.

Discussion of Importance
This study has great implications in the use of hypnosis.  If patients can be influenced by suggestion, then the reliability of what they report falls greatly.  Even worse, patients could be made to remember things that could harm or damage them, for they believe the memory is true.  The fact that the participants continue to cling to the pseudomemories means that even once told of the memories truth, they will be unwilling to accept the memory is a false one.

The seriousness of this has been seen in court cases of abuse.  Therapists have retrieved memories of abuse and the patient believed them to be true.  Then the patient swore in court that heshe was abused and the accused abuser was convicted on false evidence.

That does not mean that hypnosis should never be used.  Instead, hypnotists should be aware of the ease of implanting false memories and strict rules enacted that protect the patient.  Even without the intent of the hypnotist to implant memories, once the memories are there they are difficult to erase and great damage could be done accidently.