olve around the fundamental question: Are hypnotically-induced memories reliable? The remainder paper will be divided into two major sections: a) Premise of Forensic Hypnosis; and b) Criticisms of Forensic Hypnosis. Apart from presenting the theoretical models of these perspectives, this paper will also discuss the findings of research studies that support them, as well as their implications for the practice of forensic hypnosis.
Supporters of forensic hypnosis strongly believe in the concept of hypnotic hypermnesiaùthe effectiveness of hypnosis in enabling hypnotized individuals to recall suppressed or unforgotten events (Perry, n. d.). This belief was grounded on a theoretical basis by Dr. Martin Reiser (1980) who coined the term "reproductive theory" to describe the process of memory recall. Based on this theory, the mind records and stores sensory input in the same way as a videotape. Therefore, individuals trying to tap into their memory of past events may be able to recall more or less of the details of past experiences, but not modify them. The process of hypnosis thus enhances the individuals' ability to retrieve the details of the events in their memory, without exerting any distorting effects.
Some research studies have offered supportive evidence for this theory by highlighting the positive impact of hypnosis in enabling subjects to recall an increase in accurate information. For example, Barabasz discovered that hypnotized subjects succeeded in recalling more information than non-hypnotized subjects in forced recall experiments. Furthermore, when non-forced recall procedures were employed, they did not produce a significant increase in the number of incorrect responses, compared to non-hypnotized subjects (cited in Fligstein, Barabasz, Barabasz, Trevisan and Warner, 1998).
Furthermore, some of these researchers have also argued against the validity of studies that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of hyp...