An undergraduate research paper that explores if there is a relationship between memory and hypnosis.

1. Running head: HYPNOTIZE ME 1
Hypnotize me: A Literature Review on the Relationship between Hypnosis and Memory
Daria D. Jolobova
University of Florida

2. HYPNOTIZE ME 2
Hypnotize me: A Literature Review on the Relationship between Hypnosis and Memory
Is there a relationship between hypnosis and the human memory? If there is a relationship
between these two concepts, how do they interplay? These questions are relevant to the topic of
memory and law in that the current course has not covered the concept of hypnosis, even though
it contributes as a technique used in memory control (Patihis & Younes Burton, 2015). Hypnosis
is a type of relaxation therapy method used by clinical psychologists to help patients direct their
mind after a surgical procedure has been performed (Kazdin, 2000). Although, there has been
very little research pertaining to the idea that there is an interaction between hypnosis and
memory. The relevant research currently available has been published in the recent years,
making this topic unique and relatively new to the subject of memory.
It is evident that the human memory is highly manipulated by suggestion and that we are
prone to remembering false memories (Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122). Since memory is
the key feature that eyewitnesses rely on when giving their testimony, further research on the
strength of memory manipulation is important in order to expand our understanding of the
potential factors that contribute to their memory malleability (Granhag, Ask, & Giolla, 2014, pp.
542-553). An eyewitnesses’ memory can be easily manipulated through the use of suggestion,
misinformation, and false memories (Van Damme & Smets, 2014). Research findings that reveal
trends in eyewitness memory can keep legal professionals informed and help to further identify
factors that influence wrongful convictions. How does hypnosis relate to our memory?
According to Loftus (2014), psychotherapy cases from the 1980’s and 1990’s have used a
dangerous practice that helped patients uncover repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse.
Memory repression is one of the most important concepts used in psychoanalysis. A repressed
memory happens after someone has gone through a shocking event and the memory of that event

3. HYPNOTIZE ME 3
then gets stored in an inaccessible portion of the unconscious mind (Loftus, 2014). The terrifying
happens when this repressed memory suddenly has the ability to reemerge back into our
consciousness after a period of time has passed. When this happens, clinical psychologists and
psychotherapists will make use of the patient’s imagination and often employ hypnotic
suggestion (Dasse, Elkins, & Weaver III, 2015). Concluding results of these clinical practices
have found that these alleged memories were not always true and patients had been experiencing
false memories for events that had gone through legal action from 20 to 30 years back (Loftus,
2014). These results are crucial to the contribution of memory suggestion in that the patients
exhibited false memories for entire events. As humans we are naturally inclined to replay our
memories and reconstruct them at the same time (Bartlett, 1932). While we reconstruct the
details of the event that occurred, any prior knowledge on the subject at hand can also help shape
the memory. This concept gives light to the idea that we are actually able to remember above and
beyond the actual experience (Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122).
Literature Review
Current research findings indicate that false memories, working memory, and recovered
memories can all be influenced with the use of hypnosis. In order to fully understand the
importance of this memory trend, each concept must first be clearly defined. According to
(Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122), false memories account for the mistake in judging the
origin of an experience and in return calling this experience a true memory, when it is not. False
memories are related to concepts used in the Source Monitoring Framework (SMF), which is
based on the fact that the creation of our senses and emotions are processed by the mind
according to the content of our subjective experiences (Lindsay, 2014, pp. 60-72). The sources of
our memory are drawn from different dimensions which add to the individual differences and

4. HYPNOTIZE ME 4
subjective nature of each person’s memory. This makes it more difficult to measure memory
effects and apply them in a universal manner across the board. Working memory gives humans
the capability of being in the moment while remembering (Andrade, 2014, pp. 93-105). This
concept can be similar to multitasking because the information learned is altered to help
cognitive functioning. An example of working memory may be someone trying to remember a
new person’s phone number before adding it to the contacts of the phone. Recovered memories
include the retrieval of memories that have been stored in the unconscious memory, usually
following the experience of a traumatic event (Myers, B., Myers, J., Herndon, Broszkiewicz, &
Tar, 2015).
False Memories and Hypnosis
The resurfacing of false repressed memories through psychotherapy was a controversial
phenomenon that was prominent in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This phenomenon was happening for
so long that the two decade span became known as the “Memory Wars” in the world of
psychotherapy. Recent research analyzed by Patihis and Younes Burton (2015), has been
adamant at looking into evidence of early perception and memory distortion that is frequently
used by hypnotists. The goal of their study was to find the strength in the evidence of therapeutic
memory manipulation prior to the 1980’s and how this evidence relates to the current knowledge
of false memories. Methods were taken from historical records of first-person experiences and
autobiographical recall that was used in therapy or hypnosis. Interestingly, research found that
over 100 years ago false memories were called, “pseudomemories,” “retroactive hallucinations,”
or “phantasies” (Patihis & Younes Burton, 2015). The weakness in this study occurred as early
presented evidence was low in its connection to today’s false memories. This early evidence was
analyzed through the work done by early hypnotists. One example came from literature

5. HYPNOTIZE ME 5
investigations of the hypnotic techniques used by 18th century physician Franz Anton Mesmer.
Mesmer was essentially the start of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. He influenced the world of
hypnosis to the extent that his therapeutic system was coined “mesmerism,” named after the
physician himself (Patihis & Younes Bourton, 2015). The criticism in Mesmer’s work stems
from the fact that his hypnotic therapy used suggestion in a manner that was exclusively meant to
cure rather than implant memories. Another weakness in the support of Mesmer’s techniques has
to do with the fact that Mesmer never meant to retrieve his patient’s memories, therefore it is
uncertain if he implanted false memories into his patients’ mind. Although Patihis and Younes
Burton (2015), infer that memory distortion was possible at the time, its presence was not well
documented during the beginning of the 18th century. A strength of this research came from an
instance of Mesmer demonstrating false perceptions in a blind patient named Maria Paradis
(Pattie, 1979). For this patient, Mesmer used suggestion and the patient (Maria Paradis) reported
seeing images for a short period after eventually going back to being blind. This instance of false
perception was used before memory distortion in trance-induction techniques and contributes to
the development in the understanding of today’s false memory research.
Early false memories. Psychiatrist Denys Kelsey used hypnotic age regression
techniques to recover a patient’s memory of being in their mother’s womb. When the patient was
hypnotized, they reported details such as “I am very tiny…I am in the womb” (Kelsey, 1953, p.
217). The present tense of the words used by the patient indicate that the memory was being
revived from the past. The strength of this finding comes from the involvement of episodic
memory recall in the prenatal development stages of life. The fact that the human brain is still
immature during the time of birth, it is safe to assume that these recollections contribute to the
nature of false memories. The uncertainty behind the truth of these hypnotic events, however,

6. HYPNOTIZE ME 6
acts as a weakness in its connection to false memories. This evidence adds to the claim that false
memories were used before the 1980’s as a therapeutic technique.
False memories of past lives. According to Patihis and Younes Burton (2015), the most
influential evidence for the presence of false memories in therapeutic techniques come from
memories that are unanimously seen as scientifically impossible. These can be applied to the
memory of experiencing past lives. One patient was given a combination of hypnosis and LSD
therapy. The 34 year old woman claimed to remember reincarnating as a girl from New England
that had been accused of participating in witchcraft (Grof, 1980, p. 288). It is predicted that this
past life memory refers to the witch trials that were held in the 1600’s. In her recollection, the
patient had remembered being attacked by past incarnations that resemble her father and current
husband. This finding that modern day faces can be seen in memories of past lives supports that
false memories can be reconstructed from real and imagined sources. The danger of this practice
could lead to imagination inflation, where the short time spent imagining an event that was
originally recognized as being unlikely can increase confidence that the event actually happened
(Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122).
Therapist false memories. The strongest evidence obtained by Patihis and Younes
Burton (2015) is consistent in revealing that therapists have actively admitted to creating false
memories. The intentional implantation of false memories in patients was claimed to be for
curative reasons and most of the time demonstrating suggestion. Neurologist Jean-Martin
Charcot showed an instance of memory distortion through a patient’s hypnotic treatment. When
the research was translated into English, it was revealed that the patient had suffered from
amnesia and had claimed to recover the memory of hitting his head by hearing the story from
others (Charcot, 1887, pp. 442-443). Although Charcot was able to use memory construction

7. HYPNOTIZE ME 7
through hypnosis, there is a knowledge gap regarding the extent to which hypnosis played a role
of the memory distortion.
The research analysis conducted by Patihis and Younes Burton (2015), explains historical
accounts of therapists using various hypnotic techniques in order to produce false memories.
This research precedes the “Memory Wars” that dominated psychotherapy in the 1980’s and
1990’s. The research exemplifies the expansion of memory malleability and ties it in with the use
of hypnotic treatment.
Working Memory and Hypnosis
Baddeley and Hitch (1994) provided their Tripartite Model of Working Memory in order
to demonstrate that the process of temporarily storing memories occurs simultaneously with
reasoning and recall. More recent research conducted by Khodaverdi-Khani and Laurence
(2015), has set out to establish empirical support on how individual differences in hypnotizability
levels relates to working memory and attentional processing. The 38 participants, ages 19 to 50,
of their study were recruited through a posted college advertisement. In order to be grouped into
low and high hypnotizability levels, participants were given the Harvard Group Scale of
Hypnotizability Form A (HGSHS: A) test. After each participant received their score, Study 1
began by measuring each participant’s working memory through digit span and reading span
tests. The digit span test consisted of two trials, where trial one had participants read a list of
digits and later asked to recall each digit in the order that they appeared. The second trial had the
participants read the digit list and were then instructed to recall the list in reverse order. The
strength of the working memory was calculated based on the total number of correct sequences.
The reading span test had participants read 100 sentences out loud and prompted to report if each
sentence made sense or not. The attention of each participant was measured by the speed of each

8. HYPNOTIZE ME 8
response. Study 2 measured the differences in the low hypnotizability (LH) and high
hypnotizability (HH) participants. Each respondent was given a Language Neutral test, where
they were shown a series of letters on a computer screen and asked to quickly recognize the letter
that corresponds to the previous two trials. Finally, respondents were given an oral version of the
previous digit span test. This empirical study hypothesized that the individual variations in
hypnotizability was related to the individual differences displayed in working memory
(Khodaverdi-Khani & Laurence, 2015). Results suggested that working memory is responsible
for assisting the automatic processing of attention in those that show high levels of
hypnotizability. The findings of the digit span test reveal that working memory is not just a
measure of temporary storage, as previously demonstrated by (Baddeley & Hitch, 1994).
Khodaverdi-Khani and Laurence (2015), suggest that HH participants show increased attention
and are less distracted by peripheral details because of their ability to process and focus attention
involving similar stimuli.
Strengths and weaknesses. The previous research shows a strength in the similarities
between those that are high in hypnotizability and working memory capacity. The individual
differences in the functioning of working memory is the North American approach to memory
research (Andrade, 2014, pp. 93-105). Research by Khodaverdi-Khani and Laurence (2015)
shows these individual differences in working memory as a knowledge gap in relation to the
complexity of measurement variations in hypnotizability levels. The weakness stems from
research inconsistencies in attention and hypnotizability results because there was no given
consideration to the diversity of processing.
RecoveredMemories and Hypnosis

9. HYPNOTIZE ME 9
Research conducted by Myers, B. et al. (2015), focuses on the measurement of public
perception behind the use of Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT). Newman and Garry (2014)
have already shed light on the false memory controversy behind therapeutic techniques used to
heal repressed memories. Current research conducted by Myers, B. et al. (2015), focuses on the
measurement of public perception behind the use of Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT). RMT
uses hypnosis and guided imagery in order to help patients recall their stored unconscious
memories (Thayer & Lynn, 2006). These RMT techniques have been criticized for their
suggestibility and false memory implantation. The therapist engages in such practices when they
instruct their patients to relax and imagine an event based on the therapist’s suggestion (Lynn &
Kirsch, 2005). The prevalence of false memories from RMT has not stopped therapists from
using this in their practices. Survey studies conducted by Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull
(1995), have revealed that RMT is constantly used in therapy sessions, widely taught in graduate
schools, and continues to contribute to research literature.
Recoveredmemory perception. Myers, B. et al. (2015), gathered participants from an
intro level psychology course and had them watch a collection mock-therapy session videos.
Participants were split into groups of three and could not see each other during the
psychotherapy viewing. The content of the video consisted of no highly suggested practices,
suggestion of suspected abuse only, suggestion of suspected abuse followed by guided imagery
techniques, and suggestion of suspected abuse followed by hypnosis. After the video was
viewed, each participant was given a questionnaire that asked about their close-ended
perceptions of the therapy techniques. Results showed that almost 76% of the participants were
unsuccessful in linking the suggestive therapy methods with accuracy of the reported memory
(Myers, B. et al., 2015). The strength in this research is consistent with current beliefs that

10. HYPNOTIZE ME 10
recovered memory practices are highly dangerous by the use of suggestion. Those that
demonstrate recovered memories are already unaware of the fact that these memories are
attributed to methods of suggestion. Weaknesses can be seen with the methodology used by
Myers, B. et al. (2015) in that the sample did not display a heterogeneous population and that the
materials used in the study were an estimate of the types of experiences that a patient may
experience during therapy. The hypnotic techniques used by RMT rely on suggestion to treat the
patient’s symptomology. There is a knowledge gap as to the frequency of RMT used by
therapists around the world. Since suggestion is a practice that is often used by eyewitness
interviewers Granhag et al. (2014), it is important to consider the strength that this practice has,
since it is used by a concept as powerful as hypnosis.
Conclusion
The literature review addressed the question if there is a relationship between hypnotic
treatments and memory. Current research findings link hypnotic treatments to suggestion, false
memories, and recovered memories. These practices are also seen in the topic of memory and
law. Granhag et al. (2014) state that eyewitness interviewers and lineup administrators often
engage in suggestive techniques. These techniques include confirmation bias, where the lineup
administrator confirms that the witness had identified the suspect that the legal authorities had
been searching for (Gronlund & Carlson, 2014, pp. 595-607). False memories have the ability be
reconstructive in nature (Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122). In memory and law, the
alteration of one verb can cause misinformation to invade our memory and change our
perceptions of events and reports completely. Recovered memories of childhood trauma
stemming from the 1980’s and 1990’s time period, has had 20 plus years of legal implications
because people accused innocent people of committing a crime that never actually happened

11. HYPNOTIZE ME 11
(Newman & Garry, 2014, pp. 110-122). Research by Patihis and Younes Burton (2015) has
discovered historical evidence of false memories used by hypnotists that predates the 1980’s
“Memory Wars.” Khodaverdi-Khani and Laurence (2015) have added to the Tripartite Model of
Working Memory by measuring how individual differences in hypnotizability relate to working
memory and attention. Their results reveal that those that are high in hypnotizability, use
working memory to speed up the automatic processing of attention. Myers, B. et al. (2015)
contributed their findings to the strength of recovered memories by measuring public perception
of RMT. Their results add to the suggestion of memory techniques by finding that simply
informing therapy patients of their symptomology will increase the likelihood of having a false
memory. Also, public perception fails to recognize the accuracy of memories reported by therapy
patients. This relates to our legal system as recovered memory cases would be biased in which
the jury may fail to see the accuracy of the witness testimony.
Future research on the close relationship between hypnotic techniques and memory can
focus on measuring the strength behind the training of psychotherapists and legal professionals.
Since therapists and legal professionals are the authority figures, they should be held responsible
for the use of suggestion, false memory implementation, and recovered memory actions.
Looking into forming universal training standards can be a start to possible policy reform in
psychological institutions and legal fields. This could possibly have an effect on reducing
wrongful convictions and false memory reports, making the legal system that much cleaner.

12. HYPNOTIZE ME 12
References
Andrade, J. (2014). Working memory beyond the laboratory. In T.J. Perfect & D.S. Lindsay
(Eds.). The SAGE handbook of applied memory (pp. 93-105). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of WM. Neuropsychology,
8, 485–493.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Charcot, J. M. (1887). Lecons sur les maladies du systeme nerveux (pp. 442-443). Paris, FR:
Progres Medical.
Dasse, M., Elkins, G., & Weaver III, C. (2015). Hypnotizability, not suggestion, influences false
memory development. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
63:1, 110-128.
Granhag, P. A., Ask, K., & Giolla, E.M. (2014). Eyewitness recall: An overview of estimator-
based research. In T.J. Perfect & D.S. Lindsay (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of applied
memory (pp. 542-553). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Grof, S. (1980). LSD psychotherapy (p. 288). Pomona, CA: Hunter House.
Gronlund, S. D., & Carlson, C. A. (2014). System-based research on eyewitness identification. In
T.J. Perfect & D.S. Lindsay (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of applied memory (pp. 595-
607). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Kazdin, A. (2000). Understanding hypnosis. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from
http://www.apa.org/topics/hypnosis/
Kelsey, D. E. (1953). Phantasies of birth and prenatal experiences recovered from patients
undergoing hypnoanalysis. Journal of Mental Science, 99, 216–223.

13. HYPNOTIZE ME 13
Khodaverdi-Khani, M., & Laurence, J.-R. (2015). Working memory and hypnotizability.
Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 1-10). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lindsay, D. S. (2014). Memory source monitoring applied. In T.J. Perfect & D.S. Lindsay (Eds.).
The SAGE handbook of applied memory (pp. 60-72). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518–537.
Lynn, S. J., & Kirsch, I. (2005). Essentials of clinical hypnosis: An evidence-based approach (p.
217). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Myers, B., Myers, J., Herndon, P., Broszkiewicz, N., & Tar, M. (2015). Beliefs about therapist
suggestiveness and memory veracity in recovered-memory therapy: An analogue study.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(4), 270-276.
Newman, E. J., & Garry, M. (2014). False memory. In T.J. Perfect & D.S. Lindsay (Eds.). The
SAGE handbook of applied memory (pp. 110-122). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Patihis, L., & Younes Burton, H. J. (2015). False memories in therapy and hypnosis before 1980.
Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(2), 153-169.
Pattie, F. A. (1979). A Mesmer-Paradis myth dispelled. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
22, 29–31.
Poole, D. A., Lindsay, D. S., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1995). Psychotherapy and the recovery of
memories of childhood sexual abuse: U.S. and British practitioners’ opinions, practices,
and experiences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 426–437.
Thayer, A., & Lynn, S. (2006). Guided imagery and recovered memory therapy: Considerations
and cautions. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 63–73.

14. HYPNOTIZE ME 14
Van Damme, I., & Smets, K. (2014). The power of emotion versus the power of suggestion:
Memory for emotional events in the misinformation paradigm. Emotion, 14(2), 310-320.