Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Hypnosis and Memory Triple Threat Sheila Krogh-Jespersen Victoria Cox Alicia Briganti Outline: The Basics Traditional vs. Sociocognitive Perspectives Enhancing Retrieval and the Cognitive Interview Kihlstrom: Hypnosis=1 person(subject) acting on suggestions from another person(hypnotist) for imaginative experiences involving alterations in cognition and voluntary action Posthypnotic Amnesia: Inability to remember events/experiences which occurred during hypnotism Temporary Functional amnesia Impairs explicit memory Hypnotic Agnosia: Disrupts a subject’s semantic/procedural memory Forget the number 12 Meaningless word Hypnotic Hypermnesia: Performance enhancement Increase False Recollections Cognitive Interview Memory Enhancement and Hypnosis: Hypnotism increases the number of accurate recollections but…. It also increase the number of new errors Hypnotic Age Regression: Ablation Reinstatement Revivification In the Court and Clinic: Mock organized-crime execution Cognitive Interview Why? Hypnosis is still used to recover “repressed” memories Hypnosis impairs explicit memory Public perceptions of the efficacy of hypnosis may increase the likelihood of memory distortions The Hypnotic Minidrama The Two Perspectives Traditional – Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness that enables people to have unusual experiences. Sociocognitive – Hypnosis refers to the historically rooted conceptions of situations that are labeled “hypnotic.” Components of Hypnosis Phrasing of the hypnotist Suggestion that specific behavioral responses are emerging automatically The Social Construction of Hypnosis… Do you buy it? Challenges and Fallacies Behavior of “the hypnotized” and “the requested” does not differ Increased motivation makes increased suggestibility Cognitive processes in simulators and non-simulators Dramatic behaviors See no evil, hear no evil Stiff arm syndrome Are they so dramatic? Hitting someone? Taking off clothes? Running a mile, or 2, or 3? Hypnotic Amnesia Automatically occurring Actively forgetting Socially responding Posthypnotic Responding Implant cues to automatically elicit a suggested response Context and belief dependent Hypnosis Creates… Human Automatons Enhancing Retrieval and The Cognitive Interview ACCORDING TO JONES Psychotherapists should: Educate clients Choose methods judiciously (Jones, 1999) EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY Police techniques Hypnosis Cognitive Interview COGNITIVE INTERVIEW 4 Basic principles: 1. Event-interview similarity 2. Focused retrieval 3. Extensive retrieval 4. Witness-compatible questioning Temporal sequence: 1. Introduction 2. Free recall 3. Probing stage 4. Review 5. Conclusion (Fisher, Geiselman, & Amador, 1989) FIELD TEST 16 detectives (1 trained group; 1 untrained group) Preliminary interviews Training Post-training interviews Analysis EXPERIMENT 51 non-students watched videotapes of a crime Interviewed 48 hours later either by standard interview or cognitive interview 4 retrieval mnemonics and 5 memoryrecovery techniques used in C.I. condition (Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, and Holland, 1986) RESULTS Variable No. Correct* No. Incorrect No. Confabulated Question time (min) No. questions asked* No. leading questions asked C. I. 41.67 8.57 1.88 30.11 76.73 0.15 S. I. 35.58 8.61 2.17 29.10 93.06 0.83 More correct items recalled No difference in # of incorrect items recalled Fewer questions asked; more efficient HYPNOSIS VS. the COGNITIVE INTERVIEW C.I. elicited 33.4% more information than hypnosis (Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkevich, & Warhaftig, 1987) C.I. does not lead to increased error rate C.I. lessens subjects’ suggestibility to leading questions (Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1986) FOOD FOR THOUGHT… Should the Cognitive Interview be incorporated into the standard training program of all investigative interviewers? Would it be as effective if the witness is a child? Would it still be as effective after a long delay? If the event was very traumatic?