skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 186444 Find in a Library
Title: Hypnosis in the Forensic Arena
Journal: Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice  Volume:1  Issue:1  Dated:2001  Pages:113-122
Author(s): Steven J. Lynn Ph.D.; Jeffrey Neuschatz Ph.D.; Rachael Fite M.S.; Irving Kirsch Ph.D.
Date Published: 2001
Page Count: 10
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article reviews the literature on hypnosis and memory and then argues that there is no firm empirical rationale for using hypnosis or aggressive procedures in psychotherapy to excavate memories.
Abstract: Following a review of various legal positions taken with respect to the use of hypnotically elicited testimony in the courtroom and a review of the available evidence on hypnosis in the forensic context, the overriding conclusion warranted by the literature is that hypnosis should not be used to assist recall in forensic situations; however, in very rare cases, the use of hypnosis may be justified after careful consideration of the risks and benefits of the use of hypnosis. Because hypnosis does not inevitably corrupt memory, a broad per se exclusion rule, which invariably bans a person from testifying about non-hypnotic recollections documented prior to hypnosis, may be unduly restrictive in exceptional cases. Further, it would be wrong to scapegoat hypnosis while ignoring or minimizing the potentially misleading and hazardous effects of a variety of non-hypnotic memory enhancement techniques (e.g., leading questions and reinforcement for recall). It is unfortunate that suggestive non-hypnotic interviews have not been as rigorously examined as hypnotic interviews with regard to the potential for memory contamination. It is clear that extreme caution must be exercised in administering hypnotic and non-hypnotic interviews to victims and witnesses to avoid any taint of leading or suggestive procedures. 26 references
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Questioning under hypnosis; Rules of evidence; Testimony
Note: For the opposing argument, see NCJ-186443.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.