Significant dates in the history of forensic hypnosis

The future of professional hypnosis: comment on kirsch, mazzoni, and montgomery

I believe the paper by Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery (this issue) should surprise about 95% of ASCH members (maybe only 93% of SCEH members) because the three facts espoused in their paper speciously seem to be 100% true. To paraphrase from their abstract: 1) nothing that can be produced by hypnotic induction plus suggestion cannot also be produced by suggestion alone; 2) administration of a hypnotic induction does not produce a meaningful increase in response to suggestion relative to suggestion alone; and 3) responsivity to suggestions are highly correlated to responsivity on the same measure when preceded by a hypnotic induction ceremony. In order to persuade that these propositions are true, several objections to them must be addressed. However, just because one's facts are true does not mean that one's interpretation of the facts and their interrelationships are also true. The ramifications of the above facts and their interrelationships for the future of professional hypnosis (experimental, clinical and forensic) are identified and discussed.

The future of professional hypnosis: comment on Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery

I believe the paper by Kirsch, Mazzoni and Montgomery (this issue) should surprise about 95% of ASCH members (maybe only 93% of SCEH members) because the three facts espoused in their paper speciously seem to be 100% true. To paraphrase from their abstract: 1) nothing that can be produced by hypnotic induction plus suggestion cannot also be produced by suggestion alone; 2) administration of a hypnotic induction does not produce a meaningful increase in response to suggestion relative to suggestion alone; and 3) responsivity to suggestions are highly correlated to responsivity on the same measure when preceded by a hypnotic induction ceremony. In order to persuade that these propositions are true, several objections to them must be addressed. However, just because one's facts are true does not mean that one's interpretation of the facts and their interrelationships are also true. The ramifications of the above facts and their interrelationships for the future of professional hypnosis (experimental, clinical and forensic) are identified and discussed.

Hypnosis: medicine's dirty word

This paper attempts to understand the relationship between the clinical efficacy of hypnosis and its negative perception among many medical educators, practitioners and the general public. By exploring the history of hypnosis, an attempt was made to point out several events that may have led to both the past and current misperception of hypnosis which the author believes have caused hypnosis to become "medicine's dirty word".

Lie detection: historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions

Lying and deception are behaviors that have been studied and discussed extensively in the scientific, philosophical and legal communities for centuries. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of the literature and thinking to date about deception, followed by an analysis of the efficacy and evolution of lie detection techniques. The first part explores the definitions of lying, from animal behaviorists' perspectives to philosophical theories, along with demographics and research about the prevalence of lying and characteristics of those who lie. This is followed by a discussion of possible motivations for lying, moral arguments about the legitimacy of or prohibition against lying, and developmental theorists' explanations for the growth of a human being's capacity to lie. The first section provides an introduction for the second part, a historical and critical review of lie detection techniques. Early methods, such as phrenology and truth serums are contrasted with more modern-day approaches, such as polygraphy and functional MRIs. Conclusions are drawn about whether technology has really advanced the art of detecting deception. Finally, the article enters a discussion about the law's response to lie detection methods and to deception in general. United States landmark cases, at both the state and federal level, are critiqued with regard to their impact on the admissibility into court of lie detection methods as evidence. Just as the scientific community has been wary of embracing many of these methods, so has the legal community. Through a review of the legal, scientific and pseudo-scientific issues surrounding deception, a greater understanding is reached of the complexity of this universal and morally loaded behavior.