I personally believe that hypnosis especially the age regression type, is a tricky subject because there are so many contributing factors involved. That is also why I am a skeptic when it comes to test studies. The usually leave me with more questions than answers.

For example, were all the clients involved in a total hypnotic state during the entire hypnosis sessions? Were these tests performed in a group setting (which I am opposed to)? What types of tests were done prior to help determine if all the clients were hypnotizable or at least might be fair candidates for hypnosis? Was a learning channel profile completed on all of the clients and if so, after determining if they responded better to visual, sound or kinesthetic channels, were the sessions then tailored to each specific channel for each client? Were any of these clients under stress at the time? Were any of them suffering from any medical conditions or taking any medications that might have manipulated their test results? Were the tests performed during the day when the clients were wide-awake or in the evening when they were sleepier?

I can go on and on but these are all-important questions that could have a dramatic impact on the outcome of any hypnosis session or test. Therefore, without personally being present I can only assume and we all know what that means. Throughout my 15-year practice I have no doubts that age regression can be very helpful. However I do agree that it is equally important to be truthful when setting a clients expectations about age regression hypnosis.

BTW here is a link to a test about memory that people might find interesting.
http://joegionti.blogspot.com/2011/03/mythbusters-on-hypnosis.html

Andrew, excuse my haste and over-sensitivity here.

Goddam written word does funny things to me sometimes. 🙂

As I alluded to on your Inner Circle forum, I suspect the problem may be in my understanding of the meaning of the word “regression” in hypnosis. Maybe I’m not alone in this. For me it means any time I take a client back to some past event – real or imagined – such as when I ask a client “think back to a time…”, use Erickson’s early learning set or go into the past with timelines. If these are examples of bad “regression”, then yes I do disagree with you. If you are talking about helping people to dig up memories they don’t consciously remember, then I fully agree with you. Which is it?

As for disagreeing with everything you say. You know that’s far from the truth. However, you do know that I sometimes need a lot of convincing, especially when people appear to contradict what I thought they said previously.

Andrew, I am not surprised that you choose to agree with anyone other than me right now.

I choose to side with and position myself according to the overwhelming evidence, the research conducted by governments and US states when assessing the efficacy of hypnosis for this purpose, and the academics, and the highly experienced clinical hypnosis practitioners who all contribute to this debate.

Even Milton Erickson puts his hands up with almost no defence for assumptions made about reliability of memory in hypnosis – as per article quoted in my prvious comment.

I find many others are not moved by my argument either… In fact, you’d not believe the emails I get from other hypnotherapists telling me how ‘closed minded’ I am for suggesting for potential problems of regression. I tend to think the contrary, of course.

However, in the name of furthering the field, I like people to have an ability to see boths sides of any discussion and debate and welcome all perspectives.

I have made it clear as to why I choose not to use regression. I respect the choices made by others, as long as they are informed choices being made.

With regards to your final sentence… Nothing is being dismissed Andrew, I take offence at that. I clearly state, that memories are respected and NOT just dismissed. I have echoed that sentiment in my other article about regression (referred to in this one) and would never be so callous.

That comment aside, I really appreciate your continued contribution here.

Who is to say that the client’s false memory was created by the therapist? Unless the therapist led the client to create the false memory, it surely fitted in with the clients inner beliefs. That makes it fit into their map of reality. It may, therefore, have been a part or at least an embodiment of the clients fear and thus a metaphor for the problem the therapist needed to “treat”. The fact that the memory was false may not have made it any less real for the client. Surely that means that the therapist still needed to help the client overcome it, rather than just dismiss it, as the author of this article seems to do.

Thanks for your contribution Jackie. Indeed, false memory can occur with other talk therapies, and in fact the biggest litigation cases in psychiatric history came in the 1990s with psychiatrists creating false memories in their clients.

All of you interested in this thread may also be interested in this article by Donald Dobertson, involving Milton Erickson discussing a memory:

http://ukhypnosis.com/2010/10/11/milton-erickson-hypnosis-regression-and-false-memory/

Hi Richard, thanks again for your kind comments and your contribution.

The theory you mention regarding all memories being constructed is controversial to say the least…. I don’t know enough of the finer mechanics of memory outside of hypnosis and basic neurology, so don’t feel qualified to comment too heartily. Sounds fascinating though.

Good hearing from you, Adam.

Elaine, thanks for your contributions… My blog would be sterile if you guys did not question things from time to time.

Firstly, with regards to the observer affecting the outcome… The last one hundred years of psychological research methods has seen this raised several times. Therefore, the research is conducted as ‘triple blind.’

A blind trial is whereby the research participant does not know what the research is about.
A double blind trial is whereby participant and those conducting the and administering the research do not know what it is about.
A triple blind trial is whereby the participant, research conductor and the people processing the results do not know.
Triple blind trials totally remove the concerns you have with this.

I would say by the way, that there is not much of this blog entry that is actually my opinion. Pretty much everything I have written here is supported by evidence. Not just a single, random, one-ff study. Several studies supporting the same theory.

I agree entirely that we treat each case on its merits.I am not attempting to convinve the entire world to change its ways. Just sharing evidence and my opinion in relation to that evidence.

The fact remains that using hypnosis potentially effects the likelihood of false memories, it certainly makes people more confident in the reality of memories in hypnosis whethere true and accurate or not… and why on earth would you insist on people having to keep on going through traumatic experiences?

As I wrote in my other, earlier blog entry on the subject of regression, you also run the risk of re-traumatisation by taking people back to ‘experience’ bad memories. And we have a moral, ethical duty to inform clients of the potential for this to happen due to issues around informed consent… In doing so, the paradox is that we heighten the chances of it happening by suggesting it may happen.

Why not deal with things that have more accuracy and affect the way they think today? It is at the very least, an alternative I think people should be considering… It is being responsible and offering the duty of care your client has a right to.

I think we could both continue with this discussion in some depth, eh? 🙂

take care, Adam.