International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis - E-Lib FK UWKS

MEMORY AND HYPNOSIS 51
groups in studying pseudomemory, comparison rarely being made between waking
and hypnotic instructions. The study by Labelle et al. 1990) did not include
waking comparison, while McConkey et al. 1990) and Barnier & McConkey
1993) did so, and where the comparison was provided results have generally failed
to demonstrate a hypnotic instruction effect. Other studies Sheehan, Statham &
Jamieson, 1991), however, have indicated increased pseudomemory effect for
hypnotic instruction, with high susceptible subjects showing greater acceptance of
the false information under hypnotic as opposed to waking instruction.
Contextual factors as they affect pseudomemory have been studied in a variety
of ways and have yielded relatively consistent results. Their in¯uence is widely
evident across other memory phenomena as well. Factors relevant to pseudomemory
and other memory phenomena as well) include type of stimulus event, the
setting in which suggestion is tested, mode of memory test, presence of reward, and
other contextual in¯uences see Spanos, Gwynn, Comer, Baltruweit & de Groh,
1989). Also, Spanos & McClean 1986) studied the in¯uence of the cues available
in different testing contexts as they affected the incidence of reported pseudomemories
and found that pseudomemory varied positively as a function of the type
of expectation given to subjects, though not all expectancies in terms of prehypnotic
information have been shown to be effective Lynn, Weekes & Milano, 1989).
Contextual factors obviously play a part in in¯uencing the phenomenon of
pseudomemory, but the mix of possible mediating factors requires exploration of a
much wider range of parameters than has been conducted to date. In particular,
interpersonal parameters, such as rapport, are also relevant. Rapport has been
claimed by a number of theorists Sheehan, 1971, 1980; Shor, 1962) to be integrally
related to hypnosis, and demonstrating the importance of rapport in maximising the
occurrence of hypnotic phenomena has been the primary aim of a number of
studies in the past e.g., Gfeller, Lynn & Pribble, 1987; Matheson, Shue & Bart,
1989; Sheehan & McConkey, 1988).
Rapport appears widely in the hypnosis literature under a range of alternative
labels and they are all clinically related. These include archaic involvement Shor,
1962, 1979), social relationship factors Sarbin & Coe, 1972), transference Gill &
Brenman, 1961), and fusional or symbiotic alliance Diamond, 1988). Viewed
within the hypnotic setting, the concept normally expresses the positive interaction
of hypnotist and subject, predictably resulting in strong feelings of relaxation and
comfort in the subject who is hypnotized. Speci®cally, Shor has asserted that
rapport or archaic involvement) is one of three major factors that mediates
hypnotic response, arguing that the hypnotist is infused with importance to the
extent that the hypnotized subject has a special wish to please, the core of the
subject's personality being bound up in the relationship that is formed with
the hypnotist. Sheehan 1971, 1980) studied the implications of Shor's theorising
and found strong support for this process as a primary determinant of hypnotic
response. Of particular signi®cance for the clinical relevance of hypnosis was the
®nding that as rapport diminished between the hypnotist and subject, susceptible