Aliens and Hypnotic Regression.

Hypnosis and Hypnotic Regression:

A Critical Evaluation of its Use in Alien Abduction Cases

Background of Theory.
Over one hundred and fifty years ago Franz Anton Mesmer
(1733-1815), the modern father of hypnosis, attempted to
raise the art of hypnotic suggestion to the level of practical science but, like many of his successors,
he maintained a mystic attitude toward the problem as far as serious study of the field was
concerned.

As a result, hypnotism acquired a bad reputation that persisted

during many years and still is not completely dispelled. Its later
utilisation by charlatans made the serious study of the phenomenon
less reputable. Honest men were extremely wary lest their sincere
interest in it brought them into disrepute.

Thankfully, under the pressure of expanding knowledge, all pressure

collapses and hypnosis had found acceptance into the family of
approved sciences. It has opened new vistas for research and
practice. As research gains in courage and depth the theoretical and
practical discoveries awaiting us are likely to transcend our best
hopes. In the words of M. H. Erickson (1932), The first and last words which can be said of hypnosis
is that it is the most interesting and most profound of all psychological material

Throughout the pioneering days of Mesmer, J. M. Charcot (1825 93), Emile Cou (1857 1926),
and Sigmund Freud (1856 1939), controversy surrounded the use of hypnosis. Even now in the 21st
Century the use of hypnotic regression in alien abduction cases is a contentious one.

First used in 1962 on the Betty and Barney Hill case,

hypnotic regression is the technique widely used in
assessing abductions as the hypnotist regresses the
individual back to the time of their alleged abduction.
Theoretically, if the individual is genuinely regressed to
the time period in question then a variety of
psychological and physiological functioning should be
reinstated. In other words, the subject will relive the
event and display the attendant physical and
psychological trauma pertaining to their original
encounter.

Since the Hills abduction, however, it has been debated as to whether these memories are recalls of
actual events or are the product of pseudo memories (an effect that escalates with increased
pressure to recall), the product of false-memory syndrome (the influence of the hypnotists
suggestion during the course of therapy), or fantasy proneness (the ability to hallucinate voluntarily
and have imaginary experiences that are as subjectively real as non-fantasised events).
Jenny Randles, and others, are highly suspicious of hypnotic regression techniques used to extract
evidence of alien abduction. Indeed, she was instrumental in arranging a moratorium for the British
UFO Research Association (BUFORA) that banned its use. She considers regression hypnosis as
inherently dangerous.

If hypnotic memory in general is suspect, then hypnotically retrieved memory of abductions must
also be suspect. This assumption, however, depends on the extent to which the experimental
situation is comparable to that associated with the abduction experience. Abduction memories are
characterised by dynamic, emotionally charged events that instil trauma, fear, anxiety, confusion,
and anger. What is more, they are characterised by events so unusual as to be outside the range of
normal human experience. However, the majority of laboratory research has used static and neutral
source material.

Whilst some studies have used more relevant materials for retrieval such as stress inducing stimuli,
or simulations of emotionally charged events like accidents or crimes, the results of which are
entirely consistent with those using more mundane materials, they still fail to duplicate the quality
of strangeness of abduction experiences, or the range and magnitude of emotional states
associated with reported abductions.

Confirmative Evidence of Theory

Whatever causal extent hypnosis plays in false experiences of
alien abduction, its potential should increase as a subjects
susceptibility to hypnotic suggestion increases. However, this
was not borne out by Rodegehier, Goodpaster, and
Blattbauer (1991) when they assessed a group of abduction
experiencers for hypnotic responsiveness. The groups ability
to vividly imagine suggested scenes, the authors found, were
no more susceptible to hypnotic suggestion than the general
population.

Spanos, Cross, and Dubrieul, (1993), applied the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion
Scale on their experiencer population. The scale measures three dimensions of hypnotisability:
number of items to which an appropriate response is made, extent to which the subjective effects
called for are experienced, and the degree to which subjects responses are perceived as
involuntary. They concluded that their experiencer population was no different from the controls on
any of these measures.

Thomas Bullard (1994), in a survey of investigators and mental health practitioners, found that nine
out of ten respondents stated that many or most of their abduction experiencer subjects are easy to
hypnotise. This position, however, is not supported by formal tests of hypnotisability. The subjects
may be highly hypnotisable in sessions dedicated to exploring their abduction experiences, but they
are not highly hypnotisable per se. This may not be as paradoxical as it seems. It may be, as Orne,
Whitehouse, and Orne and Dinges (1996) have argued that the combined effects or relaxation,
therapist-hypnotist validation, and repetitive probing create a situation in which Individuals can be
considerably more affected by hypnotic procedures and their behaviourally anchored ratings of
hypnotic ability would suggest.

It may well be that something about the abduction experience itself makes it particularly susceptible
to hypnotic procedures hence the discrepancy between hypnosis scores and the ease in soliciting
abduction accounts. Research in this area has already identified several factors that may contribute
to the situation:

First, hypnotic recall improves when the material to be remembered is meaningful to the
individual, when the emotional, physical, and cognitive conditions of the original experience
are hypnotically reinstated, and as context for the event is more highly integrated with the
memory to be retrieved. These conditions are common to hypnotic regression for the
abduction experience.

Second, research on state-dependent learning suggests that returning to the state of

consciousness in which an experience originally occurred might improve recall. For example,
returning to a state of alcoholic intoxication improves recall of events that transpired whilst
in that original condition. If hypnosis produced a mental state that in any way resembles the
state during which and abduction is originally experienced, recall for that experience could
be enhanced. Indeed, some abductees have described a mental state for the remembered
event that is not unlike that reported by other subjects for the experience of being
hypnotised.

Thirdly, the literature on hypnosis has provided some evidence that information gleaned in
an unconscious state (i.e. subliminally) can be retrieved hypnotically. Although this research
itself is controversial, it implies that information registered outside of normal consciousness
awareness may be accessed during hypnosis. Abduction experiencers often describe
knowledge apparently acquired in this manner.

Thomas Bullard (1989) wrote a compelling paper in the Journal of UFO Studies in which he examined
the role hypnosis might play in the recollection of supposed alien abduction. He compared
abduction accounts under hypnosis and non-hypnosis to see if the hypnotic procedure brought out
similarities using different hypnotists. He generated a sequence of events, which appeared common
in abduction accounts and compared his accounts with them.

The sequence compared against was:

Capture (Intrusion, a zone of strangeness, time-lapse )

Examination (including preparation, scanning, reproductive examination)

Conference.

Tour.

Otherworldly journey.

Theophany (religious message)

Return

Aftermath (including flashbacks, burns, anxiety, insomnia )

He also examined the role of the hypnotist to see if they followed the six criteria when examining
their abductees:

Professional credentials

Lack of prior convictions

 Allow free recall before questioning

Avoid leading or demanding questions

No one else in the room

Memories withheld by post-hypnotic suggestion

From the examination of the hypnotists, only one, Benjamin Simon, actually filled all six criteria. He
helped Betty and Barney Hill examine their supposed
abduction. Initially Simon was never convinced that the case
had an ounce of reality, believing that it was a shared fantasy.
Transcripts show that he tried everything to trip them up
under hypnosis but never succeeded. Only one other
hypnotist, Donald Klein, came close, filling five of the criteria.

From dissecting the reports of hypnosis and non-hypnosis

accounts, some striking similarities emerged. On the basis of
his findings in 1989, Bullard concludes that The form and
content of abduction stories seems independent of
hypnosis, In a more recent study (1994) he concludes that
hypnosis is a significant factor in regard to the quantity of
material recovered, but not in any direct way to the content. He went on to state that the alarm
over hypnosis is a false alarm.

Evaluation of Theory
Experiments have shown that hypnotically retrieved memory is often unreliable. However, the
degree to which this research can be generalised to the kind of experience reported for abductions is
not completely know, and some experimental evidence may actually be consistent with enhanced
memory retrieval for this type of experience.

Certainly, this does not imply that investigators or mental health professionals can be casual about
the use of hypnosis, or that hypnosis can be exonerated as a causal factor in abduction cases. Also,
to dismiss hypnotically retrieved abduction accounts on the basis of what amounts to incomplete
research is equally premature.

Simulations of the abduction experience conducted by A. H. Lawson, in which he asked hypnotised

subjects to describe events associated with a suggested close encounter with a UFO, showed
significant similarities between their imagined events and those of real abduction experiencers.
Considered as the only direct test of the role of hypnosis in the abduction experience, sceptics
widely cite this study as evidence for the dismissal of hypnotically retrieved memories. Conversely,
ufologists (Bullard, 1989) have criticised it because of its methodology, conclusions, and
generalisability. Each of these studies could, without doubt, benefit from tighter methodology and
closer examination of the content and frequency of the generated reports. For now, however, they
suggest that elements of the abduction experience are found in the imaginations of the non-
experiencer population, and that consistency in abduction accounts is becoming more difficult to
justify as evidence of veridicality.
To date there is no real tangible evidence to support
the use of hypnotic regression in proving the
veridicality of alien abduction accounts. But is it
possible we have overlooked a potentially rich field of
study in this regard that of alleged alien implants?
Perhaps regression studies conducted on
experiencers for the sole purpose of retrieving one or
more alleged alien implants from their bodies would
come some way to validating their stories. Would not
the discovery, removal, and study of such implants,
revealed under hypnotic regression, constitute
evidence of veridicality, thereby supporting the
continued use of hypnosis in alien abduction accounts?

References
Winn, Ralph B. Ph. D (1956): Scientific Hypnotism. Wilshire Book Company.

Blankfort, Michael (1932): Why We Dont Know Much About Hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology

Randles, Jenny. (1997): First Contact. The X Factor, issue 29. Marshall Cavendish Ltd.

Randles, Jenny (1997): The Paranormal Researcher. The X Factor.

Apelle, Stuart (1994 a): Hypnosis and the Accuracy of Abduction Memory: Alien Discussions:
Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference held at M. I. T. (pp. 204-208) Cambridge, Mass:
North Cambridge Press.

DePiano, Frank & Salzberg, Herman C. (1981): Hypnosis as an aid to recall of meaningful information
presented under three types of arousal. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
29, 383-400.

Zelig, Mark & Beidleman, William B. (1981): The Investigative Use of Hypnosis: A Word of Caution.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 29, 401-412.

Brigham, John C., Maass, Anne, Snyder. Larry D., & Spaulding, Kevin (1982): Accuracy of eyewitness
identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42, 673-681.

Malpass, R S., & Devine, P. G. (1980): Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law and
Human Behaviour, 4, 347-357.

Sanders, G. S. & Warnick, D. H., (1981): Truth and consequences: The effect of responsibility on
eyewitness behaviour. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 67-79.

Rodegehier, Mark, Goodpaster, Jeff, & Sandra Blatterbauer, (1991): Psychosocial characteristics of
abductees: Results from the CUFOS Abduction Project. Journal of UFO Studies, 3, 59-90.

Spanos, Nicholas P., Cross, Patricia A., Dickson, Kirby, & Dubreuil, Susan C (1993): Close Encounters:
An Examination of UFO Experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 624-632.
Orne, Martin T., Whitehouse, Wayne G., Orne, Emily Carota, & Dinges, David F (1996): Memories of
anomalous and traumatic autobiographical experiences: Validation and consolidation of fantasy
through hypnosis. Psychological Inquiry. 7, 168-72.

Shields, Ian W., & Jane Knox, (1986): Level of processing as a determinant of hypnotic
hypermnesia Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 358-364.