What makes recovered-memory testimony compelling to jurors?

Little is known about how jurors arrive at verdicts in cases involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Study 1 investigated mock jurors' reactions to the recovered-memory testimony of an alleged victim when a therapist intervened with hypnosis, suggestion, or symptom management. When a therapist used hypnosis, jurors viewed the victim's recovered-memory testimony as particularly accurate and credible, and favored the victim in their verdicts. In Study 2, mock jurors were presented with a therapist who was sued for allegedly influencing a client's recall of false memories of abuse. In this case, however, jurors viewed therapists who used hypnosis or suggestion as more likely to have created false memories, more responsible for having caused harm, and less competent, and tended not to favor these therapists in their verdicts. We discuss these seemingly contradictory findings in terms of how culturally formed expectancies about hypnosis produce different causal explanations depending on the focus of a trial.