Coleman B L, Stevens M J, Reeder G D
School of Law, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2001 Aug;25(4):317-38. doi: 10.1023/a:1010607401492.
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.
对于陪审员在涉及童年性虐待恢复记忆的案件中如何做出裁决，人们知之甚少。研究1调查了模拟陪审员在治疗师采用催眠、暗示或症状管理进行干预时，对一名据称受害者的恢复记忆证词的反应。当治疗师使用催眠时，陪审员认为受害者的恢复记忆证词特别准确且可信，并在裁决中偏向受害者。在研究2中，向模拟陪审员展示了一名因涉嫌影响客户对虐待的错误记忆而被起诉的治疗师。然而，在这种情况下，陪审员认为使用催眠或暗示的治疗师更有可能制造错误记忆，对造成伤害负有更大责任，且能力更差，并且在裁决中往往不偏向这些治疗师。我们根据文化形成的对催眠的预期如何根据审判重点产生不同的因果解释来讨论这些看似矛盾的发现。
