Advertisement

Non-Volition and Hypnosis. Reals vs. Simulators: Experiential and Behavioral Differences in Response to Conflicting Suggestions during Hypnosis

  • S. J. Lynn
  • M. R. Nash
  • J. W. Rhue
  • V. Carlson
  • C. Sweeney
  • D. Frauman
  • D. Givens

Abstract

Susceptible real and low susceptible simulating subjects were instructed to attend to, imagine, and think about described actions, but not to engage in movements while hypnotized. Susceptible imagination subjects received identical instructions but no prior induction. Testing occurred in small groups where observers rated movement responses to five motoric suggestions. As predicted, reals responded behaviorally following their experiential involvement in suggestions more than did simulators. Simulators moved more at one extreme or the other (movement or no movement) than reals, as predicted. Reals coded testimony reflected more conflict, sensations, imaginative involvement, and lack of volition than simulators. Although the imagination group behaved like simulators, their testimony paralleled the reals, with the exception that more volitional control was reported. In a second replication of real-simulator movement differences with a separate group of subjects, even when simulators were not released from their role plays when subjective reports were collected, they continued to differ on all subjective scales with the exception that they appreciated the conflict inherent in the situation, as did the reals. This second study demonstrated that real-simulator differences are still evident when simulators role play.

Keywords

Subjective Report Imagination Group Imaginative Process Hypnotic Susceptibility Imagination Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, M. B., 1946, On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis, J.abnorm.soc.Psychol., 41:107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowers, K. S., 1973, Hypnosis, attribution, and demand characteristics, Int.J.clin.exp.Hypnosis, 21:226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coe, W. C., and Sarbin, T. R., 1977, Hypnosis from the standpoint of a contextualist, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 296:2–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dolby, R. M., and Sheehan, P. W., 1975, Cognitive processing and expectancy behavior in hypnosis, J.abnorm.Psychol., 86:334–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, F. J., and Orne, M. T., 1971, THe disappearing hypnotist: The use of simulating subjects to evaluate how subjects perceive experimental procedures, Int.J.clin.exp.Hypnosis, 19:277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, F. J., 1979, Contextual forgetting: Posthypnotic source amnesia, J.abnorm.Psychol., 88:556–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hilgard, E. R., 1977, Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Hilgard, E. R., 1979 Divided consciousness in hypnosis: The implications of the hidden observer, in: “Hypnosis: Developments in Research and New Perspectives,” (2nd Ed.)., E. Fromm and R. E. Shor, eds., Aldine, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Kihlstrom, J. F., Evans, F. J., Orne, E. C., and Orne, M. T., 1980, Attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, J.abnorm.Psychol., 89:603–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McConkey, K. M., 1979, Conflict in hypnosis: Reality versus suggestion, in: “Hypnosis, 1979”, G. D. Burrows, D. R. Collison, and L. Dennerstein, eds., Elseiver/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Orne, M. T., 1959, The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence, J.abnorm.soc. Psychol., 58:277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Orne, M. T., Sheehan, P. W., and Evans, F. J., 1968, Occurrence of posthypnotic behavior outside of the experimental setting, J.Person.soc.Psychol., 9:189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peters, J. E., 1973, Trance Logic: Artifact or essence in hypnosis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  14. Radtke-Bodorik, H. L., Spanos, N. P., and Haddad, M. C., 1979, The effects of spoken versus written recall on suggested amnesia in hypnotic and task-motivated subjects, Amer.J.clin.Hypnosis, 22:8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sheehan, P. W., 1971, Countering preconceptions about hypnosis: an objective index of involvement with the hypnotist, J.abnorm. Psychol., 78:299–322, (Monograph).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sheehan, P. W., 1977, Incongruity intrance behavior: a defining property of hypnosis? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 296:194–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sheehan, P. W., 1980, Factors influencing rapport in hypnosis, J.abnorm.Psychol., 89:263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sheehan, P. W., and Dolby, R. M., 1975, Hypnosis and the influence of most recently perceived events, J.abnorm.Psychol., 84: 331–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sheehan, P. W., and Dolby, R. M., 1979, Motivated involvement in hypnosis: The illustration of clinical rapport through hypnotic dreams, J.abnorm.Psychol., 88:573–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheehan, P. W., and Perry, C. W., 1976, Methodologies of hypnosis: A critical appraisal of contemporary paradigms of hypnosis, Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Shore, R. E., and Orne, E. C., 1962, The Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility (Form A), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Ca.Google Scholar
  22. Spanos, N. P. Hypnotic responding: automatic dissociation of situation-relevant cognizing? in: “Imagery: volume 2, Concepts, Results, and Applications,” E. Klinger, ed., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Spanos, N. P., 1982, Hypnotic behavior: A cognitive, social psychological perspective, Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavior, 7:199–213.Google Scholar
  24. Spanos, N. P., and Bodorik, H. L., 1977, Suggested amnesia and disorganized recall in hypnotic and task-motivated subjects, J.abnorm.Psychol., 86:295–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spanos, N. P., Rivers, S. M., and Ross, S., 1977, Experienced involuntariness and response to hypnotic suggestions, in: “Conceptual and Investigative Approaches to Hypnosis and Hypnotic Phenomena,” W.E. Edmonston Jr., ed., Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 296:208–221.Google Scholar
  26. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard, E. R., 1967, Revised Stanford profile scales of hypnotic susceptibility (Form 2). Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Ca.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Lynn
    • 1
  • M. R. Nash
    • 1
  • J. W. Rhue
    • 1
  • V. Carlson
    • 1
  • C. Sweeney
    • 1
  • D. Frauman
    • 1
  • D. Givens
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations