Non-Volition and Hypnosis. Reals vs. Simulators: Experiential and Behavioral Differences in Response to Conflicting Suggestions during Hypnosis
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.
KeywordsSubjective Report Imagination Group Imaginative Process Hypnotic Susceptibility Imagination Subject
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Hilgard, E. R., 1977, Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Peters, J. E., 1973, Trance Logic: Artifact or essence in hypnosis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Spanos, N. P., 1982, Hypnotic behavior: A cognitive, social psychological perspective, Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavior, 7:199–213.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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