Abstract
A number of colleagues have discussed various aspects of hypnosis but, for the most part, we have tended to avoid defining operationally what we mean by hypnosis. Often we may not be aware that we have avoided doing so because of the comfortable knowledge that investigators, clinicians, and even laymen will manifest a high degree of consensus about what constitutes hypnosis. Certainly, when an individual agrees to be hypnotized and the hypnotist has carried out a hypnotic induction procedure and then demonstrated that the subject becomes essentially unresponsive to environmental stimuli other than the hypnotist’s voice or appropriate suggestions—seems unable to open a clenched fist or bend a straightened arm, is able to sniff a bottle of ammonia with obvious expressions of delight because he has been told the odour was that of a rose, remains relaxed and comfortable despite the application of noxious stimuli, hallucinates objects that are not there while failing to see other objects which he has been told are absent, and, finally, having been told that subsequent to awakening he would nod if the hypnotist removes his glasses, awakens with no apparent recall for any of the events that have transpired yet nods, apparently without awareness of his behaviour, each time the hypnotist removes his glasses—we would all agree that the subject had been deeply hypnotized.
This report was supported in part by grant number Nonr 4731 (00) from the Office of Naval Research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barber, T. X.: Experimental analyses of “hypnotic” behavior: A review of recent empirical findings. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 70, 132–154 (1965).
Damaser, E.: An experimental study of long-term post-hypnotic suggestion. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.: Doctoral dissertation 1964.
Damaser, E. C., R. E. Shor, and M. T. Orne: Physiological effects during hypnotically requested emotions. Psychosom. Med. 25, 334–343 (1963).
Edwards, G.: Duration of post-hypnotic effect. Brit. J. Psychiat. 109, 259–266 (1963).
Erickson, M. H.: Experimental demonstrations of the psychopathology of everyday life. In: S. S. Tomkins (Ed.), Contemporary Psychopathology, pp. 517–528. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1947.
Evans, F. J., L. A. Gustafson, D. N. O’Connell, M. T. Orne, and R. E. Shor: Response during sleep with intervening waking amnesia. Science, 152, 666–667 (1966).
Evans, F. J., L. A. Gustafson, D. N. O’Connell, M. T. Orne, and R. E. Shor: Verbally induced behavioral responses during sleep. J. nerv. ment. Dis. (in the press) (1970).
Fisher, S.: The role of expectancy in the performance of posthypnotic behavior. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 49, 503–507 (1954).
Hilgard, E. R.: Hypnotic Susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World 1965.
Kellogg, E. R.: Duration of the effects of post-hypnotic suggestion. J. exp. Psychol. 12, 502–514 (1929).
London, P., and M. Fuhrer: Hypnosis, motivation and performance. J. Personality 29, 321–333 (1961).
Mcglashan, T. H., F. J. Evans, and M. T. Orne: The nature of hypnotic analgesia and placebo response to experimental pain. Psychosom. Med. 31, 227–246 (1969).
Orne, M. T.: On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Amer. Psychologist 17, 776–783 (1962).
Orne, M. T.: Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In: R. Rosenthal, and R. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifacts in Behavioral Research, pp. 143–179. New York: Academic Press 1969.
Orne, M. T., P. W. Sheehan, and F. J. Evans: Occurrence of posthypnotic behavior outside the experimental setting. J. Personality 9, 189–196 (1968).
Patten, E. F.: The duration of posthypnotic suggestion. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 25, 319–334 (1930).
Rosenhan, D., and P. London: Hypnosis: Expectation, susceptibility, and performance. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 66, 77–81 (1963).
Sheehan, P. W., and M. T. Orne: Some comments on the nature of posthypnotic behavior. J. nerv. ment. Dis. 146, 209–220 (1968).
Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and E. R. Hilgard: Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press 1959.
Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and E. R. Hilgard: Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press 1962.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Orne, M.T. (1969). On the Nature of the Posthypnotic Suggestion. In: Chertok, L. (eds) Psychophysiological Mechanisms of Hypnosis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88002-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88002-5_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-88004-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-88002-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive