Hypnosis and the dream hidden observer: primary process and demand characteristics

In Study 1, virtuoso (n = 13; passed more than 10 suggestions on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A [HGSHS:A] and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C), high hypnotizable (n = 14; passed more than 8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A), and medium hypnotizable (n = 17; passed 4-8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A) Ss were administered a hypnotic dream suggestion followed by a "dream hidden observer" suggestion (i.e., access hidden part; have new thoughts and images pertinent to dream). The majority of Ss reported dreams (81.8%) and hidden observers (80%), with hidden reports being characterized by more personal content, less primary processes, and poorer recall than dream reports. Study 2 replicated major findings. Although hypnotized (n = 18) and low hypnotizable simulating Ss (n = 17) responded comparably on most measures, hypnotizable Ss' dreams contained more primary process than did simulating Ss, providing support for M. R. Nash's (1991) psychoanalytic model.     

Inductions versus suggestions: Effects of direct and indirect wording on hypnotic responding and experience.

This study examined the effects of direct wording (authoritative language, specific responses) versus indirect wording (permissive language, choice of responses) of hypnotic inductions and suggestions in measures of behavioral and subjective responding. Subjects experienced suggestion-related involuntariness and suggested effects to a greater degree in response to direct-word suggestions (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A; Shor & Orne, 1962) than in response to indirect-worded suggestions (Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale; Pratt, Wood, & Alman, 1984). No difference in behavioral responding was observed. Furthermore, induction wording did not have an effect on these measures, nor did the wording of the induction and the wording of the suggestion types interact with each other. Female subjects attributed less of their responsiveness to their own efforts when they received direct suggestions, and male subjects were less likely to attribute their responsivity to the hypnotist's ability when they received indirect suggestions. Rapport with the hypnotist did not vary as a function of induction or suggestion wording. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Temporal organization of recall during posthypnotic amnesia.

Amnesia suggestions were administered to 35 undergraduates of low, medium, and high hypnotic susceptibility (the Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility—Form C) who had learned a word list while hypnotized. The method encouraged Ss to organize the words sequentially. Organization of recall was measured on recall trials conducted before, during, and after suggested amnesia. Highly hypnotizable Ss showed a breakdown in temporal organization during amnesia, followed by a recovery of this organization after the suggestion was canceled. Results suggest that posthypnotic amnesia involves a disruption in the contextual relationships among memory items. Findings are discussed in the context of models that construe memory as a network of modes representing concepts and associative links between them. (41 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dream deprivation and facilitation with hypnosis.

Attempted to modify sleep and dreaming through the administration of various posthypnotic suggestions. Ss were 17 male undergraduates who were selected (using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility) for high susceptibility to hypnosis. After 2 adaptation nights, 5 Ss were given a dream-deprivation suggestion, 8 were given a suggestion of dream-facilitation, and the remaining 4 Ss were administered a neutral posthypnotic suggestion. Subjective dream reports were dramatically affected in the predicted directions. Electrophysiological changes were also noted in certain Ss, although these results were not nearly as consistent as the subjective data. The dream-deprivation group had significantly more Stage I sleep than the other 2 groups, and certain of these Ss had much less REM sleep. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Posthypnotic amnesia as disrupted retrieval.

Investigated the process of remembering during posthypnotic amnesia by exploring the organization of recalled material in Ss displaying only partial amnesia. During 3 standardized hypnosis scales (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and Forms B and C of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale) suggestions of posthypnotic amnesia were administered to 112 male undergraduates. Hypnotizable Ss tended to recall the scale items in random chronological order, compared to the relatively sequential recall of insusceptible Ss. The difference in temporal sequencing of recall during amnesia indicates that, for the hypnotizable S, posthypnotic amnesia is characterized primarily by a disruption or disorganization of part of the recall process, leaving other aspects of memory processing relatively unimpaired. Results suggest a resolution of the apparent paradox between the subjective reports of amnesic Ss and the objective evidence that the apparently forgotten memories remain available for other cognitive operations. (26 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Uncancelled hypnotic suggestions: The effects of hypnotic depth and hypnotic skill on their posthypnotic persistence.

Conducted 2 experiments to evaluate the degree to which hypnotic depth and hypnotic skill influence the posthypnotic persistence of an uncancelled suggestion. Each experiment employed 24 college students (8 high susceptible, 8 medium susceptible, and 8 low susceptible, based on Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, scores). The induction of hypnosis in Exp I was by videotape; in Exp II, an almost identical induction was conducted individually by the experimenter. In both experiments, an arm analgesia item was left uncancelled. Over the 2 experiments, analgesia persisted posthypnotically for 20% of the highly susceptible Ss. These Ss differed from the highly susceptible Ss not manifesting the phenomenon in having significantly better hypnotic analgesia and greater hypnotic depth. Results suggest that posthypnotic persistence of an uncancelled suggestion was confined to a minority of highly hypnotizable Ss. Persistence appears to have affinities with other low-incidence hypnotic phenomena to which only the top 2–3% of Ss in the range of hypnotic susceptibility respond. The majority of highly susceptible Ss either cancelled an uncancelled suggestion themselves, or else the suggestion faded with time. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Volitional experiences associated with breaching posthypnotic amnesia.

40 highly responsive hypnotic undergraduates were selected on the basis of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility—Form A and were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia. Ss rerated their voluntariness after the experiment. Two contextual conditions were employed: a lie detector condition meant to create pressure to breach amnesia and a relaxation control condition. In contrast to earlier findings, the recall data show that both voluntary and involuntary Ss breached under the lie detector condition compared with their counterparts in the relaxation condition, although the degree of breaching was not great in any condition. Results are discussed as they relate to studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia and to characteristics of the voluntary–involuntary dimension. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hypnotic dissociation, dichotic listening, and active versus passive modes of attention.

Describes 2 experiments with 75 high and low hypnotically susceptible Ss (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility). Detecting left-channel targets interfered less with the shadowing of right-channel prose when performance of the former task was posthypnotically dissociated from consciousness. However, this superiority over an ordinary divided-attention condition was not due to unconscious target detection by Ss. Rather, the suggestions for posthypnotic responsiveness with amnesia apparently engendered a passive mode of attention to the left-channel task, such that Ss did not actively listen for targets in order to hear them. In Exp II, explicit instructions to adopt a strategy of attentional passivity to the target-detection task proved to be far more effective in producing the reduced-interference effect than the posthypnotic suggestions had been. The posthypnotic suggestions seemed to induce attentional passivity as an indirect effect of amnesia for the posthypnotic suggestions and for previously detected targets. Study findings are interpreted in terms of E. R. Hilgard's (1973) neodissociation theory. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of hypnosis on P300 olfactory-evoked potential amplitudes.

From a sample of 93 undergraduates, 4 high- and 5 low-hypnotic-susceptibility (the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form C) Ss were exposed to a waking condition and a hypnotic induction condition that included a suggestion for anosmia. ANOVAs of the P300 showed significant amplitude increases for weak and strong odors for high-hypnotizable Ss in hypnosis, but not for high-hypnotizable Ss in the waking state. No such amplitude increases were found for the low-hypnotizable Ss. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The use of observationally presented information to modify hypnotic susceptibility.

Examined the extent to which hypnotic susceptibility could be modified by means of various types of information modeled on a videotape. Of particular interest was the extent to which hypnotizability could be altered for the initially less susceptible S. 2 major informational components were compared: (a) behavioral modeling cues, in which Ss observed a model acquiesce to 7 hypnotic suggestions; and (b) verbal modeling cues, in which information was presented designed to correct misconceptions concerning hypnosis as well as provide concrete methods for experiencing hypnosis. 70 undergraduates completed the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS) Form B. After the manipulation period, Ss completed the SHSS Form C. Several days later, Ss completed M. Diamond's CP Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Verbal modeling cues (in combination with motivational encouragement) were significantly more effective than the other cues, even for the initially less susceptible Ss. Results are discussed in relation to social learning and cognitive approaches to behavior change. (23 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The reality of hypnotic analgesia: A comparison of highly hypnotizables with simulators.

Used the real–simulator design to investigate the reality of hypnotic analgesia when normally painful stress was induced by immersing a hand and forearm in circulating ice water (cold pressor response). 2 groups of Ss (12 14–22 yr old selected highly hypnotizable "reals" and 12 13–27 yr old insusceptible "simulators"), determined by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Form A) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (Form C), participated in a single session during which suggestions for pain reduction were given in both the waking and hypnotic conditions. The simulators proved remarkably successful in predicting and imitating the responses of the reals, except for a tendency to overreact and exaggerate compliance with suggestions. The genuineness of hypnotic analgesia was attested, however, by the differences between the honesty reports of the reals and those of the simulators who attempted to behave as hypnotized Ss are expected to do. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Suggestion and distraction in the control of pain: Test of two hypotheses.

96 18–30 yr old undergraduates, preselected for high or for low hypnotic susceptibility on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility—Form A, reported their level of perceived pain during a 50-sec baseline immersion of their hand in ice water. In a 2nd immersion, independent groups of high and low hypnotizables (n?=?12) were tested (without hypnosis) under 4 conditions: analgesia suggestion alone, verbal-distraction task alone, a combination of suggestion plus distraction, and control. Among high hypnotizables, as compared to the control group, all 3 experimental treatments were effective in reducing pain. The combination of suggestion plus distraction was no more effective than was either of the single treatments alone in reducing pain. Among low hypnotizables, only the distraction treatment was effective. Results support an attentional-diversion explanation of the effect of waking analgesia suggestions rather than a special resources hypothesis. It appears that both high and low hypnotizables can divert attention toward external stimuli, but only high hypnotizables can successfully divert attention inward to control pain. (31 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Posthypnotic amnesia: Suggestions of an active process in dissociative phenomena.

In a study with 62 undergraduates, a retroactive inhibition design was used to examine the process of posthypnotic amnesia. Ss were assigned to either a posthypnotic amnesia or a no-posthypnotic amnesia treatment group and were administered the 1st 11 items of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Results support the notion that "forgotten" material is as available to amnesia Ss at some level as it is to nonamnesic Ss. Further, so-called forgetting appears to be the result of an active process, that is, something the S does. Implications for understanding dissociative phenomena in general are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Direct versus indirect suggestions, archaic involvement, and hypnotic experience.

This study examined the effects of direct (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: [{hgshs}:{a}]; Shor & Orne, 1962) versus indirect (Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale [{awihss}]; Pratt, Wood, & Alman, 1984) suggestions on arcahaic involvement (Nash & Spinler, in press) with the hypnotists, objective responding, and subjective involvement and involuntariness ratings, when the scales were administered in all possible combinations (direct/indirect, N?=?61; indirect/direct, N?=?61; direct/direct, N?=?57; indirect/indirect, N?=?95), across two sessions. At the initial testing, subjects who received indirect suggestions reported a greater emotional bond with the hypnotist and increased fear of negative appraisal than subjects who received direct suggestions. Repeated testing resulted in response decrements on measures of objective responding, subjective involvement, and involuntariness that were paralled by diminished involvement with the hypnotist. The most stable relation between scales was evident when scales were defined as direct hypnosis across both sessions. Although direct and indirect suggestions produced comparable effects in the first session, in the second session, direct suggestions fostered greater subjective involvement and feelings of involuntariness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sustained attentional and disattentional abilities: Differences between low and highly hypnotizable persons.

Relations between sustained attentional and disattentional abilities and hypnotic susceptibility (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A; Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form C) were examined in 38 low (0–3) and 39 highly (10–22) hypnotizable college students. Highs showed greater sustained attention on Necker cube and autokinetic movement tasks and self-reported greater absorption (Tellegen Absorption Scale) and extremely focused attentional (Differential Attentional Processes Inventory) styles. Hypnotizability was unrelated to dichotic selective attention (R. A. Karlin, 1979) and random number generation (C. Graham and F. J. Evans, 1977) tasks. Discriminant analysis correctly classified 74% of the lows and 69% of the highs. Results support H. J. Crawford and J. H. Gruzelier's (1992) neuropsychophysiological model of hypnosis that proposes that highly hypnotizable persons have a more efficient far frontolimbic sustained attentional and disattentional system. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of videotape playback of hypnotic events on posthypnotic amnesia.

Examined the breakdown of amnesia by showing 48 hypnotic and nonhypnotic undergraduates (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility) a videotape of the hypnotic events they had experienced. The extent of the amnesia for these events was defined precisely, and simulating procedures were employed to analyze the cues in the overall test situation. Videotape display of the hypnotic events was presented via the Experiential Analysis Technique and served to optimize conditions for breakdown. Some hypnotic Ss' amnesia could not be broken down even though they were exposed via videotape playback to the events to be recalled and when suggestions for the period of amnesia were quite explicit. Simulators showed breaching of amnesia but attributed their recall to the videotape rather than to the hypnotic session. Hypnotic Ss were distinctive in their inability to recall experiential aspects of their performance even though they could recall behavioral aspects. The data are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that dissociative cognitive mechanisms underlie posthypnotic amnesia. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contextual forgetting: Posthypnotic source amnesia.

Notes that posthypnotic source amnesia (SA) involves recall of information recently learned during hypnosis without recollection of how the information was acquired. SA occurs when, posthypnotically, an S gives the correct answer to a question like, "An amethyst is a blue or purple gemstone: What color does it become when exposed to heat?" The correct answer seems to pop into the S's mind and he or she does not remember just learning it during hypnosis. SA occurred in 4 of 12 deeply hypnotized totally amnesic Ss but not in 15 unhypnotizable simulating Ss tested by a "blind" experimenter. (Ss were selected by use of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale.) SA also occurred with 31% of 29 deeply hypnotized amnesic Ss in a nonblind experiment. Results show that amnesia cannot be attributed to subtle aspects of the experimental procedure nor to a partial failure of posthypnotic amnesia. SA may provide a model to help understand aspects of several normal and pathological contextual memory disruptions including plagiarism, flashbulb memories, clinical amnesia, the development of phobic states, and other related processes in which there is an apparent dissociation between the content of accessible memories and the context in which the episodic events originally occurred. In SA, Ss know, but do not know how or why they know. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The endogenous eyeblink and hypnotic susceptibility in a real-simulator design

This study investigated the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and the endogenous eyeblink with 27 subjects who were assigned to groups of high susceptibles, low susceptibles and simulators on the basis of cutoff scores from the Harvard Group Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales: Form C. Using a repeated-measures design, oculomotor data were collected during two separate conditions, waking and hypnotized, while subjects performed a visual task requiring the discrimination of short light flashes (200 ms) from long light flashes (400 ms). Although results partially replicated previous studies, with high susceptibles blinking significantly less than low susceptibles across both conditions, no effect was found for the hypnotic state. Failure of the simulating group to meet assumptions in the waking condition allowed no conclusions regarding impact of task demands on the endogenous eyeblink.     

Behavioral predictions from hypnotic responsiveness scores when obtained with and without prior induction procedures.

Administered the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS) to 80 high school students, half with imagination instructions and half with hypnotic induction instructions. The Stanford Profile Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form I (SPS), was subsequently administered to test the predictive effectiveness of the scales. The SPS has both different induction procedures and different item content from the BSS and the SHSS, which are very similar in their test-suggestion topics. Correlations with the SPS were much higher following prior testing under induction rather than imagination conditions, and induction conditions raised both objective and subjective scores above imagination conditions. Although both the BSS and the SHSS yielded similar results, some differences were noted. The subjective correction makes a greater difference for BSS than for SHSS scores, so that the subjective correction is to be recommended especially when the BSS is used. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hypnotizability and attention.

Developed an attentional explanation of cognitive hypnotic phenomena (e.g., hallucinations and amnesia) based on the ability to shift the pertinence of stored information. It was hypothesized that individuals who were successful at a difficult attentional task would also succeed on cognitive hypnotic items. The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A was used to assess hypnotizability in 42 adult night-school students. To measure pertinence-shift ability, 2 tape recordings made by the same person were played through a single sound source. One tape was designated the target tape. Amount remembered and perceived task ease were summed to form an additive score of task success. Ss above the median on the task were assigned to the good pertinence shift group (GP); those below the median were assigned to the poor pertinence shift group (PP). As predicted, GP subjects passed significantly more cognitive hypnotic items than did PP subjects. When task difficulty and compliance were controlled for, the results remained significant. Results were replicated in a 2nd study with 23 summer-school students. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)