Experimental analyses of "hypnotic" behavior: A review of recent empirical findings.

Experiments are reviewed that were designed to delineate the instrumental variables in eliciting objective and subjective responses to test suggestions of body immobility, analgesia, hallucination, deafness, selective amnesia, and so on, that is, in eliciting behaviors of the type traditionally termed "hypnotic." The question at the forefront of discussion is: In producing "hypnotic-like" behavior, what are the relative effects of (a) S's personality characteristics, and of instructional-situational variables, such as (b) defining the situation to S as "hypnosis" or "control," (c) administering task-motivational instructions, (d) administering suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep, and (e) suggesting to S that he can now easily respond to test suggestions? (4 p. ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Empirical evidence for a theory of hypnotic behavior: Effects on suggestibility of five variables typically included in hypnotic induction procedures.

3 experiments were conducted to ascertain the relative effects on suggestibility of the following 5 components that are typically included in present-day hypnotic induction procedures: 1—defining the situation to S as "hypnosis"; 2—instructing S to close his eyes; 3—administering suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep; 4—administering motivational instructions; and 5—suggesting that it is easy to respond to further suggestions. Component 1, by itself, tended to facilitate response to test suggestions of arm levitation, thirst hallucination, body immobility, selective amnesia, etc. Component 1 in combination with Component 3 produced a higher level of suggestibility than Component 1 alone. Components 4 and 5 in combination were as effective as Components 1 and 3 in combination in facilitating response to test suggestions. Component 2 did not exert a noticeable effect on response. (25 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behavior: Experimental analyses of suggested amnesia.

Suggestions of amnesia were given to 144 Ss in a 2 X 2 X 4 factorial experiment. The independent variables were: (1) spoken vs. recorded presentation of suggestions, (2) presence vs. absence of hypnotic induction, and (3) 3 types of suggestions for amnesia—authoritative ("You will not rememberp"), permissive ("Try to forget"), suggestions to simulate, and no suggestions. Variable 1 did not produce important differences in amnesic performance. Variable 2 significantly affected 1 of the 5 tests for amnesia, with the presence of hypnotic induction resulting in less amnesia. Variable 3 exerted the most powerful effect. Irrespective of the presence or absence of hypnotic induction, Ss differed on the tests for amnesia depending on which suggestion they were given. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward a theory of hypnotic behavior: Effects on suggestibility of defining the situation as hypnosis and defining response to suggestions as easy.

96 Ss participated in a 2 X 2 factorial experiment which was designed to assess the effects on suggestibility of: defining the situation as hypnosis or as control, and defining response to suggestions as easy or as difficult. The dependent variables consisted of responses to 8 standardized test suggestions (Barber Suggestibility Scale). Ss told "You are in the hypnosis group" were more responsive to suggestions than Ss told "You are in the control group." Ss told that it was easy to respond to test suggestions were more suggestible than Ss told that it was difficult. The suggestibility-enhancing effects of the independent variables were additive: the level of suggestibility was highest when the situation was defined as hypnosis and the test suggestions as easy; next highest when either the situation was defined as hypnosis or the suggestions as easy; and lowest when the situation was defined as control and the suggestions as difficult. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Types of hypnotic dreams and their relation to hypnotic depth.

Several types of experiences in response to suggestions to have a dream are described, namely: (1) simply thinking about something; (2) daydreaming; (3) vivid hallucinations, like watching a film; and (4) feeling "bodily located in" a "dream world." In 2 experiments, only a minority of Ss rated their experiences as dreamlike, even when hypnotized. Significant positive relationships were found between the extent to which the experiences were rated as vivid and dreamlike, and 2 measures of hypnotic depth. The variable of whether or not Ss had gone through a hypnotic-induction procedure did not discriminate among types of response. These results illustrate the danger of pseudo-operational definitions of hypnosis that ignore Ss' subjective responses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mediation and moderation of psychological pain treatments: Response expectancies and hypnotic suggestibility.

The mediator role of response expectancies and the moderator role of hypnotic suggestibility were evaluated in the analogue treatment of pain. Approximately 1,000 participants were assessed for hypnotic suggestibility. Later, as part of a seemingly unrelated experiment, 188 of these individuals were randomly assigned to distraction, cognitive-behavioral package, hypnotic cognitive-behavioral package, hypnotic analgesia suggestion, placebo control, or no-treatment control conditions. Response expectancies partially mediated the effects of treatment on pain. Hypnotic suggestibility moderated treatment and was associated with the relief produced only by the hypnotic interventions. The results suggest that response expectancies are an important mechanism of hypnotic and cognitive-behavioral pain treatments and that hypnotic suggestibility is a trait variable that predicts hypnotic responding across situations, including hypnosis-based pain interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Literalism as a marker of hypnotic "trance": Disconfirming evidence.

The responses given by highly hypnotizable, hypnotic subjects and those of unhypnotizable subjects who simulated hypnosis to questions of the type, "Do you mind telling me your name?" and "Do you mind standing up?" were contrasted. The purpose was to examine M. H. Erickson's (1980) assertion that literalism (answering "yes" or "no" verbally or nonverbally without any cognitive elaboration) is a marker of hypnotic "trance." Simulators exhibited a greater rate of literalism than hypnotic "virtuosos" (i.e., extreme scorers on both group and individual hypnotizability measures). Hypnotized subjects and nonhypnotized subjects approached in the campus library responded comparably. Because less than a third of hypnotic virtuosos responded literally, our results strongly refuted Erickson's assertion that literalism is a cognitive feature of hypnosis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Expectation and performance in hypnotic phenomena.

Expectations concerning the occurrence of 7 phenomena through hypnotic suggestion were solicited from 12 female Ss, all of whom scored high on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Attempts were then made to induce these phenomena in the Ss. The results indicate that performance and expectation were discordant about as often as they were in accord. There appeared to be an interaction between task and expectation-performance accord. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Trance-susceptibility, induction-susceptibility, and acquiescence as factors in hypnotic performance.

Scores from 103 Ss on a 60-item inventory of attitudes and experiences outside of hypnosis, called the Hypnotic Characteristics Inventory along with sum-true scores on an abbreviated form of the MMPI, and interviewer predictions, were entered into a correlational matrix together with later-obtained hypnotic susceptibility scores derived from Stanford Hypnotic Suggestibility Scale Forms A and C. The matrix was factor-analyzed and rotated to a hypothetical structure. Hypnotic susceptibility was characterized by 2 oblique factors, 1 termed trance-susceptibility, the other induction-susceptibility. Questionnaire measures, which were found compounded with an acquiescence tendency, were correlated with trance-susceptibility but not induction-susceptibility, indicating a limitation in hypnotic prediction from questionnaires. (15 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Susceptibility to hypnosis and susceptibility to social influence.

Measures of susceptibility to social influence were obtained from 80 male Ss through a persuasibility test (Janis), an influencibility test (Schachter), and an autokinetic test (Sherif). A test of hypnotic susceptibility followed; scores from personality inventories were also available. Factor analysis shows the hypnotic subscales to represent one factor ("primary suggestibility"), orthogonal to a bipolar factor represented largely by scores on the self-report inventories. Among the tests of social influence only the influencibility test showed a slight positive relationship to hypnosis. Birth-order relationships failed to confirm predictions based on Schachter's findings. (29 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Current hypnosis.

Michael Amrine's remark concerning hypnosis and hypnotic age-regression (Amer. Psychologist, 1960, 15, 563) demands comment. Hypnotic age-regression is very much the concern of many psychologists, even some of us who have "become sophisticated" and live "in the present and the future." Almost since the discovery of hypnotic age-regression by Krafft-Ebing in 1888, popular writers have tried to equate the phenomenon with a time machine. While such an equation sells copy, it distorts reality. Those of us investigating the phenomenon experimentally are not interested in transcending time and space. We are concerned with the possibility of the reinstatement of previously acquired responses or response patterns which have been forgotten or extinguished. The possibility of using hypnotic age-regression in the treatment of individuals with various forms of psychological disorder is obvious. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Repression and hypnotic amnesia.

It was hypothesized that if the process of repression is involved in posthypnotic amnesia, then amnesia should occur more often for words related to a S's emotional conflicts (critical) than to words which are not so related (neutral). An experimental group of 26 college males and females under hypnosis learned individualized lists of 9 critical and 9 neutral words selected from a word-association test, and were then given posthypnotic amnesia for 10 of the 18 words, without instruction as to what words they would forget. A control group received similar treatment without hypnosis. In support of the hypothesis, the experimental group forgot a significantly greater number of critical over neutral words. (28 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Influence of instructions on hypnotic and nonhypnotic performance.

This study examined the performance of high- and low-susceptible Ss under hypnotic and waking conditions when exhortative, analgesic, and other instructions were separately controlled and not confounded. 50 female Ss, assigned to 1 of 3 experimental or 2 control groups, performed 2 maximum effort tasks (Hand Dynamometer and Weight Endurance) and 1 skilled task (Tremor) in a Base Rate and a Special Instruction session. Except for 1 control group that always performed awake, all Ss performed both hypnotized and awake in both sessions. Special instructions facilitated performance in the hypnotic but not the waking state, and exhortative were more effective than analgesic instructions. (16 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The hypnotic dream: Methodological problems and a review of the literature.

Investigations of the hypnotic dream have been confounded by a variety of unrecognized methodological problems, such as inadequate specification of demand characteristics, trance depth, and nature of the E-S relationship. Failure to recognize that Ss have a variety of experiences in response to dream suggestions has further obscured the literature. The literature on hypnotic dreams is reviewed. (84 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Performance on the Bender under hypnotic age regression.

10 female Ss with a mean age of 20 were administered the Bender Motor Gestalt Test under each of 4 conditions: awake, awake and pretending to be 4 years old, hypnotized and pretending to be 4 years old, hypnotized and regressed to 4 years old. The mean maturational levels, in years, obtained were 11.2, 9.9, 7.8, and 7.3, respectively. 18 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A randomized controlled trial of hypnosis for burn wound care.

Purpose/Objective: There have been few randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of clinical hypnotic analgesia. The authors' goal was to improve on previous methodologies and gain a better understanding of the effects of hypnosis on different components of pain in a clinical setting. Research Method/Design: This study used a randomized controlled design in which the nurses and data collectors were unaware of treatment condition to compare hypnotic analgesia with an attention-only placebo for burn pain during wound debridements. Data were analyzed on a total of 46 adult participants. Results: The authors found that the group receiving hypnosis had a significant drop in pain compared with the control group when measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire but not when measured by other pain rating scales. Conclusion: The McGill Pain Questionnaire total score reflects multiple pain components, such as its affective component and various qualitative components, and is not merely a measure of pain intensity. Thus, the findings suggest that hypnosis affects multiple pain domains and that measures that assess these multiple domains may be more sensitive to the effects of hypnotic analgesia treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Expect the unexpected: Ability, attitude, and responsiveness to hypnosis.

Participants' expectancies and hypnotic performance throughout the course of a standardized, individually administered hypnotic protocol were analyzed with a structural equation model that integrated underlying ability, expectancy, and hypnotic response. The model examined expectancies and ability as simultaneous predictors of hypnotic responses as well as hypnotic responses as an influence on subsequent expectancies. Results of the proposed model, which fit very well, supported each of the 4 major hypothesized effects: Expectancies showed significant stability across the course of the hypnosis protocol; expectancies influenced subsequent hypnotic responses, controlling for latent ability; hypnotic responses, in turn, affected subsequent expectancies; and a latent trait underlay hypnotic responses, controlling for expectancies. Although expectancies had a significant effect on hypnotic responsiveness, there was an abundance of variance in hypnotic performance unexplained by the direct or indirect influence of expectation and compatible with the presence of an underlying cognitive ability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hypnotic behavior: The differentiation of trance and demand characteristic variables.

Hypnotic Ss received posthypnotic suggestions: (1) to begin all sentences to the ostensible experimental (Taffel) task with "he" and "they," and (2) to be unaware of and amnesic for this fact. Waking simulator Ss received identical suggestions preceded by instructions to behave later as though they had been hypnotized when they received the suggestions. During a postexperimental inquiry with a different E, 8 of 14 hypnotic Ss were amnesic for their experimental behavior; none of the 13 simulating Ss were amnesic (p     

The predictive utility of hypnotizability: The change in suggestibility produced by hypnosis.

Objective: The predictive utility of hypnotizability, conceptualized as the change in suggestibility produced by a hypnotic induction, was investigated in the suggested reduction of experimental pain. Method: One hundred and seventy-three participants were assessed for nonhypnotic imaginative suggestibility. Thereafter, participants experienced hypnotic and nonhypnotic imaginative analgesia suggestions, counterbalanced for order. Hypnotic suggestibility was then assessed. Results: Hypnotizability, operationalized as hypnotic suggestibility with imaginative suggestibility statistically controlled (Braffman & Kirsch, 1999), predicted intraindividual differences in responding to the hypnotic and imaginative analgesia suggestions. Higher hypnotizability was associated with relatively greater response to the hypnotic analgesia suggestion than to the imaginative analgesia suggestion. Conclusions: Operationalized in this way, hypnotizability may be a useful predictor of the effect of adding a hypnotic induction to a specific imaginative suggestion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An experimental study of "hypnotic" (auditory and visual) hallucinations.

78 unselected female volunteers were individually pretested on response to direct suggestions designed to evoke auditory and visual hallucinations. In the same experimental session each S was retested on equivalent hallucination suggestions after the administration of 1 of the following 3 experimental treatments, with 26 Ss assigned at random to each treatment: standardized hypnotic induction procedure, brief task motivating instructions, control (no hypnotic induction or task motivating instructions). On the pretests (base level tests), 54% stated that they heard the suggested sounds and 33% reported that they saw the suggested object. Analyses of covariance indicated that: (a) the standardized hypnotic induction procedure and the brief task motivating instructions both facilitated response to the suggestions to hallucinate, (b) the group given the hypnotic induction and the group given task motivating instructions did not differ significantly from each other, and (c) both of these groups were significantly more responsive to the suggestions than the control group. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)