The heuristic value of a broad conceptual framework for mental processes was explored in the context of the currently popular topic of arousal. The model pointed to the necessity for distinguishing "cognitive" from "organismic" arousal and for differentiating the effects of various sources of arousal upon mental activity. Posthypnotic programming of a trained S was then utilized to induce degrees of anxiety, pleasure, muscle movement, and alertness. A 5th source of arousal, intensities of white noise, was interspersed with the others during a visual discrimination task. The series of experiments began with a general comparative investigation of the influence of these sources upon response latency, followed by more specific probes designed to elaborate the framework.

A dot-pattern test for accuracy of imagery and the Betts QMI scale for vividness of self-reported imagery were administered to 10 Ss high and 10 Ss low in hypnotic susceptibility. As in previous studies, susceptibility and Betts scale responses were related, but neither was related to dot-pattern performance. Results emphasize the complexity of the concept of imagery and the variety of possible bases for the relationship between self-reported imagery and hypnotic susceptibility, such as response-bias, suggestibility, and/or forms of imagery conferring very limited accuracy.

Hypnotic screening of 108 subjects was carried out in groups of 4 or fewer using the Harvard Group Scale. Attempts to influence susceptibility scores (two objective observer scorings and two self-scores) via experimenter bias (role playing combined with experimenter expectancy), experimenter status, and subject belief (information to subjects about their likelihood of being hypnotized) failed to yield statistical significance, except in one case. Experimenter bias was significant at the .05 level in only one of the four three-way AJTOVAs needed to analyze the four duplicate susceptibility scorings. This result accords with an insufficiency of evidence for important experimenter bias effects in hypnotic research. As such, it agrees with a recent critical review of Roscnthal's work as it applies to any well-structured, professionally conducted psychological experiments. The research significance of any very small experimenter bias effect that may have occurred in this study is discussed in light of the minute strength of relationship, or percentage of variance accounted for by each source of variation, in each of the four ANOVAs.

No abstract

No abstract