In the present study we assessed the efficacy of several procedures in minimizing the occurrence of aftereffects of a hypnotic induction. We gave experimental subjects (n = 347) a brief lecture dispelling some myths about hypnosis, told them no psychological treatment would be undertaken, and then administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) in which all references to aftereffects had been removed. We gave the standard version of the HGSHS:A to control subjects (n = 340). Although the treatment condition did not reduce the overall incidence of effects, long-term effects were significantly reduced. Medical and psychosocial histories were obtained from subjects prior to the induction, but they proved to be of limited value in predicting sequelae. Contrary to the results of Coe & Ryken (1979), hypnosis produced more frequent sequelae than a nonhypnotic classroom experience (watching a film followed by an introductory psychology lecture) for subjects in an ad hoc control group.

The present study found 266 undergraduates' pre‐induction beliefs about hypnosis and their self‐reported expectation of experiencing hypnosis to correlate with their performance on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & Orne, 1962). Futhermore, participants tended to label their hypnotic experience (on a 7‐point scale employed by Radtke and Spanos, 1982) in a manner consistent with their pre‐induction beliefs and expectancies. Finally, the present study showed that pre‐induction expectancies about the likelihood of being hypnotized influenced post hoc ratings of participants apart from actual hypnotic performance. Findings are discussed as supporting Kirsch's (1985) expectancy model of hypnosis. Copyright © 1997 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis

Rats were trained to bar-press for sucrose solution in the presence of one of two stimulus conditions. On each daily training session, the stimulus during which bar-pressing was reinforced was reversed. The subjects were trained in this Serial Discrimination Reversal procedure until successive acquisitions of the discrimination had stabilized. Drug treatments consisting of saline or 0.25, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 or 8.0 mg/kg of methylphenidate were then administered 20 min prior to the daily training sessions. Acquisition of the discrimination was enhanced by low doses of methylphenidate (1,2, and 4 mg/kg) and attentuated by higher doses (6 and 8 mg/kg).

Two cases of hypnotic sequelae occurring in a research context (with a non-clinical college population) are reported. Case 1 was a male who experienced retroactive amnesia following hypnosis: He was unable to recall familiar telephone numbers later that day. This was not a continuation of an earlier confusion or drowsiness (as is often found) since he indicated he was wide awake following hypnosis. Two parallels exist with previous reports: unpleasant childhood experiences with chemical anesthesia and a conflict involving a wish to experience hypnosis but a reluctance to relinquish control. Case 2 was a female who, while in hypnosis, experienced an apparent epileptic seizure that had characteristics of both petit mal and grand mal seizures. Although having a history of epilepsy, she had not had a seizure in 7 years. We suspect that the seizure was psychogenic and may have been triggered by wording used in the hypnotic scale or other similarities. Possible mechanisms are discussed and preventative recommendations are made.

No abstract