Two experiments examined the effects of hypnotic procedures in response to interrogation and crossexamination in subjects who viewed a simulated robbery. Experiment 1 found that hypnotic and nonhypnotic leading interrogations were equally likely to produce misattributions and misidentification of mug shots. Moreover, under cross-examination subjects who had been given an hypnotic interrogation and those given nonhypnotic interrogations were equally likely to disavow their earlier misattributions and misidentifications. In both hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatments high hypnotizables were more likely than low hypnotizables to misattribute characteristics during interrogation and to disavow earlier misattributions during cross-examination. In Experiment 2 high hypnotizables given a cross-examination that legitimated their earlier errors as honest mistakes and that enabled them to disavow earlier testimony without discrediting themselves (hidden observer treatment) showed the highest and most consistent rates of disavowel. A stringent cross-examination that implied that subjects had been careless or dishonest during interrogation produced the lowest rates of disavowel.

Subjects high, medium, and low on hypnotic susceptibility were assessed on the cold pressor task before and after one of three instructional treatments The treatments were (a) brief instructions to try to reduce pain (n = 30), (b) the same analgesia instructions preceded by a hypnotic induction procedure (n = 30), (c) no hypnotic induction, no instructions (control, n -15). In the hypnotic treatment, susceptibility correlated significantly with reductions in reported pain, and highsusceptible subjects reported significantly larger pain reductions than did control subjects. In the instruction-alone treatment there was no significant relationship between susceptibility and pain reduction, and subjects at all three susceptibility levels reduced reported pain significantly more than did control subjects and as much as did high-susceptible hypnotic subjects. These findings indicate that the correlation between hypnotic susceptibility and hypnotic analgesia is moderated by subjects' attitudes and expectancies concerning their own performance in situations denned as related to hypnosis

Subjects with warts on their hands and/or feet were randomly assigned to a hypnotic suggestion, topical salicylic acid, placebo, or no treatment control condition. Subjects in the three treated groups developed equivalent expectations of treatment success. Nevertheless, at the six-week follow-up interval only the hypnotic subjects had lost significantly more warts than the no treatment controls. Theoretical implications are discussed.

No abstract

Two experiments tested predictions derived from the logical incongruity and differential demands hypotheses of trance logic responding. In Experiment 1, subjects that were highly susceptible to hypnosis showed higher levels of responding on three trance logic indexes (i.e., transparent hallucinating, duality, incongruous writing in age regression) than did subjects low in susceptibility to hypnosis who were instructed to fake hypnosis (i.e., simulators). In line with the differential demands hypothesis, hypnotic "reals" were less likely than simulators to report believing in the reality of the suggested situations and were less likely to report fine details in their hallucinations. Also consistent with the differential demands hypothesis (but inconsistent with the logical incongruity hypothesis), rate of trance logic responding correlated negatively with the degree to which hypnotic reals rated themselves as subjectively experiencing suggested effects, and as becoming absorbed in suggestions. Experiment 2 found that highly susceptible hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects (collectively called "reals") responded equivalently on all suggestions. High-and low-susceptible simulators also performed equivalently on all suggestions. Consistent with the differential demands hypothesis (but not the logical incongruity hypothesis), (a) trance logic indexes differentiated reals from simulators when these indexes also measured incomplete subjective responding, and (b) trance logic indexes that failed to measure incomplete responding also failed to differentiate reals from simulators. The findings of both experiments are more consistent with social psychological views than with special processes views of hypnotic responding.In an influential early study, Orae (1959) compared the response to a visual hallucination suggestion in highly susceptible hypnotic subjects (i.e., "reals") and subjects low in susceptibility to hypnosis who had been instructed preexperimentally to fake deep hypnosis (i.e., simulators). During their experimental session, all subjects were administered the same hypnotic procedures, suggestions, and interviews. During their hypnotic session, all subjects sat facing a coexperimenter. While the subjects' eyes were closed, the coexperimenter rose from his chair and moved from the subjects' field of view. Subjects were then instructed to open their eyes and to "see" (i.e., hallucinate) the coexperimenter still sitting in the chair. After the subjects described their hallucinated image, the hypnotist pointed to the actual coexperimenter and asked the subjects what they saw. Ome (1959) reported that some of the hypnotic reals but none of the simulators spontaneously indicated that they could simultaneously see the coexperimenter and see through him (i.e., transparency response). Relatedly, when faced with the actual coexperimentei; hypnotic reals were much more likely than simulators to report seeing two images of the coexperimenter at the same time (i.e., double hallucination response). According