Psychol., 1962,56, 73-78. COOK, M. D. S. A preliminary study of the relationship of differential treatment of male and female head size in figure drawing to the degree of attribution of the social function of the female. 3. FISHER, S. and FISHER, Rhoda. Test of certain assumptions regarding figure drawing analysis. J. a h m . SOC. Psychol., 1950, @, 727-732. 4. GRIFFITH, A. V. and PEYMAN, D. A. R. Eye-ear emphasis in the DAP as indicating ideas of reference. J . consult. Psychol., 1959, 23, 560. 5. GUTMAN, BRIDGETTE. A n investigation of the applicability of the human figure drawing in predicting improvement in therapy. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Universit 6. HILER, E. W. and NESVIG, D. An evaluation of criteria used by clinicians to ingr pathology from figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol., 1965,29,520-529. 7. HOLZBERG, J. D. and WEXLER, M. The validity of human form drawings as a measure of personality deviation.

Research investigated the hypothesis inferred from the theorizing of Loftus that suggestibility is related to the tendency to incorporate incorrect information into memory when this information has been subtly introduced after the to-be-remembered events have occurred. Specifically, it was predicted that if level of suggestibility is theoretically relevant to subjects' acceptance of misleading information, then more subjects who are highly hypnotically suggestible than those with a low level of hypnotic suggestibility will incorporate the incorrect information into memory. Hypnotic as compared with waking instruction should enhance this distortion effect by providing a context of testing in which subjects are readily prone to respond positively to suggestions. Eight independent groups of 12 subjects were tested. Separate groups of subjects of high and low suggestibility were presented with misleading or neutral information about a wallet-snatching incident and tested for memory under either waking or hypnotic instruction. Analysis of subjects' memory distortions indicated that suggestibility plays a somewhat different role than has been argued previously. The magnitude of distortion that was observed varied according to the stimulus features that were studied, but hypnotic suggestibility was not associated with the distortion effect. Despite the fact that hypnosis did not enhance recall in any way, subjects were frequently confident that distorted memories recovered under hypnosis were accurate.

When asked to name the ink color of an incompatible color word (e.g., the word red printed in green ink), people show strong interference from the word. This phenomenon-the Stroop effect-has become a benchmark measure of attention, and is notoriously difficult to modulate. This study examined Stroop interference in subjects who were either high or low in susceptibility to hypnosis. Compared with performance in the waking state, the Stroop effect actually increased under hypnosis, a result particularly evident in the high-susceptible subjects. This contradicts the notion that highsusceptible subjects freely select appropriate strategies when hypnotized, a conclusion strengthened by an analysis of reported strategies in the two states. However, when provided with an attentional focusing instruction under hypnosis, high-susceptible subjects sharply reduced the Stroop effect, whereas low-susceptible subjects decreased it only slightly. One role of hypnosis may be to assist the subject in tuning attention, but only when an appropriate strategy is provided.

17 excellent hypnotic Ss were asked to participate in a 2-day experiment which would involve many personality tests. On the 1st day Ss were given the suggestion that for the next 48 hr. they were to respond by touching their forehead each time they heard the word "experiment." The E tested the suggestion in the experimental setting, but unbeknownst to the Ss the critical test came in the waiting room: the secretary-receptionist tested Ss as they were leaving the building on the 1st day and again as they arrived on the following day. A quasi-control group simulating hypnosis was used to evaluate whether E may have unwittingly cued the Ss to respond outside of the experimental setting. The E was blind as to which Ss were excellent hypnotic Ss and which were essentially unhypnotizable simulators. Results showed that $ hypnotic Ss responded consistently away from E; no simulating S showed comparable posthypnotic behavior (Fisher exact test, p < .OS). Consistent posthypnotic response outside of the experimental setting was related to the level of hypnosis S achieved at the time the posthypnotic suggestion was administered.