A physiological investigation of volitional and nonvolitional experience during posthypnotic amnesia.

Abstract

Highly responsive hypnotic subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects' reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis.

More on Volitional Experiences and Breaching Posthypnotic Amnesia

“…Coe and Yashinski (1985) screening and the breaching session ratings. The results did not confirm the interaction between breaching and the screening voluntary ratings as had both Howard and Coe (1980) and Schuyler and Coe (1981). Schuyler and Coe's (1981) lack of interaction between breaching session voluntary ratings and breaching, however, was supported (see Table 1).…”

“…The results did not confirm the interaction between breaching and the screening voluntary ratings as had both Howard and Coe (1980) and Schuyler and Coe (1981). Schuyler and Coe's (1981) lack of interaction between breaching session voluntary ratings and breaching, however, was supported (see Table 1). The Coe and Yashinski (1985) findings, therefore, raised the question of the reliability of the interaction between voluntariness and breaching, no matter when the voluntary ratings were obtained.…”

“…To increase pressure, a "lie" condition was employed where Ss were told directly that they were not telling the truth, and to decrease pressure, a condition was added where Ss were told that they were telling the "truth." The same "physiograph' (no knowledge) condition employed by the three previous studies (Coe & Yashinski, 1985;Howard & Coe, 1980;Schuyler & Coe, 1981) as a comparison was also used. More breaching was expected under the lie condition than under the truth or physiograph conditions, and more breaching was expected under the physiograph condition than under the truth condition, presumably because some Ss would interpret the physiograph feedback as lying and some as telling the truth.…”

“…In the second study (Schuyler & Coe, 1981), highly responsive hypnotic Ss were again tested under a physiograph and a relax condition. The interaction between voluntariness ratings from the screening session and breaching suggested in the Noward and Coe (1980) study was confirmed (i.e., breaching was primarily accounted for by Ss who had rated themselves as having control over remembering).…”

“…A variety of experimental manipulations have been employed for breaching posthypnotic amnesia (e.g., Bowers, 1966;Kihlstrom, Evans, E. C. Orne, & M. T. Orne, 1980).4 The present authors' approach has employed a "lie detector" manipulation to encourage breaching, and Ss' reports of volitional control over their ability to recall during the amnesia test have also been examined (see also Coe & Yashinski, 1985;Howard & Coe, 1980;Schuyler & Coe, 1981). In all of these studies, some initially amnesic Ss have breached while others have not.…”