Goal-directed fantasy, hypnotic susceptibility, and expectancies.

Abstract

We conducted an initial screening session in which hypnosis was presented as a "test of imagination" and administered with other imagination measures. In a second session, we instructed high- and low-hypnotizable subjects to imagine along with suggestions but to resist responding to motoric suggestions. Subjects received either instructions to use goal-directed fantasies (GDFs) or no facilitative instructions. Sizable individual difference effects were secured. Hypnotizable subjects exhibited more suggestion-related movements and reported greater involuntariness than did low-hypnotizable subjects. With GDF instructions, low- and high-hypnotizable subjects reported equivalent GDF absorption and frequencies. However, hypnotizable subjects exhibited greater responsiveness and reported greater involuntariness than did those low in hypnotizability, even when their GDFs were equivalent. Thus, no support was generated for the hypotheses that sustained, elaborated suggestion-related imagery mediates response to suggestion (Arnold, 1946) or that absorption in suggestions is of particular importance for low-hypnotizable subjects (Zamansky & Clark, 1986). Our finding that measures of response expectancy paralelled responding and reports of nonvolition support the hypothesis that expectancies mediate the relation between imagination, involuntariness, and responding (Kirsch, 1985; Spanos, 1982). Hypnotizable imagining subjects in the study discussed here exhibited greater responsiveness than a comparable sample of subjects did in a previous countersuggestion study (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) in which no attempt was made to foster an association between imagining and involuntary responding in the initial screening session.

Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis.

“…In one study (Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue, Nash, & Frauman, 1987), subjects' posthypnotic attributions of response causality to the hypnotist's ability and effort were found to be associated with posthypnotic ratings of involuntariness. In a second study (Lynn, Snodgrass, Hardaway, & Lenz, 1984), subjects' prehypnotic ratings of the hypnotist's ability and effort correlated positively with involuntariness ratings after hypnosis, even with hypnotizability statistically partialed from the analysis. Furthermore, research by Spanos and his colleagues (Spanos et al, in press; Spanos, Brett, Menary, & Cross, 1987) indicates that subjects generally believe that individuals who are hypnotized respond to suggestions involuntarily.…”

“…In keeping with the hypothesis that involuntariness reports are associated with occurrence schemata, research has shown that subjects' ratings of involuntariness are associated with the belief that their hypnotic behavior is a function of the hypnotist's ability and effort (Lynn, Snodgrass, Hardaway, & Lenz, 1984; Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue, Nash, & Frauman, 1987). In one study (Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue, Nash, & Frauman, 1987), subjects' posthypnotic attributions of response causality to the hypnotist's ability and effort were found to be associated with posthypnotic ratings of involuntariness.…”

“…If subjects are unaware that they must initiate the movements that are to be self-defined as involuntary, and simply wait passively for their arms to move together themselves, they will fail the suggestion. Furthermore, if subjects believe that they should let things just happen, they are less likely to initiate the goal-directed cognitive activities necessary to respond to the suggestion (see Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue, & Hardaway, 1987; Spanos & deGroh, 1983). These subjects may, however, experience their failure to respond as an involuntary occurrence.…”

Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents, and psychopathology.

“…In contrast, negative attitudes toward hypnosis, lack of motivation, atypical interpretation of suggestions, and poor rapport with the hypnotist may dampen responding in even highly imaginative subjects (Lynn & Rhue, 1986, 1987. Although expectancies appear to exert a more potent influence on hypnotic responding than sustained and vivid suggestion-related imaginings do (Kirsch, Council, & Mobayed, 1987;Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue, & Hardaway, = Harvard range = 0-12. bTellegen Absorption range = 0-37. ClCMI range = 0-52.…”

Hypnotic phenomena and altered states of consciousness: a multilevel framework of description and explanation

“…Responses that are accompanied by GDF were found to be rated as more involuntary than responses not associated with GDF (see also e.g. Lynn, Snodgrass, Rhue and Hardaway, 1987;Lynn, Rhue and Weekes, 1990;Lynn and Sivec, 1992). The necessity of GDF has, however, also been challenged (see, for example, Comey and Kirsch, 1999) and the changed experiences have also been explained as results of other cognitive functions e.g.…”