Hypnotic behavior: A social-psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and “trance logic”

Abstract

This paper examines research on three hypnotic phenomena: suggested amnesia, suggested analgesia, and “trance logic.” For each case a social-psychological interpretation of hypnotic behavior as a voluntary response strategy is compared with the traditional special-process view that “good” hypnotic subjects have lost conscious control over suggestion-induced behavior. I conclude that it is inaccurate to describe hypnotically amnesic subjects as unable to recall the material they have been instructed to forget. Although amnesics present themselves as unable to remember, they in fact retain control over retrieval processes and accommodate their recall (or lack of it) to the social demands of the test situation. Hypnotic suggestions of analgesia do not produce a dissociation of pain from phenomenal awareness. Nonhypnotic suggestions of analgesia and distractor tasks that deflect attention from the'noxious stimuli are as effective as hypnotic suggestions in producing reductions in reported pain. Moreover, when appropriately motivated, subjects low in hypnotic suggestibility report pain reductions as large as those reported by highly suggestible hypnotically analgesic subjects. Finally, the data fail to support the view that a tolerance for logical incongruity (i.e., trance logic) uniquely characterizes hypnotic responding. So-called trance-logic-governed responding appears to reflect the attempts of “good” subjects to meet implicit demands to report accurately what they experience.

The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility.

“…Under its original formulation hypnosis resulted in the disruption of all or most SAS functions. Jamieson and Woody (2007) Theories that do not link hypnotic suggestibility strongly with FEFs include those proposed by Dienes & Perner (2007), Kirsch & Lynn (1997) and Spanos (1986). Spanos (1986) provided a social psychological explanation of hypnotic phenomena.…”

“…Furthermore, maintaining a voluntary response strategy in mind as per Spanos (1986) would be expected to tax FEFs, if only minimally. Thus, these different accounts render theoretically important a consideration of the role of FEFs in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility.…”

Neurobiología de la hipnosis y su contribución a la comprensión de la cognición y la conciencia.

“…Otra forma de diferenciar los modelos es según la cantidad de factores que incluyen; si un factor (Edmonston, 1981) o diversos factores (Kirsch y Lynn, 1995). Otra clasificación distingue entre planteamientos cognitivo-conductuales y planteamientos psicosociales (Spanos y Chaves, 1989;Spanos, 1986;Spanos, 1994). También podemos encontrar la ya clásica distinción dicotómica de teorías del estado versus teorías del no-estado (Hilgard, 1973;1990;Fellows, 1990;Lynn, Vanderhoff, Shindler y Stafford, 2002).…”

Developing Synaesthesia

“…The Kosslyn et al (2000) study highlights the issue of demand characteristics in hypnosis research, and the tendency of subjects to either "hold back" or try harder in different conditions to produce the pattern of results they perceive as desired (Orne, 1962;Spanos, 1986). Specifically, the suggestion was more strongly worded in the hypnosis rather than the imagination condition in order that subjects would not confuse the two conditions and "slip into trance" in the imagination condition.…”

“…One class of theories postulates that highly hypnotizable people can perform tasks when hypnotized that they could not do otherwise; for example, distort perception so that they actually can see non-existent objects in a way they could not imagine (e.g., Brown and Oakley, 2004) or fail to perceive stimuli that would otherwise impinge on their awareness (e.g., pain, Hilgard, 1986). Another class of theories postulates that highly hypnotizable people cannot do anything hypnotically that they could not do anyway (e.g., Sarbin and Coe, 1972;Spanos, 1986). One way of characterizing the latter class of theory is in terms of "cold control" (Dienes, 2012), which postulates that the defining feature of acting hypnotically is simply the incorrect meta-cognition that one is not intending the (motor or cognitive) action.…”