Occurrence Schemas, Context Ambiguity, and Hypnotic Responding

Abstract

We assessed the extent to which observers classified the behavior of a videotaped model as a goal-directed action or as an involuntary occurrence while varying the social context in which the model's behavior was embedded. Observers watched a model: a) respond to an arm levitation suggestion in a situation explicitly defined as hypnotic, b) respond to the same suggestion in a situation not defined as hypnotic, or c) attempt to swat a bothersome fly. In both open-ended testimony and on questionnaires, observers consistently described the fly-tracking behavior as a goal-directed action and the hypnotic response as an involuntary occurrence. Observers showed more variability when describing the behavior of the model who received the nonhypnotic suggestion. For observers of the fly-tracking and hypnotic videos involuntariness ratings of the model's behavior failed to correlate significantly with observers' own hypnotizability. However, for those shown the nonhypnotic suggestion video the extent to which the model's behavior was rated as involuntary predicted observers' own level of overt and subjective responding to a test of hypnotizability. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Response expectancies and interpretations as determinants of hypnotic responding.

“…Alternatively, some subjects may have responded in goal-directed fashion to suggestions but remained unaware of having done so (Gorassini, 1988; Spanos, Salas, Bertrand, & Johnston, 1988). According to this notion, many subjects hold causal theories or schemas of hypnotic responding as involuntary occurrence.…”

“…According to this notion, many subjects hold causal theories or schemas of hypnotic responding as involuntary occurrence. Such schemas are likely to be strongly primed by cues in the hypnotic context (e.g., wording of suggestions; Spanos, et al, 1988). Once primed, these schemas may lead subjects to infer incorrectly that their goal-directed responses to suggestions were (or will be) automatic happenings.…”

Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis.

“…Despite subjects' feelings of involuntariness, they in fact retain control of their hypnotic behavior. Social psychological models conceptualize hypnotic responding as scripted role enactment in which subjects modify their responses strategically in terms of shifting role demands (Sarbin & Coe, 1972; Spanos, 1986a, 1986b; Spanos, Salas, Bertrand, & Johnston, in press). Hypnotizable subjects are seen as active cognizers who are invested in meeting the requirements of hypnotic role behavior and are sensitively attuned to the broad demands of the testing context.…”

“…According to Kruglanski (1975), an action is commonly assumed to be determined by the actor's will, whereas an occurrence is largely independent of the will and is caused by factors other than the self. As social psychological theorists (Coe, 1978; Sarbin & Coe, 1979; Spanos et al, in press) have pointed out, people do not accept direct responsibility for occurrences or happenings. The tactic of disclaiming of responsibility is expressed in statements about everyday actions: “It happened to me,” “I was overcome,” and “I was carried away.” Hypnotic conduct, then, is not far removed from other spheres of life, where linguistic artifice and the disclaiming of agency buttress perceptions of involuntariness by transforming actions into the category of occurrences.…”

“…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. Taken together, this research suggests that many subjects hold situation-specific beliefs about causal connections in the hypnotic context.…”