Recent trends in experimental hypnosis

Abstract

Research on hypnosis has been influenced by recent methodological contributions. Objective, standardized susceptibility scales have provided adequate measurement, leading to the differentiation of hypnotic from waking behavior, and recognition that hypnotic phenomena are multifactorial. Social‐psychological factors (demand characteristics) influence experimental results and special control procedures have been developed to evaluate the essentially subjective nature of hypnosis. Experimental evidence relating to the so‐called motivational theory of hypnosis does not provide support for this approach. Several studies are reviewed covering posthypnotic suggestion and amnesia, and counter‐expectational effects of hypnosis which cannot be attributed to the demand characteristics of the experimental context (trance logic, source amnesia, posthypnotic behavior occurring outside the experimental context, and the nontennination of hypnosis following the “disappearance” of the hypnotist). These studies support a “state‐oriented” theory of hypnosis.

The influence of experimentally induced expectations on responses to the harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form a

“…It has been suggested that HGSHS:A may be a less valid measure for males than for females (e.g., Levitt (e.g., Hilgard, 1965;Peters, Dhanens, Lundy, & Landy, 1974); and significantly correlated with measures of nonhypnotic suggestibility (e.g., Wallace, Garrett, & Anstadt, 1974;Miller, 1980). Such findings, combined with the numerous descriptions of multiple nonhypnotic artifacts in any hypnosis situation (e.g., Evans, 1968;Orne, 1970), make it clear that HGSHS:A does not reflect hypnotic susceptibility as a single unidimensional trait. The conservative and most defensible approach is to restrict the generalizability of the present study's findings to HGSHS:A, although the fact that HGSHS:A derives from and correlates substantially with the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959) (e.g., Bentler & Hilgard, 1963) and the fact that several previous studies have reported findings similar to the present ones regarding attitudes, expectancies, and absorption using the Barber Suggestibility Scale (see Barber, 1972;Barber et al, 1974) suggest that the present findings might generalize to scales other than HGSHS:A.…”

Hypnosis and Behavior Therapy: Common Denominators

“…Contemporary proponents of this view hold that the "hypnotic trance state" produces distortions of perception and memory and also gives rise to an illogical pattern of thinking labeled as "trance logic" (Evans, 1968;Hilgard, 1965: Orne, 1959. However, the evidence in favor of this view is largely anecdotal.…”

“…According to the traditional formulation, susceptible subjects enter an altered state of consciousness ("hypnotic state") when they are exposed to procedures labeled as hypnotic inductions (Evans, 1968;Hilgard, 1965;Orne, 1966Orne, , 1969Orne, , 1970Orne, , 1971. These procedures, although varying widely in content, usually include interrelated suggestions that the subject will become increasingly relaxed, will enter an unusual or special state ("hypnotic state" or "trance"), and will be able to respond well to further suggestions.…”

Hypnosis Research: A Methodological Critique of Experiments Generated by Two Alternative Paradigms

“…A second characteristic of trance logic consists of a tendency on the part of hypnotized subjects to report seeing a hallucinated person sitting in a chair and at the same time seeing the back of the chair through the hallucinated person. Although reviewers of this work (Evans, 1968;Hilgard, 1965Hilgard, , 1966 have implied that the trance logic phenomenon has been rigorously demonstrated, Orne's (1959) presentation of the data concerning this phenomenon is quite anecdotal in nature. Let us examine those data in more detail.…”

“…This upsurge in experimentation has led to important revisions in the theoretical conceptualizations which have dominated this area of inquiry. Although some of the recent work has been previously reviewed (Barber, 1969s;Evans, 1968;Hilgard, 1964bHilgard, , 1965aMcPeake, 1968;Orne, 19661, the reviews have usually evaluated experimental findings in terms of their relevance for 'The authors wish to thank the following individuals for critically evaluating early drafts of this manuscript: Patricia M. Ciriello, Denise M. Cronin, Molly M. Hinchman, Richard F. Johnson, John D. McPeake, Maurice J. Silver, and Constance L. Taylor.…”