Response Expectancy as a Mediator of Hypnotizability Modification: A Brief Communication

Abstract

The role of response expectancy in bringing about increases in hypnotic susceptibility by use of the Carleton Skill Training Program (CSTP) was assessed with 27 subjects selected for their low hypnotizability scores. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: 13 received the CSTP to increase their hypnotic susceptibility, and 14 received no training. In addition to assessing hypnotizability, hypnotic response expectancies were assessed before and after training. With pretreatment hypnotizability controlled, subjects in the training group scored significantly higher than control subjects on all self-report measures of hypnotizability but not on a measure of observed behavioral response. Changes in response expectancy were found to be highly correlated with changes in hypnotizability. With changes in expectancy controlled, no significant differences between the trained and control groups were found.

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

“…(see for e.g. Kirsch, 1985;Gearan and Kirsch, 1993). 13 It is difficult to clearly differentiate concomitants to hypnosis per se, since most of the experiments done in the field have used various suggestions in addition to a hypnotic induction.…”

Setting the Record Straight (Again)

“…However, Spanos and his colleagues have also contended that some of the variance in responsiveness is due to differences in knowing how to respond (Gorassini & Spanos, 1986). This has not been my position (see Gearan & Kirsch, 1993), but in fairness, it should be noted that Spanos bolstered his hypothesis with considerable data (reviewed in Gorassini & Spanos, 1999) showing that when taught strategies for responding, many low suggestible subjects become highly suggestible. Thus, Spiegel's claim that "the evidence is clearly against this position" is simply wrong.…”

Complex Role of Hypnotizability in the Cognitive Control of Pain

“…This suggests that expectation-induced mechanisms, which are more effective in highs than in lows , are associated with those sustaining the conditioned analgesia. However, in highs the expectation of pain relief does not totally account for the suggestion induced analgesia (Gearan and Kirsch, 1993 ) and it is unlikely that the expectation of analgesia could be sustained by opioid mechanisms, in contrast to the general population (Amanzio and Benedetti, 1999 ; Benedetti et al, 1999 ; Petrovic et al, 2002 ; Zubieta et al, 2005 ; Scott et al, 2008 ; Babel et al, 2017 ). In fact, not only the effects of suggestions is not abolished by naloxone (Moret et al, 1991 ) but, in addition, highs display the μ1 polymorphism (Presciuttini et al, 2018 ) which has been found associated with low sensitivity to opiates, low placebo response (Trescot and Faynboym, 2014 ; Bartošová et al, 2015 ; Peciña and Zubieta, 2015 ) and larger opiates consumption for post-surgery (Zhang et al, 2005 ; Boswell et al, 2013 ; Sia et al, 2013 ; Ren et al, 2015 ) and cancer pain (Gong et al, 2013 ; Wan et al, 2015 ; Yao et al, 2015 ).…”