Some Conditions of Compliance and Resistance among Hypnotic Subjects

Abstract

Five experimental approaches to the resolution of the century-old Bernheim/Janet dispute and the issue of involuntariness or coercion (the classical suggestion effect) are presented. Four experiments are reported that follow one of the approaches: attempts to induce hypnotic subjects to resist suggestions made in trance. The design is one in which a "resistance instructor" proposes a reward for the resisting subject. Tentative inferences from the results are that the classical suggestion effect is found with a small number of subjects; for a larger number of subjects there is no classical suggestion effect, and for many subjects the outcome is equivocal. Relational factors in the hypnotic dyad influence responsiveness in the subject, the effect being least for those whose susceptibility is high.

Controlling phenomenology by being unaware of intentions

“…The flip side is that subjects will continue to respond to suggestions even in the presence of reasonable pressure to resist (e.g. Connors, Barnier, Coltheart, et al, 2012;Levitt, Baker & Fish, 1990;Noble & McConkey, 1995). Levitt et al (1990) found that 50% of highs did not resist a suggestion when informed they would receive $100 if they did resist.…”

“…Connors, Barnier, Coltheart, et al, 2012;Levitt, Baker & Fish, 1990;Noble & McConkey, 1995). Levitt et al (1990) found that 50% of highs did not resist a suggestion when informed they would receive $100 if they did resist. In all these cases, the subject's task is to determine what the experimenter actually wants, as the subjects will try to produce the experiences that satisfy the situational demands.…”