Trance logic duality and hidden observer responding in hypnotic, imagination control, and simulating subjects: A social psychological analysis.

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that a tolerance for logical incongruity characterizes hypnotic responding and is related to reports of duality experiences during age regression and hidden observer responding during suggested analgesia. Contrary to the logical incongruity hypothesis, (a) highly susceptible hypnotic (n = 15) and imagination control (n = 15) subjects (collectively called "reals") failed to differ significantly on any task, (b) measures of logical incongruity did not differentiate consistently between reals and unsusceptible subjects (n = 15) instructed to fake hypnosis, and (c) different measures of logical incongruity failed to correlate significantly with duality reports or hidden observer responding. The differences in responding that did emerge between reals and simulators were accounted for by the different task demands to which subjects were exposed.

Replication of Trance Logic Using a Modified Experimental Design: Highly Hypnotizable Subjects in Both Real and Simulator Groups

“…The second criterion of trance logic, spontaneous transparency, is recorded when S spontaneously reports that the hallucination is transparent or lacks solidity. Orne claims spontaneous reports of transparency are diagnostic of hypnotized Ss, and this observation has been confirmed by several investigators (Blum & Graef, 1971;Johnson, Maher, & Barber, 1972;McDonald & Smith, 1975;Peters, 1973;Sheehan, Obstoj, & McConkey, 1976;Spanos, de Groot, Tiller, Weekes, & Bertrand, 1985). The transparency effect is, therefore, highly robust and has been observed across a wide variety of procedures and settings.…”

“…On the other hand, investigations which have attempted to replicate Orne's first criterion of trance logic, DPH, have consistently failed to do so (Blum & Graef, 1971;Johnson et al, 1972;McDonald & Smith, 1975;Peters, 1973;Sheehan et al, 1976;Spanos et al, 1985). With the exception ofthe Johnson et al (1972) study, all studies followed Orne's (1959) original quasi-control design by using highly hypnotizable Ss in the hypnotic group and low hypnotizables in the simulator group.…”

“…By repeating this suggestion, the investigators may have created strong demands to comply which could well have relegated the responses of "hypnotized Ss to that of simulators. Spanos et al (1985) and Peters (1973) also used artificial objects rather than a real human target figure for DPH test, a procedure which would not be optimal for the induction of vivid, eidetic-like images. A hrther disadvantage in the use of artificial objects is that they can easily be duplicated, and DPH is, therefore, much less significant ontologically than in the case of a distinctive, unique person.…”

Phenomenal awareness and self-presentation

“…In reality, the opposite outcome -a second failure to replicateis what has usually occurred. For example, in three separate experiments my colleagues and I failed to replicate One's (1959) finding that hypnotic "reals" were more likely than simulators to exhibit the double hallucination response (Spanos, de Groot & Gwynn, in press;Spanos, de Groot, Tiller, Weekes & Bertrand 1985). Five other studies, conducted by special-process theorists as well as by social-role theorists, also failed to replicate this finding (Blum & Graef 1971;Johnson et al 1972;McDonald & Smith 1975;Peters 1973;Sheehan et al 1976).…”

The hidden observer: a straw horse, undeservedly flogged

“…Coe and Sarbin (1977) argued that hidden observer instructions merely gave subjects permission to report pain that they actually felt all along. Spanos and his associates reported that the direction of covert pain reports could be influenced by the wording of instructions, leading them to conclude that the hidden observer is a product of social influence rather than a reflection of dissociation -an 'experimental creation' rather than an 'experimental discovery' (Spanos and Hewitt, 1980;Spanos, 1983;Spanos et al,1983;Spanos, DeGroot, Tiller, Weekes and Bertrand, 1985). Based in large part on these studies of the 'flexible observer', Kirsch and Lynn (Kirsch and Lynn, 1998: 106) concluded that, far from reflecting a division in consciousness, the hidden observer was 'just one more suggested response'.…”