John R. Weekes

Interpersonal climate and hypnotizability level : effects on hypnotic performance, rapport, and archaic involvement

This research was designed to extend earlier research by McConkey and Sheehan by testing 24 hypnotizable and 21 unhypnotizable Ss, prescreened with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, in high interpersonal/high rapport and low interpersonal/low rapport testing contexts

Reality versus suggestion: pseudomemory in hypnotizable and simulating subjects.

Assigned hypnotizable (N = 56) and simulating Ss (N = 44) to 1 of 4 conditions: heard a phone ring and conversation, received a suggestion to hear a phone ring and conversation, received a suggestion and heard a phone ring and conversation, or neither heard a phone nor received a suggestion. Hypnotizable Ss successfully discriminated objective events from suggested sources of input. When Ss received a suggestion to hear a phone ring, only 11.5% indicated it actually rang in their open-ended reports; in response to a forced-choice question, none did so. In spontaneous reports, none of the hypnotizable Ss who heard a phone ring indicated it was suggested; only one did so in response to a forced-choice item (vs. 2 simulators). In the no-phone/no-suggestion condition, more simulators than hypnotizable Ss indicated that a phone rang or was suggested.

Pseudomemory in hypnotized and task-motivated subjects.

Highly hypnotizable hypnotized (H; n = 16) and task-motivated (TM; n = 13) subjects received pseudomemory suggestions (see Orne, 1979). TM subjects reported being more awake and motivated than did H subjects and were more likely to pass the target noise suggestion. However, 69% of subjects in both conditions who passed the noise suggestion reported pseudomemories. Pseudomemory rate (for H subjects, 69% and for TM subjects, 46%) was not reduced by informing subjects that they could distinguish reality and fantasy in a state of deep concentration. At final inquiry, after deep concentration, pseudomemories remained stable (for H subjects, 75% and for TM subjects, 54%). As predicted, H subjects reported more unsuggested noises and more pseudomemories of novel noises than did TM subjects. Subjects who reported pseudomemories were more confident in the accuracy of their memories than were subjects who reported that the suggested noises were imagined.

Hypnosis and pseudomemories: the effects of prehypnotic expectancies.

Contrary to predictions, the pseudomemory rate of subjects who received prehypnotic information that hypnosis increased recall was indistinguishable from the pseudomemory rates of subjects who received information that hypnosis did not increase recall and of subjects who received no specific prehypnotic information. Indeed, by the last recall trial, none of the 47 subjects exhibited pseudomemory. Subjects exhibited faulty memory of events that actually occurred (i.e., pencils spilling), and were as uncertain of events that actually occurred, as they were of suggested events that did not occur during the session (telephone ringing). Subjects were generally consistent in their certainty, or lack of it, across events. Finally, subjects led to believe that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness were less aware of external events, and had the lowest rate of recall of target suggestions compared with subjects in the comparison groups.

Hypnosis, Suggestion Type, and Subjective Experience — The Order-Effects Hypothesis Revisited: A Brief Communication

In a replication and extension of Field, Evans, and Ornes (1965) research, no support was found for the hypothesis that suggestion order is related to hypnotic responding. Confirming earlier findings, Ss were no more responsive to suggestions ordered from easy-to-difficult than they were to suggestions ordered from difficult-to-easy. Measures of subjective involvement in suggestions, involuntariness, and archaic involvement with the hypnotist were no more sensitive to order effects than was the measure of objective responding. Nor were order effects more apparent with Ss who received direct versus indirect suggestions. Direct suggestions facilitated suggestion-related involuntariness and response to the hypnotic amnesia item after cancellation, whereas indirect suggestions enhanced fears of negative appraisal by the hypnotist. Finally, female Ss were more involved in suggestions than were the males, particularly in response to more difficult test items.

Pseudomemory and Age Regression: An Exploratory Study

Hypnotizable (N = 9) and simulating subjects (N = 8) were age regressed to the previous weeks hypnosis session and received a suggestion to hear a phone ring during the earlier session (no phone actually rang). Pseudomemory rates in response to open-ended questions were low in this study (0% hypnotizable and simulating subjects) and in previous research (Lynn, Weekes, & Milano, 1989; 12.5% hypnotizable; 10% simulating subjects) in which the phone-ring suggestion was not embedded in the context of age regression. In response to a forced-choice question, 22.22% of the hypnotizable and 25% of the simulating subjects indicated that the suggested phone ring was an actual event, a pseudomemory rate somewhat higher than our previous study in which none of the subjects reported pseudomemories in response to a forced-choice question. When the occurrence of the target stimulus of a pseudomemory suggestion is publicly verifiable, the pseudomemory rate is low.