Peter W. Sheehan

A methodological analysis of the simulating technique.

Abstract 2 features characterize the simulating technique. Simulators are both deeply involved in the problem task of simulation and immune to the experiential effects of hypnotic treatment. The technique leads to unambiguous inferences when hypnotic and simulating Ss perform in a similar fashion in the hypnotic setting. However, the treatment aspects of faking instruction limit the interpretation of behavioral differences between the 2 groups. Such effects can be demonstrated and are most likely to arise when the expected response is difficult for S to define. Personality differences between hypnotic and simulating Ss appear to be relatively unimportant. On some variables, at least, faking performance is not influenced as much by personality factors as by the treatment effects of simulation instruction.

Task structure as a limiting condition of the occurrence of the treatment effects of simulation instruction in application of the real-simulating model of hypnosis

Abstract The hypothesis tested was that lack of task structure facilitates the occurrence of the treatment effects of simulation instruction in application of the real-simulating model of hypnosis. Following appropriate instruction 10 susceptible and 10 insusceptible Ss were tested in 2 sessions by an E who wm blind to the hypnotic susceptibility of Ss. In Session I, Ss were tested on an unstructured (Rorschach) and a structured (Unusual Uses Test) task. In Session II, Ss were administered the same tests again but after hypnosis had been induced and terminated. It was predicted that after receiving instructions to simulate, insusceptible Ss, initially constricted in their response, would change their behavior in Session II in the direction of increased productivity of response, while hypnotic Ss would not, and that the change would be most apparent on the unstructured task. Data supported the hypothesis. In Session II, simulating Ss, but not hypnotic Ss, significantly increased responses on the Rorschach ...

Analysis of the heterogeneity of “faking” and “simulating” performance in the hypnotic setting

Abstract A balanced design was adopted where an attempt was made to replicate Overley and Levitts (1968) finding of “faking heterogeneity” by applying their essential procedures, while also attempting to show that under demonstrably different conditions heterogeneity no longer exists. Results for 4 independent sets of 10 “faking” Ss given Overley and Levitts set of role-playing instructions were compared with data from real and “simulating” Ss tested in application of Ornes (1959) real-simulating model of hypnosis. Heterogeneity of role-playing performance in the hypnotic test-setting was replicated for “faking” but not for “simulating” Ss, and both delay-in-instruction and the susceptibility level of the faking S were related to the effect. Evidence indicated that the earlier finding of heterogeneity of faking performance was a real one, but that Overley and Levitts faking procedures were not proper to the task of simulation that they were questioning.

An explication of the real-simulating model: A reply to reyher's comment on “artificial induction of posthypnotic conflict”

Abstract Reyher has criticized Sheehans application of the real-simulating model of hypnosis and has challenged his findings on the artificial induction of posthypnotic conflict. Reyhers critique indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of the differences between the methodology he has adopted and that of the real-simulating model. Results from application of the real-simulating model show that Reyhers findings may indeed indicate that there are genuine effects of hypnosis, but their genuineness is far from having been proven.

Factors Affecting Mediation of E-Bias Effects in Verbal Operant Conditioning.

Three studies investigated the mediation of E-bias effects on the relationship between awareness and verbal conditioning. The hypotheses were tested that such effects are determined in part by: (i) the personality of E, (ii) Es knowledge of Ss conditioning performance, and (iii) the closeness of contact between the biasing authority and Es being biased. Results for a Taffel-type conditioning task supported the last two hypotheses but not the first.

Demonstration of the effect of “faking subjects' knowledge that others are aware of their pretense” on perception of role-playing performance: A methodological comment

Abstract In separate clinical sessions 2 pairs of Ss (one susceptible, one role-playing) were tested for the effects of a hypnotically-induced anxiety conflict before a group of 54 judges who were blind as to the hypnotic identity of the Ss they were observing. Testing was conducted by a trained clinician, blind also to Ss susceptibility. Both role-playing Ss were difficult to detect in their pretense, but the faking performance of the S who knew that E was blind to his true identity was the more convincing to the clinician who was conducting the testing. Evidence from the clinical demonstration suggested support for the methodological argument that more effective pretense is possible when role-playing Ss believe that the E who is testing them is unaware that they are faking.