No abstract

In an effort to determine whether Ss could successfully ignore a remote anchor Ss judged a series of 6 weights during a training session, then judged the same series in the presence of the anchor which appeared on alternate lifts. Ss judged the anchor but were instructed to "ignore the heaviest weight, [the anchor]; i.e., don't let it affect your judgments of the other weights." Compared to a control group, only 2 of the 4 groups which were instructed to ignore the anchor were successful; viz., a group which was hypnotized before being given the instructions and a group which was given a 2-hr, lecture on anchor effects before the instructions. The unsuccessful groups included a group of hypnotically susceptible Ss who were not hypnotized and a group of unselected Ss, both of which were simply instructed to ignore the anchor.

60 high and 60 low susceptible 8s were randomly assigned (12 groups of 10 8s each) to 6 experimental procedures which differed in terms of the type of amnesia suggestions given (i.e., permissively or authoritatively worded amnesia suggestions) and the kind of motivation accompanying the amnesia Suggestions (i.e., hypnotic motivation, waking motivation, and waking nonmotivation). Results show that high susceptible 8s performed more effectively in the direction of the amnesia suggestions, but that these suggestions were not totally effective for any of the 12 groups. Furthermore, there were no differences in response either to permissively or authoritatively worded amnesia suggestions or to hypnotic or waking procedures, but there were differences in response to task-motivating and non-task-motivating procedures (task-motivated Ss were ostensibly more amnesic).The present study further explores whether or not memory abnormalities, specifically amnesia, are "more readily induced" by hypnotic procedures than by waking procedures. Building on the findings of three recent hypnotic amnesia investigations (Barber & Calverley, 1966; Thorne, 1969; Williamsen, Johnson, & Ericksen, 1965) , the present study was an attempt to evaluate the relative influence of measured hypnotic susceptibility, task motivation, and different types of suggestions on subsequent memory performance. Barber and Calverley (1966) reported a study that replicated, partially confirmed, and expanded an earlier study by Williamsen et al. (1965). Barber and Calverley investigated the effects of three independent variables on measures of memory: ( a ) spoken versus recorded presentation of suggestions; ( b ) presence versus absence of hypnotic induction; and (c) four types of suggestions regarding amnesia-authoritative (((you will not remember") , permissive ("try to forget"), suggestions to simulate amnesia, and no amnesia suggestions a t all. Like the Williamsen et al. study, Barber and Calverley found positive correlations between measured hypnotic susceptibility and memory performances. Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 13:17 04 February 2015 168 THORNE AND HALL Barber and Calverley concluded from the results of their study and those from the Williamsen et al. study that, "The important factors in producing differences in performance on tests for amnesia are whether or not suggestions of amnesia are administered and the types of suggestions adminiatered [p. 1061."The present authors felt that the finding that "types of suggestion" affect performance should be further investigated, since it seems to be in conflict with the findings of other investigators in the field (Ambrose, 1961 ;Hartland, 1966;Schilder, 1956;Ulett & Peterson, 1965).Independently, Thorne (1969) explored the effects of ( a ) high, medium, and low measured hypnotic susceptibility and ( b ) hypnotic and waking task-motivation and waking nonmotivation relative to measures of amnesia for a previously-learned task. Thorne found: ( a ) measured sususceptibility was related to amne...

258 girls who volunteered for a weight control program were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Their scores were significantly higher than other groups reported in the literature. It is speculated that either a basic personality trait or the demand characteristics of the weight program contributed to the group's unusually high hypnotic susceptibility performance.

No abstract