No abstract

Subjects selected on the basis of being amnesic and experiencing their amnesia as "voluntary" or "involuntary" were subjected to two conditions designed to breach their amnesia: (1) lie detector, and (2) honesty instructions. A third group receiving relaxation instructions served as a control. Posthypnotic amnesia was breached under lie detection and honesty conditions. However, there appeared to be an interaction between how subjects reported their experience of amnesia (voluntary and involuntary) and the degree to which amnesia was breached. Voluntary subjects accounted for the majority of breaching. Implications for (1) studies on breaching (2) theories and processes of posthypnotic amnesia, and (3) studies in posthypnotic amnesia are discussed.

No abstract

Highly responsive hypnotic subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects' reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis.

We set out to formulate a theory that makes counterexpectational conduct expectational. Our contextualist position has led us to the dramaturgical perspective. This perspective guided our examination of the hypnotic performance, and we noted that both the hypnotist and the subject are actors, both enmeshed in a dramatic plot, both striving to enhance their credibility. The dramatistic concepts of actor and spectator helped us make sense of the contradictory self-reports in Hilgard's analgesia studies. We underscore the proposition (long overlooked) that the counterfactual statements in the hypnotist's induction are cues to the subject that a dramatistic plot is in the making. The subject may respond to the cues as an invitation to join in the miniature drama. If he accepts the invitation, he will employ whatever skills he possesses in order to enhance his credibility in enacting the role of hypnotized person. This proposition emphasizes the need for analyzing the implied social communications contained in any interaction.