A methodological analysis of the simulating technique

Sheehan, Peter W.

doi:10.1080/00207147108407157

Cited by 54 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to Orne's reasoning, it now seems clear that hypnotic reals and simulators are exposed to very different experimental demands (Sheehan, 1970(Sheehan, , 1971. It was recently suggested that different demands, rather than the characteristics of a hypothetical hypnotic state, may account for the differences in trance logic responding characteristically found between hypnotic reals and simulators (Spanos, 1986;Spanos, de Groot, et al, 1985;Spanos & Stam, 1979;WagstafF, 1981aWagstafF, , 1981b.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Real/simulator Differencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Trance logic as incomplete responding.

Spaños

Groot²,

Gwynn³

1987

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments tested predictions derived from the logical incongruity and differential demands hypotheses of trance logic responding. In Experiment 1, subjects that were highly susceptible to hypnosis showed higher levels of responding on three trance logic indexes (i.e., transparent hallucinating, duality, incongruous writing in age regression) than did subjects low in susceptibility to hypnosis who were instructed to fake hypnosis (i.e., simulators). In line with the differential demands hypothesis, hypnotic "reals" were less likely than simulators to report believing in the reality of the suggested situations and were less likely to report fine details in their hallucinations. Also consistent with the differential demands hypothesis (but inconsistent with the logical incongruity hypothesis), rate of trance logic responding correlated negatively with the degree to which hypnotic reals rated themselves as subjectively experiencing suggested effects, and as becoming absorbed in suggestions. Experiment 2 found that highly susceptible hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects (collectively called "reals") responded equivalently on all suggestions. High-and low-susceptible simulators also performed equivalently on all suggestions. Consistent with the differential demands hypothesis (but not the logical incongruity hypothesis), (a) trance logic indexes differentiated reals from simulators when these indexes also measured incomplete subjective responding, and (b) trance logic indexes that failed to measure incomplete responding also failed to differentiate reals from simulators. The findings of both experiments are more consistent with social psychological views than with special processes views of hypnotic responding.In an influential early study, Orae (1959) compared the response to a visual hallucination suggestion in highly susceptible hypnotic subjects (i.e., "reals") and subjects low in susceptibility to hypnosis who had been instructed preexperimentally to fake deep hypnosis (i.e., simulators). During their experimental session, all subjects were administered the same hypnotic procedures, suggestions, and interviews. During their hypnotic session, all subjects sat facing a coexperimenter. While the subjects' eyes were closed, the coexperimenter rose from his chair and moved from the subjects' field of view. Subjects were then instructed to open their eyes and to "see" (i.e., hallucinate) the coexperimenter still sitting in the chair. After the subjects described their hallucinated image, the hypnotist pointed to the actual coexperimenter and asked the subjects what they saw. Ome (1959) reported that some of the hypnotic reals but none of the simulators spontaneously indicated that they could simultaneously see the coexperimenter and see through him (i.e., transparency response). Relatedly, when faced with the actual coexperimentei; hypnotic reals were much more likely than simulators to report seeing two images of the coexperimenter at the same time (i.e., double hallucination response). According

show abstract

Section: Interpretation Of Real/simulator Differencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Trance logic as incomplete responding.

Spaños

Groot²,

Gwynn³

1987

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future research should insure that the operations included in the research design should converge on only one conceptual alternative. Sheehan, 1971, has presented data which show that simulating instructions decrease spontaneity in some situations. If our ruse was successful, which was not contradicted by the debriefing period, the Ss perceived their simulation to be observed upon the arrival of E 2 whom they did not suspect was observing while they waited for him.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The instructions to S did not include simulation because Sheehan (1971) has shown that such instructions cause S to become cautious. We wanted as few constraints as possible upon Ss' spontaneous behavior.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Insusceptible 5s are asked by a coexperimenter to fake hypnosis to fool another experimenter, and they are given a variety of ego involving or motivating instructions that are not given to the hypnotized 5 s. This is known as the real-simulator design (O'Connell, Shor & Orne, 1971;Orne, 1959;Sheehan, 1971). This design has been criticized by several investigators for a variety of reasons: (a) the inclusion of insusceptible 5s as simulators introduces subject variables (Reyher, 1967(Reyher, , 1969Spanos & Chaves, 1970;Sarbin & Coe, in press); (b) instructions to simulate alter the demand characteristics of the research for the simulating 5s (Reyher, 1967); (c) each of the ego involving or motivating instructions to the simulators represents a confounding variable (Reyher & Smyth, 1971); and (d) confusing phenotypic identity with genotypic identity (Bowers, 1971;Reyher, 1962Reyher, , 1967.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Hypnotized Subjects Simulate Waking Behavior?

Reyher

1973

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If this is what Laurence et al (1983) take as compelling evidence, one can only wonder with some trepidation at what they would consider as merely suggestive evidence. Laurence et al (1983) have failed to provide a single valid criticism of Spanos and (Sheehan, 1971). Thus, a difference in performance between "reals" and simulators, in and of itself, could never be compelling evidence for the occurrence of a dissociated state.…”

Section: Procedural Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The hidden observer as an experimental creation.

Spaños¹

1983

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laurence, Perry, and Kihlstrom appear to have misunderstood the theoretical positions advanced both by Hilgard and by Spanos and Hewitt. All of their criticisms of Spanos and Hewitt's "hidden observer" experiment are shown to be either misleading or invalid. The available data provide no support for a dissociation hypothesis of the hidden observer phenomenon. On the other hand, these data indicate strongly that this phenomenon is an experimental creation.

show abstract

A methodological analysis of the simulating technique

Cited by 54 publications

References 16 publications

Trance logic as incomplete responding.

Trance logic as incomplete responding.

Can Hypnotized Subjects Simulate Waking Behavior?

The hidden observer as an experimental creation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About