An empirical test of Woody and Bowers’s dissociated-control theory of hypnosis

Abstract

Woody and Bowers's dissociated-control theory predicts impaired performance on tasks indexing frontally mediated supervisory attentional functions during hypnosis, especially for high susceptibles. This prediction is tested using Stroop task behavioral performance to measure aspects of anterior-mediated supervisory attentional function. All measures of anterior-mediated attentional functions significantly declined during hypnosis. Interactions be-tween susceptibility and hypnosis condition showed specific changes among hypnotized high susceptibles. Total Stroop errors (failures of attentional suppression) were significantly higher in hypnosis for high, but not low, susceptibles. Tellegen's experiential mental set was highest for hypnotized highs. Use of rehearsal strategy (instrumental set) decreased significantly in hypnosis but more so for highs than lows. Results suggest that "absorption" in hypnosis may be a consequence of dissociated anterior attentional control. It is proposed that dissociated control emerges from the functional disconnection of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex.

Dissociated control as a signature of typological variability in high hypnotic suggestibility

“…Multiple experiments have found poorer selective attention, as measured by the Stroop color-naming task (Stroop, 1935), among HS individuals following a hypnotic induction (Gruzelier, Gray, Kaiser, & Barker, 1997;Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004;Kaiser, Barker, Haenschel, Baldeweg, & Gruzelier, 1997;Sheehan, Donovan, & Macleod, 1988). Similar e↵ects have been reported for letter fluency (Gruzelier & Warren, 1993;Kallio, Revonsuo, Hamalainen, Markela, & Gruzelier, 2001).…”

“…Although we have emphasized the dissimilarities of the two HS subtypes, they exhibited uniformity in their increased utilization of an e↵ortless response strategy (Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004) following a hypnotic induction. This increase may tap into the hypothesized experiential response set, a cognitive set characterized by a willingness to allow experiences to occur with minimal e↵ort (Tellegen, 1981).…”

“…Prior to task onset, participants provided a self-report of current relaxation level (1 = "completely agitated or excited" to 5 = "completely relaxed") to control for di↵erential relaxation across groups (Kirsch & Lynn, 1998). Following completion of the Stroop task, participants rated the frequency with which they used three di↵erent strategies (rehearsal [repetition of instructions], experiential [allowing responses to occur e↵ortlessly], and positional [focusing attention on a single letter or portion of a letter]) on five-point Likert scales (1 = "none of the time" to 5 = "all of the time"; Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004;Sheehan et al, 1988). The hypnotic induction and de-induction were drawn from the RSPS II (Weitzenho↵er & Hilgard, 1967), which was modified to exclude all references to relaxation, sleep, and posthypnotic amnesia.…”

“…This task has been repeatedly noted to provide a suitable means for testing the predictions of dissociated control theory (Egner & Raz, 2007;Kirsch & Lynn, 1998), although Kirsch and Lynn (1998) have argued that impaired performance among HS individuals on this task during hypnosis may reflect increased relaxation rather than a weakening of executive control. In the present study, LS and HS participants completed the Stroop task in control and hypnosis conditions and provided self-reports of relaxation and strategy utilization (Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004;Sheehan et al, 1988). Our analyses focused on the sequential congruency effect (Egner, 2007) and response automatization (Laurence, Beaulieu-Prévost, & du Chéné, 2008;Segalowitz & Frenkiel-Fishman, 2005).…”

Hypnosis and top-down regulation of consciousness

“…Multiple well-powered behavioural studies have suggested that highly suggestible individuals exhibit impaired performance on cognitive tasks known to depend on prefrontal cortex, such as selective attention and working memory (Farvolden & Woody, 2004;Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004;Khodaverdi-Khani & Laurence, 2016;Terhune et al, 2011c). Some of these effects have been observed at baseline whereas others have been restricted to a hypnotic induction, thereby clouding interpretation.…”