Breaching hypnotic amnesia by manipulating expectancy.

Silva, Christopher E.; Kirsch, Irving

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.96.4.325

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spanos, Weekes, and de Groh (1984) reported that participants could directly oppose suggestions while they construed their responses as nonvolitional. Finally, Silva and Kirsch (1987) reported that highly responsive participants were enabled to breach hypnotically-induced amnesia when they were informed that the ability to do so was a characteristic of a sufficiently deep trance and told to "go even deeper into trance. "…”

Section: Myths and Misconceptions About Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myths and misconceptions about hypnosis and suggestion: Separating fact and fiction

Lynn

Kirsch

Terhune

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present 21 prominent myths and misconceptions about hypnosis in order to promulgate accurate information and to highlight questions for future research. We argue that these myths and misconceptions have (a) fostered a skewed and stereotyped view of hypnosis among the lay public, (b) discouraged participant involvement in potentially helpful hypnotic interventions, and (c) impeded the exploration and application of hypnosis in scientific and practitioner communities. Myths reviewed span the view that hypnosis produces a trance or special state of consciousness and allied myths on topics related to hypnotic interventions; hypnotic responsiveness and the modification of hypnotic suggestibility; inducing hypnosis; and hypnosis and memory, awareness, and the experience of nonvolition. By demarcating myth from mystery and fact from fiction, and by highlighting what is known as well as what remains to be discovered, the science and practice of hypnosis can be advanced and grounded on a firmer empirical footing.

show abstract

Section: Myths and Misconceptions About Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myths and misconceptions about hypnosis and suggestion: Separating fact and fiction

Lynn

Kirsch

Terhune

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first study, when the hypnotist contacted the hidden observer, all of the subjects recalled the target words; in the second study, subjects recalled abstract and concrete words when their respective hidden observers were contacted by the hypnotist. A recent study by Silva and Kirsch (1987) showed that subjects breached amnesia who received prehypnotic information indicating that hypnosis could enhance memory. Combined, these studies indicate that amnesic subjects' inability to recall must be called into question.…”

Section: Breaching Amnesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis.

Lynn¹,

Rhue²,

Weekes³

1990

Psychological Review

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience of involuntariness is a hallmark of hypnosis. A framework for understanding involuntary experiences that draws from social psychological and cognitive perspectives on hypnotic responding is presented. There are at least 5 reasons to reject the hypothesis that hypnotic responding is automatic and involuntary: (a) Hypnotic responses have all of the properties of behavior that is typically defined as voluntary. That is, they are purposeful, directed toward goals, regulated in terms of subjects' intentions, and can be progressively changed to better achieve subjects' goals, (b) Hypnotizable subjects can resist suggestions when resistance is denned as consistent with the role of a good hypnotized subject, (c) Hypnotic behaviors are neither reflexes nor manifestations of innate stimulus-response connections, (d) Hypnotic performances consume attentional resources in a manner comparable with nonhypnotic performances, (e) Hypnotic subjects' cognitive activities clearly demonstrate their active attempts to fulfill the requirements of hypnotic suggestions, which include experiencing suggestion-related effects as involuntary.

show abstract

“…The manipulations have varied, with an important one seeking to enhance response expectancies by surreptitiously manipulating environmental stimuli so as to give participants the impression that they are highly responsive to hypnotic suggestions, under the assumption that this will translate into an increase in hypnotizability (responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions). The results have been equivocal, with some studies finding a clear relation between manipulated expectancies and subsequent behavior and experience, and others not (e.g., Benham, Bowers, Nash, & Muenchen, 1998;Lynn, Milano, & Weekes, 1991;Silva & Kirsch, 1987;Simon & Salzberg, 1985;Wickless & Kirsch, 1989). It may be that manipulations are more effective when they are consistent with the participants' own expectancies (Brown & Krasner, 1969) and are not identified as manipulations (Kirsch, Wickless, & Moffitt, 1999), but even so, the actual experience of a difficult hypnotic suggestion such as a negative hallucination may run counter to one's expectations (Wagstaff, Toner, & Cole, 2002).…”

Section: Response Expectancies In Hypnosismentioning

confidence: 98%

The Roles of Response Expectancies, Baseline Experiences, and Hypnotizability in Spontaneous Hypnotic Experiences

Cardeña

Terhune

2019

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated factors underlying individual differences in spontaneous (unsuggested) experiences during hypnosis. Participants varying in hypnotizability (low, medium, and high) completed a questionnaire about various dimensions of consciousness they would expect to experience at the "deepest level of hypnosis" (expectancy), an eyes-closed resting condition (baseline), and their actual experiences during "neutral hypnosis" (hypnosis). Responses during hypnosis were characterized by higher scores in dimensions related to alterations in conscious experience, affect, and imagery, and lower scores in rationality and agency. Only highs and mediums evinced increases in altered experience and body image. Across conditions, highs reported greater alterations in time experience and lower selfawareness than other groups. Participants overall tended to overestimate the changes they would experience in hypnosis. Baseline and hypnosis correlated in various dimensions, including affect, arousal, and internal dialogue. After controlling for baseline scores and hypnotizability, expectancies correlated with some dimensions having to do with alterations in consciousness. In sum, spontaneous experiences during hypnosis are driven by response expectancies, hypnotizability, and baseline experiences, which show differential effects. A discussion by White (1941) on the importance of individuals' expectations on their responses to hypnosis was the impetus for important research and theoretical developments (e.g., Kirsch, 1991; Shor, 1971). In recent decades, as part of a broader line of research on the role of expectations in human behavior and experience (Kirsch, 1999), various studies have investigated whether

show abstract

Breaching hypnotic amnesia by manipulating expectancy.

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Myths and misconceptions about hypnosis and suggestion: Separating fact and fiction

Myths and misconceptions about hypnosis and suggestion: Separating fact and fiction

Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis.

The Roles of Response Expectancies, Baseline Experiences, and Hypnotizability in Spontaneous Hypnotic Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About