Controlling phenomenology by being unaware of intentions

Abstract

This chapter reviews evidence that people have, to a varying degree, a trait ability to control phenomenology; that is, to construct subjective experiences according to situational requirements. The experiences can be subjectively compelling ones of involuntariness (for actually intentional movements); of perceptions (that grossly misrepresent reality); and of having beliefs (that in fact one only pretends to have, e.g. being of the opposite gender). Phenomenological control produces the neural and physiological processes that underlie having the subjective experiences. We argue that phenomenological control is best understood by distinguishing first order states from higher order thoughts; in particular, phenomenological control is produced by intentionally creating the required first order states while thinking one is not so intending. Phenomenological control can be used in any context where having a subjective experience would help convince yourself and others that you share group values. It can be used in a hypnotic context to create hypnotic responses. But it can also be used in the context of psychological experiments to construct the phenomena postulated by the researcher where those phenomena are suggested by demand characteristics.

Look into my eyes: Pupillometry reveals that a post‐hypnotic suggestion for word blindness reduces Stroop interference by marshalling greater effortful control

“…This finding contrasts with the notion that involuntary, effortless responding is key marker of responding to hypnotic suggestions (Bowers, 1982; Weitzenhoffer, 1980) and is more consistent with the notion that responses to suggestions are active attention‐demanding attempts to fulfil the requirements of goals (Lynn et al., 1990). These data do not necessarily indicate that participants are being deceptive in their attempts to achieve a reduction in Stroop interference and could be a marker of how demand characteristics can be turned into genuine experience by their effect on the awareness of a participants intentions to act to achieve a desired outcome (Dienes, Lush, et al., in press; Dienes, Palfi, et al., in press).…”

“…There are, however, reasons to reject the hypothesis that hypnotic responding is involuntary and effortless including evidence of regulation of hypnotic responses, and the demonstration of active attention‐demanding attempts to fulfil the requirements of hypnotic suggestions (Lynn et al., 1990). Indeed, subjective reports of involuntary responding could simply be a marker of demand characteristics and their effect on awareness of intentions (Dienes, Lush, et al., in press; Dienes, Palfi, et al., in press).…”

What's up with the Rubber Hand Illusion?

“…Importantly, demand characteristics may influence different people in different ways. In particular, people who are more capable of producing experiences consistent with task demands in a hypnotic context, may also be able to respond to demand characteristics in general, outside of that context, by changing their actual experience and its underlying neurophysiological basis (Dienes, Palfi, & Lush, 2020).…”

“…The idea that perception depends on an interaction between such factors is central to frameworks like predictive processing (Clark, 2013;Seth, 2013). Building on the idea of PC as intentional cognitive and motor actions that occur without awareness of these intentions (Dienes, Lush, et al, 2020;Dienes, Palfi, et al, 2020), we propose that imaginative suggestions can be construed as a distinctive species of top-down expectation within a predictive processing framework [see (Martin & Pacherie, 2019) for a similar idea, regarding experiences of agency]. Unpacking the details of how PC generates perceptual experience is an exciting avenue for future research, in the RHI and beyond (e.g.…”

“…We have also offered a substantial alternative theory that applies over a broad range of effects: That people can use a capacity for PC to dramatically alter how they experience the world (Dienes, Lush, et al, 2020;Dienes, Palfi, et al, 2020). The theory is general, testable, it may impact many areas in psychology and everyday life, and though it based in a strong and empirically rigorous traditions it seems to many people surprising.…”