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

Abstract

This study tested the prediction that dissociative tendencies modulate the impact of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in di↵erent subtypes of highly suggestible individuals. Low suggestible (LS), low dissociative highly suggestible (LDHS), and high dissociative highly suggestible (HDHS) participants completed the Stroop colornaming task in control and hypnosis conditions. The magnitude of conflict adaptation (faster response times on incongruent trials preceded by an incongruent than those preceded by a congruent trial) was used as a measure of cognitive control. LS and LDHS participants displayed marginally superior up-regulation of cognitive control following a hypnotic induction, whereas HDHS participants' performance declined. These findings indicate that dissociative tendencies modulate the influence of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in high hypnotic suggestibility and suggest that HS individuals are comprised of distinct subtypes with dissimilar cognitive profiles.

Discrete response patterns in the upper range of hypnotic suggestibility: A latent profile analysis

“…At this stage, it is necessary to clarify the mechanistic basis for class differences and integrate these findings with previous research on heterogeneity (Galea, et al, 2010;King & Council, 1998;Terhune & Cardeña, 2010a;Terhune, et al, 2011aTerhune, et al, , 2011b. The present results strongly suggest that HS participants display one of three patterns of hypnotic responding but it remains an open question whether they experience hypnotic responses through discrete mechanisms.…”

“…Terhune and Cardeña (2010a) applied LPA to participants' spontaneous experiential responses to a hypnotic induction and found evidence for four response classes, two of which included HS participants. Notably, the two classes that included HS participants corresponded to the dissociative and non-dissociative subtypes found in other studies (King & Council, 1998;Terhune, et al, 2011aTerhune, et al, , 2011b) and thereby provide convergent evidence for a bifurcated typology. However, the extent to which these subtypes can be identified on the basis of response patterns to different hypnotic suggestions remains unknown.…”

“…The present results strongly suggest that HS participants display one of three patterns of hypnotic responding but it remains an open question whether they experience hypnotic responses through discrete mechanisms. For this reason, it would be advantageous to examine whether the derived subtypes can account for variability in response strategy utilization during hypnotic responding among HS individuals (Galea, et al, 2010;King & Council, 1998) and whether they relate to dissociative and non-dissociative HS subtypes (King & Council, 1998;Terhune, et al, 2011a).…”

“…HS individuals display marked variability in the types of hypnotic suggestions to which they respond Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011b) and, more crucially, the strategies and attentional mechanisms underlying their responses (Galea, Woody, Szechtman, & Pierrynowski, 2010;King & Council, 1998). These and other results suggest that there are two discrete subtypes of HS individuals: a dissociative subtype that experiences greater involuntariness during hypnotic responding and exhibits impaired working memory at baseline, disrupted cognitive control following a hypnotic induction, and uses minimal attentional resources to respond to suggestions; and a non-dissociative subtype that experiences greater voluntariness during hypnotic responding (but still less than low suggestible individuals), a normal cognitive profile, and requires attention to respond to suggestions (King & Council, 1998;Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011a;Terhune, et al, 2011b).…”

“…Most of the evidence marshaled for a HS typology thus far (see also Galea, et al, 2010;King & Council, 1998;Terhune, et al, 2011aTerhune, et al, , 2011b has come from small-sample studies (Ns < 30) in which HS subtypes were demarcated using independent theoretical discriminators (e.g., a measure of dissociative tendencies). Moreover, these studies have largely neglected variegation in hypnotic responding in favor of analyses of other behavioural, cognitive, or physiological variables.…”