Hypnobo: Perspectives on Hypnosis and Placebo

Raz, Amir

doi:10.1080/00029157.2007.10401595

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, social observational learning can be seen as much less abstract and as more grounded in experiential learning than instruction effects. Further, while hypnosis and placebo both influence emotional experiences via suggestions and may share some common characteristics (Raz, 2007), they also differ: Placebo typically involves some kind of deception, whereas hypnosis is based on suggestion of altered experiences without implying changes in the actual physical environment (Lynn et al, 2008). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During hypnosis, the participants are suggested sensations and experiences without being suggested a change in the actual environment (Lynn et al, 2008), such as “you are now beginning to feel your arms getting heavier, as if they were pulled down by some invisible force”. To some degree similar to placebo effects (Lynn et al, 2008; Raz, 2007), hypnotic suggestibility is thought to be driven by response expectancies and automatic activation of response sets (Lynn et al, 2008) and thus offers an fascinating case to study the influence of top-down over bottom-up processes (Raz, 2011). …”

Section: Social Information Effects On Pain and Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What’s in a word? How instructions, suggestions, and social information change pain and emotion

Koban

Jepma

Geuter

et al. 2017

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instructions, suggestions, and other types of social information can have powerful effects on pain and emotion. Prominent examples include observational learning, social influence, placebo, and hypnosis. These different phenomena and their underlying brain mechanisms have been studied in partially separate literatures, which we discuss, compare, and integrate in this review. Converging findings from these literatures suggest that 1) instructions and social information affect brain systems associated with the generation of pain and emotion, and with reinforcement learning, and that 2) these changes are mediated by alterations in prefrontal systems responsible for top-down control and the generation of affective meaning. We argue that changes in expectation and appraisal, a process of assessing personal meaning and implications for wellbeing, are two potential key mediators of the effects of instructions and social information on affective experience. Finally, we propose a tentative model of how prefrontal regions, especially dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex may regulate affective processing based on instructions and socially transmitted expectations more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Information Effects On Pain and Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s in a word? How instructions, suggestions, and social information change pain and emotion

Koban

Jepma

Geuter

et al. 2017

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This sequence of events, which casts response expectancy as the final link in the causal chain between suggestion and response (in both hypnosis and placebo phenomena), is an alternative mechanism that applies to both hypnotic and placebo responses. However, whether expectation is the critical determinant [1,64,65] or whether it produces a more nuanced influence on hypnotic effects [27,66,67] is a matter of continuing discussion [43,68]. Therefore, hypnotic suggestion and placebo-suggestion might differ in their mechanisms (e.g., hypofrontality in hypnosis [69,70]) and consecutive influences on behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placebo-Suggestion Modulates Conflict Resolution in the Stroop Task

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, we ask whether placebo-suggestion (without any form of hypnotic induction) can modulate the resolution of cognitive conflict. Naïve participants performed a Stroop Task while wearing an EEG cap described as a “brain wave” machine. In Experiment 1, participants were made to believe that the EEG cap would either enhance or decrease their color perception and performance on the Stroop task. In Experiment 2, participants were explicitly asked to imagine that their color perception and performance would be enhanced or decreased (non-hypnotic imaginative suggestion). We observed effects of placebo-suggestion on Stroop interference on accuracy: interference was decreased with positive suggestion and increased with negative suggestion compared to baseline. Intra-individual variability was also increased under negative suggestion compared to baseline. Compliance with the instruction to imagine a modulation of performance, on the other hand, did not influence accuracy and only had a negative impact on response latencies and on intra-individual variability, especially in the congruent condition of the Stroop Task. Taken together, these results demonstrate that expectations induced by a placebo-suggestion can modulate our ability to resolve cognitive conflict, either facilitating or impairing response accuracy depending on the suggestion’s contents. Our results also demonstrate a dissociation between placebo-suggestion and non-hypnotic imaginative suggestion.

show abstract

“…For example, it has been argued that hypnosis is placebo without deception (Kirsch, 1994;Raz, 2007) and can therefore be used to understand and study placebo effects. Indeed, by taking other forms of suggestion into account, a strong case can be made for PFC involvement in hypnotic suggestibility .…”

Section: The Prefrontal Cortex and Suggestionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility.

Parris

2017

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is both theoretical and empirical evidence supporting a role for frontal executive functions (FEFs) in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility. However, the precise nature of this involvement is debated. While there is clear evidence that FEFs are impaired under hypnosis, the cause of this decreased function is unclear. Theories make differing predictions as to the role of FEFs in hypnotic suggestibility, with some arguing that decreased baseline (normal function outside of the hypnotic context) FEFs lead to greater hypnotic suggestibility and others arguing that increased baseline FEFs lead to greater hypnotic suggestibility. Other theories posit that suggestibility is more a consequence of attitude rather than aptitude. The present work provides a critical review of the involvement of FEFs in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility. The review considers behavioral evidence from studies employing putative frontal lobe tasks including tests of fluid intelligence and both task- and nontask-based neuroimaging evidence. It is determined that the evidence to date is inconclusive and that more work is needed to establish a necessary and sufficient role for FEFs in hypnosis or hypnotic suggestibility. Recommendations are made for future research.

show abstract

Hypnobo: Perspectives on Hypnosis and Placebo

Cited by 26 publications

References 46 publications

What’s in a word? How instructions, suggestions, and social information change pain and emotion

What’s in a word? How instructions, suggestions, and social information change pain and emotion

Placebo-Suggestion Modulates Conflict Resolution in the Stroop Task

The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About