Hypnosis and the dream hidden observer: Primary process and demand characteristics.

Abstract

In Study 1, virtuoso (n = 13; passed more than 10 suggestions on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A [HGSHS:A] and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C), high hypnotizable (n = 14; passed more than 8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A), and medium hypnotizable (n = 17; passed 4-8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A) Ss were administered a hypnotic dream suggestion followed by a "dream hidden observer" suggestion (i.e., access hidden part; have new thoughts and images pertinent to dream). The majority of Ss reported dreams (81.8%) and hidden observers (80%), with hidden reports being characterized by more personal content, less primary processes, and poorer recall than dream reports. Study 2 replicated major findings. Although hypnotized (n = 18) and low hypnotizable simulating Ss (n = 17) responded comparably on most measures, hypnotizable Ss' dreams contained more primary process than did simulating Ss, providing support for M. R. Nash's (1991) psychoanalytic model.

Dissociation theories of hypnosis.

“…Subsequent studies of hypnotic deafness and analgesia reported hidden observer response rates ranging from 25% to 42% of participants preselected for high levels of responsiveness to suggestion (Crawford et al, 1979;Laurence & Perry, 1981). In marked contrast to these data, studies in which highly responsive participants were tested with more explicitly worded hidden observer suggestions or were given practice at performing hidden tasks have produced hidden observer response rates ranging from 82% to 94% (Knox et al, 1974;Mare, Lynn, Kvaal, Segal, & Sivec, 1994;Spanos & Hewitt, 1980). These data suggest that hidden observer response rates depend on the explicitness of the instructions with which the phenomenon is elicited.…”

“…Nogrady et al (1983) reported obtaining hidden observer reports from 5 of 12 high-suggestible participants who had displayed hypnotically induced amnesia but none from the high/medium-suggestible participants who failed the amnesia suggestion. Mare et al (1994) reported that nearly all of their participants (range = 93-100%) across the three suggestibility groups reported hidden observers, including carefully selected high-suggestible individuals in the so-called ' 'hypnotic virtuoso'' range of suggestibility. In short, the data do not support the idea that the hidden observer is merely a case of incomplete dissociation.…”

“…Before we leave this topic, it is important to point out that the data in no way imply that hypnotized participants fake hidden observer responses or that their reports do not reflect genuine shifts in subjective experience in keeping with the hidden observer suggestions they receive. Indeed, Mare et al (1994, Studies 1 and 2) found that more than 80% (on average) of medium- and high-suggestible participants were able to create credible experiences of a hidden observer that provided information and commentary on a dream suggested during hypnosis. In a second study, 88% of high-suggestible and 94% of simulating participants reported hidden observers.…”

“…The hidden observer cue may function as a temporary reversal cue for the suggestion. It is akin to giving the suggestion, “when I touch your shoulder, you will be able to remember everything, but when I remove my hand, you will once again be unable to remember the target material.” Nevertheless, the hidden observer may be a clinically useful construct (see Mare et al, 1994). Hidden observers with access to the memories of all identities of clients with dissociative identity disorders have been “discovered” (Allison, 1974) or “created” (Kirsch & Barton, 1988) as a therapeutic tool.…”

The hidden observer: a straw horse, undeservedly flogged

“…For Hilgard, the hidden observer was only one example of dissociation in hypnosis: the stimulus is represented in the cognitive system, but in a manner not normally accessible to phenomenal awareness (Kihlstrom, 1984(Kihlstrom, , 1992(Kihlstrom, , 1998(Kihlstrom, , 2005a. Although Hilgard's observations of covert pain reports in analgesia have been repeated by other investigators and have been extended to deafness, dreams, anosmia and negative hallucination (Spanos and Hewitt, 1980;Laurence and Perry, 1981;Nogrady, McConkey, Laurence and Perry, 1983;Spanos, Gwynn and Stam, 1983;Zamansky and Bartis, 1985;Mare, Lynn, Kvaal, Segal and Sivec, 1994), interpretation of the phenomenon has been more controversial. Coe and Sarbin (1977) argued that hidden observer instructions merely gave subjects permission to report pain that they actually felt all along.…”