Hypnosis and the Experience of Nonvolition

Lynn, Steven Jay; Nash, Michael R.; Rhue, Judith W.; Frauman, David C.; Stanley, Scott M.

doi:10.1080/00207148308406624

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our finding that measures of response expectancy paralelled responding and reports of nonvolition support the hypothesis that expectancies mediate the relation between imagination, involuntariness, and responding (Kirsch, 1985;Spanos, 1982). Hypnotizable imagining subjects in the study discussed here exhibited greater responsiveness than a comparable sample of subjects did in a previous countersuggestion study (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) in which no attempt was made to foster an association between imagining and involuntary responding in the initial screening session.…”

mentioning

confidence: 47%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Goal-directed fantasy, hypnotic susceptibility, and expectancies.

Lynn¹,

Snodgrass²,

Rhue³

et al. 1987

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted an initial screening session in which hypnosis was presented as a "test of imagination" and administered with other imagination measures. In a second session, we instructed high- and low-hypnotizable subjects to imagine along with suggestions but to resist responding to motoric suggestions. Subjects received either instructions to use goal-directed fantasies (GDFs) or no facilitative instructions. Sizable individual difference effects were secured. Hypnotizable subjects exhibited more suggestion-related movements and reported greater involuntariness than did low-hypnotizable subjects. With GDF instructions, low- and high-hypnotizable subjects reported equivalent GDF absorption and frequencies. However, hypnotizable subjects exhibited greater responsiveness and reported greater involuntariness than did those low in hypnotizability, even when their GDFs were equivalent. Thus, no support was generated for the hypotheses that sustained, elaborated suggestion-related imagery mediates response to suggestion (Arnold, 1946) or that absorption in suggestions is of particular importance for low-hypnotizable subjects (Zamansky & Clark, 1986). Our finding that measures of response expectancy paralelled responding and reports of nonvolition support the hypothesis that expectancies mediate the relation between imagination, involuntariness, and responding (Kirsch, 1985; Spanos, 1982). Hypnotizable imagining subjects in the study discussed here exhibited greater responsiveness than a comparable sample of subjects did in a previous countersuggestion study (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) in which no attempt was made to foster an association between imagining and involuntary responding in the initial screening session.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 47%

“…Raters then entered the room and rated subjects' responses on a 3-point scale (no movement, some movement, fill! movement; Lynn et al, 1985Lynn et al, , 1983Lynn et al, , 1984. One rater per subject was used because of the excellent interrater reliabilities (.94) obtained in our previous studies.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal-directed fantasy, hypnotic susceptibility, and expectancies.

Lynn¹,

Snodgrass²,

Rhue³

et al. 1987

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, movements may be thought of as a behavioral index of nonvolition. Hypnotized as opposed to imagining (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) and simulating subjects (Lynn et al, 1985) moved in response to countersuggestion and defined their suggestion-related responses as involuntary. Contrary to Arnold's ideomotor-action hypothesis, hypnotizable imagining subjects reported feeling as absorbed and involved in imaginings as did hypnotic subjects but resisted responding to suggestions.…”

Section: The Ability To Resist Suggestionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis.

Lynn¹,

Rhue²,

Weekes³

1990

Psychological Review

Self Cite

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

“…Again this has been a much debated subject without a definitive answer. Lynn et al 40 reviewed the literature and their own research and came to the conclusion that it is idiosyncratic and that as many factors are involved it may occur in some subjects but not in others. Both Perry 35 and Hoencamp 36 have detailed many possible factors/reasons/explanations as to why subjects respond to the hypnotistÕs demands or behaviour making proving the use of hypnotism as a tool to create coercion or powerlessness far from simple.…”

Section: Hypnotism and Non-consensual Sexual Activitymentioning

confidence: 97%