Hypnotic amnesia revisited

Abstract

60 high and 60 low susceptible 8s were randomly assigned (12 groups of 10 8s each) to 6 experimental procedures which differed in terms of the type of amnesia suggestions given (i.e., permissively or authoritatively worded amnesia suggestions) and the kind of motivation accompanying the amnesia Suggestions (i.e., hypnotic motivation, waking motivation, and waking nonmotivation). Results show that high susceptible 8s performed more effectively in the direction of the amnesia suggestions, but that these suggestions were not totally effective for any of the 12 groups. Furthermore, there were no differences in response either to permissively or authoritatively worded amnesia suggestions or to hypnotic or waking procedures, but there were differences in response to task-motivating and non-task-motivating procedures (task-motivated Ss were ostensibly more amnesic).The present study further explores whether or not memory abnormalities, specifically amnesia, are "more readily induced" by hypnotic procedures than by waking procedures. Building on the findings of three recent hypnotic amnesia investigations (Barber & Calverley, 1966; Thorne, 1969; Williamsen, Johnson, & Ericksen, 1965) , the present study was an attempt to evaluate the relative influence of measured hypnotic susceptibility, task motivation, and different types of suggestions on subsequent memory performance. Barber and Calverley (1966) reported a study that replicated, partially confirmed, and expanded an earlier study by Williamsen et al. (1965). Barber and Calverley investigated the effects of three independent variables on measures of memory: ( a ) spoken versus recorded presentation of suggestions; ( b ) presence versus absence of hypnotic induction; and (c) four types of suggestions regarding amnesia-authoritative (((you will not remember") , permissive ("try to forget"), suggestions to simulate amnesia, and no amnesia suggestions a t all. Like the Williamsen et al. study, Barber and Calverley found positive correlations between measured hypnotic susceptibility and memory performances. Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 13:17 04 February 2015 168 THORNE AND HALL Barber and Calverley concluded from the results of their study and those from the Williamsen et al. study that, "The important factors in producing differences in performance on tests for amnesia are whether or not suggestions of amnesia are administered and the types of suggestions adminiatered [p. 1061."The present authors felt that the finding that "types of suggestion" affect performance should be further investigated, since it seems to be in conflict with the findings of other investigators in the field (Ambrose, 1961 ;Hartland, 1966;Schilder, 1956;Ulett & Peterson, 1965).Independently, Thorne (1969) explored the effects of ( a ) high, medium, and low measured hypnotic susceptibility and ( b ) hypnotic and waking task-motivation and waking nonmotivation relative to measures of amnesia for a previously-learned task. Thorne found: ( a ) measured sususceptibility was related to amne...

The Effects of Spoken versus Written Recall on Suggested Amnesia in Hypnotic and Task-motivated Subjects

“…These findings replicate a substantial number of previous studies (Barber & Calverley, 1966;Coe, Taul, Basden, & Basden, 1973;Hilgard & Cooper, 1965;Hilgard & Tart, 1966;Nace, Orne, & Hammer, 1974;Spanos & Bodorik, 1977;Spanos et al, Experiment 1, in press;Thorne & Hall, 1974;Williamsen, Johnson, & Eriksen, 1965;Spanos et al, Note 2).…”

Behavioral compliance with direct and indirect body movement suggestions.

“…Thorne and Hall (1974) compared “authoritatively worded” with “permissively worded” suggestions but reported no difference between groups and did not specify the actual difference in the suggestions used. Gheorghiu (1971) compared direct and indirect forms of the body sway test, but the comparison was between different interventions rather than different suggestion wording alone.…”