Modification by Suggestion of Some Vestibular and Visual Responses

Dorcus, Roy M.

doi:10.2307/1416055

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And lastly, as Hull (1932) has shown, practice increases primary suggestibility and decreases secondary suggestibility. * There is strong evidence that primary suggestibility is related to hypnotizability (Beck, 1936;Saltzman, 1936;Dorcus, 1937;Jenness and Wible, 1937;Krueger, 1931;White, 1937;see, however, Williams, 1930;Wells, 1931), and consequently to dissociation (White and Shevach, 1942). We might, therefore, speak about dissociative suggestibility as opposed to non-dissociative suggestibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suggestibility and Hysteria

Eysenck¹

1943

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suggestibility and Hysteria

Eysenck¹

1943

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Barber's contribution in hypnosis has antecedents in the work of Dorcus (1937), Pattie (1935Pattie ( , 1941Pattie ( , 1950, White'(1941), Sarbin ( 1950), and Sutcliffe (1960Sutcliffe ( , 1961. Although chese invescigacors criticized some of the extreme claims made for hypnosis, they did not critically analyze the fundamental assumpcions underlying hypnocic state theory.…”

Section: Barber's Crltique Of the Hypnotic State C O N S T R U~mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnosis Reconceptualized: An Overview of Barber's Theoretical and Empirical Work

Chaves

1968

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sumn1ary.-This paper provides a summary and clarification of Barber's reconceprualization of "hypnosis" and contrasts ir with the traditional approach. Traditional hypnosis theory assumes that a special stare of consciousness (the hypnotic trance state) is instrumental in eliciting "hypnotic" behaviors. Barber rejecrs this basic assumption and focuses on denorable antecedent variables that are functionally related to the behaviors. Differences in arsumptions underlying the two approaches have led to fundamental differences in methodology, in the types of questions asked, and in the explanarions provided. All available criticisms of Barber's work are discussed and evaluated.For the past 100 years there has been a dominant concepn~alization or paradigm concerning the topic hypnosis. This paradigm, which might be called hypnotic scare theory, includes assumptions, methodological guidelines and implicic criteria for the selection of meaningful research topics. The pivotal assumption of this theory is that an altered state of consciousness, the hypnotic trance state, is instrumental in eliciting a wide range of behaviors which, due to their assumed antecedents, are called hypnotic behaviors. Recently, however, an entirely new paradigm has emerged. Although concerned with these same behaviors, the new paradigm rejecrs the fundamental assumptions and methodological guidelines which constic~~te the traditional viewpoint.The new approach to che topic hypnosis has evolved largely through the work of T. X. Barber and is reflected in his 72 published papers and in a forchcoming book (Barber, in press). One purpose of this paper is to provide a concise summary of this new paradigm and co review some of the pertinenc supporting evidence. A second purpose is to clarify some misconceptions which have appeared in discussion of Barber's work. These misconceptions have resulted largely from a failure to recognize that Barber rejects che fundamental assumptions of hypnoric stare theory. The clarification of these misunderstandings is related to a more general problem pertaining to the effects of anomalous data and theories on traditional scientific paradigms. A brief examination of this problem may provide a useful framework for viewing the relationship between Barber's paradigm and hypnotic scate theory.

show abstract

“…Although it has antecedents in the work of Dorcus (1937), Pattie (1935Pattie ( , 1941Pattie ( , 1950, White (1941), and Sarbin (1950and Sarbin ( , 1962 , this new conceptualization has reached maturity largely through the work of T. X. Barber.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%