Nonvolition, expectancies, and hypnotic rapport.

Abstract

Prior to hypnosis, subjects were informed either that hypnotizable subjects can resist motonc suggestions or that such control does not characterize good hypnotic subjects. During hypnosis, susceptible and simulating subjects received countersuggestions involving inhibiting suggestion-related movements Susceptible subjects' responses were found to be sensitive to prehypnotic normative information There was a corresponding tendency for reports of involuntanness to be sensitive to the expectancy manipulation Furthermore, subjects were able to feel deeply hypnotized and to rate themselves as good subjects yet concomitantly experience themselves as in control over their actions when normative information supported this attribution Reports of suggestion-related sensations but not imaginative involvement were associated with movements m response to countersuggestion. Simulators were unable to fake susceptibles' reports of sensations and involuntanness However, for all subjects, movements paralleled expectancies about appropriate response, supporting the hypothesis that involuntary experiences are sensitive to the broad expectational context and are mediated by active cognitive processes Also, rapport with the hypnotist was found to be a factor Susceptible subjects with highly positive rapport resolved hypnotic conflict, in part, by achieving a compromise between meeting normative expectations and complying with the hypnotist's counterdemandWe gratefully extend our thanks to Kevin McConkey, Nicholas P. Spanos, and Michael Snodgrass for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript We also extend our appreciation to Jothiratnam,

Rapport and Cognitive Skill Training in the Enhancement of Hypnotizability

“…Furthermore several studies indicate that hypnotist/subject rapport influences hypnotic responding [18][19][20][21]. For instance, it was found in one study [6] that the degree of hypnotizability gain that followed CSTP administration was positively correlated with the degree of rapport reported by subjects toward their trainers.…”

Hypnosis and top-down regulation of consciousness

“…In a related line of research, highly suggestible individuals countered their preconceptions about hypnosis in favor of responses consistent with the intent of the hypnotist whereas low suggestible role-playing participants behaved in terms of their preconceptions about hypnosis (Dolby & Sheehan, 1977;Sheehan, 1991). An independent line of research found that rapport interacted with expectancies in determining hypnotic responsiveness, including the experience of non-volition (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Sweeney, 1984).…”

Controlling phenomenology by being unaware of intentions

“…When the demands are ambiguous, naturally the experiences produced by subjects can be variable, even given they are genuine. In support of the relevance of demand characteristics, Lynn, Nash, Rhue et al (1984) found that subjects whom had been previously told that good subjects can resist hypnotic suggestions, could resist them when subsequently asked; and those previously told that good hypnotic subjects could not resist them, did not resist them then subsequently asked. Both groups reported high involuntariness (though it was higher in the group who believed they could not resist).…”