The surreptitious observation design: An experimental paradigm for distinguishing artifact from essence in hypnosis.

Kirsch, Irving; Silva, Christopher E.; Carone, James E.; Johnston, J. Dennis; Simon, Barry

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.98.2.132

Cited by 24 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study obtained results consistent with this hypothesis by finding that highly hypnotizable subjects almost always exaggerated the extent to which they subjectively responded to a suggestion for negative visual hallucination [11]. On the other hand, a number of studies using diverse methodologies indicate that conscious faking cannot account adequately for hypnotic responding [e.g., 12,13]. A second hypothesis suggests that the compliance instruction influenced the manner in which subjects interpreted or classified their earlier perceptual experiences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Compliance and Suggested Deafness in Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Subjects

Spaños

Burgess

Perlini

1992

Imagination, Cognition and Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On each of three trials high and low hypnotizables rated the loudness of a tone after its termination. Trial 1 was a baseline and Trial 2 was preceded by hypnotic or nonhypnotic deafness suggestions. Trial 3 was not preceded by instructions. After its termination, but before giving their loudness ratings, half the subjects in each condition were given instructions designed to induce false reports of hearing loss. High hypnotizables and low hypnotizable nonhypnotic subjects reported greater loudness reductions to both the suggestion (frial 2) and the compliance instruction (frial 3) than did low hypnotizable hypnotic subjects. Trial 2 deafness reports and Trial 3 compliance reports were highly correlated and, in hypnotic subjects, hypnotizability and Trial 3 compliance reports were significantly correlated. These findings indicate that the occurrence of demand-induced reporting bias is common in hypnotic settings, and constitutes an integral part of hypnotic responding.The topic hypnosis has long been associated with the idea of profound suggestioninduced alterations in perceptual experience. For example, highly hypnotizable hypnotic subjects given suggestions for analgesia report substantial decrements in pain [1], those given suggestions for deafness report large diminutions in hearing

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Compliance and Suggested Deafness in Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Subjects

Spaños

Burgess

Perlini

1992

Imagination, Cognition and Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, behavioural and physiological data converge to indicate that these reports and responses reflect genuine changes in experience (e.g. Kinnunen, Zamansky, & Block, 1994;Kirsch, Silva, Carone, Johnston, & Simon, 1989;Oakley, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Hypnotic suggestibility, cognitive inhibition, and dissociation

Dienes

Brown

Hutton

et al. 2009

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We do not view hypnotic behavior as due to faking, and neither do most of the other theorists that Wegner identified as belonging to this camp. Indeed, we have conducted research and argued vociferously against the identification of hypnosis with faking (Kirsch 1998;Kirsch & Lynn 1995;Kirsch et al 1989;Perugini et al 1998). The more accurate (and conventional) name for these theories is nonstate theory.…”

Section: Hypnosis and Willmentioning

confidence: 99%

Précis of The illusion of conscious will

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience of conscious will is the feeling that we are doing things. This feeling occurs for many things we do, conveying to us again and again the sense that we consciously cause our actions. But the feeling may not be a true reading of what is happening in our minds, brains, and bodies as our actions are produced. The feeling of conscious will can be fooled. This happens in clinical disorders such as alien hand syndrome, dissociative identity disorder, and schizophrenic auditory hallucinations. And in people without disorders, phenomena such as hypnosis, automatic writing, Ouija board spelling, water dowsing, facilitated communication, speaking in tongues, spirit possession, and trance channeling also illustrate anomalies of will – cases when actions occur without will or will occurs without action. This book brings these cases together with research evidence from laboratories in psychology to explore a theory of apparent mental causation. According to this theory, when a thought appears in consciousness just prior to an action, is consistent with the action, and appears exclusive of salient alternative causes of the action, we experience conscious will and ascribe authorship to ourselves for the action. Experiences of conscious will thus arise from processes whereby the mind interprets itself – not from processes whereby mind creates action. Conscious will, in this view, is an indication that we think we have caused an action, not a revelation of the causal sequence by which the action was produced.

show abstract

The surreptitious observation design: An experimental paradigm for distinguishing artifact from essence in hypnosis.

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Compliance and Suggested Deafness in Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Subjects

Compliance and Suggested Deafness in Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Subjects

Hypnotic suggestibility, cognitive inhibition, and dissociation

Précis of The illusion of conscious will

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About