This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Tech Libraries] On: 18 October 2014, At: 23:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and TaskMotivated Subjects a
b
Nicholas P. Spanos Ph.D. , Jeanne Spillane & John D. McPeake M.A.
c
a
Carleton University , Ottawa, Canada
b
Smith College , USA
c
Massasoit Community College , USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Nicholas P. Spanos Ph.D. , Jeanne Spillane & John D. McPeake M.A. (1976) Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and Task-Motivated Subjects, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18:4, 254-262, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1976.10403808 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1976.10403808
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
Volume 18, Number 4, April 1976 Printed in U.S.A.
Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and Task-Motivated Subjects NICHOLAS P. SPANOS, Ph.D. 1 Carleton University Ottawa, Canada
JEANNE SPILLANE Smith College and
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
JOHN D. McPEAKE M.A. Massasoit Community College
Thirty-two male and 32 female subjects, exposed to an hypnotic induction procedure or task-motivational instructions were administered either three suggestions which provided a cognitive strategy (i.e., a goal-directed fantasy, GDF) for experiencing suggested effects, or three suggestions that did not provide such a strategy. Subjects provided with GDF strategies were more responsive overtly and subjectively to two out of the three suggestions. Subjects in the No GDF Strategy treatment who spontaneously devised their own goaldirected fantasies were more responsive to suggestions than subjects who failed to devise such a strategy. These results support the contention that goal-directed fantasy helps both hypnotic and non-hypnotic subjects experience suggested effects.
The suggestions employed in hypnosis research typically involve at least two components; they inform the subject that he is expected to (a) perform some relatively simple overt behavior, and (b) experience his overt performance as an involuntary occurence (Spanos, 1973). For example, an arm-levitation suggestion explicitly informs the subject that his arm is expected to rise and implicitly informs him that the act of arm raising should be experienced as an involuntary occurence. Many suggestions also provide subjects with an explicit cognitive strategy to aid in experiencing the sub-
jective effects. One such strategy labeled goal-directed fantasy (GDF) is defined as an imaginary situation which, if it were actually to occur, would be expected to lead to the behavior and experiences called for by the suggestion (Spanos, 1971, 1973). For instance, an arm-levitation suggestion which asks subjects to imagine a rope pulling their hand into the air contains an explicit GDF. If a rope were, in fact, pulling up a subject's hand, then the hand would be expected to rise and the raising would be experienced as an involuntary occurence. Several studies (Chaves & Barber, 1974; Coe, Allan, Krug & Wurzman, 1974; 1 Address reprint requests to Nicholas Spanos, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ot- Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos, Horton & tawa, Canada. This research was supported in part by Chaves, in Press) have indicated that NIMH grant MH2l294 awarded to T. X. Barber. We suggestions which contain an explicit GDF thank Dr. Barber and also W. C. Coe, J. F. Chaves, are responded to more easily than suggesM. W. Ham, and R. F. Q. Johnson for critically reading earlier drafts of this manuscript. We also tions that do not contain such a strategy. thank R. Simons, Dean of Students at Massasoit For example, Coe et al. (1974) counted the Community College for aid in procuring subjects. number of words in a series of hypnotic 2S4
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
suggestions that encouraged subjects to engage in GOF, and found positive correlations between the number of such words in a suggestion and subjects' tendency to (a) report GDF, and (b) pass the suggestion. Spanos & Barber (1972) found that an arm-levitation suggestion containing an explicit GOF produced greater subjective effects in hypnotic subjects than did variants of the suggestion not containing a GDF. Spanos, Horton & Chaves (1975), working with non-hypnotic subjects, found that a GOF suggestion aimed at reducing pain produced a greater elevation in pain threshold than a suggestion which asked subjects to imagine a situation unrelated to pain. Similarly, Chaves and Barber (1974) found that GDF suggestions produced a greater reduction in pain magnitude than did non-fantasy instructions designed to inculcate expectations of reduced pain. The above studies indicate that GOF functions as a cognitive strategy enhancing response to suggestion. Nonetheless, subjects who testify post-experimentally that they carried out a goal-directed fantasy response (GOFr) do not invariably respond to suggestions (Spanos, 1971, 1973; Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos & McPeake, 1974). Several investigators (Spanos, j 971, 1973; Spanos & Ham, 1975; Spanos & McPeake, 1974) have found that not only the presence of GDFr, but also the extent to which subjects become absorbed or involved in such fantasy may be an important variable determining response to suggestion. These investigators have found positive correlations between extent of involvement in GOFr and response to suggestion. Some suggestions do not provide a GOF. Several studies (Spanos, 1971; Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos & Ham, 1973; Spanos & IVIcPeake, 1975) have indicated that subjects who respond to these suggestions often spontaneously devise and carry out GOF's of their own.
255
The above considerations suggest the following hypotheses tested in the present study: (a) Both hypnotic and non-hypnotic subjects will be more likely to respond overtly and subjectively to suggestions which provide GOF than to suggestions which do not; (b) Extent of involvement in the GOF provided by a suggestion will be positively correlated with the degree of subjective response to that suggestion; and (c) Subjects not provided with a GOF will be more likely to respond overtly and subjectively (e.g., experience their response as involuntary) when they spontaneously devise a GOFr than when they do not. METHOD
Subjects
Thirty-two male and 32 female community college students (ages 18-25) volunteered to participate without compensation in an experiment on hypnosis. None had previously participated in hypnosis experiments carried out by the authors. Procedure
The 64 subjects were randomly assigned to the eight cells of a 2x2x2 factorial experiment (Hypnosis-Task Motivation/GOF Strategy-No GOF Strategy/Male-Female). Eight subjects were assigned to each of the eight cells. Each subject was seen individually in a single session by the same female experimenter (JS). Upon entering the experimental room the subject was seated, informed that the experiment would begin immediately, and administered either a standardized hypnotic induction procedure or task-motivational instructions. The standardized hypnotic induction was administered to half (16 males, 16 females) of the subjects and was based on a procedure employed by Barber (1969) in numerous studies. This procedure took 10 minutes to deliver and consisted of interre-
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
256
lated suggestions that the subject (a) was becoming drowsy and relaxed, (b) was entering an unusual (an hypnotic) state of consciousness, and (c) would be able to respond easily to subsequent suggestions. The task-motivational instructions were administered to the remaining half of the subjects and were also based on instructions employed by Barber (1969). These instructions took 30 seconds to deliver and (a) exhorted subjects to try their best, and (b) informed them that other subjects like themselves responded to suggestions when they tried their best to do so. Immediately after receiving the hypnotic induction procedure or the task-motivation instructions subjects were administered either three suggestions providing a GDF or three suggestions without such a fantasy. The hypnotic induction procedure, taskmotivational instructions, and all subsequent suggestions were presented via a tape recording of the experimenter's voice. GDF Strategy Treatment
The 32 (16 males, 16 females) subjects assigned to this treatment were administered an arm-levitation suggestion followed by an arm-rigidity suggestion and, finally, an amnesia suggestion. Each of these suggestions took approximately 35 seconds to administer. Arm-levitation. Subjects were asked to extend their right arm straight out at shoulder height and were then administered an arm-levitation suggestion consisting of two interrelated components. The first component asked subjects to imagine a large, helium filled balloon tied to their wrist and lifting their arm into the air. The second component told them repeatedly that their arm was rising higher and higher. Five seconds after completing the suggestion subjects were directed to stop imagining and lower their arm. Subjects were scored as passing the suggestion if their hand rose
SPANOS, SPILLANE AND MCPEAKE
four or more inches before the experimenter instructed them to stop imagining. Immediately following this suggestion subjects were asked to open their eyes and to complete a 5-point Likert-type scale which assessed the extent to which they experienced their arm rising involuntarily. This scale was modified from one employed by Spanos and Barber (1972). The scale alternatives ranged from (a) not experiencing arm rising as involuntary (scored 0), to (b) experiencing it as a completely involuntary occurence (scored 4). After completing this scale, subjects were administered a second 5-point Likerttype scale which assessed the extent to which they became involved in the suggestion. The alternatives on this scale ranged from (a) not concentrating on the suggestion throughout any of the time (scored 0), to (b) concentrating only on the suggestion throughout all of the time (scored 4). Arm-rigidity. Following the above procedures subjects were asked to close their eyes and extend their left arm straight out at shoulder height. They were then administered an arm-rigidity suggestion containing the following interrelated components; (a) instructions to imagine a cast on their arm that keeps the elbow from bending, and (b) repeated suggestions that the arm is stiff, rigid and immovable. Three seconds after receiving this suggestion, subjects were challanged to try to bend their arm. Five seconds after the challange, they were asked to stop imagining and lower their arm. Subjects were scored as passing the suggestion if their arm did not bend noticably at the elbow before the experimenter asked them to stop imagining. Immediately following this suggestion, subjects were again asked to open their eyes and fill out a five-point Likert-type scale, taken verbatim from Spanos (1973), that assessed the extent to which they experienced their arm-rigidity as an involuntary response. The alternatives on this scale
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
257 TABLE I 2x2x2 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE ON OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE TO SUGGESTIONS
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
Overall Objective Score Source of Variation A B C AXB AXC BXC AXBXC Error (Within) Total
df I
1 1 1 1 1 1 56 63
MS 5.64 26.26 .01 .39 .39 .77 .43
F 6.13* 28.54**
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and TaskMotivated Subjects a
b
Nicholas P. Spanos Ph.D. , Jeanne Spillane & John D. McPeake M.A.
c
a
Carleton University , Ottawa, Canada
b
Smith College , USA
c
Massasoit Community College , USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Nicholas P. Spanos Ph.D. , Jeanne Spillane & John D. McPeake M.A. (1976) Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and Task-Motivated Subjects, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18:4, 254-262, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1976.10403808 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1976.10403808
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
Volume 18, Number 4, April 1976 Printed in U.S.A.
Cognitive Strategies and Response to Suggestion in Hypnotic and Task-Motivated Subjects NICHOLAS P. SPANOS, Ph.D. 1 Carleton University Ottawa, Canada
JEANNE SPILLANE Smith College and
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
JOHN D. McPEAKE M.A. Massasoit Community College
Thirty-two male and 32 female subjects, exposed to an hypnotic induction procedure or task-motivational instructions were administered either three suggestions which provided a cognitive strategy (i.e., a goal-directed fantasy, GDF) for experiencing suggested effects, or three suggestions that did not provide such a strategy. Subjects provided with GDF strategies were more responsive overtly and subjectively to two out of the three suggestions. Subjects in the No GDF Strategy treatment who spontaneously devised their own goaldirected fantasies were more responsive to suggestions than subjects who failed to devise such a strategy. These results support the contention that goal-directed fantasy helps both hypnotic and non-hypnotic subjects experience suggested effects.
The suggestions employed in hypnosis research typically involve at least two components; they inform the subject that he is expected to (a) perform some relatively simple overt behavior, and (b) experience his overt performance as an involuntary occurence (Spanos, 1973). For example, an arm-levitation suggestion explicitly informs the subject that his arm is expected to rise and implicitly informs him that the act of arm raising should be experienced as an involuntary occurence. Many suggestions also provide subjects with an explicit cognitive strategy to aid in experiencing the sub-
jective effects. One such strategy labeled goal-directed fantasy (GDF) is defined as an imaginary situation which, if it were actually to occur, would be expected to lead to the behavior and experiences called for by the suggestion (Spanos, 1971, 1973). For instance, an arm-levitation suggestion which asks subjects to imagine a rope pulling their hand into the air contains an explicit GDF. If a rope were, in fact, pulling up a subject's hand, then the hand would be expected to rise and the raising would be experienced as an involuntary occurence. Several studies (Chaves & Barber, 1974; Coe, Allan, Krug & Wurzman, 1974; 1 Address reprint requests to Nicholas Spanos, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ot- Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos, Horton & tawa, Canada. This research was supported in part by Chaves, in Press) have indicated that NIMH grant MH2l294 awarded to T. X. Barber. We suggestions which contain an explicit GDF thank Dr. Barber and also W. C. Coe, J. F. Chaves, are responded to more easily than suggesM. W. Ham, and R. F. Q. Johnson for critically reading earlier drafts of this manuscript. We also tions that do not contain such a strategy. thank R. Simons, Dean of Students at Massasoit For example, Coe et al. (1974) counted the Community College for aid in procuring subjects. number of words in a series of hypnotic 2S4
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
suggestions that encouraged subjects to engage in GOF, and found positive correlations between the number of such words in a suggestion and subjects' tendency to (a) report GDF, and (b) pass the suggestion. Spanos & Barber (1972) found that an arm-levitation suggestion containing an explicit GOF produced greater subjective effects in hypnotic subjects than did variants of the suggestion not containing a GDF. Spanos, Horton & Chaves (1975), working with non-hypnotic subjects, found that a GOF suggestion aimed at reducing pain produced a greater elevation in pain threshold than a suggestion which asked subjects to imagine a situation unrelated to pain. Similarly, Chaves and Barber (1974) found that GDF suggestions produced a greater reduction in pain magnitude than did non-fantasy instructions designed to inculcate expectations of reduced pain. The above studies indicate that GOF functions as a cognitive strategy enhancing response to suggestion. Nonetheless, subjects who testify post-experimentally that they carried out a goal-directed fantasy response (GOFr) do not invariably respond to suggestions (Spanos, 1971, 1973; Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos & McPeake, 1974). Several investigators (Spanos, j 971, 1973; Spanos & Ham, 1975; Spanos & McPeake, 1974) have found that not only the presence of GDFr, but also the extent to which subjects become absorbed or involved in such fantasy may be an important variable determining response to suggestion. These investigators have found positive correlations between extent of involvement in GOFr and response to suggestion. Some suggestions do not provide a GOF. Several studies (Spanos, 1971; Spanos & Barber, 1972; Spanos & Ham, 1973; Spanos & IVIcPeake, 1975) have indicated that subjects who respond to these suggestions often spontaneously devise and carry out GOF's of their own.
255
The above considerations suggest the following hypotheses tested in the present study: (a) Both hypnotic and non-hypnotic subjects will be more likely to respond overtly and subjectively to suggestions which provide GOF than to suggestions which do not; (b) Extent of involvement in the GOF provided by a suggestion will be positively correlated with the degree of subjective response to that suggestion; and (c) Subjects not provided with a GOF will be more likely to respond overtly and subjectively (e.g., experience their response as involuntary) when they spontaneously devise a GOFr than when they do not. METHOD
Subjects
Thirty-two male and 32 female community college students (ages 18-25) volunteered to participate without compensation in an experiment on hypnosis. None had previously participated in hypnosis experiments carried out by the authors. Procedure
The 64 subjects were randomly assigned to the eight cells of a 2x2x2 factorial experiment (Hypnosis-Task Motivation/GOF Strategy-No GOF Strategy/Male-Female). Eight subjects were assigned to each of the eight cells. Each subject was seen individually in a single session by the same female experimenter (JS). Upon entering the experimental room the subject was seated, informed that the experiment would begin immediately, and administered either a standardized hypnotic induction procedure or task-motivational instructions. The standardized hypnotic induction was administered to half (16 males, 16 females) of the subjects and was based on a procedure employed by Barber (1969) in numerous studies. This procedure took 10 minutes to deliver and consisted of interre-
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
256
lated suggestions that the subject (a) was becoming drowsy and relaxed, (b) was entering an unusual (an hypnotic) state of consciousness, and (c) would be able to respond easily to subsequent suggestions. The task-motivational instructions were administered to the remaining half of the subjects and were also based on instructions employed by Barber (1969). These instructions took 30 seconds to deliver and (a) exhorted subjects to try their best, and (b) informed them that other subjects like themselves responded to suggestions when they tried their best to do so. Immediately after receiving the hypnotic induction procedure or the task-motivation instructions subjects were administered either three suggestions providing a GDF or three suggestions without such a fantasy. The hypnotic induction procedure, taskmotivational instructions, and all subsequent suggestions were presented via a tape recording of the experimenter's voice. GDF Strategy Treatment
The 32 (16 males, 16 females) subjects assigned to this treatment were administered an arm-levitation suggestion followed by an arm-rigidity suggestion and, finally, an amnesia suggestion. Each of these suggestions took approximately 35 seconds to administer. Arm-levitation. Subjects were asked to extend their right arm straight out at shoulder height and were then administered an arm-levitation suggestion consisting of two interrelated components. The first component asked subjects to imagine a large, helium filled balloon tied to their wrist and lifting their arm into the air. The second component told them repeatedly that their arm was rising higher and higher. Five seconds after completing the suggestion subjects were directed to stop imagining and lower their arm. Subjects were scored as passing the suggestion if their hand rose
SPANOS, SPILLANE AND MCPEAKE
four or more inches before the experimenter instructed them to stop imagining. Immediately following this suggestion subjects were asked to open their eyes and to complete a 5-point Likert-type scale which assessed the extent to which they experienced their arm rising involuntarily. This scale was modified from one employed by Spanos and Barber (1972). The scale alternatives ranged from (a) not experiencing arm rising as involuntary (scored 0), to (b) experiencing it as a completely involuntary occurence (scored 4). After completing this scale, subjects were administered a second 5-point Likerttype scale which assessed the extent to which they became involved in the suggestion. The alternatives on this scale ranged from (a) not concentrating on the suggestion throughout any of the time (scored 0), to (b) concentrating only on the suggestion throughout all of the time (scored 4). Arm-rigidity. Following the above procedures subjects were asked to close their eyes and extend their left arm straight out at shoulder height. They were then administered an arm-rigidity suggestion containing the following interrelated components; (a) instructions to imagine a cast on their arm that keeps the elbow from bending, and (b) repeated suggestions that the arm is stiff, rigid and immovable. Three seconds after receiving this suggestion, subjects were challanged to try to bend their arm. Five seconds after the challange, they were asked to stop imagining and lower their arm. Subjects were scored as passing the suggestion if their arm did not bend noticably at the elbow before the experimenter asked them to stop imagining. Immediately following this suggestion, subjects were again asked to open their eyes and fill out a five-point Likert-type scale, taken verbatim from Spanos (1973), that assessed the extent to which they experienced their arm-rigidity as an involuntary response. The alternatives on this scale
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
257 TABLE I 2x2x2 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE ON OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE TO SUGGESTIONS
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 23:35 18 October 2014
Overall Objective Score Source of Variation A B C AXB AXC BXC AXBXC Error (Within) Total
df I
1 1 1 1 1 1 56 63
MS 5.64 26.26 .01 .39 .39 .77 .43
F 6.13* 28.54**
