Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1977, Vol. 86, No. 4, 346-351
Suggestion and Countersuggestion in Hypnotic Behavior Harold S. Zamansky Northeastern University It is widely believed that the successful response to hypnotic suggestions requires the subject to focus his attention on the content of these suggestions and to avoid incompatible and conflicting cognitive activities. This assumption was tested by exposing 12 subjects continuously to incompatible suggestions and images as they attempted to respond to the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. The effect of incompatible suggestions on task-motivated behavior was also assessed with 8 additional subjects. Performance under these circumstances was just as effective as in baseline sessions (without incompatible suggestions) for 9 hypnotic and 6 task-motivated subjects. Performance of the remainder of the subjects was partially successful. The behavior of most subjects was more closely related to their beliefs about how the experimenter expected them to respond than to whether they engaged in incompatible cognitive activities. The results are viewed as consistent with a dissociation interpretation of hypnosis. What is required for a hypnotized person to carry out suggestions successfully? The recent literature agrees on at least one of the necessary ingredients: Just about everyone seems to believe that to respond effectively under hypnosis, a person must focus his attention on the suggestions of the hypnotist while remaining inattentive to thoughts and images that are inconsistent and incompatible with these suggestions. Thus, Spanos and Barber (1974), in an article that attempts to synthesize current views of hypnosis, conclude that Major theoreticians in the area of hypnosis, regardless of paradigm affiliation, are converging on the conclusion that responding to suggestions [requires, in addition to other variables, that the subject be adept at] disregarding information that is inconsistent with the aims of the suggestions. . . . An individual cannot sustain and elaborate a pattern of imaginings while also focusing on information that contradicts his imaginings. On the contrary, the
A shorter version of this article was presented at the 28th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, in Philadelphia, June 1976. I am grateful to John Kearns, Howard Poizner, and Bertram Scharf for a critical reading of an early version of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Harold S. Zamansky, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
346
process of sustaining imaginings necessarily implies the complementary process of ignoring or disregarding inconsistent and irrelevant information, (pp. 500-501)
Similarly, As (1962) has written that "It is the positive focusing of attention with ensuing absorption in its object that is of importance in hypnosis. It is suggested that the subject becomes oblivious or inattentive to irrelevant stimuli as an effect of this absorption" (p. 137; see also Arnold, 1946; Bowers, 1976; Hilgard, 1970; Sarbin & Coe, 1972; Shor, 1970; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). Perhaps the most explicit statement of the matter is given by Barber and DeMoor (1972): The more a subject thinks with and vividly imagines the suggested effects, the less he tells himself that the suggested events cannot or will not occur, that is, the less he covertly contradicts the suggestions. We see responsiveness to test-suggestions as directly related to thinking with and vividly imagining those things that are suggested and inversely related to thinking against (covertly contradicting) the suggestions, (pp. 123-124)
Accordingly, a subject who is told, for example, that his arm is rigid and immobile must focus his attention upon congruent thoughts and images while avoiding ideas about what it would be like to bend his arm. Curiously, despite the convergence of opinion,
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR
this "absorption" notion of the good hypnotic subject's cognitive behavior has not been examined directly in the experimental literature of hypnosis. A number of older studies (Hilgard, 1963; Wells, 1940; Young, 1927, 1928) examined the effect of simply asking hypnotized subjects to resist performing one or two suggestions specified from a larger series. There was no attempt by the hypnotist, however, to encourage the subjects to engage extensively in incompatible cognitive activities (nor was there a systematic effort to discover what the subjects thought the experimenter really expected them to do) as in the present experiment. Also somewhat' obliquely related are studies, such as that of Mitchell (1970), that have measured the ability of high- and low-hypnotically susceptible subjects to resist distractions produced by auditory and/or visual stimuli while engaged in an experimental task. These stimuli (e.g., a taped conversation in an adjoining office regarding an ESP experiment), while potentially distracting, are not incongruent with and do not directly contradict the substantive content of the experimental task (e.g., compensatory tracking). Thus, these experiments do not provide a direct test of the hypothesis that responses to hypnotic suggestions are impaired by the presence of conflicting and incompatible cognitive events. The purpose of the present study was to determine the validity of this hypothesis by assessing the hypnotic responsiveness of subjects who were exposed to, and presumably were engaging in, cognitive activities incompatible with the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. Additionally, the subjects' beliefs about how the experimenter expected them to respond were examined and manipulated, since this variable may represent another potential source of cognitive compatibility or incompatibility in the hypnotic situation. Finally, because it is sometimes claimed that responses following task-motivational instructions are similar to those following a hypnotic induction (Barber, 1969), the effect of incompatible suggestions on task-motivated behavior was also assessed.
347
Method Siibjects Twelve subjects were run in the hypnotic condition (hypnotic group), and 8 were run in the task-motivation condition (task group). Subjects were college undergraduates of both sexes who were not paid for their participation in the experiment. The subjects in the hypnotic group had volunteered for "an experiment using hypnosis," while the task subjects were volunteers for "an experiment on imaginative processes." All subjects were selected from among those who had responded positively to arm-levitation suggestions administered to classrooms of students. Twenty-seven students were individually administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) following hypnotic induction. Of these, 12 who achieved a score of at least 8 were included in the hypnotic group. Similarly, 20 students were administered the SHSS:A following Barber's standard instructions for task motivation (Barber, 1969, p. 46) without hypnotic induction. Of these, 8 subjects who achieved a score of at least 8 were included in the task group.
Procedure Subjects were seen individually for one session. Most kept their eyes closed throughout the session. The subjects in the hypnotic group were administered all suggestions after being hypnotized by a modified form of the hypnotic induction section of the SHSS:A. Those in the task group were administered all suggestions after receiving Barber's task-motivation instructions (Barber, 1969, p. 46). Baseline levels of response (to hypnosis or to task-motivation instructions) were measured for each subject on two or more target suggestions that were selected at random from a pool of five suggestions. While the number of these suggestions administered to each subject depended upon the time available for the experimental session, most were given at least three. Anyone who failed a suggestion was discontinued from the experiment. All 20 subjects retained in the experiment passed all the target suggestions administered them. The target suggestions were as follows: Arm catalepsy. The subject was asked to extend his dominant arm and to make a fist. He was told that his arm was becoming stiff and rigid and that on the count of "three" he was to try to bend his arm, but he would find that he would not be able to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the arm did not bend at the elbow during a period of 10 sec. Finger lock. The subject was asked to extend his arms and interlace his fingers. He was told that his hands were becoming stuck together and that on the count of "three" he was to try to separate his hands, but he would find that he would not be
348
HAROLD S. ZAMANSKY
able to do so. This item was scored as passed if there was no separation of the palms or if the fingers were incompletely separated during a 10sec period. Chair hold. The subject was told while seated that he was becoming stuck to the chair and that on the count of "three" he was to try to rise from the chair, but he would find that he would be unable to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject did not completely separate his body from the chair during a 10-sec period. Verbal inhibition. The subject was told that on the count of "three" he would be unable to speak the name "Eisenhower," even though he would try to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject did not speak the full name (all four syllables) during a 10-sec period. Bad cigarette taste. If a subject habitually smoked cigarettes and if he had his cigarettes with him, he was asked to select one of his cigarettes and was told that that cigarette would taste especially bad to him. He was then asked to light the cigarette and report his impressions. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject reported that the cigarette tasted or smelled bad. The experiment then continued in the following three parts: 1. The target suggestions were administered again and each subject's responses noted, this time while he was exposed to, and presumably experienced, incompatible suggestions and imagery. Each subject was tested on at least two of the target suggestions that had been given him during the baseline measurements. To encourage the occurrence of cognitions incompatible with the target suggestions, the following procedures were followed: Before receiving each target suggestion (e.g., arm catalepsy), the subject was asked to practice the opposite response several times (bending his arm) and was instructed to note and recall subsequently exactly what movements and what muscle systems he was using to produce the response. Prior to and during the test of the target suggestions, the subject was told "Remember, these are only words. I haven't actually done anything physically to you." After the experimenter administered each target suggestion, he urged the subject to think that he should be able to resist the suggestion and to picture himself performing the opposing response by recalling his preceding practice experience ("Picture yourself bending your arm" or "Imagine what it would be like to bend your arm"). The subject was also encouraged to perform another competing suggestion (bending his other arm) and to try to apply that experience in resisting the target suggestion. (Subjects were always able to carry out the other competing suggestion without difficulty.) Simultaneously, for those subjects whose eyes remained open, the experimenter modeled the competing response. As a subject was responding to each target suggestion, he was urged to speak his incompatible thoughts aloud. Occasional reminders of the direct suggestion were interspersed with the incompatible suggestions: "You
will find, nevertheless, that your right arm won't bend." Each test of the target suggestions usually extended well beyond the minimum 10-sec criterion period. After the administration of each target suggestion under the above conditions, each subject was questioned about his cognitive experiences: "I want you to tell me as fully as you can exactly what you were thinking about and imagining as you were trying to bend your right arm." 2. When the target suggestions and the inquiries were completed, the subject was asked how he believed the experimenter had expected him to respond to the target suggestions: "What did you think I expected you to do when I suggested [for example] that you would be unable to bend your right arm or be unable to say 'Eisenhower'?" He was then informed casually that, because of the incompatible imagery, the experimenter had not necessarily expected him to perform the target suggestions successfully (e.g., to remain unable to bend his arm). The experimenter noted that imagining a particular act often leads to its direct expression in overt behavior. Thus, the experimenter observed, it would not have been at all surprising if the subject had failed to carry out the target suggestions successfully while engaged in incompatible imagery. 3. The subject was tested again on one target suggestion (selected at random from among those performed previously) while exposed to the incompatible suggestions and imagery. He was then questioned about his cognitive experiences and about his notion of the experimenter's expectations regarding his response to that target suggestion. Hypnosis was then terminated for the subjects in the hypnotic group.
Results The numbering of the following paragraphs corresponds to the three parts of the Procedure section above: 1. When target suggestions were administered with incompatible suggestions and imagery, all subjects in both the hypnotic and task groups passed at least one target suggestion, while 9 of the 12 hypnotic subjects and 6 of the 8 task subjects passed all target suggestions administered them (see Table 1). The subjects' responses to the target suggestions were, overall, similar to their baseline behavior where there had been no incompatible suggestions. Subjects frequently expressed surprise as they experienced the effectiveness of the target suggestions. Sometimes their subjective impressions (with eyes closed) contrasted
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR
Table 1 Number of Target Suggestions A dministered and Passed with Incompatible Suggestions Subject
Items administered
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hypnosis 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Task motivation 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2
1
Items passed
2 3 2 1 3
2 2 4 2 4
2 2
1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2
All subjects reported that they believed the experimenter expected them to respond positively to the target suggestions.
markedly with what was actually happening: "My arm feels as if it is bending" and "If I didn't feel the chair with my hands, I'd think I was standing up." Almost without exception in both groups of subjects, responses scored as failures were carried out with much visible evidence of effort and conflict.1 In the inquiry that followed, all subjects reported having had vivid and continuous incompatible cognitive experiences while attempting the target suggestions. Typical comments, from subjects in both groups, were as follows: "I kept thinking about my hands separating"; "It's like my mind does one thing, but my body does another thing"; "I tend to think in pictures, and I was definitely picturing myself standing up"; "There was a moment when I was convinced my arm was bending"; "I was determined to get up; I really thought I was doing it"; and "I was sure I was going to say it ['Eisenhower']."
349
2. All subjects reported that, despite the incompatible suggestions, they believed that the experimenter had expected them to carry out the target suggestions successfully. Typical comments from subjects in both groups were as follows: "I think you really wanted me to remain seated"; "I thought you wanted them [hands] to stay together"; and "I couldn't believe you really wanted me to say it ['Eisenhower']." 3. In the next portion of the experiment, in which target suggestions were again administered in association with incompatible suggestions and imagery—this time, however, after the experimenter's casual comment that he did not necessarily expect the target suggestion to be performed successfully—10 hypnotic and 6 task subjects failed to carry out the target suggestion successfully. In the subsequent inquiry, all subjects reported having had incompatible cognitive experiences while attempting the target suggestion. All the subjects in both groups who failed the target suggestion reported that they believed the experimenter had not really expected them to comply with the suggestion this time, while the 4 subjects who responded successfully to the target suggestion indicated that they believed that the experimenter had still expected compliance with it. Examples of the latter are as follows: "I couldn't believe you really expected me to separate my hands" and "I think you really wanted me to remain seated." Thus, there was a perfect correspondence between a subject's performance and his belief about the experimenter's expectations, 2 1 In a recent demonstration of hypnosis, the subject (not one of those in the present experiment) was an advanced student in a speech therapy program. I gave her the suggestion that she would not be able to speak the name "Eisenhower" and then urged her to consider the various procedures she would employ if she were helping one of her patients to speak that name. Despite a prolonged effort, the subject remained unable to speak the name. 2 The order of types of suggestions was not controlled in the present experiment, Direct suggestions were always given first, followed by direct suggestions given in association with incompatible suggestions, followed by direct suggestions given with incompatible suggestions and with the casual com-
350
HAROLD S. ZAMANSKY
Discussion It is clear that the introduction of incompatible and conflicting suggestions and imagery does not significantly impair responses to hypnotic and task-motivated suggestions. The subjects' behavior in either condition is better predicted from a knowledge of how they believe the experimenter expects them to respond than from a knowledge of their cognitive activity vis a vis the target suggestions themselves. When the subjects believed that the experimenter expected them to respond successfully to the target suggestions, they were able to do so despite a prolonged exposure to incompatible suggestions and images. These results offer a serious challenge to the widely held "absorption" notion that a subject's cognitive resources must be committed almost exclusively to the direct suggestions of the hypnotist for these suggestions to be carried out successfully (Bowers, 1976, pp. 118-122). Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) speak of absorption as a "state of 'total attention' during which the available representational apparatus seems to be entirely dedicated to experiencing and modeling the attentional object" (p. 2 7 4 ) . Clearly, this need not be the case. The present results provide ample evidence that subjects can respond successfully to suggestions while engaged in extensive discordant cognitive activities. Under such circumstances, one may question the appropriateness of describing the good hypnotic subject as necessarily "absorbed" in the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. Similarly, one may wish to reconsider related notions such as "organismic involvement" (Sarbin & Coe, 1972). The data of the present experiment are best accounted for by the notion of dissociation—or neodissociation—revised recently by Hilgard (1973, 1974). Hilgard (197S) "posment that a successful response to the target suggestion was not necessarily expected. There is, therefore, the possibility that incompatible suggestions are ineffective only when given to subjects who have previously responded successfully to the target suggestions. This possibility remains to be assessed in future work.
tulates a hierarchy of control systems operating at any one time in a given individual, and sees hypnosis as modifying the hierarchical arrangement of these controls, so that some become segregated (dissociated) from others" (p. 2 4 ) . Perhaps the matter in the present experiment can be put as follows: The subjects in the various portions of the experiment appeared to be aware simultaneously of two suggestions—to respond to the direct suggestions of the experimenter and to respond to the discordant suggestions. Their behavior, however, was determined for the most part by what they believed the experimenter expected them to do; that is, they responded to the suggestions that were concordant with their understanding of the experimenter's expectancies. It is as if the good hypnotic subject—as well as the good taskmotivated subject—suppresses inappropriate acts without having to suppress inappropriate thoughts. One may speculate that this may often be the case in situations involving hypnosis. Even when the experimenter does not explicitly supply incompatible suggestions, it may be that subjects, while hypnotized, are frequently aware of a variety of conflicting ideas. But it is their assumption about the hypnotist's expectancies that provides the structure for specific action and determines what they will do. It may be this capacity for specific, circumscribed dissociations that distinguishes the good hypnotic subject from the poor one. The subjects in the present experiment all achieved a score of at least 8 on the SHSS:A. It remains to be seen whether incompatible suggestions disrupt the successful performance of suggestions administered to less susceptible hypnotic subjects. At least as far as the good hypnotic subject is concerned, however, the prediction of behavior under hypnosis appears to depend more on his understanding of the way the experimenter expects him to respond than on whether he experiences incompatible suggestions and images. References Arnold, M. B. On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 107-128.
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR As, A. A note on distractibility and hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1962, 5, 135-137. Barber, T. X. Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969. Barber, T. X., & DeMoor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, 15, 112-135. Bowers, K. S. Hypnosis for the seriously curious. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1976. Hilgard, E. R. Ability to resist suggestions within the hypnotic state: Responsiveness to conflicting communications. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 3-13. Hilgard, E. R. Dissociation revisited. In M. Henle, J. Jaynes, & J. J. Sullivan (Eds.), Historical conceptions of psychology. New York: Springer, 1973. Hilgard, E. R. Toward a neo-dissociation theory: Multiple cognitive controls in human functioning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1974, 17, 301-316. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnosis. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 26). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1975. Hilgard, J. R. Personality and hypnosis: A study of imaginative involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Mitchell, M. B. Hypnotizability and distractibility. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970, 13, 35-45.
351
Sarbin, T. R., & Coe, W. C. Hypnosis: A social psychological analysis of influence communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Shor, R. E. The three-factor theory of hypnosis as applied to the bookreading fantasy and to the concept of suggestion. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 89-98. Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. Toward a convergence in hypnosis research. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 500-511. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a tract related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, S3, 268-277. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Wells, W. R. Ability to resist artificially induced dissociation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 261-272. Young, P. C. Is rapport an essential characteristic of hypnosis? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 22, 130-139. Young, P. C. The nature of hypnosis: As indicated by the presence or absence of post-hypnotic amnesia and rapport. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1928, 22, 372-382. Received November S, 1976 Revision received March IS, 1977 •
Suggestion and Countersuggestion in Hypnotic Behavior Harold S. Zamansky Northeastern University It is widely believed that the successful response to hypnotic suggestions requires the subject to focus his attention on the content of these suggestions and to avoid incompatible and conflicting cognitive activities. This assumption was tested by exposing 12 subjects continuously to incompatible suggestions and images as they attempted to respond to the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. The effect of incompatible suggestions on task-motivated behavior was also assessed with 8 additional subjects. Performance under these circumstances was just as effective as in baseline sessions (without incompatible suggestions) for 9 hypnotic and 6 task-motivated subjects. Performance of the remainder of the subjects was partially successful. The behavior of most subjects was more closely related to their beliefs about how the experimenter expected them to respond than to whether they engaged in incompatible cognitive activities. The results are viewed as consistent with a dissociation interpretation of hypnosis. What is required for a hypnotized person to carry out suggestions successfully? The recent literature agrees on at least one of the necessary ingredients: Just about everyone seems to believe that to respond effectively under hypnosis, a person must focus his attention on the suggestions of the hypnotist while remaining inattentive to thoughts and images that are inconsistent and incompatible with these suggestions. Thus, Spanos and Barber (1974), in an article that attempts to synthesize current views of hypnosis, conclude that Major theoreticians in the area of hypnosis, regardless of paradigm affiliation, are converging on the conclusion that responding to suggestions [requires, in addition to other variables, that the subject be adept at] disregarding information that is inconsistent with the aims of the suggestions. . . . An individual cannot sustain and elaborate a pattern of imaginings while also focusing on information that contradicts his imaginings. On the contrary, the
A shorter version of this article was presented at the 28th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, in Philadelphia, June 1976. I am grateful to John Kearns, Howard Poizner, and Bertram Scharf for a critical reading of an early version of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Harold S. Zamansky, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
346
process of sustaining imaginings necessarily implies the complementary process of ignoring or disregarding inconsistent and irrelevant information, (pp. 500-501)
Similarly, As (1962) has written that "It is the positive focusing of attention with ensuing absorption in its object that is of importance in hypnosis. It is suggested that the subject becomes oblivious or inattentive to irrelevant stimuli as an effect of this absorption" (p. 137; see also Arnold, 1946; Bowers, 1976; Hilgard, 1970; Sarbin & Coe, 1972; Shor, 1970; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). Perhaps the most explicit statement of the matter is given by Barber and DeMoor (1972): The more a subject thinks with and vividly imagines the suggested effects, the less he tells himself that the suggested events cannot or will not occur, that is, the less he covertly contradicts the suggestions. We see responsiveness to test-suggestions as directly related to thinking with and vividly imagining those things that are suggested and inversely related to thinking against (covertly contradicting) the suggestions, (pp. 123-124)
Accordingly, a subject who is told, for example, that his arm is rigid and immobile must focus his attention upon congruent thoughts and images while avoiding ideas about what it would be like to bend his arm. Curiously, despite the convergence of opinion,
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR
this "absorption" notion of the good hypnotic subject's cognitive behavior has not been examined directly in the experimental literature of hypnosis. A number of older studies (Hilgard, 1963; Wells, 1940; Young, 1927, 1928) examined the effect of simply asking hypnotized subjects to resist performing one or two suggestions specified from a larger series. There was no attempt by the hypnotist, however, to encourage the subjects to engage extensively in incompatible cognitive activities (nor was there a systematic effort to discover what the subjects thought the experimenter really expected them to do) as in the present experiment. Also somewhat' obliquely related are studies, such as that of Mitchell (1970), that have measured the ability of high- and low-hypnotically susceptible subjects to resist distractions produced by auditory and/or visual stimuli while engaged in an experimental task. These stimuli (e.g., a taped conversation in an adjoining office regarding an ESP experiment), while potentially distracting, are not incongruent with and do not directly contradict the substantive content of the experimental task (e.g., compensatory tracking). Thus, these experiments do not provide a direct test of the hypothesis that responses to hypnotic suggestions are impaired by the presence of conflicting and incompatible cognitive events. The purpose of the present study was to determine the validity of this hypothesis by assessing the hypnotic responsiveness of subjects who were exposed to, and presumably were engaging in, cognitive activities incompatible with the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. Additionally, the subjects' beliefs about how the experimenter expected them to respond were examined and manipulated, since this variable may represent another potential source of cognitive compatibility or incompatibility in the hypnotic situation. Finally, because it is sometimes claimed that responses following task-motivational instructions are similar to those following a hypnotic induction (Barber, 1969), the effect of incompatible suggestions on task-motivated behavior was also assessed.
347
Method Siibjects Twelve subjects were run in the hypnotic condition (hypnotic group), and 8 were run in the task-motivation condition (task group). Subjects were college undergraduates of both sexes who were not paid for their participation in the experiment. The subjects in the hypnotic group had volunteered for "an experiment using hypnosis," while the task subjects were volunteers for "an experiment on imaginative processes." All subjects were selected from among those who had responded positively to arm-levitation suggestions administered to classrooms of students. Twenty-seven students were individually administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) following hypnotic induction. Of these, 12 who achieved a score of at least 8 were included in the hypnotic group. Similarly, 20 students were administered the SHSS:A following Barber's standard instructions for task motivation (Barber, 1969, p. 46) without hypnotic induction. Of these, 8 subjects who achieved a score of at least 8 were included in the task group.
Procedure Subjects were seen individually for one session. Most kept their eyes closed throughout the session. The subjects in the hypnotic group were administered all suggestions after being hypnotized by a modified form of the hypnotic induction section of the SHSS:A. Those in the task group were administered all suggestions after receiving Barber's task-motivation instructions (Barber, 1969, p. 46). Baseline levels of response (to hypnosis or to task-motivation instructions) were measured for each subject on two or more target suggestions that were selected at random from a pool of five suggestions. While the number of these suggestions administered to each subject depended upon the time available for the experimental session, most were given at least three. Anyone who failed a suggestion was discontinued from the experiment. All 20 subjects retained in the experiment passed all the target suggestions administered them. The target suggestions were as follows: Arm catalepsy. The subject was asked to extend his dominant arm and to make a fist. He was told that his arm was becoming stiff and rigid and that on the count of "three" he was to try to bend his arm, but he would find that he would not be able to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the arm did not bend at the elbow during a period of 10 sec. Finger lock. The subject was asked to extend his arms and interlace his fingers. He was told that his hands were becoming stuck together and that on the count of "three" he was to try to separate his hands, but he would find that he would not be
348
HAROLD S. ZAMANSKY
able to do so. This item was scored as passed if there was no separation of the palms or if the fingers were incompletely separated during a 10sec period. Chair hold. The subject was told while seated that he was becoming stuck to the chair and that on the count of "three" he was to try to rise from the chair, but he would find that he would be unable to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject did not completely separate his body from the chair during a 10-sec period. Verbal inhibition. The subject was told that on the count of "three" he would be unable to speak the name "Eisenhower," even though he would try to do so. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject did not speak the full name (all four syllables) during a 10-sec period. Bad cigarette taste. If a subject habitually smoked cigarettes and if he had his cigarettes with him, he was asked to select one of his cigarettes and was told that that cigarette would taste especially bad to him. He was then asked to light the cigarette and report his impressions. This suggestion was scored as passed if the subject reported that the cigarette tasted or smelled bad. The experiment then continued in the following three parts: 1. The target suggestions were administered again and each subject's responses noted, this time while he was exposed to, and presumably experienced, incompatible suggestions and imagery. Each subject was tested on at least two of the target suggestions that had been given him during the baseline measurements. To encourage the occurrence of cognitions incompatible with the target suggestions, the following procedures were followed: Before receiving each target suggestion (e.g., arm catalepsy), the subject was asked to practice the opposite response several times (bending his arm) and was instructed to note and recall subsequently exactly what movements and what muscle systems he was using to produce the response. Prior to and during the test of the target suggestions, the subject was told "Remember, these are only words. I haven't actually done anything physically to you." After the experimenter administered each target suggestion, he urged the subject to think that he should be able to resist the suggestion and to picture himself performing the opposing response by recalling his preceding practice experience ("Picture yourself bending your arm" or "Imagine what it would be like to bend your arm"). The subject was also encouraged to perform another competing suggestion (bending his other arm) and to try to apply that experience in resisting the target suggestion. (Subjects were always able to carry out the other competing suggestion without difficulty.) Simultaneously, for those subjects whose eyes remained open, the experimenter modeled the competing response. As a subject was responding to each target suggestion, he was urged to speak his incompatible thoughts aloud. Occasional reminders of the direct suggestion were interspersed with the incompatible suggestions: "You
will find, nevertheless, that your right arm won't bend." Each test of the target suggestions usually extended well beyond the minimum 10-sec criterion period. After the administration of each target suggestion under the above conditions, each subject was questioned about his cognitive experiences: "I want you to tell me as fully as you can exactly what you were thinking about and imagining as you were trying to bend your right arm." 2. When the target suggestions and the inquiries were completed, the subject was asked how he believed the experimenter had expected him to respond to the target suggestions: "What did you think I expected you to do when I suggested [for example] that you would be unable to bend your right arm or be unable to say 'Eisenhower'?" He was then informed casually that, because of the incompatible imagery, the experimenter had not necessarily expected him to perform the target suggestions successfully (e.g., to remain unable to bend his arm). The experimenter noted that imagining a particular act often leads to its direct expression in overt behavior. Thus, the experimenter observed, it would not have been at all surprising if the subject had failed to carry out the target suggestions successfully while engaged in incompatible imagery. 3. The subject was tested again on one target suggestion (selected at random from among those performed previously) while exposed to the incompatible suggestions and imagery. He was then questioned about his cognitive experiences and about his notion of the experimenter's expectations regarding his response to that target suggestion. Hypnosis was then terminated for the subjects in the hypnotic group.
Results The numbering of the following paragraphs corresponds to the three parts of the Procedure section above: 1. When target suggestions were administered with incompatible suggestions and imagery, all subjects in both the hypnotic and task groups passed at least one target suggestion, while 9 of the 12 hypnotic subjects and 6 of the 8 task subjects passed all target suggestions administered them (see Table 1). The subjects' responses to the target suggestions were, overall, similar to their baseline behavior where there had been no incompatible suggestions. Subjects frequently expressed surprise as they experienced the effectiveness of the target suggestions. Sometimes their subjective impressions (with eyes closed) contrasted
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR
Table 1 Number of Target Suggestions A dministered and Passed with Incompatible Suggestions Subject
Items administered
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hypnosis 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Task motivation 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2
1
Items passed
2 3 2 1 3
2 2 4 2 4
2 2
1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2
All subjects reported that they believed the experimenter expected them to respond positively to the target suggestions.
markedly with what was actually happening: "My arm feels as if it is bending" and "If I didn't feel the chair with my hands, I'd think I was standing up." Almost without exception in both groups of subjects, responses scored as failures were carried out with much visible evidence of effort and conflict.1 In the inquiry that followed, all subjects reported having had vivid and continuous incompatible cognitive experiences while attempting the target suggestions. Typical comments, from subjects in both groups, were as follows: "I kept thinking about my hands separating"; "It's like my mind does one thing, but my body does another thing"; "I tend to think in pictures, and I was definitely picturing myself standing up"; "There was a moment when I was convinced my arm was bending"; "I was determined to get up; I really thought I was doing it"; and "I was sure I was going to say it ['Eisenhower']."
349
2. All subjects reported that, despite the incompatible suggestions, they believed that the experimenter had expected them to carry out the target suggestions successfully. Typical comments from subjects in both groups were as follows: "I think you really wanted me to remain seated"; "I thought you wanted them [hands] to stay together"; and "I couldn't believe you really wanted me to say it ['Eisenhower']." 3. In the next portion of the experiment, in which target suggestions were again administered in association with incompatible suggestions and imagery—this time, however, after the experimenter's casual comment that he did not necessarily expect the target suggestion to be performed successfully—10 hypnotic and 6 task subjects failed to carry out the target suggestion successfully. In the subsequent inquiry, all subjects reported having had incompatible cognitive experiences while attempting the target suggestion. All the subjects in both groups who failed the target suggestion reported that they believed the experimenter had not really expected them to comply with the suggestion this time, while the 4 subjects who responded successfully to the target suggestion indicated that they believed that the experimenter had still expected compliance with it. Examples of the latter are as follows: "I couldn't believe you really expected me to separate my hands" and "I think you really wanted me to remain seated." Thus, there was a perfect correspondence between a subject's performance and his belief about the experimenter's expectations, 2 1 In a recent demonstration of hypnosis, the subject (not one of those in the present experiment) was an advanced student in a speech therapy program. I gave her the suggestion that she would not be able to speak the name "Eisenhower" and then urged her to consider the various procedures she would employ if she were helping one of her patients to speak that name. Despite a prolonged effort, the subject remained unable to speak the name. 2 The order of types of suggestions was not controlled in the present experiment, Direct suggestions were always given first, followed by direct suggestions given in association with incompatible suggestions, followed by direct suggestions given with incompatible suggestions and with the casual com-
350
HAROLD S. ZAMANSKY
Discussion It is clear that the introduction of incompatible and conflicting suggestions and imagery does not significantly impair responses to hypnotic and task-motivated suggestions. The subjects' behavior in either condition is better predicted from a knowledge of how they believe the experimenter expects them to respond than from a knowledge of their cognitive activity vis a vis the target suggestions themselves. When the subjects believed that the experimenter expected them to respond successfully to the target suggestions, they were able to do so despite a prolonged exposure to incompatible suggestions and images. These results offer a serious challenge to the widely held "absorption" notion that a subject's cognitive resources must be committed almost exclusively to the direct suggestions of the hypnotist for these suggestions to be carried out successfully (Bowers, 1976, pp. 118-122). Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) speak of absorption as a "state of 'total attention' during which the available representational apparatus seems to be entirely dedicated to experiencing and modeling the attentional object" (p. 2 7 4 ) . Clearly, this need not be the case. The present results provide ample evidence that subjects can respond successfully to suggestions while engaged in extensive discordant cognitive activities. Under such circumstances, one may question the appropriateness of describing the good hypnotic subject as necessarily "absorbed" in the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. Similarly, one may wish to reconsider related notions such as "organismic involvement" (Sarbin & Coe, 1972). The data of the present experiment are best accounted for by the notion of dissociation—or neodissociation—revised recently by Hilgard (1973, 1974). Hilgard (197S) "posment that a successful response to the target suggestion was not necessarily expected. There is, therefore, the possibility that incompatible suggestions are ineffective only when given to subjects who have previously responded successfully to the target suggestions. This possibility remains to be assessed in future work.
tulates a hierarchy of control systems operating at any one time in a given individual, and sees hypnosis as modifying the hierarchical arrangement of these controls, so that some become segregated (dissociated) from others" (p. 2 4 ) . Perhaps the matter in the present experiment can be put as follows: The subjects in the various portions of the experiment appeared to be aware simultaneously of two suggestions—to respond to the direct suggestions of the experimenter and to respond to the discordant suggestions. Their behavior, however, was determined for the most part by what they believed the experimenter expected them to do; that is, they responded to the suggestions that were concordant with their understanding of the experimenter's expectancies. It is as if the good hypnotic subject—as well as the good taskmotivated subject—suppresses inappropriate acts without having to suppress inappropriate thoughts. One may speculate that this may often be the case in situations involving hypnosis. Even when the experimenter does not explicitly supply incompatible suggestions, it may be that subjects, while hypnotized, are frequently aware of a variety of conflicting ideas. But it is their assumption about the hypnotist's expectancies that provides the structure for specific action and determines what they will do. It may be this capacity for specific, circumscribed dissociations that distinguishes the good hypnotic subject from the poor one. The subjects in the present experiment all achieved a score of at least 8 on the SHSS:A. It remains to be seen whether incompatible suggestions disrupt the successful performance of suggestions administered to less susceptible hypnotic subjects. At least as far as the good hypnotic subject is concerned, however, the prediction of behavior under hypnosis appears to depend more on his understanding of the way the experimenter expects him to respond than on whether he experiences incompatible suggestions and images. References Arnold, M. B. On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 107-128.
SUGGESTION AND COUNTERSUGGESTION IN HYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR As, A. A note on distractibility and hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1962, 5, 135-137. Barber, T. X. Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969. Barber, T. X., & DeMoor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, 15, 112-135. Bowers, K. S. Hypnosis for the seriously curious. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1976. Hilgard, E. R. Ability to resist suggestions within the hypnotic state: Responsiveness to conflicting communications. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 3-13. Hilgard, E. R. Dissociation revisited. In M. Henle, J. Jaynes, & J. J. Sullivan (Eds.), Historical conceptions of psychology. New York: Springer, 1973. Hilgard, E. R. Toward a neo-dissociation theory: Multiple cognitive controls in human functioning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1974, 17, 301-316. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnosis. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 26). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1975. Hilgard, J. R. Personality and hypnosis: A study of imaginative involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Mitchell, M. B. Hypnotizability and distractibility. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970, 13, 35-45.
351
Sarbin, T. R., & Coe, W. C. Hypnosis: A social psychological analysis of influence communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Shor, R. E. The three-factor theory of hypnosis as applied to the bookreading fantasy and to the concept of suggestion. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 89-98. Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. Toward a convergence in hypnosis research. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 500-511. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a tract related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, S3, 268-277. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Wells, W. R. Ability to resist artificially induced dissociation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 261-272. Young, P. C. Is rapport an essential characteristic of hypnosis? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 22, 130-139. Young, P. C. The nature of hypnosis: As indicated by the presence or absence of post-hypnotic amnesia and rapport. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1928, 22, 372-382. Received November S, 1976 Revision received March IS, 1977 •
