SOME COMMENTS ON THE NATURE OF POSTHYPNOTIC BEHAVIOR

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The expectations hypnotic subjects have about what the experimenter wants are important, but some mechanism is required to explain the quasi-automatic nature of the posthynotic effect which occurs independently of the interests of the experimenter. Findings are incongruent with the role-playing view of hypnosis. Posthyp-notic behavior is behaviorally distinct from compliance and cannot be accounted for except in terms of a qualitative change in the state of the organism. Amnesic and nonamnesic subjects respond to post-hypnotic cues differently. The role amnesia plays in establishing an efficient posthypnotic effect in experimental subjects may be related to differences between the experimental and therapeutic contexts. Experimental subjects whose amnesia has broken down have relative difficulty in responding posthypnotically because they have failed to comply with the hypnotist''s request to forget. The failure is not offset by any therapeutic gain from the response. The most effective post-hypnotic response occurs in those subjects who have an outstanding aptitude for trance and are treated by the hypnotist in the knowledge that they are good hypnotic subjects. Such subjects show a marked consistency in their response, retain their ability to be amnesic, and respond posthypnotically over a considerable period of time. Data draw attention to the complex role attentional processes play in the eliciting of the posthypnotic response. The cue must be registered at a certain level of consciousness for it to elicit the required response, but its eliciting properties may be revoked by contrary motivational states in the hypnotic subject. Concern over the oddity of the response may be 1 factor which affects the process of registration.

This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit: