Disruption of Hypnotic Behavior

  1. Adolfo J. Cangas 1
  2. Carmen Luciano 1
  3. Marino Pérez Álvarez 2
  4. Luis Jorge Ruiz Sánchez 1
  5. Nikolett Eisenbeck 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Almería
    info

    Universidad de Almería

    Almería, España

    ROR https://ror.org/003d3xx08

  2. 2 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Revista:
International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

ISSN: 1577-7057

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 15

Número: 3

Páginas: 3-15

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

Resumen

Hypnosis has often been considered a mysterious phenomenon. In recent decades, procedures have been developed that have allowed us to explain this phenomenon in terms of variables of social or cognitive theories. However, previous approaches have not permitted formulating or delimiting the conditions that are responsible for following suggestions or their explanation in terms of involuntariness. For this purpose, two experiments were performed. In the first one, two hypnotic protocols were compared, the differences of which were aimed at influencing the voluntary and involuntary explanation of following suggestions and the effect of multiple exposure to both protocols. In the second experiment, four procedures to facilitate the voluntary interpretation of behavior were incorporated. The results of the first experiment yielded no statistically significant differences. However, in the second experiment, it was noted that changing the assessment questionnaire of the hypnotic experiences decreased following suggestions by 26%, and together with this, the use of explicit instructions did so by 67%. These results are discussed with regard to changes in rule-governed or instructional behavior in the so-called hypnotic phenomenon.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barber TX (1969). Hypnosis: A Scientific Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Bowers KS & Davidson TM (1991). A neodissociative critique of Spanos’s social-psychological model of hypnosis. In SJ Lynn & JW Rhue (Eds). Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives (pp. 105- 143). New York: Guilford.
  • Cangas AJ (1998). Análisis conductual del comportamiento hipnótico. Acta Comportamentalia, 6, 61-70.
  • Cangas AJ (1999). Análisis y modificación de la susceptibilidad hipnótica. Anales de Psicología, 15, 89-97.
  • Cangas AJ & Pérez Álvarez M (1997). Transformación de las instrucciones en sugestiones mediante procedimientos operantes. Psicothema, 9, 167-174.
  • Deacon JR & Konarski JEA (1987). Correspondence training: An example of rule-governed behavior? Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 20, 391-400.
  • Diamond MJ (1974). Modification of hypnotizability. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 180-198.
  • Dymond S & Barnes D (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163-184
  • Gorassini DR & Spanos NP (1986). A social-cognitive skills approach to successful modification of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1004-1012.
  • Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, & Roche B (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. New York: Plenum Press
  • Hayes SC & Brownstein A (1986). Mentalism, Behavior-Behavior-relations and a Behavior-Analytic View of the Purposes of Science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175-190.
  • Hilgard ER (1986). Divided consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. New York: Wiley.
  • Kirsch I (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psychologist, 40, 1189-1202.
  • Kirsch I & Council JR (1989). Response expectancy as a determinant of hypnotic behavior. In NP Spanos & JF Chaves (Eds). Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective (pp. 360- 379). New York: Prometheus Press.
  • López M, Rodríguez M, & Luciano MC (2011). Contextual Control and Generalization of Say-do Correspondence. A Preliminary Study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11, 269-284.
  • Luciano MC (2000). La hipnosis como un contexto verbal. In J Gil Roales y G. Buela-Casal (Eds.). Hipnosis y Psicología Clínica (Hypnosis and clinical psychology). Madrid: Dyckinson.
  • Luciano MC, Valdivia-Salas S, & Ruiz FJ (2012). The Self as the Context for Rule-governed Behavior. In L McHugh & I Stewart (Eds.), The self and Perspective Taking: Research and Applications (pp. 143-160). Oakland, CA: Context Press.
  • Orne MT (1979). On the simulating subject as quasi-control group in hypnosis research: What, why, and how. In E Fromm & RE Shor (Eds). Hypnosis: Research Developments and Perspectives(519-565). New York: Aldine.
  • Sachs LB & Anderson WL (1967). Modification of hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 15, 172-180.
  • Sarbin TR & Coe WC (1972). Hypnosis: A Social Psychological Analysis of Influence Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
  • Spanos NP (1986). Hypnotic Behavior: A social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and «trance logic». The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 449-502.
  • Spanos NP, Radtke HL, Hodgins DC, Stam HJ, & Bertrand LD (1983). The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestions: Normative data and psychometric properties. Psychological Reports, 53, 523-535.
  • Skinner BF (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
  • Törneke N, Luciano MC, & Valdivia S (2008). Rule governed behavior and psychological problems. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 141-156.
  • Visdómine C & Luciano MC (2002). Formación y transferencia de Locus de Control. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 1, 57 73
  • Wagstaff GF (1981). Hypnosis, compliance and belief. Brighton: Harvester.
  • Wagstaff GF, Parkes M, & Hanley JR (2001). A comparison of posthypnotic amnesia and the simulation of amnesia through brain injury. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 1, 67-78.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet