An empirical test of Woody and Bowers's dissociated-control theory of hypnosis

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 232-249

  Jamieson, Graham A ^a,b   Sheehan, Peter W ^c  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; CINGULATE GYRUS; EMPIRICISM; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPNOSIS; HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; PREDICTION; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR VISION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER; FEMALE; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS; FEMALE; GYRUS CINGULI; HUMANS; HYPNOSIS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; REACTION TIME; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMANTICS;

EID: 16644371004     PISSN: 00207144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0020714049052349     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Banich, M. T., Milham, M. P., Atchley, R. A., Cohen, N. J., Webb, A., et al. (2000). Prefrontal regions play a predominant role in imposing an attentional "set": Evidence from fMRI. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 1-9.
2. Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179-181.
3. Dixon, M., Brunet, A., & Laurence, J.-R. (1990). Hypnotizability and automaticity: Toward a parallel distributed processing model of hypnotic responding. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 336-343.
4. Donovan, P. B. (1989). Task explication of trait (absorption) differences in performance using Stroop interference. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
5. Jack, A. I., & Shallice, T. (2001). Introspective physicalism as an approach to the science of consciousness. Cognition, 79, 161-196.
6. Jamieson, G. A., & Sheehan, P. W. (2002). A critical evaluation of the relationship between sustained attentional abilities and hypnotic susceptibility. Contemporary Hypnosis, 19, 62-75.
7. Kaiser, J., Barker, R., Haenschel, C., Baldeweg, T., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1997). Hypnosis and event-related potential correlates of error processing in a Stroop-type paradigm: A test of the frontal hypothesis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27, 215-222.
8. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1998). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 100-115.
9. MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288, 1835-1838.
10. MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 383-391.
11. Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Webb, A., Barad, V., Cohen, N. J., Wszalek, T., & Kramer, A. F. (2001). The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on the nature of the conflict. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 467-473.
12. Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Claus, E. D., & Cohen, N. J. (2003). Practice-related effects demonstrate complementary roles of anterior cingulated and prefrontal cortices in attentional control. Neuroimaging, 18, 483-493.
13. Nordby, H., Hugdhal, K., Jasiukaitis, P., & Spiegel, D. (1999). Effects of hypnotizability on performance of a Stroop task and event-related potentials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 819-830.
14. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.
15. Sheehan, P. W., Donovan, P. B., & MacLeod, C. M. (1988). Strategy manipulation and the Stroop effect in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 455-460.
16. Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
17. Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-661.
18. Stuss, D. T., Shallice, T., Alexander, M. P., & Picton, T. W. (1995). A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769, 191-211.
19. Tellegen, A. (1981). Practicing the two disciplines for relaxation and enlightenment: Comment on "Role of the feedback signal in electromyograph biofeedback: The relevance of attention" by Qualls and Sheehan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 217-226.
20. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences: Absorption, a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268-277.
21. Van Zomeren, A. H., & Brouwer, W. H. (1994). Clinical neuropsychology of attention. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
23. Woody, E., & Bowers, K. (1994). A frontal assault on dissociated control. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 52-79). New York: Guilford.
24. Woody, E., & Farvolden, P. (1998). Dissociation in hypnosis and frontal executive function. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 206-215.