Motion in response to the hypnotic suggestion of arm rigidity: A window on underlying mechanisms

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 251-268

  Galea, Victoria ^a   Woody, Erik Z ^b   Szechtman, Henry ^a   Pierrynowski, Michael R ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARM; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISSOCIATION; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HALLUCINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPNOSIS; KINEMATICS; MOTION; MOTOR ACTIVITY; NEUROIMAGING; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RIGIDITY; SEX RATIO; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ARM; BIOMECHANICS; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOVEMENT; MUSCLE RIGIDITY; SUGGESTION;

EID: 77953015965     PISSN: 00207144     EISSN: 17445183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207141003760561     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
2. Blakemore, S.-J., Oakley, D. A., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Delusions of alien control in the normal brain. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1058-1067.
3. Bowers, K. S. (1990). Unconscious influences and hypnosis. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health (pp. 143-179). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Bowers, K. S. (1993). The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Normative and comparative data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 35-46.
5. Bowers, K. S. (1998). Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C: Manual and response booklet. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46, 250-268.
6. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456-473.
7. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
8. Hilgard, E. R. (1965). Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
9. Hilgard, E. R. (1977). Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action. New York:Wiley.
10. Holt, R. R. (2003). Some history of a methodological rediscovery. American Psychologist, 58, 406-407.
11. Jamieson, G. A., & Woody, E. (2007). Dissociated control as a paradigm for cognitiveneuroscience research and theorising in hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive-neuroscience perspective (pp. 111-129). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook,W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.New York: Guilford.
13. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Hypnosis. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 385-418.
14. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1992). Hypnosis: A sesquicentennial essay. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 301-314.
15. Kirsch, J., & Lynn, S. J. (1997). Hypnotic involuntariness and the automaticity of everyday life. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 329-349.
16. Kosslyn, S. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Hugdahl, K., Lovallo, W. R., Spiegel, D., et al. (2002). Bridging psychology and biology: The analysis of individuals in groups. American Psychologist, 57, 341-351.
17. Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., & Hallquist, M. N. (2008). Social cognitive theories of hypnosis. In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 111-139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18. Mardia, K. V., & Jupp, P. (2000). Directional statistics (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK:Wiley.
19. McConkey, K. M., Glisky, M. L., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1989). Individual differences among hypnotic virtuosos: A case comparison. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 17, 131-140.
20. Oakley, D. A. (1999). Hypnosis and conversion hysteria: A unifying model. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 4, 243-265.
21. Roelofs, K., Hoogduin, K. A. L., & Keijsers, G. P. J. (2002).Motor imagery during hypnotic arm paralysis in high and low hypnotizable subjects. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 51-66.
22. Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2004). Four decades of group hypnosis scales: What does item response theory tell us about what we've been measuring? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 52, 132-158.
23. Shor, R. E. (1979). The fundamental problem in hypnosis research as viewed fromhistoric perspectives. In E. Fromm & R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Developments in research and new perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 15-41). Chicago: Aldine.
24. Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
25. Spanos,N. P. (1986).Hypnotic behavior: A social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and "trance logic." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 449-502.
26. Spanos, N. P. (1991). A sociocognitive approach to hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 324-361). New York: Guilford.
27. Szechtman, H., Woody, E., Bowers, K. S., & Nahmias, C. (1998). Where the imaginal appears real: A PET study of auditory hallucinations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 1956-1960.
28. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1974). When is an "instruction" an "instruction"? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 22, 258-269.
29. Weitzenhoffer, A.M. (1980). Hypnotic susceptibility revisited. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22, 130-134.
30. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1997). Hypnotic susceptibility: A personal and historical note regarding the development and naming of the Stanford scales. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45, 126-143.
31. Winkel, J. D., Younger, J. W., Tomcik, N., Borckardt, J. J., & Nash, M. R. (2006). Anatomy of a hypnotic response: Self-report estimates, actual behavior, and physiological response to the hypnotic suggestion of arm rigidity. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54, 186-205.
32. Woody, E. Z., & Barnier, A. J. (2008). Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: What do we need and how should we use them? In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 255-281). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33. Woody, E. Z., Barnier, A. J., & McConkey, K. M. (2005). Multiple hypnotizabilities: Differentiating the building blocks of hypnotic response. Psychological Assessment, 17, 200-211.
34. Woody, E. Z., Drugovic, M., & Oakman, J. M. (1997). A reexamination of the role of nonhypnotic suggestibility in hypnotic responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 399-407.
35. Woody, E. Z., & McConkey, K. M. (2003). What we don't know about the brain and hypnosis, but need to: A view from the Buckhorn Inn. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 309-338.
36. Woody, E. Z., & Sadler, P. (1998). On reintegrating dissociated theories: Comment on Kirsch and Lynn (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 123, 192-197.
37. Woody, E. Z., & Sadler, P. (2008). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 81-110). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.