Can expectation enhance response to suggestion? De-automatization illuminates a conundrum

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 1001-1008

  Lifshitz, Michael ^a   Howells, Catherine ^a   Raz, Amir ^a,b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attention; Automatic processes; Expectancy; Hypnosis; McGurk effect; Suggestion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; MALE; SUGGESTION;

ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; APTITUDE TESTS; ATTENTION; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SUGGESTION;

EID: 84860507133     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Benham G., Bowers S., Nash M., Muenchen R. Self-fulfilling prophecy and hypnotic response are not the same thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 75(6):1604-1613.
2. Benham G., Woody E.Z., Wilson K.S., Nash M.R. Expect the unexpected: Ability, attitude, and responsiveness to hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006, 91(2):342-350.
3. Braffman W., Kirsch I. Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 77(3):578-587.
4. Colin C., Radeau M., Soquet A., Demolin D., Colin F., Deltenre P. Mismatch negativity evoked by the McGurk-MacDonald effect: A phonetic representation within short-term memory. Clinical Neurophysiology 2002, 113(4):495-506.
5. Dixon M., Laurence J.-R. Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal automaticity: Automatic and strategic processing differences in the Stroop color-naming task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1992, 101(2):344-347.
6. Fan J., Fossella J., Sommer T., Wu Y., Posner M.I. Mapping the genetic variation of executive attention onto brain activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100(12):7406-7411.
7. Gfeller J.D., Gorassini D.R. Enhancing hypnotizability and treatment response. Handbook of clinical hypnosis 2010, 339-355. APA, Washington. 2nd ed. S. Lynn, J. Rhue, I. Kirsch (Eds.).
8. Graffin N.F., Ray W.J., Lundy R. EEG concomitants of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1995, 104(1):123-131.
9. Green J.P., Lynn S.J. Hypnotic responsiveness: Expectancy, attitudes, fantasy proneness, absorption, and gender. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 2011, 51(1):103-121.
10. Horton J.E., Crawford H.J., Harrington G., Downs J.H. Increased anterior corpus callosum size associated positively with hypnotizability and the ability to control pain. Brain 2004, 127(8):1741-1747.
11. Iani C., Ricci F., Gherri E., Rubichi S. Hypnotic suggestion modulates cognitive conflict: The case of the flanker compatibility effect. Psychological Science 2006, 17(8):721-727.
12. Kihlstrom J.F. The fox, the hedgehog, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 2003, 51(2):166-189.
13. Kirsch I. Response-expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psychologist 1985, 40(11):1189-1202.
14. Kirsch I. Response-expectancy theory and application: A decennial review. Applied and Preventive Psychology 1997, 6(2):69-79.
15. Kirsch I., Braffman W. Correlates of hypnotizability: The first empirical study. Contemporary Hypnosis 1999, 16(4):224-230.
16. Kirsch I., Council J.R. Situational and personality correlates of hypnotic responsiveness. Contemporary hypnosis research 1992, 267-291. Guilford Press, New York. E. Fromm, M. Nash (Eds.).
17. Kirsch I., Wickless C., Moffitt K.H. Expectancy and suggestibility: Are the effects of environmental enhancement due to detection?. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 1999, 47(1):40-45.
18. Kislyuk D.S., Möttönen R., Sams M. Visual processing affects the neural basis of auditory discrimination. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20(12):2175-2184.
19. Lynn S.J., Kirsch I., Hallquist M.N. Social cognitive theories of hypnosis. The oxford handbook of hypnosis: theory, research and practice 2008, 111-140. Oxford University Press, New York. A. Barnier, M. Nash (Eds.).
20. MacLeod C.M. Hypnosis and the control of attention: Where to from here?. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(2):321-324.
21. Massaro D.W. Speech perception by ear and eye 1987, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
22. McGurk H., Macdonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976, 264(5588):746-748.
23. Oakley D.A., Halligan P.W. Using hypnosis to gain insights into healthy and pathological cognitive functioning. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(2):328-331.
24. Piccione C., Hilgard E.R., Zimbardo P.G. On the degree of stability of measured hypnotizability over a 25-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1989, 56(2):289-295.
25. Raz, A., Dery, C., & Campbell, N. (2010, November). Using hypnosis to gain control over increasingly automatic processes: From Stroop to McGurk. Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting of the society for clinical and experimental hypnosis, Boston.
26. Raz A., Fan J., Posner M.I. Neuroimaging and genetic associations of attentional and hypnotic processes. Journal of Physiology - Paris 2006, 99(4-6):483-491.
27. Raz A., Kirsch I., Pollard J., Nitkin-Kaner Y. Suggestion reduces the Stroop effect. Psychological Science 2006, 17(2):91-95.
28. Raz A., Shapiro T., Fan J., Posner M. Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Archives of General Psychiatry 2002, 59:1155-1161.
29. Soto-Faraco S., Navrra J., Alsius A. Assessing automaticity in audiovisual speech integration: Evidence from the speeded classification task. Cognition 2004, 92(3):B13-B23.
30. Spanos N.P. Hypnotic behavior: A social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and trance logic. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1986, 9:449-467.
31. Spanos N.P., Radtke H.L., Hodgins D.C., Stam H.J., Bertrand L.D. The Carleton University responsiveness to suggestion scale: Normative data and psychometric properties. Psychological Reports 1983, 53(2):523-535.
32. Summerfield Q., McGrath M. Detection and resolution of audio-visual incompatibility in the perception of vowels. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 1984, 36(1):51-74.
33. Tellegen A., Atkinson G. Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (" absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1974, 83(3):268-277.
34. Terhune D.B., Cardeña E., Lingdren M. Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 2011, 16(2):113-135.
35. Wickless C., Kirsch I. Effects of verbal and experiential expectancy manipulations on hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1989, 57(5):762-768.