Converging evidence for de-automatization as a function of suggestion

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1579-1581

  Campbell, Natasha K J ^a   Blinderman, Ilia M ^a   Lifshitz, Michael ^a   Raz, Amir ^a,b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attention; De automatization; Hypnosis; Stroop; Suggestion

Indexed keywords

ALEXIA; COLOR VISION; CONSCIOUSNESS; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; NOTE; SEMANTICS; STROOP TEST; SUGGESTION;

CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; SUGGESTION;

EID: 84865363360     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.05.007     Document Type: Note

References (37)

1. Augustinova M., Ferrand L. Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: Evidence from the semantically based Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 1-7.
2. Braffman W., Kirsch I. Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 77(3):578-587.
3. Besner D. The myth of ballistic processing: Evidence from Stroop's paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2001, 8(2):324-330.
4. Besner D., Stolz J. Context dependency in stroop's paradigm: When are words treated as nonlinguistic objects?. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 1999, 53(4):374-380.
5. Besner D., Stolz J.A. Unconsciously controlled processing: The Stroop effect reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1999, 6(3):449-455.
6. Besner D., Stolz J.A. What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1999, 6(1):99-104.
7. Besner D., Stolz J.A., Boutilier C. The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1997, 4(2):221-225.
8. Casiglia E., Schiff S., Facco E., Gabbana A., Tikhonoff V., Schiavon L., et al. Neurophysiological correlates of post-hypnotic alexia: A controlled study with Stroop test. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 2010, 52(3).
9. Dishon-Berkovits M., Algom D. The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory and Cognition 2000, 28(8):1437-1449.
10. Gabler N.B., Duan N., Vohra S., Kravitz R.L. N-of-1 Trials in the Medical Literature: A Systematic Review. Medical Care 2011, 49(8):761-768. 710.1097/MLR.1090b1013e318215d318290d.
11. Iani C., Ricci F., Baroni G., Rubichi S. Attention control and susceptibility to hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition 2009, 18(4):856-863.
12. 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.
13. Kihlstrom J.F. Prospects for de-automatization. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(2):332-334.
14. Kirsch I., Braffman W. Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2001, 10(2):57-61.
15. Kirsch I., Cardeña E., Derbyshire S., Dienes Z., Heap M., Kallio S., et al. Definitions of hypnosis and hypnotizability and their relation to suggestion and suggestibility: A consensus statement. Contemporary Hypnosis and Integrative Therapy 2011, 28(2):107-115.
16. Kravitz R.L., Paterniti D.A., Hay M.C., Subramanian S., Dean D.E., Weisner T., et al. Marketing therapeutic precision: Potential facilitators and barriers to adoption of n-of-1 trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2009, 30(5):436-445.
17. Kuhl J., Kazén M. Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: Joint activation of intention memory and positive affect removes stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1999, 128(3):382-399.
18. Lifshitz M., Campbell N.K.J., Raz A. Varieties of attention in hypnosis and meditation. Consciousness and Cognition 2012, 21(3):1582-1585.
19. Long D.L., Prat C.S. Working memory and stroop interference: An individual differences investigation. Memory and Cognition 2002, 30(2):294-301.
20. MacLeod C.M., Sheehan P.W. Hypnotic control of attention in the Stroop task: A historical footnote. Consciousness and Cognition 2003, 12(3):347-353.
21. McGurk H., MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976, 264(5588):746-748.
22. Melara R.D., Algom D. Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review 2003, 110(3):422-471.
23. Pansky A., Algom D. Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: Attention preempts automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 2002, 28(2):259-274.
24. Parris B.A., Dienes Z., Hodgson T.L. Temporal constraints of the post-hypnotic word blindness suggestion on Stroop task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2012.
25. Raz A. Suggestibility and hypnotizability: Mind the gap. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 2007, 49(3):205-210.
26. Raz A., Campbell N.K.J. Can suggestion obviate reading? Supplementing primary Stroop evidence with exploratory negative priming analyses. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(2):312-320.
27. Raz A., Fan J., Posner M.I. Hypnotic suggestion reduces conflict in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005, 102(28):9978-9983.
28. Raz A., Kirsch I., Pollard J., Nitkin-Kaner Y. Suggestion reduces the Stroop effect. Psychological Science 2006, 17(2):91-95.
29. Raz A., Landzberg K.S., Schweizer H.R., Zephrani Z.R., Shapiro T., Fan J., et al. Posthypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference under cycloplegia. Consciousness and Cognition 2003, 12(3):332-346.
30. Raz A., Moreno-Iniguez M., Martin L., Zhu H. Suggestion overrides the Stroop effect in highly hypnotizable individuals. Consciousness and Cognition 2007, 16(2):331-338.
31. Raz A. Atypical attention: Hypnosis and conflict resolution. Cognitive neuroscience of attention 2004, 420-429. Guilford Press, New York. M.I. Posner (Ed.).
32. Raz A., Shapiro T., Fan J., Posner M.I. Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Archives of General Psychiatry 2002, 59(12):1155-1161.
33. Schatzman M. The story of Ruth 1980, Putnam, New York.
34. Shor R.E., Orne E.C. Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility: Form A 1962, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.
35. Sun S. A comparative study of Stroop effect under hypnosis and in the normal waking state. Psychological Science (Published by the Chinese Psychological Society; written in Chinese) 1994, 17(5):287-290.
36. Terhune D.B., Cardeña E., Lindgren M. Disruption of synaesthesia by posthypnotic suggestion: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(11):3360-3364.
37. Weitzenhoffer A.M. Hypnotic susceptibility revisited. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 1980, 22(3):130-146.