Temporal constraints of the word blindness posthypnotic suggestion on Stroop task performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 833-837

  Parris, Benjamin A ^a   Dienes, Zoltan ^b   Hodgson, Timothy L ^c  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attention; Control; Hypnosis; Stroop; Suggestion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; STROOP TEST; SUGGESTION; TIME; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPNOSIS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; STROOP TEST; SUGGESTION; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84873714316     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0028131     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Altmann, E., & Trafton, J. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39-83. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2
2. 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. doi:10.1080/ 00207149308414536
3. Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus Orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 6, 274-290.
5. Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: Characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154
6. Oakley, D. A, & Halligan, P. (2009). Hypnotic suggestion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 264-270. doi:10.1016/ j.tics.2009.03.004
7. Puccioni, O., & Vallesi, A. (in press). Sequential congruency effects: Disentangling priming and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0360-5
8. Raz, A., & Campbell, N. (2011). Can suggestion obviate reading? Supplementing primary Stroop evidence with exploratory negative priming analyses. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 312-320. doi:10.1016/ j.concog.2009.09.013
9. Raz, A., Fan, J., & Posner, M. (2005). Hypnotic suggestion reduces conflict in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 9978-9983. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0503064102
10. Raz, A., Kirsch, I., Pollard, J., & Nitkin-Kaner, Y. (2006). Suggestion reduces the stroop effect. Psychological Science, 17, 91-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01669.x
11. Raz, A., Landzberg, K., Schweizer, H., Zephrani, Z., Shapiro, T., Fan, J., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Posthypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference under cycloplegia. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 332-346. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00024-2
12. Raz, A., Moreno-Iñiguez, M., Martin, L., & Zhu, H. (2007). Suggestion overrides the Stroop effect in highly hypnotizable individuals. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 331-338. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2006.04.004
13. Raz, A., Shapiro, T., Fan, J., & Posner, M. (2002). Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1155-1161. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.12.1155
14. Rogers, R., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 124, 207-231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207