1966International Journal of Clinical and Experimental HypnosisRequires access

Hypnosis and hypnotizability: Delusion or simulation?

Allan G. Andreasen, G. Singer

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Sutcliffe (1961) showed that hypnotic suggestions are not comparable in sensory content with real stimuli. The present experiment is a test of the postulated difference (Sutcliffe 1960; 1961) between “pseudo-perception” and “simulation” as indexed by reported subjective experiences of hypnotic Ss. From 215 undergraduates tested for susceptibility to hypnosis, 30 high susceptibility (HS) and 30 low susceptibility (LS) Ss made kinesthetic and visual judgments of horizontality. A significant response, not attributable to simulation, was found only for the HS-hypnosis induction group; the effect was not attributable individually to susceptibility, hypnosis induction, or motivation. It was concluded that hypnosis, defined by this significant interaction effect between high susceptibility and hypnosis induction can be interpreted as a pseudo-perceptual response to suggestion.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Sutcliffe (1961) showed that hypnotic suggestions are not comparable in sensory content with real stimuli. The present experiment is a test of the postulated difference (Sutcliffe 1960; 1961) between “pseudo-perception” and “simulation” as indexed by reported subjective experiences of hypnotic Ss. From 215 undergraduates tested for susceptibility to hypnosis, 30 high susceptibility (HS) and 30 low susceptibility (LS) Ss made kinesthetic and visual judgments of horizontality. A significant response, not attributable to simulation, was found only for the HS-hypnosis induction group; the effect was not attributable individually to susceptibility, hypnosis induction, or motivation. It was concluded that hypnosis, defined by this significant interaction effect between high susceptibility and hypnosis induction can be interpreted as a pseudo-perceptual response to suggestion.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Sutcliffe (1961) showed that hypnotic suggestions are not comparable in sensory content with real stimuli. The present experiment is a test of the postulated difference (Sutcliffe 1960; 1961) between “pseudo-perception” and “simulation” as indexed by reported subjective experiences of hypnotic Ss. From 215 undergraduates tested for susceptibility to hypnosis, 30 high susceptibility (HS) and 30 low susceptibility (LS) Ss made kinesthetic and visual judgments of horizontality. A significant response, not attributable to simulation, was found only for the HS-hypnosis induction group; the effect was not attributable individually to susceptibility, hypnosis induction, or motivation. It was concluded that hypnosis, defined by this significant interaction effect between high susceptibility and hypnosis induction can be interpreted as a pseudo-perceptual response to suggestion.

Key concepts: Hypnosis, Hypnotic susceptibility, Psychology, Perception, Hypnotic, Cognitive psychology, Developmental psychology, Neuroscience

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Hypnosis and hypnotizability: Delusion or simulation? — Research Paper | ScholarLens