Berrigan L P, Kurtz R M, Stabile J P, Strube M J
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1991 Jan;39(1):24-38. doi: 10.1080/00207149108409616.
3 types of "posthypnotic suggestion," based upon factor analytic studies, were administered to high hypnotizable Ss (reals) and to low hypnotizable Ss instructed to simulate hypnosis (simulators) (N = 12 high and 6 low hypnotizable Ss per suggestion). The "posthypnotic suggestions" consisted of instructions given to Ss following a hypnotic induction that, when the posthypnotic cue was later given, they would re-enter the hypnotic state and perform a certain task at that time. Ss were then tested 6 times for durability of "posthypnotic response" during an 8-week period. Responses to the "suggestions" were rated by research assistants (objective scores) and by Ss themselves (subjective scores). There was a significant Trials x Type of "Suggestion" interaction for both types of scores for the reals but not for the simulators, indicating different rates of decline with time for the different "suggestions" for the hypnotic Ss. Depth of reported hypnotic trance during the assessment sessions was found to be strongly related to performance of the "posthypnotic suggestion" for both real and simulating Ss.
基于因素分析研究,对高催眠易感性被试(真实被试)和被指示模拟催眠的低催眠易感性被试(模拟被试)实施了3种“催眠后暗示”(每种暗示有12名高催眠易感性被试和6名低催眠易感性被试)。“催眠后暗示”包括在催眠诱导后给予被试的指令,即当随后给出催眠后线索时,他们将重新进入催眠状态并在那时执行某项任务。然后在8周的时间内对被试进行6次“催眠后反应”持续性测试。研究助手(客观评分)和被试自身(主观评分)对“暗示”的反应进行评分。对于真实被试,两种评分的“试验×暗示类型”交互作用显著,但对于模拟被试则不显著,这表明催眠被试的不同“暗示”随时间的下降速率不同。在评估过程中,报告的催眠恍惚深度被发现与真实被试和模拟被试的“催眠后暗示”表现密切相关。