School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK; Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Department of Psychology, University of Bournemouth, UK.
Cortex. 2021 Feb;135:219-239. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.11.006. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
While several theories assume that responses to hypnotic suggestions can be implemented without executive intentions, the metacognitive class of theories postulate that the behaviors produced by hypnotic suggestions are intended and the accompanying feeling of involuntariness is only a consequence of strategically not being aware of the intention. Cold control theory asserts that the only difference between a hypnotic and non-hypnotic response is this metacognitive one, that is, whether or not one is aware of one's intention to perform the relevant act. To test the theory, we compared the performance of highly suggestible participants in reducing the Stroop interference effect in a post-hypnotic suggestion condition (word blindness: that words will appear as a meaningless foreign script) and in a volitional condition (asking the participants to imagine the words as a meaningless foreign script). We found that participants had equivalent expectations that the posthypnotic suggestion and the volitional request would help control the conflicting information. Further, participants felt they had more control over experiencing the words as meaningless with the request rather than the suggestion; and they experienced the request largely as imagination and the suggestion largely as perception. That is, we set up the interventions we required for the experiment to constitute a test of cold control theory. Both the suggestion and the request reduced Stroop interference. Crucially, there was Bayesian evidence that the reduction in Stroop interference was the same between the suggestion and the volitional request. That is, the results support the claim that responding hypnotically does not grant a person greater first order abilities than they have non-hypnotically, consistent with cold control theory.
虽然有几种理论假设，对催眠暗示的反应可以在没有执行意图的情况下实施，但元认知类理论假设，催眠暗示产生的行为是有意图的，伴随而来的不由自主感只是没有意识到意图的策略性后果。冷控制理论断言，催眠和非催眠反应的唯一区别在于这种元认知上的区别，即是否意识到自己有执行相关行为的意图。为了检验这一理论，我们比较了高度易受暗示的参与者在催眠后暗示条件（单词盲视：单词将显示为无意义的外国脚本）和自愿条件（要求参与者将单词想象为无意义的外国脚本）下减少斯特鲁普干扰效应的表现。我们发现，参与者对后催眠暗示和自愿请求将有助于控制冲突信息的期望是相等的。此外，参与者觉得他们在请求而不是建议的情况下对体验无意义的单词有更多的控制；他们主要将请求视为想象，将建议主要视为感知。也就是说，我们设置了我们在实验中需要的干预措施，以检验冷控制理论。建议和请求都减少了斯特鲁普干扰。至关重要的是，贝叶斯证据表明，建议和自愿请求之间的斯特鲁普干扰减少是相同的。也就是说，结果支持这样的观点，即催眠反应并没有赋予一个人比非催眠反应更大的一阶能力，这与冷控制理论一致。
