McKelvie S J, Pullara M
Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, Lennoxville, Québec, Canada.
J Gen Psychol. 1988 Jul;115(3):315-29. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1988.9710568.
Moderately susceptible subjects (N = 30) initially judged 30 line drawings of objects for pleasantness (deep processing) and 30 line drawings for visual complexity (shallow processing), after which they were given two immediate recall tests. Following a 48-hr delay, subjects were allocated randomly to hypnosis, simulation, or neutral control conditions and were tested four more times. Subjects produced more correct and incorrect responses over the six trials and gave a higher number of correct responses for deep items than for shallow items. Over the last four trials, hypnosis had no general facilitative effect relative to the other two treatments, but the effect of depth was strongest for hypnotized subjects, who recalled more deep items than did the controls. Finally, both hypnotized and simulating subjects rated their recall as more involuntary and their experimental treatment as more helpful than did the controls. Caution is urged in the forensic use of hypnosis as a retrieval device.
中度易受催眠者（N = 30）最初对30幅物体线条画的愉悦度进行判断（深度加工），对30幅线条画的视觉复杂度进行判断（浅度加工），之后进行两次即时回忆测试。经过48小时的延迟后，受试者被随机分配到催眠、模拟或中性对照条件下，并再接受四次测试。在这六项试验中，受试者产生了更多正确和错误的反应，并且对深度加工项目给出的正确反应数量高于浅度加工项目。在最后四项试验中，相对于其他两种处理方式，催眠没有普遍的促进作用，但深度效应在被催眠的受试者中最为强烈，他们回忆起的深度项目比对照组更多。最后，与对照组相比，被催眠和模拟催眠的受试者都认为他们的回忆更不由自主，并且他们的实验处理更有帮助。在将催眠作为一种检索手段用于法医领域时，需谨慎行事。
