Schuyler B A, Coe W C
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1981 Jun;40(6):1160-9. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.40.6.1160.
Highly responsive hypnotic subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects' reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis.
高度敏感的催眠受试者被分为在催眠后遗忘期间对记忆有控制能力(自主型)或对记忆无控制能力(非自主型)两类。在催眠后回忆期间,对这两类受试者在四项生理指标(心率、皮肤电反应、呼吸频率、肌肉张力)上进行了相互比较。采用了两种情境条件:一种旨在制造打破催眠后遗忘的压力(测谎仪指令);另一种是放松条件,作为对照。回忆数据证实了霍华德和科伊早期的研究结果,表明在测谎仪条件下,自主型受试者的回忆比其他三个彼此无差异的样本更多。然而,使用另一种自主性测量方法表明,在测谎仪条件下,自主型和非自主型受试者都会打破催眠后遗忘。在这种情况下,皮肤电反应支持了受试者关于控制的报告。其他生理指标则无显著差异。讨论了这些结果与以下方面的关系:(a)试图打破催眠后遗忘的研究;(b)受试者的自主/非自主分类;(c)催眠理论。