Hypnosis and Memory: Effort. Dissociation. and Frontal Executive Functioning Peter G. Farvolden A Thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in hlfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1998 0 Peter G. Farvolden 1998 National Library Bibliothhue nationale 1+1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. tue Wellington Ottawa ON KiA ON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence ailowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfoq vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. The University of Waterloo requires the signatures of al1 persons using or photocopying this thesis. Please sign below, and give address and date. Abstract Four studies were conducted in an effort to evaluate the relative ments of three different hypotheses conceming the cognitive processes underlying suggested hypnotic arnnesia: the sociocognitive view of Spanos and his colleagues (Spanos. 1986). the dissociated expenence hypothesis forwarded by Kihlstrom (KiNstrom, 1984; l992), and the dissociated control hypothesis forwarded by Woody and Bowers ( 1994). These hypotheses were evaluated in three studies by means of a selective arnnesia suggestion in the recall organization paradigrn. In the first two studies hem rate was used as a nonsubjective measure of cognitive effort in order to explore the nlationship between hypnosis, hypnotic ability and task-relevant thoughts and imagery on the one hand and cognitive effon on the other. The fint study was designed to determine if trying to forget the targeted material in a task-motivated way would indeed result in a significant heart rate increase compared to simply anticipating the onset of the arnnesia trial. Participants unselected for hypnotic ability were adrninistered instructions for relaxation and then asked to leam a categorized word list. Mer learning the word list to criterion, participants in the expenmental condition were given task-motivation instructions to try to forget some of the words whereas participants in the control condition received instructions to simply wait for a subsequent recall trial. Participants given task-motivated instructions showed an increase in heart rate during the subsequent waiting period over and above that obsemed for participants who received instructions to simply wait for the subsequent recali uial. Thus, heart rate appeared to be a potentiaily useful independent measun of cognitive effon in this context. In the second study. high and low hypnotically susceptible participants were administered an hypnotic induction followed by a suggestion for selective amnesia. Once again. heart rate appeared to be a useful independent mesure of cognitive effort in this context and according to the cardiac index, it appeared that participants with high hypnotic ability were working no harder to enact the suggestion thm were participants with low hypnotic ability. although they were much more successful in doing so. Study Three was designed to compare the effects of a standard suggestion for selective amnesia with the effects of a distraction task which effectively prevented task-relevant thoughts and imagery (Le. selective rehearsai) during the waiting penod. Participants who were prevented from engaging in task relevant thoughts and imagery by the distraction task were just as amnesic as participants who received a standard suggestion for amnesia. a result which poses a serious threat to the view (Spanos, 1986; Kihlstrom, 1992) that the presence or absence of task-relevant thoughts or imagery is an important determinant of hypnotic responding. Finally, Study Four was designed to explore the performance of participants with high and low hypnotic ability on a variety of memory tasks thought to be sensitive to frontal lobe functioning. Results were generally consistent with the view that then may be some interesting memory effects both within and outside of the context of hypnosis for participants with high hypnotic ability. Results across studies were generaiiy more supportive of the dissociated controi theory of hypnotic responding proposed by Woody and Bowers (1994) than either the sociocognitive theory proposed by Spanos (1986) or the dissociated experience theory of Kihlsuom ( 1992). Theoretical implications are discussed. Acknowledgements 1 would like to thank al1 who have who have helped make finishing this thesis possible including my teachers Kenneth Bowea, Erik Woody. and Philip Bryden, my family, June and Judy Famolden, and my partner in life, Stacey Daub. vii Table of Contents GENERAL INTRODUCTION ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomoooomooom1 Emrruc~~RE~EARCH ...................................................................................................... 8 OVERV~EWOF THE PREsENT STUDIES................................................................................ 11 STUDY ONE omomooooooooooooooooooooooooomomoooooooooooooooooooooooo~oomomoooooooooooooooooooooooomooo~ooooooomoomooooooo14 ~TRODUCIION ............................................................................................................. 13 PRED~C~ONS..................................................................................................................... 16 METHOD............................................................................................................................ 17 Participants ...................................................................................................................17 Apparatus ..................................................................................................................... 17 Procedure ....................................................................................................................17 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 21 Heart Rate................................................................................................................... 2 1 Subjective Ratings .................................................................................................. 23 Correlations of Subjective Ratings with Heart Rate .................................................... 25 Apparatus ................................................................................................................ 34 Procedure ......................................................................................................................35 RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 37 Heart Rate .....................................................................................................................37 Reliability of Judges' Ratings ......................................................................................39 Judges' Ratings of Experience of Suggested Amnesia ................................................ 39 Correlations of Judges' Ratings with the Heart Rate Measure ....................................41 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 44 STUDY THREE .............................................................................................................55 Participants .........................................................................................................58 Apparatus and Procedures ............................................................................................58 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 60 Subjective Experience During the Waiting Penod ...................................................... 61 Subjective Experience During the Amnesia Trial ........................................................ 64 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 67 STUDY FOUR ................................................................................................................72 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 71 The Standard Scales Approach .................................................................................... 73 Reversal of Suggested Amnesia and Residual Amnesia ............................................. 74 Memory Distortion ........... .................. .............-.*.........*........................*....................75 New Leaming Ability and Free Recall .........................................................................76