Hypnosis and Stroop interference

[Lord Muck oGentry]

V S Ramachandran suggested in Phantoms in the brain that we could test whether hypnosis is "real" or "playacting" by looking for suppression of Stroop interference under hypnosis.

His suggestion has been taken up, it seems:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug05/Stroop_effect.html

Stroop interference can apparently be overcome in suitable hypnotic subjects. Not that my opinion on the subject is worth having, but I found this pretty surprising.

Perhaps some of the psychology buffs on the forum could comment on this. Are these results widely accepted? Do they tell us anything interesting about hypnosis?

[Thing]

Eboldening mine:
Dr. Raz's work was funded in part by a grant from the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Research Fellowship in Psychiatry.

Man, that guy's gotta be sick of the jokes he must hear every day...

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Eboldening mine:


Man, that guy's gotta be sick of the jokes he must hear every day...

"But still, an academic must eat", as Dorothy Parker didn't quite say...:)

Seriously, though; is this stuff respectable?

[kellyb]

I'm not a psychologist, but this part stuck out to me:
These individuals first took the Stroop test in practice sessions. Then, under ERP and fMRI observation, the participants underwent hypnotic induction. During this condition, Dr. Raz told participants that "Every time you hear my voice talking to you…you will immediately realize that meaningless symbols will appear in the middle of the screen."

"In other words, the symbols were placed in a special context where the simple English words 'Red' or 'Blue' in the Stroop test appeared as gibberish," Dr. Raz said
So, first they got a practice run, and then they were told how to take the test to pass (see the words as meaningless).
I'm thinking "unhypnotized" subjects would perform similarly under those circumstances...

[Mercutio]

V S Ramachandran suggested in Phantoms in the brain that we could test whether hypnosis is "real" or "playacting" by looking for suppression of Stroop interference under hypnosis.

Perhaps some of the psychology buffs on the forum could comment on this. Are these results widely accepted? Do they tell us anything interesting about hypnosis?
Interesting...Raz and others have 4 different journal articles published on this, and one other researcher reports an anectodal observation of the same thing 20 years ago.

1st experiment showed that the stroop effect went away under hypnosis, given a suggestion that the words seen were nonsense words. Performance on normal words was equal to baseline performance on nonsense words.

2nd experiment showed the same thing, under post-hypnotic suggestion rather than while hypnotized.

3rd experiment tested whether participants were merely blurring their vision--used eyedrops to prevent accomodation in both baseline and experimental conditions. Nope, not blurring. suggests a "suppressing conflict" explanation.

4th paper finds that highly suggestible people can display this effect even when not under hypnosis!

****

Really fascinating stuff...but the 5th paper suggests that it is not the test that Ramachandran is looking for. It may not discriminate between hypnotized and non-hypnotized individuals, although it certainly discriminates between suggestible and non-suggestible.

edited for memory loss.

[Mercutio]

I'm not a psychologist, but this part stuck out to me:

So, first they got a practice run, and then they were told how to take the test to pass (see the words as meaningless).
I'm thinking "unhypnotized" subjects would perform similarly under those circumstances...
Nope--they had unhypnotized control groups to compare to.

[Mercutio]

Seriously, though; is this stuff respectable?
It is all peer-reviewed. I am not familiar with the respectability of some of the journals, though, as this is not my area.

Oh...for the record, I have only read the abstracts, just now. So I can't answer any detailed questions about the experiments.

[kellyb]

Nope--they had unhypnotized control groups to compare to.
Is it in the abstract that they mention the controls?
Do you know if the controls were given a practice run and then told to see the words as jibberish?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

It is all peer-reviewed. I am not familiar with the respectability of some of the journals, though, as this is not my area.

Oh...for the record, I have only read the abstracts, just now. So I can't answer any detailed questions about the experiments.

Thanks for the reply, Mercutio.
Can you direct me to any information about the 4th paper you mention? I'm interested in trying to follow this stuff, as far as my feeble powers allow.

Regards

[Euromutt]

Sorry, no helpful contribution to the discussion, except to remark that "stroop" is the Dutch word for treacle (and certain kinds of syrup). Thus, "stroop interference" sounds to me like someone trying to prevent you putting syrup on your pancakes.

[Diabolos]

It may not discriminate between hypnotized and non-hypnotized individuals, although it certainly discriminates between suggestible and non-suggestible.
Since "hypnosis" is essentially nothing more than a ritualised form of suggestion, depending upon the suggestiblilty of the "hypnotisee" for its effects, one can pretty much say that hypnotisable=suggestible and non-hypnotisable=non-suggestible.

[diggingdeeper]

Since "hypnosis" is essentially nothing more than a ritualised form of suggestion, depending upon the suggestiblilty of the "hypnotisee" for its effects, one can pretty much say that hypnotisable=suggestible and non-hypnotisable=non-suggestible.

would you then think that "pursuader" would= hypnotist??

[Diabolos]

would you then think that "pursuader" would= hypnotist??
In many respects, yes. The thing that tends to distinguish "hypnosis" is the procedure by which it is invoked, i.e in classical terms laying on a couch with eyes closed or looking at a fixed point and being told to relax, feeling sleepy, etc. But this is all just dressing to achieve the same end goal of engaging a person's ability to respond to suggestion.

A common variation that isn't called hypnosis but could be (although it would probably be a tautology to do so) is going to church. The whole thing is structured under a set of rituals and expectations, together with an authority figure (the preacher) who will try to engage the congregation's imaginations and feelings for the purposes of persuasion. Catholic churches are the best example, with all the subdued lighting, candles, robes, etc.

[kellyb]

See, and I just think hypnosis is basically crap.
I see rare occurrences where it definitely looks like hypnosis "works", but those rare times are, if they even might maybe happen then, only attainable through many training sessions.
Church type stuff comes closest. There's a lot more going on there than simple ritualistic hypnosis, though. They have systematic indoctrination on their side.

This is just my opinion...
I'm not sure I can support my opinion much better than the pro-hypnosis folks can.

[Diabolos]

See, and I just think hypnosis is basically crap.
So are you saying that suggestion is basically crap? Or are you using a different definition of hypnosis?

I see rare occurrences where it definitely looks like hypnosis "works", but those rare times are, if they even might maybe happen then, only attainable through many training sessions.
Suggestion is surprisingly effective for many people, and often quite quickly. You only have to think of the placebo effect to see this.

Church type stuff comes closest. There's a lot more going on there than simple ritualistic hypnosis, though. They have systematic indoctrination on their side.
Isn't that systematic indoctrination just ritualisistic suggestion repeated over and over?

Comments not meant to be critical - just to give food for thought.

[kellyb]

So are you saying that suggestion is basically crap? Or are you using a different definition of hypnosis?
That's tricky, because there are several different "types" of hypnosis. Some, like stage hypnotism, are undoubtedly in my mind nothing but bunk.
Then there's "regressive hypnotism", which I also think is probably complete crap.
Suggestion is surprisingly effective for many people, and often quite quickly. You only have to think of the placebo effect to see this.
Ok...then there's that. Hypnotherapy.
The question is, is it hypnosis or just placebo?
Instead of "I'm giving you a pill to do X" it's "I'm doing some scientific voodoo to your mind to do X".
Isn't that systematic indoctrination just ritualisistic suggestion repeated over and over?
It a mix of a few things. There's the suggestion, which is most pronounced in petnecostal type environments, but the indocterination is more insidious. It overtakes every. single. aspect. of a person's mind.
I guess the suggestion and the brainwashing work in tandem, feeding one another.
Comments not meant to be critical - just to give food for thought.
:)
Always welcome from me.
I'll admit that I'm possibly a little disproportionately hostile to anything beginning with "hypno".
I see the damage supposed "regressive" hypnosis has done, from imaginary sexual abuse to folks terrified aliens are coming to get them every night, and I wonder why mainstream psychology hasn't taken a more firm stand against this fraud.
But it's complex, because like I mentioned before, there are a lot of things claiming to be "hypnosis".

[Diabolos]

I see the damage supposed "regressive" hypnosis has done, from imaginary sexual abuse to folks terrified aliens are coming to get them every night, and I wonder why mainstream psychology hasn't taken a more firm stand against this fraud.
Hi kellyb,

I think it's important to realise that "regression hypnosis" in and of itself is not the problem. Rather, it's when the therapist (or whoever) suggests to the patient that such and such (abuse/alien abductions, etc.) must have occurred and that the patient needs to be helped to "remember" it. But this can just as readily occur without hypnosis and without regression. The ritual of hypnostic regression becomes just another convincer for the poor sap who's on the receiving end.

It is possible to conduct hypnotic regression without there being negative consequences, provided (a) the therapist makes no suggestion as to what should be remembered (ideally saying nothing at all), and (b) that what is recalled is not treated as being necessarily factual, but most likely includes fantasies.

In fairness to hypnotists (and I've met quite a few during my studies into the subject), the majority I've met do appear to be responsible and ethical, though I have met some idiots too. :)

[kellyb]

Hi kellyb,

I think it's important to realise that "regression hypnosis" in and of itself is not the problem. Rather, it's when the therapist (or whoever) suggests to the patient that such and such (abuse/alien abductions, etc.) must have occurred and that the patient needs to be helped to "remember" it. But this can just as readily occur without hypnosis and without regression. The ritual of hypnostic regression becomes just another convincer for the poor sap who's on the receiving end.

It is possible to conduct hypnotic regression without there being negative consequences, provided (a) the therapist makes no suggestion as to what should be remembered (ideally saying nothing at all), and (b) that what is recalled is not treated as being necessarily factual, but most likely includes fantasies.

In fairness to hypnotists (and I've met quite a few during my studies into the subject), the majority I've met do appear to be responsible and ethical, though I have met some idiots too. :)

But there's another school of thought that says that whatever happens in the "hypnotic state" is much, much more likely to be creatively imaginative that genuinely recollective.
So even when the hypnotist isn't "leading", whatever memories are "recovered" are actually invented.

[Mr. Scott]

See, and I just think hypnosis is basically crap.


If Randi agreed that hypnosis was crap, then could a hypnotist formulate an application for the million dollar challenge?

I don't plan to apply or anything -- that's not why I'm asking -- I just want to know what JREF members think is real about hypnosis and what is crappy enough to qualify for application and test protocol.

I have hypnotized and have been hypnotized and think it's a perplexing phenomenon. Something IS happening with hypnosis but it's not all it's cracked up to be.

In particular, I was able to get pople to do things they would NEVER have done otherwise (perform embarassing acts in public).

I once asked a friend to use hypnosis to give me a vivid fantasy with hallucinations. The result was to compel me to claim I was hallucinating when I never did -- just to appease the hypnotist. But it was important to me to appease him, though I could admit to anyone else it just didn't work.

My working hypothesis of hypnotism is that it puts the subject in a state of extreme compliance -- probably triggering a genetically programmed state. The hypnotist becomes a perfect alpha in the subject's mind (limbic system?) and only obedience becomes possible. Unfortunately, the compliance is so strong it can induce false memories of alien abductions, previous lives, and having been a childhood abuse victim (eg Roseanne).

[kellyb]

From everything I've read, "the scientific consensus" is just solidly sitting on the fence regarding hypnosis.
I have no idea what Randi or the forum thinks of the subject...in fact last week I did a search here to see, and there aren't any threads that I could find. (I was thinking of starting a thread on theatrical hypnotism.)

[tsg]

In particular, I was able to get pople to do things they would NEVER have done otherwise (perform embarassing acts in public).

The explanation I've heard for this is that the idea of being under someone else's control gives the person being hypnotized an excuse for acting in a manner they normally wouldn't. Essentially it's giving them permission to behave in a way they may already have a desire to, but are normally too shy to, because the hypnotist is "making" them and, in their minds, they are no longer responsible for their own actions. It's an excuse to lower their inhibitions and nothing more.

[kellyb]

The explanation I've heard for this is that the idea of being under someone else's control gives the person being hypnotized an excuse for acting in a manner they normally wouldn't. Essentially it's giving them permission to behave in a way they may already have a desire to, but are normally too shy to, because the hypnotist is "making" them and, in their minds, they are no longer responsible for their own actions. It's an excuse to lower their inhibitions and nothing more.

I work in concert production,and see/work a lot of "hypnotist" shows.
That is EXACTLY what I came to after watching a few of them.
The ones that don't "play along" are sent away, "unhypnotized".

ETA:
For example, I went on this stage hypnotist's site to see what his take on it was.
http://www.fliporley.com/flipNews/askFlipPublic.asp?firstLetter=&memID=29

Does anyone ever fake it up on stage?
Answer:
I’m sure it happens from time to time. Whenever I suspect someone is faking, I will point it out to the audience. If I am not sure, I will initially give them the benefit of the doubt. If they seem sincere, I will usually give them an opportunity to get focused to see if they can "go under". If they are up there to mock me, to play to their friends, or to try and ruin the show I will ask them to leave the stage immediately. As I mentioned earlier, most people who think they are faking are really hypnotized and just don’t realize it because it feels so normal.
Most people who fake being hypnotized are really hypnotized?:rolleyes:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

From everything I've read, "the scientific consensus" is just solidly sitting on the fence regarding hypnosis.
I have no idea what Randi or the forum thinks of the subject...in fact last week I did a search here to see, and there aren't any threads that I could find. (I was thinking of starting a thread on theatrical hypnotism.)

kellyb,
Don't know about the scientific consensus, and that is why I asked for advice. But JREF is linked to skepdic, which has this to say:
http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Apologies if you've seen this before. But I think it's safe to say that skeptics are skeptical of claims about the hypnotic state. I started this discussion because the study results seemed to show that there's something peculiar to hypnosis. However, I had overlooked the possibility of similar results with unhypnotized, suggestible subjects.:blush:

So, back to square one for hypnosis.


Regards

Edited for clarity

[phildonnia]

I, for one, am skeptical even of the Stroop effect in the original context. It purports to show that you can process written words faster than you can recognize colors. However, the whole thing relies on being able to read the names of the colors out loud.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that its faster to read a word and say a word than to look at a color, translate it into a word, and then say it; the latter being a slightly more convoluted mental exercise.

But then, I'm not a psychologist.

[Jeff Corey]

I, for one, am skeptical even of the Stroop effect in the original context. It purports to show that you can process written words faster than you can recognize colors. However, the whole thing relies on being able to read the names of the colors out loud.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that its faster to read a word and say a word than to look at a color, translate it into a word, and then say it; the latter being a slightly more convoluted mental exercise.

But then, I'm not a psychologist.
This person is.
http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/words.html

[kellyb]

kellyb,
Don't know about the scientific consensus, and that is why I asked for advice. But JREF is linked to skepdic, which has this to say:
http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Apologies if you've seen this before. But I think it's safe to say that skeptics are skeptical of claims about the hypnotic state. I started this discussion because the study results seemed to show that there's something peculiar to hypnosis. However, I had overlooked the possibility of similar results with unhypnotized, suggestible subjects.:blush:

So, back to square one for hypnosis.


Regards

Edited for clarity
I hadn't seen that. Thanks. :)
I had no idea what the JREF take on it was. I'm just someone who used to want to be a hypnotist, but started learning about it, and decided it was crap.
And then, later, I started working hypnotist shows as an audio engineer and saw that for what it was.
I also post quite a bit at a believer's forum, so I definitely see a lot of stuff about the "regressive" variety, and after many debates, I'm fairly convinced that's bull, too.

But, being a former pentecostalish christian, I also believe now that the mind can certainly do some weird stuff, so it's no skin off my back if hypnosis is proven.
I think there's something there, but no one's figured out what it is, exactly, yet.
I think "hypnotic states" happen, but psychology's understanding of it just hasn't come close to catching up, yet.
I'm very familiar with what's considered clinical hypnosis, and I'm not impressed. It's weak (ime) and it doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Religious fervor is much more compelling, IMO.
But it would be down-right unethical of science to even try to duplicate what it takes for religion to induce whatever happens in religion regarding weird mental states.

So I'm not sure science will ever be able to figure hypnosis out.

[Diabolos]

For Randi's take on the subject, see this entry in his Encyclopedia:
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/hypnotism_hypnosis.html

I agree with his assessment with the exception of the very last line "This is an idea that professional hypnotists do not care to hear.". Whilst true of some, many I've met would also happily agree with his opinions. I think he may be basing his regard for hypnotists on those from a few decades ago.

My personal take is to view hypnosis not as a special state that's somehow special, but rather a term of convenience to describe the combination of how the simpler and normal psychological processes of belief, expectation, suggestion, imagination, motivation, etc. work together.

[phildonnia]

This person is.
http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/words.html

Thanks! I guess I've only ever heard of the "speed of processing theory" (until now).