催眠性耳聋:跨范式分析

Arthur H. Perlini, Raymond A. Johns, Patricia L. Van Hoof
{"title":"催眠性耳聋:跨范式分析","authors":"Arthur H. Perlini,&nbsp;Raymond A. Johns,&nbsp;Patricia L. Van Hoof","doi":"10.1002/ch.291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study compared responses to a deafness suggestion amongst subjects administered one of three conditions: hypnosis and suggestion (i.e. reals), simulating instructions (i.e. simulators), or the suggestion alone without hypnosis (i.e. cognitives). Reals and simulators were administered a hypnotic induction, followed by a unilateral, left-ear deafness suggestion and the cognitive group was given the unilateral deafness suggestion without a hypnotic induction. All subjects were administered the Stenger Test of Audition (Stenger, 1907) during the deafness trial, and again on a final post-deafness trial. The Stenger Test is designed to assess the <i>degree and veracity</i> of deafness reports. Reported changes in deafness levels were indistinguishable amongst high-reals, low-cognitives and high-cognitives; all three of these groups reported <i>lower</i> levels of deafness compared to the simulating group. The latter demonstrated a pattern of response consistent with faking deafness, a response for which the Stenger Test is designed to measure. The findings lend support to the hypothesis that deafness does not uniquely characterize highly suggestible hypnotized subjects. In addition, the differences between reals and simulators reflect contextual demands on real subjects to report their deafness experience accurately. Copyright © 2004 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis</p>","PeriodicalId":88229,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary hypnosis : the journal of the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis","volume":"21 2","pages":"52-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ch.291","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hypnotic deafness: a cross-paradigm analysis\",\"authors\":\"Arthur H. Perlini,&nbsp;Raymond A. Johns,&nbsp;Patricia L. Van Hoof\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ch.291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study compared responses to a deafness suggestion amongst subjects administered one of three conditions: hypnosis and suggestion (i.e. reals), simulating instructions (i.e. simulators), or the suggestion alone without hypnosis (i.e. cognitives). Reals and simulators were administered a hypnotic induction, followed by a unilateral, left-ear deafness suggestion and the cognitive group was given the unilateral deafness suggestion without a hypnotic induction. All subjects were administered the Stenger Test of Audition (Stenger, 1907) during the deafness trial, and again on a final post-deafness trial. The Stenger Test is designed to assess the <i>degree and veracity</i> of deafness reports. Reported changes in deafness levels were indistinguishable amongst high-reals, low-cognitives and high-cognitives; all three of these groups reported <i>lower</i> levels of deafness compared to the simulating group. The latter demonstrated a pattern of response consistent with faking deafness, a response for which the Stenger Test is designed to measure. The findings lend support to the hypothesis that deafness does not uniquely characterize highly suggestible hypnotized subjects. In addition, the differences between reals and simulators reflect contextual demands on real subjects to report their deafness experience accurately. Copyright © 2004 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary hypnosis : the journal of the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis\",\"volume\":\"21 2\",\"pages\":\"52-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ch.291\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary hypnosis : the journal of the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ch.291\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary hypnosis : the journal of the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ch.291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究比较了被试在三种情况下对失聪建议的反应:催眠和建议(即真实),模拟指令(即模拟器),或单独建议而不催眠(即认知)。真实组和模拟组先进行催眠诱导,然后进行单侧左耳耳聋提示,认知组在不进行催眠诱导的情况下进行单侧耳聋提示。所有受试者在耳聋试验期间进行Stenger听力测试(Stenger, 1907),并在最后一次耳聋后试验中再次进行。斯登格测试旨在评估耳聋报告的程度和准确性。报告的耳聋水平的变化在高真实水平、低认知水平和高认知水平之间是无法区分的;与模拟组相比,这三组报告的耳聋水平都较低。后者表现出一种与假装耳聋相一致的反应模式,这是斯登格测试旨在测量的反应。这些发现支持了一种假设,即耳聋并不是高度易受暗示的催眠对象的唯一特征。此外,真实受试者与模拟受试者之间的差异反映了真实受试者准确报告耳聋体验的语境要求。版权所有©2004英国实验与临床催眠学会
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hypnotic deafness: a cross-paradigm analysis

This study compared responses to a deafness suggestion amongst subjects administered one of three conditions: hypnosis and suggestion (i.e. reals), simulating instructions (i.e. simulators), or the suggestion alone without hypnosis (i.e. cognitives). Reals and simulators were administered a hypnotic induction, followed by a unilateral, left-ear deafness suggestion and the cognitive group was given the unilateral deafness suggestion without a hypnotic induction. All subjects were administered the Stenger Test of Audition (Stenger, 1907) during the deafness trial, and again on a final post-deafness trial. The Stenger Test is designed to assess the degree and veracity of deafness reports. Reported changes in deafness levels were indistinguishable amongst high-reals, low-cognitives and high-cognitives; all three of these groups reported lower levels of deafness compared to the simulating group. The latter demonstrated a pattern of response consistent with faking deafness, a response for which the Stenger Test is designed to measure. The findings lend support to the hypothesis that deafness does not uniquely characterize highly suggestible hypnotized subjects. In addition, the differences between reals and simulators reflect contextual demands on real subjects to report their deafness experience accurately. Copyright © 2004 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Photo-acoustic stimulation: theoretical background and ten years of clinical experience Preterm labour and clinical hypnosis Mindfulness and the mindful therapist: possible contributions to hypnosis Spiritual-transpersonal hypnosis Lucid dreaming – dreams of clarity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1