Duration of the effects of post-hypnotic suggestion.

Journal of Experimental Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.7). 11/1929; 12(6):502-514. DOI: 10.1037/h0073579

ABSTRACT A pioneer study to measure the length of time the effect of post-hypnotic suggestion lasts, and to describe the curve of its decrease with time and the factors influencing its permanence. The suggestion employed involved a specific variation in the rate of respiration. The subject was instructed that while reading even-numbered pages of a given book, he would breathe at twice the regular rate, and on the odd-numbered pages he would breathe half as fast as usual. These instructions were given to one group of subjects in the trance, and to a control group as simple waking instructions. The 13 Ss were all students, and the readings were from a book of poems containing material frankly boring to the Ss. 6 of the 8 trance Ss remained in complete ignorance throughout the experiment of any change of breathing, nor did they guess that a post-hypnotic suggestion was being tested. The results are computed in the form of ratios of the observed respiratory rates to those indicated in the instructions. Normals showed no loss in the power of the suggestion with time, whereas the opposite was true of the trance subjects. During the first three weeks the trance Ss in general decreased rapidly, while the normals had a tendency to rise at first, attaining at 15 days after the suggestion a mean of 150% of the original ratio. "The power of post-hypnotic suggestion steadily decreases during the first three weeks after it is given. Obedience to waking instructions shows no loss except in accuracy of performance. After the first sharp fall the trance Ss seem to have reached a level where the effect of practice and the decrease in the potency of the suggestion neutralize each other, and on this low level obedience to the suggestion may continue indefinitely." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main purpose of the present experiment was to investigate whether a posthypnotically released emotion (i.e., a sense of happiness) could modify the frequency of a behavior performed by S. 7 highly susceptible Ss participated in the experiment. They received a posthypnotic suggestion with the implication that each time they made a certain response a sense of happiness would be released. They also received a suggestion of amnesia for the posthypnotic suggestion. In all 7 Ss the response evoked a sense of happiness. The frequency of the response increased significantly in all SS (p-01)
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 01/2008; 23(2):120-129. DOI:10.1080/00207147508415936
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined posthypnotic suggestion away from the laboratory. In Experiment 1, high-hypnotizable subjects were given a posthypnotic suggestion (of limited or unlimited duration) or a social request (of unlimited duration) to mail one postcard every day to the experimenter. Subjects given a social request rather than a posthypnotic suggestion sent more postcards, and those given a limited-duration suggestion responded differently from those given an unlimited-duration suggestion. In Experiment 2, real, hypnotized and simulating, unhypnotized subjects were given a posthypnotic suggestion, and nonhypnotic control subjects were given a social request, to mail one postcard every day; the suggestion or request was of either limited or unlimited duration. Real, hypnotized subjects sent more postcards than simulators; control subjects sent as many postcards as real, hypnotized subjects; and subjects given a suggestion or request of limited duration sent more than those given one of unlimited duration. The findings highlight the interaction of individual differences and the social context of the suggestion or request. They underscore important aspects of experience and behavior associated with posthypnotic responding away from the hypnotic setting.
    Psychological Science 07/1998; 9(4):256-262. DOI:10.1111/1467-9280.00052 · 4.43 Impact Factor