UCL Discovery

Abstract

If hypnosis was to be considered a state, one would expect that entering or leaving it would lead to spontaneous state-dependent effects on free recall (e.g. Tulving and Thompson, 1973; Eich, 1980). In apparent support of the contrary view, that hypnosis does not provide state-cues that facilitate free recall, Kihlstrom, Brenneman, Pistole and Shor (1985) found that the reinduction of hypnosis did not differentially facilitate the breaching of post-hypnotic amnesia compared to a non-reinduction group. However, following the second deinduction of hypnosis, subjects' recall level decreased, whereas subjects' recall level in the non-reinduction group increased. This apparent state-dependent effect is interpreted here as indicating that state incongruence can constitute a task-demand for greater amnesia. In order to test this suggestion, subjects in the present study memorized a word-list either before or after a hypnotic induction. Following an amnesia suggestion, subjects who learned the word-list before the induction recalled fewer items than those who learned it afterwards, which could be interpreted as a state-dependent effect. However, an equivalent recall level in the two groups following the reversal of the amnesia and before the deinduction of hypnosis, suggests that the apparent state-dependency of amnesic recall reflects subjects' belief that hypnosis represents an altered state rather than an effect of the presence of state-cues per se.