Hypnosis and Imagination

Robert Kunzendorf, Nicholas Spanos, Benjamin Wallace, Robert G. Kunzendorf, Nicholas P. Spanos

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780895031396
• eBook ISBN: 9781351843690
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The book's first three chapters-by Sheehan and Robertson; Wagstaff; Council, Kirsch, and Grant - conclude that three different factors turn imagination into hypnosis. The next three chapters-by Lynn, Neufeld, Green, Rhue, and Sandberg; Rader, Kunzendorf, and Carrabino; and Barrett-explore the hypnotic and the clinical significance of absorption in imagination. Three subsequent chapters-by Coe; Gwynn and Spanos; and Gorassini-examine the role of compliance and imagination in various hypnotic phenomena. Pursuing the possibility that some hypnotic hallucinations are experienced differently from normal images, the following two chapters-by Perlini, Spanos, and Jones; and Kunzendorf and Boisvert-focus on negative hallucinating, which reportedly "blocks out" perceptual reality. The remaining three chapters-by Wallace and Turosky; Crawford; and Persinger-pursue other physiological differences, and possible physiological connections, between hypnosis and imagination.

CHAPTER 1

Imagery and Hypnosis: Trends and Patternings in Effects

PETER W. SHEEHAN AND ROSEMARY ROBERTSON

Imagining is a rich and creative process that has occupied the attention of poets, philosophers, and psychologists throughout the ages. It is theoretically intriguing to hypothesize about the meaning of mental events that have such obvious “thing-quality.” Controversy still abounds about whether the thing-quality of so-called images is an illusion, and about the essential relationship between “what we see” and “what we think we see.” In fact, the nature of the relationship between what we say we see and what exists “out there,” and the fact that there is such a discrepancy at times between the two defines, I think, one of the most intriguing aspects of hypnosis. It is not surprising in this sense, also, that the dominant theoretical issue throughout the history of nonhypnotic research into imagery is “how closely do imagery and perception really correspond—structurally, functionally, and interactively?” [1].

INTRODUCTION

It seems important at the outset to look by way of introduction at this link between imagery and perception. Outside the field of hypnosis, Finke’s tripartite classification of theories addresses the issue in a useful, comprehensive fashion.

Structural theories dealing with the correspondence of imagery and perception usually focus on the explanation of the apparent spatial and pictorial qualities of mental imagery [2]. Typically, in experiments aiming to support this theory, subjects are asked to form mental images of objects and are then instructed to cognitively inspect the objects being imaged so as to make a perceptual judgment or to find specific items [3].

Functional theories are much more concerned with the dynamic properties of the image. A relevant question would be: Are the image and the percept functionally equivalent in terms of their formation and transformations? They attempt to explain, for example, the dynamics involved in the recognition of physical objects and the facilitation thereof by the formation and transformation of mental images. Representative of this approach is the work of Shepard and Cooper where the subject is asked to imagine a rotating object, the assumption being that the imagined object will rotate much like a real object would rotate [4].

Interactive theories attempt to explain how ongoing perceptual processes are influenced by mental imagery [5]. People sometimes imagine seeing an object when they expect to see it and this can lead to confusion between real and imagined objects [6, 7]. Support for the interactive viewpoint comes from the work of Finke and Schmidt [8] and Reeves [9]. This laboratory work has looked at how perception and imagery interfere with each other, and at the concept of perceptual aftereffects subsequent to imagination.

Finke concluded his review of mental imagery theories by stating that none of these three major approaches to theorizing about the relationship between imagery and perception is immune to challenge [5]. Each theory is vulnerable to the operation of particular artifacts. Structural theories, for example, are susceptible especially to the possible influence of experimenter bias [10]; functional theories seem most open to tacit knowledge *[11], while interactive theories are thought to be susceptible to experimenter bias and/or eye movement artifact [12].

It is interesting in a way that theorizing which states a structural link between imagery and perception has actually had more support in the nonhypnosis than in the hypnosis literature. The strongest statement in the hypnotic literature of a structural link would probably be Sutcliffe’s original formulation of the “credulous” view of hypnosis [13]. This posited (for later refutation) that hypnotic suggestion reinstitutes the physiological processes of perception: the consequences of suggestion parallel exactly the effects of real stimulation. Following this view, hallucinated colors can be expected to produce actual negative after-images, regression should result in the actual revivification of past experience, and amnesia suggestion in hypnosis ought to result in the obliteration of memory traces. The extremity of this view is no longer held in the field, even though the “link” between imagery and perception is constantly stressed in what a hypnotist both says and does.

Finke’s view that imagery equates structurally with perception is the most intriguing of the three approaches, and there is some consistency between this view and the data on hypnosis and the creation of subjective contours. Wallace, Persanyi, and Gerboc, working with subjective contours of geometric stimuli, found that mechanisms which are active in the information processing of perceptual events seem also to be active in the “imagery version” of the same event, at least for some subjects [14]. A number of studies [15,16,17] point to demand characteristics [18] and experimenter bias [10] as simpler explanations of the results. However, Wallace et al. claim that the quantity of evidence collected militates against all of the data being discounted by hypotheses that appeal only to the influence of social artifacts.

It is quite possible that the resolution of the ties between imagery and perception still awaits study of the physiological events which underlie the process of imaging. Farah [19] has attempted to unravel the view held by Finke [20] and Shepard [21] that representations used in imagery are the same as those used in perception, and has looked at this theory with respect to the opposite view held by theorists such as Pylyshyn [22]. The physiological complexity of the processes of imaging and perceiving are not to be underestimated according to studies of Kosslyn et al. [23, 24]. They showed that the two hemispheres of the brain process different aspects of the image; spatial arrangement of parts of the image being dealt with by the left hemisphere and the inspection, or evaluation of distances between points occurring in the right hemisphere. In 1985, the researchers demonstrated a functional dissociation between the kinds of imagery tasks which could be performed in the two cerebral hemispheres of so-called “split-brain” patients (ones with surgical transection of their corpus callosa). In 1989, the previous evidence was supported by visual processing experiments on university students.

This chapter essentially explores the relationship between hypnosis and imagery through analysis of the factors that affect the strength of the link between the two. Overall, it is argued that the relationship between imagery and hypnosis is a very complex one and that a range of factors actually defines the kind of influence imagery has on hypnotic performance. The common view that imagery is the dominant trait variable in understanding hypnosis has tended to obscure essential variability in the data. It is this variability, however, which offers us the greatest theoretical challenge for future research.

Let us set the stage, as it were, by first discussing imagery as a correlate of hypnosis. For the most part, this view emphasizes the trait-character of imagery response.

IMAGERY AS A MAJOR CORRELATE OF HYPNOSIS

In a previous paper, it was argued that the most dominant view of imagery in the field of hypnosis is the notion that imagery is a reliable and stable correlate of hypnotizability [25]. Since that time, research has continued to focus on the nature of imagery and how different measures of imagery are related to hypnotizability [26, 27]. There are many measures of imagery (see Table 1) that help explain the prevalence of the view that imagery is a major, reliable correlate of hypnotizability.

The first thing that impresses one about the tests listed in Table 1 is the variety of the content and differences in format of the measures. For the most part, they all stress the importance of assessing individual differences in imagery, but they range widely across different dimensions of experience such as controllability, vividness and cognitive style, and involve different sensory modes. The list of correlates reported in Table 2 stresses relevant key traits that are theoretically related to each other (e.g., vividness, fantasy, and absorption). It also draws attention to the importance of major social psychological influences on hypnotizability—factors such as rapport, demand characteristics, and setting constraints.

Table 1. Sample of Measures of Imagery

Betts Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery (QMI) [71]

Creative Imagination Scale (CIS) [72]

Gordon Test of Imagery Control [73]

Imaginal Processes Inventory [74]

Individual Differences Questionnaire (IDQ) [75]

Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings (ICMI) [76]

Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI) [77]

Preference for Imagic Cognitive Style (PICS) [78]

Questionnaire on Subjective Experiences in Hypnosis (QSEH) [79]

Shortened version of QMI [80]

Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS) [69]

Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ) [81]

Visual Elaboration Scale (VES) [82]

Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) [66]

Looking at the implications of Tables 1 and 2 as a whole, the data associated with the measures and variables that are listed emphasize, for the most part, the importance of skill, the relevance of context, and the characteristics of the state of consciousness that we choose to label “hypnosis.” The Model of hypnotic response that will inevitably embrace the full influence of imagery must be one that accentuates person attributes (incorporating attitudes, beliefs, skills, and abilities), setting features (involving expectancies, demand characteristics, and rapport), and processes related to state of consciousness (incorporating the effects of induction procedures). Figure 1 sketches the outline of such a model that attempts to draw some of the major parameters together. Three major groups of factors are categorized and arrows denote the hypothesized direction of influence of the different variables.

The evidence overall is very compelling that imagery ability is positively related to hypnotizability. The very notion of skill, for example, is reflected directly in the more modern concept of “fantasy-proneness” which has been researched extensively by Lynn et al. [28, 29] and Suita [30]. This concept has been linked to a range of relevant correlates that include level of hypnotizability,ability to hallucinate, and the subject’s developmental history and psychological adjustment [28].

Table 2. Major Correlates of Hypnotizability

Imagery

• Vividness of imagery • Ease of imaging • Control over imagery • Imagic style

Fantasy

• Proneness to fantasy • Ease of fantasizing • Motivation for development

Absorption

• Attentional capacity • Concentration on inner feelings and thoughts • Effortless experiencing

Dissociation

• Involuntariness of response • Dualistic thinking

Rapport

• Relationship with the hypnotist • Interperson...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Chapter
• Contributors
• Index