people were connected to a physiograph machine and told the instrument
could tell when they were lying. The experimenter explained that the machine“is very sensitive and functions in the same manner as a lie detector. It can
tell if you are withholding information. ”In truth, the machine had no such
capabilities, but the participants believed that it did. Although they were toldunder hypnosis they would remember nothing, when it came time to report
what they could remember about the hypnotic experience, participants in the
“lie detector ”condition remembered significantly more than people in a con-
trol condition. Apparently, they believed they would be caught for saying
they could not remember when they really could.
Although these studies challenge the psychoanalytically influenced theo-
ries of hypnosis, they do not dispute the usefulness of hypnosis or the honestyof the participants. Few people believe they are intentionally deceiving the
hypnotist. Rather, they are responding to normal social-psychological influ-ences. Just as you act the way you believe a student is supposed to act when
in school, hypnosis participants behave the way they believe people are sup-
posed to when under hypnosis.
Hypnotic Responsiveness
Not everyone responds the same to a hypnotist ’s suggestions. Some people
sing like Madonna, stick their arms in ice water, or report seeing objects that
aren’t really there. Others begrudgingly close their eyes but fail to react to any
of the hypnotist ’s requests. Most people fall somewhere in between. One of
the first things students ask me after a hypnosis demonstration is why some
people are so responsive and others are not. What makes a good hypnotist?
What kind of person makes the best participant?
Despite stage hypnotists ’claims to be the best at their trade, research
shows hypnotic responsiveness is largely a participant variable. The differencebetween hypnotists for the most part lies in showmanship (Meeker & Barber,1971). Highly responsive people respond to anyone they perceive to be a le-
gitimate hypnotist. In fact, to standardize procedures, many researchers put
hypnotic induction procedures on tape. Research assistants play the tape forparticipants with no apparent loss in responsiveness. Beginning hypnotists
are sometimes disappointed when people fail to respond to their suggestions,
wondering what they did wrong. Had they given intelligence tests, they prob-
ably would not blame themselves for a test taker who did poorly. But so
many performers have promoted the idea of good and bad hypnotists that it
is a difficult concept to shake.
Hypnotists can use a few techniques to increase responsiveness, especially
among people who are a bit skeptical at the beginning of the experience(Lynn et al., 1991). People are more responsive to hypnotic suggestions when
the situation is defined as hypnosis and when their cooperation is secured and
trust established before beginning. But most hypnotists use these techniques
routinely and still find large differences in responsiveness. More evidence
that hypnosis is a participant variable comes from the finding that hypnotic
responsiveness is a fairly stable individual difference. People who are highly
responsive to one hypnotist’ s suggestions will probably be responsive to90 CHAPTER 4 The Freudian Approach