Does the More Vivid Imagery of High Hypnotizables Depend on Greater Cognitive Effort?<i>A Test of Dissociation and Social-Cognitive Theories of Hypnosis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an investigation of the role of cognitive effort in hypnotic responding, high and low hypnotizable participants produced emotionally neutral imagery in response to effortful versus effortless hypnotic suggestions. Heart-rate increase served as an objective index of cognitive effort, and subjective ratings of imagery vividness, absorption, effort, and control were collected. Compared to lows, high hypnotizable participants experienced their imagery as more vivid and absorbing, yet their heart rates indicated no higher level of cognitive effort than lows. Compared to effortless wording, effortful wording of suggestions increased cognitive effort in lows, as indexed by heart-rate increase, but had no effect on the effort expended by highs. Ratings of subjective control were strongly correlated with subjective effort for lows but unrelated for highs. These results support the dissociated-control theory of hypnosis rather than the dissociated-experience or social-cognitive theories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".