Journal of Abnormal Psycfaolog> Copyright 1984 by the

1984, Vol 93, No 3. 295-303 American Psychological Association, Inc

Nonvolition, Expectancies, and Hypnotic Rapport

Steven Jay Lynn, Michael R. Nash, Judith W. Rhue,
David C. Frauman, and Carol A. Sweeney
Ohio University

Prior to hypnosis, subjects were informed either that hypnotizable subjects can
resist motonc suggestions or that such control does not characterize good hypnotic
subjects. During hypnosis, susceptible and simulating subjects received counter-
suggestions involving inhibiting suggestion-related movements Susceptible subjects'
responses were found to be sensitive to prehypnotic normative information There
was a corresponding tendency for reports of involuntanness to be sensitive to the
expectancy manipulation Furthermore, subjects were able to feel deeply hypnotized
and to rate themselves as good subjects yet concomitantly experience themselves
as in control over their actions when normative information supported this attri-
bution Reports of suggestion-related sensations but not imaginative involvement
were associated with movements m response to countersuggestion. Simulators were
unable to fake susceptibles' reports of sensations and involuntanness However,
for all subjects, movements paralleled expectancies about appropriate response,
supporting the hypothesis that involuntary experiences are sensitive to the broad
expectational context and are mediated by active cognitive processes Also, rapport
with the hypnotist was found to be a factor Susceptible subjects with highly positive
rapport resolved hypnotic conflict, in part, by achieving a compromise between
meeting normative expectations and complying with the hypnotist's counterdemand

The experience of nonvolition is one of the
hallmarks of hypnosis. Because susceptible
subjects' reports of involuntary experiences
are often striking and seem to reflect a sub-
jectively compelling feature of hypnosis, ac-
counts of such experiences are close to the
heart of major theories of hypnosis. At least
three theories currently vie for empirical at-
tention and support. Each of these theories,
either explicitly or implicitly, addresses the
thorny issue of whether subjects' involuntary
experiences are "real" or illusory.
We gratefully extend our thanks to Kevin McConkey,
Nicholas P. Spanos, and Michael Snodgrass for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript We
also extend our appreciation to Jothiratnam, Margret Ap-
pel, Michael Snodgrass, Richard Hardaway, Margaret
McKenzie, John Casey, Deborah Givens, and Jessie Lenz
for serving as raters and to Joan Wigal for helping to
prepare the manuscript
Portions of these results were presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1982
Michael Nash is now at North Texas State University,
Denton, Texas Carol Sweeney is now at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Requests for reprints should be sent to Steven Jay Lynn,
Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
45701
295
One account (e.g., Hilgard, 1977, 1979;
Kihlstrom, Evans, E. Orne, & M. Orne, 1980)
contends that reports of nonvolition during
hypnosis accurately reflected subjects' dimin-
ished control over behavior that is normally
subject to conscious control. Hilgard (1977)
captured the essence of this position by noting
that "one of the most striking features of hyp-
nosis is the loss of control over actions nor-
mally voluntary (p. 115)." He viewed these
alterations in control as dissociations that oc-
cur at the level of the executive function of
the personality that is responsible for volitional
activity. Hilgard argued that the operation of
dissociated cognitive subsystems during hyp-
nosis underlies subjects' diminished control
over muscular movements relative to more
conscious, voluntary processes that mediate
nonhypnotic, goal-directed experiences.
Magda Arnold (1946) offered a conceptu-
alization of involuntariness that emphasizes
imaginative processes as crucial determinants
of the experience of nonvolition. According
to the principle ofideomotor action, sustained,
uncontradicted, and vivid imagining of a de-
scribed action results in an automatic tendency
to carry out the action. Conversely, the ability
to resist suggestions and retain control over
296 LYNN, NASH, RHUE, FRAUMAN, AND SWEENEY
movements is associated with subjects' inter-
rupting or less than fully immersing themselves
in imaginings. Because subjects ultimately re-
tain control over their imaginings, this position
does not imply an actual inability to resist
suggested behavior.
Spanos and his colleagues (e.g., Spanos,
1981, 1982; Spanos, Radtke, & Bertrand, in
press; Spanos, Rivers, & Ross, 1977; Spanos,
Weekes, & deGroh, 1983) maintained that
subjects actually retain control over suggested
responses. Reports of nonvolition are viewed
as attributions or interpretations of actions that
are, in fact, goal directed and purposeful.
Hypnotizable subjects are viewed as active
"cognizers" who are invested in meeting the
requirements of hypnotic role behavior and
who are sensitively attuned to the broad de-
mands of the testing context. Attributions of
involuntariness may be evoked by such factors
as preconceptions concerning hypnosis (Spa-
nos, Cobb, & Gorassini, 1983) and the wording
of test suggestions (Spanos & Gorassini, 1984).
Relatedly, Sheehan and his colleagues (Dolby
& Sheehan, 1977; McConkey, 1979; Sheehan,
1971a, 1977, 1980; Sheehan & McConkey,
1982; Sheehan & Perry, 1976) emphasized
transference and rapport factors and stressed
susceptible subjects' motivated involvement
with the hypnotist and sensitivity to his per-
ceived intent as critical factors in enhancing
the compelling nature of hypnotic suggestions.
Despite certain differences, Spanos's and
Sheehan's views seem to converge on hypnotic
responding as involving active, constructive
processing of information during hypnosis, as
opposed to passive, automatic responding to
test suggestions. Expectancies associated with
the hypnotic experience may serve as potent
determinants of subjective and behavioral re-
sponse.
The present study was undertaken to eval-
uate the general hypothesis that hypnotic sub-
jects' involuntary experiences are associated
with situation-based expectancies and active
cognitive processes. This hypothesis was in-
vestigated via a countersuggestion paradigm
that was also employed in our previous re-
search on nonvolition (Lynn et al., 1982; Lynn,
Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983). In
our earlier studies, hypnotic subjects (as op-
posed to nonhypnotic controls) were first hyp-
notized and then instructed to vividly imagine
and experience five motoric suggestions that
were to follow, but to resist engaging in move-
ments. Their suggestion-related movements
were rated by observers and, in a postexper-
imental phase, subjective reports were col-
lected. Consistent with several other studies
(Spanos et al., 1977: Spanos, Cobb, & Gor-
assini, 1983), we found that high-susceptible
subjects when asked to counter suggested re-
sponses, often failed to do so and afterward
stated that this occurred despite their best ef-
forts to counter or prevent them. In this con-
text, movements may be thought of as a be-
havioral index of nonvolition. Hypnotized as
opposed to imagining (Lynn, Nash, Rhue,
Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) and simulating
subjects (Lynn et al., 1982; Lynn, Nash, Rhue,
Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) moved in response
to countersuggestion and denned their sug-
gestion-related responses as involuntary. Con-
trary to Arnold's ideomotor-action hypothesis,
susceptible imagining subjects reported feeling
as absorbed and involved in imaginings as did
hypnotic subjects but resisted responding to
suggestions.
Although the real-simulating differences
obtained m our earlier research could be in-
terpreted as supporting a neodissociation ac-
count of involuntariness, otherfindings(Lynn
et al., 1982) suggested that the responses of
both real and simulating subjects may be ex-
pectancy based. Simulating subjects, relative
to susceptible subjects, not only moved less
but tended to report that other good subjects
were less likely to move in response to coun-
tersuggestion. Several other studies (Sheehan,
1971b; Spanos, Bridgeman, Stam, Gwynn, &
Saad, 1983) indicated that real-simulator dif-
ferences may reflect between-group differences
in expectancies arising from divergent expe-
riences and experimental demands associated
with the task of simulation.
The present study departed from our pre-
vious research in an important respect Sub-
jects' expectancies regarding the experience of
nonvolition during hypnosis were manipulated
prior to their being hypnotized and receiving
countersuggestions. To be more specific, prior
to hypnosis, subjects were informed either that
other good hypnotic subjects could successfully
resist suggestions and retain control over their
movements or that other "good" subjects fail
to resist suggestions and experience loss of vol-
 NONVOUTION, EXPECTANCIES, RAPPORT 297
untary control over their actions during hyp- moving together and the arm-rigidity items These items
nosis. Hypnotic and simulating subjects then were included as motoric suggestions in the experimental
phase of the study The Harvard mean scores, standard
received a hypnotic induction and were in- deviations, and the sex compositions of the groups are as
structed to fully experience yet to resist re- follows- Hypnotic/move, Harvard M = 9.23, SD = 0 44,
sponding to the motoric suggestions that would male/female (3/10); hypnotic/resist, Harvard M = 9.47,
follow. Subjects' reports of their experiences SD = 0.52, male/female (2/13), simulating/move, Harvard
were coded with respect to mvoluntariness, M = 1 73, SD = 0 90, male/female (3/8), simulating/
sensations, conflict about responding, and resist, Harvard M = 1 80, SD = 0 79, male/female (5/5)
Experimental subjects were chosen from 205 subjects
imaginative involvement. Rapport with the screened
hypnotist was assessed to determine whether
subjects with highly positive rapport resolve
hypnotic conflict m a different manner than Treatment of Hypnotic and
do subjects who experience less positive rap- Simulating Subjects
port. Subjects were also asked to rate how In the screening phase, subjects were informed that our
deeply hypnotized they felt, how good a subject research group was attempting to compile a profile of how
they thought they were, how many suggestions Ohio University students compare with other hypnosis
subjects across the nation Only subjects motivated to take
they moved in response to, and finally, how part in other studies were asked to volunteer No subject
many suggestions other good subjects moved who volunteered for the initial screening refused to par-
in response to. ticipate For the actual experimental phase, a project co-
ordinator read subjects simulating instructions that were
This design permitted a direct test of the identical to those used in our previous research Simulators
hypothesis that susceptible subjects are re- were informed that if their pretense were detected, the
sponsive to the broad expectational context in hypnotist would tap them on the shoulder and excuse
which the experiment is conducted and that them from the room The simulators were informed that
highly susceptible subjects would be coparticipants Sim-
involuntanness is mediated by active cognitive ulators were also asked to continue their role playing until
processes and expectancies. Support for this the experimental assistant signaled them to stop The hyp-
hypothesis would be forthcoming if (a) hyp- notic subjects had no knowledge that simulating subjects
notic subjects' reports of involuntanness and were participating in the same groups '
their response to countersuggestion varied as
a function of prehypnotic normative infor- Move/Resist Instructions
mation that specified the way good subjects
Another assistant administered the instructions, which
experience hypnosis and (b) hypnotized and constituted the experimental manipulation, to hypnotic
simulating subjects responses to counter- and simulating subjects The instructions were presented
suggestion were mediated by expectancies re- in written form, but the assistant, who was blind to the
garding appropriate responding in the exper- status of the subjects and the hypotheses, answered any
imental context. If imaginative involvement questions that subjects had The manipulation is presented
below The words in parentheses highlight the cognitive
were found to parallel subjects' responses to set to move, the underlined words emphasize the cognitive
countersuggestion, support would be garnered set to resist
for Arnold's theory of involuntariness.
As part of our efforts to match Ohio University students
with others across the nation, we are interested in seeing
Method how you compare with other highly susceptible subjects
across the country What happens when a good hypnotic
Procedure subject is told to imagine suggestions vividly but is asked
to resist going along with them"? The answer seems to
To evaluate the hypothesis under consideration, a 2 X be that the good hypnotic subject is able (unable) to
2 (Group/hypnotic vs simulating X Instructions/move vs resist the suggestion while he or she experiences it.
resist) experimental design was employed Within suscep-
Good hypnotic subjects do not feel (feel) as if their
tibility levels, subjects were randomly assigned to move/
responses to suggestions "just happen" to them and that
resist treatments (hypnotic/move n - 13, hypnotic/resist
they respond automatically They experience the way
n = 15, simulating/move n = 11, simulating/resist n = 10)
they respond to suggestions as occurring within their
(with little or no) voluntary control, while they remain
Subjects deeply hypnotized Therefore, they are able (unable) to

Subjects were assigned to groups on the basis of their

scores on a shortened, 10-pomt version of the Harvard
1
Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A The complete simulating instructions are available on
(HGSHSA, Shor & O n e , 1962), which omitted the hands request to the first author
298 LYNN, NASH, RHUE, FRAUMAN, AND SWEENEY
resist going along with suggestions despite being told to
do so. All of this occurs because of the high susceptible
subjects* ability to experience what we call "trance"
Perhaps you have already discovered something like this
when you were hypnotized.
In this part of the study you will first be hypnotized,
using another similar, widely used hypnotic induction
After you are hypnotized, the hypnotist will ask you to
vividly imagine, but resist following the next five sug-
gestions Like other good subjects, you will probably
find that you are able (unable) to do this That is, it is
very likely that you will not (will) go along with the
suggestions when (even though) the hypnotist tells you
to resist
We will schedule another optional meeting which you
may wish to attend about two weeks from now, to let
you know exactly how your responses and those of your
fellow students compare with a national sample of sub-
jects
Induction and Instructions to
Resist Suggestions
Subjects were seated in groups of four to eight in such
a manner that they could not see the responses of other
subjects The project coordinator ensured that each of the
three hypnotists had not worked with any of the subjects
previously and was blind to the subjects' status Subjects
were informed that some people might enter the room at
some time during the procedure
The hypnotic procedure was identical for both simulating
and hypnotic subjects Subjects received a version of the
Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form
2 (Weitzenhoifer & Hilgard, 1967) adapted for group ad-
ministration Deepening suggestions that followed the in-
duction by hand lowering instructed subjects to imagine
that they were walking down a magnificent spiral staircase
Subjects received only the induction; no suggestions from
the scale followed2
The subjects received the following instructions during
hypnosis after the deepening instructions were read The
countersuggestion instructions were identical to those em-
ployed m our previous research
Please listen very carefully It is very important that
you listen very carefully For each of the following five
suggestions, just listen as carefully and intently as you
can, but be sure not to act on any of the suggestions
So, even if I suggest that you do something, you will
not do it Just think and imagine along with the sug-
gestions, but do not actually take any actions or engage
in anj; of the behaviors that I suggest until I give you
instructions to come out of your hypnotic trance. The
important thing for you to remember is that you can
think and imagine along with what I suggest, but do
not actually do anything 1 suggest to you Q.K, now
we will begin with thefirstsuggestion with you listening
and imagining to the greatest extent you are cap-
able of
After the instructions were read, raters quietly entered
the room and positioned themselves about 3 feet in front
of a subject. As in our previous research, the raters were
carefully trained by rating a model's movements in group
sessions prior to the actual experiment Raters recorded
movements on a scale ranging from no movement, to some
movement, to full responsiveness3 For all possible pairs of
raters, interrater reliability coefficients were computed and
averaged (r = .95, range = .91-.98); the impressively high
agreement justified the use of one rater/subject in the ex-
perimental situation Half way through the experiment,
interrater reliabilities were computed in the same manner
demonstrating stability in the agreement among raters
(average r = .96, range = .93- 98)
Following the reading of the instructions, the hypnotist
read five motonc suggestions (head falling, hand lowering,
arm rigidity, moving hands together, hand levitation) that
corresponded to those administered in our earlier research.
None of the subjects had experience with the last three
suggestions The order of suggestions was varied on a ran-
dom basis across groups of subjects
Following the experimental procedure, subjects were
instructed to recall the prehypnotic and countersuggestion
instructions and write them down along with an essay of
at least 100 words, describing their thoughts, feelings, and
actions (if any) during the experimental procedure Subjects
were asked to indicate whether they responded to any of
the suggestions and what they did or experienced in relation
to each of the described actions
Dependent Variables
Variables derived from open-ended reports Subjects'
essays and all comments were transcribed The subjective
report measures derived from their descriptions were iden-
tical to those employed in our previous studies A blind
rater counted the number of sensations experienced by
each subject using a scheme developed by Spanos et al
(1977) Naive raters coded subjects' conflict, mvoluntar-
mess, and imaginative involvement in the suggestions
Three-point scales were utilized with anchors describing
increasing conflict—no indication of conflict (1), some
conflict (2), and a great deal (3), lack of volitional control—
dehberateness and conscious control/no sense of things
happening by themselves (1), some control/ability to direct
actions (2), and no conscious control suggested/behavior
experienced as totally involuntary (3), and involvement
in imaginings and fantasy—no indication of suggestion-
relatedfantasy/imaginal involvement (1), imaginal/fantasy
involvement in response to 1 or 2 suggestions (2), and
imaginal/fantasy involvement in response to three or more
suggestions of a vivid or elaborated nature or fantasy/
imaginative productions in response to all suggestions (3)
Interrater reliabilities were good, ranging from conflict (80)
to imaginative involvement (.90)
Questionnaire variables On a postexpenmental in-
quiry form, subjects also responded to Likert-type items
(range 1-5) that assessed how deeply hypnotized they felt—
deeply hypnotized (1), somewhat hypnotized (3), or not at
all hypnotized (5); how good a subject they thought they
were—excellent (1), average (3), or poor (5), how many
suggestions they moved in response to—0 to 5, and how
2
The complete induction is available on request to the
first author
3
The scoring criteria for each of the suggestions are
available on request to the first author
 NONVOLITION, EXPECTANCIES, RAPPORT 299

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables in Move and Resist Conditions

Move Resist

Hypnotic Simulating Hypnotic Simulating

<« = 13) (n = 11) (n = 15) (« =• 10)

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD

Observer-rated movements 1200 3 27 7 09 '101 111 3 17 6.50 2.92

How hypnotized felt 2.38 1.04 2.18 ()98 1 80 101 2 40 126
How good a subject 185 0.80 218 ()98 193 0 96 2 20 0.92
Suggestions good subjects respond to 531 0 97 3 36 .83 2.13 176 2.20 199
Nonvohtion 4 70 125 3 45 04 3 80 132 2 40 1.26
Sensations 431 206 200 26 2 27 144 190 2.60
Imagination 3 92 175 2 64 12 300 196 3 10 179
Conflict 3 38 1.56 2 55 04 2 67 135 2.30 0 67
Rapport 2 46 133 2 27 ().90 2 27 1.10 2 70 0.95
Liking 161 0 87 182 33 1 67 1 11 2 30 0.95

many suggestions other good subjects responded to—0 to
5 Subjects also responded to questions that tapped their
feelings about or relationship with the hypnotist and ex-
perimental assistant who administered the instructions
Subjects were asked to rate their rapport with the hyp-
notist—very good (1), neutral (3), or very poor (5) Five-
point scales were also used to assess liking for the hyp-
notist—I basically the hypnotist like (1), have
neutral feelings for (3), or dislike (5)
After the subjects responded to these items, their papers
were collected and the assistant instructed simulators to
abandon their role playing All of the subjects were then
instructed in rating their own movement responses to the
five suggestions on the same scale that was used by the
observer-raters All of the subjects were then debriefed
Results
None of the subjects' data was excluded be-
cause of misinterpretation of the prehypnotic
and countersuggestion instructions. The be-
havioral and subjective report data were sub-
jected to 2 X 2 (Group/hypnotized vs. sim-
ulating X Instructions/move vs. resist) analyses
of variance (ANOVAS). The means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 1. Neuman-
Keuls post hoc comparisons were performed
where appropriate. A preplanned comparison
(two-tailed) was also performed on hypnotized
subjects' reports of involuntary experiences in
the move versus resist instructional conditions.
Analyses of movements Scores for ob-
server-rated movements were obtained for each
of the five suggestions on a 3-point movement
dimension. Total movement scores were com-
puted for each subject by summing the scores
of the five suggestions (range = 5-15). Sig-
nificant main effects for group, F(l, 45) =
8.52, p < .005, and instructions, F{1, 45) =
9.47, p < .004, were found. As Table 1 indi-
cates, susceptible subjects moved more than
did simulators. Subjects primed to move did,
in fact, move more than did subjects informed
that good subjects were able to resist sugges-
tions. These findings were qualified by a sig-
nificant Group X Instruction interaction, F(l,
45) = 4.56, p < .04). Post hoc analyses revealed
that the instructional set had an effect only
for hypnotic subjects. Susceptible subjects
moved as a function of the prehypnotic in-
structions; simulators evidenced few move-
ments in response to both move and resist
instructions. These differences in movements
cannot be ascribed to differences in how hyp-
notized the subjects felt or how good subjects
perceive themselves to be as hypnotic subjects.
No significant main effects or interactions were
found for these measures.4
Perceptions of good subjects' movements
Subjects' ratings of how many suggestions good
hypnotic subjects respond to were affected by
4
Observer and self-rated movements were highly cor-
related, hence, only observer-rated data are presented as
a separate ANOVA Subjects' observer-rated movements on
the 3-pomt movement dimension correlated extremely high
(r = 93, p < .001) with self-ratings on the same scale.
Furthermore, these measures (observer/self) were highly
correlated with the self-rated measure of number of sug-
gestions responded to (r= 73 and 78, respectively,
p<.001)
300 LYNN, NASH, RHUE, FRAUMAN, AND SWEENEY

both the instructional set, / ^ l , 45) = 26.25, signment, F(l, 45) = 3.27, p < .08. Post hoc
p < .0001, and their hypnotic-simulating sta- tests revealed that hypnotized subjects with
tus, F{\, 45) = 4.51, p < .04. Subjects who the move preset reported more sensations than
received the instructional set that specified that
did subjects in the other groups. No significant
good subjects failed to resist the hypnotist in- main effects or interactions were observed for
dicated that good subjects move in response the measures of conflict or imagination.
to more suggestions than do subjects who re- Analyses of rapport data No significant
ceived the resist preset. Hypnotized subjects' main effects or interactions were observed for
expectancies differed from simulators' m that the measures of rapport with and liking for
the hypnotized subjects felt that good subjects the hypnotist. For purposes of additional anal-
moved m response to more suggestions than yses, subjects in each of the groups were di-
did the simulating subjects. As was the case vided into two categories: positive and neutral-
with the movement data, the above findings negative rapport with the hypnotist. Subjects
were qualified by a significant Instruction X considered to have positive rapport with the
Group interaction, F(l, 45) = 4.24, p < 05. hypnotist were required to score 1 or 2 on
Post hoc tests indicated that hypnotic subjects' both the rapport and liking for the hypnotist
expectancies were affected by the instructions; measures. Subjects considered to be in the
simulators' expectancies were not. Hypnotic neutral-negative rapport categories scored 3
subjects' expectancies were attuned to the or lower on the relevant measures. Nonpara-
normative information; however, regardless of metric analyses of the data indicated that more
the prior instructions, simulators indicated hypnotized subjects with positive rapport in
that good hypnotic subjects moved in response the preset to move condition fully resisted one
to few suggestions. This pattern of mean dif- or more of the hypnotist's suggestions (88%)
ferences corresponded exactly to the pattern than did subjects with less positive rapport
of means for subjects' actual movements. (20%). The Fisher's Exact Probability test was
Analyses of subjective reports For the significant at .031 No other significant dif-
measure of experienced nonvolition, signifi- ferences were confirmed for hypnotist rapport
cant main effects were observed for the in- in the other conditions.
struction, F( 1,45) = 7.44, p < .009, and group, However, combined across conditions, hyp-
/ U , 45) = 13.71, p < .001, factors. Subjects notized subjects expressed greater rapport
who received the move/involuntary set re- (Fisher's Exact Probability, p < .04) for the
ported greater involuntariness than did sub- hypnotist (17 expressed positive and 11 neu-
jects who received the resist/voluntary set. tral-negative rapport) than did simulators
Hypnotized subjects' reports reflected greater (7 expressed positive and 14 neutral-negative
involuntariness than did simulators. A pre- rapport).
planned comparison (two-tailed) revealed a
strong tendency (p < .06) for hypnotized sub- Discussion
jects to experience greater involuntariness
when the preset specified this as normative This study provided strong support for the
than when control over actions was empha- hypothesis that susceptible subjects' reports of
sized. The Instruction X Group interaction involuntary experiences are highly responsive
failed to reach significance. to the broad expectational context in which
The number of suggestion-related sensations the experiment is conducted. More specifically,
reported was affected by both the instructions, prehypnotic normative information had a
JFXI, 45) = 5.11, p < .03, and the subject's strong effect on subjects' ability to resist the
real-simulator status, F\\, 45) = 6.11, p < hypnotist and tended to affect subjects' report
.02. Instructions that portrayed involuntari- of suggestion-related involuntariness in line
ness as normative were associated with more with induced expectancies about appropriate
sensations than were those that emphasized responding. Furthermore, susceptible subjects'
the ability to resist suggestions. Hypnotized reports of how other good subjects behave in
subjects reported more sensations than did the experimental context were found to closely
simulators. There was a strong trend for the parallel their own actions, which provided ad-
instructions to interact with subject group as- ditional evidence that their experience of in-
 NONVOIiTION, EXPECTANCIES, RAPPORT
voluntariness is associated with expectancies
regarding appropriate response. The finding
that subjects' suggestion-related sensations
tended to conform to their movements suggests
that susceptible subjects may actively create
experiences to accord with their perceptions
of the requirements of the hypnotic situation.
It is interesting that subjects' experience of
involuntanness is not necessarily associated
with reports of being hypnotized. When hyp-
nosis is defined as involving voluntary control
over actions, subjects report that they are both
good hypnotic subjects and deeply hypnotized
and that they retain control over their actions.
Combined, thesefindingsprovide substan-
tial support for the theoretical formulations
of Spanos and others who have emphasized
the goal-directed, active nature of hypnotic
cognition and responsiveness (e.g., Sheehan,
1977, 1980; Sheehan & McConkey, 1982;
Spanos, 1981, 1982). Our findings are com-
patible with those secured by Sheehan and
Dolby (1975), who found that hypnotic sub-
jects may be more sensitive to expectancy than
to recency effects. Our results may also be
interpreted as congruent with a self-presen-
tational account of hypnosis (Coe & Sarbin,
1977;Sarbin, 1982, 1983; Sarbin & Coe, 1977)
that considers subjects' responsiveness to ex-
perimental demands from a dramaturgical
perspective. Our results offer no support for
Arnold's viewpoint in that imaginative in-
volvement was not associated with the expe-
rience of involuntanness. Studies by Zaman-
sky (1977) and Spanos and his associates
(Spanos, Cobb, & Gorassim, 1983) also dem-
onstrate that susceptible subjects can be ac-
tively involved in imaginings, yet counter sug-
gestions when such behavior is deemed ap-
propriate in the experimental situation.
Although hypnotized and simulating sub-
jects were strongly affected by the prehypnotic
normative information, both hypnotized and
simulating subjects did not always move in the
move condition and moved to some degree in
the resist condition. Moving despite being in-
structed that good subjects resist responding
could be interpreted as consistent with neo-
dissociation theory. However, it is quite likely
that the complexity of the procedure, conflict-
ing demands inherent in the methodology, and
the lack of specificity of the prehypnotic in-
structions accounted for much of the vari-
301
ability in subject responding. The use of the
word trance in the instructions might have
engendered demands that conflicted with at-
tributions of control over movements. The
prehypnotic instructions were ambiguous in
the sense that the demands for responding in
accord with the instructions were qualified by
statements such as "you will probably find
that you are able (to resist)" and "it is very
likely that you will not go along with the sug-
gestions " Because subjects were not explicitly
informed that they should necessarily fully re-
sist all of the suggestions, it is not surprising
that some of the subjects did not fully resist
the hypnotist. This hypothesis is supported by
Spanos, Cobb, and Gorassini (1983), who
found that susceptible subjects almost always
resisted suggestions when doing so was clearly
defined as consistent with a self-presentation
as deeply hypnotized.
One of the most interesting findings gen-
erated by the present study is that simulators'
behavior differed dramatically from that of
hypnotized subjects, although both groups of
subjects behaved in conformance with their
expectancies rather than counterexpectation-
ally. Susceptible subjects' behavior was finely
tuned to the expectancy manipation. Simu-
lators given the set to move not only moved
less than did their hypnotized counterparts,
but they also indicated that other good subjects
moved less.
The discrepant behavior and reports of sim-
ulators may be associated, in part, with the
special demands of the simulating condition.
Simulators' behavior largely coincided with the
hypnotist's formal message to resist even when
the prior instructions emphasized involun-
tanness. Simulators, highly motivated to avoid
detection by the hypnotist, may accord nor-
mative information presented by someone
other than the hypnotist little pnority, espe-
cially when it appears to conflict with the hyp-
notist's explicit communication. Simulators
may resolve the ambiguity inherent m the
complex expenmental situation by responding
to the literal instructions of the hypnotist to
"play it safe" in the experimental context
(Sheehan, 1971b, 1973). The cost of moving
clearly differs across expenmental conditions
and may, in itself, account for the real-sim-
ulating differences This interpretation is rein-
forced by the spontaneous comments of five
302 LYNN, NASH, RHUE, FRAUMAN, AND SWEENEY
simulators (move set condition) who remarked
that they were unsure about how to behave
but decided not to move because the hypnotist
repeatedly emphasized resisting and they
feared that movement would jeopardize their
role play.
Furthermore, simulating instructions ac-
tively discourage cognitive activity compatible
with suggested effects and may, instead, evoke
anxiety and apprehension. Hence, it is not
surprising that simulators' reports of involun-
tariness, sensations, and ratings of appropriate
responding are not comparable to the reports
of nonsimulating subjects who may fully in-
volve themselves in suggestion and move in
accord with their action tendencies when
movement is denned as appropriate. Given
the complexities inherent in the counterde-
mand paradigm, it is essential that future
studies include careful postexpenmental in-
quiries to examine subjects' interpretations of
the experimental demands as well as other fac-
tors that may be related to nonvolition (e.g.,
imagination, wording of test suggestions, in-
terpretations of suggestions, susceptibility
level).
The present study is the first to demonstrate
that rapport may play a role m subjects' ex-
perience of involuntanness. In the condition
in which susceptible subjects were preset to
move yet the hypnotist instructed them not
to, subjects with highly positive rapport were
more likely to respond to the hypnotist by
fully resisting at least one suggestion than were
subjects with less positive rapport. Thus, sus-
ceptible subjects with highly positive rapport
resolved hypnotic conflict by achieving a com-
promise between meeting normative expec-
tations and complying with the hypnotist's
counterdemand. Susceptible subjects with less
positive rapport respond primarily in accor-
dance with the normative expectations. The
question of whether comparable results would
be obtained with more subtle, behavioral
measures of rapport such as hypnotic dream-
ing (Sheehan & Dolby, 1975) and self-disclo-
sure tasks (Frauman, Lynn, Hardaway, &
Molteni, in press; McConkey & Sheehan,
1976) might be addressed in future research
endeavors.
These findings are supportive of the view,
propounded by Sheehan and his colleagues,
that some susceptible subjects may be specially
motivated to be highly responsive to the hyp-
notist. This group of researchers also argued
that hypnotized subjects may be more invested
in the hypnotic relationship and the events of
hypnosis than are simulating subjects (e.g.,
Dolby & Sheehan, 1977; Sheehan, 1980). This
hypothesis is supported by the finding that
more susceptible subjects than simulating
subjects expressed highly positive rapport with
the hypnotist. Indeed, the task of simulation,
which fosters perceptions of a virtual adver-
sarial relationship with the hypnotist, may ac-
tively discourage the development of positive
feelings for the hypnotist and involvement in
the hypnotic relationship. Our results extend
Sheehan's prior research on countering to the
domain of involuntariness during hypnosis.
The present research suggests that rapport may
interact with situation-based expectancies and
a number of other factors mentioned here to
determine the hypnotized subject's experience
of nonvolition.
References
Arnold, M B (1946) On the mechanism of suggestion
and hypnosis Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 41, 107-128.
Coe, W C, & Sarbm, T R (1977) Hypnosis from the
standpoint of a contextualist Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 296, 2-13
Dolby, R M., & Sheehan, P W (1977) Cognitive pro-
cessing and expectancy behavior in hypnosis. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 334-345
Frauman, D , Lynn, S J , Hardaway, R, & Molteni, A.
(in press) Subliminal symbiotic activation, hypnotic
rapport, and susceptibility Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology
Hilgard, E R (1977) Divided consciousness Multiple
controls in human thought and action New York Wiley
Hilgard, E R (1979) Divided consciousness m hypnosis
The implications of the hidden observer In E Fromm
& R E Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis Developments in research
and new perspectives (2nd ed, pp 45-76). New York
Aldine
Kihlstrom, J F, Evans, F J , Orne, E C , & Orne, M T
(1980). Attempting to breach hypnotic amnesia. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 603-616
Lynn, S J , Nash, M. R., Rhue, J W, Carlson, V, Sweeney,
C , Frauman, D., & Givens, D. (1982, August) Real
vs simulators Experiential and behavioral differences
in response to conflicting suggestions during hypnosis
Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress of
Hypnosis and Psychosomatic Medicine, Glasgow, Scot-
land.
Lynn, S. J., Nash, M R., Rhue, J W, & Frauman,
D C (1983, August) The counlersuggestwn paradigm
and the experience of nonvolition Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Anaheim, CA
 NONVOLITION, EXPECTANCIES, RAPPORT
Lynn, S. J., Nash, M. R., Rhue, J W., Frauman, D C ,
& Stanley, S (1983). Hypnosis and the experience of
nonvolition International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 31, 293-308
McConkey, K M (1979) Conflict in hypnosis Reality
versus suggestion In G D Burrows, D R Collison, &
L Dennerstein (Eds), Hypnosis, 1979 (pp 102-107)
Amsterdam. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.
McConkey, K., & Sheehan, P W (1976) Contrasting in-
terpersonal orientations m hypnosis- Collaborative versus
contractual modes of response Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 85, 390-397
Sarbm, T R (1982) Hypnosis- The dramaturgical per-
spective In V L. Allen & K E Scheibe (Eds), The
social context of conduct Psychological writings of
Theodore Sarbin (pp 41-57) New York Praeger
Sarbm, T R (1983) A contextual analysis of nonvolition
m hypnosis Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA
Sarbin, T R , & Coe, W C (1977) Hypnosis, A social
psychological analysis of influence communication New
York Holt, Rinehard & Winston
Sheehan, P W (1971a) Countering preconceptions about
hypnosis An objective index of involvement with the
hypnotist Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 299-
322
Sheehan, P W (1971b) Task structure as a limiting con-
dition of the occurrence of the treatment effects of sim-
ulation instructions in application of the real-simulating
model of hypnosis International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, 19, 260-276
Sheehan, P W (1973) Analysis of the heterogeneity of
"faking" and "simulating" performance in the hypnotic
setting International Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 21, 213-225
Sheehan, P. W (1977) Incongruity in trance behavior A
defining property of hypnosis7 Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 296, 194-207.
Sheehan, P W (1980) Factors influencing rapport in hyp-
nosis Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 263-281
Sheehan, P W , & Dolby, R M (1975) Hypnosis and the
influence of most recently perceived events Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 84, 331-345
Sheehan, P W., & McConkey, K M (1982) Hypnosis
and experience The exploration of phenomena and pro-
cesses Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Sheehan, P W, & Perry, C W (1976) Methodologies of
hypnosis A critical appraisal ofcontemporary paradigms
of hypnosis Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
303
Shor, R E., & Orne, E C (1962) The Harvard Group
Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Form A) Palo Alto,
CA. Consulting Psychologists Press
Spanos, N P (1981) Hypnotic responding Automatic
dissociation or situation-relevant cognizing9 In E Khnger
(Ed), Imagery Concepts, results and applications (Vol.
2, pp 105-131) New York Plenum Press
Spanos, N P (1982) Hypnotic behavior. A cognitive, social
psychological perspective Research Communications in
Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavior, 7, 199-213
Spanos, N P , Bndgeman, M , Stam, H J , Gwynn, M ,
&Saad,C L (1983) When seeing is not believing The
effects of contextual variables on the reports of hypnotic
hallucinators Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
2. 195-209
Spanos, N P , Cobb, P C , & Gorassim, D R (1983)
Failing to resist hypnotic lest suggestions A strategy for
self-presenting as deeply hypnotized Unpublished
manuscript, Carleton University
Spanos, N P . & Gorassini, D R (1984). Structure of
hypnotic test suggestions and attributions of responding
involuntarily Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 46. 688-696
Spanos, N P , Radtke, H L , & Bertrand, L (in press)
The successful breaching of hypnotic amnesia in high
susceptible subjects Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology
Spanos,N P,Rivers,S M,&Ross,S (1977) Experienced
mvoluntariness and response to hypnotic suggestions
In W E. Edmonston, Jr (Ed.), Conceptual and inves-
tigative approaches to hypnosis and hypnotic phenom-
ena Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 296,
208-221
Spanos, N P,Weekes,J R., & deGroh, M (1983) Self-
presenting as hypnotized by "involuntarily" countering
suggested requests Unpublished manuscript, Carleton
University
Weitzenhoffer, A M , & Hilgard, E R (1967) Revised
Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Form
2) Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologists Press
Zamansky, H S (1977) Suggestion and countersuggestion
in hypnotic behavior Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
86, 346-351
Received October 28, 1983
Revision received March 19, 1984