Basic HTML Version
between hypnosis and susceptibility,
F
(1, 122)
¼
4.22,
p
<
.05. The nature
of this interaction is made clear by comparing the effects of nonhypno-
tized versus hypnotized conditions for each of the low and high sus-
ceptible groups separately. Hypnosis has a significant effect on the high
susceptibles,
F
(1, 65)
¼
7.62,
p
<
.01, with hypnotized highs showing
significantly more errors than nonhypnotized highs (see Table 2). How-
ever, in the low susceptibles, there is no significant effect for hypnosis
condition. Table 2 clearly shows that of all conditions it is the hypnotized
high susceptibles in which error responses occur most frequently.
Self-Reported Frequency of Strategy Use
Participants’ self-reported strategy use when performing the Stroop
task was obtained for each occasion that the task was performed. As
above, a 2 2 5ANOVAwas carried out on this frequencydata for each
of thepreviouslydefined rehearsal, experiential, andpositional strategies.
In the tables for each reported strategy, means are collapsed over factors
that had no significant effect. For the rehearsal strategy, a main effect was
found for hypnosis,
F
(1, 122)
¼
18.13,
p
<
.01. Use of the rehearsal strategy
was significantly less in the hypnotized condition than in the nonhypno-
tized condition (see Table 3). A trend was found, however, for an inter-
action between hypnosis and susceptibility,
F
(1, 122)
¼
3.04,
p
<
.09, with
the lowest frequency of rehearsal use occurring amongst hypnotized
highs and the greatest use amongnonhypnotized lows (seeTable 4). There
were no other significant main or interaction effects.
Table 3
Mean Frequency of Strategy Use in Hypnotized and Nonhypnotized Conditions
Hypnosis Condition
Strategy
Rehearsal
Experiential
Positional
Hypnotized
2.44 (1.39)
2.77 (1.28)
2.56 (1.41)
Nonhypnotized
2.86 (1.31)
1.98 (1.05)
3.00 (1.43)
Table 4
Mean Rehearsal Strategy Use by High and Low Susceptibles in Hypnotized and
Nonhypnotized Conditions
Susceptibility
Hypnosis Condition
Hypnotized
Nonhypnotized
High
2.24 (1.31)
2.79 (1.26)
Low
2.64 (1.45)
2.86 (1.36)
Overall
2.44 (1.39)
2.83 (1.31)
AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF DISSOCIATED CONTROL
241
Downloaded by [ ] at 05:16 26 March 2012