This article is based on the senior author's doctoral dissertation presented to the Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba. Appreciation is expressed to committee chairmen Terrance P. Hogan & Les Leventhal, and to committee members Mike Thomas, Fred Marcuse, Dick Gatley, & Glen Kunzman, John Schallow and Walter Driedger.
The effects of context and subjects' perceived control in breaching posthypnotic amnesia
Article first published online: 28 APR 2006
Journal of Personality
Volume 48, Issue 3, pages 342–359, September 1980
How to Cite
Howard, M. L. and Coe, W. C. (1980), The effects of context and subjects' perceived control in breaching posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Personality, 48: 342–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00838.x
- Issue published online: 28 APR 2006
- Article first published online: 28 APR 2006
- Manuscript received March 16, 1979; revised January 11, 1980.
Subjects selected on the basis of being amnesic and experiencing their amnesia as “voluntary” or “involuntary” were subjected to two conditions designed to breach their amnesia: (1) lie detector, and (2) honesty instructions. A third group receiving relaxation instructions served as a control. Posthypnotic amnesia was breached under lie detection and honesty conditions. However, there appeared to be an interaction between how subjects reported their experience of amnesia (voluntary and involuntary) and the degree to which amnesia was breached. Voluntary subjects accounted for the majority of breaching. Implications for (1) studies on breaching, (2) theories and processes of breaching, Implications for (1) studies on breaching, (2) theories and processes of posthypnotic amnesia, and (3) studies in posthypnotic amnesia are discussed.