1. Rebecca Semmens-Wheeler, ZoltanDienes, Theodora Duka University of Sussex Alcohol Increases Hypnotic Susceptibility Toward a Science of Consciousness, 2011

2. A brief introduction to hypnosis Hypnotic experiences are characterised by having one or both of two fundamental qualities: They feel subjectively real, as in the case of cognitive suggestions such as hallucinations They feel involuntary, as in the case of motor suggestions, such as ‘magnetic hands’. There may be different underlying mechanisms and thus contributing factors involved in different types of hypnotic suggestions, and individuals may create the experience in different ways. (Barnier, Dienes & Mitchell, 2009)

3. Neuro-cognitive theories Dissociated control: Executive functions (SAS, located in the prefrontal cortex) dissociated from contention scheduling system (Farvolden & Woody, 2004) Subject loses control and becomes dependent on ‘automatic processes’. Hypnotic responding results from exhaustion of frontal lobe functions (Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992)

4. Socio-cognitive theories Hypnotic responses are not really involuntary, they just feel as though they are. Response expectancy; experience of volition is imposed after the action (Kirsch and Lynn, 1999) Rapport, absorption and imaginative susceptibility (discrepancy-attribution theory; Barnier et al, 2008) Motivation (Gfeller et.al. 1987) Absorption (Semmens-Wheeler & Dienes, 2010; Tellegen, 1982) Fantasy-proneness (Barber & Wilson, 1983)

5. Higher Order Thought TheoryDavid Rosenthal (1986,2005) A conscious mental state is a mental state of which we are conscious We are conscious of things, states, etc by thinking or perceiving that they exist A mental state is conscious when we think we are in that state, i.e., when we have a HOT.

6. Distinguish first order content ‘The tree is green’ from second order content: ‘I see that the tree is green’ Second order content is required for mental states to be conscious! Similarly for intentions....

7. HOTs “I think I am intending to lift my arm” “Lift the arm!” “I am intending to lift my arm” Unconscious mental state Conscious mental state Conscious of… Or aware of… Introspectively aware of … Consciously aware of…

8. Note: “Executive control” (e.g. overcoming habit) can be unconscious on HOT theory Because we could have an intention producing the control in principle without having an HOT about having that intention. This contradicts the common assumption in the literature (and our intuition – we feel that we have free will)

9. Cold Control TheoryZoltanDienes and Josef Perner(2007) Executive control without awareness Hypnosis requires inaccurate or absent HOTs I.e. Create an intention to lift the arm, but unaware of intention  “My arm must be rising by itself!”

10. Effects of Alcohol on the Frontal Lobes Alcohol impairs the frontal lobes (Suzuki and Amaral,1994) and associated executive functions (Weissenborn & Duka, 2002). If alcohol increases hypnotic susceptibility, then this would implicate some role of the frontal lobes in hypnotic responding.

11. Method Participants: 32 ‘mediums’ from Sussex University Half were given alcohol (0.8g/kg) and half were given a placebo. Response expectancy (Y/N) and confidence ratings (1-4) Subjective experience ratings (0-5) Drunkenness scale (pre & post alcohol) Letter fluency (pre & post alcohol) Stop signal task (post alcohol)

12. Suggestions Magnetic hands (easy motor) Heavy arm (easy motor) Rigid arm (challenge motor) Arm immobilisation (challenge motor) Negative hallucination (challenge cognitive) Post-hypnotic amnesia (challenge cognitive) Mosquito hallucination (cognitive) Post-hypnotic movement (cognitive) Sour taste (cognitive)

13. Letter Fluency Task Participants who had drunk alcohol performed significantly worse after drinking their drinks on the letter fluency task than those who had been given placebo. (t = 2.14, p = .02, 95% CI LL: .38, UL: 5.3 Alcohol group M = -3.34, SD = 2.6 Placebo group M = -0.5, SD = 4.43

14. Subjective Hypnotic Responding Participants who had drunk alcohol responded more, according to their subjective ratings of each suggestion, than participants who had been given placebo drinks (t = 2-3.2, p = .003, 95% CI LL: -12.29, UL: -2.71). Alcohol group: M = 25.2, SD = 6.4, Placebo group: M = 17.7, SD = 6.9

15. Expectancy Expectancy correlated positively with subjective responses across both groups Pearson’s r = .55, p <.001.

16. The Effects of alcohol on hypnosis Mean Score

17. Conclusions and future directions Alcohol increases hypnotic susceptibility. The effect of alcohol on hypnotic responding implies involvement of the frontal lobes in hypnotic responding. Response expectancy plays a role in subjective hypnotic experience.

18. Next time you’re drunk, find a hypnotist!

19. Thank-you! R.semmens-wheeler@sussex.ac.uk