JOHN F KIHLSTROM INTERVIEW (PART 1)
It would be difficult to research academic perspectives on hypnosis and not come across John F Kihlstrom. He worked alongside some of the greats, he was the editor of Psychological Science, and he wrote a definitive chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis.
Professor John F Kihlstrom. Credit: John F Kihlstrom.
I approached John by email and asked, as I do, if he’d be interested in an interview for our fun and humble blog about hypnosis. John replied saying he didn’t like Zoom and he didn’t want to do a live interview, but that he would be comfortable answering questions on email, if that interested us. Well, of course! We exchanged emails a handful of times, delving into his past and his thoughts, and the result ended up being so detailed and comprehensive that we decided to divide it over three parts. So here, dear reader, is the first part. Get ready for a thoroughly fascinating read.
What caused you to enter this field and study hypnosis?
I got into hypnosis entirely by accident. I had long intended to be a psychologist, but my interests centered on personality (Kihlstrom, 2017). At Colgate University, where I did my undergraduate degree, the Psychology major was relatively small, so each major was apprenticed to one of the faculty members. I chose Bill Edmonston, because he taught the Personality course; it was only later that I discovered that he did hypnosis research.
Edmonston had been recruited to Colgate by George Estabrooks, a pioneer in hypnosis (he made the first recorded hypnotic induction). Edmonston had been a student of Frank Pattie, a distinguished early hypnosis researcher, at Kentucky (Edmonston, 2000). Pattie had been a Master’s student at Harvard when P.C. Young and others were doing the first controlled experiments on hypnosis – if you ignore the Franklin Commission, which didn’t know that’s what it was doing (Kihlstrom, 2002b); he had co-founded the Hypnosis Seminars with Milton Erickson; and was probably the world’s foremost expert on Franz Anton Mesmer (his collection of Mesmer materials is now in the Princeton University library). And he had done postdoctoral work with John Stern, a prominent psychophysiologist, at Washington University in St Louis, who later reported an amazing, Spartan study of hypnotic analgesia (Stern, Brown, Ulett, & Sletten, 1977). As well, Edmonston was serving as Editor of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, succeeding the Founding Editor, Milton Erickson (Kihlstrom & Frischholz, 2010). Anyway, I assisted in Edmonston’s research on psychophysiological aspects of hypnosis, mostly running screening sessions with the Harvard Group Scale, and did my senior honors project on the subject as well (Kihlstrom & Edmonston, 1971).
Colgate University campus in Hamilton, New York. Credit: Colgate University 2008 / WikiCommons.
By then, Charles Tart had published his groundbreaking anthology on Altered States of Consciousness (Wiley, 1969), which had a section on hypnosis and reprinted Ron Shor’s early theoretical papers on hypnosis and the “generalized reality orientation”. It was the sixties: those two papers struck a responsive chord in me, and I decided that I wanted to do my graduate work someplace where I could continue to study hypnosis. I didn’t apply to Stanford, though I got to work with Jack Hilgard later, when I was on sabbatical from Harvard (Hilgard, Crawford, Bowers, & Kihlstrom, 1979). I did get into Penn’s Program of Research Training in Personality and Experimental Psychopathology, a forerunner of today’s “Clinical Science” programs. Martin Orne had a big laboratory, called the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry, and he took me on as a graduate student (Kihlstrom, 2001; Kihlstrom & Frankel, 2000). By that time, Shor had left Orne’s lab to take a faculty position at New Hampshire; I got to collaborate with him, too, later, when I was at Harvard. Anyway, for five years I worked closely with Orne, his wife Emily (Dinges, Kihlstrom, & McConkey, 2017), and Fred Evans (Kihlstrom, 2006), an Australian who had done his graduate work with Gordon Hammer and J.P. Sutcliffe at Sydney. I didn’t have a clear idea of what particular aspect of hypnosis I wanted to work on, but Fred put me onto posthypnotic amnesia. From there, it was a process of deepening and broadening my interests in hypnosis and related topics, like memory.
What did you think hypnosis was and how it might work when you entered the field? E.g., state, dissociation, social construct, role play, etc.
I didn’t have clear ideas about the nature of hypnosis at the start. Edmonston subscribed to the Pavlovian view that “neutral” hypnosis was essentially a form of deep relaxation, which is how his psychophysiological work was oriented (Edmonston, 1977, 1981, 1991). I had my own flirtation with psychophysiology: after I read some papers reprinted in Tart’s anthology which suggested that there were EEG differences between Zen and Yoga meditation, I tried to get a prominent Zen master to let me record his EEG during meditation. The project failed, and that’s a good story, but I digress.
Anyway, Shor’s papers suggested that there was also an alteration in consciousness involved (he had been a student of Abraham Maslow, and his ideas about hypnosis and what we now call “absorption” were related to Maslow’s notion of “peak experiences”). My senior thesis tried to explore changes in consciousness in neutral hypnosis, but I also had the idea that the real changes in consciousness came about through specific suggestions for analgesia, amnesia, and the like.
Martin’s approach to hypnosis was, essentially, atheoretical – or, more accurately, catholic. He had questions about hypnosis – whether subjects really became more childlike in age regression (Orne, 1951), whether it could coerce antisocial behavior (Orne & Evans, 1965; Evans was the confederate who had the nitric acid thrown at him), whether it could improve muscle strength (Evans & Orne, 1965); what happens if the hypnotist disappears while the subject is hypnotized (Evans & Orne, 1971; Orne & Evans, 1966); how long posthypnotic suggestions last (Damaser, Whitehouse, Orne, Orne, & Dinges, 2010) – things like that. Along the way, he developed his notions about the social psychology of the psychological experiment – ecological validity, demand characteristics, and the like, which interested him independent of any connection to hypnosis (Orne, 1962, 1970, 1972, 1973) (see also Kihlstrom, 2002a; Kihlstrom, 2020a). But unlike Ron Shor, Orne never really proposed a theory of his own. He had the idea that “trance logic” was an important element of hypnosis, and that implies an alteration of consciousness, but he didn’t usually talk about hypnosis in those terms. As a psychiatrist, he understood the historical connection between hypnosis and hysteria – what we now call the dissociative and conversion disorders. But his PhD was in social psychology, under Robert W. White (whose own theory combined both altered-state and motivational constructs; White, 1941), and he had a keen appreciation for the social dynamics of the hypnotic situation – and, for that matter, the dissociative and conversion disorders as well.
My own work has followed Martin’s example. I identify myself as a cognitive social psychologist with clinical training and interests. Much as Martin would, I think, I define hypnosis as an alteration in consciousness that takes place in a particular interpersonal context (Kihlstrom, 2008). So while I’m primarily interested in the cognitive side, I recognize that hypnosis is a complicated phenomenon which needs to be understood from the point of view of both cognitive and social psychology (Kihlstrom, 1978, 1985a, 1997b, 2003, 2008).
John has connected hypnosis to topics including the disorders that used to be labelled as ‘hysteria’. Depicted is Charcot treating a ‘hysterical’ woman in ‘A Clinical Lesson at the Salpêtrière’, 1887, by André Brouillet. Credit: WikiCommons.
To tell the truth, I am more interested in exploring specific hypnotic phenomena than in theorizing about hypnosis. My research set out the basic parameters of posthypnotic amnesia; and I found out some things about its underlying mechanisms that we didn’t know, or appreciate, before (summarized in Kihlstrom, 2020b). My lab has also explored other phenomena, such as posthypnotic suggestion (Tobis & Kihlstrom, 2010) and tactile anesthesia (Tataryn & Kihlstrom, 2017). We’ve done studies of individual differences in hypnotizability and their personality and cognitive correlates (Glisky & Kihlstrom, 1993; Nadon, Kihlstrom, Hoyt, & Register, 1991), including a clarification of the relationship of hypnotizability to the “openness” factor of the “Big Five” structure of personality (Glisky & Kihlstrom, 1993), and what I believe was the first neuropsychological study of hypnotizability, testing the “right hemisphere” hypothesis of hypnosis (Kihlstrom, Glisky, McGovern, Rapcsak, & Mennemeier, 2013).
But I never saw an academic job posting for a “Professor of Hypnosis”, and even Stanford didn’t offer a specialization in hypnosis, along with cognitive and social and developmental psychology. So from the beginning I have assiduously tried to connect hypnosis to topics that other people were interested in. And studying hypnosis has connected me to other topics, as well. Hypnosis led me to broaden my interests – to memory in general (Kihlstrom, 2009, 2020c; Kihlstrom, Dorfman, & Park, 2017; Park, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2005); to the dissociative and conversion disorders that used to be labeled “hysteria” (Kihlstrom, 1994a, 2005), to the nature of unconscious mental life (Kihlstrom, 1987, 1994b, 2012, 2019; Kihlstrom, Mulvaney, Tobias, & Tobis, 2000), and more recently to the nature of consciousness in general (Kihlstrom, 1984, 1997a, 2021b, 2022a, 2022b, 2023). In some ways, hypnosis exemplifies the person-situation interaction, and I’ve written about that as well (Kihlstrom, 2013).
Here’s an example of how things played out in my research career. A correlational study of hypnotizability and imagery ability (Glisky, Tataryn, & Kihlstrom, 1995) led to a psychometric study of individual differences in imagery ability outside the hypnotic context (Kihlstrom, Glisky, Peterson, & Harvey, 1991); which led to an experimental study of whether mental images, like percepts, are reversible (they are; Peterson, Kihlstrom, Rose, & Glisky, 1992); which led to the documentation of the Arizona Whale-Kangaroo, the first new reversible figure in half a century, and an experimental study of differences between Americans and Australians in perception of the figure (Kihlstrom et al., 2018).
Another example: Posthypnotic amnesia is a disorder of memory retrieval. Because the prevailing two-process theory of memory retrieval implicates organized search as critical to successful recall, much of my research focused on organizational processes (e.g., Evans & Kihlstrom, 1973; Kihlstrom & Wilson, 1984; Wilson & Kihlstrom, 1986). Two-process theories also hold that recognition should be superior to recall, because the former obviates the initial search process – and that’s true for posthypnotic amnesia as well. By the way, simulators remain “amnesic" even with recognition testing (Barber & Calverley, 1966; Spanos, James, & De Groot, 1990; Williamsen, Johnson, & Eriksen, 1965). The demand characteristics are clear: hypnotic subjects aren’t supposed to remember anything, anyhow.
But there is a two-process theory of recognition as well, and it appears that successful recognition in posthypnotic amnesia is largely mediated by a priming-based feeling of familiarity, rather than by conscious recollection (Kihlstrom, 2021a). Moving beyond hypnosis, we found that familiarity also mediated recognition in ECT-induced amnesia (Dorfman, Kihlstrom, Cork, & Misiaszek, 1995); and moving beyond amnesia, we found a similar familiarity-based process in stimulus detection during hypnotic tactile anesthesia (Tataryn & Kihlstrom, 2017); moving beyond hypnosis, we showed that the bipartite distinction between recollection and familiarity is incomplete, and that at least a third variant of recollective experience, knowing, must be added to the list (Kihlstrom, 2020c). There might even be a fourth variant, believing, which would be relevant to things like false memory syndrome; but I wasn’t able to nail that down before I closed my lab.
How do you currently understand hypnosis and how do you think it works?
If you held a gun to my head, I’d confess that I’m a “state theorist”, because it’s clear to me that amnesia, analgesia, and the other classic phenomena of hypnosis entail alterations in consciousness – what else would you call them, unless you believe that subjects are simply faking the whole thing (Kihlstrom, 2018)? Hypnotized individuals – and here I’m talking about highly hypnotizable individuals – see and hear things that aren’t there; they don’t feel touch or pain; they experience themselves as four years old again, or a different gender; they carry out actions without knowing why; and they don’t remember what they did while they were hypnotized. That doesn’t mean that sociocultural factors play no role: they do. And that doesn’t mean that any of these phenomena are unique to hypnosis: they probably aren’t. But, given a hypnotizable subject, hypnosis seems to be the most reliable way to produce them on demand. But rather than get deeply into the debate over the nature of hypnosis, I’ve preferred to focus on the nature of specific hypnotic phenomena – much the way that Jack Hilgard did with hypnotic analgesia – and, for that matter, individual differences in hypnotizability.
Post-hypnotic amnesia was first discovered by Marquis de Puységur in 1784. Credit: WikiCommons.
A lot of my work looked at posthypnotic amnesia, drawing on principles and methods from the study of normal human memory (Kihlstrom, 1985b, 1997c, 2020b). My first paper, with Fred Evans, looked at the temporal sequencing of recall during partial posthypnotic amnesia (Evans & Kihlstrom, 1973). Because posthypnotic amnesia is reversible, it’s obvious that the mechanism lies at the retrieval stage of memory processing, rather than encoding or storage. At the time, theories of memory retrieval focused on organization: recall succeeds because the process of retrieval follows the relations between target items. So when recall fails, perhaps that’s because the retrieval process is disorganized. For a series of suggestions on the standardized hypnotizability scales, which is what we were working with, the most obvious mode of organization was temporal sequencing. And, indeed, Evans and I found that temporal sequencing was significantly disrupted in hypnotizable subjects who, despite a suggestion for complete amnesia, still were able to recall some items. Insusceptible subjects, by contrast, tended to recall the items they remembered in order, from first to last.
Then I took a step back, and did some basic descriptive studies of amnesia, not focusing so much on mechanisms. Evans and I documented the reversibility of amnesia more carefully than had been done before (Kihlstrom & Evans, 1976); we showed that even after reversibility there remains a residual amnesia among hypnotizable subjects (Kihlstrom & Evans, 1977); and when subjects do remember some items, they do so generically – they say things like “I did something with my hands”, while insusceptible subjects say things like “I put my two hands out, and felt like there was a magnet drawing them together” (Kihlstrom & Evans, 1978). While amnesia does dissipate somewhat over time, it does not fully remit in the absence of the reversibility cue (Kihlstrom, Easton, & Shor, 1983). Also, the amnesia does not reverse merely with the reinduction of hypnosis, so it is not an instance of state-dependent learning (Kihlstrom, Brenneman, Pistole, & Shor, 1985). Recognition testing reduces amnesia, compared to the usual recall test, as might be expected, but it doesn’t abolish it (Kihlstrom & Shor, 1978); and subjects can experience amnesia even if they have been told about the scale items before they’ve been hypnotized (Shor, Pistole, Easton, & Kihlstrom, 1984). Finally, we established the standard for rescoring the amnesia suggestion on the Harvard Scale to include reversibility as well as initial amnesia (Kihlstrom & Register, 1984).
In addition to these descriptive, parametric studies, I continued to explore the mechanisms of amnesia. We confirmed the original finding of temporal disorganization (Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979), and showed that hypnotizable subjects had difficulty putting the items in order even when they were instructed to do so (Kihlstrom, Evans, Orne, & Orne, 1980). We also observed the temporal-disorganization effect in a more traditional verbal-learning paradigm, with word lists instead of scale items as the to-be-remembered material (Kihlstrom & Wilson, 1984); and we found that other forms of organization, such as category clustering and subjective organization, were not as affected by amnesia (Kihlstrom & Wilson, 1988; Wilson & Kihlstrom, 1986). Moving beyond organization, I found that priming was preserved in posthypnotic amnesia – one of the earliest demonstrations of the dissociation between explicit and implicit memory (Kihlstrom, 1980) – a finding that others subsequently confirmed and extended (Barnier, Bryant, & Briscoe, 2001; David, Brown, Pojoga, & David, 2000). Most recently, I showed that successful recognition during posthypnotic amnesia is mediated by a priming-based feeling of familiarity (Kihlstrom, 2021a).
I wasn’t intrinsically interested in memory when that first study started; I had never had a course on memory, but then I really got into it, and over the years I’ve published a lot of research on various aspects of implicit memory outside of hypnosis. At Arizona, Dan Schacter and I ran a joint lab called the Amnesia and Cognition Unit, and we were the first to provide convincing evidence of spared priming for material presented during general anesthesia (Kihlstrom, Schacter, Cork, Hurt, & Behr, 1990). Another study found that sleep doesn’t seem to spare implicit memory (Wood, Bootzin, Kihlstrom, & Schacter, 1992) – though there were enough differences between the two experiments that this question is still open. We also did a little study of autobiographical memory in a case of multiple personality disorder (Schacter, Kihlstrom, Kihlstrom, & Berren, 1989). As with posthypnotic amnesia, Jennifer Dorfman and I showed that spared implicit memory provided a familiarity-based basis for successful recognition in the retrograde amnesia associated with ECT (Dorfman et al., 1995). A collaboration with Stan Klein, a former graduate student now at UC Santa Barbara, found that traumatic retrograde amnesia affected episodic, but not semantic, memories concerning the self (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1998; Klein, Loftus, & Kihlstrom, 1996). We think that this was the first neuropsychological study of social cognition. And all of this really began with that one study of priming in posthypnotic amnesia: they are more examples of connecting hypnosis up to other things.
References
Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. (1966). Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behavior: Experimental analyses of suggested amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(2), 95-107. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023096
Barnier, A. J., Bryant, R. A., & Briscoe, S. (2001). Posthypnotic amnesia for material learned before or during hypnosis: Explicit and implicit memory effects. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 49(4), 286-304. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207140108410079
Damaser, E., Whitehouse, W. G., Orne, M. T., Orne, E. C., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). Behavioral persistence in carrying out a posthypnotic suggestion beyond the hypnotic context: A consideration of the role of perceived demand characteristics. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 58(1), 1-20. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207140903316201
David, D., Brown, R., Pojoga, C., & David, A. (2000). The impact of posthypnotic amnesia and directed forgetting on implicit and explicit memory: New insights from a modified process dissociation procedure. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 48(3), 267-289. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207140008415246
Dinges, D. F., Kihlstrom, J. F., & McConkey, K. M. (2017). In memoriam: Emily Carota Orne, 1938-2016. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 65(1), 1-3.
Dorfman, J., Kihlstrom, J. F., Cork, R. C., & Misiaszek, J. (1995). Priming and recognition in ECT-induced amnesia. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 244-248. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03210964
Edmonston, W. E. (1977). Neutral hypnosis as relaxation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 20(1), 69-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1977.10403902
Edmonston, W. E. (1981). Hypnosis and relaxation: Modern verification of an old equation. New York: Wiley.
Edmonston, W. E. (1991). Anesis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 197-237). New York: Guilford.
Edmonston, W. E. (2000). Frank A. Pattie, PhD: In Memoriam. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 43(2), 105.
Evans, F. J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1973). Posthypnotic Amnesia as Disrupted Retrieval. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82(2), 317-323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035003
Evans, F. J., & Orne, M. T. (1965). Motivation, performance, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 13(2), 103-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207146508412932
Evans, F. J., & Orne, M. T. (1971). The disappearing hypnotist: The use of simulating subjects to evaluate how subjects perceive experimental procedures. IJCEH, 19(4), 277-296. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207147108407173
Glisky, M. L., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1993). Hypnotizability and facets of openness. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 41(2), 112-123. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207149308414542
Glisky, M. L., Tataryn, D. J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1995). Hypnotizability and mental imagery. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 43(1), 34-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207149508409374
Hilgard, E. R., Crawford, H. J., Bowers, P., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1979). A tailored SHSS:C, permitting user modification for special purposes. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 27(2), 125-133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207147908407552
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1978). Context and cognition in posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 26(4), 246-267. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207147808411251
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1980). Posthypnotic amnesia for recently learned material: Interactions with "episodic" and "semantic" memory. Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 227-251. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90010-9
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1984). Conscious, subconscious, unconscious: A cognitive perspective. In K. S. Bowers & D. Meichenbaum (Eds.), The unconscious reconsidered (pp. 149-211). New York: Wiley.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985a). Hypnosis. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 385-418. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002125
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985b). Posthypnotic amnesia and the dissociation of memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 131-178). New York: Academic.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445-1452. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3629249
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1994a). One hundred years of hysteria. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical perspectives. (pp. 365-394). New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1994b). The rediscovery of the unconscious. In H. Morowitz & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The mind, the brain, and complex adaptive systems. (pp. 123-143). Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997a). Consciousness and me-ness. In J. D. Cohen & J. W. Schooler (Eds.), Scientific approaches to consciousness (pp. 451-468). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997b). Convergence in understanding hypnosis? Perhaps, but perhaps not quite so fast. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 45(3), 324-332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207149708416133
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997c). Hypnosis, memory and amnesia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352, 1727-1732.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2001). Martin T. Orne (1927-2000). American Psychologist, 56(9), 754-755. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.9.754
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002a). Demand characteristics in the laboratory and the clinic: Conversations and collaborations with subjects and patients. Prevention & Treatment [Special issue honoring Martin T. Orne], 5(1), Article_36c. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.536c
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002b). Mesmer, the Franklin Commission, and hypnosis: A counterfactual essay. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 50(4), 408-419. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207140208410114
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2003). The fox, the hedgehog, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 51(2), 166-189. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/iceh.51.2.166.14611
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2005). Dissociative disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 227-253. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143925
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2006). Frederick J. Evans. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 49(1), 3-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2006.10401546
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). The domain of hypnosis, revisited. In M. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 21-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2009). "So that we might have roses in December": The functions of autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1179-1192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1618
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2012). Unconscious processes. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 176-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2013). The person-situation interaction. In D. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 786-805). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2017). Kihlstrom, John F. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. Online). New York: Springer.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2018). Hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(11-12), 53-72.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2019). The motivational unconscious. Personality & Social Psychology Compass, 13(5), e12466. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12466
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2020a). Ecological validity and "ecological validity". Perspectives on Psychological Science, in press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966791
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2020b). Posthypnotic amnesia: Using hypnosis to induce forgetting. In D. Groome & M. Eysenck (Eds.), Forgetting: Explaining memory failure. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: SAGE.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2020c). Varieties of recollective experience. Neuropsychologia, in press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107295
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2021a). Recognition in posthypnotic amnesia, revisited. International Journal of Cliinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 69(3), 383-410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207144.2021.1910827
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2021b). Second thoughts on the “hard problem” of consciousness (and the “easy problem,” too). Psychology of Consciousness, 8(1), 85-87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cns0000265
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2022a). Consciousness, the unconscious, and the self. Psychology of Consciousness, 9(1), 78-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000285
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2022b). Hypnosis, bicameral mentality, and the theory of mind. In M. Kuijsten (Ed.), Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind (pp. 217-250). Henderson, Nv.: Julian Jaynes Society.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2023). Four problems of mind and body [Celebrating the 80th birthday of Max Velmans]. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 30(1-2), 87-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.30.1.087
Kihlstrom, J. F., Brenneman, H. A., Pistole, D. D., & Shor, R. E. (1985). Hypnosis as a retrieval cue in posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94(3), 264-271. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.94.3.264
Kihlstrom, J. F., Dorfman, J., & Park, L. (2017). Conscious and unconscious memory. In S. Schneider & M. Velmans (Eds.), Blackwell companion to consciousness (2nd ed., pp. 562-575). Oxford: Wiley.
Kihlstrom, J. F., Easton, R. D., & Shor, R. E. (1983). Spontaneous recovery of memory during posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 31(4), 309-323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148308406625
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Edmonston, W. E. (1971). Alterations in Consciousness in Neutral Hypnosis: Distortions in Semantic Space. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 13(4), 243-248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1971.10402120
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Evans, F. J. (1976). Recovery of Memory After Posthypnotic Amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(6), 564-569. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.85.6.564
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Evans, F. J. (1977). Residual effect of suggestions for posthypnotic amnesia: A reexamination. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(4), 327-333. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.86.4.327
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Evans, F. J. (1978). Generic recall during posthypnotic amnesia. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12(1), 57-60. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03329624
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Evans, F. J. (1979). Memory retrieval processes in posthypnotic amnesia. In J. F. Kihlstrom & F. J. Evans (Eds.), Functional disorders of memory (pp. 179-218). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Kihlstrom, J. F., Evans, F. J., Orne, E. C., & Orne, M. T. (1980). Attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89(5), 603-616. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.89.5.603
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Frankel, F. H. (2000). In memoriam: Martin T. Orne, 1927-2000. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 48(4), 355-360.
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Frischholz, E. J. (2010). William E. Edmonston, Jr.: Editor, 1968-1976. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 53(2), 81-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2010.10404330
Kihlstrom, J. F., Glisky, M. L., McGovern, S. R., Rapcsak, S. Z., & Mennemeier, M. (2013). Hypnosis in the right hemisphere. Cortex, 49(2), 393-399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.018
Kihlstrom, J. F., Glisky, M. L., Peterson, M. A., & Harvey, E. M. (1991). Vividness and control of mental imagery: A psychometric analysis. Journal of Mental Imagery, 15(3-4), 133-142. doi: https://search.proquest.com/docview/618115474?accountid=14496
Kihlstrom, J. F., Mulvaney, S., Tobias, B. A., & Tobis, I. P. (2000). The emotional unconscious. In E. Eich, J. F. Kihlstrom, G. H. Bower, J. P. Forgas & P. M. Niedenthal (Eds.), Cognition and emotion (pp. 30-86). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F., Peterson, M. A., Mcconkey, K. M., Cranney, J., Glisky, M. L., & Rose, P. M. (2018). Orientation and Experience in the Perception of Form: A Study with the Arizona Whale-Kangaroo. American Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 129-139. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.131.2.0129
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Register, P. A. (1984). Optimal scoring of amnesia on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 32(1), 51-57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148408416000
Kihlstrom, J. F., Schacter, D. L., Cork, R. C., Hurt, C. A., & Behr, S. E. (1990). Implicit and explicit memory following surgical anesthesia. Psychological Science, 1(5), 303-306. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00222.x
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Shor, R. E. (1978). Recall and recognition during posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 26(4), 330-349. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207147808411257
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Wilson, L. (1984). Temporal organization of recall during posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93(2), 200-208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.93.2.200
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Wilson, L. (1988). Rejoinder to Spanos, Bertrand, and Perlini [re: "Reduced clustering during hypnotic amnesia for a long word list: Comment on Wilson and Kihlstrom"]. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 381-383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092432
Klein, S. B., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1998). On bridging the gap between social-personality psychology and neuropsychology. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 228-242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_1
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Self-knowledge of an amnesic patient: Toward a neuropsychology of personality and social psychology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(3), 250-260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.3.250
Nadon, R., Kihlstrom, J. F., Hoyt, I. P., & Register, P. A. (1991). Absorption and hypnotizability: Context effects re-examined. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(1), 144-153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.144
Orne, M. T. (1951). The mechanisms of hypnotic age regression: An experimental study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 213-225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059971w
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
Orne, M. T. (1970). Hypnosis, Motivation, and the ecological validity of the psychological experiment. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 187-265). Lincoln, Ne:: Univ. of Nebraska Press.
Orne, M. T. (1972). On the simulating subject as a quasi-control group in hypnosis research: What, why, and how. In R. Fromm & R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research developments and perspectives (pp. 399-443). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Orne, M. T. (1973). Communication by the total experimental situation: Why it is important, how it is evaluated, and its significance for the ecological validity of findings. In P. Pliner, L. Krames & T. Alloway (Eds.), Communication and affect (pp. 157-191). New York: Academic.
Orne, M. T., & Evans, F. J. (1965). Social control in the psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(3), 189-200. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021933
Orne, M. T., & Evans, F. J. (1966). Inadvertent termination of hypnosis with hypnotized and simulating subjects. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 14(1), 71078. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207146608415895
Park, L., Shobe, K. K., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2005). Associative and categorical relations in the associative memory illusion. Psychological Science, 16(10), 792-797(796). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01616.x
Peterson, M. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., Rose, P. M., & Glisky, M. L. (1992). Mental images can be ambiguous: Reconstruals and reference-frame reversals. Memory & Cognition, 20(2), 107-123. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03197159
Schacter, D. L., Kihlstrom, J. F., Kihlstrom, L. C., & Berren, M. B. (1989). Autobiographical memory in a case of multiple personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(4), 508-514. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.98.4.508
Shor, R. E., Pistole, D. D., Easton, R. D., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1984). Relation of predicted to actual hypnotic responsiveness, with special reference to posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 32(4), 376-387. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148408416029
Spanos, N. P., James, B., & De Groot, H. P. (1990). Detection of simulated hypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99(2), 179-182. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.99.2.179
Stern, J. A., Brown, M., Ulett, G. A., & Sletten, I. (1977). A comparison of hypnosis, acupuncture, morphine, valium, aspirin, and placebo in the management of experimentally induced pain. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 296, 175-193.
Tataryn, D. J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2017). Hypnotic tactile anesthesia: Psychophysical and signal-detection analyses. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 65(2), 133-161. doi: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1881315933?accountid=14496
Tobis, I. P., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2010). Allocation of attentional resources in posthypnotic suggestion. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 58(4), 367-382. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207144.2010.499330
White, R. W. (1941). A preface to the theory of hypnotism. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 36, 477-505.
Williamsen, J. A., Johnson, H. J., & Eriksen, C. W. (1965). Some characteristics of posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70, 123-131. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021934
Wilson, L., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1986). Subjective and categorical organization of recall during posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(3), 264-273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.264
Wood, J. M., Bootzin, R. R., Kihlstrom, J. F., & Schacter, D. L. (1992). Implicit and explicit memory for verbal information presented during sleep. Psychological Science, 3(4), 236-239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00035.x