Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal


2020 Vol. 13 Issue 72

Reshetnikov M.L. Effect of verbal suggestions on solving the Pigpen problem

Full text in Russian: Решетников М.Л. Влияние различных видов вербального внушения на динамику решения задачи «9 свинок»

National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

About author
Suggested citation

There are many physiological and psychological factors, which are thought to affect performance on various cognitive tasks. Even phrasing of a task can change results dramatically. There are studies showing that verbal suggestions can increase performance on tasks such as Stroop test. Some findings show that suggestions can have automating and de-automating effect on cognitive processes.
However, there is insufficient information about the influence of hypnotic and non-hypnotic suggestions on higher-order processing such as problem solving. Several authors link hypnosis phenomenon with top-down cognitive control, proposing for consideration of insight problem solving in this context.
This paper aims to analyze current literature on the association between hypnosis and suggestions on the one hand and cognitive control and creative problem solving on the other. The effect of hypnotic suggestions on insight problem solving is also investigated by looking at cognitive control.

Keywords: insight tasks, pigpen problem, insight, problem solving, suggestion, hypnosis

Full text in Russian >>

Acknowledgements / Acknowledgement

The author thanks study assistants: Ostrovsky Yu.V. And Lobanov V.I. who conducted blind suggestibility tests and delivered hypnotic suggestions. I also thank Zhidkova E.A. who conducted blind relaxation procedure and delivered non-hypnotic suggestions.

Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.

Aiktns, D., Ray, W.J. (2001). Frontal lobe contributions to hypnotic susceptibility: A neuropsychological screening of executive functioning. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 49(4), 320–329.

Barry, J.J., Atzman, O., Morrell, M.J. (2000). Discriminating Between Epileptic and Nonepileptic Events: The Utility of Hypnotic Seizure Induction. Epilepsia, 41(1), 81–84.

Beard, E., Dienes, Z., Muirhead, C., West, R. (2016). Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research. Addiction, 111(12), 2230–2247.

Benedetti, F., Amanzio, M. (2013). Mechanisms of the placebo response. Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 26(5), 520–523.

Bowers, K.S. (1993). The waterloo-stanford group c (wsgc) scale of hypnotic susceptibility: Normative and comparative data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(1), 35–46.

Bowers, K.S. (1998). Waterloo-stanford group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form C: Manual and response booklet. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46(3), 250–268.

Dienes, Z., Hutton, S. (2013). Understanding hypnosis metacognitively: RTMS applied to left DLPFC increases hypnotic suggestibility. Cortex, 49(2), 386–392.

Elkins, G.R., Barabasz, A.F., Council, J.R., Spiegel, D. (2015). Advancing Research and Practice: The Revised APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63(1), 1–9.

Evans, F.J. (1979). Contextual forgetting: Posthypnotic source amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(5), 556–563.

Gilhooly, K.J., Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(3), 279–302.

Kaptchuk, T.J., Kelley, J.M., Deykin, A., Wayne, P.M., Lasagna, L.C., Epstein, I.O., Kirsch, I., Wechsler, M.E. (2008). Do “placebo responders” exist? Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(4), 587–595.

Kirsch, I. (1999). Hypnosis and placebos: Response expectancy as a mediator of suggestion effects. Anales de Psicología, 15(1), 99–110.

Kirsch, I. (2005). Medication and suggestion in the treatment of depression. Contemporary Hypnosis, 22(2), 59–66.

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534–1555.

Kotrl, J. W. (2003). The Incorporation of Effect Size in Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Research.

Lifshitz, M., Aubert Bonn, N., Fischer, A., Kashem, I.F., Raz, A. (2013). Using suggestion to modulate automatic processes: From Stroop to McGurk and beyond. Cortex, 49(2), 463–473.

Mackey, E.F. (2018). An Extension Study Using Hypnotic Suggestion as an Adjunct to Intravenous Sedation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 60(4), 378–385.

Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Terhune, D.B., Cardeña, E. (2012). Individual differences and state effects on mind-wandering: Hypnotizability, dissociation, and sensory homogenization. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1097–1108.

Markina, P.N., Vladimirov, I. (2019). Executive Function Role on a Stage of Impasse in Insight Problem Solving. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 16(3), 562–570.

Massa, L.J., Mayer, R.E., Bohon, L.M. (2005). Individual differences in gender role beliefs influence spatial ability test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 99–111.

Oakley, D.A., Halligan, P.W. (2013). Hypnotic suggestion: Opportunities for cognitive neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(8), 565–576.

Pintar, J., Lynn, S.J. (2009). Hypnosis: A Brief History. John Wiley & Sons.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., MacCallum, R.C., Nicewander, W.A. (2005). Use of the Extreme Groups Approach: A Critical Reexamination and New Recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10(2), 178–192.

Raz, A. (2011). Hypnosis: A twilight zone of the top-down variety. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(12), 555–557.

Raz, A., Campbell, N.K.J. (2011). Can suggestion obviate reading? Supplementing primary Stroop evidence with exploratory negative priming analyses. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 312–320.

Reshetnikov M. L. Pigpen, GitHub repository, August 10, 2020,

Seli, P., Maillet, D., Schacter, D.L., Kane, M.J., Smallwood, J., Schooler, J.W., Smilek, D. (2017). What does (and should) “mind wandering” mean? [Preprint]. PsyArXiv.

Spanos, N.P., Radtke, H.L., Bertrand, L.D. (1984). Hypnotic amnesia as a strategic enactment: Breaching amnesia in highly susceptible subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1155–1169.

Stefan, A.M., Gronau, Q.F., Schönbrodt, F.D., & Wagenmakers, E.J. (2019). A tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis using an informed prior. Behavior research methods, 51(3), 1042–1058.

Terhune, D.B., Hedman, L.R.A. (2017). Metacognition of agency is reduced in high hypnotic suggestibility. Cognition, 168, 176–181.

Thompson, T., Terhune, D.B., Oram, C., Sharangparni, J., Rouf, R., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., Stubbs, B. (2019). The effectiveness of hypnosis for pain relief: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 controlled experimental trials. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 99, 298–310.

Tikhomirov, O.K. (1975). Psychological studies of creativity. Nauka.

Vladimirov, I.Yu., Korovkin, S.Yu., Lebed’, A.A., Savinova, A.D., Chistopolskaya, A.V. (2016). Executive control and intuition: interaction at different stages of creative decision.

Zedelius, C.M., Schooler, J.W. (2015). Mind wandering “Ahas” versus mindful reasoning: Alternative routes to creative solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.

Received 09 March 2020. Date of publication: 28 August 2020.

About author

Reshetnikov Mikhail Leonidovich. PhD, Department of Psychology, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, ul. Myasnitskaya, 20, 101000 Moscow Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Reshetnikov M.L. Effect of verbal suggestions on solving the Pigpen problem. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2020, Vol. 13, No. 72, p. 6. (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL:

Back to top >>