620, Belicki & Bowers, 1982 ABSTRACT: Investigated the role of demand characteristics in dream change by comparing dream report change following pre- and postsleep administrations of instructions to pay attention to specific dream content. This design was based on the assumption that if presleep instructions merely distort dream reports rather than influence actual dreams, report change should be observable following a postsleep instruction. 42 undergraduates were prescreened with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Form A), which allowed experimenters to examine the role of hypnotizability in dream change. Significant differences were observed only following the presleep instructions. It is concluded that report distortion as a result of paying attention to a dimension of dream content was insufficient to account for dream report change following presleep instructions. Hypnotic ability correlated significantly with the amount of dream change.
Council, James R.; Kirsch, Irving; Hafner, L. P. (1986). Expectancy versus absorption in the prediction of hypnotic responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 182-189.
The Absorption Scale was administered to subjects in the context of a hypnosis experiment and in a context unrelated to hypnosis. Expectancies of responding to hypnotic suggestions were assessed both before and after trance induction, but before administration of suggestions. Hypnotic depth was assessed by different methods before suggestions were given, and after hypnosis. Absorption was correlated with hypnotic responsivity and expectancy, but only when assessed in a hypnotic context. Completing the Absorption Scale in a hypnotic context appeared to affect responsiveness by altering expectancies. Only postinduction expectancies were predictive of response to suggestions. Results of path analysis suggest that trance inductions alter expectancies for responding to hypnotic suggestions and that these altered expectancies determine subsequent hypnotic behavior.
Lynn, Steven Jay; Rhue, Judith W. (1986). The fantasy-prone person: Hypnosis, imagination, and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 404-408.
Experimenters selected subjects who ranged along the continuum of fantasy proneness and assessed hypnotizability, absorption, vividness of mental imagery (QMI; Sheehan, 1967), response to waking suggestion (Creative Imagination Scale), creativity, and social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe). Fantasy-proneness was evaluated with the Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings (Wilson & Barber, 1981). Strong support was secured for J. R. Hilgard’s construct of imaginative involvement and Wilson and Barber’s contention that fantasy prone persons can be distinguished from others in terms of fantasy and related cognitive processes. Fantasizers were found to outscore subjects in both comparison groups on all of the measures of fantasy, imagination, and creativity, with social desirability used as a covariate. Low fantasy-prone subjects were no less creative or less responsive to hypnosis than their medium fantasy-prone counterparts.
Mitchell, George P.; Lundy, Richard M. (1986). The effects of relaxation and imagery inductions on responses to suggestions. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 98-109.
Theoretical attempts to understand the meaning and importance of induction procedures in producing hypnotic phenomena suggest that 2 critical components, relaxation and imagery, should be isolated and their relative effect on hypnotic responding studied. Objectively and subjectively scored responses to 12 hypnotic suggestions, which had followed relaxation, imaginal, or combined inductions, were obtained from 59 Ss, divided into 3 levels of hypnotizability. Regardless of hypnotizability level, the combined induction led to a greater subjective report of hypnotic response than did either the relaxation or the imagery inductions; and the relaxation led to a greater subjective report than the imagery induction. It may follow that the subjective experience of hypnosis is facilitated by inductions which include relaxation. The inductions were equally effective in producing objectively measured behavioral responses. There were no significant interactions found between induction type and hypnotizability level.
NOTES 1:
As suggested by Sacerdote (1970), the combination procedure was the most generally effective in producing hypnotic responses. The difference between combined and imagery inductions reached statistical significance on four dependent variables, and the difference between combined and relaxation reached significance on three. It may also be of interest that Ss receiving the combined procedure scored consistently higher on all nine dependent variables.
A somewhat unexpected finding was that the relaxation induction produced scores on four of the dependent variables that were statistically higher than the imagery induction scores. Considering the difficulty of isolating relaxation and imagery components, it is quite noteworthy that these differences between inductions were found.
The four variables in which the combination and relaxation conditions produced significantly higher scores than the imagery condition were subjective reports–subjective score, degree hypnotized, response volition, and Field Inventory. In contrast to Ss in the imagery induction, Ss in the other two induction conditions believed that they were responding more, felt that their responses were more nonvolitional, and felt that they were more deeply hypnotized.
The fact that relaxation instructions were present in both conditions that were superior to the imagery condition would appear to support Edmonston’s (1981) position which posits relaxation as essential for the production of the state of neutral hypnosis. For Edmonston the condition of neutral hypnosis is defined as the relaxed state and precedes other phenomena, such as dissociation and increased suggestibility, which other theoreticians may include in the definition of hypnosis.
However, the statistically significant superior effect of the combined over the relaxation induction on three measures casts doubt on Edmonston’s position. The S believes that he or she is more deeply hypnotized and is responding less volitionally when an imagery component is combined with relaxation. The Ss also responded more to the Field Inventory when the combined induction was used.
Another explanation for imagery’s relatively poor showing may lie in Ss’ differential expectations. The Ss, especially those with previous experience with a traditional hypnotic induction, as was the case in the present study, may not expect to be hypnotized when presented with an imagery alone induction. Such expectations, of course, might reduce responses. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the reduced expectation in the imagery condition would not affect the behavioral responses as well, and such was not the case.
Thus, we may be left with the explanation that relaxation adds to the subjective experience of hypnosis. This is in keeping with Edmonston’s (1981) position as well as with previous research, such as that by Hilgard and Tart (1966), which finds traditional inductions, with their relaxation components, superior to nontraditional inductions, such as fantasy or task-motivational. If future research should find that bodily involvements such as the physical exertion or repetitive motor behavior (Banyai and Hilgard, 1976) lead to the same level of subjective experience as relaxation did, then we may need to broaden the concept of the somatic component beyond relaxation alone.
In terms of the behavioral compliance of Ss, the results of the present study are in accord with some previous studies in finding all procedures equally effective. Neither imagery, relaxation, nor the combined procedure was superior for the behavioral measure.
Personality factors (social desirability, internality/externality, and absorption) did not affect the basic findings. To the degree that the Tellegen scales measure the ability to engage in imagery there seems to be little basis for believing that imagery ability is related to the general findings.
Sarbin (1983) would call the inductions studied here ‘entrance rituals,’ and he has recently asked in his review of Edmonston’s book, “Which ritual is more suitable… [p. 58]’ for preparing S to respond in various hypnotic ways? One answer from the present results is that an entrance ritual should include muscular relaxation if one wants a better subjective response from S. From Sarbin’s point of view, the relaxation component may be more ego-involving, producing more subjective experience and meaning for S.
If one wants to produce only a behavioral response, either a relaxation or imagery ritual will serve.
Register, Patricia A.; Kihlstrom, John F. (1986). Finding the hypnotic virtuoso. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 84-97.
Measures of hypnotizability based on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) correlate only moderately with those based on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). Ss (N = 148) scoring in the high range (10-12) on HGSHS:A were classified according to whether they scored in the “virtuoso” range (11-12) or not on a subsequent administration of SHSS:C. Significant group differences were found on items comprising the cognitive distortion subscale of HGSHS:A, whether assessed in terms of overt behavior or subjective impressions of success. The 2 groups also differed on global self-ratings of hypnotic depth and on those subscales of Field’s Inventory Scale of Hypnotic Depth concerned with subjective feelings of loss of control, automaticity, transcendence of normal functioning, and fluctuating depth. Assessments of hypnotizability are enhanced when investigators consider subjective involvement as well as behavioral measures of hypnotic response. This is particularly important when the more dissociative aspects of hypnosis are under scrutiny.
NOTES 1:
The correlation between Harvard Group and Stanford Scale scores is usually about r = .60 (Bentler & Roberts, 1963; Coe, 1964; Evans & Schmeidler, 1966). This is much lower than one would expect (r = .82), based on the tests’ individual reliabilities (Evans & Schmeidler, 1966).
The authors developed a Table to show the cross-classification of Ss in terms of Harvard and SHSS:C. Only a minority (33%) of Ss scoring in the highest range of HGSHS:A also scored in the highest range on the SHSS:C (or 50% if cutting points are different).
The Absorption scale correlated r = .38 (p<.001) with the Harvard Scale, which fell to r = .31 (p<.01) when corrected for expansion of range. The correlation between Absorption and SHSS:C was .35 (p<.001).
The issue of predicting Stanford 'virtuosos' from Harvard 'virtuosos' was addressed. HGSHS:A predictor variables were used to determine which items determined whether or not one of the HGSHS:A 'virtuosos' (the 20% who scored 11-12) would also be a SHSS:C 'virtuoso.' It was found that 70% of the SHSS:C virtuosos, but only 53% of the nonvirtuosos, had reversible posthypnotic amnesia on the HGSHS:A. None of the ideomotor or challenge subscale items demonstrated this ability to predict group association. Although the 'virtuosos' differed from the 'nonvirtuosos' in self reported depth, none of the coding categories associated with the depth variable differentiated the groups; also, judges could not predict who would be a Stanford 'virtuoso' based on subjects' descriptions of depth following the Harvard scale administration.
The Experimenters also could not predict who among the Harvard 'virtuosos' would be classified as a Stanford 'virtuoso' based on either their Absorption Scale score or previous experience with hypnosis.
It was found that subjects' subjective experience of the suggestions for hallucinations, amnesia, and posthypnotic behavior (all considered to be cognitive alterations) were the most highly correlated with the subsequent total SHSS:C score. On the Field scale, which measures subjective experience, the most predictive items had to do with feelings of automaticity and loss of control (referred to as nonvoluntary behavior in other literature). Predicting SHSS:C score by 5 items (Harvard behavioral score, Harvard subjective score, Field total score, Tellegen Absorption total score, and self reported depth rating), r = .44. "The 5-element regression, employing only total scores, explained 17% ... of the variance of SHSS:C; thus, the feelings of subjective success accounted for the vast proportion (79%) of the explainable variance. For the 16 element regression, employing subscales derived from factor analysis of HGSHS:A and Inventory Scale of Hypnotic Depth, the cognitive subscale was dominant, accounting for 65.5% of explainable variance" (p. 92).
A discriminant function analysis employing the same five total score variables correctly classified 63.3% of the virtuosos.
In their Discussion, the authors suggest that investigators use subjective response as well as behavioral response when identifying hypnotic talent (virtuosos) for research. Particularly, the subjective experience of success seems to be important. Little is known, to date, about the determinants of that sense of success with hypnotic suggestions. "In part, they may relate to the 'classic suggestion effect' (K. S. Bowers, 1981; P. G. Bowers, 1982; Weitzenhoffer, 1974): the quasi-automatic, compulsory, involuntary quality which distinguishes hypnotic response from compliance with simple social requests. If so, then a direct assessment of perceived involuntariness might enhance the predictive validity of HGSHS:A even more. This is especially true for the perceptual-cognitive alterations which relate to Ss' capacity for dissociation" (p. 94).
The authors further recommend, "In those situations where HGSHS:A must stand alone for economic reasons, however, and especially where HGSHS:A is employed as a convenient preliminary screening device in the search for hypnotic virtuosos, it would seem that some assessment of the subjective experience of hypnosis would provide useful supplementary information at very little cost" (p. 94).
Sweeney, Carol A.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Bellezza, Francis S. (1986). Hypnosis, hypnotizability, and imagery-mediated learning. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 29-40.
The relationship between hypnotizability, imagery utilization ability, and hypnosis was examined in a study described to Ss (N = 157) as an 'imagery experiment.' In Session 1, the Tellegen Absorption Scale (Tellegen, 1976) was completed and the imagery-mediated paired-associate learning task was administered as a baseline measure. In Session 2, either hypnosis, task motivation, or no treatment instructions were administered and the learning task was repeated with a different word list (each 15 high, 15 low imagery pairs). In Session 3, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. C. Orne, 1962) was administered. Overall, recall was superior for high imagery words. Hypnotizability was not associated with imagery-mediated recall. Recall performance, however, was correlated with Tellegen Absorption Scale scores. Interestingly, learning and recall performance decreased between Sessions 1 and 2 for hypnotized Ss but remained the same for task motivated and control Ss. The decrease in performance was mediated by less concern for performance and diminished anxiety. Self- reports of imagery utilization did not differ among groups of Ss.
NOTES 1:
The authors review literature on the relationship between hypnotizability, hypnosis, and imagery abilities, noting that results are conflicting. One reason for differing results may be that imagery scales are self-report measures, subject to reporting bias of varying types. The imagery-mediated paired-associate learning paradigm, using high and low imagery paired associates, may address that reporting bias issue.
This investigation used 157 Ss grouped into high (9-12), medium (5-8), and low (0-4) hypnotizability levels on the basis of the Harvard Scale. Given the fact that high imagery words are usually recalled more easily than low imagery words (Paivio, 1971), a relationship observed between hypnotizability and imagery-mediated recall would elucidate the role of imagery utilization for memory functions.
The experimental conditions included hypnosis, task motivation, and a no treatment control condition, in order to evaluate the possible enhancement effects of hypnosis on imagery utilization for memory functions. The task motivation group was included to control for motivational factors, and the no treatment control condition to control for the practice effects of repeated testing.
The word pair stimuli were from Paivio et al (1968): 30 pairs consisting of 15 high and 15 low imagery noun pairs. Each Subject participated in three experimental sessions.
Session 1. Ss were told that they were in an experiment on imagery to remember pairs of words. They completed the Tellegen Absorption Scale, then were given instructions for using imagery for recalling words, and for rating vividness and clarity of each image immediately after it was formed. Finally they performed the learning task.
Session 2. Ss received either hypnosis, task motivation instructions ("try to form good interacting images of the word pairs" with exhortation to score as high as possible), or control (Like Session 1). No one in hypnosis group refused the induction (despite the fact that they were not forewarned in Session 1 that the experiment might involve hypnosis). Ss completed a questionnaire on the percentage of word pairs they used images to remember, how easy it was to block out or ignore distractions, how vivid and clear were images of words during recall, how concerned they were about their performance, and how much anxiety, if any, they experienced during the experiment.
Session 3. The Harvard Scale was administered. Three Ss declined to participate in the Harvard Scale administration.
The results were analyzed with a 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 repeated-measures ANOVA: hypnotizability, instruction (hypnotic induction, task motivation, no treatment), session (1 and 2), and pair imagery (high and low). The expected enhanced memory performance of high hypnotizables with high imagery words in the hypnosis condition did not emerge in the results. However, the expected stimulus-imagery effect was observed (a higher proportion of high imagery words than low imagery words recalled). The expected higher imagery ratings for hypnotized high hypnotizable Ss also was not found. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction effect for recall session by hypnotizability: low hypnotizable Ss rated imagery less vivid in Session 2 than in Session 1, while highs rated it more vivid in Session 2 than in Session 1. Thus, low hypnotizable Ss' imagery ratings actually decreased between Recall Session 1 and 2, while high hypnotizable Ss' imagery ratings increased between Recall Session 1 and 2.
While the Absorption Scale correlated with the Harvard (.28, p <.001) and with various measures of recall, hypnotizability did not correlate with any of the recall measures. The questionnaires administered during Session 2 suggested that hypnotized Ss were less concerned and anxious than the no treatment control Ss, and less concerned than the Ss receiving task motivation instructions.
In their Discussion, the authors speculate that the strong stimulus-imagery effects might have made it unlikely for them to find differences between high, medium, and low hypnotizable Ss in imagery-based paired associate learning. They suggest including word pairs that range across the continuum of imagery ratings in future research. They also speculate that differences between hypnotizability levels might be found (as 'T Hoen reported in 1978 publication) if Ss were required to respond in a shorter time interval, or if hypnotizability were measured by a scale with more cognitive items than the Harvard Scale--both conditions in 'T Hoen's research protocol.
"The most striking finding of the present research is that instead of facilitating performance in an imagery-mediated recall task, hypnosis resulted in a decrement in recall relative to control conditions. In the hypnotic condition, the amount of learning actually decreased from one session to the next (waking-hypnosis) but remained equivalent in the task motivation (waking-task motivation) and no treatment groups (waking-waking)" (p. 37). The authors note that it is not possible to determine from their research design wither hypnosis interfered with the learning task, the retrieval task, or both.
"The findings suggest that hypnotizability may be related to reported vividness and clarity of imagery but unrelated to the actual ability to utilize imagery in an imagery- mediated paired-associate learning task. ... Although high hypnotizables' self-report ratings of imagery and vividness increased, their recall performance was not accordingly enhanced. The disparity between subjective and objective measures underscores the importance of including both types of measures in studies of imagery abilities" (pp. 37- 38).
To a considerable degree, this study controlled for Ss' expectancies regarding hypnosis better than some earlier studies. This study differs from earlier research in that (1) Experimenters didn't test hypnotizability prior to the imagery-mediation task; and (2) the study was defined as an experiment on imagery, and hypnosis was not mentioned until just before the induction in Session 2.
"In conclusion, the present results indicate that, under certain conditions, hypnosis may decrease Ss' motivation and performance. No support was provided for the ability of hypnosis to facilitate imagery utilization and performance on an imagery-mediated task. The results are compatible with the views proferred [sic] by theoreticians who have emphasized the importance of expectancies and the experimental context (e.g., Barber, 1979; Coe & Sarbin, 1977; M. T. Orne, 1951, 1959; Spanos, 1982)" (p. 38).
Zamansky, Harold S.; Clark, Lorene E. (1986). Cognitive competition and hypnotic behavior: Whither absorption?. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 205-214.
According to the widely held absorption notion, the successful response to hypnotic suggestions requires S to focus attention on the content of these suggestions and to avoid incompatible and contradictory cognitive activities. This assumption was tested by exposing high, middle, and low hypnotizability Ss continuously to incompatible suggestions and images as they attempted to respond to the direct suggestions of the hypnotist. Performance under these circumstances was substantially as effective as in baseline sessions (without incompatible suggestions) for the high and medium hypnotizable Ss. On the other hand, fewer than half of the low hypnotizability Ss responded successfully. The results are viewed as compatible with both a social enactment and a neodissociation interpretation of hypnosis.
NOTES 1:
Subjects were 58 volunteer students divided into 12 high (8-12), 26 medium (5- 7) and 20 low (<5) hypnotizables on the basis of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A). Depending on the number of suggestions passed during the SHSS:A, 2-4 'target suggestions' were selected from among those each S passed. All Ss had passed at least one of the target suggestions.
The target suggestions that had been successfully passed were readministered with incompatible suggestions and imagery being given to the S. For example, the S might be asked to practice the opposite response, to note and remember the movements and muscles used to produce the response, to think that they should be able to resist the suggestion, to picture themselves performing the opposite response by recalling the earlier practice experience. For example, while giving a suggestion for arm rigidity, the Experimenter might say "Picture yourself bending your arm" or "Imagine what it would be like to bend your arm." The S was even encouraged to perform another competing response , e.g. to bend the other arm, and to try to use that experience in resisting the target suggestion. The S was requested to verbalize the incompatible thoughts out loud while performing the target suggestion. Nevertheless, the direct suggestion also was interspersed, as, "You will find, nevertheless, that your right arm won't bend."
RESULTS. All 12 highs passed at least one target item and 10 passed all of the target items. 23 of 26 medium suggestible Ss passed at least one item and 17 passed all of them. Only 8 of 20 low hypnotizable Ss passed at least one target suggestion; 7 passed all of them however. Usually the low hypnotizables had only one or two target items, since they passed few items on the original SHSS:A test.
In their Discussion, the authors state, "Despite popular opinion, therefore, it appears that it is not necessary for the good hypnotic S to be fully 'absorbed' or to be 'imaginatively involved' (J. R. Hilgard, 1979) in the direct suggestions of the hypnotist to perform these suggestions successfully. ... It is the responses of the lows that were quite clearly degraded by the presence of conflicting thoughts and images" (p. 209).
As a control study, the authors tested 11 other Ss who had low hypnotic susceptibility, to determine whether the effect found with lows (that they could resist) was actually a function of test-retest unreliability. They administered 1-2 target suggestions without contradictory suggestions two or more times. The results were that, once a S had passed a suggestion once, they continued to pass it (even when it was administered 3-4 times). "If anything, the suggestions sometimes appeared to gain in effectiveness with repetition" (p. 210).
The authors did another control study with 17 highs, 9 medium Ss, and 8 lows, in which the conflicting suggestion was given by a hypnotist who did not know the hypnotizability of the S: after S was hypnotized, hypnotist A wrote the "target" on a slip of paper, left the room, and hypnotist B entered and gave the conflicting suggestions for that target. All 17 highs and 7 of the 9 medium hypnotizable Ss passed, but only 2 of 8 lows were able to do so.
The authors conclude, "It may well be that processes such as absorption and imaginative involvement may facilitate the successful response to hypnotic suggestions, but, clearly, the utilization of such processes is not essential for the successful hypnotic performance of high and medium hypnotizability Ss" (p. 212).
1985
Ashton, M.A.; McDonald, R.D. (1985). Effects of hypnosis on verbal and non-verbal
creativity. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33 (1), 15-26.
60 female volunteers, 30 hypnotizable and 30 unhypnotizable, screened on 2 measures of hypnotizability, were assigned to a hypnosis, simulation, or waking motivated treatment condition to assess whether hypnosis has a differentially enhancing effect upon verbal and non-verbal creativity test performance. Verbal and figural components of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) and the Sounds and Images Test (Cunnington & Torrance, 1965) were the principal dependent variables. Postexperimental measures of absorption and effortless experiencing were also obtained. A 2 x 3 independent groups ANOVA did not sustain the prediction of an interaction effect between S hypnotizability and the presence of hypnosis on 3 composite measures of verbal and nonverbal creativity. Although there was an absence of treatment effects, hypnotizable Ss consistently achieved higher scores on the Torrance scoring categories, and their performance was statistically superior on a composite index of overall creativity. Absorption and effortless experiencing measures were also significantly higher for hypnotizable Ss than for unhypnotizable Ss.
1984
Barabasz, Arreed F. (1984). Antarctic isolation and imaginative involvement - preliminary findings: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 32 (3), 296-300.
Group 1 Ss (N = 9) were interviewed in Antarctica prior to and following 1 year of Antarctic isolation. Group 2 Ss (N = 7) were exposed to 3 weeks of Antarctic field-site isolation and were interviewed upon return to the United States. A control group of 10 Ss was also interviewed on 2 occasions, paralleling Group 1. Group 1 showed a significant increase in imaginative involvement from pre- to post-Antarctic isolation. Group 2 showed a significantly greater level of imaginative involvement than the control Ss. The possibility that Antarctic living may have revived the mental processes available to these Ss as children is considered within both regression and learning explanations.
Crouse, Eric; Kurtz, Richard (1984). Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: The efficacy of four training procedures. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27, 122-136.
In this study, we have compared the effects on hypnotic susceptibility of several components of training procedures based on a social learning model, which have been reported to be successful in enhancing hypnotic susceptibility. These included: 1) attitude-conception of hypnosis information, 2) involvement instructions, 3) goal-directed fantasy instructions, and 4) practice vs. no practice in responding to hypnotic suggestions. A 3 x 2 x 2 repeated measures factorial design was used for the experiment with 60 female volunteers serving as subjects in the study. Contrary to expectations, no differential treatment effects were obtained on either objective or subjective measures of hypnotizability. Furthermore, it was questionable whether or not any of the three information-based components even produced gains in hypnotic susceptibility. None produced _clinically_ significant gains. They also were not found to alter either the subjects' attitudes or their use of hypnosis-related skills. Similarly, practice was found to be ineffective in enhancing responsiveness to suggestions. Taken as a whole, the results of this study suggest that the gains in hypnotic susceptibility reported for social learning-type training procedures may be due to causes other than those posited by social learning theory.
NOTES 1:
Diamond (1977) posited 3 core components to modification procedures: attitudinal and set factors, cognitive strategy factors, and optimal learning factors (specific ways subjects are taught the internal responses).
"The present study was undertaken to more fully clarify the extent to which each of the critical components hypothesized by Diamond contributes to increasing susceptibility. It was predicted that subjects receiving attitude-conception of hypnosis information and subjects receiving involvement instructions would show a significantly greater gain in hypnotizability than Ss receiving goal-directed fantasy instructions. Secondly, it was predicted that a significantly greater gain in subjects' hypnotizability would result from an opportunity to practice responding to hypnotic suggestions when coupled with involvement instructions than when accompanied by goal-directed fantasy instructions or attitude-conception of hypnosis information" (p. 125).
A revised SHSS:C was used; it deleted words that explicitly suggested goal directed fantasies (GDF's) on several items: hand lowering, moving hands apart, taste hallucinations, arm rigidity, arm immobilization. Experimenters used audiotaped presentation. Subjects in 3 of 6 experimental groups were also given opportunity to practice 30 minutes on 3 occasions spaced no more than one week apart. They were given 2 practice trials on each of 5 hypnotic suggestions taken from several different scales.
"While differential treatment effects were not found, there was a general facilitation of hypnotic responsiveness for all Ss across treatment conditions on both objective and subjective hypnotizability measures. The mean change in the objective hypnotizability score for all subjects was +.68, ...p<.001; the corresponding mean change in the subjective hypnotizability scores was +3.11 ... p<.001. Although statistically significant, neither of the shifts appear to indicate _clinically_ significant shifts in hypnotic responsiveness" (p. 129).
The changes in the positive direction in hypnotizability were not correlated with hypnotizability. Subjects appear to change in their conceptualization of hypnosis, in the direction of it being more a self-induced phenomenon (p <.001).
In their Discussion, the authors write, "Taken as a whole, results of this study challenge assumptions which have been made about how training procedures based on a social learning model affect gains in hypnotic susceptibility" (p. 131). Each experimental manipulation was intended to influence a mediating variable, and that apparently did not happen. Teaching subjects to use GDFs on a few items did not generalize so that subjects would generate GDFs on novel items. The results suggest "caution against assuming that social learning base training procedures are effective in altering subjects' attitudes and/or their use of skills thought to mediate hypnotic responsiveness" (p. 133). Nevertheless, the correlational data support previous studies that relate hypnotizability to the mediating factors under investigation.
Continuing their Discussion, the authors write, "Clearly, more attention should be paid in future studies to assessing changes in mediating variables produced by such training procedures. This is particularly important in terms of subjects' use of GDF's and their use of cognitive strategies to increase the extent of their involvement in the hypnotic experience. It is significant that in this study neither involvement instructions nor GDF instructions were found to alter subjects' use of cognitive strategies. Changes in these skill-related factors need to be demonstrated if social learning based training procedures are to be proven effective in altering subjects' hypnotic abilities rather than simply in raising subjects to their optimal level of responsiveness.
"One explanation which has been offered for the reported success of such training procedures is that they work by changing subjects' attitudes, motivation and/or expectations of hypnosis while leaving any aptitudinal component to hypnosis unaltered (Perry, 1977). From this point of view the gains in susceptibility reported for such procedures result from subjects moving closer to their optimal or 'plateau' level of responsiveness rather than from real changes in subjects' hypnotic abilities" (p. 134).
Alternatively, it is possible that the increases observed following training programs have something to do with the hypnotist-subject relationship. For example, increases in hypnotizability are more modest when the training is given in written instructions than when it is given in person by a hypnotist.
Kearns, John S.; Zamansky, Harold S. (1984). Synthetic versus analytic imaging ability as correlates of hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 32, 41-50.
It was hypothesized that synthetic imaging ability, but not analytic imaging ability, is positively related to hypnotizability. The correlation of scores on a paired- associates task, used as a measure of synthetic imaging ability, with scores on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962), indicated a statistically nonsignificant trend in the predicted direction. 2 measures of analytic imaging ability, as well as Sheehan's (1967) revision of the Betts (1909) Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery, a measure of vividness of imagery, did not correlate significantly with SHSS:C. The results are discussed in terms of their relation to studies of creativity and goal-directed fantasy.
NOTES 1:
The authors review the literature on imagery and hypnotizability and propose that an important variable in hypnosis is an ability to expand imaginatively upon a given verbal input (synthetic imaging ability), akin to Spanos' (1971) concept of goal-directed fantasy. They cite studies relating creativity ("essentially a synthetic process") to hypnotizability, and predict that skill in solving spatial relations problems (analytic imaging ability) is not correlated with hypnotizability because it involves "accurately scanning visual images and converging on solutions to specific problems," (p. 42) rather than creative fantasy characteristic of hypnotic behavior.
Forty Subjects had two sessions each: imagery tests in #1 and SHSS:C in #2. Imagery tests included, in this order: 1. Paired Associates (Paivio, 1972; a test of synthetic imaging), in which paired words are learned and later recalled; Experimental Ss were to learn them by combining them into an image, while Control Ss were to simply try to learn them. The nouns differed in imagery strength (potential for stimulating images). 2. Nonsense Forms (a test of analytic imaging), in which Subjects trace with their fingers an irregularly shaped Masonite form, blindfolded, and then choose one of 5 drawings that best matches the form. 3. Cube Visualization (a test of analytic imaging), in which Ss imagine a 2" wooden cube painted red on all faces, that had been sawed into 1" cubes; they are to say how many of the smaller cubes would be red on 3 faces, 2 faces, one face, and none of the faces. 4. Betts QMI.
The Paired Associates (PA) scores were a ratio of high imagery words recalled to low imagery words recalled, intended to reflect the impact of imagery availability on memory. There was a trend for hypnotizability to correlate with PA ratio scores, regardless of whether intermediate or low imagery nouns were used as baseline (rho = .37 and .34, p <.10) in the experimental group ("Use imagery to learn."), a trend that was not found in the control group (no imagery instructions). Neither measure of analytic imaging ability (Nonsense Forms, Cube test) correlated with hypnotizability.
In their Discussion, the authors write, "The common factor in successful performance of both imagery-mediated paired associates learning tasks and hypnotic suggestions appears to be the ability to expand imaginatively upon a given verbal input" (p. 47). They cite the literature relating hypnotizable and creative performance (p. 47). "The present findings with the Nonsense Forms Test and the Cube Visualization Test, both of which failed to correlate significantly with SHSS:C, support the hypothesis that hypnotizability is not related to analytic, spatial-imagining skills" (p. 47). "The nonsignificant correlation between Betts QMI and SHSS:C adds to the growing body of inconsistent findings observed with Betts QMI" (p. 47).
"Given the complex nature of hypnotic susceptibility and of imagery (Monteiro et al., 1980), it is perhaps not surprising that studies attempting to relate the two variables directly frequently yield only modest relationships. Very likely, the inclusion of appropriate mediating variables would serve to clarify and, in particular instances, augment the relationships observed between hypnotic responsiveness and imaging ability. One such variable may be the capacity to become fully involved in everyday nonhypnotic experiences, commonly called absorption. This variable has been shown in numerous studies to be related to hypnotizability (e.g. Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), as well as to creativity and vividness of imagery (P. Bowers, 1978, 1979; Monteiro et al., 1980). Even more relevant to the present study is the possible interaction between level of hypnotic susceptibility and the relationship between synthetic imaging ability and SHSS:C scores. It may be, for example, that the contribution of synthetic imaging ability becomes more critical in eliciting hypnotic behavior from Ss who are only moderately susceptible to hypnosis. Such an analysis was not possible in the present experiment, since the number of high, medium, and low susceptible Ss was approximately equal, and, therefore, the number of Ss at each level was insufficient for an adequate subgroup analysis. Clearly, however, future studies of the role of imaginal skills in hypnotic responsivity must move in directions such as these" (p. 48).
Magnavito, F.; Gaupp, L. (1984, October). Absorption, hypnotic susceptibility, and automatization of visual attention. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, San Antonio, TX.
NOTES 1:
Absorption (Tellegen Scale) correlated .62 with SHCS and -.45 with a measure of visual automatization. They conclude that highly absorption-prone individuals attend more to sensory information, processing their environment in a childlike, less automatized manner. The measure of visual automatization, H, was obtained by camera recorded eye movements and fixations as Ss viewed slides in any way they desired.
Pekala, Ronald J.; Kumar, V. K. (1984). Predicting hypnotic susceptibility by a self-report phenomenological state instrument. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 114-121.
In an attempt to predict hypnotic susceptibility (as measured by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, HGSHS) the phenomenological experiences of an hypnotic induction (HI) procedure and a baseline comparison condition (eyes closed, EC, sitting quietly) were assessed. After each experience the subjects (n=217) completed the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI), a self-report phenomenological state instrument, dealing with that condition. Step-wise multiple regression and discriminant analyses were then performed on data using the subject's HGSHS score as the dependent variable and the PCI (sub)dimensions as the independent variables. Regression analyses that held up under cross-validation during HI suggest that the PCI may be an appropriate instrument for predicting susceptibility. The possible clinical usefulness of this approach is discussed.
1983
Council, James R.; Kirsch, Irving; Vickery, Anne R.; Carlson, Dawn (1983). 'Trance' versus 'skill' hypnotic inductions: The effects of credibility, expectancy, and experimenter modeling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31 (3), 432-440.
A hypnotic induction procedure based on social learning principles (skill induction) was compared with a traditional eye-fixation/relaxation trance induction, a highly credible placebo induction, and a no-induction base-rate control. The trance induction surpassed the skill induction only on the Field Inventory, a measure of hypnotic depth that contains items corresponding to suggestions contained in the trance induction. Experimenter modeling was not found to enhance the effectiveness of the skill induction. Skill and trance inductions elicited slightly higher behavioral scores on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form C than did the placebo induction. However, this difference was not obtained on other measures of hypnotic responsibility and depth. Significant correlations were found between expectancy, absorption, and responsiveness on all dependent measures. Multiple regression analyses indicated that the relationship between absorption and responsivity was mediated by expectancy. The results are interpreted as supporting the hypotheses that hypnotic responses are elicited by the expectancy for their occurrence and that induction procedures are a means of increasing subjects' expectancies for hypnotic responses.
NOTES 1:
Trance induction resulted in a higher score on subjective experiences (cognitive & perceptual distortions) but not higher suggestibility scores than cognitive- behavioral skill induction. 2) Trance and cognitive-behavioral inductions got slightly higher scores in suggestibility than placebo biofeedback induction. 3) All inductions did better than a "no induction" control group on subjective and behavioral indices of hypnosis.
One of the goals of this research was to examine the contribution of experimenter modeling to the behavioral skill induction that "trains the subject in hypnosis skills and requires the subject's conscious cooperation in learning cognitive strategies that will enhance hypnotic responsivity" (p. 432). Another goal was to assess the contribution of "a subject's expectancies for the occurrence of behaviors perceived as being involuntary" (p. 433). A third goal was to determine whether congruence between a subject's beliefs about hypnosis and the rationale for a particular induction would increase expectancy. Two different skill inductions were employed (one with, one without a model). Subjects were asked to predict their performance, based on a description of the induction that they would receive. The contributions of credibility and expectancy were assessed using a highly credible placebo (pseudo biofeedback of EEG theta rhythm).
The investigation used only subjects who had never experienced hypnosis. Independent variables included Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, Rotter's (1967) Interpersonal Trust Scale, and Tellegen's Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). Mediating variables included a measure of induction credibility based on Borkovec and Nau (1972), and a 20-item inventory measuring expectancies for hypnotic performance. Dependent variables included 20 standard hypnotic suggestions taken from the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C; the Creative Imagination Scale; ratings of the 'realness' or experienced intensity of each suggestion; and the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965).
The authors conclusion reads as follows: "The results of this study may be summarized as follows: (a) Traditional trance hypnotic inductions and cognitive- behavioral skill inductions were shown to be equally effective in eliciting experiential and behavioral responses to hypnotic suggestions, although trance subjects reported a somewhat greater alteration in conscious experience. (b) Experimenter modeling was not found to be an effective component of the skill induction package. (c) Subjects' expectancies for hypnotic responses, reported prior to hypnotic induction, bore a very strong relationship to hypnotic responsivity. (d) A highly credible placebo induction resulted in levels of expectancy and hypnotic responsivity generally comparable to those produced by trance and skill hypnotic inductions. (e) Absorption was significantly correlated with expectancy, but was not found to be significantly related to responsiveness once variance due to expectancy was taken into account. Thus the relationship between absorption and hypnotic responsiveness appears to be mediated by expectancies.
"In sum, these results suggest that various hypnotic inductions elicit expectancies for responding to hypnotic suggestions and that these expectancies are sufficient to elicit hypnotic responses. Further studies are needed to determine the nature of the relationship between absorption and hypnotic response expectancies" (p. 439).
Saavedra, Ramon Luis; Miller, R.J. (1983). The influence of experimentally induced expectations on responses to the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31, 37-46.
A sample of 75 female and 63 male undergraduates were told that their hypnotizability was predictable through the application of a battery of questionnaires and physiological measures. Three levels of hypnotizability expectations were created, with 3 groups of Ss informed that they were highly hypnotizable, moderately hypnotizable, or low in hypnotizability, respectively. A control group received no such expectations. All Ss were then administered the Harvard. Results indicated a significant main effect due to the assigned hypnotizability expectations. Only Ss in the low expectation group, however, scored significant differently from the other groups on the Harvard. Four other variables were examined as covariates: locus of control, attitude toward hypnosis, absorption, and self-predictions of hypnotizability. All but locus of control correlated significantly with the Harvard. It also was shown that the degree to which assigned expectations influenced Harvard scores was a function of the confidence Ss had in those expectations.
NOTES 1:
The authors state that research has shown that it is easier to lower hypnotizability scores by providing negative expectancies than to increase hypnotizability scores through provision of positive expectancies. In this study, very little of the variance of hypnotizability scores was accounted for by the expectancy manipulation.
1982
Crawford, Helen J. (1982). Hypnotizability, daydreaming styles, imagery vividness, and absorption: A multidimensional study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (5), 915-926.
In 25 male and 31 female university student and staff volunteers, the interrelationships between the following measures were studied: hypnotic susceptibility (SHSS:A and C), imagery vividness (VVIQ), involvement in everyday activities (TAS), and daydreaming styles (28 scales of Singer & Antrobus's Imaginal Processes Inventory). Factor analysis produced a factor characterized as a positively vivid and absorptive imagination style. Hypnotic susceptibility, VVIQ, TAS, and positive-affect daydreaming styles all loaded on this factor. Two other factors were a dysphoric daydreaming style and a lack-of-attentional-control style. Stepwise multiple regressions suggested that males and females, at least within this sample, exhibit different relationships between hypnotic susceptibility and predictor variables. Similar differences were found for the VVIQ and the TAS and their daydreaming-scale predictor variables.
St. Jean, Richard; MacLeod, Carrie; Coe, W. C.; Howard, M. L. (1982). Amnesia and hypnotic time estimation. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 30, 127-137.
Previous research has shown that hypnotic Ss tend to underestimate the duration of the hypnotic interval (Bowers, 1979; Bowers & Brenneman, 1979). Based on Ornstein's (1970) work, the present investigation tested the hypothesis that such underestimation occurs to the extent that Ss are amnesic for the events of the hypnotic session. Two separate studies, in which time estimates were collected in conjunction with administrations of the Harvard, failed to find a relationship between responses to the amnesia suggestion and time estimation. Ss in both studies substantially underestimated the duration of the hypnotic interval, but the degree of such underestimation was not related to hypnotic responsiveness. Thus, Ornstein's hypothesis that underestimation occurs to the extent that Ss are amnesic for the events of the hypnotic session was strongly disconfirmed.
1981
Baum, D.; Lynn, Steven J. (1981). Hypnotic susceptibility level and reading involvement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29 (4), 366-374.
The study investigated differences between high and low hypnotizable Ss in their involvement in imaginative versus nonimaginative reading material. 10 high and 8 low susceptible Ss read passages of high and low rated imaginativeness. Ss' involvement in the passages was measured by self-report and reaction time. High and low hypnotizable Ss differed only in their involvement in imaginative material, with good Ss expressing greater involvement. High susceptible Ss tended to report more involvement in high than in low imaginative material, confirming J. R. Hilgard's (1965, 1970) observations. The reaction-time measure failed to parallel self-report, yielding non-significant results.
Fromm, Erika; Brown, Daniel P.; Hurt, Stephen W.; Oberlander, Joab Z; Boxer, Andrew M.; Pfeifer, Gary (1981). The phenomena and characteristics of self-hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29 (3), 189-247.
Self-hypnosis and hetero-hypnosis were compared, and self-hypnosis was studied longitudinally. Results indicated that absorption and the fading of the general reality orientation are characteristics of both hetero-hypnosis and self-hypnosis. The differentiating characteristics lie in the areas of attention and ego receptivity. Expansive, free-floating attention and ego receptivity to stimuli coming from within are state-specific for self-hypnosis, while concentrative attention and receptivity to stimuli coming from one outside source--the hypnotist on whom the subject concentrates his attention--are state- specific for laboratory defined hetero-hypnosis. Attempts to produce age regression and positive or negative hallucinations are markedly more successful in hetero-hypnosis. Imagery is much richer in self-hypnosis than in hetero-hypnosis. Self-hypnosis requires adaptation to the state: in the beginning of self-hypnosis there is a good deal of anxiety and self-doubt. As the subject feels more comfortable in the self-hypnotic state, he spends less time worrying about failures in self-suggestion, his ability to enter trance quickly and easily increases, as does the fading of the general reality orientation, trance depth, and absorption. An attempt was also made in the present study to find personality characteristics related to the ability to experience self-hypnosis.
Tellegen, Auke (1981). Practicing the two disciplines for relaxation and enlightenment: Comment on 'Role of the feedback signal in electromyograph biofeedback: the relevance of attention' by Qualls and Sheehan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 217-226.
High and Low Absorption Ss differ in set rather than in capability for attending to external or internal stimuli, as Qualls and Sheehan suggest. Trait x Treatment interaction for Absorption illustrates concept of personality dispositions being inherently interactive functional units. Provides a content analysis of Absorption scale (subscales) and relates absorption to other constructs in psychology. "It is not the internal versus external focus per se that play a decisive role but the subject's experiential versus instrumental set. For example, with two treatment levels, one would expect to obtain an Absorption x Treatment interaction even if both treatment conditions required an external attentional focus, as long as they contrasted an experiential and an instrumental set" (pp 223-224).
Yanchar, R. J.; Johnson, H. J. (1981). Absorption and attitude toward hypnosis: A moderator analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29 (4), 375-382.
2 factors which have been found to correlate to a small degree with susceptibility are (a) an individual's attitude toward being hypnotized and (b) an individual's capacity for subjective involvement in an experience (absorption). The present study was an attempt to replicate previous findings by Spanos and McPeake (1975) and to extend these findings to determine if there was a significant interaction between these 2 factors in their relationship to susceptibility. 99 Ss (65 females and 34 males) completed the absorption questionnaire of Tellegen (1979) and the attitude questionnaire of Barber and Calverley (1966). Their hypnotic susceptibility was assessed with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962). Attitude and absorption were found to have small positive correlations with susceptibility, results which corroborate previous research. The multiple regression analyses indicated that there were no significant interactions between the factors of attitude, absorption, and sex.
1980
Kelly, Paul James ; Bowers, Kenneth S. (1980, October). Absorption as a mediator of time distortion under hypnotic and non hypnotic conditions. [Lecture] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Chicago.
NOTES 1:
Bowers found that there was a negative correlation between amount of time underestimation and hypnotizability, measured by the Stanford Scale, Form C: r = -.41 to - .53 .
I. Group Stanford C condition. N=151 Time estimate taken before amnesia suggestion. Ss rated their absorption on each item using Tellegen Scale. 126 underestimates r = -.23 25 overestimates r = -.52 Combined with deviation score, r =.26. (May be lower than the correlations found by Ken Bowers because individual form C used by Bowers has more cognitive items.) These results lend support for Bowers' absorption theory of time distortion. Tellegen Scale did not correlate with time distortion.
II. Non-hypnotized condition Retested 48 underestimators of time elapsed: a. 24 in absorption condition (listening to Poe's Pit and Pendulum) b. 24 in non absorption condition (listening against white noise background, so it was hard to hear words and they could not "get absorbed")
Percent of actual elapsed time (which was 35 minutes) was used as the measure. (Hypnosis session in Study I was 38-4 minutes.) Using ANOVA they found a significant difference between trance and non -trance conditions, but no difference for the story condition.
The authors suggested that perhaps absorption is not important in the non-trance condition or maybe button pressing for distraction interfered. Underestimation was greater in trance than non-trance conditions. Interaction was significant. Highs did not underestimate as much in the story condition as in the hypnosis condition.
CONCLUSION: This study replicates and extends earlier studies and supports the absorption explanation.
O'Grady, K. E. (1980). The Absorption Scale: A factor-analytic assessment. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 28 (3), 281-288.
95 female and 53 male introductory psychology students were administered the Tellegen Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974); the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963); the F Scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levison, & Sanford, 1950); the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970); the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale (Nowicki & Duke, 1974); and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & marlowe, 1964). A principal axis analysis of the inter-correlations indicated that 3 major factors could account for the bulk of variance among the 6 inventories. Inspection of the correlation matrix and the factor loadings showed that the Absorption Scale shared a quite modest amount of variance with the remaining scales, and that it appeared to represent a dimension entirely different than those found in the other measures. These results offer strong support to the notion that the Absorption Scale is tapping a relatively new personality dimension.
St. Jean, Richard (1980). Hypnotic time distortion and learning: Another look. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89 (1), 24.
Conducted 2 studies employing different methodologies with a total of 75 undergraduates to test the hypothesis that hypnotic time distortion facilitates verbal learning. All of the Ss in Exp 1 and most of those in Exp II were given a modified version of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale-Form C. All Exp II Ss were also given the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Analysis of previous research indicated that hypnotic susceptibility and the form of time-distortion suggestions might be important moderator variables in the relationship. The separate and combined effects of these variables were observed in both studies. No combination of hypnotic susceptibility and time-distortion suggestions in either study raised performance level beyond that of the waking- and/or hypnotic-control conditions. Responses to a postexperimental questionnaire in Exp II indicated that high-susceptible Ss reported subjectively convincing changes in experienced time flow following time-distortion suggestions (12 ref)
1979
Bowers, Kenneth S.; Brenneman, H. A. (1979). Hypnosis and the perception of time. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 29-41.
Ss who were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibilty, Form A of Shor and E. Orne (1962) underestimated the duration of the 'hypnotic interval' by 41%. The same Ss underestimated a nonhypnotic interval of the same length by only 14%. This temporal foreshortening of the hypnotic interval, replicated on several different samples (combined, N = 435) confirms informal observation that people underestimate the length of time they have been hypnotized. Contrary to prediction, however, there was no relation between the amount of underestimation and hypnotic responsiveness. Discussion focused on possible reasons why significant underestimation of the interval was not accompanied by the expected (negative) correlation of hypnotic responsiveness ad temporal foreshortening.
Bowers, Kenneth S. (1979). Time distortion and hypnotic ability: Underestimating the duration of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 435-439.
In a replication of previous research, 3 different samples of Ss (109 Ss) underestimated the length of time they were hypnotized. However, as in a previous investigation, there was no significant relation between Ss' hypnotizability and the amount of temporal foreshortening of the hypnotic interval. A small subset of Ss (13-23%) in each of 3 separate samples overestimated instead of underestimated the length of time they had been hypnotized. When this small group of overestimators is set aside, the correlations between hypnotic ability and temporal estimates become significant for each of the 3 (sub) samples of underestimators - ranging from -.41 to -.53. It is demonstrated that these correlations could not be accounted for by R. F. Ornstein's (1976) storage-size hypothesis, but were probably due to Ss of varying hypnotizability becoming differentially absorbed in the hypnotic proceedings. This understanding is consistent with work in time perception showing that imaginative absorption leads to a foreshortening of time. (12 ref).