Erickson, Milton H.; Rossi, Ernest L. (1976). Two level communication and microdynamics of trance and suggestion. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18, 153-171.

The authors provide the transcript and commentaries of an hypnotic induction and an effort to achieve automatic writing. An unusual blend of Erickson’s approaches to two level communication, dissociation, voice dynamics and indirect suggestion are made explicit in the commentaries. The junior author offers a ‘context theory of two level communication’ that conceptualizes Erickson’s clinical approaches in terms consonant with Jenkins’ (1974) recent contextual approach to verbal associations and memory. A summary of the microdynamics of Erickson’s approach to trance induction and suggestion is outlined togetehr with a utilization theory of hypnotic suggestion.
Jenkins, J. J. (1974). Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it! American Psychologist, 29, 785-795.

Weitzenhoffer, Andre M. (1974). When is an ‘instruction’ an ‘instruction?’. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 22 (3), 258-269.

In the course of validating with 100 undergraduate Ss the concept of a “classical suggestion-effect” (i.e., the existence of a class of nonvoluntary behaviors elicited by communications intended to serve as traditional “suggestions”), evidence was incidentally obtained showing that many “instructions” given to presumably hypnotized Ss also function like “suggestions.” In these circumstances it is not possible to state a priori that a verbal communication will function as an “instruction” rather than as a “suggestion.” Such a statement can be made with certainty only a posteriori, on the basis of the nature of the resulting behavior. The implications of this finding for research and for the clinical uses of hypnotic suggestion are discussed. (German, French & Spanish summaries) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2002 APA, all rights reserved)

Crystal, Thomas H.; Gish, Herbert; Bloom, Richard F. (1973, June). Psychophysiological factors affecting speaker authentication and identification. (See Notes field for additional reference information and information about ordering.)
Research and Development Technical Report ECOM-0161-F; AD-913 696L; Contract DAAB07-71-C-0161 with Signatron, Inc. (Lexington, MA). Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only; Other requests for this document must be referred to Commanding General, U.S. Army Electronics Command, ATTN: AMSEL-PP-CM-CR4, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703.
This document reports on a U.S. Army research project using hypnosis to collect high fidelity samples of the voice under “combat stress” conditions in the laboratory. Using hypnotic regression, combat veterans “re-experienced” their own, actual high stress combat situations. Besides subjective reports of stress levels by subjects, physiological stress measures were obtained from polygraph recordings of heart, respiration and GSR activity. The voice samples were later analyzed by spectrographic techniques to determine which factors remain invariant to identify and authenticate the speaker in a military communications situation. Hypnotic techniques were shown to be useful in establishing controlled emotional states for laboratory research purposes. (Richard Bloom)

Kihlstrom, J. F.; Edmonston, W. E., Jr. (1971). Alterations in consciousness in neutral hypnosis: Distortions in semantic space. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 13, 243-248.

30 highly hypnotizable Ss were equally divided into three groups, equated for age, sex and hypnotic susceptibility. A semantic differential scale was administered to each S in waking, individual sessions. An oral form of the same scale was administered during: (a) hypnosis (E), (b) waking — post hypnosis (C1), and (c) waking — no hypnosis (C2). All groups showed significant change between administrations of the scale; E showed more change than C1, and the latter more than C2. Ratings of “My Self” changed toward the negative pole in the evaluative factor. Results wre interpreted as indicating a distortion in semantic space and an alteration in ego-state occurring spontaneously with hypnosis.

Vasilev, L. (1965). Mysterious phenomena of the human psyche. New York: University Books. (Abstracted in American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, 8:2, 146-147)

The review of this book by Leo Wollman (American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, vol. 8, pp. 146-147) states, “Many interesting theories about hypnosis are aired in this book. The opinions Pavlov propounded many years ago, about cortical inhibition are assiduously asserted, yet some statements made bear investigation. The mere sight of the experimenter in B. N. Birman’s experiments with dogs put the dog into a hypnotic state. The appearance in the room of other people, who had not participated in the experiments, had no sleep inducing effect. For the experimental animal, therefore, the experimenter himself had been transformed into a conditioned hypnogenous stimulus. Similarly, in group hypnotherapy, the entrance of the physician-hypnotist into the room often effects a hypnotic state in some of the subjects. The doctor has become the stimulus for the conditioned response, that of hypnotic trance state induction.
” An interesting and perhaps little known fact elicited from Chapter III (Hypnotism and Suggestion) is the high percentage (12%) of those replies to questionnaires during the First International Congress on Experimental Psychology held in Paris in 1899, which indicated that 3,000 respondents had hallucinations while in a normal state of health. The majority were visual; auditory and tactile hallucinations were less frequent” (pp. 146-147).

Neveu, P. (1964). La psychotherapie d’induction [Induction psychotherapy]. [Paper] Presented at Comptes-rendus du Congres de Psychiatrie et de Neurologie, Sept. 1963. (Abstracted in American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, 7, 364)

Neveu gives the name ‘Induction’to his own development of the techniques of Bernheim, which he regards as a more comprehensive system than classic hypnosis and as primarily an interpersonal communication with ensuing mobilization of the patient’s abilities to modify affective and other psychosomatic aspects of his condition. Neveu uses the method on hospitalized patients as treatment and research, citing its advantages over psychoanalysis, narcoanalysis, and other therapies which have many limitations. (E.M.E.)

Neveu, P. (1964). La psychotherapie d’induction des schizophrenes. [Induction psychotherapy of schizophrenic patients]. [Paper] Presented at Comptes-rendus du Congres de Psychiatrie et de Neurologie, Sept. 1963. (Abstracted in American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, 7, 364)

Neveu utilizes his ‘induction’ method to treat hospitalized schizophrenic patients, finding it a means of establishing communication and enabling the patient to control the frequent circulatory and respiratory disturbances. Through the induction method in group and individual therapy the schizophrenic patients learn to control and understand their fantasy productions. Statistical evaluation of results is encouraging, showing a high percentage of improvement. (E.M.E.)

Sears, Alden B.; Talcott, Martha M. (1958). Hypnotic induction by use of non-meaningful languages: A pilot study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 6 (3), 136-138.

In order to explore the question of whether hypnosis is due to suggestion, rhythm, monotony, etc. a spiral disk focus induction was delivered to 46 college students in 3 different languages (Bohemian, Japanese, and Spanish) by female native speakers. The students were asked to rate which part was “most relaxing.” Language sequence was counterbalanced.
Fourteen students went into light trance; in a later induction they were found to be hypnotizable — 13 to a medium trance level (higher number than would be expected based on results with students who had not listened to the tapes). However the authors did not know which aspect of the preparatory 3-language period to which to attribute the better response.

Weitzenhoffer, Andre M. (1955). The influence of hypnosis on the learning process. Some theoretical considerations: II. Recall of meaningful material. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 3 (3), 148-165.

1. Past investigations of recall in hypnosis have been reviewed. The results appear to indicate that hypnosis favors the recall of ‘meaningful’ material over that of nonsense material above and beyond the difference in recall known to exist in the waking state for the recall of these two kinds of material. The results also _suggest_ that the hypnotic increment is a monotonic increasing function of the ‘degree of meaningfulness.’
2. Various important issues inherent in the problem under discussion have been examined. It is concluded that further gains in knowledge in this area demand the development of an adequate theory of ‘meaning,’ the recognization of the multidimensionality of ‘meaning,’ and the designing and constructing of satisfactory scales of ‘meaning.’
3. A model was derived from Osgood’s Mediation Hypothesis and Hull’s theory of learning. This model accounts for the effects of ‘meaningfulness’ upon learning and recall in the waking state. According to it, a stimulus has ‘meaning’ to the extent that certain kinds of implicit cue-producing responses are attached to it. When such a stimulus becomes associated with an overt response in a learning situation, each implicit response takes on the function of a stimulus and as such becomes associated with the overt response. The net effect is a stimulus compounding situation in which the net reaction potential increases with the number of implicit responses involved, hence with the degree of ‘meaningfulness’ of the stimulus. From this the well-known greater recall associated with ‘meaningful’ material follows. With increase in ‘meaningfulness’ there is, however, also an increase in interference due to stimulus generalization. Application of the principle of the hypnotic stimulus shift developed in a previous paper allows one to account for the reported effects of hypnosis upon recall.
4. In final conclusions the value of hypnosis as a tool for deciding between alternate theories, and as a guide in theory construction and in the designing of experiments is emphasized in the light of the material of this paper” (p. 164).

Perugini, Eve Marie; Kirsch, Irving; Allen, Sarah T.; Coldwell, Eleanor; Meredith, Janelle M.; Montgomery, Guy H.; Sheehan, Julia (1998). Surreptitious observation of responses to hypnotically suggested hallucinations: A test of the compliance hypothesis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46 (2), 191-203.

Suggestions for arm levitation and for visual, auditory, tactile, and taste hallucinations were administered twice via audiotape to a group of high suggestible students and low suggestible simulators. During one of the administrations, participants were led to believe they were alone, but their behavior was surreptitiously recorded on videotape and observed on a video monitor. During the other administration, they were observed openly by an experimenter who had not been informed about group assignment. When unaware that they wre being observed, simulators were significantly less responsive to suggestion and engaged in substantially more role-inappropriate behavior. In contrast, the responsiveness of nonsimulating students was not affected by the presence of an experimenter, and they exhibited little role-inappropriate behavior even when alone. These data indicate that the responses of suggestible individuals reflect internally generated changes in experience and are not due to simple intentional compliance (i.e., faking).

Ruehle, Beth L.; Zamansky, Harold S. (1997). The experience of effortlessness in hypnosis: Perceived or real. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45 (2), 144-157.

Hypnotized individuals who successfully respond to a suggestion typically report that the response requires little or no cognitive effort. It is important, however, to distinguish between whether this effect occurs in actual effort or is only perceived. In addition, the authors distinguish between cognitive effort expended to initiate a response and that required to maintain it. The authors examine the different predictions of four theories-compliance theory, sociocognitive theory (Lynn & Rhue, 1991), Hilgard’s (1986) neodissociation theory, and Bowers’s (1992) theory of dissociated control-regarding both of these distinctions. Experimental evidence bearing on the various predictions is examined. Additionally, the authors propose a number of design modifications that may help sort out the variables contributing to the effortlessness of the hypnotic response. — Journal Abstract

Reed, Steven B.; Kirsch, Irving; Wickless, Cynthia; Moffitt, Kathie H.; Taren, Paul (1996). Reporting biases in hypnosis: Suggestion or compliance?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 (1), 142-145.

The tendency of highly hypnotizable participants to bias their retrospective perceptual reports in response to instructional demands was reexamined with the addition of low-hypnotizable control participants instructed to simulate hypnosis. Mean scores of high-hypnotizable participants and simulators did not differ, but the responses of simulators to the demand instruction was less variable than those of high-hypnotizable participants, and the shape of the response distribution was different. Unlike simulators, some high-hypnotizable participants who had reported changes in perception that were consistent with a hypnotic suggestion subsequently reported changes opposite to those suggested by a demand instruction. These data were interpreted as suggesting that the responses of high-hypnotizable participants to both the demand instruction and the preceding hypnotic suggestion were not entirely due to compliance.

Gearan, Paul; Schoenberger, Nancy E.; Kirsch, Irving (1995). Modifying hypnotizability: A new component analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 43 (1), 70-89.

The effects of the Carleton Skills Training Program (CSTP) on hypnotizability were compared to those of a modified training program in which instructions for physical enactment of the response were omitted. After training, subjects in the original CSTP reported an increase in the extent to which they intentionally enacted suggested behaviors. In contrast, subjects in the modified training program reported increased fantasy without voluntary physical enactment. Nevertheless, both training programs increased behavioral and subjective responsiveness to suggestion, and there were no significant differences in response enhancement between the two programs. Across conditions, increases in behavioral and subjective responses to suggestion were correlated with increased use of fantasy. In contrast, increases in enactment were correlated only with compliance. The modified training program is recommended as a means of enhancing suggestibility with less likelihood than the original CSTP of engendering compliance.

Malinoski, Peter; Martin, Daniel F.; Aronoff, Jodi; Lynn, Steven Jay; Gedeon, Scott (1995, November). Hypnotizability, individual differences, and interpersonal pressure to report early childhood memories. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, San Antonio, TX.

Infantile amnesia is attributed to developmental issues before 24 months. This study indicates non-hypnotic influences can shape early memories that cross the amnesia barrier.
227 Ss completed Harvard Scale and personality measures in Session 1. In Session 2 182 completed a suggestibility scale. In Session 3 they were selected, as if independent of earlier sessions – 143 [may have misheard number] Ss.
Interviewers told the selected Ss that they were experiencing something like psychotherapy, and they were asked to recall their earliest memory (independent of photos, what people had told them, etc.) Then Experimenters probed for earlier memories; that continued until Ss denied any more memories after 2 consecutive probes. Then Ss were asked to close their eyes and get in touch with more memories. Then they were told most Ss can remember more, including sometimes their second birthday party. After 1 minute, Ss were asked about memories of their second birthday. Then they were asked to focus on even earlier memories, implying it was expected and receiving complements for reporting earlier memories. Finally, Ss completed a post-study questionnaire.
Memory report was a verbal description of an event, person, or object. Initial memory mean age was 3.7; it correlated with Openness to Experience Scale and with Fantasy Proneness. Mean age of the last earliest memory report before the close eyes instruction was 3.2 years. After receiving visualization instructions, 59% reported a memory of their second birthday. Compliance correlated .33 with this. Subjective response, nonvoluntariness, and [missed words] also correlated.
Compliance scores correlated .28 with at least one memory at or before age 24 months. Yielding to leading questions correlated also with memory for an event at or before 24 months.
Clarity of memories decreased between conditions of initial memory, earliest query, birthday, and earliest memory. Mean confidence rating on 5 point scale for second birthday memory was 3.3; mean confidence rating for earliest memory was 3.6. Mean accuracy rating was 4.0, and 94% said their memory reports were accurate to at least a moderate degree.
The post study questionnaire, totally anonymous, indicated Ss did not feel much pressure to recall (2.9 on scale of 1-5). Only 9.8% indicated they felt a lot of pressure. Subjects also usually denied that they made up memories to satisfy the experimenter. On average, the reports of memory under visualization conditions occurred two years earlier than their first reported memories.

Zamansky, Harold S.; Ruehle, Beth L. (1995). Making hypnosis happen: The involuntariness of the hypnotic experience. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 43 (4), 386-398.

The authors tested the hypothesis that hypnotized individuals do not truly experience their responses to suggestions as occurring involuntarily, but instead absorb themselves in imagery that is congruent with the suggestions while avoiding critical thoughts, or even simply comply with suggestions without genuinely experiencing their responses as nonvolitional. Participants were instructed to engage in thoughts and imagery that conflicted with the suggestions given, were urged to pay attention to their behavior, and were questioned regarding the perceived involuntariness of their responses. Simultaneously, electrodermal skin conductance responses provided a measure of the truthfulness of their reports. It was found that responses to all hypnotic suggestions were reported as being involuntary, in spite of the conflicting imagery and increased saliency, and that these reports were truthful. These findings provide disconfirming evidence for the sociocognitive theories of hypnosis.

Balthazard, Claude G. (1993). The hypnosis scales at their centenary: Some fundamental issues still unresolved. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 47-73.

Current approaches to the measurement of hypnotic performance can be traced back to the 19th century. In part because of these early origins and in part because of the nature of hypnotic phenomena, the hypnosis scales are unique psychometric instruments. The classic hypnosis scales are based on the notion of a “performance ladder”; items are scored on a pass/fail basis and can be arranged in incrasing order of difficulty. Some of the implications on [sic]this “performance ladder” approach are reviewed. The evidence for two-mechanism models of hypnotic performance is reviewed. It is argued that this kind of formulation is at least as plausible as one that argues that the hypnosis scales measure “one thing” or “mostly one thing.” If it were the case that the hypnosis scales were tapping two different and distinct processes, the label “hypnotic susceptibility” could not be unambiguously applied to scores on the hypnosis scales. The hypnosis scales would appear well-suited to the investigation of underlying mechanisms, yet no consistent picture of the mechanisms underlying hypnotic performance on the scales has emerged thus far. No resolution is presented, but some of the reasons why such a resolution is so elusive are discussed. The future of hypnosis scales is discussed with respect to multidimensional assessment and alternatives to the “work sample” approach.

Author discusses the hypnotizability scales’ history and psychometric properties, suggesting that they cannot have construct validity if more than one construct is involved. He states that many of the alternative formulations “posit structurally similar two- mechanisms models, where the relative contributions of one and the other mechanism changes gradually with the difficulty of the hypnotic performance–that is, one mechanism is more important for easy items and the other more important in the difficult range. This kind of formulation has been advanced by a number of authors ….. Although these formulations are structurally similar, the nature of the mechanisms has been variously conceptualized: nonability and ability components (Shor, Orne & O’Connell, 1962), primary suggestibility and somnambulism (Weitzenhoffer, 1962), minor and major dissociations (Hilgard, 1977), compliance and true hypnosis (Tellegen, 1978-1979), and cooperativeness and expectation at one end and absorption at the other (Spanos, Mah, Pawlak, D’Eon, & Ritchie, 1980). … In a formulation such as Hilgard’s (1977), where both mechanisms are dissociative, it may be that it makes some sense to understand both mechanisms as aspects of the same complex construct. In other formulations… it would appear more cogent to speak of two constructs. Spanos et al. (1980) found that ‘cooperativeness and expectation may be particularly important in responding to ideomotor and challenge suggestions, while the ability to convincingly treat imaginings as real (i.e., absorption) becomes increasingly important for more difficult ‘cognitive’ items” (p. 21). Balthazard & Woody (1992) presented evidence that the more difficult items on hypnotizability scales are related to absorption more than the easier items.
Balthazard & Woody (1989) investigated the proposition that hypnotizability scores are distributed bimodally, and concluded that statistical problems clouded the issue. Furthermore, most analyses previously have been of surface structure, which does not relate directly to the underlying mechanisms of hypnosis, and current psychometric methods cannot address the mechanisms that underlie surface relations. “There are two aspects of hypnotic processes … that obscure underlying mechanism: synergisms and overdetermination. Synergisms occur when mechanisms potentiate each other in such a way that a combination of processes becomes more than the sum of its parts. Overdetermination occurs when co-occurring mechanisms do not potentiate each other, such that any one of the mechanisms would have been sufficient to produce the observed effect” (p. 63-64).
The author suggests there are two options at present: Corrective Scoring (like the Curss.OI, an objective-involuntary score which, although unreliable on test-retest, appears it could be more a measure of “pure” hypnotizability) and not using the typical “work sample” approach. Balthazard and Woody (1992) suggested the Absorption Scale may provide a better measure of “hypnotizability” than the standard hypnosis scales because absorption scores are more strongly related to difficult hypnotic performances.

Balthazard, Claude G.; Woody, Erik Z. (1992). The spectral analysis of hypnotic performance with respect to ‘Absorption’. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40, 21-43.

In factor analyses of the hypnosis scales, the essential result is that the items form a continuous, 2-dimensional fan-shaped pattern. This continuum is referred to as the “spectrum of hypnotic performance.” “Spectral analysis” is introduced as an exploratory procedure which makes use of this notion of continuum or spectrum. Spectral analysis consists of a graphical display of the level of latent correlation between a variable and individual hypnotic performances when the latter are arranged according to their position in the spectrum. The spectral analysis of hypnotic performance with respect to absorption is illustrated using data from a sample of 160 Ss. The results indicate that absorption is more strongly related to difficult hypnotic performances than to easy ones. In particular, illustrative item characteristic curves are presented to show that although easy hypnotic performances do not require the processes tapped by individual differences in absorption, a certain level of absorption is necessary to pass difficult hypnotic items. In addition, a high level of absorption may be sufficient in and of itself for difficult hypnotic performances. These results are discussed in light of some speculations by Shor, M. T. Orne, and O’Connell (1962) and Tellegen (1978/1979) concerning the differential contribution of ability components to performance on difficult hypnotic suggestions. The results are also related to a variety of work in social psychological models of hypnotic performance.

Spectral analysis “consists of a graphical display of the level of latent correlation between a variable and individual hypnotic performances when these hypnotic performances are arranged according to their position in the spectrum—which is indexed by item difficulty” (p. 25). Difficulty (the proportion of Ss that pass a given item) is on the X-axis; the degree of latent correlation is on the Y-axis. “It is necessary to differentiate between the manifest and the latent relationship of a variable to a dichotomously scored hypnotic performance. The manifest relationship is given by the point biserial correlation and the latent relationship is given by the biserial correlation. … By inspecting the overall pattern of these biserial correlations as a function of item difficulty, it is possible to overcome the difficulty-content confound, because the biserial correlations are not affected by item difficulty” (p. 25).
“Throughout the easy and middle ranges [of item difficulty], the biserial correlation of hypnotic performance with absorption remains slightly above .2, then it rises sharply in the difficult range–beginning roughly where only one in four Ss can pass the item–to a value slightly above .5 ” (p. 27). “In essence, the proportion of Ss that pass a particular hypnosis suggestion given a particular score on the absorption scale is being plotted” (p. 30).
In their discussion, the authors relate their position to that of other theorists. Shor, Orne, & O’Connell (1962) proposed that both ability and nonability components contributed to hypnosis, with ability being the primary determinant of hypnotic performance at deeper levels. Shor et al. found a correlation between depth ratings and a questionnaire that tapped ‘hypnotic-like experiences’ to be .45; the correlation was .84 when computed for only the Ss who became deeply hypnotized, but only .17 for Ss who were only lightly or medium-level hypnotized. They concluded that their questionnaire predicted hypnotizability only for the “deeper region” of hypnosis.
Tellegen (1978/1979) proposed a two-factor model, one factor being genuine responsiveness and the other being compliance . He suggested that various hypnosis test items draw on the two factors in differing degrees. Tellegen’s genuine responsiveness factor would be similar to Shor et al.’s ability components, and Tellegen’s compliance factor would be similar to Shor et al.’s non-ability components. (The Shor model goes farther than Tellegen in positing a gradual shift in the relative contributions of the two components as one moves form easy to difficult items, and this gradualness is part of the authors’ spectrum model.)
The two-factor model is different from the general factor (plus special factors) model suggested by E. R. Hilgard (1965)); Hilgard’s general factor would probably correspond better to the Tellegen genuine responsiveness factor and the Shor et al. ability component than to the compliance factor or nonability component, which probably would correspond more to the easier items on hypnotizability scales.
Spanos et al. (1980) suggested that cooperativeness and expectation might be more important with ideomotor and challenge suggestions, and ability to treat imaginings as real (i.e. absorption) more important for more difficult cognitive items. Sarbin (1984) developed a typology with two types of individuals–those who respond to the hypnosis context by “joining the game” and knowingly create an illusion that their response is involuntary (the compliance kind of response), and those who convince themselves and others that their response is involuntary (the genuine responsiveness factor kind of response).
[Speaking of the context effects observed but not replicated 100% of the time, on the correlation between absorption and hypnotizability.] “It is possible that context effects may depend on the difficulty of the hypnotic suggestions and the latent abilities of the sample used. For relatively good hypnotic Ss performing relatively difficult suggestions, the correlation of absorption with hypnotizability may be stable across different contexts; however, for less able Ss performing relatively easy suggestions, the correlation, depending more on the ‘non-ability’ component, may be quite responsive to context manipulations. It might also be mentioned parenthetically that details of the instructions used to introduce the particular hypnosis scale employed may differentially pull for one kind of component or the other” (p. 39).

Bowers, Kenneth S. (1992). Imagination and dissociation in hypnotic responding. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40 (4), 253-275.

A neodissociative model of mind is better equipped than a social-psychological model to deal with the complexities of hypnosis, and of human behavior generally. It recognizes, as Coe’s (1992) model does not, that behavior can be more automatically activated than strategically enacted. In particular, Coe’s emphasis on human behavior as purposeful and goal directed does not distinguish between goal-directed behavior that serves a purpose, and goal-directed behavior that is performed on purpose. It is this distinction that permits goal-directed behavior to be dissociated from a person’s conscious plans and intentions. In addition to offering a critique of Coe’s “limited process” view of hypnosis, 4 main points are made in the interest of developing a slightly modified, neodissociation view of hypnosis. First, it is argued that goal-directed fantasies are more limited in their ability to mediate hypnotic responding than is commonly appreciated; as well, they do not seem to account for the nonvolitional quality of hypnotic responding. Second, it is argued that hypnotic ability is not unidimensional, with compliance and social influence more apt to account for the low than for the high hypnotizable’s responsiveness to suggestion. Third, compared to low hypnotizables, the hypnotic responsiveness of high hypnotizables seems more likely to result from dissociated control. In other words, for high hypnotizables, hypnotic suggestions may often directly activate subsystems of cognitive control. Consequently, the need for executive initiative and effort to produce hypnotically suggested behavior is minimized, and such responses are therefore experienced as nonvolitional. Fourth and finally, while goal-directed fantasies typically accompany hypnotically suggested responses, they are in many cases more a marker of dissociated control than a mediator of suggested effects.

Nadon, Robert; Dywan, Jane; Adams, Barbara (1992, October). The social psychology of depth reports: Skirting the important data. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington, ones who are affected by scale manipulations.

Radke & Spanos used a new 7-point scale that permitted Ss to say they passed an item but were not hypnotized, and only 25% (instead of 88% on usual 4-point scale) said that they were hypnotized.
Do we delude ourselves in thinking reports of hypnotic depth just reflect scale wording, or is something genuine being measured? Radke & Spanos found that breaking down Ss into low, medium, and high hypnotizable groups, the mediums are the ones who are affected by scale manipulations.

Ofshe, Richard J. (1992). Inadvertent hypnosis during interrogation: False confession due to dissociative state; mis-identified multiple personality and the satanic cult hypothesis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40, 125-156.

Induction of a dissociative state followed by suggestion during interrogation caused a suspect to develop pseudo-memories of raping his daughters and of participation in a baby-murdering Satanic cult. The pseudo-memories coupled with influence from authority figures convinced him of his guilt for 6 months. During this time, the suspect, the witnesses, and all the evidence in the case were studied. No evidence supported an inference of guilt and substantial evidence supported the conclusion that no crime had been committed. An experiment demonstrated the suspect’s extreme suggestibility. The conclusion reached was that the cult did not exist and the suspect’s confessions were coerced- internalized confessions. During the investigation, 2 psychologists diagnosed the suspect as suffering from a dissociative disorder similar to multiple personality. Both psychologists were predisposed to find Satanic cult activity. Each concluded that the disorder was due to “programming” by the non-existent Satanic cult.

Spanos, Nicholas P.; Burgess, C. A.; Cross, P. A.; MacLeod, G. (1992). Hypnosis, reporting bias, and suggested negative hallucinations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 192-199.

Examined the role of reporting bias in hypnotic negative hallucinations by using a paradigm in which reporting bias was assessed independently of perceptual change. In Experiment 1, highly hypnotizable subjects reported significant loudness reductions when tested for hypnotic deafness. Later, however, these subjects biased their reported loudness reductions in the absence of perceptual change, and their reporting bias scores were almost as large as their hypnotic deafness reports. Subjects also biased their ratings of strategy use. In Experiment 2, ratings of blindness given in response to a hypnotic negative visual hallucination suggestion were significantly correlated with reporting bias scores obtained in this paradigm. Although hypnotic blindness and hypnotic deafness correlated significantly, the partial correlation between these variables was nonsignificant when reporting bias scores were statistically controlled. Results are used to support a skeptical view of hypnotic response as being based on compliance.

Wagstaff, Graham F. (1991). The role of compliance in hypnotic and nonhypnotic analgesia. Contemporary Hypnosis, 8, 176-180.
This is a review of the paper by Spanos, Perlini, Patrick, Bell, & Gwynn (1990), The role of compliance in hypnotic and nonhypnotic analgesia, Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 433-453.
The author interprets the Spanos et al. results to indicate that high hypnotizables are more compliant or conforming when a measure of compliance is taken close to the hypnosis situation, and that hypnotic analgesia demonstrated in laboratory studies is largely the result of compliance (and Highs are most likely to exhibit compliance here as well). He suggests that compliance is not rare and frequently contributes to hypnotic response (especially among highly hypnotizable people), and would ‘explain’ such phenomena as hypnotic hallucinations (both positive and negative), automatic writing, and hypnotic amnesia and analgesia. Highly hypnotizable people seem to reinterpret their experiences in line with what is expected of them, then they come to believe in their own reinterpretations.
He emphasizes that “there is no necessary contradiction between the operation of compliance and the efficacy of techniques employing suggestion in some therapeutic situations especially when patients present with symptoms that are social in origin. In clinical contexts, not only might compliance motivate patients to obey instructions, and modify deviant behaviours, it could also operate as a useful social device to modify undesirable behaviours, by enabling the patient to ‘save face’ … Also, for some subjects at least, some degree of compliance may be necessary to experience certain effects genuinely; for example, reports from some subjects in our laboratory at Liverpool suggest that it may be necessary to voluntarily initiate suggested ‘involuntary’ movement, before the movement can subsequently be interpreted as involuntary (see also Cardena & Spiegel, 1991, p. 104 [Cardena, E. & Spiegel, D. Suggestibility, absorption, and dissociation, In J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Human Suggestibility: Advances in Theory, Research and Application. New York: Routledge])” (p. 179).

Bates, Brad L. (1990). Compliance and the Carleton Skill Training Program. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 7, 159-164.

He presents examples of how the Carleton training program for increasing hypnotizability encourages compliance, which suggests that the results are not truly an increase in suggestibility or hypnotizability.

Burgess, Cheryl A.; Du Breuil, Susan C.; Jones, Bill; Spanos, Nicholas P. (1990-91). Compliance and the modification of hypnotizability. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 10 (4), 293-304.

This study compared compliance-induced reporting bias in subjects who attained high hypnotizability scores following skill training and subjects who obtained equivalent scores without benefit of skill training (naturals). Low hypnotizables in one condition were administered the Carleton Skills Training Package and later posttested for hypnotizability. Control subjects were posttested without benefit of skill training. As in previous studies, skill-trained subjects attained substantially higher posttest hypnotizability scores than controls. In a final session, skill trained subjects, untrained naturals matched against the skill trained subjects on hypnotizability scores, and low hypnotizable controls were tested in a suggested deafness paradigm designed to assess compliant responding. Skill-trained subjects and matched naturals reported significantly greater suggested deafness than did the controls. However, only theory matched naturals exhibited significant levels of compliance-induced reporting bias. These findings indicate that skill- trained subjects exhibit no more compliant responding than do natural high hypnotizables

Levitt, Eugene E.; Baker, Elgan L., Jr.; Fish, Ronald C. (1990). Some conditions of compliance and resistance among hypnotic subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32 (4), 225-236.

Five experimental approaches to the resolution of the century-old Bernheim/Janet dispute and the issue of involuntariness or coercion (the classical suggestion effect) are presented. Four experiments are reported that follow one of the approaches: attempts to induce hypnotic subjects to resist suggestions made in trance. The design is one in which a “resistance instructor” proposes a reward for the resisting subject. Tentative inferences from the results are that the classical suggestion effect is found with a small number of subjects; for a larger number of subjects there is no classical suggestion effect, and for many subjects the outcome is equivocal. Relational factors in the hypnotic dyad influence responsiveness in the subject, the effect being least for those whose susceptibility is high.

Study I. Used a $5 bribe, two suggestions, and Ss resisted average of 1.2 suggestions. 9 Ss resisted both, 5 resisted neither, and 6 (30% of Ss) resisted one test suggestion. Resistance appeared to be related to impression of the resistance instructor, suggesting that “neither the monetary bribe nor hypnotic responsiveness was as important to the resistance/compliance dimension as relational factors” (p. 228).
Study II. Used only one suggestion, obtained quantitative ratings of the two instructors, and offered $10 to resist one suggestion. 19/40 Ss (48%) resisted. The authors wondered whether the difference in impressions of hypnotist and resistance instructor might be due to very limited contact with the latter.
Study III. Ss were greeted by the resistance instructor, who accompanied Ss to the experimental room, discussed the information under ‘Establishing Rapport Prior to the Initial Induction’ in the SHSS:A and a condensed version of the introduction to the Eye Closure item (10 minutes). Then he left, the hypnotist entered and administered the same 9-item SHSS:A that had been employed in Studies I and II. The resistance instructor then entered and offered $10 if the S could successfully resist the hypnotist’s suggestion on the second try [of an item just passed successfully]. The hypnotist re-entered, repeated SHSS:A instructions for the selected item, brought S out of hypnosis, and then a different experimenter did a structured interview–to give impressions of the hypnotist and the resistance instructor on an Adjective Rating Form (ARF), to estimate depth of their trance on 0-8 scale before and after contact by the resistance instructor. Then S was paid if he/she had resisted. The resisters obtained a mean on the SHSS:A of 4.8 compared to 7.9 for the nonresisters, significant t-test for the difference (p<.01). Table 1 A Comparison of Interview Ratings of Hypnotists and Resistance Instructors in Two Studies Hypnotist* Resistance Instructors** Study N Pos Neutral Neg Pos Neutral Neg II 39 69% 31% 0% 5% 72% 23% III 30 63% 20% 17% 43% 27% 30% * Chi square (2) = 7.71, p <.05 ** Chi square (2) = 24.3, p <.001 [N.B. Figures were rounded to nearest whole number by JH.] The correlation between hypnotizability on the SHSS and Resistance may be found in Table 2, along with the percentage of nonresisters in each of the four studies. Table 2 Correlation SHSS Percent Study N R-NR/SHSS Mean Nonresisters I 20 -.37* 7.1 40 II 40 -.44 6.2 52 III 30 -.54 5.8 33 IV 12 -- 8.8 50 * Not significant In Table 1 it may be seen that perceptions of the hypnotist and the resistance instructor changed from Study II to Study III. "In summary, the manipulation of time spent in the second experiment increased the proportion of resisters and dramatically improved the impression of the resistance instructor. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the hypnotist continued to be perceived positively and, according to our best measure, was still perceived more positively than the resistance instructor" (p. 232). Because they suspected that the impressions of the experimenters might be confounded by hypnotic susceptibility, and $10 might not be enough reward for behavior shaping, the experimenters designed Study IV. Study IV used 12 high hypnotizables (scoring 11 or 12 on Harvard Scale; with a group mean of 8.8 on a 9-item version of the SHSS:A). The same procedure as in Study II was carried out, except that four experimenters other than the authors were the hypnotists and resistance instructors; each experimenter worked with three subjects. The incentive was $100 to resist. The results of this procedure were that six Subjects resisted and six complied; each group scored 8.8 on the SHSS:A 9-item scale; resisters had 5.7 mean and nonresisters 5.1 mean depth (nonsignificant). Resisters and compliers were exactly alike in their perceptions of the hypnotist, but appeared different in perception of the resistance instructor (and the N was too small to test statistically). Table 3 Rated Impression of Hypnotist (%) Resisters Nonresisters Overall Study Pos Neut Neg Pos Neut Neg Pos Neut Neg II 68 32 0 76 24 0 73 28 0 III 55 25 20 80 10 10 63 20 17 IV 83 17 0 83 17 0 83 17 0 Table 4 Rated Impression of Resistance Instructor (%) Resisters Nonresisters Overall Study Pos Neut Neg Pos Neut Neg Pos Neut Neg II 11 79 11 0 67 33 5 73 23 III 45 30 25 40 20 40 43 27 30 IV 50 0 50 17 83 0 33 42 25 Table 5 Adjective Rating Form Means* Study Resisters Nonresisters Overall Resisters Nonresisters Overall II 46 38 42 65 74 68 III 54 40 50 61 63 62 IV 41 54 48 50 65 57 *Lower score is more favorable. Summary of the Four Studies: The data in Tables 2-5 reflect a critical finding. "There was a sharp drop in the number of Ss who did not resist, or it may be clearer to put it as a sharp increase in the number of resisters. The change is nearly 40%. "However, when only responsive subjects were used as in Study IV, the percentage of nonresisters is much the same as it was in Study II" (p. 233). The authors conclude that "relational factors are more important in hypnotic behavior among less responsive subjects" (p. 233). "The data contrasting resisters and nonresisters are somewhat confusing. There were more positive and negative impressions among subjects who resisted and more neutral impressions and no negative impressions among the nonresisters," (pp. 233-234) though the number of cases involved is quite small. Using the ratings, the nonresisters had a more favorable impression of the hypnotist than did the resisters, which is in accord with the interviewers' ratings. "A striking finding is that nonresister Ss in Study IV had a less favorable impression of both hypnotist and resistance instructor ... a clear reversal from Study III for the hypnotist, not quite so clear for the resistance instructor" (p.234). Levitt, Baker, & Fish draw the following inferences: "1. Hypnotic influence is truly coercive for a very small number of what Register & Kihlstrom (1986) have called the 'hypnotic virtuoso,' the most responsive individuals; for them, the classical suggestion effect is a reality; 2. Hypnotic influence, though perhaps not truly coercive, is manifestly strong for a somewhat larger group of highly responsive individuals; the classical suggestion effect may exist for them; 3. For many individuals who behave in accordance with hypnotic suggestions, the classical suggestion effect does not exist; 4. Relational factors in the hypnotic dyad influence hypnotic responsiveness. The influence is strongest among individuals of low-to-moderate hypnotic responsiveness; 5. The more positive the impression of the hypnotist, the greater will be his influence on the hypnotized individual; 6. A subject's impression of a hypnotist will tend to be favorable even though the sole interaction between the two is the induction of the trance; 7. Preliminary efforts to build rapport with the subject will tend to improve the already positive impression created by the hypnotist" (pp. 234-235). Levitt, Eugene E.; Baker, Elgan L., Jr.; Fish, Ronald C. (1990). Some conditions of compliance and resistance among hypnotic subjects: A rejoinder to invited discussion of Levitt, Baker, and Fish: Some conditions of compliance and resistance among hypnotic subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32 (4), 246-249. NOTES We cannot see how Lynn can allege that in three of the studies there was no relationship between resistance-nonresistance and perception of the hypnotist. The appropriate correlation coefficients are reported in Studies II and III. "Coe's point about the confounding of incentive and susceptibility might be valid if we had no prior knowledge of the relationship between resistance and susceptibility. But we already knew that the most susceptible Ss were likely to be the nonresisters. In Study IV, we abandoned susceptibility as an independent variable and made it a sample descriptor. ... [However] we resonate to Coe's suggestion of simulators" (p. 247). "In our first three studies, we reported no relationship between occupation and resistance, an admittedly crude but unobtrusive approach to the question of whether the most financially needy subjects were the resisters. We usually compared the students in the sample with the employed subjects. We did not report this lack of relationship in Study IV in which only three subjects were students. Two resisted, one did not. We must accept responsibility for provoking Coe's question about the credibility of the financial incentive in Study IV, by poor reporting. In a postexperimental inquiry, one subject (a resister) was mildly suspicious of the offer. All other Ss found the resistance instructor credible" (pp. 247-248). "Our own more recent research suggests that offering undergraduate students additional points toward the final class grade can yield more resisters than the money incentive in Study IV (Levitt, Baker, Hacker, Klion, Krause, Lytle, & Vanderwater- Piercy, 1990 in press)" (p. 248). "We have suggested that the hypnotic phenomenon is apparently experienced differently among subjects, and the critical factors are thus also likely to vary from subject to subject. We would be quite willing to accept Bernheim's estimate that 17% are incapable of resisting hypnotic suggestions, as cited by Weitzenhoffer. We agree with Spiegel that the issue of the coercive potential of hypnosis is 'not really settled by mean differences across groups.' Measures of central tendency are apt to obscure the minority of Ss who may experience coercion in experiments with designs different from ours" (p. 248). [The study referred to above is Levitt, E. E., Baker, E. L., Hacker, T., Klion, R., Krause, A. A., Lytle, R., & Vanderwater-Piercy, J. (1990 in press). Compliance and resistance in the hypnotic state: the effect of a social or an academic countermotivation. In R. van Dyck, P. Spinhoven, . J. W. van der Does, Y. R. van Rood, & W. De Moor (Eds.), _Hypnosis: Current theory, research, and practice._ Amsterdam: Free University Press.] Lynn, Steven Jay (1990). Is hypnotic influence coercive? Invited discussion of Levitt, Baker, and Fish: Some conditions of compliance and resistance among hypnotic subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32 (4), 239-241.