predisposing characteristics and less influenced by situational demands. … the hypnotic behavior of high autonomy Ss is more likely to be self- congruent and less likely to be demand-congruent. Low autonomy Ss, however, are more likely to be demand congruent and less likely to be self-congruent. The latter finding was suggested both by the significant F ratio for low autonomy Ss across treatments, and also by the stronger relationship found for this group between depth and how authoritarian/directive they perceived the procedure to be” (p. 163).
[Paradoxically, among low autonomy Ss an authoritarian approach yields less depth but greater suggestibility (higher hypnotizability scores).] “The tendency for low autonomy Ss to have a higher behavioral score on the authoritarian procedure is consistent with Tellegen’s (1979) assumption that there are two pervasive dimensions in current hypnotizability measures–a compliance dimension and a true hypnotic responsiveness dimension. According to Tellegen, motor items may be more saturated with compliance, while cognitive items may be more saturated with true hypnotic responsiveness. The BSS has a motor emphasis, and the higher behavioral scores for the low autonomy group of Ss may be interpreted as an expression of compliance.
“In addition to the inner-directedness and self-congruence hypothesis of why autonomy may be a moderator variable, another possible explanation is related to accuracy of self-perception. The intercorrelational and multiple regression data showed repeatedly that a stronger relationship existed between prehypnotic variables and hypnotic depth for high autonomy than for low autonomy Ss. The relational capacity, as tapped by the rapport-pre variable, absorption, which may be conceptualized as a personality trait; and expectation, a cognitive variable, were all related to depth for high autonomy Ss. For low autonomy Ss, none of these variables were individually related to depth. Differences in Ss’ accuracy of self-reporting may explain this. According to ego-psychology theory, highly individuated Ss, with clear self-other differentiation and congruence in self-perception, are better able to make accurate statements about themselves. The self-assessments of Ss with low differentiation capability may be less accurate and possibly more affected by demand characteristics and response set. In other words, their self-assessments have more error. The generally lower correlations for the low autonomy Ss may reflect this” (p. 164).
“A report of subjectively reported hypnotic depth following CIS and the self- hypnosis scales may reflect clarity of imagery, while a report of depth following BSS may reflect experiences of kinesthetic/bodily changes” (p. 165).
Schuyler, Bradley A.; Coe, William C. (1989). More on volitional experiences and breaching posthypnotic amnesia. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 320-331.
Highly responsive hypnotic subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects’ reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis
subjects’ reports of control in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c) theories of hypnosis.
The authors suggest that subjects observe themselves not remembering (i.e. not reporting memories) and conclude that they therefore could not remember. Such subjects, they say, are deceiving themselves in so far as they could remember if they were to direct their attention to salient cues
1988
Bowers, Patricia G.; Laurence, Jean-Roch; Hart, David (1988). The experience of hypnotic suggestions. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 336-349.
The experience of nonvolition in response to hypnotic suggestions was investigated for 126 Ss. 2 different scales, a new scale providing discrete options for response and a previously used volition rating scale, gave Ss an opportunity to describe some of their subjective experiences after completion of a 12-item adaptation for group administration of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962). Ratings of depth of hypnosis were also obtained. Ss had been previously administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962). Distribution of descriptions of experience for passed and failed items were obtained. Total scores on subjective indices were found to be highly correlated with the behavioral score on the Waterloo-Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Group C. Items differed, however, in the degree to which responses seem to occur effortlessly. Some suggestions have a substantial number of passed responses lacking the “classic suggestion effect,” but only 7% of Ss have more than 2 such responses.
Earlier research on the subjective perception of voluntary enactment of suggestions found from 20% (K. Bowers, 1981; P. Bowers, 1982) to 55% (Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Stam, & Bertrand, 1983) of hypnotic responses were described as voluntary in nature. Methodological differences could account for the range in probability levels, and rating scales used did not provide for absence of behavioral response to a particular suggestion.
This research investigated three issues: “1. Using a choice format to describe experiences during hypnosis, what is the distribution of the different descriptions used to index the construct of nonvolition? When S gives a mid-point rating on a volition rating scale, to what experiences does he/she refer? 2. How do two aspects of subjective experience: nonvolitional experience descriptions and hypnotic depth reports, covary with behavioral passing and failing of items and with levels of hypnotizability? 3. How frequently does S pass an item behaviorally but indicate either that he/she did not experience the response or that he/she purposefully enacted it? On what items is this a more or less frequent occurrence? Are there just a few people who pass items in this fashion or is it a common observation?” (p. 339).
The Ss were seen in small groups. Immediately after hypnosis they scored their own hypnotizability scales. Then they were asked to rate their subjective response to each suggestion: – how much they had experienced the suggestion (1-5) – how involuntary their response had been (1-5) (These two items comprised the Voluntary Rating Scale (VRS) used by K. Bowers, 1981, and P. Bowers, 1982.) – how deeply hypnotized they had felt (1-10, Perry & Laurence format, 1980) – Choice Scale (example from the hand magnetism item below) “Choice Scale of Nonvolitional Experience:
1980) – Choice Scale (example from the hand magnetism item below) “Choice Scale of Nonvolitional Experience:
Listed below are various ways people experience the hands together item. Please check the description(s) that most closely describe your experiences: (1) My hands did not move together at all. (2) I purposefully directed the movement of my hands most of the time. (3) I found I directed the movement of my hands and then later they continued to move together with no effort on my part. (4) I found my hands moving together without my helping them. (5) During this experience, the feelings of purposefully moving my hands were completely mixed with feelings that they were moving on their own. None of the above” (p. 340).
Considering both the passed and failed items, and after excluding the ‘None of the above’ category, “37% of items [on the W-SGSHS:C] were not experienced, 12% were enacted purposefully, 14% were experienced as intertwined volition and nonvolition, 17% were experienced as beginning purposefully but becoming nonvolitional, and 20% ‘happen by themselves'” (p. 341). See Table 2, taken from the article.
Thus of those failing an item, 60% reported that they did not experience the suggestion, while almost 26% reported some level of subjectively experienced nonvolition.
This research demonstrated that the Choice Scale is an improvement over the Voluntary Rating Scale, which has an ambiguous midpoint of ‘3’ between voluntary and nonvoluntary extremes (on a 5-point scale). Almost half of the ambiguous ‘3’ responses on the VRS were associated with a more meaningful response on the Choice Scale, indicating that the response started off voluntarily but then continued ‘on its own.’ Another third of the Ss indicated that there was an intertwining of volition and nonvolition.
The Choice Scale (transformed into an ordinal scale) was correlated with the VRS and hypnotizability and depth estimate scales. The correlations were “consistently high, suggesting that typically one reports feeling more deeply hypnotized when many suggestions are performed and passed, and more deeply hypnotized Ss report feeling that suggestions occur more ‘by themselves’ than do less hypnotizable Ss” (p. 342).
The authors note the complex relationship between behavioral and subjective experience. High hypnotizables report experience of nonvolition even with some failed items, and rate themselves as deeply hypnotized even when failing items. This is not true for low hypnotizables, whose self-rated depth varies directly with passing or failing items.
Mismatches were defined as passing an item behaviorally but reporting either that it was not experienced (Choice 1) or purposefully enacted (Choice 2). 93% of Ss had less than 3 mismatches; of the 8 Ss exhibiting 3 or more mismatches, 3 were medium-low hypnotizables, 4 were medium-highs, and 1 was highly hypnotizable. When one corrects their total hypnotizability score for the mismatch, people remain close to their original score however.
Some items had many more mismatches than others (See Table 6). The ‘classic suggestion effect’ reflected in a low percentage of mismatches (3-9%) was found for five items; three items had a moderate level of mismatches (16-22%); but four suggestions had mismatches on 34-41% of the passed responses. Item difficulty could not account for whether the classic suggestion effect occurred: two very difficult items were at opposite ends of the spectrum–positive music hallucination had the fewest and negative visual hallucination the most frequent mismatches. “One might speculate that the nature of one’s ordinary imaging during the day makes some hallucinations well practiced and easier to produce, while others are rarely practiced and seem to require cognitive effort to reconstruct. … Thus, instead of a mismatch representing ‘faked’ responses, it may at times represent S’s report of a hallucination’s seeming real while simultaneously requiring effort. Ideomotor suggestions have few mismatches. If they feel ‘real,’ it is by virtue of their seeming to occur without effort or volition” (pp. 346-347).
Table 6 Item % Mismatch Hand Lowering 2.9 Hands Together 4.8 Arm Rigidity 5.6 Music Hallucination 7.7 Dream 8.7 Arm Immobilization 15.5 Amnesia 21.6 Age Regression 21.8 Taste Hallucination 33.8 Negative Hallucination 34.6 Mosquito 38.1 Post-hypnotic Suggestion 40.8
Since highly hypnotizable people experience nonvoluntariness even when they fail items, tested hypnotizability must reflect more than simply passing test items on suggestion. “Research focusing exclusively on the nonvolitional aspect of hypnotic experience may be somewhat ‘off the mark,’ at least for some types of suggestions. Reports of nonvolition may be tracking the experience of effortless responding which may be just one aspect of a complex hypnotic response to cognitive suggestions. … It may be that studies using free reports from Ss responsive to hallucination suggestions would be necessary prior to devising an appropriate ‘choice’ scale for these items. The work of Sheehan and McConkey (1982) provides a solid basis for such a task. The Choice Scale in the present study was derived from an understanding of the ‘classic suggestion effect,’ the concept of which is closely tied to ideomotor suggestions. This concept may or may not prove to be of central relevance to hypnotic hallucinations or more generally to cognitively demanding suggestions” (p. 347).
-sponses, it may at times represent S’s report of a hallucination’s seeming real while simultaneously requiring effort. Ideomotor suggestions have few mismatches. If they feel ‘real,’ it is by virtue of their seeming to occur without effort or volition” (pp. 346-347).
Table 6 Item % Mismatch Hand Lowering 2.9 Hands Together 4.8 Arm Rigidity 5.6 Music Hallucination 7.7 Dream 8.7 Arm Immobilization 15.5 Amnesia 21.6 Age Regression 21.8 Taste Hallucination 33.8 Negative Hallucination 34.6 Mosquito 38.1 Post-hypnotic Suggestion 40.8
Since highly hypnotizable people experience nonvoluntariness even when they fail items, tested hypnotizability must reflect more than simply passing test items on suggestion. “Research focusing exclusively on the nonvolitional aspect of hypnotic experience may be somewhat ‘off the mark,’ at least for some types of suggestions. Reports of nonvolition may be tracking the experience of effortless responding which may be just one aspect of a complex hypnotic response to cognitive suggestions. … It may be that studies using free reports from Ss responsive to hallucination suggestions would be necessary prior to devising an appropriate ‘choice’ scale for these items. The work of Sheehan and McConkey (1982) provides a solid basis for such a task. The Choice Scale in the present study was derived from an understanding of the ‘classic suggestion effect,’ the concept of which is closely tied to ideomotor suggestions. This concept may or may not prove to be of central relevance to hypnotic hallucinations or more generally to cognitively demanding suggestions” (p. 347).
Gorassini, Donald R.; Hooper, Cynthia L.; Kitching, Kathleen J. (1988). The active participation of highly susceptible hypnotic subjects in generating their hypnotic experiences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 7 (3), 215-226.
Hypnotized individuals have traditionally been considered to be detached from the control of their own suggested behavior. We tested this and the alternative notion that hypnotized subjects attempt to self-generate the experiences (i.e., mainly of involuntariness) as well as produce the behaviors thought to be prototypical of high hypnotic ability. In an experimental investigation, highly susceptible hypnotic subjects were found to engage in the kind of imaginative activity that would be expected of individuals who were attempting deliberately to generate their experiences of involuntariness; they engaged as actively in imagery-generation as did subjects who were specifically instructed to imagine during suggested responding, and they experienced as much involuntariness as subjects in whom suggested movements were produced by an external physical force. The implications of these findings for the neodissociation and social psychological theories of hypnotic responding are discussed.
Kumar, V. K.; Pekala, Ronald J. (1988). Hypnotizability, absorption, and individual differences in phenomenological experience. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 80-88.
The phenomenological effects associated with a baseline condition of eyes- closed and a hypnotic induction condition were compared across individuals of differing absorption capacity and hypnotizability. The results indicated that individuals of differing absorption capacity and hypnotizability reported different intensities of phenomenological experience during the baseline eyes-closed condition. The induction further augmented intensity differences for low, medium, and high absorption and hypnotizable Ss, but more so for high (and medium) than low hypnotizable Ss. The results support both a trait and state interpretation of hypnotizability, and highlight the importance of the interaction between these factors on the resulting hypnotic experience of S.
-tizable Ss. The results support both a trait and state interpretation of hypnotizability, and highlight the importance of the interaction between these factors on the resulting hypnotic experience of S.
Based on a review of relevant literature, the authors predicted that (1) during hypnosis and a baseline condition (eyes-closed), high absorption and high hypnotizable Ss will report the phenomenological effects at greater intensity relative to low absorption and low hypnotizable Ss, respectively; (2) hypnotic induction will be associated with increased absorption; greater alterations in awareness and experience; and decreased volitional control, rationality, and memory; (3) phenomenological intensity differences (hypnosis compared to eyes-closed) will be significantly greater for high than for low hypnotizable Ss.
They used the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI) developed by Pekala (1982), which is a 53 item self-report instrument that is completed retrospectively in reference to a preceding stimulus condition. The PCI measures the following dimensions and subdimensions: internal dialogue; self-awareness; state of awareness; imagery (amount, vividness); positive affect (joy, sexual excitement, love); negative affect (anger, fear, sadness); altered experience (time sense, body image, perception, unusual meanings); attention (absorption, direction); memory; rationality; volitional control; and arousal.
The 217 Ss were administered the Tellegen Absorption Scale, then sat quietly with eyes closed for four minutes, then completed the PCI, Form 1, relative to that 4-minute period. They were administered a slightly shortened version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A); before the posthypnotic suggestion and amnesia suggestion they experienced another 4-minute silent period during which they were told to ‘continue to experience the state you are in right now.’ After the HGSHS:A they completed PCI, Form 2, in reference to the silent period during the HGSHS:A, before they completed the 11-point questionnaire on the HGSHS:A.
Subjects who did not have reliable PCI response forms were removed from the sample, leaving 173 Ss who were divided into high, medium, and low Absorption groups, and high, medium, and low hypnotizability groups. The statistical analysis employed MANOVA on intensity scores for first the major PCI dimensions and then the 14 subdimensions using Conditions (eyes closed, hypnosis) and Groups. There were significant main and interaction effects. Subsequent ANOVAs for each (sub)dimension, Conditions by Hypnotizability Groups (2 x 3) were then performed.
Hypnosis “was associated with significantly less positive affect (joy, sexual excitement, love); negative affect (anger, sadness); visual imagery (amount, vividness); self-awareness, internal dialogue, rationality, volitional control, and memory; and significantly more altered experience (time sense, perception) and altered state of awareness.
“Significant main effects for Hypnotizability Groups were found for positive affect (joy, love); altered experience (body image, time sense, perception, meaning); attention (direction, absorption); self-awareness; altered state of awareness; rationality; volitional control; and memory.
“Post-hoc comparisons for the eyes-closed condition revealed that high relative to low, hypnotizables reported significantly greater alterations in body image, time sense, meaning, and altered state of awareness. Medium hypnotizable Ss, compared to low hypnotizables,
, reported significantly increased alterations in body image and state of awareness.
“Post-hoc comparisons for the hypnotic induction condition revealed that high, viz-a-viz low, hypnotizables reported significantly increased absorbed attention; greater altered experience (body image, time sense, perception, meaning); and increased alterations in state of awareness. High hypnotizables also reported significantly less imagery vividness, self-awareness, rationality, volitional control, and memory. Medium hypnotizable Ss, vis-a-vis low hypnotizables, reported significantly more altered experience (body image, time sense, perception, meaning); absorbed attention; and altered state of awareness; and significantly less imagery vividness, self-awareness, rationality, volitional control, and memory. High hypnotizable Ss, relative to medium hypnotizables, reported significantly more altered experience (perception, meaning) and absorption, and significantly less rationality, volitional control, and memory.
“Concerning the significant interactions (alpha = .01), graphs of the means indicated significant ordinal interactions between Conditions and Hypnotizability Groups for altered experience (perception), imagery (vividness), self-awareness, altered state of awareness, rationality, volitional control, and memory. For all of the PCI (sub)dimensions, the hypnotic induction condition (compared to eyes-closed) was associated with a significantly greater increase in altered experience (perception), and altered state of awareness; and a significantly greater decrease in imagery (vividness), rationality, volitional control, and memory for the high (and medium) hypnotizable groups relative to the low hypnotizable group.
“Significant disordinal interactions were found for absorption and unusual meanings. Whereas high hypnotizable Ss reported a more absorbed attentional focus and more unusual meaning during hypnosis, low hypnotizable Ss reported being less absorbed (or more distracted) during the induction than eyes-closed. Low hypnotizables reported more unusual meanings in reference to eyes closed” (pp. 84-85).
Correlations among the major PCI dimensions, absorption, and hypnotizability differ between the two conditions. In hypnosis, the hypnotizability correlations that reached the .001 level were: –Self Awareness -.55 –State of Awareness .60 –Altered Experience .56 –Inward Absorbed Attention .44 –Rationality -.41 –Volitional control -.65 –Memory -.41 –Arousal -.28
In the eyes closed condition, the only PCI variables that Hypnotizability correlated with, at the .001 level, were: –Positive Affect .26 –Altered Experience .32
MANOVAs and ANOVAs were computed for Absorption groups in a similar fashion. Main effects but not interaction effects were significant. Results are not abstracted here.
In their Discussion, the authors note that “The three hypotheses were supported by the results. Several of the absorption group comparisons obtained in previous research (Pekala et al., 1985) involving alterations in subjective experience (body image, perception, meaning); state of awareness; and volitional control were replicated in the present research” (p. 85).
Lynn, Steven Jay; Weekes, John R.; Matyi, Cindy L.; Neufeld, Victor (1988). Direct versus indirect suggestions, archaic involvement, and hypnotic experience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 (3), 296-301.
This study examined the effects of direct (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility; Shore & Orne, 1962) versus indirect (Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales; Pratt, Wood, & Alman, 1984) suggestions on archaic involvement (Nash & Spinler, in press) with the hypnotists, objective responding, and subjective involvement and involuntariness ratings, when the scales were administered in all possible combinations (direct/indirect, N = 61; indirect/direct, N = 61, direct/direct, N = 57; indirect/direct, N = 95), across two sessions. At the initial testing, subjects who received
indirect/direct, N = 61, direct/direct, N = 57; indirect/direct, N = 95), across two sessions. At the initial testing, subjects who received indirect suggestions reported a greater emotional bond with the hypnotist and increased fear of negative appraisal than subjects who received direct suggestions. Repeated testing resulted in response decrements on measures of objective responding, subjective involvement, and involuntariness that were paralleled by diminished involvement with the hypnotist. The most stable relation between scales was evident when scales were defined as direct hypnosis across both sessions. Although direct and indirect suggestions produced comparable effects in the first session, in the second session, direct suggestions fostered greater subjective involvement and feelings of involuntariness.
1987
Holroyd, Jean (1987). How hypnosis may potentiate psychotherapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 29, 194-200.
Hypnotherapy is defined as doing psychotherapy in the hypnotic state. This article reviews cognitive, affective, and motivational changes associated with hypnotic trance, attempting to demonstrate how the hypnotic state might influence ordinary psychotherapy processes. Nine characteristics of trance probably potentiate psychotherapy: (1) changes in attention and awareness, (2) imagery enhancement, (3) increase in dissociation, (4) decrease of reality orientation, (5) increase in suggestibility, (6) increased accessibility of mind-body interactions, (7) diminution of initiative resulting in a sense of nonvoluntariness, (8) increased availability or manipulability of affect, and (9) development of a fusional relationship (rapport). This article touches upon the psychotherapeutic implications of these hypnosis attributes.
1986
Cole, Ronald William (1986, February). Posthypnotic suggestion and the production of creative imagination imagery (Dissertation, Mississippi State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (8), 2953-A.
“This investigation assessed the effect of posthypnotic suggestions in facilitating creativity in persons highly susceptible to hypnosis. Fifty college-age subjects from educational psychology and psychology classes at Mississippi State University who scored 9 or above on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility were used. Groups of 10 subjects were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: a) hypnosis/creative learning set instructions b) relaxation/creativity learning set instructions c) hypnosis only d) relaxation only e) posttest only “Subjects in the hypnosis/creative learning set instructions group received 25 min. of hypnosis and creativity instruction. The relaxation/creative learning set instructions group received 25 min. of relaxation and creativity instructions. The hypnosis-only group received 25 min. of hypnosis and then completed mazes. The relaxation-only group received 25 min. of relaxation and then completed mazes. And lastly, the control group received the posttest only. All groups were given the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), Verbal and Figural Forms A, 1 week after receiving their treatment conditions. The results indicated that the combination of hypnosis and creativity instructions produced significantly higher mean scores on the Verbal Form A — fluency, flexibility, and originality subtests, and Figural Form A elaboration subtest, and lend support to the contention that posthypnotic suggestions can increase creativity (as measured by the TTCT) in high susceptible subjects. The components of both hypnosis and creativity instruction had to be present to increase creative performance. There was a tendency for relaxation combined with creativity instructions to show decreases in creativity scores. “The hypnotic state was seen as necessary for the unconscious acceptance of creativity instructions (low volitional control), while the relaxed state produced conscious contamination of suggestions for creativity (high volitional control). It was postulated that it was the difference in volitional control which produced the positive responses to posthypnotic suggestions to be more creative in the group receiving hypnosis and creativity instructions” (p. 2953).
1986
Miller, Mary E.; Bowers, Kennneth S. (1986). Hypnotic analgesia and stress inoculation in the reduction of pain. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 6-14.
Investigated the influence of hypnotic ability on 3 methods of reducing cold-pressor pain. Following a baseline immersion, 30 high- and 30 low-hypnotizable undergraduates were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: stress inoculation training, stress inoculation training defined as hypnosis, or hypnotic analgesia. Analysis of pain reports indicated a significant hypnotic ability x treatment interaction. Among Ss receiving hypnotic analgesia, high-hypnotizables reported significantly less intense pain than lows. There was no differential response for high- and low-hypnotizable Ss receiving stress inoculation training, whether or not it was defined as hypnotic. Moreover, Ss in the stress inoculation condition (whether or not defined as hypnosis) reported using cognitive strategies to reduce pain, whereas this was not the case for Ss in the hypnotic analgesia condition. The present findings seem inconsistent with the social psychological account of hypnosis and are discussed from a dissociation perspective, which views hypnosis as involving changes in the way information is processed.
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.
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.
Pereira, Robert Peter (1986, July). The role of organismic involvement in hypnotic emotional behavior (Dissertation, Wayne State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (1), 385-B. (Order No. DA8605027)
Two hundred college undergraduates were pretested via the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A. Fifty subjects scoring in the range 7-12 were designated as Reals, while 25 subjects scoring in the range 0-4 were designated as Simulators. Reals and Simulators were given differential instructions before the administration of a second hypnotic induction procedure, which was accompanied by a task in which subjects were asked to relive each of three emotional experiences, i.e., fear, anger, and happiness. Reals were given instructions encouraging cooperation, while Simulators were instructed to try to convince a group of experienced hypnotists that they were deeply hypnotized, when, in fact, they would not be. “Physiological, overt-behavioral, and cognitive measures taken either during or following the relived-emotions task served as indices of Sarbin’s organismic involvement construct. A post-experimental measure of the realness of subjects’ relived emotional experience was regressed on these organismic indices in order to test Sarbin’s assumption of a positive linear relationship between organismic involvement and belief-in imaginings, using data from the Real group only. Results indicated that, across all three emotions, the linear composite of organismic indices shared statistically significant amounts of variance with the criterion of experiential realness. Obtained amounts of shared variance ranged from 22% (during anger) to 55% (during happiness). These findings were interpreted as offering clear and robust support for Sarbin’s theory of hypnosis. Suggestions for further research were offered. “The question of Real-Simulator differences was explored through several multivariate analyses of variance and covariance, using the organismic indices as dependent variables. These analyses were performed on the original sample of Reals and Simulators, and on two subsamples of Reals/Highs and Simulators/Lows which were created through the use of pre- and/or post-experimental exclusion criteria. Reals/Highs showed statistically higher levels of effort than did Simulators/Lows during all three emotions, as well as higher levels of skin conductance and finger temperature during anger. These findings were interpreted as being of theoretical and practical significance. Multiple replications of the physiological findings were recommended in order to assess the extent to which the skin conductance and finger temperature variables might be used in practical, i.e., forensic contexts” (p. 385-B).
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.
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).
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).
Schacter, Daniel L. (1986). Amnesia and crime: How much do we really know?. American Psychologist, 41, 286-295.
Claims of amnesia occur frequently after the commission of violent crimes and can have a significant bearing on the outcome of criminal trials. This article considers the relation between amnesia and crime within the broader context of research on memory and amnesia and provides a critical evaluation of current knowledge concerning the issue. Particular attention is paid to the problem of distinguishing between genuine and simulated claims of amnesia. It is suggested that reliable data concerning the nature of amnesic episodes that occur after the commission of a crime are sparse, and that there is as yet little evidence that genuine and simulated amnesia can be distinguished in criminal cases. The results of several laboratory studies are summarized that indicate that feeling-of- knowing ratings distinguished between genuine and simulated amnesia under conditions in which psychologists and psychiatrists did not.
Stam, Henderikus J.; McGrath, Patricia A.; Brooke, Ralph I.; Cosier, Frances (1986). Hypnotizability and the treatment of chronic facial pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 182-191.
The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) of Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand and Stam and Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Stam, and Bertrand (1983) was individually administered to a sample of 61 facial pain patients. The mean scores on the 3 CURSS suggestibility dimensions were higher than those of the college student norms. As in previous studies using the CURSS, however, objective scores were smaller when experienced involuntariness was taken into account. Observer scores of overt responses were highly related to self-scores of overt responses. The CURSS also proved a good predictor of reductions in clinical pain following a psychologically based treatment program.
The CURSS has 7 items: 2 ideomotor (arm-levitation, arms moving apart); 2 motor-challenge (arm rigidity, arm immobility); and 3 cognitive (auditory hallucination, visual hallucination, amnesia). The CURSS yields 3 suggestibility scores: O = Objective (number of suggestions to which S made appropriate overt response; 0-7 range) S = Subjective (the degree to which S reports experiencing the subjective events called for; 0-21 range) O-I = Objective-Involuntariness (number of suggestions that were passed objectively and that were rated as involuntary to either a moderate or great degree; 0-7 range) VC = Voluntary Cooperation; items that are passed objectively and are primarily experienced as voluntary occurrences
They tested 61 patients in facial pain clinic, mean age 26 years, who were diagnosed with temporo-mandibular pain and dysfunction syndrome (TMPDS). This syndrome includes pain, limitations in mandibular movements, and sounds during condylar movements. 41 of the patients completed a cognitive behavioral pain treatment program (results reported elsewhere, in Stam, H. J., McGrath, P. A., & Brooke, R. I. The effects of a cognitive-behavioral treatment program on temporo-mandibular pain and dysfunction syndrome. _Psychosom. Med.,_ 1984, _46_, 534-545).
-545).
Patients rated degree they expected to be hypnotized on a visual analog scale. Expectations for becoming hypnotized were not significantly correlated with any of the dimensions, except for the CURSS:O observer-scored dimension (r = .29). Age was also related to the CURSS:O observer-scored dimension (r = -.25) as well as to the CURSS:S dimension (r = -.28).
Several measures of treatment outcome were employed--change scores of weekly self ratings, and post-treatment ratings by the dental surgeon (worse, same, improved, alleviated).
"Whereas the CURSS:V-C dimension is not at all related to any of the outcome measures, the objective, subjective, and objective-involuntariness measures are highly and significantly correlated with the reduction in patients' peak pain scores and the posttreatment pain ratings. The correlations between measures of hypnotizability and pain reductions are not significant for the control group, though these are based on small sample size. Table 3 also indicates a lack of relationship between measures of hypnotizability and the weekly pain ratings. Stam et al. (1984a) point out that it may have been due to the relative instability of the global weekly ratings of pain versus the daily ratings obtained from the home logs that were used to calculate the peak pain scores" (p. 187).
Table 3 Correlation Coefficients between Dimensions of the CURSS and Reductions in Pain
Susceptibility Dimension Pain Reduction O S O-I V-C
Measures
Pre-post .60**(.36) .51**(.19) .44*(-.21) .18(.42) Peak Pre-post .19 -.01 .15 .07 Weekly rated Posttreatment .54**(-.05) .58**(.26) .58**(.01) -.02(.37) Surgeon's rating
Note: Correlations in parentheses are for the Waiting List Control group (N = 14; N = 10 for Peak Pain); all others are for combined treatment groups, N = 27.
*p<.05 **p<.01
In their Discussion, the authors note that this research is in accord with other studies that indicate that "objective responding and the experience of those responses involuntarily are not necessarily equivalent. ... Ss in both the laboratory and the clinic are almost twice as likely to pass suggestions when assessed overtly than by the combined objective-involuntariness criterion. ... [and] objective scores alone confound responses experienced as voluntary with those experienced as involuntary" (pp. 188-189). They report that earlier studies from their laboratory indicated that "only CURSS suggestibility dimensions, and not the VC dimension, correlated significantly with absorption and Field's (1965) Inventory Scale of Hypnotic Depth. ... [and] correlations between hypnotizability and reductions in pain were not due to compliance factors but were related to each of the other three ways of assessing hypnotizability" (p. 189).
"The objective, subjective, and objective-involuntariness dimensions were all significantly correlated with the reductions in peak pain and posttreatment ratings for the treatment groups but not for the control groups. These results replicate the laboratory demonstrations that hypnotizability is correlated with suggested analgesia regardless of the presence or absence of a hypnotic induction procedure (E. R. Hilgard & J. R. Hilgard, 1975; Spanos, Radtke-Bodorik, Ferguson, & Jones, 1979; Stam & Spanos, 1980). There is some evidence, however, that this depends on the hypnotic induction procedure being defined as a component of the analgesia testing situation (Spanos, Kennedy, & Gwynn, 1984).
"Despite the differential predictions between CURSS dimensions and pain reductions, there were no increases in the predictions of pain reductions when objective scores were corrected for involuntariness or when using subjective scores. (This was apparent for the combined treatment groups as well as for each group examined separately.) The reasons for this are not obvious and await further research" (p. 189).
The authors conclude from their research that the general practice of self-scoring hypnotizability scales that is used in laboratory research appears to be equally reliable in a clinical situation.
await further research" (p. 189).
The authors conclude from their research that the general practice of self-scoring hypnotizability scales that is used in laboratory research appears to be equally reliable in a clinical situation.
1985
Coe, William C.; Yashinski, Edward (1985). Volitional experiences associated with breaching posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 716-722.
Highly responsive hypnotic subjects classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries) or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic amnesia were compared during posthypnotic recall. Subjects rerated their voluntariness after the experiment. Two contextual conditions were employed (2 x 2 design): a lie detector condition meant to create pressure to breach amnesia and a relax control condition. In contrast to earlier findings, the recall data showed that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under the lie detector condition compared with their counterparts in the relax condition; however, the degree of breaching was not great in any condition. The results are discussed as they relate to studies attempting to breach posthypnotic amnesia and characteristics of the voluntary-involuntary dimension
Kelly, Paul James (1985, November). The relationship between hypnotic ability and hypnotic experience (Dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (5), 1690-B.
"This study investigated the relationship between four types of hypnotic experience and hypnotic ability. The types of experiences were: dissociation, the experience of involuntariness, altered state effects, such as perceptual alterations and diminished reality sense rapport, transference-like involvement with the hypnotist, and relaxation. A 47-item scale, the Hypnotic Experience Questionnaire was developed to measure types of hypnotic experience. It was given to 484 subjects and then to a subsample of 272 students. When the scale was factored, four stable factors emerged: Nonconscious/Trance, Rapport, Relaxation, and Cognitive Rumination. A Group Profile Scale was also developed to measure students and when it was factor analyzed four factors were extracted: Hallucinations and Fantasies, Amnesias and Post-Hypnotic Compulsions, Motor Inhibition, and Direct Motor Suggestion. "Two statistical approaches were used to investigate the connections between hypnotic ability and hypnotic experience . Canonical analysis was used to identify the main relationships between hypnotic ability and hypnotic experience and factor analysis was used to explore the relationship among measures of hypnotizability and hypnotic experience. Two canonical variates from the canonical analysis were significant. The first variate was characterized by a dissociative-imaginative involvement process, and the second variate tapped a rapport-social compliance process. "When 25 variables, representing components of hypnotic ability and hypnotic experience, were factored, five factors were extracted. Imaginative Involvement, Ideomotor Response, Rapport, Cognitive Inhibition, and Relaxation. The results of the factor analysis suggested that dissociative experience and altered state experience are related to hypnotic ability but rapport and relaxation are not. "The results of study, taken as a whole, suggest that relaxation and rapport may happen in the hypnotic situation, but neither experience is related to the condition of being hypnotized in any essential way. The results suggest that the hypnotic condition is characterized by dissociative experience, altered state experience, and by successful performance on hypnotic ability tasks. From a theoretical point of view, the results strongly supported Hilgard's theory, partially supported Shor's theory, and failed to support Edmonston's theory" (p. 1690).
point of view, the results strongly supported Hilgard's theory, partially supported Shor's theory, and failed to support Edmonston's theory" (p. 1690).
Neufeld, Victor; Lynn, Steven Jay; Jacquith, Leah; Weekes, John (1985, November). Fantasy style, imagination, and hypnotizability. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Asheville, NC.
Authors discuss three fantasy styles: 1. Positive constructive daydreaming 2. Guilt / fear of failure 3. Poor attentional control. Fantasy style has been related to many personality variables, usually based on questionnaires.
They examined subjects in hypnosis and waking states using hypnotic dreams, Short Imaginal Processes Inventory, Tellegen Absorption, Betts QMI Imagery Vividness, Hypnosis (HGSHS and suggested dream) involvement, Wilson and Barber ICI, Nonvoluntary experience, Fantasy Proneness, Content of fantasies.
137 student volunteers participated in the study. 82 had HGSHS-A and hypnotic dream, and gave involuntariness ratings. Ss self-rated pleasant and unpleasant for hypnotic dreams. Experimenter rated dream for 1) positive emotion, 2) negative emotion, and 3) anxiety. Correlations were significant for female Ss, but not for male Ss.
RESULTS.
Fantasy-style, at least of negative affect, was consistent for waking and hypnotic states. Positive constructive fantasy correlated to HGSHS but the other two fantasy styles did not. [Other results reported are not included in this brief summary.]
Schlesinger, Jay Lawrence (1985). Hypnotizability in relation to success in learning biofeedback training: Attentional involvement (Dissertation, Adelphi University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45 (n8-B), 2701. (Order No. DA 8424937)
"This study investigated the role of attentional focus in the relationship between hypnotizability and success in learning two types of biofeedback training. 40 female college students, aged 18-25, were measured for hypnotic responsiveness, and given one session of EMG biofeedback and one session of temperature biofeedback. For the biofeedback training, 20 Ss received written instructions designed to establish a passive, non-volitional attentional focus on the feedback signal, and 20 received written instructions intended to establish an active, volitional attentional focus on the feedback signal.
"It was hypothesized that level of hypnotizability would be positively related to success in learning EMG and temperature biofeedback training for the Ss given passive, non-volitional attentional instructions, while level of hypnotizability would be negatively related to success in learning biofeedback training for the Ss given active, volitional attentional instructions. It was also hypothesized that higher hypnotizables would perform better with temperature biofeedback than with EMG biofeedback, and that lower hypnotizables would perform better with EMG biofeedback than with temperature biofeedback.
"The hypotheses were not supported, nor was any overall relationship between level of hypnotizability and success in learning biofeedback demonstrated. There was support to suggest that an active, volitional attentional focus on the biofeedback signal was most adequately maintained by the 20 Ss given the active volitional instructions. Clinical implications of these findings and directions for future research were discussed" (p. 2701).
-ings and directions for future research were discussed" (p. 2701).
Stone, Jennifer A.; Lundy, Richard M. (1985). Behavioral compliance with direct and indirect body movement suggestions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94 (3), 256-263.
Investigated the effectiveness of 2 types of suggestions in eliciting body movement by presenting 96 high-, medium-, and low-susceptible undergraduates, in hypnotic or nonhypnotic conditions, with either of 2 series of body movement suggestions. The indirect suggestions were designed to represent the approach of M. H. Erickson (see PA, vol 60:11116 and 12262) and resulted in greater compliance in the hypnotic condition. Direct suggestions resulted in greater compliance in the nonhypnotic condition. Susceptibility to hypnosis was related to compliance in the hypnosis condition, but no interactions were found between susceptibility and type of suggestion. Sense of volition in responding was unrelated to the major findings. Discussion of the results includes a call for the accurate reporting of the wording of hypnotic suggestions in future research.
1984
Crabtree, Adam (1984, October/1986). Explanations of dissociation in the first half of the twentieth century. In Quen, Jacques M. (Ed.), Split minds/split brains (pp. 85-108). New York: New York University Press. (Based on symposium in Bear Mt., N.Y., by Section on the History of Psychiatry of Cornell University Medical Center)