Bertrand, Lorne D.; Stam, Henderikus J.; Radtke, Lorraine (1993). The Carleton Skills Training Package for modifying hypnotic susceptibility–a replication and extension: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 6-14.
This study employed the Carleton Skills Training Package (CSTP) to attempt to enhance both objective and subjective components of hypnotic susceptibility. In addition, changes in susceptibility were compared for subjects administered a standard hypnotic induction procedure and for subjects given brief “place yourself in hypnosis” instructions. Results indicated that subjects who were administered the CSTP exhibited significant gains in both objective and subjective susceptibility scores that were maintained at two separate posttests with different scales. No differences were observed between the groups administered the standard induction and those administered the self-induction instructions.
The authors do not make much of the latter finding, but I find it to be the more interesting outcome.
“Two experiments (Barber & Calverley, 1969; Stam & Fraser, 1986) found that subjects who sat quietly for 5 minutes following an instruction to “place yourself in hypnosis” attained similar scores when responding to test suggestions as did subjects who were administered a 5-minute hypnotic induction procedure. The CSTP informs subjects that hypnotic induction procedures do not achieve their effects by inducing a trance state and that such procedures function to produce relaxation rather than to enhance responsiveness to suggestion. In addition, the CSTP emphasizes to subjects that responses to suggestions do not ‘just happen’ but must be actively generated. To the extent that subjects attend to these aspects of the CSTP procedure, they should exhibit equivalent increments on behavioral and subjective indexes of susceptibility regardless of whether they are administered a formal hypnotic induction procedure or simply told to ‘place themselves into hypnosis.'” (p. 7).
“That naive subjects can produce equivalent objective, subjective, and involuntariness scores following such instructions highlights the degree to which hypnotic responses are not dependent on formal induction procedures. The fact that so-called active-alert induction procedures are also equivalent in producing hypnotic responses supports this notion (Banyai & Hilgard, 1976)” (p. 13).
Bruehl, Stephen; Carlson, Charles R.; McCubbin, James A. (1993). Two brief interventions for acute pain. Pain, 54, 29-36.
This study evaluated two brief (3-5 min) interventions for controlling responses to acute pain. Eighty male subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention groups (Positive Emotion Induction (PEI) or Brief Relaxation (BR)) or to 1 of 2 control groups (No-instruction or Social Demand). The PEI focused on re-creating a pleasant memory, while the BR procedure involved decreasing respiration rate and positioning the body in a relaxed posture. All subjects underwent a 60-sec finger pressure pain trial. Analyses indicated that the PEI subjects reported lower ratings of pain, fear, and anxiety, and experienced greater finger temperature recovery than controls. The BR procedure resulted in greater blood pressure recovery, but did not alter ratings of pain or emotion relative to controls. Further research is needed to explore the clinical use of the PEI for acute pain management.
Cardena, Etzel (1993, October). Hypnotizability and mental boundaries: A correlational study. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington Heights, IL.
NOTES
Author is developing Ernest Hartman’s Mental Boundaries Questionnaire. Hartman does research on chronic nightmare sufferers. He says they have thin mental boundaries, defined in various ways. Art students have thin boundaries, Navy officers thick boundaries. The questionnaire has 145 items, less 7 that are scored zero.
Item Groups: Sleep/wake/dream Unusual experiences (e.g., deja vu) Thoughts, feelings, moods Child, Adolescent, Adulthood feelings Sensitivity Neat, exact, precise Edges, lines, clothing (flexible space) = Personal score
Opinions about children about organizations about people, nations, groups, about beauty, truth = World total
Sumbound (personal + world total) Hypnotizability should relate to Personal score more than World total.
Also used: 2. Field’s Inventory 3. Kirsch’s Inner subjective experiences (of the Harvard Scale) 4. Tellegen’s Absorption Scale 5. Harvard Hypnotizability Scale
Gave the measures in different contexts from the hypnotizability measures. The Absorption scale (different subscales) correlated best with the Hartman’s scale, but subjective scales also correlated with “Personal Score.”
The lack of significant correlation between Harvard and Thinness of Boundaries questionnaires may be due to differences in voluntariness experience on the Harvard. Or Woody and others suggest hypnotic response may be due to compliance in some samples. Barrett had found a correlation of .19 with hypnotizability; and Robert Kunzendorf found a similar correlation.
Council, James R.; Grant, Debora L. (1993, October). Context effects: They’re not just for hypnosis anymore. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington Heights, IL.
NOTES
Context effects in Absorption research are found in correlations, not in mean differences. Original paper has been replicated and yet results are not always significant. Now we are trying to generalize the effect to other areas: an individually administered measure will influence other measures made in the same session.
Other tests that correlate with hypnosis are studied with 2 x 2 design, enabling order effects and same vs separate contexts to be studied. Or two tests are administered at two points in time, with “bridges” between the two sessions (e.g. same experimenter, same consent forms, etc.) As one adds more and more bridging cues, the correlation of Absorption with other Tellegen MPQ subscales increases.
Same context assessment increases correlation between hypnotizability and 6-8 other scales; with childhood trauma scale when trauma scale is administered first; with beliefs in paranormal phenomena when the measure is related to an adjustment scale. The same inflation of correlations was found in Beck Depression scale research.
These results are of concern because we may have to re-do a lot of personality research that suggested correlation between personality test variables, as the correlations may be inflated by the effects of testing in the same context.
Kronenberger, William G.; La Clave, Linda; Morrow, Catherine (1993, October). Assessment of the hypnotic state in the clinical setting: Development of the hypnotic state assessment questionnaire. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington Heights, IL.
NOTES
We do research, clinical work and teaching. In this setting students ask, how do I know when somebody is hypnotized? We wanted to give them a normative sense of what to expect. Supervisory issues arise–e.g. when student reports that a patient “looked very hypnotized.” We also wanted a measure that could track changes from one hypnotherapy session to another. We wanted quantification of hypnotic response (e.g. to use in medical charts).
We looked at self report measures, reviewed by Tart (number ratings) and hypnotizability scales; we reviewed articles, looked at what we teach, etc.. Criteria for the scale we developed were: 1. brief 2. unobtrusive (not introducing something different into the hypnosis process) 3. easy to use 4. have both behavioral and subjective components 5. clinically useful 6. apply to wide age range (we have patients ages 7-60) 7. apply to many different types of inductions (though there is no clinical scale that will apply to all types of inductions). We use a more permissive, relaxation induction ourselves.
We assessed observed behavior during hypnosis as well as immediately following hypnosis, and then asked patients questions about what the experience was like for them. From their responses we developed the Hypnotic State Assessment Questionnaire. The scale has 18 items, as follows: 1. Hypnotic State Observation (HSO) Items
Noise Factor (e.g. drumming fingers)
Noise
Spontaneous Verbalizations
Behavior Factor
Motoric behavior (spontaneous)
Focused attention (not moving eyes)
Rhythmical Breathing
Relaxed state/Lack of tension Each are coded 1-5 with behavioral anchors at 1, 3, and 5 2. Post Hypnotic Observations
Positive Experience Factor (rated Yes-No)
Smile
Spontaneously Verbalize Positive Experiences 3. Post Hypnotic Inquiry
Automaticity Factor
Thoughts/feelings happen by selves
Thoughts happen without trying to think
PHI Uniqueness/Relaxation Factor
Felt this way before (not hypnosis)
Interrater Reliabilities of Subscales are higher than .9 except for Waking (rubbing eyes and stretching). We studied the HSAQ in 50 patients with a variety of problems (anxiety, depression, eating problems, smoking, somataform problems).
Scores have a floor effect; HSAQ can’t determine very high depth from moderate depth, but we don’t know if that is clinically meaningful. The HSO behavior factor was significantly correlated with after-hypnosis observations and inquiry. The HSO behavior factors also significantly correlated with the patient’s ability to resist unexpected distractions, to comply with therapist requests, and to respond to post-hypnotic suggestions
1992
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.
NOTES
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).
Frischholz, Edward J. (1992, October). Dissociation. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington, VA.
NOTES
There are two approaches for studying dissociation 1. phenomenological: describe difference types of dissociative phenomena, e.g., forgetting, multiple personality disorder or MPD 2.theoretical: explain the physiological/ psychological processes by which things become associated/disassociated, e.g., Freud (repression) vs. Janet (dissociation).
Two types of dissociation: 1. dissociation of awareness (amnesia, unconscious cognitions) 2. dissociation of volition (loss of executive control over behavior, psychological automatisms)
Normal Dissociation is characterized as: 1. content is narrow and specific 2. duration is brief 3. awareness of loss of material exists 4. control can be re-established
Abnormal Dissociation is characterized as: 1. content is broad (self-identity) 2. duration is extended 3. no awareness of loss of material exists 4. no re-establishment of control
The most widely used measure is Dissociative Experience Scale (Bernstein & Putnam) which has .84 to .96 test-retest correlation (Bernstein & Putnam, 1986; Frischholz et al.)
Mean Scores for DES MPDs 55. DD NOS 40.8 Students 23.8
He advocates a cutoff score above 40 as indicating abnormal dissociative experiences (that would yield 6% false negatives). Above 65, suspect faking or over- reporting of dissociative experiences.
Factor Analysis of the DES would associate the following items: 1. Absorption Factor: 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 (normal dissociation) 2. Amnesia Factor: 3, 4, 5, 8, 25, 26 (pathological dissociation) 3. Depersonalization/Derealization Factor: 7, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28
Correlations of DES with other tests:
Tellegen Ambiguity Jenkins
Absorption Tolerance Activity DES Total .39 .24 .04 DES Amnesia .24 .22
See Table from AJCH in July 1992, which replicates a study by Nadon Table 2 r = .12 with hypnotizability (Nadon reported .18).
One could use both the DES and hypnotizability scores to distinguish between different clinical groups. For example, dissociative patients reverse amnesia while schizophrenics don’t.
One could distinguish real MPDs vs Simulators based on Special Hypnotic Phenomena: with Real MPDs half show the hidden observer phenomenon, therefore they hide their MPD; simulators show the hidden observer phenomenon 100% of the time. Another item that discriminates is the Orne Double Person Hallucination item. MPDs 50- 62% show it, but 92-80% [incorrect percentage in these notes?] of simulators do experience the hallucination. Of these 70-75% of the MPDs are able to distinguish the hallucination; only 45-40% of simulators are able to distinguish the hallucination. Real MPDs know, can tell difference between a hallucinated person and the real person whereas simulators maintain they can’t tell who is the real person.
It’s not true that MPDs are extremely high in hypnotizability. They score in 8-10 range. The MPDs score 1 SD above normals but they are not off the end of the scale.
These are good ways of testing whether someone is faking MPD. We have replicated this many times, getting better replication of MPD simulators than high hypnotizable simulators.
Another method for distinguishing true MPDs from simulators involves demonstration of the Einstellung (learning set) effect.
Looking at Water Jar Problems, patients learn to solve the problems the long way. They teach personality A how to solve problem by long solution method (four trials of B – A – 2C); on the fifth trial, 95% of Ss solve the problem by the long method, the Einstellung (learning set) effect. Switch to personality B and give the same test. If there were no transfer, people immediately see A-C, which is a short method for solving the problem. It has been observed that 50-60% of MPDs do not show Einstellung effect; they immediately see the short solution.
Have done this also with retroactive interference word learning model.
Effect of context. Kohlenberg (Behavior Therapy Journal) selectively reinforced one personality of an MPD, which then ‘came out’ more often; during extinction the frequency of seeing that personality went back to baseline.
I used Greenspan’s and Erickson’s learning without awareness paradigm. When a low baseline frequency personality emerged, I’d reinforce the person; when a dominant personality came out I’d start yawning, look out the window, etc. During extinction the frequency went back toward normal baseline level, but not all the way. These indicate you can shape the appearance of one personality, but not that it’s iatrogenic.
Can also do this with schizophrenics, normal highly hypnotizable subjects.
Frischholz, Edward J. (1992, October). Myths about hypnosis that never were true: And always will be. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington, VA.
NOTES
Hypnotizability is not normally distributed on either the Stanford Scales (Hilgard’s published graphs) or the HIP. However the eye roll sign _is_ normally distributed.
In a meta-analysis, the average correlation between the eyeroll sign and the Stanford hypnotizability score is .33 (not, as most think, a zero).
New data relate the eyeroll sign to the HIP Induction score (.25 – .52), SHSS:C (.44 – .60), and SRSC (.43 – .31) for normal and clinical populations, respectively.
Many investigators have correlated Absorption with hypnotizability, but Nadon’s summary, with 5079 Ss the correlation is only .23.
Why has the eye roll been so neglected in hypnosis research, when it correlates .33 and the Absorption scale correlates .23?
Lastly, for a rapprochement, the handout provides data on a correlation between Absorption and the HIP. With 226 smokers, 95 phobics, 65 chronic pain patients treated by Spiegel, who 20 minutes later administered the Absorption scale, the HIP Induction score correlated .41 with Absorption. The Eyeroll alone correlated .43 with Absorption. The Eyeroll correlated only .24 [?] with Induction score.
This means a combination of eyeroll sign plus Absorption raises the correlation of predictors with hypnotizability up to .48 for the entire sample. Using just smokers as Sample 1 and others as a Validation Sample, for a double cross validation: Eyeroll plus Induction Score to predict Absorption, the correlation is r = .46.
I want to advocate wider use of the eyeroll test, which requires an extra 5 minutes. We can dispel the myth that the HIP is not a valid measure.
Frischholz, Edward (1992, October). The dimensionality of hypnotic performance. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Arlington, VA.
NOTES
A 1985 article by Balthazar & Woody in Psychological Bulletin is the best I have read on this topic, and on how factor analysis can be used fruitfully.
Many people using the same data sets have arrived at difference conclusions. My results are based on two data sets: Balthazar & Woody’s, in which they created a unidimensional scale. (If you factor analyze a simplex matrix you obtain a 3 factor matrix; yet you knew it was unidimensional. They pointed out the 2nd factor correlated with item difficulty, and the 3rd factor had a U-shaped correlation with item difficulty.)
Factor analysis may not be best way to demonstrate unidimensionality.
I decided to use non metric multidimensional analysis to confirm unidimension. By this, Form A appears to be multidimensional. The same holds true for Stanford Form C scale.
Interpretability of the different dimensions? I agree with Dr. Stone: unidimensions are better for interpreting tests. But you should start out by constructing one in the first place.
I argue that Form C is unidimensional, because the items were selected by using item/full score correlations, hence a first component was built into it. But what does the scale measure? The only way to know is to correlate it with external measures, like Woody does. There are no studies using factor analysis showing that different factors on hypnotizability tests have different correlations with external measures (e.g. Factor 1 doesn’t correlate differently with Absorption than Factor 3).
We might better start with a theory if we are going to construct new hypnotizability scales. Don’t just use item total correlations. It would be better to find items representing different dimensions, scale the items, then correlate them with different external referents.
Then when we do collect data, make sure the items are unidimensional representations.
Third, we should appropriately validate these dimensions.
Giolas, M. H.; Saners, B. (1992). Pain and suffering as a function of dissociation level and instructional set. Dissociation, 5, 205-209.
48 female student Ss who scored above 20 on the Dissociative Experiences Scale and 48 subjects scoring below 20 on the DES were compared for response to ischemic pain. Experimental conditions included (1) a group imagining their arm becoming numb and insensitive, (2) a distraction group focusing on their breathing, and (3) a control group with no instructions. Subjects rated pain at one-minute intervals for the sensory experience of pain and for suffering (the emotional experience). The procedure was ended at subject’s request or after 20 minutes. Across all conditions, the high dissociative group tolerated pain significantly longer than low dissociatives. Analysis revealed lower suffering ratings for high dissociators in the condition where, like in hypnosis, they imagined their arm numb. This is consistent with beliefs that during abuse in childhood the child learns to use imagination to reduce suffering.
1991
Frischholz, Edward J.; Braun, Bennett (1991, August). Diagnosing dissociative disorders: New methods. [Paper] Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Five new methods which have proven useful in the differential diagnosis of dissociative disorders from other psychiatric syndromes are identified. The first method involves the use of the Dissociative Experiences Scale, a self-report questionnaire which significantly discriminates dissociative psychopathology from normal dissociative experiences. The second method involves the use of various measures of hypnotizability (e.g., Hypnotic Induction Profile; Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C; self-ratings of hypnotizability) in discriminating between various psychiatric groups. The third method involves the use of qualitative responses to individual test items (e.g., instructed posthypnotic amnesia) to discriminate between different psychiatric syndromes. The fourth method involves the use of an implicit memory test to measure the amount of between-personality state amnesia in patients suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. The fifth method involves the use of special hypnotic phenomena (e.g., the Orne double person hallucination and the Hilgard hidden observer item) to discriminate between dissociative disorder patients and subjects simulating dissociative psychopathology. (ABSTRACT from Bulletin of Division 30, Psychological Hypnosis, Provided by former Editor, James Council.)
NOTES
Five new methods have proven useful in the differential diagnosis of dissociative disorders. The first method involves the use of the Dissociative Experiences Scale, a self-report questionnaire which significantly discriminates dissociative psychopathology from normal dissociative experiences.
The second method involves the use of various measures of hypnotizability in discriminating between various psychiatric groups.
The third method involves the use of qualitative responses to individual test items (e.g., instructed posthypnotic amnesia) to discriminate between different psychiatric syndromes.
The fourth method involves the use of an implicit memory test to measure the amount of between-personality state amnesia in patients suffering form Multiple Personality Disorder.
The fifth method involves the use of special hypnotic phenomena (e.g., the Orne double person hallucination and the Hilgard hidden observer item) to discriminate between dissociative disorder patients and subjects simulating dissociative psychopathology.
1990
Avants, S. Kelly; Margolin, Arthur; Salovey, Peter (1990-91). Stress management techniques: Anxiety reduction, appeal, and individual differences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 10, 3-23.
NOTES
Four stress management techniques were evaluated for their general appeal, their immediate benefits, and the subjective experiences they evoke. One hundred undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups: (1) progressive muscle relaxation (PMR); (2) distraction imagery; (3) focused imagery; (4) listening to music; (5) sitting quietly (control). Distraction imagery and listening to music were the only techniques found to reduce anxiety to a greater extent than simply sitting quietly. The techniques differed in the way they made subjects feel, but not in their general appeal. Individuals with a ‘blunting’ coping style were more likely to find all five techniques appealing.
Tests used included the Miller Behavioral Style Scale, Cognitive-Somatic Anxiety Questionnaire of Schwartz, Davidson & Golman, Life Orientation Test of Scheier & Carver, Somatic Perception Questionnaire of Landy and Stern, Body Consciousness Questionnaire of L. C. Miller, Murphy, & Buss, Betts’ Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery, Shortened Form, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Technique Evaluation Questionnaire of the authors.
Progressive muscle relaxation was according to Bernstein & Borkovec. Distraction imagery involved successively imagining a walk along a beach, a stroll across a flower filled meadow, sitting by a stream, a walk into the woods, sitting in a cabin in the woods listening to the rain against the windowpane, all including images in a variety of sense modalities. Focused imagery involved creating an image of a stressor, then through symbolic imagery experiences Ss were guided through a typical day’s events that might lead up to the stressor, reinterpreting cues associated with the stressor as signals that they are in control, visualizing encountering the stressor feeling strong and determined, and any physical sensations reinterpreted as ‘energy’ that would help them to cope, visualizing enjoying their success (from Crits-Cristoph & Singer. Music was a 20-min tape (10 min of music used in the distraction imagery tape–Natural Light by Steve Halpern & David Smith) and 10 min of music used in background of the focused imagery tape (Structures of Silence by Michael Lanz). A 5th group, Control, was instructed to sit quietly with eyes closed.
This data can be used in support of imagery-suggestion types of hypnosis (as in surgery study) reducing anxiety. It shows particularly strong effects for people high in cognitive anxiety or low in optimism, pre-treatment.
Discussion: “… we feel confident that our distraction techniques were more effective for the immediate relief of anxiety than was PMR. This conclusion is consistent with the Suls and Fletcher meta-analysis (29) that suggested that ‘avoidance’ is an effective short-term coping strategy. That distraction (positive) imagery may be a more useful clinical technique than focused (active involvement) imagery was concluded in a study comparing these two techniques in the treatment of phobias (24)” (p. 19. [Ref #24 is Crits-Cristoph & Singer (1983) in Imagination, Cognition, and Personality.]
“Pessimism and cognitive anxiety emerged as the only individual difference variables to influence anxiety reduction. Pessimism as measured by the LOT is cognitive in nature, with most of the items relating to expectations of negative outcomes; similarly, cognitive anxiety is characterized by worry and an inability to control negative thoughts and images. That individuals who perceive their world somewhat negatively should have entered the study more anxious than individuals who do not is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that despite an inverse relation between cognitive anxiety and the ability to relax, these individuals were able to benefit from whatever technique they performed to a greater extent than were individuals with a more positive outlook. In fact, after performing the technique, pessimists had reduced their anxiety to the level of optimists” (p. 19).
“The stress management techniques used in the current study did not differ in their appeal” (p. 20). “Our finding that PMR produced more somatic effects than did focused imagery and less cognitive effects than did distraction imagery, listening to music, or sitting quietly is consistent with the model of anxiety proposed by Davidson and Schwartz (17). Our findings are also generally consistent with a conclusion reached by Woolfolk and Lehrer (4): that although various techniques are generally stress reducing, they seem to have highly specific effects. However, we found no support for the hypothesis that individuals who express anxiety cognitively (or somatically) prefer and benefit most from techniques that produce cognitive (or somatic) effects. In fact, the extremely high correlation found between the cognitive and somatic anxiety subscales of the Schwartz et al. measure (5) casts some doubt on the usefulness of a cognitive-somatic distinction, as does the corr between the experience of physical symptoms under stress (the Somatic Perception Questionnaire) with the cognitive, as well as the somatic, anxiety subscale.
“The finding that blunters experiences more ‘somatic effects’ regardless of the technique they were assigned may have been the result of a single response–‘how much did mind-wandering interfere with performing the technique’–which was the only Factor 2 item that was highly inversely) related to blunting. Since blunters are more likely to perceive mind wandering as the essence of stress management rather than as ‘interference,’ we do not view this main effect as particularly illuminating” (p. 20). “However, our finding that blunters experienced all techniques as appealing is consistent with the results of Martelli et al. (1) who found that individuals with low information-preference benefitted from what the authors labeled an ’emotion-focused’ intervention, but which, in fact, included many of the quite diverse stress management techniques that we compared in the current study. That ‘avoiders’ failed to benefit from any intervention in the Scott and Clum study (11) may be due to the nature of the stressor [postsurgical pain]. Our undergraduates may have been more like the Martelli dental patients in terms of their level of distress than were the Scott and Clum subjects who were patients undergoing major surgery (hysterectomy or cholecystectomy). Future research needs to examine possible three-way, technique by patient by stressor-type, interactions (cf. 19)” pp 20-21.
Biasutti, M. (1990). Music ability and altered states of consciousness: An experimental study. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 37, 82-85.
The relationship between music and altered states of consciousness was studied with 30 subjects divided into hypnosis and control groups. The “Test di abilita musicale” was applied. The hypnosis group did the retest after posthypnotic suggestions and the second in waking conditions. The hypnosis group had better results than the control group, especially in the rhythm test (p < 0.0001). Briere, John; Runtz, Marsha (1990). Augmenting Hopkins SCL scales to measure dissociative symptoms: Data from two nonclinical samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 376-379. Describes a 13-item dissociation scale (DS) that uses numerical ratings and presents preliminary data regarding its reliability. The DS was administered to 2 samples of undergraduate women (N=569). Ss also completed the SCL-90 or the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL). The DS was found to be reliable, and there was a correlation of the DS with self-reported child abuse history. Designed to complement the SCL-90 and the HSCL, the DS may be useful in research on the effects of psychological trauma. Fischer, Donald G.; Elnitsky, Sherry (1990). A factor analytic study of two scales measuring dissociation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32, 201-207. The present study was designed to investigate the construct validity of dissociation. We administered the PAS and the DES to 507 male (48%) and female (52%) undergraduate students. Factor analysis on each scale separately showed that neither the PAS nor the DES adequately measures the three dimensions hypothesized to underlie dissociative experience. For both scales, a single factor emerged as replicable and reliable. Use of the scales, in their present form, therefore, should be limited to a single dimension representing disturbances in affect-control in the case of the PAS and disturbances in cognition-control if the DES is used at least with normal populations. Analysis of the combined items showed that the scales are measuring conceptually different but statistically correlated dimensions of dissociation. Further development of both scales is desirable, and further research should investigate the effect of different response formats on the internal structure of the scales. NOTES The stated purpose of this study was to investigate the internal structure of the Perceptual Alterations Scale (PAS) and the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) using a large sample from a normal population. "Sanders (1986) conceived of dissociation as a personality trait that is characterized by modification of connections between affect, cognition, and perception of voluntary control over behavior, as well as modifications in the subjective experience of affect, voluntary control, and perception. She chose items from the MMPI to represent this trait. Bernstein and Putnam (1986), utilizing the DSM-III definition of dissociation, constructed items from information derived from interviews with patients and clinicians to represent a number of different types of dissociative experiences" (0. 202). "The PAS (Sanders, 1986) is a 27-item scale; subjects respond by checking one of the following categories using a 4-point Likert format: never, sometimes, frequently, almost always. The items related to modifications of regulatory control, changes in self- monitoring, concealment from self and others, and modifications of sensory, perceptual, and affective experiences. "The DES (Bernstein & Putnam, 1986) contains 28 items. Subjects indicate the percentage of time they experience the feelings or behavior described by the items on a 10- point scale. The items related to the experience of disturbances in identity, memory, awareness and cognition, and feelings of derealization or depersonalization" (pp. 202- 203). Results were as follows. The one-factor solution for the PAS accounted for 18.5% of the total variance.; 11 of the 28 items did not load significantly on the factor. The one-factor solution for the DES accounted for 26.3% of the total variance; 7 of the 28 items did not load significantly on the factor. "The 3-factor solution obtained by Sanders (1986) for the PAS was not replicated. An obvious reason for the different is that principal factor extraction was used in the present study, whereas principal components extraction was utilized by Sanders. ... Even when principal components analysis is performed on the present data, however, there are difficulties with the 3-factor solution" (pp. 204-205). "All of the criteria suggest that a single factor best represents the latent structure of dissociative experience as measured by the PAS and DES. Although the total amount of variance accounted for is low, the one-factor solutions for both scales are interpretable, replicable, and have high internal consistency. The items for the PAS appear to represent primarily the affect and control dimensions, whereas those for the DES represent the cognitive dimension" (pp. 205-206). "Overall, both scales contain similar items, although the DES has more items relating to disturbances in memory and altered perception of time (i.e., cognition), whereas the PAS has more items reflecting specific disturbances in identity and control. It appears, therefore, that the scales are measuring conceptually separate but statistically correlated dimensions of dissociation" (p. 206). Frischholz, Edward J.; Braun, B. G.; Sachs, R. G.; Hopkines, L.; Schaeffer, D. M.; Lewis, J.; Leavitt, F.; Pasquotto, J. N.; Schwartz, D. R. (1990). The dissociative experiences scale: Further replication and validation. Dissociation, 3, 151-153. Interrater reliability for the DES was .96-.99, test-retest reliability was .93- .96, and internal consistency of DES scores was very high .93-.95. Both MPD and dissociative disorder NOS (DDNOS) patients scored significantly higher than students, and MPD patients scored significantly higher than DDNOS patients. A cutoff score of 45 to 55 maximizes the probability of distinguishing students from dissociative disorders (87%) while minimizing false positives (2%-6%) and false negatives (7%-11%). Suggestions for further research are made. Gil, Karen M.; Williams, David A.; Keefe, Francis J.; Beckham, Jean C. (1990). The relationship of negative thoughts to pain and psychological distress. Behavior Therapy, 21 (3), 349-362. Examined the degree to which negative thoughts during flare-ups of pain are related to pain and psychological distress in 3 pain populations: sickle cell disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic pain. 185 adults completed the Inventory of Negative Thoughts in Response to Pain (INTRP), a pain rating scale, the SCL-90 (revised), and a coping strategies questionnaire. Factor analysis of the INTRP revealed 3 factors: Negative Self-Statements, Negative Social Cognitions, and Self-Blame. High scorers on Negative Self-Statement and Negative Social Cognitions reported more severe pain and psychological distress. Ss with chronic daily pain had more frequent negative thoughts during flare-ups than those having intermittent pain secondary to sickle cell disease or rheumatoid arthritis. The INTRP appears to have adequate internal consistency and construct validity. 1989 Grant, Guy (1989, June). An investigation of hypnotic susceptibility in self-hypnosis and imagery (Dissertation, University of Utah). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (12), 5517-5518-B. NOTES "There were two phases in the study. In Phase One hypnotic susceptibility scores were assessed for 43 graduate student subjects by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A (HGSHS:A). In addition, the Self-Hypnosis Research Questionnaire (an experimental scale) provided performance scores for subjects under three hypnosis conditions: heterohypnosis, self-directed self-hypnosis, and tape-assisted self-hypnosis. The first purpose in Phase One was to calculate correlations between hypnotic susceptibility and each of the hypnosis conditions. The second purpose was to determine if there were significant differences across the three types of hypnosis. The third purpose was to discover if any existing differences were dependent on level (e.g., low, medium, or high) of hypnotic susceptibility. Analysis of the data yielded significant correlations between hypnotic susceptibility and (a) heterohypnosis, (b) self-directed self- hypnosis, and (c) tape-assisted self-hypnosis. There were significant performance differences across the three hypnosis conditions with heterohypnosis being somewhat superior to tape-assisted self-hypnosis, and tape-assisted self-hypnosis being slightly superior to self-directed self-hypnosis. This relationship held true regardless of level of hypnotic susceptibility (e.g., low, medium, and high). "In Phase Two, 49 graduate student subjects were administered the shortened form of the Betts' Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (QMI) as well as the HGSHS:A, and to determine if mental imagery is an important component of hypnotic susceptibility. Analysis yielded a significant correlation between the two measures. "Based on the current data, it was concluded that the HGSHS:A had some utility for predicting performance in hypnosis. It was noted that, as compared with self-hypnosis, heterohypnosis provided the greatest chance of eliciting a positive hypnotic response from subjects not trained or experienced in hypnosis. It was also concluded that the QMI was correlated with and had some utility for predicting performance on the HGSHS:A. It had difficulty, however, differentiating between low and medium hypnotizability" (pp. 5517- 5518). Hoyt, Irene P.; Nadon, Robert; Register, Patricia A.; Chorny, Joseph; Fleeson, William; Grigorian, Ellen M.; Otto, Laura; Kihlstrom, John F. (1989). Daydreaming, absorption and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 332-342. NOTES It appears that the consistent correlation between hypnotizability and positive-constructive daydreaming is carried largely by three subscales--Acceptance of Daydreaming, Positive Reactions to Daydreaming, and Problem-Solving. Number other subscales consistently correlated with hypnotizability. When absorption was taken into account, daydreaming activity made no independent contribution to the prediction of hypnotizability. "The present results differ from Crawford's (1982) somewhat, however, in terms of the specific aspects of daydreaming activity that are associated with hypnosis. Crawford found that hypnotizability correlated consistently (i.e., in both men and women) with three subscales tapping imagery variables: the presence of visual and auditory imagery in daydreams and the hallucinatory vividness of daydream imagery. In the present study, the imagery subscale, including both visual and auditory items, did not correlate significantly with hypnotizability; unfortunately, the hallucinatory vividness subscale is not represented on the short form (SIPI) of the daydreaming questionnaire used in this study. Crawford (1982) did not find consistent correlations between hypnotizability and scales measuring acceptance, positive reactions, and problem solving--the subscales that consistently yielded significant correlations in the present study. Not too much interpretive weight should be given to any of the correlations between hypnotizability and daydreaming subscales, until a full replication with reliable subscale measurements (such as those provided by the long, original IPI) has been completed. The important point made by Crawford (1982), and confirmed in the present study, is that hypnotizability is related to positive-constructive rather than guilty-dysphoric daydreaming" (p. 338). The two studies agree that absorption and hypnosis are not correlated with daydreaming scales reflecting poor attentional control. Given the theoretical emphasis in both domains on the narrowing of attention and exclusion of potentially distracting input, negative correlations with this aspect of daydreaming might have been expected. Kihlstrom, John F.; Register, Patricia A.; Hoyt, Irene P.; Albright, Jeanne Sumi; Grigorian, Ellen M.; Heindel, William C.; Morrison, Charles R. (1989). Dispositional correlates of hypnosis: A phenomenological approach. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 249-263. Attempted to construct and validate a questionnaire measure of hypnotic- like experiences based on Shor's (1979) 8-dimension phenomenological analysis of hypnosis. Separate item pools were developed to measure each disposition: Trance, Nonconscious Involvement, Archaic Involvement, Drowsiness, Relaxation, Vividness of Imagery, Absorption, and Access to the Unconscious. Based on preliminary testing (total Number - 856), a final questionnaire was produced containing 5 items measuring normal, everyday experiences in each domain. Results from a standardization sample (Number - 468) showed that each of the subscales, except for Archaic Involvement, possessed satisfactory levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analysis indicated that 6 subscales loaded highly on a common factor similar to the absorption construct (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), while items pertaining to Relaxation and Archaic Involvement formed separate factors. Validation testing on 4 samples receiving the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) (total Number = 1855) showed that the Absorption and Trance dimensions correlated most strongly with HGSHS:A; the correlations with Drowsiness, Relaxation, and Nonconscious Involvement approached 0. The scales derived form Shor's analysis, however, did not improve the prediction of hypnotizability over that obtained with the absorption scale (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). 1988 Bogenberger, Robert; Allen, Steven (1988, November). Relationship between Rorschach responses and hypnotic responsiveness. [Lecture] Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Asheville, NC. NOTES The Rorschach is stable in adults, in terms of introversive vs. extratensive direction. Investigated four dependent variables: (1) distortions (e.g. "I felt the walls closing in."), (2) Loss of Distance (e.g. "I thought of abortions and infanticide."), (3) abstract/conceptual, (4) irrelevant imagery (e.g. "I thought of the book Watership Down.")