Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: interpersonal and rapport factors

This research supported the hypothesis that hypnosis can be thought of as a set of potentially modifiable social-cognitive skills and attitudes. A low-interpersonal-training treatment devised by Gorassini and Spanos (1986) was compared with a treatment designed to modify not only cognitive factors but also to augment rapport with the trainer and diminish resistance to responding (high-interpersonal training). Fifty percent of the initially unhypnotizable subjects in the high-interpersonal condition tested as being highly susceptible to hypnosis (high susceptibles) at posttest on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962); 25% of the unhypnotizable subjects in the low-interpersonal condition responded comparably. Eighty-three percent of the medium-susceptibility (medium susceptibles) subjects tested as being highly susceptible at posttest in both conditions. Practice-alone control subjects' performance was stable across testings. The study was the first to demonstrate that treatment gains generalize to a battery of novel, demanding suggestions (generalization index) that have been found to differentiate highly susceptible subjects from unhypnotizable simulating subjects. The importance of rapport was evidenced by the finding that rapport ratings paralleled group differences in hypnotic responding and that rapport correlated substantially with susceptibility scores at posttest and with the generalization index. Whereas initial hypnotizability scores correlated significantly with retest susceptibility scores, initial hypnotizability failed to correlate significantly with the generalization index.     

Multiple predictors of hypnotic susceptibility

In this article, we report two experiments in which various measures thought to be related to hypnotizability were analyzed by stepwise discriminant analysis techniques. Absorption (Tellegen, 1981, 1982; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974) and preference for an imagic style of thinking (Isaacs, 1982) were robust predictors of hypnotizability; each variable accounted for significant variance in hypnotizability at their respective steps in two samples and correctly classified a significant proportion of low- and high-hypnotizable subjects in the discriminant analyses. The addition of two other variables in Experiment 2--a Sleep-Dream score derived from Evans's (1977) Cognitive Control of Sleep Mentation subscale and Gibson's (1985) Dream Questionnaire, and the Belief in the Supernatural subscale of the Taft (1969) Experience Questionnaire--increased the correct classification of the medium-hypnotizable subjects from chance levels to 74%. It is argued that a confirmatory and hierarchical approach is needed in future studies to explore correlates of hypnotizability more fully.     

Moderating influences of hypnotic susceptibility on signal-detection task performance

This study investigated the differential influence of hypnotic susceptibility level on signal detection task (SDT) performance in waking and hypnotic conditions. As assessed by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS: C), 20 high (9–12), 20 medium (4–8), and 20 low (0–3) hypnotizables participated. In counterbalanced conditions of waking and hypnosis, Ss (Subjects) were given 36 signal detection trials, consisting of 12 strong signals, 12 weak signals, and 12 “no” signals. No differences were observed in the waking condition between low, medium, and high hypnotizables on strong and weak signal trials. In hypnosis, high hypnotizables exhibited significantly superior performance on the strong signal trials in comparison with low hypotizables, and performed significantly better on the weak signal trials than did the low and medium hypnotizables. Low and medium hypnotizables performed similarly in waking and hypnotic conditions, while high hypnotizables showed significant enhancements in performance for strong and weak signal trials during hypnosis. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from Fort Hays State University.     

Moderating influences of hypnotic susceptibility on signal-detection task performance

This study investigated the differential influence of hypnotic susceptibility level on signal detection task (SDT) performance in waking and hypnotic conditions. As assessed by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS: C), 20 high (9–12), 20 medium (4–8), and 20 low (0–3) hypnotizables participated. In counterbalanced conditions of waking and hypnosis, Ss (Subjects) were given 36 signal detection trials, consisting of 12 strong signals, 12 weak signals, and 12 “no” signals. No differences were observed in the waking condition between low, medium, and high hypnotizables on strong and weak signal trials. In hypnosis, high hypnotizables exhibited significantly superior performance on the strong signal trials in comparison with low hypotizables, and performed significantly better on the weak signal trials than did the low and medium hypnotizables. Low and medium hypnotizables performed similarly in waking and hypnotic conditions, while high hypnotizables showed significant enhancements in performance for strong and weak signal trials during hypnosis. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from Fort Hays State University.     

Goal-directed fantasy, hypnotic susceptibility, and expectancies

We conducted an initial screening session in which hypnosis was presented as a "test of imagination" and administered with other imagination measures. In a second session, we instructed high- and low-hypnotizable subjects to imagine along with suggestions but to resist responding to motoric suggestions. Subjects received either instructions to use goal-directed fantasies (GDFs) or no facilitative instructions. Sizable individual difference effects were secured. Hypnotizable subjects exhibited more suggestion-related movements and reported greater involuntariness than did low-hypnotizable subjects. With GDF instructions, low- and high-hypnotizable subjects reported equivalent GDF absorption and frequencies. However, hypnotizable subjects exhibited greater responsiveness and reported greater involuntariness than did those low in hypnotizability, even when their GDFs were equivalent. Thus, no support was generated for the hypotheses that sustained, elaborated suggestion-related imagery mediates response to suggestion (Arnold, 1946) or that absorption in suggestions is of particular importance for low-hypnotizable subjects (Zamansky & Clark, 1986). Our finding that measures of response expectancy paralelled responding and reports of nonvolition support the hypothesis that expectancies mediate the relation between imagination, involuntariness, and responding (Kirsch, 1985; Spanos, 1982). Hypnotizable imagining subjects in the study discussed here exhibited greater responsiveness than a comparable sample of subjects did in a previous countersuggestion study (Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Stanley, 1983) in which no attempt was made to foster an association between imagining and involuntary responding in the initial screening session.     

Investigating merger: subliminal psychodynamic activation and oneness motivation research

Two programs of empirical research have endeavored to explicate some of the unconscious processes involved in adult phenomena of merger, symbiosis, or oneness. Starting in the 1960s under the leadership of Lloyd Silverman (see, e.g., Silverman, Lachmann, and Milich 1982), subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) has used subliminal methods to prime and manipulate these processes. Later research into what was termed oneness motivation (OM) posited the existence of a chronic personality variable and explored it independently of priming (see, e.g., Siegel and Weinberger 1998). These lines of research have established links between unconscious processes of oneness and a range of clinical and nonclinical outcomes.     

The effects of contextual information and gender on the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility

Council, Kirsch, and Hafner (1986) obtained empirical support for the hypothesis that significant correlations between questionnaire measures of absorption and hypnotic susceptibility are an artifact of subjects' beliefs about their own hypnotizability. We tested this hypothesis in a two-session experiment. During Session 1, subjects completed questionnaire measures of absorption, mystical experience, daydreaming frequency, and paranormal beliefs. During Session 2, subjects were tested for hypnotic susceptibility. Subjects were also exposed to one of three information manipulations: They were told about hypnotic testing either before or after filling out the questionnaires or were not told about hypnotic testing. The information manipulation moderated the prediction of susceptibility by the questionnaire measures for women, but not for men. For women, scores on the absorption questionnaire predicted susceptibility only when subjects were informed about hypnotic testing. In the told-after condition, this effect generalized to all of the remaining questionnaire measures. For men, none of the questionnaires was a reliable predictor of susceptibility.     

Research in subliminal psychodynamic activation: note on Masling (1998).

Masling (1998) questioned Malik, Apel, Nelham, Rutkowski, and Ladd's 1997 suggestion that subliminal psychodynamic activation research with MOMMY AND I ARE ONE should be restricted. Problems in Masling's paper and the scope of research with MOMMY AND I ARE ONE are discussed. His position that such research should not be restricted is supported on the condition that subliminal psychodynamic activation research with MOMMY AND I ARE ONE (and other messages) use Fudin's 1986 procedure that could clarify the interpretation of successful experimental outcomes.     

Lack of correlation between hypnotic susceptibility and various components of attention

The purpose of our study was to measure the relationship between performance on various attentional tasks and hypnotic susceptibility. Healthy volunteers (N = 116) participated in a study, where they had to perform several tasks measuring various attention components in a waking state: sustained attention, selective or focused attention, divided attention and executive attention in task switching. Hypnotic susceptibility was measured in a separate setting by the Waterloo-Stanford Groups Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (WSGC).We found no significant correlation between any of the attentional measures and hypnotic susceptibility. Highly hypnotizables did not prove to be superior to or worse than the other individuals in any of the tests.These results do not support the neuropsychophysiological model of hypnosis, as they show no consistent relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and waking attentional performance.