\W”limlflllmlllflmWWIWWW““WWW

   

  

—{
3:33
_<ncooo

     

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

‘ Ill/I/H/IH/III/I/W

Ill/l!
THESIS T Li B R ARY
Michigan State
University

H/

t i Mi)

 

———i

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
Hypnosis, Primary Process, and the Retention of Suggestibility

presented by

Todd Douglas Eaton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Psychology

 

 

Hill/fill

3 1293 01417

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ill/Will

2161

 

’ Major/profeyr '

Date 27/1! fl"

MS U is an Affirmative Anion/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-

12771

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto remove thle checkomm your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HYPNOSIS, PRIMARY PROCESS, AND THE RETENTION OF SUGGESTIBILITY

BY

Todd Douglas Eaton

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1994

ABSTRACT
HYPNOSIS, PRIMARY PROCESS, AND THE RETENTION OF SUGGESTIBILITY
BY
Todd Douglas Eaton

This study investigated four hypotheses relevant to the
relationship between hypnosis, primary process (i.e. wish-
oriented mentation) , and the retention of suggestibility after
the hypnotic trance. It was hypothesized that: 1.
hypnotizability is a function of the degree to which waking
mentation is dominated by primary process; 2. primary process
is still in effect after the hypnotic trance has been formally
ended: 3. suggestibility is still in effect after the hypnotic
trance has been formally ended; and 4. the ability’ to
experience a hypnotically induced dream is a function of the
degree to which waking mentation is dominated by primary
process.

The study utilized the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scale (Form C) for the purposes of hypnotizing the subjects
and measuring hypnotizability. The Rorschach test was used to
measure primary process. Suggestions for possible ink blot
percepts were used to measure waking suggestibility. Forty
subjects were divided into two groups. One group (the

hypnosis group) first received hypnosis (SHSS:C) and then the

Rorschach and suggestions for blot percepts. The second group
(the Rorschach group) first received the Rorschach and
suggestions and then the hypnosis.

The first hypothesis failed to be corroborated. Contrary
to expectations, results of the second hypnosis revealed that
the Rorschach group manifested significantly greater primary
process than the hypnosis group. Results for the third
hypothesis showed that suggestibility does increase after
hypnosis, but this increase is related to hypnotic depth
rather than hypnosis per se. The unexpected results for the
fourth hypothesis revealed that subjects who were able to
experience having a hypnotically induced dream had a lower
percentage of waking primary process than those who were
unable to have a hypnotically induced dream. Additional
findings concerning correlational analyses, card order, and
experimenter gender were also observed. The findings are

discussed primarily from a psychoanalytic perspective.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very thankful for the insightful input and generous
contributions of those involved in this research project.
I would like to thank Dr. Norman Abeles, Dr. Elaine Donelson
and Dr. Andrew Barclay for their intelligent and constructive
criticisms of and suggestions for this projectm I am
especially indebted to Dr. Joseph Reyher, whose expertise in
research and scholarship has acted as a source of inspiration,
excitement, and dedication throughout my graduate career.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Michael Karbetsos and Linda
Turner, two bright undergraduates whose help in data
collection and scoring was integral in the completion of this
research. Finally, I am quite grateful to my friends and

family, whose support and encouragement has been invaluable.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

m
LIST OF TABLES............................................Vi
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................Vii
INTRODUCTION...............................................1
METHOD....................................................18
RESULTS...................................................24
DISCUSSION................................................43

REFERENCESOOOOO0.00.00.00.0000......00.0.0000000000000000054

LIST OF TABLES

Iihlfi 229$

1 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Primary Process
Between GrouPSOOOOOO0.0IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.26

2 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Primary Process
on the Basis of Hypnotic Dream Ability.............28

3 Correlation Matrix for Both Groups Combined........29
4 Correlation Matrix for the Hypnosis Group..........30
5 Correlation Matrix for the Rorschach Group.........31
6 Mann-Whitney U Test Comparing Primary Process

on the Basis of Sex of Experimenter................37

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

12193:: Page
1 Virtual Suggestibility Across Rorschach Cards.......36
2 Primary Process Across Rorschach Cards..............39
3 SHSS:C Score Distribution for All Subjects..........40
4 SHSS:C Score Distribution for the Hypnosis Group....41

5 SHSS:C Score Distribution for the Rorschach Group...42

vii

INTRODUCTION

The question of hypnotizability and individual
differences in hypnotic susceptibility is a perplexing and
challenging area for theorists and researchers. Freud
concluded that "we can never tell in advance whether it will
be possible to hypnotize a patient or not, and the only way we
have of discovering is by the attempt itself" (1891/1966).
Likewise, Gill and Brennan (1959) later asserted that one
"still cannot predict with any reliability who will be a good
and who will be a poor hypnotic subject."

Reviewing the literature, Hilgard (1965) divided research
on personality and hypnotizability into studies that have
utilized personality inventories, behavioral tests, and
projective tests. Results from personality inventories have
been somewhat disappointing. Hilgard examined hypnotic
susceptibility, using the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scale, Form A (SHSS:A), and results from the California
Personality Inventory. Almost all correlations between
personality factors and hypnotic susceptibility were
nonsignificant. Hilgard concluded that it would be prudent to
assume that the few significant correlations "show nothing

until some way is found to raise them or to combine them

1

2
sensibly." Correlations between. hypnotic susceptibility
(SHSS, Form C) and factors on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
yielded similar results, producing no significant
correlations.

More positive results were reached using the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) . The Sum-True scale
was found to be significantly correlated with hypnotic
susceptibility (SHSS:C) beyond the .01 level. The Sum-True
scale reveals the number of statements with which the subject
agreed. Hilgard explains this correlation by proposing that
the hypnotically susceptible person may have a tendency to
acquiesce. However, this correlation was not significant when
another form (A) of hypnotic susceptibility was used. Other
positive findings were discovered using the Motoric-Ideational
Activity Preference Scale (MIAPS) , in which a significant
negative correlation was found between susceptibility (SHSS:C)
and motoric/competitive interests. In addition, a significant
positive correlation was discovered between susceptibility
(SHSS:C) and the excess of ideational over motoric interests.
The most promising results were obtained from the Hypnotic
Characteristic Inventory (HCI), in which significant positive
correlations were obtained between hypnotizability (SHSS:C)
and role-involvement, trancelike experiences, and impulsivity.

When examining' behavioral tests of hypnotizability,
suggestion tests have been found to be related to successful
hypnosis. Hilgard cites Stukat (1958) and Moore (1964), who

both found that primary (hypnotic-like) suggestibility is a

3
consistent factor in the ability to be hypnotized. However,
as Hilgard notes, these correlations may be the result of
merely sampling the same order of behavior. In other words,
suggestion tests and scales of hypnotic susceptibility may
both be measuring the suggestibility of the subject.

Behavioral tests of attention and cognitive style in
relation to hypnotizability have been largely inconclusive,
although Hilgard does report an investigation in which highly
susceptible persons were deficient in vigilance. This finding
has also been reported by Smyth and Reyher (1971), who found
that high suggestible subjects did poorly on two vigilance
tasks, suggesting‘ that. attention. is. diffuse rather’ than
concentrated during high suggestibility.

Using projective tests to discern hypnotizability has
produced a lack of meaningful results. Sarbin and Madow
(1942) attempted to predict the depth of hypnosis by means of
the Rorschach test, but only found one ratio (W:D) that
successfully differentiated hypnotizable from nonhypnotizable
subjects. Sarbin and Madow concluded that hypnotizable
subjects may be more abstract-minded, generalizing people as
opposed to those who are more practical, shrewd, and matter-
of-fact. Brennan and Reichard (1943) also looked at the use
of the Rorschach in relation to hypnotizability. The only
statistically reliable trend they found. was a positive
relation.between "free-floating anxiety" and hypnotizability;
However, both of these studies suffer from low numbers of

subjects. Using Card 12M of the Thematic Apperception Test

4

(TAT) (which can be interpreted as a hypnotic interaction) has
been used to measure attitudes towards hypnosis, with a
favorable attitude being positively correlated with
susceptibility (White, 1937). However, as Hilgard (1965)
states, this finding is not very revealing, given that a
verbal report of attitude towards hypnosis is also correlated
with susceptibility.

Examining the evidence for personality correlates to

hypnotic susceptibility, Hilgard concludes that "enough
thoughtful people have tried one thing after another with such
paucity of results that some new approach appears to be
desirable" (p. 340). Hilgard suggests that global tests of
personality may not be sensitive enough to correlate with the
highly specialized ability to be hypnotized. More
importantly, Hilgard proposes that hypnotic susceptibility may
rest on a deeper or more unconscious realm of the personality
than.personality tests (especially self-report.measures) tap.
However, from the few significant findings, Hilgard describes
the hypnotically susceptible person as follows:
a kind of personality description emerges of the hypnotizable
person as one who has rich subjective experiences in which he
can become deeply involved; one who reaches out for new
experiences and is thus friendly to hypnosis; one who is
interested in the life of the mind, and not a competitive
activist; one who accepts impulses from within and is not
afraid to relinquish reality testing for a time (p. 342).

Ernest Hilgard's description of the hypnotically
susceptible person was further examined in Josephine Hilgard’s

(1970) extensive study on imaginative involvement and

hypnosis. J. Hilgard's research focused on several

5

personality factors and their relation to hypnotic
susceptibility. The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale,
Form C, was used as the criterion of hypnotic susceptibility.
This scale was chosen over Form A because it provides a richer
and wider range of content. Personality factors were
determined through a two hour interview. This interview
consisted of inquiring about each subject's familial
composition, developmental or family crises, participation in
activities, attitudes toward play activities, religion, peer
relationships, personal characteristics, relationship to
parents, personal problems, and other areas. Hilgard found
that hypnotic susceptibility is frequently correlated with
imaginative involvement, which is characterized by impulse and
feeling rather than critical thought. In other words, the
hypnotizable person was frequently found to be able to immerse
herself or himself in a deep imaginative-feeling area of
experience. For example, Hilgard found that a significantly
higher number of subjects that were involved in drama were
also susceptible to hypnosis. Likewise, those not involved in
drama were rarely high in hypnotic susceptibility. Hilgard
relates hypnosis to role enactment; in both phenomena there is
a temporary departure from normal reality orientation.

Hilgard also found.a positive relationship when studying
the degree of a subject's involvement in reading and
hypnotizability. Hilgard likens reading involvement to a
temporary departure from reality to a life of impulse and

fantasy. She discovered that involved readers often cherish

6
immediate rather than postponed pleasure. In addition,
involved readers were found to suspend reality-testing
properties and engage in vivid imagery. For several involved
readers, Hilgard found that reading has a visually
hallucinatory quality.

When examining aesthetic visual appreciation of nature
and involvement in music, Hilgard established that "those who
have had these deeply involved experiences, where affect and
sensory stimulation have led to enjoyed and savored
responsiveness to stimulation, have these experiences stored
in such.a:manner that they are accessible to redintegration in
imagination" (p. 86). She concludes that those who have kept
alive their primitive impulses associated with sensory
gratification may be among the more hypnotizable. These
significant relationships between imagination and hypnotic
susceptibility were usually instigated.by stimuli outside the
person (e.g. reading a book, admiring nature, or listening to
music).

WW

When surveying Hilgard's results, her descriptions of the
hypnotically susceptible person are remarkably similar to what
Freud described as primary process. In Ihg_;n§grprgtatign_gf
Dreams, Freud (1900/1965), Freud described.primary process as
a primitive, illogical, and sometimes perceptually vivid mode
of thought. Freud distinguished primary process from
secondary process, which refers to a more logical, reality-

oriented type of thought process. In Freud's words,

7

we are driven to conclude that two fundamentally
different kinds of psychical process are concerned in the
formation of dreams. One of these produces perfectly
rational dream-thoughts. . .the other treats these thoughts
in a manner which is the highest degree bewildering and
irrational...all that I insist upon is the idea that the
activity of the first system is directed towards securing
the free discharge of the quantities of excitation,
while the second system, by means of the cathexes
emanating from it, succeeds in inhibitigg_this discharge
and in transforming the cathexis into a quiescent
one. . .As a result of the unpleasurue principle, then, the
first system is totally incapable of bringing anything
disagreeable into the context of its thought. It is
unable to do anything but wish. . .The primary process
endeavours to bring about a discharge of excitation in
order that. . .it may establish a ‘perceptual identity'
with the experience of satisfaction. The secondary
process, however, has abandoned this intention and taken
on another in its place - the establishment of a ‘thmht
identity' (p. 636-641).

Freud believed that primary process is composed of unconscious
wishful impulses which often have a visual, pictorial, or
hallucinatory quality to them. In addition, primary process
genetically precedes and.has priority over secondary process.
Freud believed that the infant is under the sway of primary
process; however, as the infant matures, secondary process
gradually assumes regnance. The distinction between reality
and wish does not take place in primary process. In sum,
primary process is distinguished by the primacy of drives,
wish fulfillment, imagery, and illogical thought.

Although Josephine Hilgard's approach is largely
atheoretical, her findings are easily conceptualized within
the perspective of Freudian psychoanalysis. Primary process
seems to hold. many characteristics of the hypnotically
susceptible person, including suspension of reality testing,

a tendency to engage in vivid imagery, and impulse

gratification.
W

Research subsequent to Hilgard's study has also
implicated primary process in the role of hypnotic
susceptibility. Erica Fromm (1979, 1984) conceptualizes the
depth of the hypnotic trance on a continuum ranging from
secondary to primary process. According to From, light
hypnosis is closer to secondary process, while deep hypnosis
is closer to primary process. Fromm agrees with Hilgard in
that imagery is an integral component in hypnosis. In the
hypnotically susceptible person, a shift occurs from secondary
process, reality-oriented, logical type of thinking to
thinking in fleeting pictures, indicative of primary process.
Fromm also contends that hypnosis accompanies a diminishment
of ego activity in the sense of reality perception. As in
Hilgard's work, a connection is made between hypnosis and
primary process.

Diment et al. (1981) examined the response to poetry in
hypnosis and the waking state. Diment et a1. hypothesized
that responses to poetry in deep hypnosis would involve
greater imaginative involvement. Using hypnosis and waking
control groups, Diment et al. matched all subjects for scores
on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS) .
Diment et al. found that responses to poetry in deep hypnosis
contained more responses reflecting subjective and imaginative
involvement, fewer responses reflecting abstract rational

thought, a fading of the realistic focus on the poem, and more

9
instances of primary process thought. The results support J.
Hilgard's concepts of imaginative involvement and shifts in
control systems of consciousness.

Another corroboration of Hilgard's findings has come from
Wilson and Barber (1981, 1983) . They found that hypnotically
responsive subjects often exhibit personality characteristics
that imply their involvement in fantasy. These traits include
mystical and religious experiences and intense imaginative
involvement in reading. Subjects reported that their
imaginative involvement was often vivid, having a
hallucinatory quality. Nevertheless, Wilson and Barber’s
study were limited due to several methodological shortcomings,
including the absence of a comparison group of subjects who
were low in hypnotizability and the failure to clearly
standardize the administration of hypnotic suggestions. Upon
noting these criticisms, Lynn and Rhue (1986) attempted to
improve and expand Wilson and Barber's study by examining
characteristics of the fantasy-prone person. Again, many of
their results hinted at a relationship between primary process
and hypnotizability. Lynn and Rhue found that subjects with
high fantasy proneness had significantly greater hypnotic
susceptibility than subjects with both medium and low fantasy
proneness. The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic
Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) was used to determine
hypnotizability while the Inventory of Childhood Memories and
Imaginings (ICMI) was used to determine fantasy proneness.

The ICMI is a dichotomous, paper-pencil questionnaire that

10
correlates significantly with vividness of imagery and
fantasy. Nearly 80% of Lynn and Rhue' s sample of fantasizers
scored in the high-susceptible range, once again suggesting a
positive relationship between hypnotizability and primary
process.

In a similar study, Kihlstrom et al. (1989) examined
possible dispositional correlates of hypnosis. The
researchers constructed a questionnaire to assess normal,
everyday experiences of several personality variables. Using
the HGSHS:A, Kihlstrom et al. found that susceptibility was
significantly and positively correlated with absorption,
trance, vividness of imagery, access to the unconscious, and
archaic involvement. When examining the researchers'
definitions of these factors, primary process is implicated as
playing a significant role in hypnotizability. To illustrate,
Kihlstrom et a1. defined trance as the extent to which one can
temporarily eliminate or suspend reality orientation:
absorption was defined as the extent to which the subject can
become attentively engrossed in experiences; archaic
involvement was the extent to which a transference of core
attitudes originally formed early in life in regard to parents
occurs; access to the unconscious referred to the extent to
which there was an availability to consciousness of usually
unconscious, primary process content and modes of thought.
Many of Kihlstrom et al.'s definitions relate to different
aspects of primary process, such as imagistic and fantastic

thought modes, access to and revivification of repressed

11

drives, and a reduction of realistic thinking. His findings
corroborate earlier investigations of hypnotizability, such as
Sheehan (1982) , who found significant correlations between
hypnotizability and measures of vividness of mental images,
and P. Bowers (1982) , who found significant correlations
between hypnotizability and the degree to which involvements,
images, or creative ideas occur effortlessly.

Hypnotizability and personality correlates has also been
investigated in neuropsychology. Reviewing the literature,
Kihlstrom (1985) cites Gur & Gur (1974), Graham (1977), and
Sackeim et a1. (1979), all of whose results revealed "a
preference for processing information in the right hemisphere
that is related to hypnotizability and/or hypnosis" (p. 390).
Likewise, MacLeod-Morgan & Lack (1982) found an apparent shift
in cortical activation from left to right hemisphere when
hypnotizable individuals enter hypnosis. Graham & Pernicano
(1979) discovered that hypnotized individuals showed more
autokinetic shifts to the left than unhypnotized subjects,
again implicating the role of the right hemisphere in
hypnosis. Elsewhere, Galin (1974) examines cerebral
specialization from a psychoanalytic context. Galin concludes
that the role of the right hemisphere has significant
connections with psychoanalytic theory:

Certain aspects of right hemisphere functioning are

congruent with the mode of cognition psychoanalysts have

termed primary process...The right hemisphere primarily

uses a nonverbal mode of representation, presumably

images. . .The right hemisphere reasons by a nonlinear mode

of association rather than by syllogistic logic. . .Because
it deals more effectively with complex patterns taken as

12

a whole than with the individual parts taken serially, we

might expect [the right hemisphere to express itself in]

metaphors, puns, double-entendre and rebus, i.e., 221d:

pieeegee. This is the sort of language that appears in

dreams and slips of the tongue (p. 574).
When taken in the context of Galin's observations,
neuropsychological evidence suggests that hypnosis and
hypnotizability may be related to primary process modes of
thought by virtue of being connected with right hemisphere
functioning.
Qeeey g; the Hypnoeic Tragee

If hypnosis does indeed involve a regression to primary
process thinking, there is the possibility of increased
primary process manifestations following the formal cessation
of the hypnotic trance. In order for this heightened
exhibition of primary process thinking to occur, there must be
a gradual transition from the hypnotic state to the normal
waking state. Early research in hypnosis and suggestibility
has shown that there is in fact a gradual rather than
instantaneous transition. In other words, evidence has shown
that the hypnotic state lingers for a period of time following
the formal termination of the trance. Krueger (1931)
demonstrated that hypnotic subjects retain the increased
suggestibility, or hypersuggestibility, for a period following
the formal end of the hypnotic trance. Krueger's
investigation examined the suggestion time required to produce
lid-closure in a following hypnotic induction. To determine

the length of time that hypersuggestibility persisted, Krueger

tested subjects at six time intervals following the

13
termination of the original trance: 5 seconds, 30 seconds, 60
seconds, 5 minutes, 20 minutes, and 60 minutes. As
predicted, subjects took less time for lid-closure in a
following trance: in other words, Krueger found that
hypersuggestibility gregeelly decreases rather than
immediately ends after the trance termination. Secondary
trance time, even after so long as an hour, is less than
primary trance time, implicating a retention of
suggestibility. Nevertheless, there are flaws in Krueger’s
study. As Hull (1933/1968) points out, subject fatigue from
gazing at the fixation object may have produced the decreased
time for lid-closure. Krueger also used a very small number
of subjects (N=5) . But despite these shortcomings, other
observations have supported the gradual decay of the hypnotic
state. Hull cites Binet and Fere's (1888) observation derived
from experimentation that "after awaking, the subject is still
sensitive to suggestion; this fact has long been.known, and is
mentioned by Braid among other writers. . .he [the hypnotic
subject] has not returned to his normal state" (p. 300).
Hull, drawing from his own experiments, concludes that the
hypnotic subj ect’s state of heightened suggestibility persists
after the hypnotic trance and that the period immediately
following the hypnotic trance is very different than the
period preceding it. Little research (if any) has been done
since Hull to attempt to replicate these findings.
n s ' 'on

The present investigation has four purposes. The first

14

objective is to test Josephine Hilgard's observations on
personality and hypnotic susceptibility using a psychoanalytic
frame of reference. As mentioned above, several studies have
shown the positive relationship between hypnotizability and
primary process thinking. However, most of these studies have
not directly measured primary process; instead, they have
examined one or more variables that are indicative of primary
process such as suspension of reality testing, vivid imagery,
etc. The present investigation will examine Hilgard's theory
from a psychoanalytic perspective by using a direct measure of
primary process (Holt, 1977) . In addition, most studies
examining hypnotizability and personality correlates
(including Hilgard’ s) have used interviews, questionnaires, or
self-report inventories. This method of data collection is
incompatible with the psychoanalytic frame of reference, often
falling prey to social desirability and impression management
strategies of the subject (DePaulo et al. , 1987: Goffman,
1959) . Hence, the Rorschach will be used to provide a more
compatible dependent measure for the underlying psychoanalytic
theory.

The second purpose of the present investigation is to
test the possibility that primary process thinking is greater
immediately following hypnosis as compared to a normal waking
state preceding hypnosis. Given that primary process seems to
be an integral part of the hypnotic experience and that the
hypnotic state may persist after the formal termination of the

trance, primary process should be higher immediately following

15
hypnosis than preceding hypnosis.

The third purpose of the present investigation is to test
the possibility that suggestibility is greater immediately
following hypnosis as compared to a normal waking state
preceding hypnosis. This portion of the experiment will
utilize indirect or virtual suggestions (Reyher et al., 1979)
to attempt reliably to corroborate the findings of Hull,
Krueger, Binet and Fere, and others. If primary process or
suggestibility is indeed found to be affected immediately
following hypnosis, support will be gained for the state
theory of hypnosis. Reyher (1973), Fromm (1979), and others
contend that hypnosis is a distinct altered state of
awareness. Freud’s topographic theory accommodates this
assertion; specifically, suggestibility is a feature of a
topographic regression which is accompanied by increasing
primary process. Primary process is characterized by
imagistic mentation, wish-fulfillment, condensation,
displacement, and symbolization. The fourth purpose of the
present investigation is to test the possibility that primary
process is greater for those who are able to experience a
hypnotically induced dream. In Freudian theory, dreams are
inherently tied to primary process: the symbolization,
displacement, condensation, vivid imagery, and drive primacy
that characterize dreams is what Freud conceptualized as
primary process. Therefore, the ease with which one is able
to produce a dream on command may be related to the degree to

which one is able to engage in primary process. Furthermore,

16

this theoretical formulation entails four

hypotheses/predictions:

Hypothesis 1: Hypnotizability is a function of the degree to
which waking mentation is under the sway of
primary process.

Hypothesis 2: Regression to primary process is still in
effect after the hypnotic trance has been
formally ended.

Hypothesis 3: Heightened suggestibility is still in effect
after the hypnotic trance has been formally
ended.

Hypothesis 4: The ability to experience a hypnotically
induced dream is a function of the degree to
which waking mentation is under the sway of
primary process.

If neither hypothesis two nor three is corroborated, two
explanatory possibilities will exist. The first explanation
would be that hypnosis is not an altered state of
consciousness. According to this explanation, neither
suggestibility nor primary process would be affected after the
hypnotic trance because there is no significant difference
between the trance and the waking state. The second
explanation would be that even though hypnosis is an altered
state of consciousness, the transition from the hypnotic to
the waking state is immediate. In this explanation, hypnosis
is still considered an altered state of awareness, but the
progression or shift from the hypnotic state to a normal
waking state is occurs instantaneously.

W

The experimental design of this study consisted of two

separate groups. One group received the Rorschach

17
administration and virtual suggestions before being
hypnotized; this. group is Ihereafter referred. to as the
Rorschach group. The other group received the hypnosis before
the Rorschach administration; this group is hereafter referred

to as the hypnosis group.

METHOD

We
After obtaining approval from UCRIHS, 40 subjects were

obtained from introductory psychology classes at Michigan
State University who had signed up to participate in an
experiment entitled "Experiment in Hypnosis." Of the 40
subjects, 20 were male and 20 were female. The subjects were
randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Each subject was
tested individually by one of the two experimenters. The
experimenters (one female, one male) were upper level
undergraduate students who were trained by the researcher.
Subjects were equally distributed across gender of
experimenter, gender of subject, and condition membership.
143239.13

__- 11-0th us e- _.-,_ cae 01'; _. ° .
The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C
(Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1962) was used for hypnotizing the
subjects and measuring hypnotic susceptibility. The SHSS:C
was used because it provides a wide range items in determining
the degree of suggestibility. The scale contains twelve
items, which are scored on a pass-fail basis. These items

include hand lowering, moving hands apart, mosquito

18

19

hallucination, taste hallucination, arm rigidity, dream
induction, age regression, anosmia, arm immobilization,
hallucinated voice, negative visual hallucination, and
posthypnotic amnesia.

WW
Preeeee. Primary process was obtained using Holt’s (1977)
system. of scoring' Rorschach responses; this system
incorporates several different categories of primary process
manifestation. The first category (Content Variables) is
concerned with evidences of libidinal and aggressive
wishfulness in the content of the subject's response. The
second category (Formal Variables) examines deviations in
response structure. These variables include the formal
characteristics of dreams , including condensation ,
displacement, and symbolization. The formal variables "are an
attempt to measure deviations from the logical, orderly
thinking grounded in experience with the real world that
characterizes the secondary process" (Holt, 1977: pp. 392-
393). In addition, each primary process response is given a
rating of Level 1 or Level 2. Level 1 responses represent
direct, intense, or blatant manifestations of primary process,
while Level 2 response are concerned with more socialized,
civilized manifestations of primary process. From these
scores, percentages are calculated for total primary process
and each one of the aforementioned categories. Holt's scale
was also used to calculate the degree of primary process in

the hypnotically induced dreams.

20

yirtgel_§gggeetiene. Suggestibility was measured using
a scale of indirect or virtual suggestions. According to
Reyher et al. (1979), a virtual suggestion is "the
legitimization of false statements of fact, i.e. the room is
getting warm when, in fact, it is not" (p. 178). The
compliance to these suggestions was scored on a pass-fail
basis, with the experimenter allowing a 5 second response
time. The suggestions were incorporated into the Rorschach
administration. The experimenter suggested certain percepts
that could be found in the ink blots. There were three
suggestions for each blot, making a scale of thirty virtual
suggestions. For each blot, the experimenter first suggested
a.popular response (or an ordinary response if the subject had
already verbalized the popular percepts) , then an unusual form
quality response, and finally a negative form quality
response. If the subject had.a1ready used one of the percepts
in his or her response, an alternate suggestion was be used.
The responses for each card required an increasing level of
subject suggestibility. After the subject completed his or
her responses to each card, the experimenter said "There are
many other things that this blot can form." The experimenter
then proceeded to make the virtual suggestions by saying "This
blot also forms a . Can you see that?" The

following are the specific percepts that were used:

 

Wt; Altwm
mm M

I Bat Butterfly , Winged Bug

I Crow Robot

I Fern Lamp

21

II Dog (01) Elephant, Lamb (D1)
II Gorillas Mask

II Heart Bat

III Human (D9) Doll, Witch (D9)
III Bowl Vase

III Spider Flower

IV Giant Animal Hide, Tree
IV Bell Kite

IV Lettuce Snowflake

V Bat Butterfly, Dracula
V Angel Ostrich

V Flag Propeller

VI Animal Skin Rug, Totem

VI Guitar Bird

VI Bee Pan

VII Child's Face (D1) Shrimp, Statue (Dl)
VII Canyon Crown

VII Skull Plant

VIII Cat (01) Dog, Wolf (01)

VIII Garden Helmet

VIII Pyramid Tree

IX Witch (D3) Ghost, Flower (D3)
IX Candle Hat

IX Ant Leaf

x Crab (Dl) Spider, Octopus (01)
X Fireworks Display Pom Pom

X Christmas Tree Web

Percepts taken from Exner (1990).

W

Subjects were tested in a room containing a computer, a
desk, a cabinet, a straight-backed chair, and an easy chair.
Subjects were seated in the easy chair and given an informed
consent form to sign. .After the subject had signed this form,
the experimenter either administered the SHSS:C or the
Rorschach and the virtual suggestions, depending on group
membership.

For the Rorschach group, the procedure was as follows.
After obtaining informed consent, the Rorschach was

administered in the fashion set forth by Exner (1990), with

22

the experimenter' asking "What. might this be?" upon. the
presentation of every card. However, unlike the Exner
administration system, subjects were not limited to five
responses per card. If the subject gave only one response to
Card I, the experimenter said "Take your time and look some
more. I'm sure you’ll find something else too." If the
subject did not respond to a card, the experimenter said,
”Take your time. We're in no hurry. Everyone can find
something." After the subject completed her or his responses
toieach.card, the experimenter“made‘the'virtual suggestions as
previously described.

After the performance proper, the experimenter proceeded
to the inquiry by saying:

Now we are going to go back through the cards again. It

won’t take very long. I want to see the things that you

said you saw and make sure that I see them like you do.

We’ll do them.one at a time. I'll read what.you said and

then I want you to show me where it is in the blot and

then tell me what there is there that makes it look like

that so that I can see it too, just like you did. Is

that clear? (Exner, p. 13)
As suggested.by Holt (1977, p. 381), the additional inquiry of
"How did you feel about it?" was asked for each response. If
necessary, the experimenter expanded this question by
explaining that "I am interested in your reactions to each
thing you saw in the blots, whether seeing it was pleasant,
unpleasant, or a matter of indifference." After the inquiry,
the experimenter then hypnotized the subjects, using the

Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C.

For the hypnosis group, hypnosis (SHSS:C) preceded the

23
administration of the Rorschach and virtual suggestions.
Between the first and second item (hand lowering and hands
moving apart), all subjects 'were tested for ability' to
generate percepts from ink blots. The experimenter said the
following: "In a moment I am going to ask you to open your
eyes, and you will be able to do so without awakening in the
slightest. I am going to show you an ink blot and I want you
to tell me what it looks like to you. Go ahead and open your
eyes. [Experimenter shows ink blot to subject.] What might
this be?" Giving the subject 30 seconds to respond, the
experimenter made note of whether the subject was able to
generate a percept, then saying to the subject, "That's fine.
Now close your eyes again and continue to relax and
concentrate on my voice. Just let yourself become drowsy, as
you feel yourself sinking deeper and deeper into a comfortable
state of body and mind." All subjects were able to generate
a percept, thereby indicating a sufficient degree of task
involvement. The Rorschach administration period began five
seconds after the command for waking was given. Because of
the delay the post-hypnotic amnesia item would have caused
between the hypnosis termination and the Rorschach, this item
was eliminated so that suggestibility and primary process
could be measured immediately after the command for waking was

given.

RESULTS

W

The researcher and one experimenter independently scored
each Rorschach protocol for primary process. Both scorers
were blind to condition membership. A Pearson correlation of
r=.94, p<.01 was obtained for inter-rater reliability. The
researcher and experimenter then reviewed each Rorschach
protocol and conjointly resolved the points of difference that
arose in scoring the protocols. The points of differences
between the experimenter and researcher were miscellaneous.
A possible artifact in the conjoint decisions was the
perceived.power differential between the experimenter and the
researcher favoring the latter.

ot 5

Before the experimental hypotheses were evaluated, each
of the distributions was examined and found to be highly
skewed. Consequently, the distributions were subjected to a
square root and logarithm transformation. These
transformations did not satisfactorily remove skewness:
therefore, for the hypotheses that compared two independent
samples, a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney U) was used in

place of the t-test. Furthermore, when obtaining

24

25
correlations, percentages were subjected to an arcsine
transformation as recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983) to
reduce variation in interval size. This transformation opens
the scale up and "stretches the tails” to increase its
linearity and relationship to other variables.

Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that hypnotizability
is a function of the degree to which waking mentation is under
the sway of primary process. A Pearson correlation was used
to evaluate the degree of relationship between hypnotic
susceptibility (total score on the SHSS:C) and the degree of
primary process in the Rorschach. A nonsignificant
correlation of -.13 was obtained, thereby failing to
corroborate the first hypothesis. One potential weakness of
the first.hypothesis is that all subjects were included in the
correlational analysis; given that hypnosis may affect primary
process and thereby differentially affect the primary process
in each group, grouping all subjects together had the
potential to confound the findings of the first hypothesis.
However, the nonsignificant between-group correlational
differences of hypnosis and primary process eliminated this
possibility (see Tables 4 and 5).

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that regression to
primary process is still in effect after the hypnotic trance
has been formally ended. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to
examine the experimental manipulation.of’Rorschach-manifested
primary process between the hypnosis group and the Rorschach

group (Table 1). Contrary to expectations, the Rorschach

26
group manifested significantly greater overall primary process
than the hypnosis group. The average percentage of primary
process responses for the Rorschach group was 63.8%,
contrasted to an average primary process of 54.6% for hypnosis
group. Likewise, the Rorschach group manifested significantly
greater primary process content than the hypnosis group.

Reasons for these findings will be explored later.

Table 1

Mann-Whitney U test comparing primary process between groups

 

 

We WL 12
Total Primary Process .546 .638 122.5 .035
Level 1 Prim. Proc. .159 .183 172.5 .461
Level 2 Prin. Proo. .470 .537 129.5 .056
Content Prim. Proo. .449 .521 120.0 .030
Formal Prim. Proc. .199 .236 165.5 .355

Entries for the hypnosis and Rorschach groups are means.

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 stated that heightened
suggestibility is still in effect after the hypnotic trance
has been formally ended. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to
examine the experimental manipulation of suggestibility
between groups. The hypnosis group affirmed an average of
17.5 of’ the possible 30 ‘virtual suggestions, while the
Rorschach group affirmed an average of 17.45 virtual
suggestions. To further investigate this hypothesis,
correlations were obtained between.the virtual suggestibility
scale and the hypnosis scale for both groups to test the

degree of relation between these scales. The correlation for

27

the hypnosis group was .48 (p<.05), while the correlation for
the Rorschach group was surprisingly only .04 (p>.05) . A
Fisher z (z=1.41, p=.079) revealed that the difference between
these correlations approached significance. The significant
positive correlation for the hypnosis group suggests that the
experimental manipulation did in fact increase suggestibility.
This increase occurred not on the basis of hypnosis per se,
but on the basis of hypnotic depth (i.e. hypnotic
susceptibility).

Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that the ability to
experience a hypnotically induced dream is a function of the
degree to which waking mentation is under the sway of primary
process. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare Rorschach-
manifested primary process of those able to experience a
hypnotically induced dream with those unable to experience a
hypnotically induced dream (Table 2). The outcome of primary
process for this variable (hypnotic dream ability) was
potentially confounded by overall hypnotic susceptibility:
however, the nonsignificant correlation of hypnotic
susceptibility with primary process eliminated this concern.
Unexpectedly, subjects who were able to experience or report
having a hypnotically induced dream had a lower percentage of
primary process in their responses than those who were unable
to have a hypnotically induced dream. Subjects who were able
to have a dream averaged 54.6% primary process in their
Rorschach responses, while those who were unable to have a

dream averaged 64.3%. Those who were able to experience a

28
hypnotically induced dream also manifested significantly less
Level 1 responses (i.e. direct, intense, or blatant
manifestations of primary process) than those who were unable
to have a hypnotically induced dream (Table 2). The former
had an average of 14.0% of their responses manifesting Level
1 primary process, in contrast with the latter who had an
average of 20.5% Level 1 responses. When interpreting these
results, one must be mindful that the recording of the ability
to experience a hypnotically induced dream depended upon the

subject's ability or willingness to report the dream.

Table 2

Mann-Whitney U test comparing primary*prooess on the basis of
hypnotic dream ability

 

 

D£2;!_QIP____!9_D£2§H_§IP 44! P

Total Primary Process .546 .643 116.5 .023
Level 1 Prim. Proc. .140 .205 114.5 .020
Level 2 Prim. Proc. .472 .539 148.0 .169
Content Prim. Proc. .444 .531 113.5 .074
Formal Prim. Proc. .187 .250 131.5 .065

Entries for the dream and no dream groups are means.

29

Table 3
Correlation matrix for both groups combined
HYP HYPDPP V800 RPP L1PP LZPP OONPP PORMPP

HY? ---- .51.. .19 -.13 ‘.29 -.01 -.05 -.24

EYPDPP‘ ---- .10 -.23 -.40** -.02 -.02 -.51**
V800 ---- -.32* -.13 -.30* -.37* -.09
RPP ---- .49** .85“ .77.. .59**
L1PP ---- .15 .23 .73..
LZPP ---- .93** .22
OONPP ---- .12
PORNPP ----

tp<.05, 00p<.01

HYP=Total score on hypnotic scale (8H88:C)

HYPDPP=Degree of primary process in the hypnotically induced
dream

V80G=Total score on virtual suggestibility scale

RPP=Tota1 primary process on the Rorschach

L1PP=Level 1 primary process on the Rorschach

L2PP=Level 2 primary process on the Rorschach

OONPP=Content primary process on the Rorschach

PORMPP= Formal primary process on the Rorschach

Table 4

Correlation matrix

HYPDPP

V800

L1PP

L2PP

FORNPP

*p<.05,

HYPDPP

ttp<.01

30

for the hypnosis group

V800 RPP

.40. -e11
.05** -.21

-e33

L1PP

-e3’

.40

L2PP

-e13

.03**

-e03

HYP=Total score on hypnotic scale (SHSS:C)
HYPDPP=Degree of primary process in the hypnotically induced
dream

VBUG=Total score on virtual suggestibility scale

RPP=Total primary process on the Rorschach
L1PP=Level 1 primary process on the Rorschach
L2PP=Level 2 primary process on the Rorschach

CONPP=Content primary process on the Rorschach
PORMPP= Formal primary process on the Rorschach

OONPP PORKPP

.09 -.33
-.07 -.49*
-.10 -.50**
.77** .67**
.12 .73**
.93** .31
---- .22

31

Table 5
Correlation matrix for the Rorschach group
HYP HYPDPP V806 RPP LlPP L2PP OONPP PORMPP

HYP ---- .50** .04 -.20 -.10 -.25 -.22 -.22

HYPDPP ---- -.34 -.09 -.41 -.20 .10 -.51*
V800 ---- -.35 .06 -.55* -.49* .17
RPP ---- .55* .05** .749. .49.
L1PP ---- .26 .27 .72**
L2PP ---- .93** .10
OONPP ---- -.02
PORKPP ----

*p<.05, **p<.01

HYP=Total score on hypnotic scale (SHSS:C)

HYPDPP=Degree of primary process in the hypnotically induced
dream

VBUG=Total score on virtual suggestibility scale

RPP=Total primary process on the Rorschach

L1PP=Level 1 primary process on the Rorschach

L2PP=Level 2 primary process on the Rorschach

CONPP=Content primary process on the Rorschach

PORMPP= Formal primary process on the Rorschach

32
Wings

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show correlation matrices for all
measures and their specific components. Several noteworthy
correlations were obtained. Significant positive correlations
were obtained for both groups between level 2 primary process
(L2PP) and content primary process (CONPP) . This correlation
may be due to a scoring artifact in the Holt system, as
content responses usually are automatically assigned a level
2 designation unless they are extraordinarily blatant. Also,
positive correlations were obtained for both groups between
level 1 primary process (L1PP) and formal primary process
(FORMPP). Again, these correlations may be the result of a
scoring artifact; in the Holt system, many formal primary
process responses (e.g. inappropriately mixing color with
form) are automatically assigned a level 1 designation.

High positive correlations were obtained between the
overall score of Rorschach primary process (RPP) and each
subcomponent of Rorschach primary process. These correlations
indicate that each subscale is positively contributing to the
overall primary process score, which lends construct validity
to the Holt scoring system. These correlations also indicate
that overall Rorschach primary process is a representative
indication of all sub-categories of primary process: hence,
this variable was given the most weight when interpreting the
relation between Rorschach primary process and other
variables.

Significant positive correlations were obtained for both

33

groups between the degree of primary process in the
hypnotically induced dream (HYPDPP) and the total score on the
hypnotic susceptibility scale (HYP) . These correlations imply
that the ability to engage in primary process during hypnosis
may be a reliable indicator for hypnotic susceptibility:
similarly, on Freud's account, the higher degree of primary
process as hypnotic depth increases indicates that the state
of hypnosis is accompanied by a regression. As Gill and
Brennan (1959) state, "the ready inducibility of dreams in
hypnosis is an indication of the regressive nature of the
hypnotic state. " In sum, hypnotic depth seems to be marked by
a regression, which is consistent with the theory put forth by
Freud.

An unexpected difference in sign was found for the
correlation between virtual suggestibility (VSUG) and primary
process in the hypnotically induced dream (HYPDPP) for the two
groups: -.34 for the Rorschach group and .65 for the hypnosis
group. The two correlations were significantly different
(Fisher 2 = 3.29, p=.0005). The obtained correlation of .65
for the hypnosis group indicates that for subjects initially
receiving hypnosis, hypnotic primary process in the induced
dream was related to increased waking suggestibility. If
hypnosis is in fact a regression characterized by primary
process, this regression should subsequently affect
suggestibility by reinforcing the subject’ s identification
with the experimenter (Freud, 1921). The identification may

thereby increase the willingness of the subject to affirm

34

suggestions made by the experimenter. This finding is
consistent with the possibility that the heightened
suggestibility is still present after the formal hypnotic
termination. Moreover, this large correlational difference
lends strong support to the state theory of hypnosis.
Proponents of this theory such as E. Fromm contend that
hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness. Fromm asserts
that in hypnosis, primary process, fantasy, and ego
receptivity gain greater dominance (1979). The fact that an
opposite between-group difference was obtained implies a
categorical difference in the state of consciousness between
hypnosis and the waking state, with hypnosis being
characterized by greater regression. Furthermore, the state
theory is bolstered by the between group correlational
difference for virtual suggestibility (VSUG) and hypnotic
susceptibility (HYP): .04 for the Rorschach group and .48 for
the hypnosis group. If hypnosis does accompany greater ego
receptivity as From contends, then one would expect that
subjects in the hypnosis group would be more receptive to
suggestions made immediately after hypnosis.

Also supporting the state theory of hypnosis are the
negative correlations found in both groups between overall
Rorschach primary process (RPP) and the hypnosis variables.
While primary process during hypnosis (HYPDPP) was positively
related to hypnotic depth (HYP), primary process during the
waking state (RPP) was negatively related to hypnotic depth.

Moreover, the correlation between primary process during the

35

dream (HYPDPP) and primary process during the waking state
(RPP) was negative. These findings again imply that hypnosis
is a distinct state of consciousness, as contended by Reyher,
Fromm, and others. This support for the state theory of
hypnosis is strengthened by the fact that the same method
(i.e. the Holt primary process scoring system) was used to
determine primary process in hypnosis and on the Rorschach.

The average card to card manifestations of virtual
suggestibility were calculated and graphed for each group
(Figure 1). There were no significant between group
differences for any of the cards. Response percentages were
subsequently averaged for each virtual suggestion according to
suggestion type (popular, unusual, or negative form quality).
The popular suggestions had the highest percentage of
affirmative responses (.825), followed by the unusual
suggestions (.558) and the negative form quality suggestions
(.347). These findings lend reliability to the virtual
suggestion scale as this was the expected order of suggestion
affirmation. Furthermore, there was a remarkable and uniform
decrease in suggestibility after the virtual suggestion of
"lettuce" was given for Card IV. Virtual suggestibility
thereafter'decreased for all three suggestion types on Card‘V.
Reasons for this finding will be discussed below.

Gender effects were also evaluated for subjects and
experimenters (Table 6). There were no significant sex of
subject effects. However, there were significant experimenter

effects for several of the primary process variables.

36

mecca noncomtox mmoto< >u.._n_umomm:m .mauc_> _ cs:m_m

28 5.522.
2 a a h a m .. n N _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ti 1 .. l I u u i u a
3
95 5.2626 .G. —
28w 5:288
Eu 335; .u. w.—
a
w.“

 

 

«2.0 5.523. as! bananas... .823

37
Subjects having the male experimenter manifested an average of
64.6% primary process responses on the Rorschach, while
subjects having the female experimenter manifested an average
of 53.9% primary process responses (U=106.5, p=.01) .
Likewise, subjects having the male experimenter had greater
Level 1 primary process than those having the female
experimenter (U=76, p=.001) . Finally, subjects having the
male experimenter also had greater formal primary process than

subjects having the female experimenter (U=94.5, p=.004).

Table 6

Mann-Whitney U test comparing primary process on the basis of
sex of experimenter

 

 

MAP—LL! O E P.

Total Primary Process .539 .646 106.5 .010
Level 1 Prim. Proc. .121 .221 076.0 .001
Level 2 Prim. Proo. .475 .532 160.0 .209
Content Prim. Prcc. .452 .519 151.5 .192
Formal Prim. Proc. .169 .265 094.5 .004

Entries for the male and female groups are means.

The average card to card manifestations of primary
process were calculated and graphed for each group (Figure 2) .
Two cards elicited significant between-group differences. For
Card II, the hypnosis group had an average of 43% primary
process responses, while the Rorschach group had an average of
‘69% primary process responses. Similarly, for Card Ix, the
hypnosis group had an average of 53% primary process
responses, while the Rorschach group had 83% primary process
responses. It is also noteworthy that the four largest

between group differences were all color cards (Cards II,

38
VIII, IX, and X): for each of these cards, the hypnosis group
consistently had less primary process than the Rorschach

group. Finally, frequency distributions for the SHSS:C scores

are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

39

i

meemu consumLOm mmOco< mmouota >tmE_ta N ot:m_m

2.0 5822.
a u n a m .. a a _

b n
a q

‘-

Cub
al-
db
9

 

 

 

 

new someones:

new apnoea»:

 

er:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/\
d.

 

330 5.55: “33 use; 2.2....

382.. are...
3 33:33..

40

muuomasm __< tom =o_u=n_tu._o cream a mmzm m otam_a

28m onmmzm
2 a a m u m .. a a —

. a 55:3: 28m

 
  
 

 

“6°35 =4 8". 8:353...— 28m onmwzm

41

cacao mwmo:a>: och tom co_u:nmtum~o etoum unmmzm : ct:m_u

28m 013:...
2 a a h u m _. a a _
. a
.. 2
. _
. w.—
. a 5:33.". 28m
. 3
. a
. m.»
. ._

 

.520 e355: 2: a“. 8:355 28m 98%

42

esotu sumsomtoz ugh Lem co_u:n_tum_c occum uummzm m ctzmmm

S

 

23w 0%me
a a a m ._ a N _

3

2

N .0532“. 23w
2.

a

w.”

_.

 

32o 5.522. 2: 3". 5.59.56 23m 93%

DISCUSSION

The first hypothesis, stating that hypnotizability is a
function of the degree to which waking mentation is under the
sway of primary process, was not corroborated. This finding
may bring increased clarity to J. Hilgard's conception of the
hypnotically susceptible personality. As mentioned above,
Hilgard's research led to the conclusion that imaginative
involvement seems to play a role in hypnotizability:
characteristics such as being deeply imaginative and absorbed
in fantasy were found to be related to susceptibility. When
examined in light of the results of the first hypothesis,
imaginative involvement (as conceptualized by Hilgard) and
primary process (as conceptualized by Freud and Holt) do not
seem to be completely compatible and synonymous. There may be
two possible explanations for this discordance. Firstly, the
difference may be due to the fact that Hilgard's study and the
present study used different methods. While Hilgard utilized
the interview format, the present study utilized the
Rorschach. As noted by Kazdin (1980, p. 248) , using different
methods of assessment has the distinct possibility of leading
to divergent results, given that "an individual’s performance

on a given measure is partially a function of the precise

43

44
method in which assessment is conducted." Kazdin notes that
factors such as "the contribution of method variance of
different assessment devices" and "the multifaceted nature of
personality and behavior” can lead to a lack of correspondence
among methods of measurement .

The second possible reason for the discord is that
imaginative involvement and primary process simply may not
connote the same underlying concept. Even though Hilgard
speaks of suspension of reality testing and an engagement in
vivid fantasy, these concepts are necessary but not sufficient
characteristics for primary process. Primary process seems to
be a more precise concept, referring to regression and
ideational wish-fulfillment of aggressive and sexual
strivings. Freud's concept seems more specific in that it
refers to a very definite process of the dream-work rather
than just fantasy in general. In sum, the results from
hypothesis one suggest that imaginative involvement and
primary process cannot be used interchangeably.

The unexpected result for hypothesis 2 showed that
subjects in the Rorschach group manifested greater primary
process than the hypnosis group. Perhaps this result is due
to hypnosis being a state of regression which allows for
greater gratification of an unconscious fantasy. One index of
this fantasy is libidinal investment (cathexis) in the
hypnotist, which may thereby reduce the need for subsequent
gratification in the Rorschach. If one considers hypnosis as

an opportunity for libidinal cathexis or primary process

45
manifestation, then the need for primary process expression
after hypnosis may be reduced. This possibility seems to fit
in well with Freud’s as well as Gill and Brennan’s theory of
hypnosis. In W, Freud (1900)
likens self-observation to the mental process of falling
asleep and hypnosis: in these states of mind, the critical
faculty of the mind is relaxed, allowing involuntary ideas to
emerge. This emergence, Freud states, accompanies a shift
toward primary-process functioning. Freud (1921) later
explained the hypnotic state and its relation to being in love
in W: "Hypnosis
resembles being in love in being limited to these two persons,
but it is based entirely on sexual impulsions that are
inhibited in their aim, and puts the object in the place of
the ego ideal" (p. 96). Freud expands on this statement by
comparing neurosis to hypnosis: "it [neurosis] resembles
hypnosis and group formation in having the character of a
regression, which is absent from being in love" (p. 97). If
hypnosis has "the character of a regression," then this state
should be marked by increased primary process mentation. Gill
and Brenman (1959) also view hypnosis as involving regression.
In elaborating on the regressed state, Gill and Brenman
describe the manner in which primary process gains dominance:
”A regressive process [such as hypnosis] is one in which the
balance of forces shifts so that freer and more primitive
impulses come to expression, while the control system likewise

becomes more primitive and relatively less stringent and

46
determining of the course of psychic life vis-a-vis the
impulses" (p. 106) . Again, when hypnosis is conceptualized as
involving regression, then this state of mind may provide an
increased opportunity for mental drive gratification and wish
fulfillment. This psychoanalytic approach has been
corroborated by recent research. In a comprehensive review of
studies on hypnosis and regression, Nash (1988) concluded that
"there is evidence that hypnosis enables subjects to elicit
more imagistic, primary process, and affect-laden material
(topographic regression)" in addition to a relaxation of
defenses (p. 383) . From this perspective, the hypnosis group
may have had lower primary process on the Rorschach because of
the regnance of primary process which immediately preceded the
Rorschach: because of the regressive nature of hypnosis,
subsequent manifestations of primary process may have been
reduced, given that hypnosis had already provided the
possibility of wish-fulfillment.

Congruent with this explanation is the finding that the
Rorschach group had significantly greater primary process than
the hypnosis group on two of the color cards. Similarly, the
four largest between group differences were all for color
cards, with the uniform trend of the Rorschach group
expressing greater primary process than the hypnosis group.
Perhaps these findings can be understood from Shapiro's (1977)
theory of the Rorschach color response. Shapiro reviews past
research and theories concerning color perception, concluding

that color perception and color experience is primarily a

47

passive and immediate process, requiring less complex
psychological organization. Shapiro notes the "compelling,
gripping quality" of the color cards, stating that there is
often "an increase in the significance of color under
circumstances of disorganization or primitivization of
thought" (p. 262) . From Shapiro's perspective, color can
provide the opportunity for the experience of primary process:
given the passivity and decreased psychological organization
that often accompanies color perception, the color cards of
the Rorschach may have set the stage for greater primary
process manifestations. Moreover, when color is conceived as
being conducive to primary process expression, the findings
concerning the group differences corroborate the
aforementioned view that hypnosis is an opportunity for
regressive or primary process mentation. In other words, the
Rorschach group had greater primary process on four of the
color cards because they provided the catalyst for primary
process, which had already been experienced by the hypnosis
group and perhaps was not as pressing.

The results for the third hypothesis revealed no
significant between group difference for the virtual
suggestions. However, a significant positive correlation was
obtained for between the virtual suggestibility scale and the
hypnotic susceptibility scale in the hypnosis group, but not
the Rorschach group. This finding necessitates a modification
of the notion that "hypersuggestibility" persists after

hypnosis has been formally terminated. As Krueger and Hull

48

contended, heightened suggestibility does seem to remain in
effect after hypnosis, but the degree of this post-hypnotic
suggestibility is connected to the degree of the subject’s
hypnotic depth. As the results of the present study suggest,
the more susceptible a subject is, the more suggestibility
will be heightened during the period immediately fellowing
hypnosis. Hypnotic depth, not merely the act of being
hypnotized or taken through a hypnotic procedure, seems to be
the factor related to post-hypnotic hypersuggestibility.
Despite the analogous results in the present study and.Krueger
and Hull’ 8 studies, the two sets of findings cannot be
cogently compared because of the widely divergent methodology.
While Krueger and Hull used eye closure as a measure for
"hypersuggestibility," the present study used Rorschach
suggestion affirmation to determine suggestibility. Because
of this. difference, the: two studies cannot be reliably
compared. Furthermore, of the five subjects that Krueger
used, "all had been previously used in hypnotic experiments”
(1931, p. 135). From this statement one could possibly
surmise that Krueger's subjects were all capable of
significant hypnotic depth and had a more established
transference with the experimenter. .Again, these differences
between studies preclude their comparison. Moreover, more
research is needed to corroborate the possibility that post-
hypnotic suggestibility increases as hypnotic susceptibility
increases.

The unexpected result for the fourth.hypothesis revealed

49

that subjects who were able to experience a hypnotically
induced dream had lower Rorschach-manifested primary process
than those unable to experience a hypnotically induced dream.
Perhaps this finding can be understood when viewing both the
hypnotically induced dream and the Rorschach as opportunities
for primary process expression. From this perspective, those
unable or unwilling to experience a dream would be expected to
have greater primary process manifestations on the Rorschach.
In other words, for those able to experience the dream, the
motivation for Rorschach-manifested primary process expression
may have been reduced because the dream had offered an
opportunity for regression and mentation marked by wish-
fulfillment. Likewise, for the Rorschach group, those
subjects having high primary process manifestations may have
experienced a reduced need or motivation to have a
hypnotically induced dream, again because a chance had already
arisen (in the Rorschach) for wishful mentation. In
conclusion, the fact that the no dream group had higher
Rorschach-manifested primary process than the dream group may
highlight the possibility of viewing both the Rorschach and
hypnotic dreams as opportunities for wish-fulfillment.

Concerning the additional findings of the present study,
an inspection of the virtual suggestions given during the
Rorschach revealed a remarkable and uniform decrease in
suggestibility after the virtual suggestion of "lettuce” was
given for Card IV. Freud's conception of the counter-will can

be used to understand this finding. Freud (1893, 1921)

50
conceptualized the counter-will as a psychic mechanism
containing antithetical ideas that are opposed to conscious
ideas. According to Freud, the counter-will acts as follows:
”In all renunciations and limitations imposed upon the ego a
periodical infringement of the prohibition is the rule...the
abrogation of the [ego] ideal would necessarily be a
magnificent festival for the ego, which might then once again
feel satisfied with itself" (1921, p. 81). Applying Freud's
concept to the present study, if one conceives the virtual
suggestions as "renunciations and limitations imposed upon the
ego," then the counter-will is instrumental in abrogating the
prohibitions by temporary suggestion negation. In other
words, the virtual suggestion of "lettuce" may have been such
an excessive request- (imposition) that the counter-will
rebelled by negating the subsequent suggestions. One can
also apply Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance to
better understand this finding and provide a reinterpretation
of Freud's. counter-will concept. IBriefly stated, Brehm
contended that "when a person believes himself free to engage
'in a given behavior, he will experience psychological
reactance if that freedom is eliminated or threatened with
elimination. Psychological reactance is defined as a
motivational state directed toward the re-establishment of the
threatened or eliminated freedom, and it should manifest in
increased desire to engage in the relevant behavior and actual
attempts to»engage in it" (pp. 15-16). Applied.to the present
study, subjects' "freedom" to perceive what they did and did

51

not see in the ink blots was constantly being challenged and
compromised by the experimenter’s virtual suggestions.
Perhaps subjects were willing to confirm the experimenter’s
suggestions, but this willingness was limited. When subjects'
realized that their freedom of individual perception was being
threatened, they may have become temporarily motivated to
reestablish their freedom in the form of negating the virtual
suggestions. Perhaps this realization was provoked by the
somewhat outrageous suggestion on Card 4 that the "blot also
forms lettuce." After this suggestion was made, not only was
a sharp decline in suggestibility found for the lettuce
suggestion, but there was also a decline for the three
suggestions following the lettuce item. At no other time was
this tendency of decline found for the suggestibility scale.
From Brehm’s perspective, the suggestion of seeing lettuce in
Card 4 posed too much of a threat to the subjects' freedom,
and was thereby followed by psychological reactance in the
form of suggestion negation. Nevertheless, these post hoc
conjectures must be verified by future research. One possible
way to test this finding would be to utilize the lettuce
suggestion as well as other suggestions that are extremely
inconsistent with the perceptual possibilities of blot's form.
Suggestion order should be randomized to help assure that
psychological reactance is taking place.

Concerning the gender difference found for the
experimenters, subjects having the male experimenter expressed

greater primary process on the Rorschach than subjects having

52
the female experimenter. There are at least two possible
explanations for this finding. One explanation involves the
divergent personality styles of the two experimenters. The
male experimenter seemed comfortable, confident, and non-
threatening. When observed, he executed the experimental
protocol the calm, self—assured style. The female
experimenter, while competent, seemed nervous, self-conscious,
and displayed a lack of confidence when performing the
experiment. Although these descriptions are derived from the
researcher’s own impressions rather than scientific data, they
may provide an explanation for the differences in primary
process manifestations. Subjects having the male experimenter
may have felt more relaxed, secure, and candid in expressing
their perceptions of the ink blots. These feelings seem to
have accompanied a relaxation of defenses and a greater
engagement in primary process mentation. Subjects having the
female experimenter may have been more reluctant to engage in
primary process because of her nervousness. This explanation
may be supplemented when considering a Freudian analysis of
the results. In W, Freud (1918) investigated
the dynamics of primitive societies. In this work, Freud
frequently spoke of the tribal chief or ruler, who was
regarded with great reverence. Freud noted that primitive
societies believed the chief to possess enormous, almost
super-human power. Furthermore, the chieftain rouses envy and
wishful thinking over his people: "everybody would perhaps

like to be king" (p. 45) , because "these savage kings are

53
endowed with a wealth of power and an ability to bestow
happiness which only gods possess" (p. 59). In other words,
Freud contended that the tribal kings acted as a source of
gratification. These emotions, claims Freud, "arise from the
infantile attitude of the child to its father" (p. 68), as
omnipotence is regularly attributed to the father in the
imagination of the child. But these dynamics not only
occurred in primitive societies, but.may also become manifest
in regressive processes (p. 24), such as hypnosis. Gill and
Brenman (1959) support this connection: "one important aspect
of the transference which emerges in hypnosis is the fantasy
of the limitless power of the hypnotist" (p. 74).
Furthermore, this position has been supported by recent
research; Nash (1988) found that the perceived power of the
hypnotist and a fear of negative appraisal correlate
significantly with hypnotic susceptibility. Keeping these
statements in mind, the fantasy of the hypnotist's omnipotence
may elicit greater wish-oriented mentation (i.e. primary
process). Furthermore, the gender difference found for the
experimenters may be due to the fact that the male
experimenter acted with more authority, command, and control,
thereby eliciting these fantasies to a greater extent. And
from Freud's viewpoint, the male experimenter would be more
likely to resurrect infantile fantasies concerning the

omnipotent father, thereby eliciting greater primary process.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Binet, A., & Fere, C. (1888). W. D. Appleton
and Company.

Bowers, P. G. (1982). The classic suggestion effect:
Relationships with scales of hypnotizability, effortless
experiencing, and imagery vividness. .Inrernerienel
MW

, 19. 270'
279.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). h o s c 0 'ca eacta c .
New York: Academic Press.

Brenman, M., 8 Reichard, S. (1943). Use of the Rorschach
test in the prediction of hypnotizability. fielle;ie_er
W19 1. 183-187.

Cohen. 3.. 8 Cohen. P- (1983). Annlied_uultinle_899r99919n
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

DePaulo, B. M., Kenny, D. A., Hoover, C. W., Webb, W., 5
Oliver, P. V. (1987). Accuracy of person perception:
Do people know what kinds of perceptions they convey?

geernel 9: Personality ang geeiel Psychology, fig, 303-
315.

Diment, A. D., Walker, W. L., 8 Hammer, A. G. (1981).
Response to poetry in hypnosis and the waking state: A
study of non-suggested aspects of the hypnotic state.

t a ' 'cal d menta
mm. 2. 19-40-

Exner. J- E- (1990) - WM
MW Asheville:
Rorschach Workshops.

Freud, 8. (1891/1966). Hypnosis (J. Strachey, Trans.).
59911991111511.9199. l. 105-144- London: Hogarth-

Freud, S. (1893/1966). A case of successful treatment by

hypnotism (J - Strachey. Trauma-)- 991199999_£sp_ers. 5.
33-47. New York: Basic Books.

54

55

Freud. S- (1900/1965)- W (J-
Strachey, Trans). New York: Avon Books.

Freud, S. (1913). .IQLQHIQDQJIQDQQ (A. A. Brill, Trans). New
York: Vintage Books.

Freud, S. (1921).
Egg (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: Bantam Books.

Fromm, E. (1979). The nature of hypnosis and other altered
states of consciousness: An ego-psychological theory.
In E. Fromm 8 R. E. Shor (Ed. ),
e s c . New York: Aldine
Publishing Company.

Fromm, E. (1984). Hypnoanalysis with particular emphasis on

the borderline patient- 2929hoanslxti9_2929holesx.
61-76.

Fromm, E. 8 Shor, R. E. (1979) . Underlying theoretical
issues: An introduction. In E. From 8 R. E. Shor

 

Eerepeeriyee. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Galin, D. (1974). Implications for psychiatry of left and
right cerebral specialization. Arehives of Geeerel

Ministry. 11. 572-581-
Gill. M- M. 8: Brenman. 14- (1959)- W
t ° 8 ° e s . New York:

International Universities Press, 1959.

Goffman, E. (1959) . s 'o ' v
Lire. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Graham, K. R. (1977). Perceptual processes and hypnosis:
Support for a cognitive-state theory based on laterality.

Appeal Hey Xerk ecegemy of Science, 274-283.

Graham, K. R., 8 Pernicano, K. (1979). Laterality, hypnosis,

and the autokinetic effect. WW .
Hypnosis. 22. 274-283-

Gur, R. C. 8 Gur, R. E. (1974). Handedness, sex, and
eyedness as moderating variables in the relation between
hypnotic susceptibility and functional brain asymmetry.

W. 9.3.. 644-650-

Hilgard. E- (1965)- W192 New York:
Harcourt, Brace 8 World, Inc.
Hilgard. J- (1970). W. Chicagm The

University of Chicago Press.

56

Holt, R. R. (1977). A method for assessing primary process
manifestations and their control in Rorschach responses.

In M. A. Rickers-Ovsiankina (Ed.) , MW.
Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

Hull, C. (1933/1968). 0 ' es ' . New
York: Meredith Corporation.

Kazdin, A. E. (1980).
Peyehelegy. New York: Harper and Row.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Hypnosis. u v w f

£9¥9h91991..1§. 385-418.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1989). Dispositional correlates of

hypnosis: A phenomenological approach. The
In99rna919nal__l99rnal__9f__9l1n19al__999__912911191991

32999919. 11. 249-263.

Krueger, R. G. (1931). Variation in hypersuggestibility
preceding, during and following the hypnotic trance.

I9urna1_9f_Abn9rmal.9nd_§99isl_£929991991. 29. 131-140-

Lynn, S. J., 8 Rhue, J. W. (1986). The fantasy-prone person:
Hypnosis, imagination, and creativity. gegrnel__e£

E9r99nal192.9nd_§99111_£§x9991992. 51. 404-408.

MacLeod-Morgan, CL, Lack, I“ (1982). Hemispheric
specificity: A physiological concomitant of
hypnotizability- £929n92nx9191292. 12. 687-690.

Moore, R. K. (1964). Susceptibility' to hypnosis and
susceptibility to social influence. our 0
and_§99ial_2929991991. 98. 282-294-

Nash, M. R. (1988L Hypnosis as a window on regression.

Bull991n.91_9h9_Henn1nger_911119. 52. 383-403-
Reyher, J. (1973). Can hypnotized subjects simulate waking

behavior? W.
31-36.
Reyher, J., Wilson, J. G., 8 Hughes, R. P. (1979).

Suggestibility and type of interpersonal relationship:
Special implications for the patient-practitioner

relationship. J99rnal_9f.3999919h_1n_2919991119¥.
175-186.

Sarbin, T. R., 8 Madow, L. W. (1942). Predicting the depth
of hypnosis by means of the Rorschach test. Amerieen

I9urnal_of_9r9h929¥9_1atrx.12. 268- -271.

57

Sackeim, H. A., Paulus, D., 8 Weiman, A. L. (1979).
Classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility. geernel

W992. 99. 81-84.

Shapiro, D. (1977) . A perceptual understanding of color
response. In M. A. Rickers-Ovsiankina (Ed.), Berseheeh
Beyehelegy. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing Company.

Sheehan, P. W. (1982L Imagery and hypnosis - Forging a
link. at least in part. 13W

WW. 1. 257-272-

Smyth, L. D., 8 Reyher, J. (1971). Attention and
suggestibility: The special implications for personality
differences between high and low responsive persons.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., 8 Hilgard, E. R. (1962). . mm
s ' t . Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

White, R. W. (1937) . Two types of hypnotic trance and their

personality correlates. W. 3.. 265-
277.

Wilson, 8. C., 8 Barber, T. X. (1981). Vivid fantasy and
hallucinatory abilities in the life histories of
excellent hypnotic subjects ("somnambules") : Preliminary
report with female subjects. In E. Klinger (Ed.),

V e lts '
(pp. 133-149). New York: Plenum Press.

Wilson, 8. C., 8 Barber, T. X. (1983). The fantasy-prone
personality: Implications for understanding imagery,
hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. In A. A.
Shaikh (Ed ). WM
epplleerlen (pp. 340-390). New York: Wiley.

"Iliiiiiifiiiiiliii'“