AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF A
NEW PROCEDURE FOR ENHANCING HYPNOTIC ;
SUSCEPTIBILITY

Thesis for-the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
RUBEN GUR
1973

.4 _ ”4'...” ‘Vfli‘

  
     

 

THESIS M"

3

III

[RY

— "-V0.05“1 8””
University

III III III IIIIIIIIIIII

293

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF A NEW PROCEDURE FOR
ENHANCING HYENSIIE SUSCEPTIBILITY
presented by

Ruben Gur

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D . degree in Psychology

 

 

(/77, 7 9 7
Date v/f/fl/ /5/ /‘/73

0-7639

 

 

ABSTRACT
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF A NEW PROCEDURE FOR ENHANCING

HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY

By

Ruben Gur

Two experiments were conducted in an attempt to investigate a
new procedure for enhancing hypnotic susceptibility. This procedure
consists of instructing g to press a button every time the word "relax"
is mentioned in the hypnotic instructions in order to avoid an electric
shock. A pilot study found this procedure to produce sharp increases
in susceptibility scores of initially insusceptible Se. The first
experiment in the present investigation tried to produce data that
would converge on one of two competing models that could explain the
success of the new procedure. It also tried to minimize possible ex-
perimenter's bias effects by leaving §_alone in the experimental room
hearing the instructions via tape-recorder. The results failed to
replicate those of the pilot study and did not converge decisively on
any one of the competing models. The hypothesis was subsequently
raised that the stress produced by the threat of shock necessitated

the presence of an.§_in the room with g in order for the new procedure

to succeed. A second experiment was conducted in which a naive §_was

‘iil

present in the room. The results of the second experiment replicated
those of the pilot study by producing sharp increases in hypnotic

susceptibility scores of initially insusceptible §s.

 

I ./ I ‘
/""' . /
. I . . ., A _ _,
Approved ° ,4 lily/é; 1/ L_:‘_ L 4 ‘L
,, v /f j ‘/ fi‘

,/

:2

DATE: //[,- // /‘/’7_)

(7

 

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF A
NEW PROCEDURE FOR ENHANCING HYPNOTIC

SUSCEPTIBILITY

By

Ruben Gur

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1973

OH RAQUEL

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

One of the things I have learned at M.S.U. is to tell people
right to their faces what I feel about them -- even if these feelings
are good. Most of the people who have helped me with this dissertation,
therefore, know how I feel about them. I will, therefore, simply list
these people and mention the most salient thing about each for which
I feel particularly thankful.

Dr. Joseph Reyher -- who gave me so much and still let me be
who I am.

Dr. A. I. Rabin - who taught me about a few of the things he
knows.

Dr. Norman Abeles -- who was open.

Dr. Lauren J. Harris - who triggered both the left and the right
hemispheres of his brain in his interactions with me.

Dr. Bill Kell - who introduced me to the therapeutic significance
of "happy horse-shit."

Sue D. Weesner and Wanda D. Miller -- who simply did not make
any errors in typing this dissertation.

Carlo Piccione and Mark Senotco —- who ran the §s so enthu-
siastically without even knowing what the hell they were doing until
everything was over.

Subjects who showed up.

iii

Mr. Gary F. Connor - who built the instrument.
Mr. Roger Halley - who helped get Mr. Connor going.

Raquel - who smiled at me with her big blue eyes.

Shalom.

iv

II.

III.
IV.
V.

VI.

VII.
VIII.

IX.

INTRODUCTION .
METHOD . . . .
subjects . . .
Procedure . .
RESULTS . . .
DISCUSSION . .
EXPERIMENT II
METHOD . . .

sabjeCtB o o 0
Procedure .
RESULTS . . .
DISCUSSION . .

APPENDIX . . .

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

10
13
15
15
15
15
16
17

24

Table 1:

LIST OF TABLES

Mean Initial Susceptibility of the Four Groups (Based on
the HGSHS), their Means in the Experiment Proper,

the Mean Differences Between these Conditions (standard
deviations are given in parentheses), and t Values for

these Differences . . . . . . . . . . .

O O O O O O O O O O 11

vi

.........

INTRODUCTION

Various attempts to increase hypnotic susceptibility have shown
that a subject's score on a formal hypnotic susceptibility scale is
highly resistant to change. As, Hilgard, and Weitzenhoffer (1963)
tried to increase the hypnotic susceptibility of moderately susceptible
subjects by giving them four to ten sessionsleach of training in
hypnosis and by applying psychotherapeutic techniques. The gain in
their scores on the Stanford Profile Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility
(Hilgard, Lauer, and Morgan, 1963) was statistically significant,
but rather disappointing and trivial in terms of practical impli-
cations. Blum (1963) worked intensely with two Se, one who initially
was almost insusceptible and another who was moderately susceptible,
and reported success in enhancing their susceptibility only after a
long and laborious period of training. COOper, Banford, Schubot,
and Tart (1967), in an attempt to replicate the As, Hilgard, and
Weitzenhoffer (1963) study, obtained similarly disappointing results
after working with six subjects for 7-15 training sessions each.
These and other studies have led several investigators (Hilgard,
1965; London, 1967; Sachs, 1971) to view hypnotic susceptibility as
a stable personality characteristic as hard to modify in short periods
of time as a score on an intelligence test.

Other attempts to modify hypnotic susceptibility have claimed
more success. Sachs & Anderson (1967) provided their subjects with
a very intensive training in responding to those specific scale items
of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS) - Form A
(Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) and Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard,
1962) which they had failed to pass during pretest. The gains were

1

quite high and persisted when a new E readministered the SHSS Form
A. Sanders & Reyher (1969) produced a substantial and persistant
increase in hypnotic susceptibility after exposing subjects to a long
period of sensory deprivation. Shor and Cobbs (1968), after
establishing an initial hypnotic susceptibility score by using the
SHSS Form C, tried to Optimize motivational and situational factors
and then used an intensive training period which included sensory
deprivation, drug placebo, psychotherapeutic explorations and other
more specific hypnotic training methods. They again, reported a
considerable increase in hypnotic susceptibility. Tart (1970) exposed
his subjects, who varied in their initial susceptibility scores, to
a prolonged program at the Esalen Institute designed to "enhance
personal growth." The result was a moderate, but meaningful and
statistically significant, increase in their SHSS - Form C scores.
A substantial increase in hypnotic susceptibility as a result of an
encounter group experience which consisted of eight 2-hour weekly
sessions and one 10-hour marathon session in an lldweek period was
reported by Shapiro & Diamond (1972). Modeling was also applied
successfully by several investigators who gave their subjects the
opportunity to watch a confederate execute the hypnotic instructions
before attempting to increase their scores on the susceptibility
scales (Klinger, 1970; Diamond, 1972).

All these methods required a substantial amount of time and
effort and are therefore of little practical use to practitioners
in the medical and psychological fields. The effectiveness of

hypnotically induced anesthesia is well documented (Kroger, 1963),

and a reliable and more efficient procedure for enhancing suscep-
tibility is needed if the advantages of hypnosis are to be used more
widely in such domains as Psychology, General Medicine, Anesthesio-
logy, Psychiatry and Dentistry.

A simple procedure that seems to fulfill these requirements
was developed by Gur (1972). The subject is told that he will receive
a strong electric shock to the back of his hand if he does not press
a button placed on the arm of the chair each time the Operator says
the word "relax" while reading the hypnotic induction scale instruc-
tions. Ten experimental and ten control gs, who scored 4 or less
(R experimental = 3.40; R control - 3.50) - which is within the
"insusceptible" range - in a group administration of the Harvard
Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS) (Shor & Orne, 1962)
participated in an experiment using this method. The mean score of
the experimental group on the SHSS Form C increased markedly
(i'- 7.20), whereas the mean of the control group did not show a
significant increase (R’= 3.70).

The logic underlying this procedure is that the threat of
strong electric shock - which is even more anxiety producing than
actual shock (Fenz & Dronsejko, 1969; Furedy, 1972) - creates sufficient
motivation in the subject to pay very close attention to the operator.
In addition, he must adoptan attitude of vigilant waiting for cues
from E, and these cues become more important (under the threat of
shock) than either environmental or internal cues such as sounds
from the room, critical thoughts about the operator, feelings of

discomfort, etc. The S thus places himself in a passive role of

waiting for cues to respond to, and, therefore, is less likely to
engage in Spontaneous, distracting behaviors. Any distraction in-
creases the probability of shock. In this way the experimenter is
able to direct the subject's attention 32g_behavior, which Reyher
(1963) views as the two necessary and sufficient conditions that
provide an operational definition of hypnosis. The passive orient-
ation of S represents a transfer of the locus of adaptive behavior
to the experimenter, or in psychodynamic terms, §_regresses and
transfers executive ego functions to the experimenter. This theoretical
model of hypnotic induction is called State R Theory to distinguish
it from other state theories (Reyher and Wilson, in press).

Whether a person is hypnotized by this procedure depends on the
resolution of a double bind in which he is placed; that is, pressure
to adopt a passive role which he resists wherein §_directs his
attention and behavior (i.e. enter hypnosis) or the prospect of
getting electric shocks. (For more detailed expositions of this
theory along with experimental investigations in its support see
Reyher, 1963; 1970; Reyher and Wilson, in press; Burns & Reyher,

in press; Sommerschield & Reyher, in press).

Three different formulations were considered as possible
alternative explanations of the success of our procedure.

In terms of learning theory, our procedure could be described
as avoidance learning to an aversive stimulus. Future research
could prove this formulation to be more parsimonious than that
offered by the authors. As things seem to stand now, however,

its explanatory power appears quite problematic, since all S had

to do in order to avoid the shock was to press the button. Whether
or not he responded to the suggestions was of no consequence in terms
of reinforcement contingencies.

The "Information Model of Hypnotic Induction" (London, 1967)
defines induction as "the entire body of events used for the communi-
cation of information from a hypnotist to his subject." The first
objective of a hypnotist is to increase the signal: noise ratio in
his communication. Signals, in this model, are defined as "all those
transmissions that elicit the responses the hypnotist desires from
the subject, that is, suggestions." This model would attempt to
explain the success of our procedure by claiming that the threat of
shock forced the experimental gs in the pilot study to attend to the
information transmitted by E, thus providing the sufficient conditions
for hypnotic induction to occur. This explanation seems insufficient,
however, since the §s in that study were not forced to listen to the
communication in its entirety, but only to the word "relax."
Furthermore, the task of pressing the button can be viewed as an
additional distraction. Lack of sufficient specificity in the defini-
tions of "signal" and "noise" offered by this model prevents a more
rigorous testing of its applicability as a viable alternative explan-
ation of the results of the pilot study.

The success of the new technique could also be explained in
view of a reported increase in the effectiveness of a persuasive
communication (or, if one wishes, suggestibility) when S is distracted
from the content of that communication (Allyn & Festinger, 1961;

Festinger & Maccoby, 1964). The distraction caused by the task of

attending to the word "relax" and pressing the button whenever
this word is mentioned could bring about, according to the "distraction

hypothesis,’ an increase in suggestibility of the experimental
subjects. This alternative explanation seems to deserve further
experimental testing.

The purpose of the present investigation is, therefore, to
produce data that would converge either on the "distraction hypothesis"
or on the author's theoretical formulation.

Beside a control group (Group 1) that was exposed to a standard
hypnotic induction, three additional groups were included in the
present investigation in order to attain this goal. One group
(Group 2) went through a procedure that replicated the experimental
group in the Our (1972) study. Another group (Group 3) was instructed
to perform a task similar to the one performed by the Allyn &
Festinger's (1961) experimental group. §s were asked to form impressions
of the hypnotist and to rate his performance. The last group of
subjects (Group 4) was given a task similar to that performed by
Se in Group 2, but that required §_to mobilize spontaneous adaptive
behaviors. This group was included primarily in order to determine
the relative importance of abrogating such behaviors in order for
hypnosis to take place.

The author's explanation shall receive support in this investi-
gation if Group 2 has the highest mean susceptibility increase. The
"distraction hypothesis" (Allyn & Festinger, 1961; Festinger &
Maccoby, 1964) shall receive support if Group 3 has the highest

mean susceptibility increase, since this group of Ss was given a

distracting task whereas Group 2 was not.

It could be argued that since the experimenter who tested both
groups in the pilot study was familiar with the experimental
hypotheses, the "demand characteristics" associated with experimenter's
bias could affect the experimental results. An attempt was made
in the present study to control for this variable by using naive

Es who did not know the hypotheses under investigation.

Method

Subjects

Forty-eight volunteer Michigan State University male undergrad-
uate students who scored 4 or less in a previous group administration
of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS), Shor
& Orne, 1962) served as §s for this experiment. They were divided
randomly into four groups with 12 §s in each. The groups were:

1. Control; 2. Replication; 3. Distraction; 4. "Relax X You" task.

Procedure

Ss were tested individually in a sound-proof room by a naive
§_(a college junior). After being seated in an easy chair gs in each
group were treated differently:

Group 1 (Control): §_operated the tape-recorder and left the
room. The tape recorder played a voice reading the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale - Form B (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959).

Group 2 (Replication): '§_attached the electrodes to the back of
§fs right hand and instructed him as follows:

I am going to turn on the tape-recorder and leave the room.

Listen to the instructions carefully, and when you hear the

word "relax" press the button which is placed on the arm of

your chair. If you fail to do so, you may get a strong electric

shock through the electrodes on the back of your hand.

§_then turned on the tape-recorder and left the room.

Group 3 (Distraction): The following instructions were read

by §_after S was seated (these instructions are similar to those

used by Allyn & Festinger, 1961, modified to suit the present

conditions):

We want to find out how subjects in a hypnosis experiment form
impressions of a hypnotist. We particularly want to see how
students will "size up" the personality of a hypnotist by
listening to his recorded voice. I am going to turn on the
tape-recorder and leave the room. Soon after I leave you will
hear the hypnotic induction read to you by the hypnotist. It
is important that you pay close attention to him and to what
he says, as you will be asked to give your impressions of his
personality after the tape is over.

§_then turned on the tape-recorder and left the room.
Group 4 ("Relax X You" task): §_attached the electrodes to the
back of §fs right hand and instructed him as follows:
I am going to turn on the tape-recorder and leave the room.
Listen to the instructions carefully. Whenever you hear the
word "relax" start counting the number of times that the
word "you" is mentioned until the next presentation of the word
"relax." Multiply that number immediately in your head by 3.
If the result is between 10 and 20 press the button in front
of you twice. Otherwise (i.e. if smaller than 10 or if greater
than 20) press it once. Continue to do that until everything
is over. If you fail to follow these instructions at any time
during the experiment you may get a strong electric shock
through the electrodes on the back of your hand.
§_was given a copy of the instructions and ample time to read
them at his leisure. Questions were answered by paraphrasing
appropriate segments of the instructions. If §_understood the
instructions, §_turned on the tape-recorder and left the room.
In all cases §_returned after the end of the tape and handed

§_a Response Booklet on.which §_subsequently rated his hypnotic

responses, following the procedure suggested by Shor & Orne (1962).

10
RESULTS

The means and standard deviations of the experimental groups
are presented in Table l.

The four groups did not differ in their initial scores (F = 1.04,
df = 3/44, pI>.05). This was expected since their assignment to the
four experimental groups was done randomly.

The two alternative models were tested by comparing the mean
differences of the three experimental groups. Our & Reyher's model
received partial support from the data. The mean increase in sus-
ceptibility of Group 2 was significantly higher than that of Group 4
(t = 2.57, df = 11, p<f.025) but not significantly higher than that
of Group 3 (t = l, N.S.). The "Distraction Model" also received
partial support from the data. The mean susceptibility increase of
Group 3 was significantly higher than that of Group 4 (t = 2.26,
df - ll, p‘<.025), but somewhat lower than that of Group 2. Group 4
did worse in the experiment than in the pretest, though not signi-
ficantly so. To evaluate the possibility that the low scores of Se
in Group 4 were due to the fact that the instructions did not register
because their task was too difficult and distracting, the differences
among the groups in number of items remembered during the test for
post-hypnotic amnesia were compared and were found to be insigni-
ficant (F I 1.14).

As evidenced by their responses in the response-booklet, the
§s in this group did not fail in following the instructions, but in
letting the hypnotic suggestions take effect: in failing Arm

Immobilization they had to lift their arm as per instructions in

ll

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Mean Initial Susceptibility of the Four groups (Based on
the(HGSHS), their Means in the Experiment Proper, the Mean
Differences between these Conditions (standard deviations
are given in parentheses), and t Values for these Differences.

Group Session Initial Experiment Mean

Scores Scores Difference t p
1. Control 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.27 N.S.
(1.22) (1.96) (2.61)

2. Replication 2.25 3.83 1.58 2.51 .05
(1.30) (2.15) (2.10)

3. Distraction 3.08 4.41 1.33 2.08 .05
(1.20) (2.11) (2.14)

4. "Relax - You" 2.75 2.25 -.50 1.00 N.S.
Task (1.17) (1.54) (1.66)

 

12

spite of suggestions that it would be too heavy; in failing Finger
Lock they had to separate their hands as per instructions after
interlocking their fingers, etc.

None of the susceptibility increases in the experimental
groups was significantly higher than that of the control group

(Group 1).

13

DISCUSSION

The results failed to support any of the predictions made by
the theories under investigation. Although the means showed a
general trend in accordance with the predictions derived from the
Gut (1972) model, the lack of significance would make any theoretical
speculations at this point unwarranted.

The most puzzling finding is the failure of Group 2 to replicate
the results obtained by the experimental group in the pilot study.

A search for an explanation of this outcome should center around
identifying the differences between the conditions to which Ss in
the two studies were exposed.

One of the major differences between these experiments is that
the experimenter in the present study left the room after turning
on the tape-recorder. This change was introduced in order to control
for experimenter's bias by minimizing cues that could be given to
§_by the experimenter. This precaution, together with the use of
experimenters who were totally unfamiliar with the experimental
hypotheses, was considered to be a veritably complete safeguard
against experimenter bias.

That the presence of absence of an experimenter in the room
with the subject should make such a difference seems to make
theoretical sense in view of the reports by Janis (1958) and others
(e.g. Grinker & Spiegel, 1945a; 1945b; MacCurdy, 1943; Menninger,
1948) regarding the behavior of people under stress. In such

situations peOple seem to look desperately for authoritative

14

figures and are relieved by the opportunity to follow instructions
and orders issued by such authorities. The prospect of getting an
electric shock is a stressful situation which may increase the need
to have an authority figure around to give reassurance and to reduce
anxiety. According to State R Theory the physical absence of such
a figure may interfere with the subject's readiness to abrogate
spontaneous adaptive behaviors and may thus prevent him from entering
hypnosis.

In light of this possibility a secondary exploratory investi-
gation.was conducted in order to find out whether the absence of
the experimenter was the main factor contributing to the failure

of the present investigation to replicate the pilot study.

EXPERIMENT II

Method

Subjects

Fourteen volunteer Michigan State University Male undergraduate
students who scored 4 or less in a previous group administration of
the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS), (Shor &

Orne, 1962) served as Se in this experiment.

Procedure
Sp were tested individually an a sound-proof room by an §_who
was blind as to the experimental hypotheses as well as to their pre-
test scores. The instructions were read by El who remained in the
room. After seating §.in an easy chair, El attached the electrodes
to the back of §fs right hand and instructed him as follows:
I am going to read to you now the standard
hypnotic instructions. Listen to the inst-
ructions carefully, and whenever you hear
the word "relax" press the button.which is
placed on the arm of your chair. If you fail
to do so, you may get a strong electric
shock through the electrodes on the back of
your hand.
‘El then proceeded to read the instructions and recorded S's
hypnotic responses. E? was seated in an adjacent room and activated
the electrical stimulator when the word "relax" was mentioned in

the instructions. He could hear E3'3 voice reading the instructions

through an inter-communication system.

15

RESULTS

The §fs mean susceptibility scores increased from 2.75 (S.D. -
1.37) in the pretest to 7.07 (S.D. - 2.13,) a large and statis-
tically significant increase (t - 7.26, df 13, p <2001), comparable
to that Obtained in the pilot study (Our, 1972).

Equally important, however, were informal Observations made
by _E_ who could, under these circumstances, watch S during the
experiment. The most salient feature seems to have been §fs
extreme anxiety at the prospect of receiving electric shocks. Some
§s trembled and sweated and all seemed tense and afraid. Some‘gs
who initially were very anxious and tense, failed to avoid the shocks
and did not respond to the hypnotic suggestions. Most of these s9
relaxed after a shile, however, and started to avoid the shocks
more efficiently and to respond to the suggestions at the same
time. A.non~significant correlation of -.20 was found between the
total number of shocks received by §s and their susceptibility
scores, however. The timing of the failures to avoid shocks was
not recorded, which prevented an objective evaluation of the

validity of these Observations.

l6

DISCUSSION

The general conclusion that can be drawn from the results of
these experiments seems to be that, under the conditions of stress
created by the threat of shock, the §_must be physically present
if the new procedure is to succeed in raising hypnotic susceptibility.
Observations of the S during the experiment suggest an important
role played by the anxiety that the subjects experience at the threat
of an electrical shock. A subject experiencing emotional stress under
the threat of shock seems to need an authoritative figure to be
with him in the room, possibly in order to get some reassurance that
he is not abandoned and that someone will be around to help him
if the situation gets out of hand. If such a person is present,
§_will tend to increase his readiness to abrogate spontaneous
adaptive behaviors and follow the instructions and orders issued
by that person, much in the same way that anxious preoperative
patients tend to respond to the hospital staff:

These patients make strong efforts to be in frequent contact

with members of the hospital staff and to Obtain their

attention. They also make a strong effort to comply with the
demands made upon them in connection with routine convalescent

procedures. (Janis, 1958, p. 407).

Reyher (1970; Reyher 8 Wilson, in press) has formulated a
theoretical account of the effects of such stressful situations on
basic personality dynamics of the patient and on the patient-
physician interpersonal relationships:

With the onset of symptoms, the patient becomes anxious

because of their unknown origin and significance. He is
caught in the double bind of hOping for reassurance from

17

18

the physician that nothing serious is wrong, but at the same
time he is afraid that the physician will indeed discover

a serious disease. This combination of highly charged
emotional processes puts the physician in the role of a
savior and/or a punitive god-like personification who holds

a death warrant for him. The most important aspect of the
patient's condition is that he possesses neither the knowledge
to understand his symptoms nor the skill to treat his disorder.
He lacks the requisite means (ego functions) to maintain
reality contact vis-arvis his symptoms. Since the physician
possesses the requisite knowledge and skills, the patient
places himself in his hands, which reduces his anxiety, unless
his personality structure opposes this, viz, becoming
dependent and placing one's trust in another individual

is more anxiety-producing than the threat posed by his
symptoms. For the patient whose personality structure does
not oppose the pressure toward entering a dependent relation-
ship with the physician, there is a reactivation of his early
childhood relationship with the all powerful, protective
parent. He literally hands over to the physician decision-
making and executive functions (ego functions) in the absence
of his own ability to cope with the situation; he adopts

the physician's prescriptions and proscriptions to reduce
anxiety and maintain reality contact. This regression and
incorporation of the physician Opens up contact with the
psycho-physiological control mechanisms which are not as
accessible under normal conditions and suggestibility is
enhanced (Reyher, 1970, pp. 7-8).

The hypothesis that this anxiety motivates §_to adopt a
submissive attitude toward an authority figure and thus helps him
enter hypnosis seems to be consistent with Janis' (1958) report,
'with Reyher's (1970) theoretical formulations, and with the results
of this investigation. In the present investigation this attitude
may have resulted in the drastic increase in hypnotic susceptibility,
provided that a person - not a tape recorder - was present to
give the instructions.

The present study leaves many questions that can only be answered
by future research. Since the data produced by the first experiment
did not converge decisively on any of the competing models, a

replication of this experiment with E inside the room is certainly

19

indicated. However, the possibility of the experimenter biases
being transmitted to the subjects should be controlled by using
\experimenters who are not familiar with the hypotheses being
tested.

The question of the relation between the success in avoiding
shocks and an increase in susceptibility has not been answered
by the present investigation. The total number of shocks received
by a“ §_can be a misleading index, since some gs received many
shocks initially and then responded more efficiently and avoided
subsequent shocks. The informal observations made by §_in the second
experiment seemed to indicate that this was followed by an increase
in hypnotic responsiveness. The timing of the shocks, therefore,
seems to be an important measure to take.

Another question for future research pertains to the role of
the anxiety and stress produced by the experimental manipulation.
Obtaining some physiological and other behavioral measures of the
possible fluctuation of this anxiety may help gain more insight
into the mechanisms involved in the procedure.

A variable.which may prove to be neglibible but which certainly
deserves more careful scrutiny is the possible role of the specific
word that was chosen as the cue for the electrical shock. The word
”relax" was chosen simply because it was more or less equally
distributed in the nxrious parts of the standard procedure for
measuring hypnotic susceptibility. It appears frequently enough
to maintain §fs alterness to its appearance, and not too frequently
to make his task of responding to it by pressing the button impossible,

too laborious and tiring. The possibility does eixst however,

20

that the word "relax" has some special connotations which are
related to the results. This could only be ascertained either by
finding another word in the standard instructions that meets the
same specifications or by inserting such a word.

Another theoretically interesting implication of this study pertains
to the recent findings that revealed interesting personality differences
between susceptible and insusceptible subjects. Such differences
were found in various personality characteristics (Bowers, 1971;

Bowers & van der Meulen, 1970; Perry, Wilder, & Appignanesi, 1973;
Rader, 1972; Gravitz, 1969; Rhoades 8 Edmonston, 1969; Van Nuys,

1972) cognitive functionings (Palmer 8 Field, 1971; Mitchell,

1970; Sutcliffe, Perry, & Sheehan, 1970), and even on the physio-
logical level (London, Hart, & Leibovitz, 1968; Galbraith, London,

& Leibovitz, 1970; Akpinar, Ulett, & Itil, 1971; Bakan, 1969; 1970).
Does the current procedure change any of these variables in the person-
ality makeup of the insusceptible subject?

Further research is needed to answer this question. It is
possible, though, that insusceptible subjects who increased their
susceptibility scores with our procedure will remain relatively
unaffected in other facets of their personality structure. They
would still differ from highly susceptible §s in that they needed
this additional procedure in order to respond to the hypnotic
suggestions. Our study may imply that, rather than dividing §s
into "susceptible” and "insusceptible” groups, one should divide
them.into those who respond readily to hypnotic suggestions under

regular standard instructions, and those who need additional

21

procedures, such as ours, in order to respond. It would still be
meaningful to search for personality differences between these
populations of subjects.

How durable is the increase in susceptibility Obtained iith
our procedure? The answer to this question too must await future
research. Based on the results obtained by Sanders & Reyher (1969),
however, we should expect the increases in susceptibility to be
maintained with future administrations of conventional methods of
hypnotic induction. Sanders & Reyher increased the hypnotic
susceptibility of their §s by using sensory deprivation, then,
after a lapse of time, tested them again, under standard conditions,
and found that the increases in susceptibility were maintained.

A possible criticism of the present investigation could point
at possible differences between the Se in the first experiment and
those of the second experiment. The possibility that such differences
existed and contributed significantly to the results is very unlikely,
however, since Se in both experiments came from the same pool of
E? (freshmen taking an introductory course in psychology), their
pretest was the same (the HGSHS), and they were recruited according
to the same criteria (a score of 4 or less on the HGSHS) at about the
same time within the term (toward the middle).

A more serious criticism could argue that the experimental
effects resulted from differences in scoring procedures. The results
of the first experiment as well as those of the pretests were based
on the subject's self-scorings, whereas in the second phase of the

second experiment the subject's hypnotic behavior was scored by g.

22

The comparability between self-scoring and Observer-scoring has
been studied, however, both in groups and in individual administra—
tions (Bentler & Hilgard, 1963) and the general finding is that self-
scorings tend to average a fraction of a point highg£_than
observer-scorings (Shor & Orne, 1963). If anything, then, using
Observer-scorings in the second experiment might have had a slight
adverse effect in a direction Opposite to that found in this in!
vestigation, rather than contribute to the experimental effects.
Although it could be argued that insusceptible §s may behave
differently from other Se in this respect, no research evidence
exists to support this claim and, even if such differences do
exist, they should be quite negligible, since they were not noticed
by these investigators. At any rate, they cannot be expected to
account for the substantial increases in susceptibility found in this
investigation.

So far, the new procedure proved to be reliable in producing
a considerable increase in susceptibility scores of insusceptible
subjects. Whether or not it will have a similar effect on moderately
susceptible §s remains to be seen. The possibility even exists
that this procedure would lower hypnotic susceptibility scores of
moderately or highly susceptible subjects. Since the success rate
of this procedure for the general unselected population cannot
be estimated, standardization data are needed before it can be put

to practical use.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Akpinar, S., Ulett, G. A., & Itil, T. M. Hypnotizability predicted by

digital computer-analyzed EEG pattern.‘ Biological Psychiatry,
1971, 3, 387-392.

 

Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive
communications. Journal‘of_Abnormal and Social ngcholggy, 1961,
93, 35-40 0

As, A., Hilgard, E. R., & Weitzenhoffer, A. An attempt at experimental
modification of hypnotizability through repeated, individualized
hypnotic experience. Scandinaviaanournal of Psychology, 1963,

4, 81-89.

Bakan, P. Hypnotizability, laterality of eye-movements and functional
brain asymmetry. Perceptual and MOtor Skills, 1969,_2§, 927-932.

Bakan, P. Handedness and hypnotizability. International Journal of
Clinicaljand Experimental Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 99-104.

 

Bentler, P. M., & Hilgard, E. R. A.comparison of group and individual
induction of hypnosis with self-scoring and observer-scoring.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963,
11’ 49-540

Blum, C. Programming people to simulate machines. In S. Tomkins &

S. Messick (Eds.) ‘Computer Simulation of Personality. New York:
Wiley, 1963.

Bowers, K. S. Sex and susceptibility as moderator variables in the
relationship of creativity and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 1971,'Z§, 93-100.

Bowers, K. S., & Van der Meulen, S. J. Effect of hypnotic susceptibility
on creative test performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Burns, B., & Reyher, J. The activation of posthypnotic conflict via
free imagery: A study of repression and psychopathology. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, in press.

Cooper, L., Benford, 8., Shubot, E., & Tart, C. A further attempt to
modify hypnotic susceptibility through repeated, individualized
experience. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 1967,.15,;118-124.

Diamond, M. J. The use of Observationally presented information to
modify hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psycholpgy,
1972.

Fenz,_W. D., & Dronsejko, K. Effects of real and imagined threat
of shock on GSR and heartrate as a function of trait anxiety.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 3, 187-
198.

Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. 0n resistance to persuasive communications.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholpgy, 1964, 68, 359-366.

 

FUIEdY. J. J. Electrodermal recovery time as a supra sensitive
autonomic index of anticipated intensity of threatened shock.
Psyghophysiology, 1972, 2, 281-282.

Galbraith, G. 0., London, P., Leibovitz, M. P., COOper, L. M., &
Hart, J. T. EEG and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970, 72, 125-131.

Gravitz, M. A. Hypnotic-like experiences in the large general
population related to personality inventory responses. The
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1969, 11! 171-174.

 

Grinker, R., & Spiegel, J. Men Under Stress. Philadelphia:
Blakiston, 1945a.

 

Grinker, R., & Spiegel, J. War Neuroses. Philadelphia: Blakiston,
1945b.

Gur, R. A.simple procedure for enhancing hypnotic susceptibility.
Manuscript Submitted for Publication, Michigan State University,
1972.

Hilgard, E. R., Lauer, L., & Morgan, A. Manual for Stanford Profile

Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, California:
ConSulting Psychologists Press, 1963.

Hilgard, E. R. (Hypnotic Suscgptibility. NEW'YOIk: Harcourt, Brace
& World, 1965.

Janis, I. L. Psychological Stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1958.

Klinger, B. I. Effect of peer model responsiveness and length of
induction procedure on hypnotic responsiveness. Journal of
Abnormpl Psychology, 1970, 1;, 15-18.

 

Kroger, W. S. Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Philadelphia:
.J. B. Lippincott Co., 1963.

London, P. The induction of hypnosis. In J. E. Gordon (Ed.)
Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. New'York:
Macmillan, 1967.

London, P., Hart, J. T., & Leibovitz, M. P. EEG rhythms and
susceptibility to hypnosis. Nature, 1968, 219, 71-72.

MacCurdy, J. The Structure or MOrale. New York: Macmillan, 1943.

Menninger, W. Psychiatry in a Troubled World. New York: Macmillan,
1948.

Mitchell, M. B. Hypnotizability and distractability. The
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970,_13, 35-45.

Palmer, R. D., & Field, P. B. Cognitive factors in hypnotic
susceptibility. Journal of Consultingfiand Clinical
Psychology, 1971, 32, 165.

Perry, C., Wilder, S., & Appignanesi, A. Hypnotic susceptibility
and performance on a battery of creativity measures. The
American Journal of. Clinical Hypnosis, B73, 15, 170-180.

Rader, C. M. The relation of need achivement to hypnotic
susceptibility. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
1972, 15, 38-40.

Reyher,.J. Brain mechanisms, intrapsychic processes and behavior:
A theory of hypnosis and psychopathology. The American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 2, 107-119.

Reyher, J. The experience of pain: Drugs, hypnosis and the
motivational-interpersonal matrix. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D. C., 1970.

Reyher, J., & Wilson, J. G. The induction of hypnosis:
Indirect vs. direct methods and the role of expectancy.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, in press.

Rhoades, C. D., & Edmonston, W. E. Personality correlates of
Hypnotizability: A study using the Harvard Group Scale
of Hypnotic Susceptibility, the 16 P-F and the IPAT. jzhg
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1969, 11, 228-233.

Sachs, L. B. Construing hypnosis as modifiable behavior. In
A. Jacobs (Ed.) Psychology of Private Events. New York:
Academic Press, 1971.

 

Sachs, L. B., & Anderson, W. L. Modification of hypnotic
susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 1967, 15, 172-180.

 

Sanders, R., & Reyher, J. Sensory deprivation and the
enhancement of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 74, 375-379.

 

Shapiro, J. L., & Diamond, M. J. Increases in hypnotizability
as a function of encounter group training: Some confirming
evidence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972:.19’ 112-115.

Shor, R., & Cobb, J. An exploratory study of hypnotic training
using the concept of plateua responsiveness as a reference.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1968, 19, 178-193.

Shor, R., & Orne, E. C. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic

Susceptibility. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists
Press,‘1962.

 

 

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. Norms on the Harvard Group Scales
of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 39-48.

 

Sommerschield, H., & Reyher, J. Posthypnotic conflict, repression
and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
in press.

Sutcliffe, J. P., Perry, C. W., & Sheehan, P. W. Relation of

some aspects of imagery and fantasy to hypnotic susceptibility.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 279-287.

Tart, C. T. Increases in hypnotizability resulting from a

prolonged program for enhancing personal growth. Journal
Of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 75, 260-266.

Van Nuys, D. Drug use and hypnotic susceptibility. The
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
1971, 29, 31-37.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scales,_Forms A and B. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.

 

 

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

 

APPENDIX

Theories, Measurement and Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to acquaint the reader with some
of the most prevalent theories of hypnosis and hypnotic suscepti-
bility, with some of the instruments devised to measure it, and
with the extensive research done in search for correlates of the
ability or lack of ability to be hypnotized. This review, it is
hoped, will bring the results of the present investigation into a

clearer perspective.

A. Theories of Hypnosis.

Most theorists who addressed themselves to the question of
"What, if anything, is hypnosis?" were committed to one broader
conceptual framework or another. The theories they developed
therefore, were more or less direct offsprings of these general
frames of reference and could be classified accordingly. Thus,
some theories could be classified as belonging to the more general
"S-R theory," some could be classified as "psychoanalytic,” and
others as "social learning," "information processing,” etc. Many
authors (e.g. Hilgard, 1965; Sarbin & Andersen, 1967; Sutcliffe,
1960) have suggested a classification of theories of hypnosis
into "skeptical" and "credulous." Although this classification
certainly has some merit in clarifying some of the theoretical
issues involved in helping to differentiate "the good guys" from
"the bad guys” (depending upon whether the reader prefers the darker

or the brighter side of the moon), it tends sometimes to lead to

23

24

misrepresentations and confusion, particularly when applied to

the differential analysis of overt hypnotic behaviors. Thus,
Sarbin (1950; Sarbin & Andersen, 1967) places himself on the
"skeptical" end of this dimension since he claims to be able to
account for hypnotic behavior by using social psychological terms,
and therefore "does not regard hypnosis as a special state, or
hypnotic behavior as unique and isolated from other forms of social
psychological behavior" (Sarbin & Andersen, 1967, p. 319). He
would probably place Gill & Brennan's (1967; Brenman & Gill, 1947;
1961) theory on the "credulous" end of the dichotomy. Yet this
theory too would claim to explain hypnotic behavior by using a
general theory of behavior ("ego-analytic" in this case) and in
this sense it could also argue for making hypnotic phenomena a
part of the human behavioral repertoire. In the same way Sarbin
(1969) describes psychopathology in social-psychological terms.
Does this make him more "skeptical" of the existence of pathological
behaviors? Hypnotic behavior exists and little could be gained

by using the "skeptical-credulous" dichotomy to differentiate

among theories that try to account for it. The focal issue seems,
rather, to be that of whether or not hypnosis exists as "an altered
state of awareness," and theories do differ in their tendency to
use this term in their account of the phenomena involved. The
variations in this regard seem, however, to parallel variations

in the more general frames of reference in regard to the use of
"awareness" in general as a generic concept. Theories that tend

to avoid using "awareness" or "consciousness" in explaining other

facets of human behavior would also tend to avoid these terms in

25

explaining hypnosis, and vice versa.

Traditionally, theories that attempted to adhere to the
principles of "logical positivism" concentrated more on "observable,"
"operationally definable," "Objective" aspects of human behavior
and less on such constructs as "level of consciousness," whereas
theories that were less concerned with this philosophical orientation
tended to focus more on the "deeper" levels of conduct. The
dimension according to which theories of hypnosis were arranged in
this survey was, therefore, that of "depth," in the hope that this
-dimension would prove to be of more heuristic value than that of
the "skeptical-credulous" dichotomy.

The most extreme representatives of the ”logical positivism"
theories are the behavioristic S-R approaches, which will be dis-
cribed first. The "social learning,” "information processing,"

and "psychoanalytic" theories will follow in that order.

1. S-R Theories of hypnosis:

Edmonston (1967) distinguishes two frameworks within the S-R
approaches to hypnosis: The Pavlovian and the Hullian, and attempts
to integrate the two within one set of theoretical propositions.

His aim is "to show that hypnosis, like the statements made about
it,bears a close enough resemblance to all human behavior that it
can be subsumed under the more formalized and rigorous hypotheses
of am already established S-R theory of behavior” (Edmonston,
1967, p. 346). Mare specifically, Edmonston views hypnosis as

a special case of verbal conditioning. In order to support his

claim he enumerates a set of principles according to which the

26

acquisition of responses to stimuli can be depicted. These are:
l) Facilitation by practice; 2) Practice curve negatively accelerated;
3) Decrement with interpolated activity; 4) Massed-spaced practice
(more decrement with interpolated activity when original practice
was massed than.when it was spaced); 5) Recovery of response;
6) Savings (less practice necessary for recovery as compared with
original learning); and 7) Transfer of training (the same R
elicited by a different 8). He claims to have achieved his goals
by describing a body of research that shows the acquisition of
hypnotic behaviors to follow these principles (an analysis of
the experimental evidence in support of each of the theories is
beyond the scope of this survey).

According to Edmonston, Pavlov (1923) was the first to offer
a comprehensive S-R theory of hypnosis based on his classical-
conditioning principles.

Pavlov saw hypnosis as a special kind of conditioned sleep.
He defined sleep in terms of inhibition and hypnosis as a state
of partial inhibition. The inhibition is only partial in hypnosis
since the continuous suggestions of the hypnotist create cortical
"rapport zones” that combine with their communicative activities.
In thss sense hypnosis is not qualitatively different from sleep,
since such ”rapport zones" exist in natural sleep as well, as
evidenced by the ability to respond to certain cues while asleep
(e.g. a mother responding selectively to her child's crying).

Bull (1933) equated hypnosis to suggestibility and considered

both to be a habit learned through repeated stimulus-response

27

pairings. He was the first to suggest a program similar to that of
Edmonston in order to substantiate this claim, and offered a

line of evidence to show that the acquisition of hypnosis followed
his learning principles. His enumeration of learning principles is
essentially the same as that offered by Edmonston (1967) except that
Hull employed the term "misuse" rather than "interpolated activity"
and failed to mention the seventh principle (transfer of training).

Das (1959) made the first attempt to integrate the Pavlovian
and the Hullian theories. He defined hypnosis both in terms of
habit formation and in terms of inhibition. Mere specifically,
his definition of hypnosis was "an ability to learn to develop
a state of partial cortical inhibition" (Das, 1959, p. 71, cited in
Edmonston, 1967, p. 373).

Edmonston (1967) elaborated on this approach and offered to
investigate induction procedures in order to resolve the question
of the relative importance of habit learning vs. inhibition in
Obtaining hypnotic behavior. Should such investigations find
inhibitory content in the instructions to be essential for hypnotic
behavior to follow; i.e., should the Pavlovian position receive
empirical support, then hypnosis could be seen as "a special
learning case in which the effective reactive potential, git
(Hull, 1951; 1952), is enhanced, rather than reduced by conditioned
inhibition, sIr” (Edmonston, 1967, p. 379). Should the investigation
of induction procedures reveal little or no need for inhibitory
instructions, then, according to Edmonston (1967, p. 380) the

Hullian regular habit formation concept would suffice.

28
2. Social learning theories of hypnosis:

One of the best known proponents of the application of social
psychological theories to the explanation of hypnosis is Sarbin
(1950; Sarbin & Andersen, 1967).

Sarbin & Andersen's (1967) analysis of hypnotic behavior in
role-theoretical terms starts by emphasizing that "role playing"
is different from sham behavior. Sarbin (1943, 1950, 1956, 1964).
has repeatedly stressed the notion that the term "role playing"
should connote commitment and involvement. To further emphasize
this point, Sarbin & Andersen (1967, p. 327) suggest replacing the
term "role playing" by the term "role enactment," which is best
characterized by the adjective "earnest." They propose six social
psychological variables to account for hypnotic performance:

I. The validity of the subject's role expectation. The subject's
role expectation is a set of beliefs he holds, before entering the
hypnosis situation, regarding the role he should assume vis-a-vis
the experimenter. Their validity depends on their congruence with
the experimenter's beliefs.

11. Accuracy of role perception. Role perception "refers to
the perceiving process;yithip’the hypnosis situation itself"
(Sarbin & Andersen, 1967, p. 333. Emphasis in the original).

The hypnotist trys to maximize this variable by providing g with
an abundance of information concerning his prOper role behavior
during induction.

III. Role relevant skills. This variable refers to "skills

that a person brings to the hypnotic situation" (op. cit. p. 344)

29

such as motoric and perceptual skills.

IV. Self-role congruence. The degree to which a role of a
hypnotized subject is congruent with the subject's self character—
istics. The higher the congruence the better the hypnotic
performance.

V. Sensitivity to role demand. This variable refers to the
degree to which the subject is sensitive to the demands of the
situation. Again, other variables being equal, the higher this
sensitivity the more likely is the subject to display hypnotic
behaviors.

VI. Responsiveness to reinforcement provided by the audience.
The autdienc is in most cases, but not always, singular, and
"the size and nature of the audience is a potent factor in determi-
ning performance" (op. cit. p. 340).

These six variables, according to the role theoretical formulation
of hypnosis, account for the variation in hypnotic susceptibility,
as well as in any other role performance behavior.

Recently, Barber & De Moor (1972) have delineated nine variables
in hypnotic induction which should maximize the influence of
Sarbin & Andersen's (1967) variables in producing a optimal level
of hypnotic performance within the role theoretical frame of reference.
Barber 8 De Mbor's (1972) variables are:

I. Defining the situation as hypnosis. The authors cite
Barber & Calverley's (1964, 1965) findings of higher responsiveness
to test suggestions when the situation‘was defined as hypnosis than
when §s were told that they are in a control group. (It should be

noted in this context that research in our laboratory has shown

30

that responsiveness to test suggestions was the same whether the
situation was described as "hypnosis” or as "exercises in
relaxation" [Reyher & Wilson, in press]).

11. Removing fears and misconceptions. Responsiveness to
suggestions is increased, according to this theory, when the
hypnotist provides s; with information aimed at removing fears and
misconceptions about hypnosis.

III. Securing cooperation. This is achieved by various direct
and indirect appeals to the subject to cooperate.

IV. Asking the subject to keep his eyes shut. This variable,
according to Barber & De Moor (1972), will mostly affect performance
on items in suggestibility tests that involve imagining, fantasizing,
dreaming, etc.

V. Suggesting relaxation, sleep, and hypnosis. Again, when
other factors are held constant, Barber 5 De Moor believe that
repeated suggestions of relaxation, sleep and hypnosis would heighten
suggestibility. These suggestions are effective, according to this
theory, because they help to define the situation for g as "truly-
hypnosis," which leads to increased motivation and positive expect-
ations and attitudes, with a concommitant willingness to "think
with the suggestions" (op. cit. p. 117).

VI. Maximizing the phrasing and vocal characteristics of
suggestions. Barber & De Mbor ascribe an important role to the
precise wording of the suggestions and to intonations.

VII. Coupling suggestions with naturally-occuring events.

The hypnotist should make heavy use of events that occur naturally

31

in the hypnotic situation and supplement them with suggestions.
Thus, when the Eye-Fixation technique is used to induce hypnosis,
suggestions for eye-fatigue should be timed to coincide with natural
fatigue.

VIII. Stimulating goal-directed imagining. A.heightened
responsiveness to suggestibility-tests items should occur if "the
subject is asked to imaginm- a situation which, if it actually
transpired, would give rise to the behavior that is suggested"
(op. cit. p. 120).

IX. Preventing or reinterpreting the failure of suggestions.
Failures of §_to carry out a suggestion should, preferably, be
prevented. If this is impossible, each failure should be inter-
preted at least as partial success. (e.g. In Arm Rigidity tests,
§_should be challenged to try to bend his arm only if the rigidity
produced by the suggestions is apparent. If he still succeeds in
bending his armwwhen challenged, E should emphasize how hard it
must have been for S to 35555 to bend his arm).

These nine antecedent variables increase suggestibility,
according to this theory, by converging on two sets of mediating
variables: 1. "Positive attitudes, motivation and expectancies,"
2. "Thinking with and vividly imagining the suggested effects"
(op. cit. p. 114).

These mediating variables are responsible for the "consequent
variables” which include responses to test suggestions on the one
hand, and a trance-like appearance, changes in body feelings, and

reports of having been hypnotized on the other. The trance-like

32

appearance is caused primarily by variable IV (keeping the eyes
closed for a period of time) and, in part, by variable V (Sugges-
tions of relaxation, sleep and hypnosis). These two variables are
also responsible for producing the changes in body feelings,
although some changes in body feelings are direct responses to test
suggestions (e.g. arm levitation or limb heaviness). Reports
of having been hypnotized depend, according to this theory, "upon
(a) the degree of congruence between.what they experienced and what
they think hypnosis involves, (b) whether or not the hypnotist
stated that they were hypnotized, and (c) the wording of the
questions that were submitted to them to elicit their reports"
(0p. cit. p. 132).

Trance like appearance, changes in body-feelings, and reports
of having been hypnotized are not necessary variables, according
to this theory, in order for responses to test suggestions to occur.
The last two tend to be helpful, though, and their effect is ascribed

to increasing expectancies.

3. The "Information Mbdel of Hypnotic Induction."

The "Information Mbdel of Hypnotic Induction” (London, 1967)
analyzes hypnotic phenomena by using ”information processing"
constructs. Thus hypnotic induction is defined by this model
as ”the entire body of events used for the communication of information
from the hypnotist to his subjects." The hypnotic induction is
a process through which the environment as well as the subject
are manipulated in a way that would increase the signal: noise

ratio. "Signal" is defined as consisting of "all those transmissions

33

that elicit the responses the hypnotist desires from the subject,
that is, suggestions.” "Noise" is defined as "all those trans-
missions that serve to distract or otherwise inhibit the
emission of compliant responses" (London, 1967, p. 74).

Reduction of "noise" and increase in the "signal" through
manipulation of the environment is achieved by the control of
external sources of distraction such as lighting, temperature,
sound proofing, etc. The subject is manipulated "by means of verbal
patter, physical contact between hypnotist and subject, and the use of
attentionrgetting machinery" (London, 1967, p. 74). The induction
itself aims at a graudal narrowing of §fs focus in the direction of
the hypnotist's signal. Just how this process results in hypnotic

behavior is not explicated in operational terms within this model.

4. Developmental-Interactive theooy of hypnosis.

Hilgard (1965) used an eclectic approach in an attempt to
integrate various theories and research findings into a broader
conceptual framework. His theory mainly tries to account for
individual differences in susceptibility by stating seven develOp-
mental propositions (D—propositions), six interactive propositions
(I-propositions) and four hypnotic state propositions (S-propositions).

A listing of Hilgard's seventeen propositions is beyond the
scope of this survey, and the interested reader is referred to
Hilgard's (1965, pp. 382-393) original account which concludes his
book on hypnotic susceptibility. The most important aspect of his

theory seems to be its presentation of hypnotic susceptibility

34

as a trait that is determined by:a complicated interaction among
developmental factors, factors pertaining to the interaction between
hypnotist and subject, and those relating to the hypnotic state
itself. Hilgard himself does not see his list as exhaustive, nor
does he see all propositions as being equally important. He does
claim, with considerable justification, that this list of proposition
provides us with a network of lawful relationships that, with further
experimentation, has the potential of tightening-up "into a body of

theory that will make hypnosis understandable" (op. cit. p. 397).

5. Psychoanalytically oriented theories of hypnosis.

Kubie & Margolin (1944) describes the process of hypnotic
induction as a production of "partial sleep" in which all communi-
cations of the subject with the outside world are cut-off, except
for the continuous responding to the hypnotist's voice. This is
achieved through immObilization of the subject and the monotony of
the hypnotist's voice. A subsequent blurring of ego boundaries
occurs and a fragmentary image of the hypnotist becomes incorporated
into the expanded boundaries of the subject's ego. The hypnotist's
words become confused with the subject's thoughts, and this results
in the apparent increase in suggestibility.

This final phase in the hypnotic process parallels, according
to Kubie & Margolin, "that phase in the development of the infant's
ego ti which its boundaries gradually expand with the retention of
parental images as unconscious incorporated components of the

developing ego of the infant" (Kubie & Margolin, 1944, p. 620).

35

Hypnosis is thus described by this theory as an experimental
reproduction of a natural developmental process. In this sense
hypnosis is seen as a regressive state that approaches the sensori-
motor state of the infant.

A more detailed analysis of the regressive nature of hypnosis
is provided by Gill 5 Brenman (1959, 1967). They start their
explication of an ego analytic theory of hypnosis by analyzing the
concept of "autonomy" of the ego from the id and from the environment.
The status of the ego as a simple mediator between impulses and
environment and a slave of both is rejected by these authors. The
ego has energies at its disposal and in this sense it enjoys a
relative autonomy from id and environment by being able to pit forces
against them. Autonomy does not mean that the ego is free from
paying any attention to environmental and instinctual stimuli.
This would be a situation of reality obliviousness rather than
autonomy, and can even be construed as a decrement in relative
autonomy through the usage of denial as a defense: "we mean increased
autonomy in an ego which both has access to input and is not oblivious
to this input" (Gill & Brenman, 1967, p. 287).

Regression is defined by these authors as "loss of autonomy."
They distinguish between ”regression prOper" and "regression in
the service of the ego." Instances of "regression proper" are
divided into those in which the loss of autonomy is followed by
domination by the id (such as schizOphrenia) and those in which it
is followed by dmmination by the environment (such as the results of

braindwashing.) Regressions in the service of the ego can similarly

36

be divided into examples of decrease of autonomy from the id

(e.g. dreams, artistic creativity, scientific creativity in which

the investigator is led by a "hunch," and humor) and examples of
decrease of autonomy from the environment (e.g. scientific creativity
in which the investigator is led by the "material"). Hypnosis is

an example of a regression in the service of the ego in which the
decrease in autonomy is from the environment (op. cit. p. 293).

From another point of view, however, the capacity for regression in
the service of the ego can be seen as adaptive, and thus to indicate
an increase in relative autonomy.

This paradox is resolved by maintaining that only a subsystem of
the ego experiences a loss in relative autonomy whereas the increase
of autonomy is by the over-all ego. The hypnotist, by offering the
subject an opportunity to engage in a regressive relationship,
launches an attack on the apparatuses of the ego both from the
outside and from within, through the opportunity to regress offered
to the instinctual drives. Ego then starts a search for an appro-
priate motivational pattern that would allow him to engage in such
relationships. The induction procedure thus creates a temporary
chaos and the usual functioning of the autonomous apparatuses of
the ego is interrupted. The induction period is therefore character-
ized by evidences of a fragmentation of ego synthesis. After an
appropriate motivational pattern is found, however, a subsystem is
set up within the ego. This is a regressed system which is in the
service of the over-all ego, and it is this subsystem alone which is

under the control of the hypnotist: "The over-all ego relinquishes

37

control of the subsystem to the hypnotist only temporarily and
tentatively" (op. cit. p. 298). In this sense, too, regression in
the service of the ego differs from regression proper.

To summarize, hypnosis is seen by this theory as a situation
in which a subsystem of the ego suffers a loss of autonomy with
subsequent domination of that subsystem by a part of the social
environment. It is therefore characterized by a regressed state
and by engagement in regressive interpersonal relationships. Hence,
it is both an altered state and a transference relationship. Hypnotic
susceptibility is seen by Gill & Brenman as a sign of "strength,"

' since "it is evidence of an ego which has

rather than "weakness,'
the capacity to regress in part while the depth and duration of
regression are controlled by the ego as a whole" (op. cit. p. 302).

Finally, Reyher (1963, 1968, 1970) formulated a theory that
integrated psychodynamic concepts with neurophysiological processes
within five propositions that account for the hypnotic effects.

The induction procedure is viewed by this theory as a process
in which sensory input is restricted through various manipulations.
The induction succeeds only if the subject is ready to give up to
the hypnotist his usual role of analyzing and integrating sensory
input and to adopt a passive-dependent attitude vis-a-vis the hypno-
tist. If an adoption of such an attitude is anxiety producing for
S, defenses are activated and hypnosis fails to occur. If, however,
the subject is not made anxious by adopting this passive-dependent

attitude, the highest level of brain functioning, which supports

adaptive behavior, cannot be maintained. The phylogenetically

38

older structures of the brain gain control of over-all brain
functioning, and are able to mediate behavior that is difficult
or impossible to produce in the waking state. These older
structures are known to have connections with many parts of the
brain and to have inhibitory and excitatory influences over
these areas.

Apart from providing a sound conceptual framework for analyzing
and describing the hypnotic situation, this theory is the only one
to account for the well documented increase in control over ANS

functionings obtained with hypnosis.

Summary:

Nine theories, stemming from five different conceptual frame-
works, were surveyed in this chapter. A diversity of approaches
to the explanation of hypnosis is certainly adaptive at our present
state of knowledge. The differences among these theories seem,
however, to be more apparent than real. Mbst of these theories
are not mutually exclusive. They simply tend to stress one aspect
of hypnosis or another. Rather than seeing them as diametrically
opposed, a more fertile approach at this stage would, therefore,
try to examine their relative contributions to the understanding
of hypnosis in an attempt to arrive at more integrative formulations
that would provide a basis for a new paradigm of investigation.
Such an integration would probably occur when the heat of the

discussions will subside somewhat and the accumulation of new

39

experimental data would put the various theories in a better
perspective.

Even at present, however, such an integration seems quite
feasible, if we assume that each theory has some truth value although
none of them portrays the whole picture. Thus, learning certainly
occurs in hypnosis, as evidenced, among other things, by the well
documented decrease with practice in the time required for §_to
enter hypnosis. 0n the other hand, we also have the well documented
finding that hypnotic susceptibility per se is extremely resistant
to change (e.g. Hilgard, 1965; London, 1967). A large body of evidence
suggests that role-enactment does play some role in hypnotic behavior.
But could it cccount for the whole gamut of objective and subjective
experiences involved in hypnosis? How much of the variance in
hypnotic behavior could be explained by the attempt of §_to conform
to the demands of the experimental situation to enact a role of
a hypnotized subjects? Sarbin & Andersen (1967) rely heavily on
the finding by Sarbin & Lim ( 1963) that hypnotic susceptibility
correlated positively with ratings of role-taling ability. The
correlations, however, are not very high (.39 in one sample and
.52 in another) and could only account for 16-25 percent of the
variance. Furthermore, they were found to be much lower (.13)
for children (Madsen & London, 1965). A statement by White (1941)
still seems appropriate in this regard:

Perhaps these claims are justified; perhaps there is

no phenomenon in the repertory of hypnotic suggestion
which cannot be produced in some other way. But, even if
this be true, we are not exempt from explaining why the
hypnotic procedure, which does not create excitement and

violent emotions, which does not put one to sleep, which
'makes no use of free association, which virtually excludes

40

a context of other actions, and which especially with

practice requires very little time, brings about so

momentous an effect. It is legitimate to be surprised

at the power of hypnotic suggestion (White, 1941, p. 482).

Learning and role enactment certainly seem to constitute

at least a part of hypnotic behavior. So does information process-
ing. These facts are not denied by Hilgard's theory, and Reyher
even describes the induction procedure as involving restriction of
input and readiness of the subject to comply. Reyher's theory
also seems to emphasize the regressive aspect of the hypnotic
relationship, and thus tends to accept a great deal of the analysis
provided by Gill & Brenman. Where Reyher's theory is lacking seems
to be furnished by Hilgard's propositions. Namely, Reyher does not
offer an exhaustive list of those developmental aspects that would
explain why certain subjects are made anxious by the hypnotic pro-
cedures and others are not. Although more recent expositions of his
theory (e.g. Reyher, 1970) enumerate some of these variables, it
could be assumed that Hilgard's propositions could be integrated
into this theory as well. One difference between Reyher's theory
and Hilgard's is that Hilgard attempts only to account for hypnotic
susceptibility whereas Reyher accounts for the hypnotic induction
as well. This difference in aims makes Hilgard's theory more
detailed and explicit in its statements regarding susceptibility
and Reyher's theory more detailed and explicit in its account of the
hypnotic process. An integration of these theories and of some of
the postulates offered by the other theories should provide a

promising starting point for a new paradigm of hypnosis research

that would contribute substantially to our understanding of the

41

phenomena involved.
B. Measurements of hypnotic susceptibility.

An excellent historical review of the development of various
scales for measuring hypnotic susceptibility has already been made by
Hilgard (1965, Ch. 4; 1967). This section is therefore limited to
familiarizing the reader with the most popular of these scales.

One set of hypnotic susceptibility scales was developed
at Stanford by Hilgard and his collaborators. The firs scales to
be developed were the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
(SHSS), Forms A and B (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). Each
form contains a standardized set of instructions for the induction
of hypnosis and twelve test items. The items sample idea-motor
behaviors such as Postural Sway (instructing §.to think of swaying
backward and measuring the extent of actual sway), Finger
Lock (asking §_to interlock fingers, suggesting that he will not
be able to separate them, challenging him to try and recording
whether or not he succeeds), etc. Each item is scored as "passed"
or "failed" and the subject's score consists of the number of items
passed. The minimum.score is thus zero and the maximum.score is
twelve. The mean score achieved by a standardization group
(N - 533) was 5.62 (S.D. - 3.27). Retest reliability varies between
r - .83 and r - .95 (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959, Hilgard, 1962).
The SHSS Forms A and B have thus been established as a reliable
measure of hypnotic susceptibility and are widely used in current
research and practice whenever a good first approximation of a

subject's susceptibility is desired.

42

The heavy reliance of these scalesson ideomotor items
necessitated the development of a scale with some richer item content.
The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS-C) was
developed to meet these needs. This scale includes a number of
hallucinatory items, age regression, and dreaming within hypnosis
in addition to a few motor items. The mean of the standardization
group (N - 307) was 5.19 (S.D. I 3.09). The estimated reliability
of the scale os .85 (using the Kuder-Richardson method) and its
correlation wtth the SHSS-Form A is .72 (N . 203) Neitzenhoffer
& Hilgard, 1962).

In working with these scales it became evident to the Stanford
investigators that subjects tend to vary in their special abilities
to respond to certain types of items. Thus some §s responded
better to the motor items, while others showed superior performance
on hallucinatory items. The Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic
Susceptibility (SPS) Forms 1 and II (Hilgard, Lauer, & MOrgan,
1963) were developed in order to obtain more adequate measures of
these variabilities. These scales yield a profile of scores thus
showing areas of special strength and weakness. The items of
Poems I and II are grouped into four subscales of four items such
and two additional subscales are devised by combining the results
from SHSS Form A with the remaining items of SPS Forms I and 11.
These subscales are: 1. Agnosia and Cognitive Distortion (AG),

2. Hallucinations: positive (HP), 3. Hallucinations: negative
(HN), 4. Dreams and regressions (DR), 5. Amensia and post hypnotic

compulsions (AM), 6. Loss of motor control (MC). The correlation

43

between the forms is .72, which is quite high in view of the sub-
stantial differences between them. The reliability of the scales
as estimated by the Spearman-Brown formula is .86.

A serial scale adapted for measuring hypnotic susceptibility
of children was deveIOped by london (1962a) and is called the
Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (CHSS). This scale is
classified into two age categories (5;0 through 12; 11 and 13;0
through 16; 11). Each item in this scale is presented as a four
point scale (0-3) convertible to a : scale by considering scores
of 2-3 to be‘+ and of 0 to l to be -. This scale has twenty-two
items. The first twelve are quite similar to those of the SHSS
Form A, and the remaining ten are taken from other scales. A
retest reliability of .92 was established for these scales (London,
1962b).

In order to introduce the convenience and economies of group
administration, Shor & Orne (1962) developed the Harvard Group
Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGS)-Form I. This is an adap-
tation of the SHSS-Form A to group administration and is arranged
for self-scoring. Self-scoring and observer scoring correlate from
.83 to .89 (Shor & Orne, 1963) and the correlation between the group
administration and individual administration is .74 (Bentler &
Hilgard, 1963).

Another widely used scale is the Barber Suggestibility Scale
(BSS) developed by Barber and his associates (Barber & Glass, 1962;
Barber & Calverley, 1963). This scale contains eight items and

differs from the other scales in that it tests hypnotic-like

44

behaviors withoutgprior induction of hypnosis. Since one of the
criteria for choosing the items for the other scales was their
ability to differentiate between performance prior to and subsequent
to hypnotic induction, the use of the B88 for measuring hypnotic
susceptibility is questionable.

In summary, the researcher and practitioner of hypnosis seems
to have acces to a wide variety of reliable scales for measuring
hypnotic susceptibility which can be applied to different age groups,
under various circumstances and for a variety of purposes. The
scales are standardized, easy to administer, easy to score, and seem
invaluable in any attempt to advance our knowledge of hypnotic

susceptibility and hypnotic behavior.

C. Correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.

Hilgard (1967) concludes a comprehensive restew of studies
attempting to find personality correlates of hypnotic susceptibility
with the following statement:

The results to date seem rather skimpy in view of
the efforts expended, but at least we know that some
behavior outside hypnosis is rather closely related to
behavior within hypnosis (particularly responses to
waking suggestion, and role-taking behavior) and some
responses on attitude questionnaires and personality
inventories show a modest correlation with hypnotic
susceptibility, particularly attitudes giving a favorable
evaluation of hypnosis, and "yearsaying" on inventories.
(Hilgard, 1967, p. 439).

This apparent lack of correlates of hypnotic susceptibility
was used by Sheehan (1971a, 1971b) in his defense of the real-

simulating model, which uses insusceptible §s as control groups in

45

hypnosis experiments whereas highly susceptible §s compose the
experimental groups. Reyher's (1969, 1971) repeated criticisms

of this experimental design were based partly on the argument that
susceptible §s may differ from insusceptible Se in ways which could
affect the dependent variables. This argument was discarded by
Sheehan (1971a) on the ground of failures to find any differences
between susceptible and insusceptible §s.

A substantial body of research carried out within the past
six years has accumulated a considerable amount of evidence
suggesting that such differences do exist in various personality
characteristics as well as on the physiological level. These
differences, aside from settling an important aspect of the above
mentioned controversy, also further our understanding of hypnosis

and hypnotic phenomena and deserve careful attention.

46

I. Personality correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.

Rhoades & Edmonston (1969) administered the 16-PF (Cattell
& Eber, 1962), the IPAT anxiety scale questionnaire (Cattell &
Scheier, 1963) and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscepti-
bility (HGS) (Shor & Orne, 1962) to a total of 56.§§ in two
experiments. They reported a low, but statistically significant
negative correlation (-.29, p¢:.05) between hypnotic suscepti-
bility and Factor F (Surgency). This correlation was higher for
male undergraduates (-.36). They also found a significant positive
correlation between Factor M (Imaginativeness) and HGS scores for
older males (.69) and for older males and females combined (.50).
In general, correlations between hypnotic susceptibility and
personality variables were different for males and females as
well as between age groups. Most of the correlations Obtained in
this study were low and inconclusive, and the authors seem justified
in concluding that "Generalizations with respect to the relationship
between personality factors and hypnotizability for an inclusive
population of male and female adults are not warranted at this
time." Another conclusion would be that a simple search for correlates
using global personality inventories would not be likely to produce
meaningful and replicable results. A more fertile approach would
be to use existing theoretical formulations in order to guide the
investigator in his search for correlates of susceptibility. The
remaining investigations reported in this survey all seem to have used

this approach with considerable success.

47

Bowers & Van der Meulen (1970) were intrigued by the
application of the ego-analytic concept of "regression in the
service of the ego" both to the explanation of creativity (Kris,
1953) and to the explanation of hypnosis (Gill & Brenman, 1959,
1967). They hypothesized a relationship between measures of
creativity and measures of hypnotic susceptibility and found a
correlation of .45 between the two. In two attempts to replicate
this finding, Bowers (1969, 1971) found it to hold for females,
but not for males. Further statistical handling of the data
enabled Bowers to discover additional lawful relationships. Thus,
he found that only women showed a dramatic increase in these
correlations as a function of susceptibility level. He interpreted
his results to indicate that both sex and susceptibility operate
as moderator variables in the correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.
This conclusion is in line with the findings of Rhoades & Edmonston
(1969).

Perry, Wilder, and Appignanesi (1973) used a multidimensional
factor-analytic approach to the measurement of creativity in a
thorough attempt to establish its relationship with hypnotic
susceptibility. They used a sample of 61 college §s who completed
a battery of fourteen creativity tests yielding 19 measures of
creativity and a short intelligence test. Hypnotic susceptibility
was determined by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS)
- Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962). They found that four
out of six factors extracted by a varimax factor solution loaded on

both creativity and susceptibility. Highly susceptible §s also

48

differed from insusceptibles in terms of the consistency of their
higher than average performance across the creativity measures.

They did not differ significantly from medium susceptible gs on

this measure. It is interesting to note that the best-researched
creativity test from among those used in the study (the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking, Torrance, 1966) also yielded the highest
correlations with hypnotic susceptibility. The results of this
investigation also corroborated Bowers' (1971) findings that the
relationship between creativity and hypnotic susceptibility was
stronger among females.

In a series of well controlled experiments, Sutcliffe, Perry,
and Sheehan (1970) investigated the relationship between hypnotic
susceptibility and some aspects of imagery and fantasy. They
found a positive, curvilinear relationship between hypnotic sus-
ceptibility and vividness of imagery as measured by a scale devised
by Betts (1909) and thoroughly investigated by Sheehan (1967a,
1967b). Fantasy, measured by incidence of dream distortion in
diaries written by §s for the purpose of that investigation, did
not correlate significantly with hypnotic susceptibility. Their
results suggested, however, that vividness of imagery and fantasy
considered conjointly led to a more accurate prediction of deep
susceptibility than the imagery variable alone.

Following Josephine Hilgard's (1970) impression that "mental
space adventurers" in drugs tended to be more highly susceptible,
Van Nuys (1972) presented two questions to a sample of 47 under-

graduate males about their use of marijuana and/or psychedelic drugs.

49

He found that §s who reported having taken, at some time, any of these
drugs averaged significantly higher on their HGS susceptibility scores.
The strongest relationship was found with the psychedelic group.

A significant tendency of highly susceptible §s to seek profound
experiential changes is also reported by Gibbons & De Jarnette (1972).
They administered the HGS to a group of 185 undergraduate volunteers,
and compared responses of 26 highly susceptible §s (score of 10-12 on
the susceptibility scale) with responses of 23 insusceptible §s
(scoring 0-4) on a questionnaire designed to elicit information regard—
ing their religious background and experience. Low susceptibility
was found to be associated with perceiving one's mother as slightly
religious or not religious (p<.05), and high susceptibility was
associated with being either a Roman Catholic or a "saved" Protestant
(p = .01). When interviewed, all of the high susceptibles who pro-
fessed having been "saved" reported that the experience was char-
acterized by "profound experiential changes," while none of the low
susceptible group reported such phenomena.

Blum (1971) reports an incidental finding that seems to
indicate differential use of defenseémechanisms by low vs. high
susceptible §s. Low susceptible §s tend to choose projection and,
to some extent, regression on the Defense Preference Inventory of
the Blacky Pictures Test more frequently than highly susceptible Ss.

Rader (1972) reports significant correlations between objective
and subjective suggestibility scores as measured by the Barber
Suggestibility Scale (BSS) (Barber & Glass, 1962) and need of

achievement, measured by McClelland's (1955) scoring system for TAT

50

Stories. The correlations, though significant, are quite low (.29
between need of achievement and subjective BSS scores, and .29 between
this measure and the objective BSS scores).

Palmer & Field (1971) found highly susceptible §s to be less
able than insusceptible §s to resist distraction, as measured by the
Stroop ColoréWord Interference Test. They also found their figure
drawings to be less detailed and more amorphous. Their DAP tests
were scored by Goodenough criteria and a negative correlation of
-.50 (p<.01) was found between these scores and their SHSS: A scores.

Mitchell (1970) compared high and low scorers on the HGS in
their tracking performance as it relates to palmar skin conductance.
He found the highly susceptible §s to perform better than low~
susceptible §s under nondistracting conditions. He also found
significant differences between these groups in the pattern of changes
in palmar skin conductance as a function of the tracking task. These
findings are hard to interpret at present, and replications would be
needed to justify more elaborate speculations based on them.

This review seems to reveal a number of personality characteris-
tics that correlate with hypnotic susceptibility in a theoretically
meaningful way. Susceptible §s seem to be more "adventurous" in
exploring their mind, more imaginative and creative (especially if
they are female), more inclined toward religious experiences, and

higher in their need of achievement.

51

II. Physiological correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.

Bakan (1969) reported a finding that suggests a relationship
between hypnotic susceptibility and the functional asymmetry of the
brain. He found the direction of lateral eye—movements upon inward
direction of attention or reflection to be related to hypnotic sus-
ceptibility measured by the SHSS: C scores. Eye directionality is,
presumably, an indication of easier innervation, in a given individ-
ual, of the cerebral hemisphere contralateral to the direction of eye
movement. §s who move their eyes to the left when reflecting upon
answers to questions posed by §_ (left-movers) were found to have more
humanistic interests, clearer imagery, and relatively poorer mathe-
matical scores on the SAT, as compared to §s who move their eyes to
the right (right—movers). Left-movers also tended to be more
highly susceptible than right-movers (r = .44, p<:.01). This finding
is consistent with the description of the highly susceptible §_as
derived from the studies reported earlier in this review, and suggests
that hypnotic performance is probably subserved by the right hemisphere.
Although Gur (1972) has failed to find significant differences in sus-
ceptibility between right-movers and leftdmovers, she did find differen-
tial effects of the style of hypnotic inductions. Rightdmovers
responded better to an active style of induction, whereas leftdmovers
scored higher when the style of induction was passive.

In another study Bakan (1970) found a relationship between
handedness and hypnotic susceptibility. He carried out two studies
with similar results: left—handedlgs were more likely than right-handed

§s to score at the extremes of the hypnotizability scale, either low

52

or high, and less likely to score on the middle of the scale. Since
handedness was determined by §s self-report, the possibility exists
that more refined lawful relationships could be detected with the use
of more elaborate and precise measures of handedness. Few left-handers
are strongly lateralized, and those who are, differ from those who are
not (e.g., Gilbert, 1972).

Another finding correlating physiological measures to hypnotic
susceptibility was reported by London, Hart, and Leibovitz (1968). They
found significantly greater mean alpha durations among highly sus-
ceptible §s. In a more refined and extended replication of this study,
Galbraith, London, Leibovitz, Cooper and Hart (1970) found several EEG
patterns to be highly predictive of HGS scores. The most predictive
EEG parameters were from occipital autospectrum.and occipitaldvertex
cross spectrum.during conditions of visual fixation (with eyes open).
The most predictive EEG frequencies were from the slow frequency range
(5—8 Hz). These significant predictions occurred even though the EEG
recordings were done several weeks after the HGS administration.

Evans (1972) attempted an extended replication of the London, Hart,
and Leibovitz (1968) finding. He administered the HGS and the SHSS: C
to 139 volunteer students, and found the highest EEG alpha frequency
among three §s who scored 12 on the HGS. His insusceptible §s, however,
displayed considerably more alpha than the similarly selected insus-
ceptible.§s in the London, Hart, and Leibovitz study. No relationship
was found between alpha frequency, amplitude or density and the SHSS: C
scores. Evans has also criticized Galbraith et al's (1970) replication

of London et al's study for not reporting the criteria for selecting

53

their subsample of 59 out of 80 §s who participated in the first phase
of the experiment, in which their HGS scores were established. This
criticism is unwarranted, since Galbraith et a1 did report that the
59Ԥs were those who volunteered to come for what they were led to
believe was an unrelated "study of brain waves." Galbraith et al had
no way of coercing all 80 §s to return. In his review of the studies
correlating hypnotizability with EEG patterns, Evans (1972) has also
failed to include an investigation by Akpinar, Ulett, and Itil (1971).
In this investigation EEG recordings were found to be good predictors
of hypnotizability (measured by the BSS as well as by subjective
ratings). The EEG leads in the Akpinar, Ulett, and Itil (1971) study
were analyzed by a computer that enabled a period analysis of a very
wide frequency range (0.5 - 70 Hz). Hypnotic susceptibility was found
in this study to correlate with several EEG patterns. Mest notably,
highly susceptible §s were found to display a significantly greater
amount of a basic pattern of slow waves with superimposed fast
frequency activity in their resting EEG.

Evans' (1972) results indicate, however, that the relationship
between hypnotizability and EEG patterns might be more complicated
than what was initially implied by London, Hart, and Leibovitz (1968)
and that it may be only present in initial testing of susceptibility
(Evans did not control for the order effect in testing §s with the
HGS and the SHSS:C). The bulk of evidence does suggest that certain
relationships exist between hypnotizability and EEG patterns which

deserve further investigation. It seems to be too early, however, to

54

Speculate on the theoretical significance of these physiological

correlates of susceptibility to hypnosis.

Summary

The growing body of evidence pointing at personality as well
as physiological correlates of susceptibility poses some important
problems for hypnotic research. It casts serious doubts on the
validity of a substantial amount of research done with insusceptible
§s serving as controls for highly susceptible experimental Ss.

It also requires some theoretical adaptations to account for these
findings and to guide further research in this direction. The
prospect of finding more reliable correlates of hypnotic suscep-
tibility seem brighter now than ever before and promises to shed

more light on the mysteries of hypnosis and hypnotic behavior.

REFERENCES

Akpinar, S., Ulett, G. A., & Itil, T. M. Hypnotizability predicted
by digital computer-analyzed EEG pattern. Biological Psychiatry,
1971, g, 387-392.

 

Bakan, P. Hypnotizability, laterality of eye-movements and
functional brain asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969,
_g§, 927-932.

 

Bakan, P. Handedness and hypnotizability. The International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1970, lg,

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. "Hypnotic-like" suggestibility
in children and adults. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, fig, 589-597.

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Empirical evidence for a theory
of "hypnotic" behavior: Effects of pretest instructions on
response to primary suggestions. Psychological Record, 1964,
_13, 457-467. (b)

 

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Empirical evidence for a
theory of "hypnotic" behavior: Effects on suggestibility
of five variables typically included in hypnotic induction
procedures. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 22,
98-107. (a)

Barber, T. X., & DeMoor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, ii: 112-135.

Barber, T. X., & Glass, L. B. Significant factors in hypnotic
behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,
.93, 222-228.

Bentler, P. M., & Hilgard, E. R. A comparison of group and
individual induction of hypnosis with self-scoring and observer
scoring. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
H nosis, 1963, 11, 49-54.

 

Betts,:G. H. The distribution and functions of mental imagery.
Teachers College Contribution to Education, 1909, 26.

Blum, G. S., & Graef, J. R. The detection over time of subjects
stimulating hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, 1971, 19, 211-224.

 

Bowers, K. S. Creativity and hypnotic susceptibility. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D. C. September, 1969.

Bowers, K. S. Sex and susceptibility as moderator variables in
the relationship of creativity and hypnotic susceptibility.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971’.Z§2 93-100.

Bowers, K. S., & Van der Meulen, S. J. Effect of hypnotic
susceptibility on creative test performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 1&, 247-256.

 

Brenman, M., & Gill, M. (Hypnotherapy. New York: International
Universities Press, 1947.

 

Brenman, M., & Gill, M. ,flypnosis and Related States. New York:
International Universities Press, 1961.

Cattell, R. B., & Eber, H. W. Supplement of Norms for Form A
and B of the Sixteenth Personality Factor Questionnaire.
Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, 1962.

 

 

Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. Handbook for the IPAT Anxiety
Scale Questionnaire (2nd Ed.) Champaign, Illinas: Institute
for Personality and Ability Testing, 1963.

Das, J. P. A theory of hypnosis. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1959, 1, 69-77.

 

 

Edmonston, W. E. Stimulus-response theory of hypnosis. In J. E.
Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
Chapter 12. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Galbraith, G. C., London, P., Leiboritz, M. P., Cooper, L. M.,
and Hart, J. T. EEG and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal
of Comparative and Physiolpgical Psychology, 1970, 1;, 125-131.

Gibbons, D., & De Jarnette, J. Hypnotic susceptibility and religious
experience. Proceeding of the Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, 1972, 7, 863-864.

Gilbert, C. Strength of Left-Handedness and Facial Recognition
Ability. Cortex, 1973, 2, in press.

Gill, M. M., & Brenman, M. _Hypnosis and Related States: Psycho-
analytic Studies in Regression. New York: International
Universities Press, 1959.

 

Gill, M..M., & Brenman, M. The metapsychology of regression
and hypnosis. In J. E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis. Chapter 10. New York: Macmillan,
1967.

 

Hilgard,_E. R. Lawfulness within hypnotic phenomena. In Estabrooks,
G. H. (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current Problem. New York: Harper & Row,
1962.

Hilgard, E. R. Hypnotic Susceptibility. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, 1965.

Hilgard, E. R. Individual differences in hypnotizability. In
J. E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis. Chapter 13. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Hilgard, E. R., Lauer, L., & Morgan, A. Manual for Stanford Profile

Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1963.

 

Hilgard, J. R., Personality and Hypnosis: A Study of Imaginative
Involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

 

Hull, C. L. Hypnosis and Suggestibility, an Experimental Approach:
New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1933.

Hull, C. L. Essentials of Behavior. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1951.

H011: 0- L. A Behavior SYStem. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1952. Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. London: George
Allen & Urwin, 1953.

Kubie, L. S., & Margolin, S. The Process of Hypnotism and the Nature
of the Hypnotic State. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1944,
100, 611-622.

London, P. The Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Palo
Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962a.

London, P. Hypnosis in Children: An Experimental Approach.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
1962b, 19, 79-91.

 

London, P. The induction of hypnosis. In J. E. Gordon (Ed.),
Handbook of Clinical and_Experimental Hypnosis. Chapter 3,
New York: Macmillan, 1967.

London, P., Hart, J. T., & Leibovitz, M. P. EEG alpha rhythms
and susceptibility to hypnosis. Nature, 1968, 219, 71-72.

Madsen, C. H., & London, P. Role-playing and hypnotic susceptibility
in children. Reported in E. R. Hilgard, Hypaotic Susceptibility.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965.

 

McClelland, D. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1955.

 

Mitchell, M. B. Hypnotizability and distractibility. The American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970, 13, 35-45.

 

Palmer, R. D., & Field, P. B. Cognitive factors in hypnotic
susceptibility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1971, 31, 165.

Pavlov, I. P. The identity of inhibition with sleep and hypnosis.
Science Monograph, 1923, 11, 603-609.

Perry, C., Wilde, S., & Appignanesi, A. Hypnotic Susceptibility
and Performance on a battery of creativity measures. The
American Journal of Clinical Hypothesis, 1973, 12, 170-180.

Roder, C. M. The relation of need achievement of hypnotic
susceptibility. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
1972, 15, 38-40.

Reyher, J. Brain mechanisms, intrasuchic processes and behavior:
A theory of hypnosis and psychopathology. The American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 1, 107-119.

 

Reyher, J. Hypnosis. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1968.

Reyher, J. Comment on "artificial induction of posthypnotic
conflict." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,.15, 420-422.

Reyher, J. The experience of pain: Drugs, hypnosis and the

motivational-interpersonal matrix. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington,
D. C., 1970.

Reyher, J. The real-simulation design and laboratory hypnosis:
Two methodological culs-de-sac. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.,
1971.

Reyher, J., & Wilson, J. G. The induction of hypnosis: Indirect
vs. direct methods and the role of expectancy. The American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, in press.

 

Rhoades, C. D., & Edmonston, W. E. Personality correlates of
hypnotizability: A study using the Harvard Group Scale of
Hypnotic Susceptibility, The 16-PF and the IPAT. lhg_
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1969, 11, 228-233.

Sarbin, T. R. The concept of role-taking. Sociometry, 1943,
_6, 273-284.

 

Sarbin, T. R. Contribution to role-taking theory: I. Hypnotic
Behavior. Psychological Review, 1950,.51, 255-270.

Sarbin, T. R. Physiological effects of hypnotic stimulation. In
R. M. Dorcus (Ed.),_Hypnosis and Its Therapeutic Application.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Sarbin, T. R. A role-theoretical interpretation of psychological
change. In P. Worchel & D. Byrne (eds.), Psychological Change.
New York: Wiley, 1964.

 

Sarbin, T. R. The scientific status of the mental health illness.
In S. C. Plog & R. B. Edgerton (eds.), Changing Perspectives
In Mental Health, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1969.

 

Sarbin, T. R., & Anderson, M. L. Role-theoretical analysis of
hypnotic behavior. In J. E. Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Chapter II. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.

 

Sarbin, T. R. & Lim, D. T. Some evidence in support of the role-
taking hypothesis in hypnosis. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 98-103.

 

Sheehan, P. W. Reliability of a short test of imagery. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1967, 2;, 744. (a)

 

Sheehan, P. W. A shortened from of Bettes Questionnaire upon Mental
Imagery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, 386-389. (b)

Sheehan, P. W. An explication of the real-stimulating model: A
reply to Reyher's comment on "Artificial induction of post-
hypnotic conflict." International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. 1971, 12, 46-51. (a).

 

Sheehan, P. W. Methodological analysis of the simulating technique.
International Journal of Clinical and Exparimental Hypnosis, 1971,
'12, 83-99. (b)

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. Harvard Groap Scale of Hypnotic
Susceptibility. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1962.

 

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. Norms on the Harvard Group Scale of
Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 39-48.

Sutcliffe, J. P. "Credulous" and "skeptical" views of hypnotic
phenomena: A review of certain evidence and methodology.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
1960, §, 73-101.

Sutcliffe, J. P., Perry, C. W., & Sheehan, P. W. Relation of
some aspects of imagery and fantasy to hypnotic susceptibility
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 16, 279-287.

Torrance, E. P. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton:
Personnel Press, Inc., 1966.

 

Van Nuys, D. Drug use and hypnotic susceptibility. The International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1971,.29, 31-37.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Sus-
ceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Sus-

ceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, California: Consulting
Psychologists Press, 1962.

 

 

White, R. A. A preface to the theory of hypnotism. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1971,-36, 477-505.

.-
A...

a

.1. .....

’I'l. \
I.

|..

.c
.r C., I . . .
3. .rr. !.§.aqv.z...11..v._3if

Imum