The two-factor model of hypnotic responding posits that ability or trait variables are more important than contextual variables in producing responses to difficult hypnotic suggestions, whereas contextual variables such as attitudes and expectancies are more important than trait variables in predicting responses to easier suggestions. In three separate data sets, responses to suggestions of varying difficulty were correlated with absorption, fantasy proneness, dissociation, attitudes toward hypnosis, and hypnotic response expectancy. Although the results of these analyses were not consistent across data sets, all significant findings were in the opposite direction of that predicted by twofactor theorists. In general, expectancy was the strongest correlate of hypnotic response, especially for highly responsive participants and for difficult suggestions. It is concluded that despite the attractiveness of the two-factor model, repeated attempts to replicate its empirical base have been unsuccessful.

College students with no prior experience of hypnosis were assessed for fantasy proneness and dissociation. In a totally separate context, they were subsequently tested for their interpretations of hypnotic suggestions, hypnotic response expectancies, and hypnotizability. Contrary to Spanos and Gorassini's (1984) hypothesis, strategic enactment of suggested responses was rarely reported, and its endorsement was not correlated with hypnotic responsiveness. Suggestibility was significantly predicted by fantasy proneness and response expectancy, but not by dissociation. A path analysis suggested that the relation between fantasy proneness and hypnotizability was partially mediated by expectancy.

Administered a hypnotic induction and 5 standard hypnotic suggestions twice via audiotape to a group of high-hypnotizable subjects and a group of low-hypnotizable simulators. During the first administration, subjects were led to believe that they were alone. However, their behavior was surreptitiously recorded on videotape and observed on a video monitor. The second administration occurred in the presence of an experimenter who had not been informed of group assignment. When unaware that they were being observed, simulators were significantly less responsive to suggestions than they were when openly observed. In contrast, the behavior of nonsimulating subjects was not affected by the presence of an experimenter. These data indicate that the responses of highly hypnotizable subjects to standard hypnotic suggestions cannot be accounted for in terms of simple compliance with experimental demand.

No abstract

No abstract