A reexamination of the role of nonhypnotic suggestibility in hypnotic responding.

Woody, Erik Z.; Drugovic, Mira; Oakman, Jonathan M.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.399

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Woody, Drugovic, and Oakman (1997) were able to find a significant relationship between hypnotic responding and nonhypnotic suggestibility related to placebo.…”

Section: Types Of Suggestibilitycontrasting

confidence: 47%

Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Polczyk¹

2016

Current Issues in Personality Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

backgroundYielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression. participants and procedureIn sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours. resultsConfirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.conclusions Suggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems.key words confirmatory factor analysis; suggestion; suggestibility; direct suggestibility; indirect suggestibility

show abstract

“…In contrast, Woody, Drugovic, and Oakman (1997) were able to find a significant relationship between hypnotic responding and nonhypnotic suggestibility related to placebo.…”

Section: Types Of Suggestibilitycontrasting

confidence: 47%

Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Polczyk¹

2016

Current Issues in Personality Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, a nonhypnotic explanation for the relation between hypnotic susceptibility and conversion symptoms is also possible. Woody, Drugovic, and Oakman (1997), for example, observed that hypnotically induced alterations in perception and motor functioning in healthy participants were correlated to nonhypnotically induced alterations in experience. Accordingly, it is plausible that patients with conversion symptomatology are more susceptible not only to hypnotic suggestions but also to nonhypnotic suggestions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnotic susceptibility in patients with conversion disorder.

Roelofs¹,

Hoogduin²,

Keijsers³

et al. 2002

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion disorder has been associated with hypnotic susceptibility for over a century and is currently still believed to be a form of autohypnosis. There is, however, little empirical evidence for the relation between hypnotic susceptibility and conversion symptoms. The authors compared 50 patients with conversion disorder with 50 matched control patients with an affective disorder on measures of hypnotic susceptibility, cognitive dissociation, and somatoform dissociation. Conversion patients were significantly more responsive to hypnotic suggestions than control patients. In addition, conversion patients showed a significant correlation between hypnotic susceptibility and the number of conversion complaints. These results provide the first evidence of a relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and the presence and number of conversion symptoms.

show abstract

“…That no standard personality trait correlates with hypnotizability (Glisky, Tataryn, Tobias, Kihlstrom, & McConkey, 1991;Hilgard, 1965; Kihlstrom et al, 1980) does not mean that hypnotizability is not a traitbut rather that it is an orthogonal trait, one that cannot be subsumed under or predicted by other traits. Modern experimental techniques provide an increasingly clear description of the nature of this beast (Bowers & Woody, 1996;Kihlstrom, 1998;Nash, 2001;Szechtman, Woody, Bowers, & Nahmias, 1998;Woody, Drugovic, & Oakman, 1997). Hypnosis is just.…”

Section: Describing Hypnosismentioning

confidence: 97%

The Four Causes of Hypnosis

Killeen¹,

Nash²

2003

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aristotle's model of comprehension involves the description of a phenomenon and identification of its efficient causes (triggers), material cause (substrate), formal cause (models of structure), and final cause (function). This causal analysis provides a framework for understanding hypnosis and the hypnotic state. States are constellations of parameters within specified ranges; they name, but do not explain, a phenomenon. Concerns about reification of states are matters of semantics and pragmatics, not ontology. Isolation of efficient causes (e.g., procedure, context, social variables) is but one component of understanding. Experimental, technical, and conceptual advances have carried us into a century where the substrates and functions of hypnosis may be represented in synoptic theories that comprise all 4 causes of hypnosis.

show abstract

A reexamination of the role of nonhypnotic suggestibility in hypnotic responding.

Cited by 29 publications

References 43 publications

Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Hypnotic susceptibility in patients with conversion disorder.

The Four Causes of Hypnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About