Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Abstract

An attempt was made to relate hypnotic susceptibility to: an inventory of subjective nonhypnotic personal experiences; attitudes and opinions toward, and interest in hypnosis; environmental and social perceptions; five Guilford‐Martin personality scales; and measures of response styles. The questionnaires were administered to 203 male and 233 female college students. The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A was later administered to 80 male and 97 female volunteers from the above sample. Those few variables correlating significantly with hypnotizability in either or both samples, were: (a) Rhathymia; (b) previous hypnotic experience; (c) the number of different hypnotic situations for which S expressed willingness to volunteer; and (d) self‐predictions of susceptibility. Results in the present study, considered with the results of other studies, lead to the conclusion that hypnotic susceptibility is not related to available personality inventories or measures of “social and environmental perceptions,” and probably not related to measures of subjective nonhypnotic personal experiences. A S's previous hypnotic experience, attitude toward hypnosis, and expectations regarding his own hypnotizability do appear to be related to his susceptibility. A fresh approach to the area is needed. One such approach would be the determination of the dimensions of hypnotic depth and susceptibility, and the relationships between these factors and outside variables.

The influence of experimentally induced expectations on responses to the harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form a

“…Correlational research has demonstrated a relatively consistent positive relationship between Ss' expectations and their hypnotizability (Barber & Calverley, 1966Dermen & London, 1965; Melei & Hilgard, 1964;Shor, 1971). The relationship generally has been too small, however, for S expectations to be considered as a variable of major influence.…”

A Measure of Attitudes toward Hypnosis: Relationships with Absorption and Hypnotic Susceptibility

“…These empirical findings, however, are not without inconsistencies. For instance, two studies (Derman & London, 1965;Spanos & McPeake, 1975a) found significant correlations between measures of attitudes toward hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility in both males and females. A different study (Spanos, McPeake, & Churchill, 1976) sex.…”

An Empirically-Based Formulation of Hypnotism

“…In another study (Barber and Calverley, 1966c) responses to test-suggestions in a hypnotic experiment were significantly correlated with subjects' pre-experimental expectations (self-predictions) of their own "hypnotic depth" (average r = .41) and with a pre-experimental attitude to hypnosis measure (perceiving hypnotism as interesting) (average r = .55). Similarly, other studies Dermen and London, 1965 ;London, Cooper, and Johnson, 1962;Melei and Hilgard, 1964;Rosenhan and Tompkins, 1964;Shor, Orne, and O'Connell, 1966) generally yielded small positive correlations (which were more often significant for females than for males) between subjects' scores on suggestibility tests given in a hypnotic situation and their pre-experimental attitudes toward hypnotism and their pre-experimental expectations (self-predictions) of their own "hypnotic depth." A further study (Barber and Calverley, 1964d), in which attitudes toward the test-situation were manipulated experimentally, indicated that negative attitudes preclude responsiveness to testsuggestions of the type traditionally associated with the word hypnotism; or, stated in a different way, to manifest some degree of responsiveness to test-suggestions, it is necessary for the subject to hold at least neutral if not positive attitudes toward the test-situation.…”

“…For instance, one study found a positive correlation between neuroticism and "hypnotizability" or "suggestibility," another found a negative correlation, and at least five studies found no relationship between these variables (Cooper and Dana, 1964;Eysenck, 1947;Furneaux and Gibson, 1961;Heilizer, 1960;Hilgard and Bentler, 1963 ;Ingham, 1954Ingham, , 1955Lang and Lazovik, 1962;Thorn, 1961) . Similarly, although some investigators Shor, Orne, and O'Connell, 1962) reported that response to test-suggestions was correlated with propensity to have natural "hypnotic-like" experiences such as vivid daydreams, other investigators (Barber and Calverley, 1965c;Dermen, 1964;London, Cooper, and Johnson, 1962;Wilson, 1967) failed to confirm this relationship. In brief, the studies in this area either (a) failed to demonstrate hypothesized relationships between personality traits and "hypnotizability" or "suggestibility" or (b) when a relationship was obtained and an attempt was made to cross-validate it, the confirmation failed to occur.…”

“…Several investigators (Andersen, 1963;Barber and Calverley, 1966c;Dermen and London, 1965;Melei and Hilgard, 1964) have constructed scales for measuring the subjects' attitudes and expectancies with respect to the test-situation. A wide variety of personality scales have been used in recent studies to measure the subjects' long-enduring traits and characteristics (Barber, 1964c;Hilgard, 1965).…”