Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility

Abstract

Introduction: Inconsistencies in the relationship between dissociation and hypnosis may result from heterogeneity among highly suggestible individuals, in particular the existence of distinct highly suggestible subtypes that are of relevance to models of psychopathology and the consequences of trauma. This study contrasted highly suggestible subtypes high or low in dissociation on measures of hypnotic responding, cognitive functioning, and psychopathology. Methods: Twenty-one low suggestible (LS), 19 low dissociative highly suggestible (LDHS), and 11 high dissociative highly suggestible (HDHS) participants were administered hypnotic suggestibility scales and completed measures of free recall, working memory capacity, imagery, fantasy-proneness, psychopathology, and exposure to stressful life events. Results: HDHS participants were more responsive to positive and negative hallucination suggestions and experienced greater involuntariness during hypnotic responding. They also exhibited impaired working memory capacity, elevated pathological fantasy and dissociative symptomatology, and a greater incidence of exposure to stressful life events. In contrast, LDHS participants displayed superior object visual imagery. Conclusions: These results provide further evidence for two highly suggestible subtypes: a dissociative subtype characterized by deficits in executive functioning and a predisposition to psychopathology and a subtype that exhibits superior imagery and no observable deficits in functioning.

Discrete response patterns in the upper range of hypnotic suggestibility: A latent profile analysis

“…Insofar as HS individuals comprised a discrete category in this study, it goes against proposals for a bifurcated or trifurcated HS typology (Barber, 1999;Terhune, et al, 2011b) and is consistent with the results of Oakman and Woody (1996). However, the CURSS suffers from the same limitation as the HGSHS:A, SHSS:C, and WSGC -the underrepresentation of difficult (e.g., cognitive or perceptual) hypnotic suggestions, which are those on which HS individuals are most frequently found to vary .…”

“…Terhune and Cardeña (2010a) applied LPA to participants' spontaneous experiential responses to a hypnotic induction and found evidence for four response classes, two of which included HS participants. Notably, the two classes that included HS participants corresponded to the dissociative and non-dissociative subtypes found in other studies (King & Council, 1998;Terhune, et al, 2011aTerhune, et al, , 2011b) and thereby provide convergent evidence for a bifurcated typology. However, the extent to which these subtypes can be identified on the basis of response patterns to different hypnotic suggestions remains unknown.…”

“…This question was addressed by examining distributions of categorical hypnotic suggestibility in the four classes. Participants with total scores ≥ 40 on the combined 17-item suggestion pool of the SPSs (excluding SHSS:A and SHSS:C scores) were coded as virtuosos (Hilgard, 1986), those with scores between 20 and 40 were coded as HS (Terhune, et al, 2011b), and those with scores less than 20 were interpreted as falling in the medium range. The results show a number of differences in the composition of the classes (see Table 2 analyses (α=.008).…”

“…HS individuals display marked variability in the types of hypnotic suggestions to which they respond Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011b) and, more crucially, the strategies and attentional mechanisms underlying their responses (Galea, Woody, Szechtman, & Pierrynowski, 2010;King & Council, 1998). These and other results suggest that there are two discrete subtypes of HS individuals: a dissociative subtype that experiences greater involuntariness during hypnotic responding and exhibits impaired working memory at baseline, disrupted cognitive control following a hypnotic induction, and uses minimal attentional resources to respond to suggestions; and a non-dissociative subtype that experiences greater voluntariness during hypnotic responding (but still less than low suggestible individuals), a normal cognitive profile, and requires attention to respond to suggestions (King & Council, 1998;Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011a;Terhune, et al, 2011b).…”

“…Most of the evidence marshaled for a HS typology thus far (see also Galea, et al, 2010;King & Council, 1998;Terhune, et al, 2011aTerhune, et al, , 2011b has come from small-sample studies (Ns < 30) in which HS subtypes were demarcated using independent theoretical discriminators (e.g., a measure of dissociative tendencies). Moreover, these studies have largely neglected variegation in hypnotic responding in favor of analyses of other behavioural, cognitive, or physiological variables.…”