Hypnotic susceptibility and MMPI profiles.

Schulman, Robert E.; London, Perry

doi:10.1037/h0044206

“…The results of the present study, those reviewed above, and numerous other studies employing such instruments as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Lang & Lazovik, 1962;Rosenhan & Tomkins, in press), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Faw &Wilcox, 1958;Schulman & London, 1963;Secter, 1961), the California Psychological Inventory (Hilgard & Lauer, 1962;Moore, 1961), and others, lead to a conclusion which has been well expressed by Schulman and London (1963, p.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Dermen¹

1964

ETS Research Bulletin Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…There was no evidence that high hypnotizables were more anxious than lows or mediums. Previous studies have also found no association between hypnotizability and general neuroticism (Heilizer, 1960), and some have reported hypnotizability to be associated with greater psychological health (Schulman & London, 1963;Spiegel, Detrick, & Frischholz, 1982;Zlotogorski, Hahnemann, & Wiggs, 1987). The converse hypothesis, that low hypnotizables underreport physical symptoms, is also not supported by the literature (Wickramasekera, 1995).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 44%

Hypnotizability and Somatic Complaints:A Gender-Specific Phenomenon

Younger

¹

,

Rossetti

²

,

Borckardt

³

et al. 2007

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The relationship between hypnotizability and somatic illness was measured in 45 college students. Several weeks after completing the Waterloo-Stanford Group C Scale (WSGC), participants filled out a somatic-complaint checklist and measures of psychopathology. Results indicated a positive correlation between hypnotizability and somatic illness, and the relationship was stronger for female participants. In contrast to the quadratic model proposed by Wickramasekera, the current data demonstrated a linear relationship between hypnotizability and somatic complaint. Further analyses showed that somatic complaints were associated with hallucination and imagery items, corresponding to the perceptualcognitive factor identified in Woody, Barnier, and McConkey's (2005) factor analysis of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. The results call into question some claims that high hypnotizability is an adaptive and healthy trait.

show abstract

“…The results of the present study, those reviewed above, and numerous others employing such instruments as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Lang & Lazovik, 1962;Rosenhan & Tomkins, 1964), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Faw & Wilcox, 1958;Schulman & London, 1963;Secter, 1961), the California Psychological Inventory (Hilgard & Lauer, 1962;Moore, 1961), and others, lead to the same conclusion as has been previously expressed by Schulman and London (1963):…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.

Dermen¹,

London²

1965

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Hypnotic susceptibility and MMPI profiles.

Cited by 22 publications

References 15 publications

Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Hypnotizability and Somatic Complaints:A Gender-Specific Phenomenon

Correlates of hypnotic susceptibility.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About