Increasing hypnotic susceptibility by means of positive expectancies and written instructions.

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which hypnotic susceptibility could be modified by means of induced positive expectancies and written instructions that were designed to correct misconceptions concerning hypnosis as well as to provide concrete methods for experiencing hypnosis. Forty University of Hawaii students were given a base-line test of hypnotic susceptibility and then were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Subjects receiving the positive expectancy were given false personality test feedback that they were good hypnotic subjects prior to a criterion hypnotic scale. Subjects receiving the written instructions were given 10 minutes to read the information prior to the hypnotic test. Other subjects browsed through magazines prior to testing in hypnosis. Both positive expectancies and written instructions were significantly effective in increasing susceptibility in comparison with practice only. Theoretical explanations are advanced and the implications of these findings are considered.

Goal-directed fantasy does not explain the training effect of the carleton skills training package

“…In the present study, subjects' attitudes toward hypnosis, and presumably the willingness to experience it, changed, but, as previous studies on the modification of hypnotic susceptibility have clearly documented (Crouse & Kurtz, 1984;Diamond, 1977;Gregory & Diamond, 1973;Vickery & Kirsch, 1991), these changes did not suffice to evoke increases in hypnotic responsiveness comparable to the CSTP results. Bates (1990) suspects that CSTP-induced hypnotizability gains may reflect compliance, and he and his colleagues have attempted to address this problem in several studies (Bates, 1992;Bates & Brigham, 1990;Bates & Kraft, 1991;Bates et al, 1988).…”

Electromyographic Feedback and Taped Relaxation Instructions to Modify Hypnotic Susceptibility and Amnesia

“…Numerous approaches including attempts at producing sensory alterations (Wickramasekera, 1970;Sanders & Reyher, 1969), altering the subject's set regarding hypnosis (Gregory & Diamond, 1973), providing EEG alpha rhythm feedback (Engstrom, London, & Hart, 1970), and training subjects to act like hypnotized subjects (Sachs & Anderson, 1967) have been found to be successful in increasing susceptibility to varying degrees.…”

Contrasting Stage and Clinical Hypnosis

“…Although hypnotizability has been viewed as a relatively stable trait (Perry, ECHTERLING 1977), experience can change a subject's perceptions of hypnotizability, leading to corresponding changes in responsiveness to hypnotic procedures (Gregory & Diamond, 1973;Saavedra & Miller, 1983). The stage hypnosis program often begins with particularly dramatic demonstrations that quickly and significantly increase the potential subjects' assessment of their own hypnotizability.…”