Individual differences and autonomic control: Absorption, hypnotic susceptibility, and the unilateral control of skin temperature.

Abstract

We proposed to (a) replicate earlier findings that human subjects could voluntarily control peripheral skin temperature, (b) test the hypothesis that hyponotic susceptibility and the capacity for absorbed, imaginative attention will enhance autonomic learning and performance, and (c) demonstrate a learning effect, if one exists. We compared seven subjects who scored high with seven subjects who scored low on both a modified version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Tellegen Absorption Scale. Auditory feedback was used to train subjects to produce a difference in skin temperature in one hand relative to the other in a direction specified by the experimenter. Large and reliable performance and learning effects were found, but they were unrelated to hypnotic susceptibility or the capacity for absorbed, imaginative attention. Variables that might account for individual differences in learning and performance are discussed.Although large differences in the ability to learn autonomic control have been noted (cf. Miller, 1974), there have been few attempts to systematically investigate personality traits that might be associated with these individual differences (Roessler, 1972;Wenger, 1966; Bell & Schwartz, Note 1). Historically, the earliest reports of voluntary autonomic control have almost always been related to hypnosis, meditation, altered states of consciousness, or similar phenomena (cf. Dalai & Barber, 1969). Miller (1969) noted that his laboratory animals that had been paralyzed by curare learned to control normally involuntary functions significantly better than did noncurarized controls. He suggested that it might be worthwhile to try to use hypnotic suggestion to achieve similar results in human subjects.

Some methodological considerations in thermal biofeedback training

“…Surprisingly, the presumably superior feedback system did not improve the ability to self-regulate hand temperature (for a fuller METHODS IN THERMAL BIOFEEDBACK 619 discussion, see Taub, 1977). Roberts and co-workers (Roberts, Kewman, & Macdonald, 1973;Roberts, Schuler, Bacon, & Zimmerman, 1975) have employed auditory feedback and have obtained results similar to those of this laboratory.…”

Electrophysiological Alterations during Hypnosis for Ego-Enhancement: A Preliminary Investigation

“…Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) reported correlations of .27 and .43 with two versions of the Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and .42 with Field's Hypnotic Depth Scale. Test-retest and split-half reliabilities over .80 have been reported for the TAS (Roberts, Schuler, Bacon, Zimmerman, & Patterson, 1975). Scoring of the TAS is from 0-34.…”

A multivariate approach to the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility

“…In their initial study Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) reported correlations of .27 and .42 (across two samples) between the TAS and hypnotizability as measured by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A A;Shor & h e , 1962). The finding of a relation between hypnotizability and absorption has been replicated on numerous occasions (e.g., Crawford, 1982;Finke & MacDonald, 1978;Kihlstrom et al, 1980;Nadon, Hoyt, Register, & Kihlstrom, 1991;Nadon, Laurence, & Perry, 1987;Roberts, Schuler, Bacon, Zimmermann, & Patterson, 1975;see Roche & McConkey 1990, for a comprehensive review of the hypnotizability and absorption relation).…”