Multiple predictors of hypnotic susceptibility.

Abstract

In this article, we report two experiments in which various measures thought to be related to hypnotizability were analyzed by stepwise discriminant analysis techniques. Absorption (Tellegen, 1981, 1982; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974) and preference for an imagic style of thinking (Isaacs, 1982) were robust predictors of hypnotizability; each variable accounted for significant variance in hypnotizability at their respective steps in two samples and correctly classified a significant proportion of low- and high-hypnotizable subjects in the discriminant analyses. The addition of two other variables in Experiment 2--a Sleep-Dream score derived from Evans's (1977) Cognitive Control of Sleep Mentation subscale and Gibson's (1985) Dream Questionnaire, and the Belief in the Supernatural subscale of the Taft (1969) Experience Questionnaire--increased the correct classification of the medium-hypnotizable subjects from chance levels to 74%. It is argued that a confirmatory and hierarchical approach is needed in future studies to explore correlates of hypnotizability more fully.

A multivariate approach to the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility

“…This questionnaire is designed to determine whether participants prefer to use a verbal or pictorial style of mentation while thinking about a number of suggested scenes. In two separate multivariate experiments, Nadon, Laurence, and Perry (1987) found that the PICS was able to contribute unique variance beyond the TAS in predicting whether individuals were of high, medium, or low hypnotic susceptibility. The success of Nadon, Laurence, and Perry in predicting unique hypnotizability variance based on the PICS indicates that in addition to a participants's imagery ability, an important variable of interest may be whether individuals habitually prefer to engage a visual as opposed to a verbal style of thinking when using their imagination.…”

“…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).…”

“…Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions PREDICTING HYPNOTIZABILITY 251 control, cooperativeness, and influenceability (de Groh, 1989). Like their predecessors, t h i s research yielded either small, unreliable, or nonsignificant correlations (Nadon, Laurence, & Perry, 1987). More recently however, researchers have turned toward more cognitively oriented variables in the attempt to delineate the characteristics that differentiate individuals of various susceptibility levels.…”

Brain Dynamics and Hypnosis: Attentional and Disattentional Processes

“…The correlations between absorption and hypnotizability are usually in the .40s (e.g., Crawford, 198213;Crawford, Brown, & Moon, 1993;Finke & Macdonald, 1978;Kilhstrom et al, 1980;Nadon, Laurence & Perry, 1987;Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974; for a review, see Roche & McConkey, 1990). An analysis of this literature and interview studies (e.g., J. R. Hilgard, 1970) led us to conclude that we are often intermingling two separate focused attentional abilities: (a) moderately focused attention: the ability to attend moderately so that noise in the environment is no longer disruptive, but may still be attended to some; and (b) extremely focused attention and disattention: the abihty to attend so fully to a task that noise and irrelevant stimuli in the environment are apparently not even noticed and provide no distraction.…”

Cardiac Autonomic Regulation under Hypnosis Assessed by Heart Rate Variability: Spectral Analysis and Fractal Complexity

“…The hypnotic state differs subjectively as well as physiologically from sleep, relaxed rest and from alert awareness, as demonstrated by EEG [2][3][4] and functional brain imaging studies [5,6] . The hypnotic susceptibility varies from person to person and correlates with the personality dimensions persistence, absorption-permissiveness, preference for an imaging style of thinking and sustained and focused attentional abilities [7][8][9] . Clinical and basic scientific research suggests that during the hypnotic state, the capacity to access and influence functions beyond conscious control is increased [10][11][12][13] .…”