Suggestibility in the normal waking state.

Abstract

This review evaluates attempts to classify and account for suggestibility observed in normal Ss under waking (nonhypnotic) conditions. Factor analytic studies do not confirm the traditional classification of "primary" and "secondary" suggestibility presented by Eysenck and Furneaux. These studies identify at least 3 types of suggestibility: primary (motor), challenge, and imagery (sensory) suggestibility. Intrinsic, stimulus, and response characteristics of suggestibility tests are examined. Suggestibility does not seem to depend on set, expectancy, or situational variables; is not adequately explained by ideomotor action; and is unrelated to the placebo response. State-specific response to suggestion occurs during sleep. Suggestibility may be related to aspects of classical, verbal, and sensory conditioning.Suggestibility has been an important concept in the history of psychology and psychiatry. Apart from being equated with gullibility and persuasibility (Abraham, 1962), the concept of suggestibility has been central to the historical development of hypnosis (Weitzenhoffer, 1953); has been used to explain the placebo response in psychopharmacology (Trouton, 1957); and has been employed as a measure of personality characteristics, particularly neuroticism (Cattell, 1957;Eysenck, 1947). This review evaluates contemporary attempts to classify different types of suggestibility, and examines some frequently postulated mechanisms that appear relevant to current research. A comprehensive review of the suggestibility literature was published by Stukat (1958), and studies prior to the mid-1950s are not reviewed unless considered relevant to the issues raised.This review is concerned with waking suggestion administered to normal populations of subjects. The term "waking" is used in contrast to "hypnotic." Waking and hypnotic suggestibility are conceptually, and quite probably empirically, distinct (Evans, 1966;Hammer, Evans, & Bartlett, 1963). Except

Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

“…Moreover, a reexamination of the factor analysis presented by Eysenck and Furneaux (1945), done by Evans (1967) by means of a reanalysis of the tetrachoric correlation matrix presented by them in their paper, failed to confirm the existence of the secondary suggestibility factor. Two more recent studies (Perez, Brown, Tasso, & Nash, 2004;Perez, 2009) failed to confirm the three-factor structure (including tertiary/prestige suggestibility).…”

“…However, as for secondary suggestibility, research usually failed to confirm its existence as a clear unitary trait (Benton & Bandura, 1953;Hammer, Evans, & Bartlett, 1963;Stukat, 1958;Evans, 1967). Moreover, a reexamination of the factor analysis presented by Eysenck and Furneaux (1945), done by Evans (1967) by means of a reanalysis of the tetrachoric correlation matrix presented by them in their paper, failed to confirm the existence of the secondary suggestibility factor.…”

The suggestibility of child witnesses: A review

“…On this test, suggestibility scores were based on how many of the last seven boxes were judged to be 'heavier'. Eysenck and Furneaux (1945) found that suggestibility did not seem to be a unitary phenomenon. Instead, the subjects' scores appeared to divide the tests into two main groups.…”

“…The main problem with secondary suggestibility has been that, while tests associated with it by Eysenck and Furneaux (1945) do not correlate with tests of primary suggestibility-a finding replicated by Sheehan and Tilden (1983)-they also fail to correlate with each other to any reliable degree (Grimes, 1948;Stukat, 1958;Evans, 1967). Grimes found, for example, that scores on a progressive weights test correlated only 0.19 with scores on a fidelity of report test.…”

Hypnobo: Perspectives on Hypnosis and Placebo

“…However, whether expectation is a critical determinant (Kirsch & Wickless, 1989;Kirsch, Wickless, & Moffitt, 1999) or yields a more nuanced influence on hypnotic effects (Benham, Bowers, Nash, & Muenchen, 1998) is a matter of continuing discussion (Raz, 2007). Although the placebo response has been traditionally considered a manifestation of suggestibility (Honigfeld, 1964;Shapiro, 1964a;Shapiro, 1964b), general consensus regarding the relationship between hypnotizability and GPRs proposes that this correlation, if it exists, is modest at best (Baker & Kirsch, 1993;Barber, 1960;Evans, 1967;Kirsch, 1997;McGlashan, Evans, & Orne, 1969;Silber, 1967;Spanos, Perlini, & Robertson, 1989;Spanos, Stenstrom, & Johnston, 1988;Van Dyck & Hoogduin, 1990). A recent unpublished study reports that, at least in the context of experimental pain, placebo response can be unstable.…”