The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Relationship with other Measures of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Expectancies, and Absorption

Abstract

The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) yields scores on three suggestibility dimensions. Objective (CURSS:0) scores and subjective (CURSS:S) scores reflect overt and experiential response to suggestion, respectively. Objective-Involuntariness (CURSS:OI) scores indicate the number of objective responses rated as feeling involuntary. Study 1 indicated that all three suggestibility dimensions correlated significantly with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, and Study 2 showed the three Catleton suggestibility dimensions correlated significantly with Form C of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. The majority of subjects who obtained high scores on the Stanford:C also scored high on the Carleton suggestibility dimensions. Like the Harvard:A and Stanford:C the three Carleton suggestibility dimensions also correlated significantly with attitude/expectancy measures, absorption, and Field's (1965) “hypnotic experiences” inventory. CURSS:VC (voluntary-cooperation) scores reflect the number of objective responses rated as feeling primarily voluntary rather than involuntary. CURSS:VC scores did not correlate significantly with attitude/expectancy variables, absorption or “hypnotic experiences.” Theoretical implications are discussed.

Intentional and spontaneous imagery in hypnosis: The phenomenology of hypnotic responding

“…Suggestibility is assessed as the sum of these ratings. A test-retest reliability of .67 has been reported for the C U B S (Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand, Stam, & Dubreuil, 1983), and validity has been established through high correlations with other measures of suggestibility (Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand, Stam, & Moretti, 1983). In our sample, the internal reliabdity of objective scores, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, was .68 for both versions of the scale combined.…”

“…Responses indicating voluntary control were scored 1; those indicating a lack of voluntary control were scored 0. Also, as in standard involuntariness ratings of C U B S suggestions (Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand, Stam, & Moretti, 1983), responses that were not responded to behaviorally were scored 0. Involuntariness was scored as the sum of these ratings.…”

A Measure of Attitudes toward Hypnosis: Relationships with Absorption and Hypnotic Susceptibility

“…Two other studies (Diamond, Gregory, Lenny, Steadman, & Talone, 1974;Spanos, Rivers, & Gottlieb, 1978) that tested only males also found significant correlations between these variables. Finally, two studies (Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand, Starn, & Moretti, 1983;Yancher & Johnson, 1981) reported only the combined data for males and females. Both studies found significant correlations between attitudes and hypnotic responsiveness.…”

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

“…However, Spanos and colleagues (1983a) used Shor & Orne's original HGSHS: A outcome measure and did not assess subjective or voluntary/involuntary responding on the HGSHS: A. Additionally, Spanos and colleagues (1983a) did not report pass percentages for individual suggestions. Furthermore, Spanos et al (1983a) did not test the significance of the difference in objective responding between the two scales. The study's ability to speak to the subjective experiences of participants and to the relative difficulty of the two scales is limited.…”