The effects of contextual information and gender on the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility.

Abstract

Council, Kirsch, and Hafner (1986) obtained empirical support for the hypothesis that significant correlations between questionnaire measures of absorption and hypnotic susceptibility are an artifact of subjects' beliefs about their own hypnotizability. We tested this hypothesis in a two-session experiment. During Session 1, subjects completed questionnaire measures of absorption, mystical experience, daydreaming frequency, and paranormal beliefs. During Session 2, subjects were tested for hypnotic susceptibility. Subjects were also exposed to one of three information manipulations: They were told about hypnotic testing either before or after filling out the questionnaires or were not told about hypnotic testing. The information manipulation moderated the prediction of susceptibility by the questionnaire measures for women, but not for men. For women, scores on the absorption questionnaire predicted susceptibility only when subjects were informed about hypnotic testing. In the told-after condition, this effect generalized to all of the remaining questionnaire measures. For men, none of the questionnaires was a reliable predictor of susceptibility.

Oxytocin Enhances Social Persuasion during Hypnosis

“…We also tested all participants within a hypnotic context, which leaves open the question concerning oxytocin increasing the capacity to influence people to engage in unorthodox behavior outside hypnosis. It is important to note that many studies have replicated hypnotic responsivity studies by heightening the motivation of participants and suggesting that they comply with suggested experiences [38], [39]. The current design does not allow us to delineate between the effects of oxytocin on persuasion in hypnotic and nonhypnotic contexts.…”

Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability.

“…Over the past decade or so, personality psychologists have devoted increasing attention to personality constructs labeled absorption and openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985aRoche & McConkey, 1990). The roots of these constructs can be found in two somewhat different sources: the search for reliable personality correlates of individual differences in hypnotizability (deGroh, 1989; E. R. Kihlstrom, 1985) and the search for a concise, coherent structure of personality traits (Goldberg, 1981). Until very recently, however, the two lines of research have proceeded in parallel, largely independent of each other.…”

“…The origins of the absorption construct lie partly in the effort, spanning more than 50 years, to uncover correlates of hypnotizability within the wider domain of personality and individual differences (for reviews, see deGroh, 1989;E. R. Hilgard, 1965; J. R. Hilgard, 1979).…”

A Multivariate Study of Hypnotic Susceptibility

“…36 for a review], the interpretation of these findings remains controversial. For example, two studies [37,38] reported that the correlation between absorption and hypnotizability was context dependent. Significant correlations between these variables only emerged when the absorption scale was administered to subjects in a context that was related to hypnotizability testing.…”