The Problem of Hypnotizability: A Review

Abstract

This paper SUM the relatively unsuccessful effort to relate hypnotizability to sex, age, psychiatric diagnoses, suggestibility, and various personality traits. The problems of measurement, subject selection, controls, and experimenter biss are reviewed. Comparison of data iS diflicuIt and replication of studies infrequent. This might be a t tributed to incomplete reporting of methodology, to defects in experimental design, and to various conceptual problems. Concepts which view hypnotizability as a "something" universal, a "something" unique, or a "nothing" are briefly appraised. Finally, hypnotizability is seen as a "term" describing a relationship between a "route" and a "state"-h identifiable by merawable criteria. This paper summarizes the older experimental literature on hypnotizability, last reviewed extensively by Weitzenhoffer in 1953, but focuses on more recent reports. Other reviews include Bramwell (1903) ) Hull (1933), and the less comprehensive reviews of Pattie (1956a), Weitzenhoffer,S and Young (1926;. Although hypnotizability generally refers to the observation that only certain individuah can be hypnotized, definitions of hypnotizability vary so considerably from paper to paper that the approach here is to accept each definition as it is advanced in a given report.3

An Experimental Comparison of Direct and Ericksonian Hypnotic Induction Procedures and the Relationship to Secondary Suggestibility

“…The subjects ranged from 22 to 60 years of age, with the mean age being approximately 30. Matching of subjects was not considered necessary in light of earlier reports on the insignificance of this factor or any other personality variable in regard to hypnotizability (Morgan, Johnson, & Hilgard, 1974;Deckert & West, 1963;Brenman & Gill, 1947).…”

Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility

“…He did find evidence that a positive attitude toward hypnosis favors susceptibility, that expectation is a negligible factor, and that "Needs and motivations appear to be related in various ways to suggestibility" (p.86). In a more recent review, Deckert and West (1963) again noted the ambiguity of reported results with respect to personality, motivational, and attitudinal correlates of hypnotic susceptibility, and concluded that "The morass of conflicting reports, attempting to correlate hypnotizability with various personality traits, makes finding even some semblance of empirically useful consistency 'quite unlikely" (pp. 223-224).…”

Towards a Social Learning Theory of Hypnosis

“…Research searching for personality correlates of hypnotic suggestibility by means of paper and pencil tests has been a failure (see reviews by Deckert & West, 1963;Barber, 1964). Both Hilgard (1965) and Barber (1964) suggest that only subtle aspects of personality are involved in hypnosis which are not tapped by present-day methods of personality assessment, and Barber goes on to suggest that hypnotic responsiveness is primarily situationally determined which is much in keeping with the theory being proposed.…”