The Relationship between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C: A Replication

Scales, Scales and More Scales

“…The second part of the test does, however, correlate to some extent with suggestibility measures, but certainly not sufficiently to say it is a good substitute for a scale such as the Stanford scales as Spiegel and others have held (Spiegel, Aronson, Fleiss, & Haber, 1976;Frischholz, Spiegel, Tryon, & Fisher, 1981). This may actually be a point in its favor as a test of hypnotizability per se.…”

Hypnosis, Hypnotizability and Treatment

“…This makes any kind of standardization problematic because scores on different tests, while internally consistent, do not intercorrelate high enough (range of r's = .20 -. 70) to consider these different methods as interchangeable measures (Frischholz, E.J., Tyron, W.W., Fisher, S., Maruffi, B.L., Vellios, A.T. & Spiegel, H., 1980, Frischholz, E.J. Braun, B.G., Lipman, L.S., & Sachs, R.G., 1992Ruch, Morgan & Hilgard, 1974).…”

“…These various measurements may be reliable, but their significance is questionable. There are many different quantitative methods for measuring individual differences in responsivity to hypnosis, such as the Barber Suggestibility Scale (Barber, 1965), the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (Hilgard, 1965;Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959;Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), the Eye Roll Sign and the Induction Score of the Hypnotic Induction Profile (Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978;Spiegel, Aronson, Fleiss & Haber, 1976), and various self-rating procedures (Frischholz, E.J., Tyron, W.W., Fisher, S., Maruffi, B.L., Vellios, A.T. & Spiegel, H., 1980;Tart, 1979). This makes any kind of standardization problematic because scores on different tests, while internally consistent, do not intercorrelate high enough (range of r's = .20 -.…”

The Withheld Eye-Roll Sign

“…Hence, the predictive validity of the eye-roll may be "independent of its relation to measured hypnotizability (D. Spiegel, unpublished materials, 1986)." Eliseo (1974), Frischholz, Tryon, Vellios, Fisher, Maruffi, & Spiegel (1980); Hilgard (198Ia, 1981b, 1982a; Orne, Hilgard, Spiegel, Spiegel, Crawford, Evans, Orne, and Frischholz (1979); Sheehan, Latta, Regina, and Smith (1979) ;Spiegel, Tryon, Frischholz, and Spiegel (1982); Spiegel, Aronson, Fleiss, and Haber (1976); Switras (1974); and Wheeler et al (1974) have discussed aspects of the eye-roll's correlation with other measures of hypnotizability. Some such discussions have become quite heated.…”

“…The usefulness of the eye-roll may reside in its applicability to a scheme of managerial reasoning independent of its connection to traditional constructs of hypnotizability. For the purposes of this paper, the eye-roll sign will be regarded as an invaluable component of a widely endorsed measure of hypnotizability considered appropriate for general use in clinical settings (Frischholz et al, 1980) and more commonly employed in such settings than any other comparable instrument (Cohen, 1982(Cohen, , 1986. As such, its study has considerable relevance for clinical practice.…”