Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
8-1979
The Effects of Standardized and Personalized Hypnotic Induction Techniques on Depth of Trance
William C. Schirado Western Michigan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations
Part of the Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Commons
Recommended Citation Schirado, William C., "The Effects of Standardized and Personalized Hypnotic Induction Techniques on Depth of Trance" (1979). Dissertations. 2703. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2703
This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECTS OF STANDARDIZED AND PERSONALIZED HYPNOTIC INDUCTION TECHNIQUES ON DEPTH OF TRANCE
by
William C. Schirado
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Education
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 1979
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS
A special note of appreciation is extended to
Dr. Robert F. Hopkins, who directed this research; and to
Drs. William A. Carlson, Frederick P. Gault, and George P.
Sidney, for the valuable and varied perspectives they
offered throughout this research. My deepest thanks go to
Drs. Hopkins and Carlson for their generous contribution
of time.
William C. Schirado
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. Wliile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. Wlien a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
University Microfilms International
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7926636 SCHIRADÜ, WILLIAM CHARLES THE EFFECTS OF STANDARDIZED AND PERSONALIZED HYPNOTIC INDUCTION TECHNIQUES ON DEPTH OF TRANCE, WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, ED,0,, 1979
COPR, 1979 SCHIRADO, WILLIAM CHARLES
International 300 n. zeed road, ann arbor, mi 48ioc
0 1979
WILLIAM CHARLES SCHIRADO
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I The Problem ...... 1
II The L i t e r a t u r e ...... 9
Personalized Techniques ...... 9
Standardized Techniques and Scales .... 12
Personalized and Standardized Techniques C o m p a r e d ...... 19
Research Problems ...... 25
III The Method, Subjects, Procedure ...... 29
M e t h o d ...... 29
S u b j e c t s ...... 34
P r o c e d u r e ...... 35
IV R e s u l t s ...... 37
V Discussion, Conclusions, Summary, Recommenda tions ...... 47
D i s c u s s i o n ...... 47
Conclusions ...... 51
S u m m a r y ...... 54
Recommendations ...... 55
APPENDIX
A Experienced Clinical Hypnotic Operator Defxned ...... 58
B Standard Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale Scor ing Blank, Form A, and Interrogatory Blank 60
C Equivalent Scoring Criteria ...... 64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D D e b r i e f i n g ...... 66
E Preliminary Data-Gathering ...... 68
F Standard Explanation to Potential Volunteers Describing Involvement in Research Concern ing Hypnosis ...... 70
G Informed Consent Form ...... 72
H Debriefing Handout ...... 74
I Research Data ...... 76
REFERENCES ...... 78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Sex and Induction Type »•••••••••••■••••••«•• 38
2. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Experienced Clinical Hypnotic Operator and Induction Type 39
3. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Age and Induction T y p e ...... 40
4. Weighted Means Analysis of Variance : Age and Induction T y p e ...... 41
5. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Department and Induction T y p e ...... 42
6. Weighted Means Analysis of Variance : Department and Induction T y p e ...... 43
7. One-Way Analysis of Variance: Total Sample . . 44
8. Differences Between Means ...... 45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I
The Problem
The area of hypnosis received increased attention in the
past decade. However, many aspects of hypnosis were in need
of further investigation. One such area, regarding induction
procedures, received limited attention and needs further
study. This research addresses induction procedures.
The scientific study of hypnotic behavior was initially
hindered by the lack of systematic, standardized methods of
induction and measurement necessary for control of variables
and replication of research. The Barber Suggestibility Scale
(BSS) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS)
addressed this problem by providing standardized formats for
induction and measurement of depth of trance. However, with
the introduction of standardized material, the personalized
clinical practice of structuring the hypnotic induction and
behavior to individuals became less suitable to laboratory
settings.
Hypnosis has been viewed, in general, as a highly indi
vidualized experience (Shor & Orne, 1965; Weitzenhoffer,
1953) . Personalized (e.g., individualized, permissive)
clinical hypnotic techniques address idiosyncratic needs, and
it may be contended that such personalized techniques are a
major factor in determining the resultant hypnotic behavior
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
and depth of trance (Erickson, 1958, 1962, 1964b; Fromm &
Shor, 1972; Hull, 1933; Weitzenhoffer, 1963). If personal
ized techniques are of major consequence in the induction and
depth of trance, standardized inductions and suggestibility
scales may not offer a suitable comparison to the traditional,
personalized clinical setting (Handler & Gridner, 1975;
Erickson, 1954a, 1960, 1965, 1966a; Gindes, 1951; Greene,
1970; Hartland, 1966; Spiegel, 1959; Wilson, 1967). The
question arises as to whether or not laboratory research in
the area of hypnosis, using standardized induction techniques,
is comparable to hypnosis as practiced in the clinical set
ting, using personalized induction techniques.
In looking for possible differences between these two
general methods of induction, it is noted that a "high" inci
dence of nonresponsive subjects has been reported in stand
ardized laboratory research, as compared to reported person
alized clinical experience (Dana & Cooper, 1964 ; Davis &
Husband, 19 31 ; Deckert & West, 196 3; Dermen & London, 1965 ;
Faw & Wilcox, 1958; Furneaux & Gibson, 1961; Hilgard, Weit-
zenhoffer, Landes, & Moore, 1961; Hilgard & Bentler, 1963;
Melie & Hilgard, 1964; Rosenhan & London, 1963; Shor, Orne,
& O'Connell, 1966; Tart & Hilgard, 1966). No mutual criteria
have been applied to both settings in an attempt to determine
the possible existence of significant differences in success
rates in terms of depth of trance (Friedlander & Sarbin,
1938; Shor, 1962; Tart, 1966 ; Von Dedenroth, 1962). This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
research used the same criteria for measuring depth of trance
across induction techniques, techniques which represent a
continuum in the range from standardized to personalized.
Advocates of the pure, personalized approach may assert that
even the most personalized technique used in this research
does not represent their approach. They will be correct, for
the setting down of mutual criteria, which is not determined
by any one individual's current needs, violates the defini-
... tion of the personalized approach. Yet, such a defense of
the personalized technique will represent circular reasoning
until such a time that the technique is objectively defined,
evaluated, and supported. No implication is intended that
the personalized technique is haphazard, chaotic, or arbi
trary in nature. On the contrary, the technique is most
demanding in terms of planning, organization, and implemen
tation. Personalized, for the purpose of this research,
refers to the fact that the technique relies on the subject's
needs to define the organization and content of the induction
and the behavior used to judge the depth of trance.
The clinical setting represents the use of personalized
techniques, while the laboratory setting represents the use
of standardized techniques. Part of the rationale for using
the personalized technique comes from the nature of the
clinical population. The clinical population presents a
demand factor, that is, the resolution of a problem (Bowers,
1966; Jackson, 1975; Orne, 1962, 1965). Laboratory subjects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on the other hand, usually are not included in research for
the purpose of resolving some acute problem or distressing
situation. Such a discrepancy in the populations may also
be viewed in terms of task motivation (Barber, 1970, 1976a;
Chaves & Barber, 1976; Ferenczi, 1950; Freud, 1953; Hilgard,
1965). Within this conceptual framework, the clincial popu
lation represents high task motivation due to their wish to
resolve psychic and/or physical pain. The laboratory popula
tion represents low task motivation, low in that it may
result, for example, from wanting to do well or wanting to
help or please the experimenter. Low motivation may be per
ceived as "high" by the individual subject. However, task
motivation is present because of participation in the experi
ment. In fact, the experiment presents or imposes a motivat
ing situation upon the subject. Assuming that people seeking
clinical help are more highly motivated toward problem reso
lution than people wanting to do well or please others in an
experiment, the demand factor may account for greater depth
of trance in clinical settings, perhaps regardless of tech
nique. In this research, efforts were made to exclude sub
jects with clinical motivation. That is, this research
addressed standardized and personalized techniques and did
not address demand factor. Demand factor was limited to
motivation for wanting to do well, help, and so forth, and
not extreme demands (i.e., client problems). Results repre
senting differences between the induction techniques would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
indicate the significance of the standardized/personalized
variables. Results showing no difference between the induc
tion techniques would indicate the significance of other
factors, for example, demand.
Within the context of the general problem of standard
ized versus personalized techniques, an internal problem
exists as to what techniques adequately represent these
approaches. The SHSS represents a uniform, standardized
technique, complete with scoring criteria and norms. Within
the framework of this research, presenting a tape-recorded
version of the SHSS represented the most standardized tech
nique, eliminating such potentially confounding variables as
variation in tone of voice and rate of presentation. Pre
senting the SHSS orally represented the next technique along
the continuum approaching personalized techniques. Present
ing an oral, personalized induction followed by an oral
presentation of the measurement of suggestibility portion of
the SHSS represented a more personalized approach. The most
personalized approach allowed for oral, personalized presen
tation both of the induction and suggestibility scale or
equivalent scale items.
Personalized technique, for the purpose of this
research, was given the widest possible latitude in defini
tion, to allow for the clinical expertise of the experi
menters. Any technique, not involving physiological inter
vention, which did not follow the content and guidelines of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. standardized techniques (e.g., the SHSS, the BSS) was con
sidered acceptable. Experimenters were free to draw from
their range of experience, adhering only to the overall time
limit of the sessions and the scoring criteria required by
the SHSS or equivalent criteria. The personalized techniques,
therefore, were idiosyncratic to the experimenters and highly
individualized in response to the subjects. The enforcement
of minimal constraints on the experimenters when using per
sonalized techniques offered, at best, the opportunity for
maximum contrast between the standardized and personalized
approach to hypnotic induction. All subjects received iden
tical information regarding the research prior to their
participation (As, O'Hara, & Munger, 1962; Cronin, Spanos,
& Barber, 1971).
To this point, the problem was one of comparison of
techniques. Data exist concerning the nature of standardized
and personalized techniques. Yet no suitable comparison
could be made because of the lack of mutual criteria. Once
mutual criteria were defined, such as the SHSS, the problem
of comparing depth of trance could be addressed. A number of
assumptions were required, first, that standardized and per
sonalized techniques could be mixed, forming a continuum from
standardized to personalized techniques. A few limitations
will be outlined here and considered in detail in the dis
cussion. Generalization of results was limited necessarily,
due to (1) the highly specific population used in this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
research (graduate volunteers who had not been hypnotized
previously), and (2) the limited size of the sample (N = 24,
6 subjects per treatment group). A theoretical limitation
existed in that the factors considered in this research may
not be crucial in defining hypnotic induction as it relates
to depth of trance. Researchers are attempting to provide
various, alternative conceptual models for viewing hypnosis.
For example. Barber (1974, 1975, 1977), Spanos and Barber
(1976) , and Weitzenhoffer and Sjoberg (1961) excluded the
need for the traditional induction process as a preliminary
for hypnotic behavior. However, this research attempted to
provide information relevant to established induction tech
niques and their relationship to depth of trance.
The greatest threat to internal validity came from the
possible differential selection of subjects (Isaac, 1971) .
To lessen the possibility that one experimental group
reflected a preexperimental difference rather than showing
the effects of the treatment procedure, (1) only subjects
with no previous hypnotic experience were used (Boucher &
Hilgard, 1962; Cooper, 1972; London, 1961; London, Cooper,
& Johnson, 1962; Lubin, Brady, & Leavitt, 1962); (2) subjects
were assigned to experienced clinical hypnotic operators
(CHO's) on an alternating basis ; and (3) all possible treat
ment groups, for male or female subjects, were ordered ran
domly (i.e., subjects were assigned to treatment groups in
the order in which they volunteered). One factor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jeopardizing external validity came from the interaction
effects of selection bias and the treatment (Isaac, 1971).
This factor limited generalization because of the possibility
that the subjects selected for participation in the experi
ment differed significantly from other graduate volunteers on
such uncontrolled variables as intelligence, socioeconomic
status, and so forth. In addition, the reactive effects of
experimental procedures were considered. The experimental
procedures might have produced effects that would limit the
generalization of the findings. This was considered when
describing the different levels of motivation found in per
sonalized clinical and standardized laboratory settings. In
the strictest sense, this factor limits any claim that the
effect of the treatment for the sample population was the
same for subjects who are exposed to such hypnotic techniques
in nonexperimental situations.
Historically, research has focused on variables within
the confines of the standardized technique. Despite an ever
growing body of laboratory research, few researchers have
questioned the validity of standardized induction techniques
as the basis for the abundant hypotheses and conclusions con
cerning hypnotic behavior generated by such techniques. This
research made a comparison between standardized inductions
and personalized inductions, using depth of trance as a means
of measurement and comparison.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II
The Literature
Personalized Techniques
Personalized hypnotic induction techniques were the only
form of induction during the early days of hypnotism. Induc
tions were individualized because research had not categor
ized similarities and differences in the process (Hull, 1933),
let alone anything approaching linguistic analysis (Handler &
Gridner, 1975). An early position regarding the nature of
hypnosis held to the theory that hypnosis was a special state
(Hilgard, 1978). Explanations of this special state tended
to provide indirect support for the use of personalized tech
niques. One such view of hypnosis referred to "the art of
induction" (Spiegel, 1959, p. 634) where the subject's behav
ior was considered consistent with psychoanalytic theory.
Cues came from the subject, providing the therapist with
information which guided the therapist's "signals" to the
subject. Implicit in this approach was the importance of the
relationship (i.e., transference). Behavior on the part of
the subject was viewed as a subjective experience (As & Ost-
vold, 1968), resulting from the fantasy life and unresolved
conflicts of the subject. In the strictest sense, hypnosis
was to provide the subject with a secure reality (Erickson,
1962) which promoted the basic ingredients of therapy, that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
is, trust, respect, and acceptance, all to the resolution
of guilt and anxiety.
Just as conventional therapeutic responses were guided
by the client's verbal and nonverbal behaviors, hypnosis was
seen as naturalistic in that the hypnotist tailored his
behavior in response to the subject's behavior (Erickson,
1958). Personalized techniques were given further support by
the use of indirect techniques which circumvented resistance
on the part of the client (Erickson, 1954a). The use of
indirect hypnotic techniques was analogous to the interpreta
tion of latent language in psychoanalysis. Even the use of
the client's symptoms was incorporated into hypnotic induc
tion to facilitate client cooperation and by-pass unconscious
resistance through naturalistic, personalized techniques
(Erickson, 1965). The personalized approach was carried to
other areas of the therapist-client relationship, including
interpretation of regressive behavior (Scheflen, 1960) and
developmental phases (Hilgard & Hilgard, 1962). Regardless
of the problem area, the issue was how to use words (Frankl,
1960; Greene, 1970), and the consensus of the hypnotic state
theorists (Erickson, 1955, 1964b; Haley, 1973; Hilgard, 1978)
implicitly supported the therapist's adaptability to, and
anticipation of, the client's behavior to assure continuing
successes by the client (Weitzenhoffer, 1957).
Gradually, personalized techniques were identified as
such and given direct support. A most ardent supporter of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
personalized techniques described the approach as "meaning
ful communication," as opposed to direct suggestion and
authoritarian techniques (Sandier & Gridner, 1975). Authors
could go only so far in describing the personalized approach,
indicating that results were dependent on the interpersonal
relationship and interaction between the hypnotist and the
subject (Bentler, 1963; Haley, 1958). Generally, the person
alized technique was viewed as requiring a slow pace and per
sistence to develop a trusting relationship and good prognosis
due to the individualized nature of the relationship (Kaplan,
1977). Outright support accompanied such rules as that the
therapist's words must relate closely to the subject's actions
(Gindes, 1951). Research stated that responsiveness to test
suggestions increases when suggestions are linked with natu
rally occurring events (Wilson, 1967). Hypnotists were
encouraged to couple the effect they wanted to produce with
one that the subject was actually experiencing at that moment
(Hartland, 1966). To meet the subject at his own level and
to establish the necessary rapport, flexibility and observa
tional skills were encouraged for the hypnotist (Beahrs,
1977), To state that the therapist's reactions must match
the client's behaviors was to suggest that the client control
the therapeutic process (Erickson, 1977). In fact, the use
of personalized hypnotic techniques gained increased support
and further refinement in terms of definition (Shibata, 1976),
leading to the use of this approach in more specific and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
specialized areas. Articles and texts applied personalized
techniques to medical (Erickson, 1957), dental (Erickson,
Hershman, & Secter, 1961), and psychiatric (Erickson, 1939a,
1939b, 1961) situations. Brief psychotherapy (Erickson,
1954b, 1959; Sanders, 1977), symptom and pain control (Erick
son, 1966c), and obesity were all the focus for the useful
ness of personalized techniques. The use of phonograph
recordings was either totally rejected (Erickson, 1966a) or
qualified with statements as to how the recordings must be
familiar to the subject in order to facilitate a deeper
trance (Caldironi, 1975). Even the most ardent proponents of
the nonhypnotic state theory listed the coupling of sugges
tions with naturally occurring events as one variable that
could be delineated in hypnotic induction procedures (Barber
& DeMoor, 19 72).
Standardized Techniques and Scales
Before the development of standardized scales, the use
of unstated and ambiguous criteria in the measurement of
hypnotic behavior was common (Arnold, 1946; Field, 1965;
Mears, 1957; Tinterow, 1970). The nineteenth-century scales
of Liebeault and Bernheim were some of the first attempts to
standardize the measurement of depth of hypnosis (Hilgard,
1965). While some measurement and comparison were possible,
scoring criteria and the construction of the measurement
scale remained major obstacles to refined investigation. The
Davis-Husband (1931) Scale went into more detail, considered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
greater variations in depth, and used more refined scoring
than previous scales. The scale used the follov/ing classifi
cations for depth; insusceptible, hypnoidal, light trance,
medium trance, and somnambulistic trance. Each classifica
tion starting with the hypnoidal classification used from
four to eight objective symptoms for scoring (Hilgard, 1965).
However, researchers found that each measurement tended to
alter subsequent measurements by decreasing the discriminat
ing power of scoring items (Watkins, 19 34). Even with revi
sions, the Davis-Husband Scale showed little evidence that
accepted scale construction methods were used, the scoring
criteria remained ambiguous and no information regarding
validity or reliability was present (LeCron, 1953).
Although the Harvard Discrete and the Harvard Continuous
scales provide for deliberate answers from subjects, the
scales defined only awake and deep states, precluding further,
discrete definition (Fromm & Shor, 1972). Spiegel and Spiegel
(1978) developed the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP). The
scale contains three parts: biological measurement (eye
roll), subjective discovery experience, and an ideomotor item
(hand levitation). The HIP is intended to measure hypnotiz-
ability and provide information relevant to clinical issues.
Major research effort has been focused on the relationship of
the HIP to personality traits and degree of psychopathology.
Findings relating the HIP to the Stanford Hypnotic Suscept
ibility Scale (SHSS) as yet are unpublished.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
The Friedlander-Sarbin Scale used four items in an
attempt to classify hypnotic susceptibility, including eyelid
closure, negative suggestion tests, posthypnotic voice hallu
cinations, and amnesia. The scale was validated by a test of
internal consistency, and the scale was built around stand
ardized procedures. However, use of the scale revealed that
it covered a narrow range of suggestibility, especially on
the side of deeper trance states. Subjects who appeared
deeply hypnotized were, at times, unable to respond to the
more difficult test suggestions (Friedlander & Sarbin, 1938).
The Friedlander-Sarbin Scale provided the basis for the
development of the SHSS.
The SHSS refined the Friedlander-Sarbin scales, using
comparative inductions and items. In addition, the two forms
(A and B) permit before-and-after studies. Further revision
consisted of greater permissiveness in the challenge items
and a simplified scoring basis, that is, pass-fail (Hilgard,
1965). The scale consisted of 12 items, each item followed
by the criteria for passing; the pass-fail score; space for
notes on amount of response, effort, rate of movement, etc.;
and an interrogatory scoring section in which to record
recall in the test for amnesia. Form C of the SHSS was
developed to accommodate a greater variety of hypnotic behav
iors and was not considered equivalent to Forms A and B
(Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). All three forms include a
15-minute standardized induction and 12 standardized test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
suggestions.
The Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS) was developed in
response to two major problems with the SHSS. First, the
SHSS was not suitable for a comparison group that was not
exposed to hypnotic induction. Second, subjective responses
were not considered when the SHSS was used. The BSS con
sisted of eight standardized test suggestions, including arm-
lowering, arm levitation, hand lock, thirst hallucination,
verbal inhibition, body immobility, posthypnotic response,
and selective amnesia. Both objective and subjective scoring
criteria were specified (Barber, 1976b, 1977). Concerning
the BSS, Hilgard (1965, p. 92) pointed out that normative
data were gathered "without prior attempted induction of
hypnosis." Furthermore, a "considerable fraction of the
responses to suggestion that are associated with hypnosis can
be obtained from susceptible subjects who have not gone
through the usual induction procedures. While the percent
passing each item tends to be less than following a usual
hypnotic induction, some fourteen to fifteen percent of the
subjects" passed difficult items.
Development of standardized methods was extrapolated
from the laboratory to the clinical setting. Problem areas
already delineated in clinical practice were approached anew
through the use of hypnosis, resulting in texts which
attempted to specify how specific hypnotic procedures could
be applied to specific clinical problems (Crasilneck & Hall,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
1975; Kroger, 1963). Additional variables which affect
hypnotic performance were sought in an attempt to account for
variations in subject response. Rather than question the
nature of the standardized technique, researchers worked with
the framework of standardized scales, focusing on such vari
ables as the effect of the experimenter's tone of voice on
hypnotic behavior and performance (Barber & Calverley, 1964b).
Results in this area were generally positive (Fisher, 1962)
and tended to further a reliance on standardized techniques.
The closest that research has come to comparing stand
ardized and personalized induction techniques has been a
focus on taped versus spoken presentations. Barber (1976b)
noted the importance of the spoken and tape-recorded methods
when considering independent (antecedent) variables "subsumed
under the topic hypnosis" (p. 12). An early work by Hosko-
vec, Svorad, and Lane (196 3) used taped and spoken sugges
tions. The results indicated that the initial suggestions
for both groups were equally effective. Both groups showed
increased body sway when compared to basal levels. Spoken
suggestions followed by recorded suggestions showed spoken
suggestions to be more effective, with the reverse order
showing no difference. The research results conclude a
justification for the use of recorded (taped) suggestions in
experimental and clinical work, although no extensive ration
ale was presented to justify the inclusion of clinical set
tings. The research also shov/ed that Group B (N = 20, base
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
response, spoken followed by recorded suggestions) indicated
the equality of spoken and taped suggestions, while Group A
(N = 20, base response, recorded followed by spoken sugges
tions) yielded a statistically significant difference between
spoken and taped suggestions, making the results equivocal
at best.
Barber and Calverley (1964a) addressed the question of
recorded and spoken suggestions, stating that recordings were
an important research aspect to standardized presentations
and that it had not been demonstrated that recorded and
spoken suggestions produce comparable effects. Their purpose
was to "determine whether recorded suggestions are as effec
tive as spoken suggestions in eliciting 'hypnotic-like'
behaviors" (p. 1) . In their first experiment, 84 volunteer
female student nurses, ages 19-22 and not used in previous
experiments, were included. Subjects were assigned randomly
to Groups A (recorded) and B (spoken), with 42 subjects in
each group. The BSS was administered to all subjects. The
experimenter present used his own taped voice. The objective
and subjective scores (dependent variables) did not differ
significantly on seven test suggestions. To help generalize
the results and to see if similar results came if a hypnotic
induction procedure was administered prior to the test sug
gestions, a second experiment was run. A total of 66 male
volunteer dental students, ages 20-25 and who were not pre
vious hypnotic subjects, were used. All subjects were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
assigned randomly to Groups 1 (recorded) and 2 (spoken).
All subjects received a 15-minute standardized induction pro
cedure. The objective and subjective scores did not differ
significantly on six test suggestions. The recorded and
spoken presentations yielded nonsignificant differences of
subjective and objective scores on the total scale. The
results indicated that recorded suggestions are comparable
to spoken suggestions, and researchers are recommended to use
recorded suggestions to increase standardization and reduce
confounding variables (Barber, 1976b; Barber & Calverley,
1964a).
Research demonstrating comparable results with spoken
and recorded suggestions has come out of the laboratory set
ting and is finding support in clinical areas (Mclnelly,
196 7). Extended research is now focusing on the comparison
of live versus video-taped hypnotic inductions. Ulett,
Akpinar, and Itil (1972) used video tape and the BSS with
induction, to find that 25 percent of the subjects demon
strated deep trance, 20 percent a light trance, and 55 per
cent in-between, and to recommend the use of video tape as an
acceptable method of hypnotic induction. It is noted that
the study made no comparisons with other induction methods.
Bean and Duff (1975) corroborated the findings of Ulett et
al. (1972), concluding that video-taped inductions are as
effective as live inductions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
Personalized and Standardized Techniques Compared
Questions remain concerning the generalization of
results. Research to date has not made a strict comparison
between standardized and personalized techniques. Studies
using spoken and recorded variables have taken one possible
aspect of the personalized technique (i.e., spoken presenta
tion) , standardized the spoken presentation into a consistent
format, and then compared it with an even more standardized
presentation (i.e., taped presentation). What is being
studied is the comparison of two different standardized tech
niques, not the comparison of standardized and personalized
techniques. Wilson and Barber (1977) attempted to address
this question as part of their study. Stating that existing
scales which measure responsiveness to suggestions were too
authoritarian, implied control by the experimenter, usually
required an induction procedure, and were not easily adminis
tered to groups and individuals, the researchers developed
the Creative Imagination Scale (CIS). The CIS was intended
to be non-authoritarian, promote the subject's production of
hypnotic phenomena themselves, to be used with or without
induction, and to be administered to groups and individuals.
This "permissive" scale was intended to measure responsive
ness to 10 itemized test suggestions, including arm heaviness,
hand levitation, finger anesthesia, water "hallucination,"
temperature "hallucination," time distortion, age regression,
and mind-body relaxation. Norms were established using 217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
subjects, with test-retest, split-half, and factoral reli
ability being established. The researchers claimed the use
fulness of the CIS in clinical and laboratory settings.
However, a review of the CIS reveals that the instructions
were read verbatim (i.e., structured and standardized) and
not drawn from subject behavior or needs. What was actually
presented was an updated version of antiquated, standardized
verbal instructions, similar to revising intelligence tests
in accordance with current cultural language usage. This
revision made the instructions more understandable to the
subjects and a greater responsiveness was expected from the
intended age group. However, the basic meaning of permis
siveness or non-authoritarian techniques was not a part of
the Wilson/Barber study, for to issue identical instructions
to all subjects— no matter how liberal, updated, or "permis
sive" the instructions— contradicts the essential definition
of the personalized approach.
A number of studies have attempted to focus on the prob
lems of hypnotic susceptibility (Erickson, 1932, 1948; Pattie,
1956; Sacerdote, 1970). Yet conclusions and recommendations,
while commenting on standardized techniques and individual
differences, have remained within the framework of highly
standardized techniques. Ricks (1969) was unable to find
support for the following hypothesis: Subjects with high
internal locus of control are more suggestible with communi
cations oriented toward internal control. After using the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
BSS and tape-recorded presentations, Ricks suggested that
further studies would do well to account more for individual
differences in the subjects. In comparing alpha feedback,
progressive relaxation, and hypnotic practice. Duff (1977)
concluded that there was no significant difference between
his groups and that hypnotic susceptibility was stable
regardless of outside influence. Hewitt (1965) found that
previously unsusceptible subjects did not increase in sus
ceptibility following a "communication" designed to achieve
this purpose. Both the Duff (1977) and Hewitt (1965) studies
used standardized instruments (e.g., the SHSS), but did not
question their findings in terms of individual differences as
was done by Ricks (1969). Studies by Moore (1961) and Fried-
land (1976) were also characteristic of working within the
standardized framework, yet drawing conclusions outside of
the studies' parameters. They concluded, respectively, that
hypnotic susceptibility is independent of susceptibility to
social influences, and there are no significant mean or vari
ance differences among three induction methods (i.e., sleep
talk, blackboard visualization, and chiasson). All of the
above-mentioned studies had N's ranging from 41 to 180, and
used volunteer college students. Conceptually, the studies
cited previously may be categorized as belonging to the "non
state" theory. That is, the hypnotic subject is not funda
mentally different from normal individuals cooperating in a
social situation. Conversely, "hypnotic state" theory
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
implies that a quantitative and qualitative difference
exists between the hypnotic state and the waking state.
Spanos and Barber (1974) described the hypnotic state theo
rist as tending toward vagueness, with a "lack of amenability
to operational definitions" (p. 508).
Spanos and Barber's conclusions are consistent with a
variety of studies conducted by researchers who may be placed
under the general hypnotic state theory (Bernheim, 1895;
Erickson, 1941, 1952, 1964b, 1966b; Eysenck & Furneaux, 1945;
Roberts, 1964). Young (1927) implicitly supported the con
tention that the subject's perceptions are of prime impor
tance in determining subject response to hypnotic suggestions.
Weitzenhoffer (1957) was more specific when pointing out the
importance of setting, attitude, and cooperation in effecting
suggestibility and listing the limitations of standardized
scale measurements. Haley (1973) was clear in his recommen
dation that the therapist intervene actively and directly
through observing the subject, the subject's methods of com
munication, and factors which motivate the subject. Discuss
ing the differences between clinical (personalized) and
laboratory (standardized) settings, Mears (1954) concluded
that standardized tools of suggestion are not suitable in the
clinical setting because of their "show" quality and authori
tarian attitude. Erickson, Rossi, and Rossi (1976) concluded
that "theorists [i.e., Sarbin, Coe, Barber] who have identi
fied hypnosis and trance with suggestibility . . . [have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
downgraded] the autonomous and involuntary aspects of
hypnotic experience" (p. 269). They identified these theo
rists as advocating (or, at a minimum, reliant on) direct
suggestions which tell the subject how to respond. Standard
ized, structured presentations remain the clearest example of
direct suggestion. Despite support for both theoretical per
spectives, as indicated previously, Spanos and Barber's
(19 74) observations regarding the vagueness and lack of opera
tional definitions by hypnotic state theorists generally
remains accurate. Erickson (1967b) stated that laboratory
and clinical hypnosis may yield the same observable results
(here the author used personalized techniques exclusively)
but seem different to the subject, that is, have different
personal meanings to the subjects.
Attempts have been made to reconcile the differences
between the personalized, clinical, state theories and the
standardized, laboratory, non-state theories. Although
Holden (1977) presented a factual account of differences,
avoiding conclusions, Kroger (1963) stated that the standard
ized authoritarian approach is best when "success is expected"
and the personalized permissive approach is best when dealing
with resistance. Spanos and Barber (1974) were more specific
in pointing out two areas of agreement: (1) that the sub
ject's willingness to cooperate is important, and (2) that
subjects respond to suggestions when they become involved in
"imaginings that are consistent with the aims of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
suggestions" (p. 508). They went on to predict that state
theorists are likely to pursue "research that might indicate
that hypnotic performance involves unique or highly unusual
changes in perceptual functioning or in cognitive function
ing" (p. 508). Non-state theorists, on the other hand, "may
be expected to probe further into the effects of such vari
ables as how the situation is defined to the subject [view
ing] hypnotic performance as a set of socially influenced
cognitive skills or abilities" (p. 509). To date, state
theorists have not agreed upon a consistent method of study
ing or substantiating their contentions. Communication pat
terns and linguistic analysis provide a potential structure,
but are far from universally accepted (Erickson, 1952, 1967a;
Henle, 1962; Kursh, 1971; Pearson, 1966; Watslawick, Bravin,
& Jackson, 1967). The study of logic and problem-solving
patterns has emerged as another contender in the struggle
to provide objective support for longstanding naturalistic
techniques (Bateson, 1972; Bronowske, 1966; Sarbin & Coe,
1972; Watslawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Traditional
interpretations remain vague but supported by researchers
(Jackson & Haley, 1963; Milgram, 1963, 1964, 1965 ; White,
1937), while newer, more objective approaches such as com
munication patterns already are vying with subgroupings and
specialties (Deikman, 1972; Erickson, 1964a, 1964c; Young,
1931).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Research Problems
A number of authors have highlighted potential problems
in research (O'Connor, 1976; Rosenthal, 1966; Slotnick &
London, 1965; Troffer & Tart, 1964). Barber (1973) has
delineated nine possible investigator and experimenter effects
which may complicate research; those effects will follow and
be considered separately. By Barber's definition, the inves
tigator is responsible for the experimental design and the
overall conduct of the study, while the experimenter conducts
the study.
(1) The investigator paradigm effect is concerned with
basic assumptions and the way of conceptualizing the area of
inquiry. Paradigms and associated theories are considered
necessary to research and are therefore best made explicit.
The literature supports the presence of two contrasting the
ories regarding hypnotic induction. Because most research to
date deals with structured techniques, to the exclusion of
support or even consideration of unstructured techniques,
assumptions are made concerning the validity of unstructured
techniques and their suitability for accounting for individ
ual differences. It is further assumed that theories which
support the use of personalized techniques are not so invalid
as underdeveloped.
(2) The investigator loose-protocol effect refers to the
lack of step-by-step details of how the experiment is to be
conducted. To avoid such a problem, this research defined
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
such aspects as the materials, subjects, raters, and experi
menters throughout the method, subjects, and procedure chap
ter, along with their place in the research, to promote
understanding of the design/procedure and replication of the
research.
(3) The investigator analysis effect is evident when the
investigator chooses and focuses on data after conducting the
research. The obvious drawback is the possibility that only
data which support the investigator's bias will be considered.
In the statement of the problem and again in the data analy
sis section, all data to be used in the final analysis were
specified along with the method of analysis.
(4) The investigator fudging effect arises when the
investigator reports results that are not the results actu
ally obtained. A preliminary step taken to avoid such a pit
fall was the use of raters to collect data. To avoid the
problem of establishing a level of significant differences
after concluding the research, the .05 level was chosen prior
to the start of the research. Lastly, all data gathered were
kept and will be made available to other researchers for
analysis.
(5) The experimenter attributes effect takes place when
personal attributes such as age, sex, race, prestige, social
status, warmth, friendliness, and dominance result in differ
ent data from different experimenters. Experimenters in this
research were matched for approximate age, sex, race.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
prestige, and social status, being from the same university
department, general theoretical orientation, and professional
affiliations.
(6) Another possible effect surfaces when experimenters
fail to follow the established protocol. In addition to
having verbatim instructions concerning the presentation of
the SHSS and the debriefing, all sessions were observed by
raters who monitored the presence or absence of established
scoring criteria and time limits.
(7) To avoid the possibility of experimenters mis-
recording subjects' responses, raters were trained to follow
the SHSS criteria, observing all sessions in full and rating
subject responses independent of experimenter opinion. Rater
training continued until rater scores correlated positively
at the .90 level or above.
(8) Experimenter fudging of data was most limited in
that experimenters (a) did not record any data, and (b) knew
what was being observed. Data obtained by raters were not
open to question or change by experimenters.
(9) We were left with the possibility that the experi
menters would expect and/or desire certain results, transmit
ting that desire to the subjects by means of unintentional
para-linguistic cues (e.g., tone of voice, posture, facial
expression), resulting in the subjects meeting the experi
menter's expectations. A complex chain of events must occur
before the experimenter unintentional-expectancy effect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
occurs, including transmission of expected results from
investigator to experimenter, transmission of expectancies
from experimenter to subject, and the subject complying with
the unintentional cues. Because the unintentional expectancy
effect remained a possibility, the best check will be repli
cation studies which systematically isolate communication of
expectancies, perhaps video-taping the sessions for later
nonverbal and linguistic analysis of possible unintentional
expectancy effects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III
The Method, Subjects, Procedure
Method
The sample population was comprised of 24 volunteer sub
jects who previously had not been hypnotized. The subjects
consisted of the first 12 males and the first 12 females to
volunteer. Each treatment group consisted of three males and
three females. Each experienced clinical hypnotic operator
(CHO) was responsible for 12 inductions, that is, 3 inductions
in each of the four treatment groups. Each male subject was
assigned to one of the 12 possible combinations of experi
enced CHO treatment groups, using the table of random numbers.
The term experienced clinical hypnotic operator has been
defined in Appendix A. The same procedure was used for
female subjects. The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
(SHSS) Form A was used throughout the research. The four
treatment groups were defined as follows:
(1) Taped induction. Each experienced CHO recorded the
SHSS verbatim on audio tape for presentation to the assigned
subject. The experienced CHO who recorded the tape and was
assigned to the treatment was present throughout the entire
session. The following six sentences from the SHSS Rapport
section were deleted from the taped induction and read induc
tion to allow for standardized presentation, uninterrupted
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by questions and answers:
Let's talk a little while before we start. I want you to be quite at ease, and it may help if I answer a few questions first. I am assuming that this is the first time you are experiencing hypno tism. Am I right about this? Have you any ques tions? Have you any other questions or comments before we go ahead?
(2) Read induction. Each experienced CHO read the SHSS
verbatim (excluding the six sentences mentioned previously)
to the subjects assigned to this treatment group.
(3) Own induction/standard scale. Each experienced CHO
used his own personalized induction technique, followed by an
attempt to elicit the SHSS scoring criteria behavior in order.
(4) Own induction/own scale. Each experienced CHO used
his own personalized induction technique followed by his own
personalized presentation of the suggestibility scale. The
experienced CHO's attempted to elicit, in any order, either
the SHSS scoring criteria behavior or equivalent behavior.
The subjects were grouped as follows:
CHO #1 CHO #2 Taped induction female female male female male male Read induction female female female male Own induction/ male male standard scale female male female female Own induction/ male female own scale female female
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
Independent variables consisted of the standardized and
personalized induction techniques. The dependent variable
was depth of trance. The research hypothesis stated: The
use of personalized induction techniques will result in a
greater depth of trance than those inductions using standard
ized induction techniques. The null hypothesis stated:
There is no difference between standardized and personalized
induction techniques as measured by depth of trance. Depth
of trance was measured by the SHSS scoring criteria (Appendix
B) and/or equivalent scoring criteria (Appendix C). Factors
held constant across treatment groups included the following :
(1) All treatment sessions were followed by the subject
receiving a 15-minute debriefing from the experienced CHO
responsible for the treatment (Appendix D).
(2) The total maximum length of treatment time for all
sessions was 66 minutes (which included a 41-minute time
limit for establishing rapport, induction, and testing; a
10-minute time limit for the final inquiry ; and a 15-minute
time limit for debriefing). Time limits were established
from results obtained from preliminary data-gathering by the
researcher as summarized in Appendix E. The Rapport and
Induction/Testing components were grouped together in order
to maintain consistency between induction types and with the
notion that rapport may significantly influence and/or be a
part of the induction process. The mean time of these two
components was used as the basis for selecting the 41-minute
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
time limit. Preliminary data indicated that 10 minutes was
sufficient for final inquiry. The debriefing component was
given the upper limit of 15 minutes in order to allow for a
variety of possible situations, recognizing that this compo
nent would not influence scoring, as induction and scoring
had been completed.
(3) The "laboratory experiments" section of the SHSS was
used rather than the "subjects coming for therapy" section.
(4) All sessions were conducted in the morning (i.e.,
9:00, 10:00, or 11:00) in an attempt to minimize possible
differences which might occur in comparing A.M. and P.M.
inductions (e.g., before- and after-meal effects and/or
fatigue). Each session was viewed either through a one-way
mirror by a rater of the actual hypnotic session or video
taped for rating within 24 hours. Two raters of the actual
hypnosis (a master's student and the researcher) were trained
in the use of the SHSS standardized scoring forms and the
equivalent scoring criteria. Training consisted of each
rater of the actual hypnosis scoring four video-taped presen
tations of the SHSS, at which point their scoring (a) agreed
with the SHSS criteria and equivalent scoring criteria, and
(b) correlated at the .92 level. The last three video-taped
sessions in the research were rated by both raters of the
actual hypnosis to recheck reliability and correlated at the
.95, .96, and .95 levels, respectively. In addition, the
following films (from the 1976-77 Video Tape Catalogue,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Division of Institution Communication y Television Services,
Western Michigan University) were viewed by both raters prior
to the research, to develop familiarity with various induc
tion techniques and scoring criteria:
Hypnosis, Barber and Group (Restricted) 44:56 Barber WMU-TV Dr. Barber demonstrates subject's ability to perform human plank feat without the induction of hypnosis. Then demonstrates group response to suggestibility using some items from the Barber Suggestibility Scale. Discussion and demonstration of tolerance of pain. (12-14-70)
Hypnosis, Deep (Restricted) 48:00 Carlson, Cudney, Reid WMU-TV Demonstrates the rapid induction of somnambu listic trance. Subject passes all items on Barber Suggestibility Scale. Subject enters somnambulistic state when operator says a key word as a signal for hypnosis. Hypnotic oper ator and subject demonstrate a struggle of wills to see if the subject can be kept in a trance against her will. (6-70)
Hypnosis Number Two (Restricted) 60:20 Carlson, Betz, Kotarski WMU-TV Brief discussion of hypnosis followed by an attempt at a rapid induction of deep trance using confusion and surprise, which fails. Somewhat long eye fixation results in a trance with the subject passing most but not all of the items on the Barber Suggestibility Scale. Subtle interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics may be observed. (7-70)
Initial Induction— Beverly (Restricted) 59:12 Carlson, Fogarty, Martinson WMU-TV Discussion of hypnosis and hypnotic techniques which merges into the application of the con fusion and surprise techniques of hypnotic induction, resulting in a somnambulistic state with the subject believing that she is a thou sand miles away approaching Denver and viewing the Rocky Mountains. Later, subject passes all items on the Barber Suggestibility Scale. (8-6-70)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
Subjects
Subjects were graduate, master's level volunteers
recruited from the Counseling and Personnel, Psychology, and
Social Work departments at Western Michigan University. A
standard explanation was made to all potential volunteers,
describing their involvement in research concerning hypnosis
(Appendix F). Prior to a volunteer's participation in the
research, the subject was given an informed consent form
(Appendix G ) . After reviewing the form, with opportunity for
questions, all volunteers wishing to participate in the
research signed the informed consent form. During the final
15-minute debriefing period of the experiment, each subject
was informed, orally and in writing (Appendix H), that he/she
could contact the researcher and/or the experienced CHO after
participation in the research if he/she had further questions.
The same written statement detailed instructions for referral
to the University Counseling Center if further concerns,
arising out of participation in the research, remained unre
solved. Each experienced CHO was instructed to assist any
subject in contacting the University Counseling Center if, in
the clinical judgment of the experienced CHO, the subject was
in need of additional follow-up services. While each experi
enced CHO could terminate the experiment at any time with a
subject, the 15-minute debriefing period remained mandatory
for each subject involved in the research. Individual experi
ments could be terminated at the request of the subject. No
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
subjects were referred to the University Counseling Center.
In addition, no sessions were terminated by the experienced
CHO or subjects.
All volunteers were screened by the researcher and the
assigned experienced CHO. The procedure was established
whereby the researcher could tell any volunteer deemed unsuit
able for the research, based on clinical grounds and judgment,
that participants would be selected at random from all volun
teers and that if the person was selected he/she would be
contacted. Further contact would not be established. No
volunteers were deemed unsuitable by the researcher. Either
experienced CHO could deem a volunteer unsuitable for the
research, based on clinical grounds and judgment. When con
fronted with such a volunteer, the experienced CHO would talk
to the volunteer about hypnosis without proceeding with the
research, dismissing the volunteer after a time thought suit
able by the experienced CHO. No volunteers were deemed
unsuitable by the experienced CHO's.
Procedure
A total of 24 SHSS scoring blanks were filled in to
indicate the experienced CHO and the induction type. Com
pleted scoring blanks indicated the subject's sex, appoint
ment time, the rater of the actual hypnosis, the elapsed time
through Item 11, and the total elapsed time excluding the
debriefing. Terminated sessions were to be indicated as such
on the scoring blank by the rater of the actual hypnosis. No
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
sessions were terminated. All subjects were informed that
the session might be video-taped and erased after review.
The raters of the actual hypnosis observed each treatment
session— either live or video-taped— in its entirety, com
pleting the scoring blank as the session progressed. Com
pleted scoring blanks were presented to the researcher for
analysis.
Each experienced CHO was physically present during all
treatment sessions, including the taped presentation. Taped
sessions were accompanied by the experienced CHO who recorded
the tape. All sessions were conducted in an 11' x 15' room
equipped with a one-way mirror for observation and scoring by
the rater of the actual hypnosis. The experienced CHO and
volunteer, when seated, were at a distance of 6 feet. The
tape recorder was a Bell and Howell Educational Series Cas
sette, model number 3085, placed next to and manipulated by
the experienced CHO. Tape speed was 1-7/8 inches per second,
using Sony C-120, Plus 2 cassette tape, with the entire SHSS
recorded on one side to assure uninterrupted presentation.
The data collection period of the research project covered
a time period of 12 continuous weeks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV
Results
The results of this study are presented in terms of (1)
a tV70-way analysis of variance to identify the influence of
the subject's sex, the two different experienced clinical
hypnotic operators (CHO's), the subject's age, and the sub
ject's university department; (2) a one-way analysis of vari
ance of the total sample to determine the difference(s)
between induction types; (3) a one-way analysis of variance
to identify the difference(s) between induction types when
males and females are considered separately; (4) a one-way
analysis of variance to identify differences between induc
tion types when the experienced CHO's are considered sepa
rately ; and (5) an analysis of the significant F ratio
(obtained from the one-way analysis of variance of the total
sample), using the least significant difference two-sample
t analysis, to identify the number and location of signifi
cant differences between induction types. A summary of the
raw data is presented in Appendix I.
Table 1 summarizes the two-way analysis of variance for
sex and induction type. Specifically, Table 1 provides a
summary of the means and standard deviations for each of the
eight possible combinations of sex and induction type, along
with the resulting F ratios and probabilities. The F ratios
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Sex and Induction Type
Sex Induction Male Female Type N M SD N M SD
1) Tape 3 3 . 33 1. 155 .3 4.33 1 . 528 2) Read 3 7 .00 1. 732 3 6.33 2 . 082 3) OISS 3 9,.67 2. 082 3 9. 33 .577 4) OIOS 3 12,.00 000 3 11. 33 5. 77
Least Squares ANOVA
Source MS F E Cells 7211.83 Sex eliminating 1 .17 .17 .08 . 7765 induction type Induction type eliminating sex 3 208.83 69. 61 34.81 .0000 Sex by induction 3 2.83 . 94 .47 type . 7059 Within 16 32. 00 2.00 Total 23 243.83
and probabilities support the contention that the subject's
sex is not a significant factor in determining the induction
type scores.
Table 2 summarizes the two-way analysis of variance for
experienced CHO and induction type. In addition to the means
and standard deviations for the eight possible combinations
of experienced CHO and induction type, the F ratios and prob
abilities presented in Table 2 indicate that the use of two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two-Way Anlaysis of Variance: Experienced Clinical Hypnotic Operator and Induction Type
Experienced CHO Induction CHO CHO #2 Type #1 N M SD N M SD
1) Tape 3 3. 00 1. 000 3 4. 67 1.155 2) Read 3 6. 33 2.517 3 7.00 1.000 3) OISS 3 10. 33 1. 528 3 8. 67 . 577 4) OIOS 3 11. 33 . 577 3 12. 00 .000
Least Squares ANOVA
Source SS ^ F P Cells 7 218.50 ECHO eliminating 1 . 67 .67 . 42 . 5256 induction type Induction type 3 eliminating ECHO 208.83 69.61 43. 96 . 0000 ECHO by induction 3 9.00 type 3.00 1.89 .1712 Within 16 25. 33 1. 58 Total 23 243.83
experienced CHO's does not adversely affect the induction
type scores.
To determine the effect that age has on the induction
type scores, subjects were placed into two groups. Group 1
includes all ages 25 years and below. Group 2 includes all
ages 26 years and above. Table 3 lists the means, standard
deviations, preliminary analysis of variance, and least
squares analysis of variance resulting from the two-way
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Age and Induction Type
Age Induction 25 and Below 26 and Above Type N M SD N M
1) Tape 5 3 ,80 1.483 1 4. 00 . 000 2) Read 2 6 .00 .000 4 7.00 2.160 3) OISS 4 9 .25 .500 2 10. 00 2.828 4) OIOS 3 11 .33 .577 3 12. 00 . 000
Preliminary ANOVA
Source âË SS m F 2 Cells 7 211.62 30.23 15. 01 . 0000 Age ignoring 1 13. 38 induction type Induction type 3 ignoring age 208.83 Within 16 32.22 2.01 Total 23243.83
Least Squares ANOVA
Source âÆ SS MS F 2
Cells 1 211.62 Age eliminating induction type 1 2.45 2.45 1.22 . 2863 Induction type eliminating age 3 197.91 65.97 32.76 . 0000 Age by induction type 3 .33 .11 .06 . 9823 Within 16 32.22 2.01 Total 23 243.83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 analysis of variance which considered age and induction type.
The weighted means analysis of variance (Table 4) is used to
account for the unequal number of subjects in each of the
eight groups representing combinations of age and induction
type. The resulting F ratios and probabilities in Table 4
indicate that age does not significantly influence the induc
tion type scores.
Table 4
Weighted Means Analysis of Variance: Age and Induction Type
Source âÆ SS F P Cells 7 211..62 30., 23 Age 1 2., 03 2.,03 1.01 . 3299 Induction type 3 158., 73 52., 91 26.28 . 0000 Age by induction type 3 33 .11 . 06 . 9823 Within 16 32. 22 2. 01 Total 23 243. 83
Subjects used in the present study came from the Counsel
ing and Personnel, Psychology, and Social Work departments of
Western Michigan University. Because most of the subjects
were from the Counseling and Personnel Department, the sub
jects were placed in one of two groups to determine the
effect of the subject's department of origin on the induction
type scores. Group 1 represents subjects from the Counseling
and Personnel Department, and Group 2 represents subjects
from the Psychology and Social Work departments. Table 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Department and Induction Type
Department Induction Group 1 Group 2 Type NM SD N M SD
1) Tape 4 3 .25 957 2 5. 00 1.414 2) Read 4 6 . 75 2. 217 2 6.50 . 707 3) OISS 4 9 . 75 1. 708 2 9.00 .000 4) OIOS 3 11 .67 577 2 11. 67 . 577
Preliminary ANOVA
Source SS F P
Cells 7 213.75 30.54 16.24 . 0000 Dept, ignoring 1 induction type 4.01 Induction type ignoring dept. 3 208.83 Within 16 30. 08 1.88 Total 23 243.83
Least Squares .ANOVA
Source ÊÈ S^ F P
Cells 7 213.75 Dept, eliminating 1 .18 .18 induction type .10 . 7598 Induction type eliminating dept. 3 205.00 68. 33 36.34 .0000 Dept, by induction type 3 4.73 1.58 .84 . 4920 Within 16 30.08 1.88 Total 23 243.83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
summarizes the means, standard deviations, F ratios, and
probabilities for the eight groups obtained by combining
department and induction type. Table 6 accounts for the
unequal number of subjects in the eight groups through the
use of weighted means analysis of variance. The F ratios
and probabilities summarized in Table 6 indicate that the
subject's department of origin does not adversely affect the
resulting induction type scores.
Table 6
Weighted Means Analysis of Variance: Department and Induction Type
Source F £
Cells 1 218.. 75 30,. 54 Department 1 ,19 .19 .10 .7529 Induction type 3 180., 84 60..28 32.06 . 0000 Department by induction type 3 4., 73 1., 58 . 84 .4920 Within 16 30. 08 1. 88 Total 23 243. 83
In summary, two one-way analyses of variance, computed
separately for subject's age, department affiliation, and the
use of two different experienced CHO's are not significant.
The results indicate that the above-stated factors do not
significantly affect the induction type scores. Therefore,
a one-way analysis of variance is used to identify the pos
sible presence of significance between induction types.
Table 7 summarizes the means and standard deviations from
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One-Way Analysis of Variance : Total Sample
Induction Type N MSD
1) Tape 6 3.83 1.329 2) Read 6 6. 67 1.751 3) OISS 6 9.50 1.378 4) OIOS 6 11.67 .516
ANOVA
Source F P Between 3 208.83 69 . 61 39.78 .0000
Within 20 35.00 1 . 75
Total 23 243.83
the one-way analysis of variance. The F ratio indicates the
presence of significant difference(s), F(3, 23) = 39.78,
p < .000.
Noting the significant F in Table 7, the two-sample t
analysis (least significant difference) is used to identify
the number and location of significant differences between
induction types.
Least significant difference (LSD) computational formula (Snedocor & Cochran, 1968, p. 272):
V MS (I)
with degrees of freedom = k(n-l)
where X = treatment means MS = error n = number of subjects in each treatment group k = number of experimental groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two-sample t analysis;
= 2.086 V 1.75(1/6 + 1/6)
= 2.086 \/ 1.75/3
= 2.086 (.76) = 1.593
The means for the induction types are as follows:
Taped ^1 ~ 3.83
Read ^2 “ 6.6 7
Own induction/standard scale = 9.50
Own induction/own scale = 11.67
The differences between all means are shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Differences Between Means
2 3 4
Mean 1 2.834 5.667 7.837
2 2.833 5.003
3 2.170
Comparing difference with the results of the two-sample
t analysis (1.593) leads to the conclusion that all means are
significantly different at the «X = .05 level.
In summary, all induction types are found to differ sig
nificantly from each other, with the most personalized
methods achieving the greatest depth of trance, and the other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
methods rank-ordered, with the standardized procedure achiev
ing the least depth of trance. Potentially confounding vari
ables such as sex, the influence of the individual hypnotic
operator, age, and academic affiliation do not contribute
to the effects noted above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Discussion, Conclusions, Summary, Recommendations
Discussion
Consistent with the original research design, intended
to limit the possible differential selection of subjects, all
subjects indicated that they had no previous hypnotic experi
ence, were assigned to the experienced clinical hypnotic
operators (CHO's) on an alternating basis, and were assigned
to treatment groups using the table of random numbers. The
problem of possible interaction effects of selection bias and
the treatment remained throughout the research, as the popu
lation was relatively select and homogeneous. Of particular
note is the possibility that the experimental procedures may
have produced effects that limit the generalization of the
findings. By using the range of induction techniques struc
tured into this particular research, a variety of procedures
may be compared. The results of such comparisons raise clear
questions regarding the reactive effects introduced by the
more structured induction techniques. One critical component
left to other research is the question of motivation, in par
ticular, the motivation evident in clinical populations.
In rating the experimental sessions, a master's level
student rated 14 sessions while the researcher rated 10
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sessions. As mentioned previously, inter-rater reliability
was checked both before the research and during the final
sessions of the research. While training of raters presented
no particular difficulty, there were a number of initial
problems securing raters who were able to devote adequate,
extended time to such research. The films used in training
were valuable particularly in the recognition of equivalent
scoring items. Scheduling remained a difficulty throughout
the research, making the use of video tape essential. The
use of equivalent scoring criteria did not present untoward
difficulties, as most were easily recognizable as equivalent
items. Rather than find an inclusion of questionable equiva
lent items, the major differences appeared to be in such
areas as wording, phrasing, and so forth. The 15-minute
debriefing period was adequate for all questioning. Both the
41-minute time limit for establishing rapport, induction, and
testing and the 10-minute limit for final inquiry were
adequate.
The notes kept by both raters on the scoring blank
revealed one consistent item during the taped and read induc
tions. Subjects experienced consistent confusion in attempt
ing to respond to the instructions for Item 4, immobilization
(left arm). The instructions refer to both the hand and the
arm, thereby confusing subjects as to the appropriate or
desired response.
The data analysis rested upon four underlying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assumptions (Glass & Stanley, 1970; Kerlinger, 1964):
1. That the contributions to variance in the total sample were additive.
2. That the observations within sets were mutually independent.
3. That the variances within experimentally homogeneous sets were approximately equal.
4. That the variations within experimentally homogeneous sets were from normally dis tributed populations.
After the overall hypothesis of equality of means was
rejected using analysis of variance, the problem of selecting
an appropriate multiple comparison technique was addressed.
While the significant analysis of variance F (supported by
the two-way ANOVA) results) indicated that something happened
in the experiment which had a small probability (alpha) of
happening by chance, a method was needed to determine which
groups were different from each other. The least significant
difference procedure was used because it met the required
criteria of three or more groups comprising the experiment
and the analysis of variance F being significant. Moreover,
given that the analysis of variance F is significant, the
least significant difference test is a more powerful multiple
comparison procedure than the Tukey or Scheffe' methods (Ker-
linger, 1964; Stoline, 1979).
A review of the information provided by Weitzenhoffer
and Hilgard (1959) reveals consistencies with the research
herein described. The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
(SHSS) was designed primarily for those being tested for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
first time. A thumbtack was used as the fixation point
(target) and was placed in the ceiling about 6 feet from the
subject. The room contained the required seating arrange
ments and was free of distractions.
The treatment groups tended to maximize the possibility
of measuring the differences between the "inflexibility of a
standardized method" (p. 4), which Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard
cautioned against, and personalized presentations of the
induction.
The standardized information provided by Weitzenhoffer
and Hilgard was derived from a sample of 124 students with
no demonstrable sex differences in the sample. Their raw
scores were grouped into three categories; high, 12 through
8; medium, 7 through 5; and low, 4 through 0. The number of
cases in each of their categories is as follows : high, 31
(24 percent); medium, 34 (31 percent); low, 54 (45 percent),
with standard scores having a mean of 50 and a standard devi
ation of 10. The range of raw scores obtained during the
current research was as follows :
Induction Type Raw Score Range
Taped 2 - 6
Read 4 - 9
Own induction/standard scale 8-12
Own induction/own scale 11 - 12
It is noted that while the highest score in this current
research, from either the taped or read induction, was 9,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
85.5 percent of the raw scores reported by Weitzenhoffer and
Hilgard fell in the 0-9 range, indicating surface consistency
between the data gathered from both samples. One would
expect a greater range if a larger sample were used in this
research, a range that perhaps approaches the results obtained
by Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard. However, the continued differ
entiation between means would also be expected as indicated
by this current research.
Two additional factors were present throughout the
research. First, the master's level rater of the actual hyp
nosis was not given information regarding the research hypoth
esis until alter the research was completed. Second, it was
expected that both experienced CHO's would attempt to do
their best in all possible inductions in order to demonstrate
their overall skill in hypnotic induction. Therefore, one
would expect that the standardized inductions would yield
results equivalent to the personalized inductions if these
two inductions were, in fact, equivalent.
Conclusions
Data analysis reveals that all means are significantly
different at the aC .05 level.
A consistent pattern emerged in comparing the results
obtained for each induction type. That is, the depth of
trance increased as the induction type became more person
alized. In addition, the results were not significantly
influenced by subject sex, age, university department, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
use of two experienced CHO's, or the use of two raters of
the actual hypnosis.
At this time, care must be taken to remember that this
research deals with a limited sample size (N = 24). More
over, the subjects were selected on the basis of number of
specified criteria, including being master's level university
students who had not been hypnotized previously. However, in
the face of these limiting factors, real differences appear
to be materializing between the standardized induction tech
niques traditionally used in laboratory settings and the per
sonalized induction techniques traditionally found in clinical
settings. While the importance of motivation is not to be
excluded, the consistency of the results strongly supports
the notion that technique plays a significant role in hypnotic
results.
The emergence and growing use of standardized techniques
has followed a consistent pattern in attempting both to add a
note of authenticity and to identify important factors in
research concerning hypnosis. Yet research which indicates
a significant difference between standardized and personalized
techniques, and demonstrates increased effectiveness (in
terms of depth of trance) with personalized techniques, sup
ports the contention that there remains considerable doubt as
to the appropriateness of using standardized techniques in
research concerning clinical hypnosis. Laboratory research
which relies on the use of standardized techniques may not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
yield data which are applicable to the understanding of
clinical hypnosis. This current research suggests consider
able differences between laboratory and clinical hypnosis.
One may wonder, legitimately, whether research concerning
hypnosis has proceeded in a most backward fashion. That is,
instead of focusing on the structure and dynamics of the
individual personality, research has delimited the importance
of the individual and his relationships in favor of metholog-
ically impeccable research which contributes little to our
understanding of man qua man. The results obtained in this
current research suggest the importance of focusing on indi
vidual, personality dynamics.
Standardized, structured hypnotic induction presenta
tions remain the clearest example of direct suggestion. Such
techniques are consistent with theoretical views which state
that the hypnotic subject is not fundamentally different from
normal individuals cooperating in a social situation. As a
result, the autonomous and involuntary aspects of hypnosis
are downgraded or ignored. Consistent with this "non-state"
theory of hypnosis, researchers attempted to operationalize
the theory in the form of standardized techniques. However,
the results of this current research suggest that the sound
possibility exists that hypnosis is indeed a special-state.
The results to be derived from this research are far from
conclusive regarding the question of "state" versus "non
state" theory. However, at best, direct support is provided
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
for the hypnotic-state theory. At the minimum, the results
bring into serious question the validity of using research
results obtained from the use of standardized techniques as
evidence in support of the "non-state" theory. The sugges
tion remains that hypnosis is a special state "where the
skill of the therapist together with the needs of the patient
interacts to produce the striking discontinuities between
trance and the normal state of consciousness" (Erickson,
Rossi, & Rossi, 1976, p. 300).
Summary
Four treatment groups were formed to represent induction
techniques ranging from standardized to personalized. Each
group contained three male and three female subjects who had
not been hypnotized previously. All subjects were seen indi
vidually. Individuals in the first group were presented with
an audio-taped version of the SHSS. Individuals in the
second group were read the SHSS. Individuals in the third
group were presented with an induction of the experienced
CHO's own choosing and were given the standard scoring cri
teria from the SHSS. Individuals in the fourth group were
presented with an induction of the experienced CHO's own
choosing and were given either the standard scoring criteria
from the SHSS, in any order, or equivalent scoring criteria.
All 24 treatment sessions were observed and scored, using the
SHSS scoring criteria or equivalent scoring criteria, by a
rater of the actual hypnosis. Mean scores from each of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
four treatment groups were compared and found to differ sig
nificantly at the c< = .05 level. The differences were not
confounded significantly by the subjects' age, sex, univer
sity department, the use of two experienced CHO's, or the use
of two raters of the actual hypnosis. Results indicate the
presence of real differences between standardized and person
alized induction techniques with implications regarding the
direction of research in the area of hypnosis.
Recommendations
Replication of this research is recommended and would
prove informative. However, expansion of this research is
suggested in accordance with the following considerations.
A number of practical recommendations emerged during the
course of the research. The use of bachelor level students
would have allowed for both a larger sample and more flexi
bility and convenience in setting appointments. Raters were
difficult to find on an ongoing basis, suggesting that some
type of payment to raters would help alter this problem and
also allow exclusion of the researcher from the rating proc
ess, thereby assuring greater reliability and integrity of
design. Also, equal balancing of raters in terms of number
of subjects, sex of subjects, and treatment groups would
solidify the design.
Video-taping of all sessions is recommended to allow
for a more careful check of rater reliability, storage of
research results for training and replication, and for more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
in-depth analysis of other factors influencing hypnotic
induction. Commercial quality audio equipment is recommended
to help assure more realistic taped presentations without the
inherent mechanical noise and difficulty found in manipulat
ing educational quality audio equipment. Overhead fluorescent
lights used in this research were noted as distracting by some
subjects. Table lamps would be more suitable. The use of
chairs which allow subjects to place their heads on a headrest
is recommended. Excluding the time devoted to the research
by the subjects, the raters of the actual hypnosis, and the
experienced CHO's, the data resulting from the participation
of one subject required 12 hours of time on the part of the
researcher. This amount of time is considered minimal in
order to insure overall quality. The value of using experi
enced CHO's cannot be overemphasized. Such experience remains
a critical factor in such research, where clinical skill,
creativity, and spontaneous innovation play an important role
in responding to a subject's individual needs.
A number of scheduling problems arose, as the room used
throughout this research was available to a number of groups.
Aside from coordination problems with room scheduling, equip
ment and furniture required rearrangement before each session
due to previous use of the room by other individuals. Four
scheduled appointment times had to be rescheduled due to room
conflicts. The use of a specified research room could
eliminate many of these problems, including the possible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
complicating factor of obtaining differential results from
subjects faced with the frustration of rescheduling their
appointment times.
In addition to the replication and/or expansion of this
research, there remain specific suggestions for extending the
research to other clinical questions. In particular, clinical
motivation (on the part of the subject) can be studied for
its possible significance and influence on the hypnotic expe
rience. Further research may match a clinical and nonclini-
cal population, using only personalized induction techniques,
to measure the demand factor (i.e., motivation). The most
critical factor, which has been emphasized throughout this
research, is the necessity to provide a research design which
allows the experimenter to use his entire range of clinical
expertise in responding to the individual needs presented by
each subject. While such a design may be more cumbersome and
time-consuming than traditional laboratory designs, the
results obtained appear to be substantially significant in
terms of both their theoretical and practical implications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A
Experienced Clinical Hypnotic Operator Defined
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Experienced Clinical Hypnotic Operator Defined
Both experienced clinical hypnotic operators (CHO's)
have received their doctorates and are certified by the State
of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation at the
Certified Consulting Psychologist level. In addition., each
experienced clinical hypnotic operator possesses a minimum
of 10 years' clinical experience in the use of hypnosis.
One experienced clinical hypnotic operator is a member
of the following professional organizations:
— American Psychological Association (member)
— Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
The other experienced clinical hypnotic operator is a
member of the following professional organizations:
— American Psychological Association (member), Division 30
— American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (fellow)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B
Standard Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale Scoring Blanks Form A, and Interrogatory Blank
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Scoring Blank: Form A
To be used in connection with Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard's Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Consulting Psychol ogists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California.
Grad/Undergrad__ Appt. time_ AM/PM Terminated
Subject No.__ Date Age_ Total Score
Sex_____ University Dept._ Hypnotist (initials)_
Rater (initials)_ Induction Type _Tape _Read OISS OIOS
Notes on Amount Criterion of Passing Score of Response, Item (Yielding score of +)(+ or -) Effort, Rate of Movement, etc.
1) Postural Falls without forcing sway
2) Eye Closes eyes without closure forcing
3) Hand Lowers at least 6 lov/ering inches by end of (left) 10 seconds
4) Immobili- Arm rises less than 1 inch in 10 seconds (right arm;)
5) Finger Incomplete separation lock of fingers at end of 10 seconds
6) Arm rigid Less than 2 inches of ity (left arm bending in 10 arm) seconds
7) Hands Hands at least as moving close as 6 inches together after 10 seconds
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
Notes on Amount Criterion of Passing Score of Response, (Yielding score of +)(+ or -) Effort, Rate of Movement, etc.
8) Verbal Name unspoken in inhibition 10 seconds (name)
9) Hallucina Any movement, grimac tion (fly) ing, acknowledgement of effect
10) Eye Eyes remain closed at catalepsy end of 10 seconds
11) Post Any partial movement hypnotic response (changes chairs)
E.T. :
12) Amnesia Three or fewer items test recalled (see below)
Total (+) score . . .
Record of Recall in Test for Amnesia (from Interrogatory)
Order of Mention Hand lowering (left) ______Arm immobilization (right) ______Finger lock ______Arm rigidity (left) ______Hands together ______Verbal inhibition (name) ______Hallucination (fly) ______Eye catalepsy ______Post-hypnotic suggestion (changing chairs) _ Total number of items recalled
Total time:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interrogatory Blank
To be used in connection with Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard's Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Consulting Psychol ogists Press, Inc., Palo J^lto, California.
Subject ______
Hypnotist (initials)
Date
1) Please tell me now in your own words everything that has happened since you began looking at the target.
List items in order of mention. If blocked, ask "Any thing else?" until subject reaches a further impasse.
Anything else?
2) Listen carefully to my words. Now you can remember everything. Anything else now?
List in order of mention.
3) About the fly (or mosquito)— How real was it to you?
Transfer information of item recall to the scoring blank, and score for amnesia. Score + if three or fewer items recalled before "Now you can remember everything."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C
Equivalent Scoring Criteria
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Equivalent Scoring Criteria
Item Equivalent Items
1) Postural sway Same as SHSS
2) Eye closure Same as SHSS
3) Hand lowering Right arm lowering Right hand lowering Left arm lowering Leg lowering Head lowering
4) Immobilization Arm immobilization Leg immobilization Body immobilization
5) Finger lock Palms together locked Arms locked Legs locked
6) Arm rigidity Leg rigidity Body rigidity
7) Hands moving together Arms raising Legs raising
8) Verbal inhibition Any verbal inhibition
9) Hallucination (fly) Any sensory hallucination
10) Eye catalepsy Any catalepsy
11) Posthypnotic (changes Any posthypnotic sugges chairs) tion (e.g., thirst, smoking)
12) Amnesia test Same as SHSS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D
Debriefing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Debriefing
To be presented to the volunteer verbatim:
"Now that we have concluded the experiment, tell me if
you have any questions or concerns regarding your experience."
(Wait for response.) "If questions or concerns arise after
you leave today, feel free to contact the researcher or
myself at any time. Our telephone numbers are listed on this
paper." (Present subject with copy of names and telephone
numbers [Appendix H].) "Although it is very rare for people
to experience unwanted side effects after hypnosis, informa
tion is provided on the paper you have that tells you how to
contact the University Counseling Center, if you would like
to talk to someone else." (Time, 5 minutes.)
The experienced clinical hypnotic operator now proceeds
with his own clinical debriefing. (Time, 10 minutes.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E
Preliminary Data-Gathering
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Preliminary Data-Gathering: Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
Method (Time Indicated in Minutes)
TI/TS RI/RS OI/RS OI/OS
Rapport 5 8 10 7 34 33 37 44 Induction/testing 30 30 30 30 13 11
Final inquiry 11 10 10 12 10 10 13 11
Debriefing 7 10 10 15 13 12 15 15
Total time: 53 58 60 64 70 66 65 70
TI/TS = Taped induction/taped scale
RI/RS = Read induction/read scale
OI/RS = Own induction/read scale
OI/OS = Own induction/own scale
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F
Standard Explanation to Potential Volunteers Describing Involvement in Research Concerning Hypnosis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. standard Explanation to Potential Volunteers Describing Involvement in Research Concerning Hypnosis
I am looking for volunteer master's level students to par ticipate in research concerning hypnosis. The only criterion for participation is that each student must not have been hypnotized previously.
The actual research will be carried out by persons highly trained and experienced past the doctoral level. You will not be asked to do anything that will make you look silly or stupid, or that will prove embarrassing to you. You will be there for serious scientific purposes. The clinicians will not probe into your personal affairs, so that there will be nothing personal about what you are to do or say.
There are no expected risks due to participation in the research. Furthermore, the clinician and the researcher in charge will be available to answer any questions you may have following your participation. Only a limited number of stu dents will be included in the research. If you have ques tions and/or would like to schedule an appointment for participation, call :
(Name)
(Phone)
If you are unable to reach me, call:
(Alternate name)______
(Alternate phone)______
and leave your name and a phone number where you can be reached.
Thank you for your help.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G
Informed Consent Form
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Informed Consent Form
Purpose of the research; The purpose of this research is to study basic questions regarding the nature of hypnosis. Spe cifically, the research focuses on different types of induc tions. The research does not go beyond the induction of hypnosis, i.e., into the actual use of hypnosis.
Procedures : Volunteers will be exposed to one of a variety of hypnotic inductions. All of the inductions are either well established in the research literature or based on the expertise of the highly trained experimenters. You will not be asked to do anything that will make you look silly or stupid, or that will prove embarrassing to you. The experi menters will not probe into your personal affairs. There are no expected risks due to participation in the research. It is considered most rare for people to experience unwanted side effects or concerns after hypnosis. The experimenter, the researcher, and other resource people will be available to answer any questions you may have following your partici pation. You will be provided with their names and telephone numbers following your participation in the research.
Confidentiality : All data gathered in this research will be paired only with the university department, level, age, and sex of the volunteer. No names will be used.
Participation : Participation is voluntary. You may, at any time, cease participation and/or have all data regarding your participation destroyed.
I have had an opportunity to review and ask questions regarding the above statements and wish to participate voluntarily in the research as described.
Signed:______
Witness :
Male_____ Female_____ University level_
University department______Age_
Date :
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX H
Debriefing Handout
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Debriefing Handout
Thank you for your help and participation in this research. If questions or concerns arise after you leave today, feel free to contact the researcher,
(Name)______
(Phone)
or the person you worked with today,
(Name)______
(Phone)
It is very rare for people to experience unwanted side effects or concerns after hypnosis. However, if for any reason you would like to talk with someone on an ongoing basis regarding personal concerns you may have, contact the person listed below to make such arrangements.
(Name)______
University Counseling Center
Western Michigan University
(Phone)______
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I
Research Data
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Il il
frorvi'^j'HooHCNoo'^cNr-IC'iHrOHf^cN'^
r-) fN CN rH CN H r sJCNCNCMCMCNCNJCNCNCNHC
rHCN(NrHHrHHCNCNJCNCN
HHHHCNrHHnHfOrOHHHrnHHHCNCNJHHCNr
+J rHHHrHCNHHCNHCMtNp £^2
'l(N(Nr4CXr4(Nr\)r4r4r4CNr4p
>ir^CNl'^CT»'^V£)(TiCN'ïI''3'OOVJ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Arnold, M. B. On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 107-108. — As, A., O'Hara, J. W . , & Hunger, M. P. The measurement of subjective experience presumably related to hypnotic susceptibility. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1962, 3, 47-64. As, A., & Ostvold, S. Hypnosis as subjective experience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1968, 9, 33-38. Handler, R., & Gridner, J. Patterns of the hypnotic tech niques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. (Vol. 1). Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications, 1975. Barber, T. X. LSD, marihuana. Yoga, and hypnosis. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. Barber, T. X. Pitfalls in research: Nine investigator and experimenter effects. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on education. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Barber, T. X . Implications for human capabilities and poten tialities. In T. X. Barber, N. F. Spanos, & J. F. Chaves (Eds.), "Hypnosis," imagining, and human poten tialities. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon, 1974. Barber, T. X. Responding to "hypnotic" suggestions : An introspective report. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1975, ]^(1), 6-22. Barber, T. X. Biofeedback and self-control 1975/76. Chicago : Aldine, 1976. (a) Barber, T. X. Hypnosis, a scientific approach. New York: Psychological DimensTons, 1976. (b) Barber, T. X. "Hypnosis," suggestions, and psychosomatic phenomena : A new look from the standpoint of recent experimental studies. Medfield, Mass.: Medfield Foundation, 1977. Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. The comparative effects on "hypnotic-like" suggestibility of recorded and spoken suggestions. Harding, Mass.: Medfield Foundation, 1964. (a) 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Effects of E's tone of voice on "hypnotic-like" suggestibility. Psychology Reports, 1964, ]^, 139-144. (b) Barber, T. X., & DeMoor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, ^ ( 2 ) , 112-135. Bateson, G. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York : Ballan- tine, 1972. Beahrs, J. O. Integrating Erickson's approach. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1977, ^ ( 1 ) , 55-68. Bean, B ., & Duff, J. The effects of video tape, and of situ ational and generalized locus of control, upon hypnotic susceptibility. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1975, 2^(1), 2 8 - 3 3 . Bentler, P. M. Interpersonal orientation in relation to hyp notic susceptibility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 4 2 6 -4 3 1 . Bernheim, H. Suggestive therapeutics : A treatise on the nature and uses of hypnotism. New York: Putnam, 1895. Boucher, R. G., & Hilgard, E. R. Volunteer bias in hypnotic experimentation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1962, 5, 45-51. Bowers, K. Hypnotic behavior: The differentiation of trance and demand characteristic variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, J71, 42-51. Bronowske, J. The logic of the mind. American Scientist, 1966, 1-14. Caldironi, B. Elaboration on hypnotherapeutic techniques. Medicina Psicosomatica, 1975, 20(4), 381. Chaves, J. F ., & Barber, T. X. Hypnotic procedures and surgery: A critical analysis with applications to "acu puncture analgesia." American Journal of Clinical Hyp nosis, 1976, ^ ( 4 ) , 217-236. Cooper, L. M. Expectations about hypnosis of college stu dents who have not been hypnotized. In E. Fromm & R. Shor (Eds.), Hypi^sis: Research development and perspectives. Chicago : Aldine, 1972. Crasilneck, H. B ., & Hall, J. A. Clinical hypnosis: Princi ples and applications. New York: Grune & Strattonl " 1975. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Cronin, D. M., Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. Augmenting hypnotic suggestibility by providing favorable informa tion about hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hyp- nosis, 1971, 259-264. Dana, R. H., & Cooper, G. W., Jr. Prediction of suscepti bility to hypnosis. Psychology Reports, 1964, 14, 251-265. — Davis, L. W ., & Husband, R. W. A study of hypnotic suscepti bility in relation to personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1931, 2^, 175-182. Deckert, G. H., & West, L. J. The problem of hypnotiza- bility: A review. International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, M , 205-235. Deikman, A. J. Deautomatization in the mystic experience. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of consciousness. New York: Doubleday, 1972. Dermen, D., & London, P. Correlates of hypnotic suscepti bility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 537-545. — Duff, J. L. Comparison of procedures for enhancing hypnotic susceptibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation^ University of Kansas, 1977. Erickson, M. H. Possible detrimental effects of experimental hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1932, 321-32 7. Erickson, M. H. The application of hypnosis to psychiatry. Medical Record, 1939, ] ^ , 60-65. (a) Erickson, M. H. Demonstration of mental mechanisms by hyp nosis. Arch. Neurological and Psychiatric, 1939, 42, 367-370. (b) — Erickson, M. H. Hypnosis: A general review. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1941, 2, 13-18. Erickson, M. H. Hypnotic psychotherapy. Medical Clinics of North America, 1948, 9, 571-583. Erickson, M. H. Deep hypnosis and its induction. In L. M. LeCron (Ed.), Experimental hypnosis. New York: Mac millan, 1952. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 Erickson, M. H. A clinical note on indirect hypnotic therapy. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1954, 2, T7Ï-174."Tal ------ Erickson, M. H. Special techniques of brief hypnotherapy. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1954, 2, 109-129. (bl Erickson, M. H. Self-exploration in the hypnotic state. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1955, 3, 49-57. Erickson, M. H. Hypnosis in general practice. State of Mind, 1957, 1, 6-10. Erickson, M. H. Naturalistic techniques of hypnosis. Amer ican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1958, 1, 3-8. Erickson, M. H. Further techniques of hypnosis— Utilization techniques. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1959, 2, 3-21: Erickson, M. H. The utilization of patient behavior in the hypnotherapy of obesity : Three case reports. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1960, 112-116. Erickson, M. H. Historical note on the hand levitation and other ideomotor techniques. American Journal of Clini cal Hypnosis, 1961, 3, 196-199. Erickson, M. H. The identification of a secure reality. Family Process, 1962, 1, 294-303. Erickson, M. H. A hypnotic technique for resistant patients. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1964, 1, 8-32. (a) Erickson, M. H. Initial experiments investigating the nature of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1964, 7, 152-162. (b) Erickson, M. H. Pantomime techniques in hypnosis and the implications. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1964, 65-70. (c) Erickson, M. H. The use of symptoms as an integral part of therapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, 8, 57-65. Erickson, M. H. Advanced techniques of hypnosis and therapy (J. Haley, compiler). New York: Grune & Stratton: 1966. (a) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Erickson, M. H. Experimental knowledge of hypnotic phenom ena employed for hypnotherapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1966, 8, 299-309. (b) Erickson, M. H . The interpersonal hypnotic technique for symptom correction and pain control. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1966, £, 198-209. (c) Erickson, M. H. Further experimental investigation of hyp nosis: Hypnotic and non-hypnotic realities. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1967, 1^, 87-135. (a) Erickson, M. H. Laboratory and clinical hypnosis: The same or different phenomena? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1967, 9, 166-170. (b) Erickson, M. H. Hypnotic approaches to therapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1977, ^ ( 1 ) , 20-35. Erickson, M.H., Hershman, S., & Secter, I. The practical application of medical and dental hypnosis. New York: Julian Press, 1961. Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. Hypnotic realities : The induction of clinical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. New York: Irvinqton Publishers, 1976. Eysenck, H. J., & Furneaux, W. D. Primary and secondary sug gestibility : An experimental and statistical study. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1945, 35., 485-503. Faw, V., & Wilcox, W. W. Personality characteristics of sus ceptible and unsusceptible hypnotic subjects. Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1958, 83-94. Ferenczi, S. Sex and psychoanalysis. New York: Brunner, 1950. Field, P. B. An inventory scale of hypnotic depth. Inter national Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1965, 238-249. Fisher, X. Problems of interpretation and controls in hyp notic research. In G. H. Estabrooks (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current problems. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Frankl, V. E. Paradoxical intention. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1960, ]A, 520-535. Freud, S. Three essays on the theory of sexuality (Standard ed., vol. 7). London: Hogarth, 1953. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Friedland, M. R. A comparison of three methods for inducing hypnosis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1976. Friedlander, J. W., & Sarbin, T. R. The depth of hypnosis. Journal of Social Psychology, 1938, 281-294. Fromm, E ., & Shor, R. E. Hypnosis, research developments, and perspectives. Chicago: Aldine, 1972. Furneaux, W. D., & Gibson, H. G. The Maudsley Personality Inventory as a predictor of susceptibility to hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1961, 9, 167-176. Gindes, B. C. New concepts of hypnosis. New York: Julian Press, 1951. Glass, G., & Stanley, J. Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: ’ Prentice- Hall, 1970. Greene, G. How to get people to do things with words. In Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago : UniversTty of Chicago Press, 1970. Haley, J. An interactional explanation of hypnosis. Amer- ican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1958, 1, 41-57% Haley, J. Uncommon therapy: The psychiatric techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M. D. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973. “ " Hartland, J. Medical and dental hypnosis and its clinical applications. Baltimore: Williams and Williams, 1966. Henle, M. On the relation between logic and thinking. Psy chological Review, 1962, 366-398. Hewitt, J. L. A communications approach to the prediction and alteration of hypnotic susceptibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, 1965. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Har- court. Brace, and World, 1965. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnosis and consciousness. Human Nature, January 1978, pp. 42-49. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Hilgard, E. R., & Bentler, P. M. Predicting hypnotizability from the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Britain Jour nal of Psychology, 1963, 63-69. Hilgard, E. R., Weitzenhoffer, A. M., Landes, J., & Moore, R. K. The distribution of susceptibility to hypnosis in a student population: A study using the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75(8, Whole No. 512). Hilgard, J. R., & Hilgard, E. R. Developmental interactive aspects of hypnosis: Some illustrative cases. Genetic Psychological Monographs, 1962, 143-178. Holden, C. Going beyond pain. Psychology, April 1977 (Trial issue), pp. 10-15. Hsokovec, J., Svorad, D., & Lane, 0. The comparative effec tiveness of spoken and tape-recorded suggestions of body sway. International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 163-166. Hull, C. L. Hypnosis and suggestibility : An experimental approach. New York: Appleton-Century, 1933. Isaac, S. Handbook in Research and Education (W. Michael, collaborator). San Diego: Edits Publishers, 1971. Jackson, D. D., & Haley, J. Transference revisited. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1963, 137, 363-3711 Jackson, J. A. Hypnotherapy for whom? Analysis of referred patients. Australian Family Physician, 1975, _4, 451-453. Kaplan, S. J. Hysterical states. Hypnosis Quarterly, 1977, 20(2), 16-19, 36, 39. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Kroger, W. S. Clinical and experimental hypnosis in medicine, dentistry and psychology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1 9 6 3 . Kursh, C. D. The benefits of poor communication. Psycho- analytic Review, 1971, 198-208. LeCron, L. M. A method of measuring the depth of hypnosis. Journal of Experimental Hypnosis, 1953, 1, 4-7. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 London, P. Subject characteristics in hypnosis research. I. A survey of experience, interest, and opinion. International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1961, 9, 151-161: London, P., Cooper, 0. M., & Johnson, H. J. Subject charac teristics in hypnosis research. II. Attitudes towards hypnosis, volunteer status, and personality measures. III. Some correlates of hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 13-21. Lubin, B., Brady, J. P., & Levitt, E. E. A comparison of personality characteristics of volunteers and non volunteers for hypnotic experiments. Journal of Clini cal Psychology, 1962, 1^, 341-343. Mclnelly, W. A. Teaching self-hypnosis through tape record ings for reducing test anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1967. Mears, A. Non-verbal and extra-verbal suggestions in the induction of hypnosis. Parts I and II. Britain Journal of Medical Hypnotism, 1954, 5, 26; 1954, 6, 51-54. Mears, A. A working hypothesis as to the nature of hypnosis. American Medical Association Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 1957, 77, 549-555. Melie, J. P., & Hilgard, E. R. Attitudes toward hypnosis, self-predictions, and hypnotic susceptibility. Inter national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1964, 99-108. Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1963, 371-378. Milgram, S. Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychology, 1964, 848-852. Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 1965, ]^, 57-76. Moore, R. K. Susceptibility to hypnosis and susceptibility to social influence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1961. O'Connor, R. E . Influence of pre-induction instructions, induction format, sex, and locus-of-control expectan cies upon hypnotizability. Unpublished doctoral dis sertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 1976. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand charac teristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 1962, 776-783. Orne, M. T. Demand characteristics and their implications for real life : The importance of quasi-controls. Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychologi cal Association, Chicago, September 1965. Pattie, F. A., Jr. Methods of inductions, susceptibility of subjects, and criteria of hypnosis. In R. M. Dorcus (Ed.), Hypno sis and its therapeutic application. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Pearson, R. Communication and motivation. Part I. A fable. Part II. The brick— A personal experience. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1966, 18-23. Ricks, J. M. Internal-external control and hypnotic suggest- ibility. UnpublTshed doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1969. Roberts, M. J. Attention and cognitive controls as related to individual differences in hypnotic susceptTbility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964. Rosenhan, D., & London, P. Hypnosis in the unhypnotizable: A study in rote learning. Journal of Experimental Psy chology, 1963, 30-34. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effect in behavioral research. New York : Appleton-Century, 1966. Sacerdote, P. An analysis of induction procedures in hypno sis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970, 12, 236-253. ^------— Sanders, S. An exploration of utilization techniques in short-term hypnotherapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1977, ^ ( 1 ) , 76-79. Sarbin, T., & Coe, W. Hypnosis: A social-psychological analysis of influence communications. New York: Holt, 1972. Scheflen, A. E. Regressive one-to-one relationships. Psy chiatric Quarterly, 1960, 692-709. Shibata, I. New trend— Hypnotherapy. Japanese Journal of Psychotherapy, 1976, 2(2), 164-165. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shor, R. E. Three dimensions of hypnotic depth. Inter national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 23-38. Shor, R. E., & Orne, M. T. (Eds.). The nature of hypnosis ; Selected basic readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Shor, R. E., Orne, M. T., & O'Connell, D. N. Psychological correlates of plateau hypnotizability in a special volunteer sample. Journal of Personal Social Psychol ogy, 1966, 3, 80-95. Slotnick, R., & London, P. Influence of instructions on hyp notic and non-hypnotic performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 7_0, 38-46. Snedocor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. Statistical methods (6th ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1968. Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. Toward a convergence in hyp nosis research. American Psychologist, 1974, 29(7), 500-510. Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. Behavior modification and hypnosis. In M. Hersen et al. (Eds.), Progress in behavioral modification (Vol. 3). New York : Academic Press, 1976. Spiegel, H. Hypnosis and transference. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1959, 1, 634-639. Spiegel, H., & Spiegel, D. Trance and treatment. New York: Basic Books, 1978. Stoline, M. R. Recent developments in multiple comparisons. Handout prepared for the Second Annual Midwest Biophar- maceutical Workshop, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, May 22-23, 1979. Tart, C. T. Types of hypnotic dreams and their relation to hypnotic depth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 377-382. Tart, C. T., & Hilgard, E. R. Responsiveness to suggestions under "hypnosis" and "waking-imagination" conditions : A methodological observation. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1966, , 247-256. Tinterow, M. M. Foundations of hypnosis. Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1970. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Troffer, S. A., & Tart, C. T. Experimenter bias in hypno tist performance. Science, 1964, 1^, 1330-1331. Ulett, G. A., Akpinar, S., & Itil, T. A. Hypnosis by video tape. International Journal of Clinical and Experi m e n t ^ Hypnosis, 1972, 46-51. Von Dedenroth, T. E. A. Trance depth: An independent vari able in therapeutic results. American Journal of Clini- cal Hypnosis, 1962, £, 174-176. Watkins, J. G. Hypnotherapy of war neurosis. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. Watzlawick, P., Bravin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. Pragmatics of human communication : A study of interactional pat tern^, p^athologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W T “ Norton, 1967. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. Change ; Prin ciples of problem formation and problem resolution. New York : Norton, 1974. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. Hypnotism : An objective study in sug- gestibility. New York: Wiley, 1953. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. General techniques of hypnotism. New York : Grune & Stratton, 1957. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. The nature of hypnosis : Part II. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 6, 40-72. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Weitzenhoffer, A, M., & Sjoberg, B. M., Jr. Suggestibility with and without "induction of hypnosis." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1961, 132, 204-220. White, R. W. Prediction of hypnotic susceptibility from a knowledge of subject's attitudes. Journal of Psychol ogy, 1937, 3, 265-277. Wilson, D. L. The role o^f confirmation of expectancies in hypnotic induction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, 1967. Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. The Creative Imagination Scale as a measure of hypnotic responsiveness: Appli- cations to experimental and clinical hypnosis (Rev. ed.). Medfield, Mass.: Medfield Foundation, 1977. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Young, P. C. Is rapport an essential characteristic of hypnosis? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 130:T39T Young, P. C. Suggestion as indirection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1931, 2^, 69-90. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.