27 ? M8/J //o - UNT Digital Library

27 ?M8/J//o.aoyyTHETWOINFLUENCE OF H Y P N O T I C S U S C E P T I B I L I T YANDINDUCTION T E C H N I Q U E S ON H Y P N O T I C DEPTHDISSERTATIONPresentedto the G r a d u a t e CouncilNorth TexasState U n i v e r s i t yFulfillmentForofofin Partialthe R e q u i r e m e n t sthe Degree ofDoctor of PhilosophyByPete S. H a m i l t o n , B.S., M.SD e n t o n , TexasAugust,1983the

Hamilton, Pete S., The Influence of Hypnotic Susceptibility andTwo Induction Techniques on Hypnotic Depth.Doctor of Philosophy(Counseling and Student Personnel Services), August, 1983, 57 pp.,3 tables, bibliography, 113 titles.This study investigated depth of hypnosis self-reported by subjects on the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (FIHD) after experiencingone of two formal hypnotic inductions.The 68 subjects (41 females and27 males) ranged in age from 17 to 47 (mean 25.3) and were placed intoa high susceptibility group or a low susceptibility group based on theirscores on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS:A).Both the low susceptibility group and the high susceptibility group werefurther divided randomly so that half of each group received an indirectinduction treatment and the other half received a direct induction treatment.The direct induction was a traditional eye-fixation/arm-levitationinduction conducted face-to-face with one of four experimenters.Theconfusion induction was the same induction with the addition of a taperecorded induction played concurrently with the face-to-face induction.In each case, the taped induction was recorded by the experimenter workingwith that subject from a common script.The results of a two-way analysis of variance suggested that subjects receiving the confusion induction treatment reported reaching similardepth of hypnosis regardless of their HGSHS:A score.Of those subjectsreceiving the direct induction treatment, those who scored as high

susceptible on the HGSHSrA reported depth of hypnosis similar to theconfusion induction group while those who scored as low susceptiblereported reaching a statistically lesser depth of hypnosis than thatreported by the other three groups.The discussion suggests that the HGSHS:A may only measure susdeptibility to a direct induction technique and not susceptibility tohypnosis when another type of induction is used.questions are suggested.Additional research

CopyrightPeteS.byHami1 t o n1983

TABLE OF C O N T E N T SPageLIST OF T A B L E SState Versus N o n - s t a t e T h e o r i e s4Susceptibility7DirectandPurpose ofto H y p n o s i sIndirect H y p n o t i cInductions10the Study13Hypo the ses14Method14D e s c r i p t i o n of SubjectsInstrumentationProcedurefor Data C o l l e c t i o nS t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s of R e s u l t s19Discussion22APPENDIXBIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . .2748

LIST OF T A B L E STablePage1.The Four E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p s2.Standard D e v i a t i o n s and M e a n s forField H y p n o t i c Depth Inventory3.15theA n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e of the Field InventoryOf H y p n o t i c Depth By I n d u c t i o n Type andLevel of S u s c e p t i b i l i t y1819

T H E I N F L U E N C E OF H Y P N O T I CTWO INDUCTION hypnosi s USCEPTIBILITY ANDON H Y P N O T I C D E P T basismorefor

fthetimeandparticularlyashypnosisaformbecameofa n e s t he t i c wasThea tinthatsurveyfavorablepsychology.4 7%oftheAssociationalsoindicatesattitudes

ofH y p n o s i eportandthatimportanttheareas:1.H y p n o s i s o f f e r s u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t i e s tod e m o n s t r a t e m e n t a l m e c h a n i s m s for t e a c h i n g p u r p o s e s .S o m e d e f e n s e m e c h a n i s m s , s u c h a s a m n e s i a , c a n bed r a m a t i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e d to t h e m e d i c a l r e s i d e n t ors t u d e n t , to t h e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t in p s y c h o l o g y , orto t h e d e n t i s t in t r a i n i n g .For e x a m p l e , the c o n c e p t of r e g r e s s i o n c a n be v i v i f i e d by a d e m o n s t r a t i o nof h y p n o t i c a g e r e g r e s s i o n .T h e u s e of h y p n o s i s int e a c h i n g c a n b r i n g l i f e to t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s ,a n d in o u r e x p e r i e n c e it h a s o f t e n i n c r e a s e d t h ei n t e r e s t a n d m o t i v a t i o n of s t u d e n t s w h o w i t n e s s e dd e m o n s t r a t i o n s of h y p n o t i c t e c h n i q u e .2.H y p n o s i s h a s g r e a t p o t e n t i a l in r e s e a r c h ,n o t o n l y i n t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e h y p n o t i c s t a t e i t s e l fb u t a l s o a s a m e a n s of m o r e c o n t r o l l e d e m o t i o n a lv a r i a b l e s in p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d p s y c h o s o m a t i c r e s e a r c h .P s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in p a i n , f o r e x a m p l e ,c a n be s t u d i e d w i t h o u t t h e p h a r m a c o l o g i c a l e f f e c t sof m e d i c a t i o n .R e s i d e n t s in s u r g e r y a n d a n e s t h e s i o l o g ym a y f i n d h y p n o s i s u s e f u l a s a c o n t r o l in s t u d i e s e v a l u a t i n g o t h e r f o r m s of p a i n r e l i e f s i n c e t h e h y p n o t i ce f f e c t s a r e c l e a r l y i n i t i a t e d by p s y c h o l o g i c a l m e a n s .3.H y p n o s i s is of g r e a t v a l u e in m e d i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l , and d e n t a l t r e a t m e n t , b o t h for p s y c h o l o g i c a lp r o b l e m s a n d a s p a r t of t h e t r e a t m e n t of m a n y p h y s i c a ld i s o r d e r s or c o m p u l s i v e h a b i t p a t t e r n s , s u c h a s c i g a r e t t e s m o k i n g by e m p h y s e m a p a t i e n t s ( p . 5 0 ) 71),smoking(Zieg,& ofuseofhypnosisastoitscasetreatment& holismaisdis-Sigman,Sanders,(Wadden&

is1980;hasGreene,(Bowers,1973;Painnotic. t r e a t m e n 1975;a lieb,& ,& sandGraham,clinicalKoster,andKroger,& ;& hmaMelzack1980).wellandandinandestab-1i s h e d esaysBarberthat&

hypnosisis notbehaviorto a n t i c e d e n tinterpersonalsuggestiona rphenomena.is p l a y i n andansaidto he"hyp-successis asubject'ssensitivitytohypnoticstate whichisa specialtrance"involvesr a n g e ofgeneralized(1974) postulatesat anyofstate.Theinteractiontorealitysit-betweenShor, whenconsciousHypnosisthe d i r e c t i o noperatingtheorywithneo-dissociationtrols aresuggestsfor h i mAccordingin a t r a n c e .at1950),role e x p e c t a t i o n s , p e r c e p t i o n s ,as h y p n o s i se x c l u s i o n of a m o r e(Sarbin,sets h y p n o s i sSarbin"everydayto a smalldemonstrated1976).a ills, alonguation definedsubjectWith( 1 9 7 0 ) s p e a k s ofdistingushedbehaviorsa role d e f i n e sychologicalfunctionroletheoryis n o t h i n gnotic"androletheresubjectthatthat m o s tc a n be e l i c i t e dsocialonvarietyvariables , experimenterexperimenter-subjectunderin a w i d efocusesv a r i a b l e s , andBarberattributes hypnoticfocus,subjectstoorentation,is a s p e c i a lthethetheyaretrancestatesupportedbythe h y p n o t i s t .theorythatoneof h y p n o s i sa seriestime.ofThiscognitivesuggestsconthatthe

he(Hilgard,atdif-to H i l g a r d the m o r easa heoftechniquesupportedandallowedin p s y -theoryinductionEricksonto h y p n o s i sThisstatehypnoticto b r i d g ecta tendedassumeshypnotherapyperienceofis b e t w e e ntechniques.personallythatfeltin c h o o s i n atdifferentdegreeautonomousstatescalledit w i l lstateis a c t e tionallythe m o n i t o r i n g1979).theareThea specialhasthathypnosistwo m a j o rinductionhvpnotic: s t a t ephases,phasepsychologicalis a s p e c i a lhelpsstateis r e a c h e is.therapistusesthe

hypnoticconditionto help promotetherapeuticchange;thisis the u t i l i z a t i o n phase.Allr e s e a r c h e r s have noteddifferencetrance.to respondterm has been usedhow e f f e c t i v e l ypersonallyasof the mostused1962); the(Hilgard,to h y p n o s i s or1980).seriouslylastin this p r o c e s s , severalB (WeitzenhofferStanford(Spiegeltests d e m o n s t r a t escalessusceptibi1y.Some& Hilgard,1959); the& Bridger,1970); theHypnot i c S u s c e p t i b i l i t y1978); the StanfordTeststudiedfew d e c a d e sScale of Hypnot ic Suscept ibi1i ty& Hilgard,Levi tat iontheofthe Stanf ord Hypnot i c S u s c e p t i b i l i t yIndue t ion ProfileHarvard Groupsuggestions.(Weitzenhoffer,to measure h y p n o t i care:Scale, Forms A andHypnoticcan respondfor onlyTo assisthave been d e v e l o p e dto the abilityto h y p n o t i cto h y p n o s i s has beeninterest1981).refersto help convey an u n d e r s t a n d i n ge x p e r i e n c e hypnosissystematic(Hilgard,positivelyan individualSusceptibility(Morgani n d i v i d u a l s mayto H y p n o s i sterm hy pno t i c s u s c e p t i b i l i t ysubjectswithto be asusceptibiliy.TheTheseemsThis d i f f e r e n c e has been viewedSusceptibilityoftherein the ease with w h i c h d i f f e r e n tenter a hypnotchypnoticthat1979); and(Hilgard, Crawfordthe demandfor& Orne,S c a l e , Form CHypnot ic Clinicalthe Stanford(ShorScale: AdultH y p n o t i c Arm& Wert,1979).susceptibilityThesescales as

ve&in-therapyEvans&Paul,to

iedman& Taub,(Karlin,1 9 7 9 ) , as wellis a l e a r n e dskill, reas1976), changinga higherandthatothersis a s t a b l eforcapacitytask& Atkinson,1974)S i m o n easuredtibles willthatis a f u n c t i o nassertinghypnotherapy,have(1981) indicatequestiontheyto h y p n o s i s& Hilgard,& O'Connell,Salsbergsusceptibilitytrait1 97 5 ; M o r g a n , J o h n s o n ,Shore, Orne,howhastests havephysiologicalas a h i g h e r(1980) reportssusceptibilityandsusceptibilityIndividuals with high1970;ansusceptib1es.Diamond1969;onalso demonstrated(Hilgard,reflectsusceptibility*to m o d i f y1977).haveMullen,positions1 9 7 7 ) , responsivenessbodyratescorean a b i l i t yPhysiologicalthanBothin the m e a s u r m e n tSubjects whoheart1970).thatantheitusesusceptibilityis a dicatorofreceivefromsusceptibilityimpliesto h y p n o t i ccanthatinductions.testslowbetheassuscep-

ghteven& fthebeclose1979).hypnosis.mindto& atesrelationship(1977)indicatestohyp-that

er,susceptibilitywaterscoresnowhenfromthein-he

orrelatedGr o u erinductionswere& nsuggestion.indirectina eedtoHilgardinbeinanthedonein& Hilgard,a

rswasthanlearntheya einductionmorea ingprivatethattotherealdirectwhata

14Hypotheses1.The depth of h y p n o s i s mean score o b t a i n e nforceptibility-Confusionof h y p n o s i sInductionscore obtainedInductionforthethe High Sus-(HC) Ss andthe mean depthscore for the High S u s c e p t i b i 1 i t y - D i r e c t(HD) Ss.The depth of h y p n o s i s m e a nSusceptibility-Directnificantlygreaterscore obtainedInductionforInductionthe High(HD) Ss will be sig-than the m e a n score obtainedSusceptibility-Direct4.the Low(LD) Ss.There will be no significant d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e ndepth of h y p n o s i s mean3.the Low(LC) Ss will be sig-than the mean score o b t a i n e dSusceptibility-Direct2.Inductionforfor the Low(LD) Ss.There will be no significant d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n thedepth of h y p n o s i s meanscore obtainedceptibility- ConfusionInductionof h y p n o s i sInductionscoreforforthe High Sus-(HC) Ss andthe mean depththe Low S u s c e p t i b i l i t y - C o n f u s i o n(LC) Ss.METHODD e s c r i p t i o n of S u b j e c t sSixty-eightselfsubjects v o l u n t e e r e dimprovement.females rangedyears.Thein ageto learn h y p n o s i st w e n t y - s e v e n males andfromThey were drawnforforty-one17 to 47 with a m e a n age of 25.3fromthe studentp o p u l a t i o n of North