An experimental comparison of direct and indirect approaches to hypnosis using the Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, form C
Date
1986
Authors
Vernon-Wilkinson, Rosemary Ann
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that subjects of low hypnotizability would respond better to hypnosis using indirect suggestion than hypnosis using direct suggestion.
Subjects' scores on two hypnotizability scales were compared: one representing the direct approach to hypnotic suggestion; the other representing the indirect approach to hypnotic suggestion.
The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962) was used as the direct suggestion approach (termed the Stanford C scale). An indirect-suggestion version of the scale was constructed by the writer for use as the indirect-suggestion approach (termed the Victoria C scale). Subjects were given both scales, in counterbalanced order. After each scale, subjects were questioned regarding relative automaticity or compliance of responses. A preference questionnaire was given after testing to examine phenomenological differences between the two scales using different approaches.
After testing, subjects were divided into three groups based on their Stanford C scale scores: a high hypnotizability group (scoring 9-12); a medium group (scoring 5-8); also divided hypnotizability group (0-6).
Results hypnotizability and a low group (scoring 0-4). They were into two groups similarly: a higher group (7-12) and a lower hypnotizability indicated gained that the subjects higher scores using the of low indirect suggestion approach to hypnosis (the Victoria C scale), than the direct suggestion approach to hypnosis (the Stanford C scale), but only when the Victoria C scale was taken after the Stanford C scale. Subjects of high hypnotizability gained higher scores using the Stanford C scale, particularly when taken after the Victoria C scale.
Results were interpreted to suggest that for these measurement scale test i terns, indirect suggestion approaches to hypnosis were more effective than direct suggestion for subjects of lower hypnotiiability. These findings apply only to this type of standardized measurement scale, and are not applicable to clinical hypnosis, in the form of hypnotherapy.
These indirect-suggestion approaches may be used in a measurement scale of hypnotizability, particularly in clinical research. Such a scale would be acceptable to clinicians for clinical research, since the hypnotic techniques are similar to those used in clinical practice. The use of an indirect-suggestion measurement scale may be a more valid measure of hypnotizability when an experimental treatment using indirect approaches to hypnosis is used. However, for laboratory research using direct-suggestion hypnosis, subjects should be tested with a scale using direct suggestion.
The results of the preference questionnaire indicated that most subjects rated the indirect version more favorably than the direct version overall. Even subjects who scored equally on each scale rated the indirect hypnosis version as more relaxing, 'further into hypnosis'; suggested effects more vivid; responses less compliant and more hypnotic in quality; the approach to use for therapy; and the approach which seemed generally more effective. This can have important implications. At present, the Stanford scales are scored purely on behavioral criteria; phenomenological experience is not considered. And yet it is the subjective experience which distinguishes hypnotic experience from non-hypnotic experience. The incorporation of experiential criteria into the scoring system for measurement scales is recommended. The scoring of the Stanford C scale is made on a behavioral response, and not the subject's perceived experience. Whether these behavioral responses are an adequate measure for an experience distinguished by its phenomenological experience is a question for further examination.