A Comparison of the Effects of Standardized Chiasson and Eye-Closure Inductions on Susceptibility Scores

Abstract

Numerous induction techniques have been described in the literature, many of which are standardized, facilitating their use in research. Recent studies have compared inductions for their effects on susceptibility scores (e.g., Spanos, Lush, Smith, & de Groh, 1986; Woolson, 1986), finding little or no differences. In the present study we tested a Chiasson (1973) induction technique (recently standardized) for its relative efficacy at inducing hypnosis as measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959). Subjects were 80 volunteer undergraduates at a midwestern university. We administered the SHSS:A using its standard eye-closure induction to half of the subjects; half were given the SHSS:A using the Chiasson induction. Following dehypnosis, all subjects gave a subjective rating of their depth. The results indicated that the two standard inductions have a comparable effectiveness as measured by susceptibility scores and subjective depth ratings.

Can Devices Facilitate a Hypnotic Induction?

“…A previous study (Page & Handley, 1991) had discovered a gender interaction in which males scored lower than females in sessions where a female assistant was present. It was thought that this could possibly be due to some males resisting the experimenter's suggestions in the belief that they would appear to be weak-willed or less masculine to the female assistant if they responded.…”

“…Excluding those studies that have used sophisticated techniques (for example, the Barabasz Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy [Barabasz, 1982]), or possibly extensive training procedures like the Carleton Skills Training Program (CSTP) developed by Spanos and his associates (Gorassini & Spanos, 1986;Spanos, DeBrevil, & Gabora, 1991), most have been found to be minimally effective at increasing hypnotizability. In addition, most studies have established that all types of inductions are essentially equivalent (e.g., Hilgard, 1982;Page & Handley, 1991).…”

“…One was an attempt to test the relative efficacy of this device as an induction tool. The second was that it also serve as a control for a previously found gender interaction in the procedure selected (Page & Handley, 1991).…”

Expectancies and the generation of perceptual experience: Predictive processing and phenomenological control

“…Consistent with this interpretation, attempts to determine brain activity that arises from a hypnotic induction yield highly inconsistent results across studies (Landry et al, 2017), as might be expected if the trance state arises from the interpretation of situational cues. It seems that virtually any procedure can produce a reported 'hypnotic trance', providing it is presented as hypnosis, e.g., a pill labelled "hypnosis" (Glass & Barber, 1961), staring at the back of the hand (Page & Handley, 1991) high frequency strobe light (Kroger & Schneider, 1959) or pedalling on an exercise bike (Banyai & Hilgard, 1976). While the hypnotic context can sometimes produce a small boost in response to suggestion, it can at other times also reduce response in comparison to a non-hypnotic context.…”

Nuances and Uncertainties Regarding Hypnotic Inductions: Toward a Theoretically Informed Praxis

“…With regard to informal Ericksonian approaches, indirect inductions have not been shown to be more effective in enhancing suggestibility than direct ones (Lynn, Neufeld, & Mare, 1993); in fact, the latter have been found to elicit greater spontaneous changes in consciousness (Robin, Kumar, & Pekala, 2005). Page and Handley (1991) also found no difference in behavioral or experiential suggestibility between a standard relaxation-based induction and a Chiasson induction, in which one stares at her/his outstretched hand; nor did Page and colleagues find that adding a visual and auditory device to enhance gaze fixation produced a greater effect than a standard eye fixation induction (Page, Handley, & Carey, 2002). Similarly, an induction that includes visual fixation, although widespread, does not seem to have a greater effect than one 10 without it (Weitzenhofer & Sakata, 1970).…”