Differential hypnotic responsivity of smokers, phobics, chronic-pain control patients: A failure to confirm.

Abstract

The recent claims that hypnotic responsivity may be related to such presenting symptomatology as phobias or chronic pain were examined. A retrospective analysis comparing the differential responsivity of a consecutive patient series (N = 386) on the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) and the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS) was carried out. Patients were categorized as phobics (n = 95), smokers (n = 226), and chronic-pain sufferers-(n = 65). Phobic patients were also subclassified as monophobic (n = 54) or polyphobic (« = 41). No significant differences were found in hypnotic responsivity or the related capacity for absorption among patient categories. Reasons for the failure to substantiate clinical observations or to replicate previous findings are explored. The importance of distinguishing between treatment responsivity and hypnotic responsivity is discussed.The possibility that presenting symptoms or complaints may be related to differences in hypnotic responsivity has recently been proposed by Frankel and his associate (Frankel, 1976;Frankel & Orne, 1976). The primary evidence for this contention comes from a study (Frankel & Orne, 1976) that showed that a group of phobic patients (n = 24) earned significantly higher scores on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS; Shor & Orne, 1962) than did a patient group of cigarette smokers (« = 24). These investigators also noted that polyphobics (« = 17) scored significantly higher than did monophobics (« = 7) on these measures of hypnotic responsivity.Frankel and Orne (1976) interpreted their findings as providing "strong empirical support that phobic patients show a tendency to the same kind of mental functioning that

Phobias and intense fears: Facilitating their treatment with hypnosis.

“…Three studies (Frischholz, Spiegel, Spiegel, Balma, & Markell, 1982; D. Spiegel, Frischholz, Maruffi, & Spiegel, 1981;Owens, Bliss, Koester, & Jeppsen, 1990) found phobics not to be higher in hypnotizability than the general population or other psychiatric groups. D. Spiegel et al (1981) found no such relationship in a group of flying phobics, an environmentally based phobia, and concluded that a major confound of previous studies was a lack of control for age differences between phobia and comparison groups.…”

Hypnotizability and phobic behavior: Further supporting data.

“…The present study is the fourth one to find a relationship between hypnotizability and phobic behavior using comparable measures of susceptibility. The discrepancy between the findings of these four studies and those of Frischholz et al (1982) may reflect differences in the measurement properties of the HIP and standard measures of hypnotizability and/or age differences in the various samples examined. Future research on this topic needs to take susceptibility measurement and potential age confounds into account.…”

“…The age factor. The mean ages for the phobic and normative samples were considerably lower than for the three samples reported by Frischholz et al (1982). The phobic subjects ranged in age from 21 to 59 years (M = 30.6), whereas for the normative sample the age range was from 18 to 2 All 54 patients were also prescreened on the Fear Survey Schedule (FSS; Wolpe & Lang, 1964).…”

“…A recent study by Frischholz, Spiegel, Spiegel, Balma, and Markell (1982) challenged these earlier findings. Using the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP; H. Spiegel, 1974) as their measure of hypnotizability, Frischholz et al found no statistically significant differences in the mean hypnotizability of 95 phobics, 226 smokers, and 65 chronic pain sufferers.…”

Modern Trends in Hypnosis

“…in a study of patients with dental phobic illness, reported a significantly higher mean hypnotizability rating in their group than in the normal population, thus supporting our findings. Frischholz et al (1982) failed to confirm a correlation between phobic behavior and high hypnotizability. This might be explained by their use of an entirely different technique to measure hypnotizability.…”