Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Abstract

backgroundYielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression. participants and procedureIn sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours. resultsConfirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.conclusions Suggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems.key words confirmatory factor analysis; suggestion; suggestibility; direct suggestibility; indirect suggestibility

No evidence for theta power as a marker of hypnotic state in highly hypnotizable subjects

“…Due to the different hypnotizability assessment methods 10 and criteria for inclusion, the samples of highly hypnotizable subjects probably differed between the studies; the heterogeneity of highly hypnotizable subjects will be discussed below. 10 For a study comparing HGSHS:A and BSS; Polczyk (2016).…”

Hypnotic suggestibility in dissociative and related disorders: A meta-analysis

“…Hypnotic suggestibility, as assessed by standardized behavioural scales (Acunzo & Terhune, 2021;Woody & Barnier, 2008), refers to a stable capacity to experience involuntary responses to direct verbal suggestions in the context of hypnosis (e.g., analgesia: "you will not feel anything at all in your arm. "; (Oakley et al, 2021;Polczyk, 2016). Responses to suggestions among highly suggestible individuals are characterized by a pronounced reduction in the experience of authorship over one's actions and experience (Polito et al, 2014;Weitzenhoffer, 1974) and bear close phenomenological resemblance to distortions in the sense of agency in clinical populations (Polito et al, 2015).…”

“…This debate has largely neglected the hypothesis that high hypnotic suggestibility functions as a risk factor for DDs and germane conditions (Butler et al, 1996) in favour of conceiving suggestibility as a causal variable that produces dissociative symptoms (Lynn et al, 2014). In turn, these debates have not considered potential evidence for elevated suggestibility in DDs from measures of direct verbal (hypnotic) suggestibility, instead focusing on indices closely related to compliance (e.g., interrogative suggestibility) (Gudjonsson, 2013), which are distinct from direct verbal suggestibility (Polczyk, 2016) and arguably less relevant to treatment (Poole et al, 2010), differential diagnosis (e.g., suggestive symptom induction; Popkirov et al, 2015), and underlying mechanisms (e.g., Brown & Reuber, 2016).…”

Can Hypnotic Susceptibility be Explained by Bifactor Models? Structural Equation Modeling of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility - Form A

“…The second model focuses on SATH’s hypothesis that there are two sources of variability in hypnotic suggestibility, echoing the proposition of Kirsch (1997), asserting that hypnotic suggestibility can be decomposed into general suggestibility (capability of responding to suggestions regardless of hypnosis) and hypnotizability (increase in suggestibility due to hypnotic induction). Notably, by general suggestibility, we are referring to direct verbal suggestibility, which should be distinguished from other forms of suggestibility (Oakley et al, 2021; Polczyk, 2016). Hence, besides the specific correlated minor factors, capturing the different suggestibilities described above (related to different top-down cognitive processes), one may expect that the addition of a general factor to which all HGSHS:A items contribute will improve the model.…”