Measuring Hypnotizability:The Case for Self-Report Depth Scales and Normative Data for the Long Stanford Scale

Abstract

Conventional suggestion-based tests of hypnotizability have been criticized because they confound hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestibility. One way around this might be to measure hypnotizability in terms of differences in suggestibility before and after hypnotic induction. However, analysis of data from a 1966 classic study by Hilgard and Tart confirms that difference scores are subject to statistical and methodological problems. Simple verbal hypnotic depth scales are presented as a useful alternative. They correlate well with conventional suggestion-based measures and enable the presence of hypnosis to be indexed independently of formal hypnotic induction procedures. Criticisms of depth scales are addressed, and normative data for the Long Stanford Scale of hypnotic depth are presented, along with data lending empirical support for the construct validity of depth reports.

The Effectiveness of Hypnosis in Reducing Pain and Suffering Among Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Among Women With Temporomandibular Disorder

“…Both conditions consisted of four individual 1-hour sessions with a take-home compact disc and instructions to practice during the week. Those assigned to the hypnosis intervention were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility to track whether symptom improvement is associated with hypnotizability (Iglesias & Iglesias, 2008;Lichtenberg, Shapira, Kalish, & Abramowitz, 2009;Nash et al, 2009;Oneal, Patterson, Soltani, Teeley, & Jensen, 2008;Pyun & Kim, 2008;Raz, 2008;Wagstaff, Cole, & Brunas-Wagstaff, 2008;Whitehead, Noller, & Sheehan, 2008;Xu & Cardeña, 2008;Yard, DuHamel, & Galynker, 2008). The authors include a host of measures to detect changes in cognition and coping strategies sometimes associated with hypnotic interventions (Karlin, Hill, & Messer, 2008;Nathanson, 2009;Pekala et al, 2008;Pyun & Kim, 2009;Robertson, 2009aRobertson, , 2009bSala et al, 2008;Szendi et al, 2009;Tschugguel & Hunter, 2008).…”

Reducing and reversing pseudomemories with hypnosis

“…One problem may have been the use of the LSS as a measure of hypnotizability instead of a conventional suggestionbased measure. However, although not often used as a measure of hypnotizability, a variety of evidence suggests that the LSS can be considered as reliable and valid a measure of hypnotizability as standard suggestion-based measures (see Wagstaff et al, 2008). Other problems include the small sample sizes and the possibility that the samples in both experiments were too homogeneous in terms of depth scores for hypnotizability effects to emerge; in the fi rst experiment there were no scores above fi ve, and in the second, the minimum score was two.…”

“…they heard the initial conversation followed by the conversation with misinformation), except that after the second recording and before memory testing they were administered an audiotape of a standard hypnotic relaxation induction procedure modifi ed from Barber (1969); hypnotic depth was then measured using the LSS (Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth), which requires subjects to rate their degree of experienced depth on a scale from 0 'awake and alert, as you normally are', through 1 'borderline state, between sleeping and waking', 2 'lightly hypnotized', 5 'quite strongly and deeply hypnotized', 8-9 'very hypnotized' to 10 'very deeply hypnotized' (Tart, 1970;Wagstaff, Cole and Brunas-Wagstaff, 2008). Following this, they were told to concentrate very hard on the two audiotapes they had heard; however, they were warned that the second tape contained some incorrect information that was intended to mislead them.…”

Reply to Wagstaff: “Hypnosis and the Relationship between Trance, Suggestion, Expectancy, and Depth: Some Semantic and Conceptual Issues”

“…It is important to know "where we have been." As an example, Wagstaff states that in "the literature, the term 'hypnotic depth' tends to be used synonymously with 'depth of trance' (Bowers, 1983;Tart, 1966Tart, , 1970Tart, , 1979Wagstaff et al, 2008)" (Wagstaff, 2010, p. 51). However, the PCI-HAP makes an important conceptual and operational distinction between these two terms.…”