Modifying Hypnotizability: A New Component Analysis

Gearan, Paul; Schoenberger, Nancy E.; Kirsch, Irving

doi:10.1080/00207149508409376

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Measures of hypnotic response expectancy usually focus on predicting behavioral responses (e.g., Council, Kirsch, Vickery, & Carlson, 1983). In the more recent studies, measures of expected subjective experiences were added (Gearan et al, 1995;. Consistent with our hypothesis, these two measures were very highly correlated.…”

Section: Response Sets and Environmentally Triggered Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…More specific to the issue of involuntariness, Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, and Sweeney (1984) reported that voluntary control over hypnotic responses-as gaged by the ability of highly responsive participants to resist suggestions-can be influenced strongly by expectancy-altering information. Similarly, measured expectancies are highly correlated with behavioral and subjective response to suggestion, and expectancy manipulations can increase responsiveness greatly (Gearan, Schoenberger, & Kirsch, 1995;Wickless & Kirsch, 1989). These data suggest that the subjective experience of hypnosis, including the experience of involuntariness, may be shaped by expectancy (see Lynn et al, 1990;Spanos, 1986b).…”

Section: The Construction Of Subjective Experiencementioning

confidence: 90%

“…The considerably greater effect of response expectancies on the perception of subjective experience led to the downfall of the first paradigm of experimental psychology, when experimenters realized that the contents of their introspective observations were artifacts of their prior beliefs (Dodge, 1912). More recently, response expectancies have been implicated in the etiology and treatment of anxiety disorders, depression, sexual dysfunction, and drug use (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen, 1987;Ilardi & Craighead, 1994;Palace, 1995;Reiss & McNally, 1985;Teasdale, 1983Teasdale, , 1985. In nonclinical contexts, response expectancy appears to have a top-down influence on both positive and negative mood states (Kirsch, Meams, & Catanzaro, 1990;Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, & Wetzel, 1989).…”

Section: The Construction Of Subjective Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hypnotic involuntariness and the automaticity of everyday life.

Kirsch¹,

Lynn²

1999

Clinical Hypnosis and Self-Regulation: Cognitive-Behavioral Perspectives.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most interesting phenomenon of hypnosis is an apparent alteration in volitional control over behavior. In response to suggestions, hypnotized individuals execute movements that they report as having occurred without volitional effort (ideomotor responses), and they display a suggested inability to execute simple motor acts (responses to challenge suggestions). Early theorists took these displays at face value and assumed that hypnotic behavior was in fact involuntary. More recently, the volitional status of suggested behavior has become a source of intense controversy (Kirsch & Lynn, 1995).There are four conventional criteria of automaticity (Bargh, 1994). A cognitive process or behavioral action is automatic if it is (a) outside of awareness, (b) uncontrollable (i.e., it cannot be prevented or stopped), (c) unintentional (i.e., volitional effort is not needed for its initiation), and (d) efficient (i.e., it does not consume attentional resources). At one time, This chapter was published in 1997 in the American J o u r ~l of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 329-348.

show abstract

Section: Response Sets and Environmentally Triggered Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: The Construction Of Subjective Experiencementioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Construction Of Subjective Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hypnotic involuntariness and the automaticity of everyday life.

Kirsch¹,

Lynn²

1999

Clinical Hypnosis and Self-Regulation: Cognitive-Behavioral Perspectives.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent studies using refined expectancy measures have confirmed this strong association between expectancy and responses to suggestion (Council, Kirsch, & Hafner, 1986;Gearan, Schoenberger, & Kirsch, 1995;Johnston, Chajkowaski, DuBreuil, & Spanos, 1989;Kirsch, Silva, Comey, & Reed, 1995;Vickery & Kirsch, 1991). Kirsch et al (1995) presented three data sets in which hypnotic suggestibility was correlated with absorption, fantasy proneness, dissociation, attitudes toward hypnosis, and response expectancies.…”

Section: Specific Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Hypnosis and response expectancies.

Council¹

How Expectancies Shape Experience.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its long history, there has been a chronic failure among experts to agree on a definition of hypnosis. In response to this problem, Division 30 (Psychological Hypnosis) of the American Psychological Association generated a definition of hypnosis based on the consensus of a group of eminent hypnosis scholars (Kirsch, 1994). The main points of this definition are as follows:1. Hypnosis is a procedure during which a health professional or researcher suggests that a client, patient, or participant experience changes in sensations, perceptions, thoughts, or behawior. Hypnosis involves an interpersonal interaction between the hypnotist and client. With regard to the topic of this chapter, the hypnotist could be seen as issuing communications designed to induce expectancies for the occurrence of hypnotic responses.2. The hypnotic context is generally established by an induction procedure. Hypnotic inductions may help clients relax and attend to the hypnotic experience] but their primary function is to establish the hypnotic context. In fact, labeling the situation as one in which hypnotic responses are expected and appropriate may be the only common feature across the myriad methods that have been used to induce hypnosis.3. People respond to hypnosis in different ways. Some people are highly responsiwe to hypnotic suggestions and others are less responsiwe. People who are highly responsive to hypnosis tend to describe their experiences as vivid, absorbing, and even profound. At the other extreme are those who merely think about the suggestions and respond only to comply with experimental demands (Radtke & Spanos, 1981; Wagstaff, 1981). Most people fall in between these extremes. Individual differences in hypnotic suggestibility can be reliably and validly measured with standardized hypnotic suggestibility scales. The major scales used in current research include the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer 6r Hilgard, 1962) and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS; Shor 6r Orne, 1962). Standardized hypnotizability scales typically begin with a scripted eye-fixation/relaxation induction procedure, followed by a set of standard suggestions of varying difficulty. Responses are scored passfail according to objective criteria (e.g., swatting at a hallucinated mosquito). Subjective scoring criteria have also been developed in which respondents rate the vividness or "reality" of their responses (Kirsch, Council] & Wickless, 1990).4. People who have been hypnotized do not lose control ower their behawior. As White (1941) put it, the hypnotized individual strives to "behave like a hypnotized person as this is continuously defined by the operator and understood by the subject" (p. 483). Good hypnotic clients actively process information in the hypnotic situation, thinking and imagining 384

show abstract

“…Expectancy Questionnaire (Gearan, Schoenberger, & Kirsch, 1995). The Expectancy Questionnaire assesses participants' anticipated reaction to each of the suggestions they will be given across three different dimensions.…”

Section: Pre-induction Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%