The Influence of Time and Gender on Hungarian Hypnotizability Scores¹

Abstract

In a between-lab study, a constant and steady shift was found in hypnotizability scores measured with standard scales. To investigate a time effect in a Hungarian (within-lab) sample, 613 subjects' scores on Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B, 1898 subjects' self-scores, and 1713 subjects' observer-scores on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility were analyzed. From the 1970s to 2010, a significant increase was observed in the SHSS:A and B scores of female subjects and the HGSHS:A scores of both genders. Females proved to be significantly more hypnotizable than males in a group setting but not in an individual context. Time and gender did not interact. The possible reasons for these effects on hypnotizability and the role of the testing context are discussed.

Mechanisms of Hypnosis:Toward the Development of a Biopsychosocial Model

“…For example, researchers are beginning to examine additional biological factors associated with hypnosis such as changes in peripheral hormone levels (Bryant, Hung, Guastella, & Mitchell, 2012; Varga & Kekecs, 2014), heart rate and heart rate variability (Santarcangelo et al, 2012; Santarcangelo, Varanini et al, 2013; Sebastiani, Simoni, Gemignani, Ghelarducci, & Santarcangelo, 2003; Yuksel, Ozcan, & Dane, 2013), respiratory rate (Sebastiani et al, 2003), and blood pressure (Santarcangelo, Paoletti et al, 2013). Doubtless some of these factors as well as other biological, psychological, and social factors not examined here will be identified as being associated with, and may ultimately be shown to influence, hypnotic responding.…”

Hungarian Norms for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A

“…Our investigations on an HGSHS:A sample aggregated between 1975 and 2010 yielded a difference of greater effect size (around d = 0.3); in individually administered SHSS:A and B scores (collected between 1973 and 2010), however, we have not found a significant gender difference (Költő et al, 2014). Given that the HGSHS:A and the SHSS:A, B are functionally equivalent-they just differ in the context of administration, group or individual-we argue that it is not the female and male subjects' hypnotic ability that is divergent but their hypnotic response, which may be attributed to social psychological mechanisms like sex role conformist behavior (e.g., Bem & Lenney, 1976).…”

“…Benham, Smith, and Nash (2002) detected in their betweenlab examination that standard hypnotizability scores exhibit a statistically significant and continuous increase since the 1960s. Our analysis, carried out on aggregated HGSHS:A, SHSS:A, and SHSS:B data collected in our laboratory from 1973 to 2010, supported the notion that hypnotizability scores are increasing over time (Költő, Gősi-Greguss, Varga, & Bányai, 2014). This is one of the reasons why we report the normative data of the HGSHS:A from a more recent sample rather than all of the data collected in the last 4 decades.…”

Effects of Dry Flotation Restricted Environmental Stimulation on Hypnotizability and Pain Control

“…Hypnotizability measured by the SHSS: C has a test-retest reliability of r = .83. The SHSS: C is normed in over a dozen countries and languages (Költő et al, 2014). It is the most widely used and most highly regarded measure of hypnotizability (Barabasz & Barabasz, 1992).…”

“…A hypnotic induction with suggestions for an analgesic reaction (Adachi, Fujino, Nakae, Mashimo, & Sasaki, 2014;Guttman & Ball, 2013) and pain threshold-tolerance tests were administered prior to 6 hours of REST, immediately after REST, and 10-14 days later. Results showed hypnotizability as measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale (Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975;Kallio & Koivisto, 2013;Költő, Gősi-Greguss, Varga, & Bányai, 2014;Pekala & Maurer, 2013) and pain tolerance scores (Adachi et al, 2014) to be significantly enhanced for Pts exposed to REST immediately afterward and 10-14 days later but not for controls.…”