The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Normative and Comparative Data

Abstract

The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) hypnotic susceptibility scale was developed as a substitute for the individually administered Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). A first investigation with WSGC reports normative data on 259 subjects, and the results indicate that it is comparable in most important respects to the norms of SHSS:C. A second investigation directly compared WSGC and SHSS:C in a counterbalanced design on 65 subjects, and the two scales correlated .85. It is argued that, when used as a follow-up to the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, WSGC provides a valid criterion of hypnotic ability.

Discrete response patterns in the upper range of hypnotic suggestibility: A latent profile analysis

“…It is noteworthy that suggestions comparable to those in the AG profile are not represented on the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne, 1962), SHSS:C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), or WSGC (Bowers, 1993; see also Moran, Kurtz, & Strube, 2002), the most commonly used measures of hypnotic suggestibility, whereas the latter two scales include two items that are equivalent to suggestions on the DR profile, which was here shown to lack discriminant validity. In addition to reinforcing the claim that the standard scales of hypnotic suggestibility are poorly suited to the task of delineating individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility (Terhune, et al, 2011b;Terhune & Cohen Kadosh, 2012), these results further suggest that greater representation of agnosia and inhibitory cognitive suggestions in future measures of hypnotic suggestibility will optimize the measurement of response variegation in this population.…”

Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility

“…First, it could be argued that the observed di↵erences in hypnotic responding between HDHS and LDHS participants are caused by greater hypnotic suggestibility in the former group. However, the two subtypes did not di↵er on a general group measure of hypnotic suggestibility, the WSGC (Bowers, 1993), and only di↵ered on two of the five suggestion profiles in the RSPSs (Weitzenho↵er & Hilgard, 1967). We maintain that these results indicate that HDHS participants possess a superior ability for responding to hallucination suggestions, but display otherwise similar levels of hypnotic suggestibility to LDHS participants (for a related discussion, see Woody, Barnier, & McConkey, 2005).…”

“…This study was approved by a local ethics committee. Hypnotic suggestibility was measured in group sessions using the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (WSGC; Bowers, 1993) and in two individual sessions with the Revised Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility (RSPSs; Weitzenho↵er & Hilgard, 1967). Participants were selected for the present study on the basis of their WSGC scores (high 8; n = 42; low  4; n = 22) and HS individuals were further selected according to their RSPS scores (mean RSPS score 10; n = 31).…”

Individual differences in imagination inflation

“…The Waterloo-Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Group C scale (WSGC, II-point version; Bowers, 1993) was administered in order to assess hypnotic suggestibility. The scale consists of a series of II suggestions given after a hypnotic induction.…”