This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University] On: 01 February 2015, At: 03:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility a
Ralph B. Vacchiano Ph.D. & Paul S. Strauss Ph.D.
a
a
Fairleigh Dickinson University , USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Ralph B. Vacchiano Ph.D. & Paul S. Strauss Ph.D. (1975) Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17:3, 185-189, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1975.10403738 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1975.10403738
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
Volume 17, Number 3, January 1975 Printed in U.S.A.
Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
RALPH B. VACCHIANO, Ph.D. and PAUL S. STRAUSS, Ph.D. Fairleigh Dickinson University This study explores the relationship between dogmatism and hypnotic susceptibility as a function of the impugned authority of the hypnotist. It was hypothesized that high dogmatic Ss would prove more susceptible than low dogmatic Ss when led to believe that the hypnotist was an authority in the field, but would be no more or less susceptible than low dogmatic Ss when the hypnotist was not perceived as an authority. One hundred ninety graduate and undergraduate students were administered Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, a scale measuring attitudes toward hypnosis and a form indicating their willingness to serve as a subject in a "hypnosis experiment." Two weeks later, Ss were exposed to either an authority or non-authority taped induction procedure. Analysis of mean hypnotic susceptibility scores for high and low dogmatic groups under authority and non-authority conditions confirmed the major hypothesis. Additional findings were: no significant difference in rate of volunteering among high and low dogmatic Ss; no significant difference in attitude toward hypnosis between high and low dogmatic groups or volunteer-nonvolunteer groups.
A considerable amount of effort has been directed toward identifying personality traits which would characterize and differentiate between the hypnotizable and nonhypnotizable subject. Although a number of studies have purported to find certain personality traits which characterize either group, the findings are not internally consistent and/or replication fails to provide a consistent and reliable personality pattern of the hypnotizable individual. This holds true when personality is assessed by objective inventories, projective techniques or clinical case studies (Barber, 1964; Deckert & West, 1963; Hilgard, 1965) One explanation (arriong many given) for this failure to find consistent personality traits of the hypnotizable subject, is the lack of a unifying theory (e.g., personality theory) underlying the personality inventories employed. For the most part, studies of personality patterns of the hypnotizable
subjects have dealt with relatively isolated or independent traits of personality, such as autonomy, dependency, etc. Most investigations into hypnotic phenomena are conducted in university laboratories or therapeutic situations where the investigators serve as the hypnotists. The possibility therefore exists that the hypnotist has, either directly or indirectly, created the impression that he is an authority in the study of hypnotic phenomena, whether he uses a classic authoritarian induction procedure or permissive cue techniques. The perception of the hypnotist (or experimenter) as an authority figure may contribute to the hypnotic susceptibility of some subjects who are more susceptible to suggestions emanating from authority rather than non-authority figures. The effect of authority may be further intensified by the fact that most subjects in hypnosis 185
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
186
VACCHIANO AND STRAUSS
experiments are volunteers; the basis of their volunteering may well depend on whether they perceive the experimenter to be an authority figure or not. Rokeach (1960) has introduced the concept of dogmatism to explain an individual's attitudes and beliefs, particularly in relationship to authority figures. A review of dogmatism (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969) indicates that there may exist a "dogmatic personality" (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Schiffman, 1968), which is characterized by a dependency on authority figures, and in which there are decided modes of perceiving and reacting to authority figures in the environment. Because of the high domatic's (HD) dependency on authority, it was hypothesized that HD's would prove to be more susceptible to hypnosis than low dogmatics (LD) when led to believe that the hypnotist was an authority in the field who "could hypnotize almost anyone". When the hypnotist is not placed in an authority position, it is hypothesized that HD's will be no more susceptible than LD's, and in fact may be significantly less susceptible than HD subjects in an authority condition. PROCEDURE
Rokeach's (1960) dogmatism scale (Form E), a scale measuring attitudes toward hypnosis (Melei, & Holgard, 1964), and a questionnaire inquiring as to whether the subject would volunteer for a hypnotic experiment, were administered to 190 subjects (in groups of 15 to 20) in undergraduate and introductory graduate courses. Subjects were approximately equally divided as to sex. Two weeks later, as part of the class lecture, the subjects were informed that a demonstration in hypnosis, in which the class would participate, would be conducted. At this point, the subjects were told that they need not listen to the induction procedure nor complete the evaluative scale, if they so chose. With two
exceptions, all subjects did participate, at least to the point of completing the scale. Following this, a brief discussion of hypnosis took place (which is part of the standard induction procedure employed) in order to establish rapport. This discussion was open-ended, but tended to be relatively standard from one group to the next. The last phase of the experiment consisted of administering, via a tape recording, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGS) (Shor and Orne, 1962). For the authority condition, the voice on the tape was introduced as a leading hypnotist in the field "who could hypnotize almost anyone." The expert was said to have several advanced degrees and to have authored several texts and numerous articles on hypnosis. For the non-authority condition, nothing was said concerning the same voice on the tape, except that it was that of a graduate student and trainee in hypnosis. The authority and non-authority condition was given alternately to groups of 15 to 20 subjects. Subjects falling in the top quarter of the range of dogmatism scores for this experiment were designated HD (x dogmatism score 134) and those falling in the bottom quarter as LD ( x dogmatism score 68). Of the 33 HD's, 22 were in the authority condition, 11 in the non-authority. Of the HD's, 21 were volunteers, 12 nonvolunteers. Eighteen ofthe 34 LD's were in the authority condition, 16 in the nonauthority. Twenty-five LD's were volunteers, 9 non-volunteers. RESULTS
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for HD's and LD's for the authority-nonauthority and volunteernonvolunteer conditions. The several t-tests computed are given in Table 2. As predicted, under the authority condition, HD's are significantly more susceptible than LD's. As also expected, when the authority
187
DOGMATISM, AUTHORITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
condition is removed (the nonauthority condition), there was no significant difference between HD's and LD's in susceptibility.
TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF HGS SCORES FOR HiGH AND Low DoGMATICS FOR AUTHORlTYNONAUTHORITY AND VOLUNTEER-NoNVOLUNTEER CONDITIONS High Low Dogmatic Dogmatic Total 40 N 22 18 Authority
X
6.50
4.33
3.44
2.72
Nonauthority
SD N
Total
SD N
Volunteer
SD N
Nonvolunteer
SD N
II 5.90 3.31 33 6.30 3.41 21 7.14 2.78 12 4.83 3.89 33 6.30 3.41
16 4.43 2.52 34 4.38 2.63 25 4.68 2.69 9 3.55 2.26 34 4.38 2.63
X X
X X
Total
SD N
X SD
5.52 3.32 27 5.03 2.96 67 5.28 3.23 46 5.80 2.99 21 4.28 3.35
TABLE 2 TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR HiGH AND Low DoGMATICS FOR AUTHORITY, NON-AUTHORITY CONDITIONS AND VOLUNTEER, NON-VOLUNTEER SUBJECTS P HD vs LD df = 66 .01 2.547 df = 32 N.S. 0.463 HD A vs HOriA df = 33 N.S. 0.107 LD A vs LOriA df = 39 HD A vs LD A .05 2.123 N.S. df = 26 1.259 HOriA vs LOriA HDv vs HOriv LDv vs LOriv HDv vs LD v HOriv vs LOriv Avs NA Vvs NV
HD, High Dogmatic LD, Low Dogmatic A, Authority Condition NA, Non-Authority V, Volunteer NV, Non-Volunteer
df df df df df df
= = = = = =
32 33
45 20 66 66
1.917 1.091 2.977 0.838 0.609 1.830
.05 N.S.
.01 N.S. N.S.
.05
Contrary to expectation, there was no significant difference (chi square = 0.054) between HD's and LD's in the frequency of volunteering. As expected, subjects who had indicated two weeks prior to the experiment that they would volunteer for a hypnotism study, were significantly more susceptible than nonvolunteer subjects. This was particularly true for HD volunteers who proved to be significantly more susceptible than HD nonvolunteers and LD volunteers. There was no difference in HGS scores between HD nonvolunteers and LD nonvolunteers. Thus, the greatest effect on susceptibility in terms of volunteering appears to be for the HD subject. No differences were found on attitude toward hypnosis scale values for HD versus LD or volunteer versus nonvolunteer groups. DISCUSSION
The hypothesis that HD's are more susceptible than LD's in an authority condition was confirmed. Under authority, HD's were more susceptible than LD's. This point also tends to further confirm Rokeach's concept of the inter-relationship of dogmatism and authority. As predicted, when authority is removed, there was no significant difference in susceptibility between HD's and LD's, although there was still a tendency for HD's to score higher on the HGS. Although the scores for HD subjects in the nonauthority condition were lower than those for HD's in the authority condition, the predicted difference was not significant. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that HD' s are more susceptible than LD's when the hypnotist is perceived as an authority figure. When he was not perceived as an authority in the field, the effect was not strong enough to yield significantly lower scores for the HD subjects; i.e., HD nonauthority scores, although lower than HD authority, were not significantly so.
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
188
This may possibly be due to the fact that the nonauthority condition was not completely devoid of authority figures since the experimenters themselves conducted the experimental sessions. Although the voice on the tape was not theirs, both are senior faculty members. Further studies in which the experimenter removes himself totally as an authority figure (perhaps through using graduate students), might fully substantiate the hypnothesis that HD's are more susceptible than LD's when they perceive the hypnotist as an authority. The results of the present experiment do not contradict Matheus' (1973) finding that experimenter prestige has no significant effect on the suggestibility of subjects. Matheus, following the suggestion by Sarbin and Anderson (1967) and Teitelbaum (1965) that the experimenter's prestige would enhance the subjects' susceptibility, did not deal directly with the question of authority and a specific type of subject, namely the high dogmatic. Since there was no difference between HD's and LD's in frequency of volunteering, we may not expect this factor to have any influence in terms of the HD volunteering more or less frequently for hypnotic experiments. However, when the HD subject does volunteer, he appears to be considerably more susceptible than HD and LD non-volunteers, and most importantly, LD volunteers. Since most subjects in hypnotic experiments are volunteers, this personality factor may explain the high susceptibility of a certain class of subjects and warrants further study. The fact that HD's did not differ from LD's in attitudes toward hypnosis was somewhat disconcerting since it was suspected that HD's would have a more negative attitude toward hypnosis. The failure to find such a difference may be due to two factors; first, HD subjects were drawn from upper level and graduate psychology courses where, particularly in the latter,
VACCHIANO AND STRAUSS
some acquaintance with hypnosis might be expected and could wash out attitudinal differences. This did not negate the impact of authority on dogmatism since Rokeach (1960) and other investigators had pointed out that dogmatism is a dependency on authority and an adherance to beliefs, regardless of what the authority or belief may be or represent. A second factor which may have accounted for the lack of difference lies with the mean level of dogmatism in the HD group. Subjects comprising the HD group (x dogmatism 134) may not truly fall into the high range of dogmatism, particularly when it is remembered that the maximum possible score is 240. Although Rokeach and other investigators have reported average scores as high as 175, the present investigators have not encountered many subjects in that category with the populations to which they have access. Perhaps if a greater spread between HD's and LD's could be obtained, the predicted differences in attitude toward hypnosis might be found. The same argument may be offered in looking for a greater magnification in the results reported for the authority condition. This latter point is also of importance here since it would seem that this study, with a limited number of subjects, suggests that HD's are more susceptible to hypnosis than LD's. This is particularly true for volunteer HD's falling into an authority condition. Further studies dealing with susceptibility to hypnosis and personality correlates might well consider the influences and interaction of dogmatism and authority on hypnotic susceptibility. We do not suggest that the major personality correlate of hypnotic susceptibility is dogmatism, but this concept (with the large amount of data now available on it) might provide a unifying theory for the use of a personality questionnaire to further explore hypnotic phenomena.
DOGMATISM, AUTHORITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY REFERENCES BARBER, T. X. Hypotizability, suggestibility, and personality: V. A critical review of research findings. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 299-
320. DECKERT, G. H., & WEST, L. J. The problem of hypnotizability: A review. International Journal
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
ofClinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 205-235. HILGARD, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965. MATHEUS, J. A. Effects on suggestibility of experimenter prestige under hypnotic induction, task motivated, and waking imagination conditions.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 15, 199-208. MELEI, J. P., & HILGARD, E. R. Attitudes toward hypnosis, self-predictions, and hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 1964, 12,99-108. ROKEACH, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. 1960.
189
SARBIN, T. R. & ANDERSON, M. L. Role-theoretical analysis of hypnotic behavior. In Gorden, J. E., (Ed.), Handbook of clinical and experimental hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1967,319-344. SHOR, R. E., & ORNE, E. C. Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. TEITELBAUM, J. Hypnosis induction techniques. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1965. VACCHIANO, R. B., STRAUSS, P. S., & SCHIFFMAN, D. C. Personality correlates of dogmatism. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 83--85. VACCHIANO, R. B., STRAUSS, P. S., & HOCHMAN L. The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261-
273. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale• Forms A and B. Palo Alto, California. Consulting Psychologists' Press,
1962.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility a
Ralph B. Vacchiano Ph.D. & Paul S. Strauss Ph.D.
a
a
Fairleigh Dickinson University , USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Ralph B. Vacchiano Ph.D. & Paul S. Strauss Ph.D. (1975) Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17:3, 185-189, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1975.10403738 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1975.10403738
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
Volume 17, Number 3, January 1975 Printed in U.S.A.
Dogmatism, Authority, and Hypnotic Susceptibility
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
RALPH B. VACCHIANO, Ph.D. and PAUL S. STRAUSS, Ph.D. Fairleigh Dickinson University This study explores the relationship between dogmatism and hypnotic susceptibility as a function of the impugned authority of the hypnotist. It was hypothesized that high dogmatic Ss would prove more susceptible than low dogmatic Ss when led to believe that the hypnotist was an authority in the field, but would be no more or less susceptible than low dogmatic Ss when the hypnotist was not perceived as an authority. One hundred ninety graduate and undergraduate students were administered Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, a scale measuring attitudes toward hypnosis and a form indicating their willingness to serve as a subject in a "hypnosis experiment." Two weeks later, Ss were exposed to either an authority or non-authority taped induction procedure. Analysis of mean hypnotic susceptibility scores for high and low dogmatic groups under authority and non-authority conditions confirmed the major hypothesis. Additional findings were: no significant difference in rate of volunteering among high and low dogmatic Ss; no significant difference in attitude toward hypnosis between high and low dogmatic groups or volunteer-nonvolunteer groups.
A considerable amount of effort has been directed toward identifying personality traits which would characterize and differentiate between the hypnotizable and nonhypnotizable subject. Although a number of studies have purported to find certain personality traits which characterize either group, the findings are not internally consistent and/or replication fails to provide a consistent and reliable personality pattern of the hypnotizable individual. This holds true when personality is assessed by objective inventories, projective techniques or clinical case studies (Barber, 1964; Deckert & West, 1963; Hilgard, 1965) One explanation (arriong many given) for this failure to find consistent personality traits of the hypnotizable subject, is the lack of a unifying theory (e.g., personality theory) underlying the personality inventories employed. For the most part, studies of personality patterns of the hypnotizable
subjects have dealt with relatively isolated or independent traits of personality, such as autonomy, dependency, etc. Most investigations into hypnotic phenomena are conducted in university laboratories or therapeutic situations where the investigators serve as the hypnotists. The possibility therefore exists that the hypnotist has, either directly or indirectly, created the impression that he is an authority in the study of hypnotic phenomena, whether he uses a classic authoritarian induction procedure or permissive cue techniques. The perception of the hypnotist (or experimenter) as an authority figure may contribute to the hypnotic susceptibility of some subjects who are more susceptible to suggestions emanating from authority rather than non-authority figures. The effect of authority may be further intensified by the fact that most subjects in hypnosis 185
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
186
VACCHIANO AND STRAUSS
experiments are volunteers; the basis of their volunteering may well depend on whether they perceive the experimenter to be an authority figure or not. Rokeach (1960) has introduced the concept of dogmatism to explain an individual's attitudes and beliefs, particularly in relationship to authority figures. A review of dogmatism (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969) indicates that there may exist a "dogmatic personality" (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Schiffman, 1968), which is characterized by a dependency on authority figures, and in which there are decided modes of perceiving and reacting to authority figures in the environment. Because of the high domatic's (HD) dependency on authority, it was hypothesized that HD's would prove to be more susceptible to hypnosis than low dogmatics (LD) when led to believe that the hypnotist was an authority in the field who "could hypnotize almost anyone". When the hypnotist is not placed in an authority position, it is hypothesized that HD's will be no more susceptible than LD's, and in fact may be significantly less susceptible than HD subjects in an authority condition. PROCEDURE
Rokeach's (1960) dogmatism scale (Form E), a scale measuring attitudes toward hypnosis (Melei, & Holgard, 1964), and a questionnaire inquiring as to whether the subject would volunteer for a hypnotic experiment, were administered to 190 subjects (in groups of 15 to 20) in undergraduate and introductory graduate courses. Subjects were approximately equally divided as to sex. Two weeks later, as part of the class lecture, the subjects were informed that a demonstration in hypnosis, in which the class would participate, would be conducted. At this point, the subjects were told that they need not listen to the induction procedure nor complete the evaluative scale, if they so chose. With two
exceptions, all subjects did participate, at least to the point of completing the scale. Following this, a brief discussion of hypnosis took place (which is part of the standard induction procedure employed) in order to establish rapport. This discussion was open-ended, but tended to be relatively standard from one group to the next. The last phase of the experiment consisted of administering, via a tape recording, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGS) (Shor and Orne, 1962). For the authority condition, the voice on the tape was introduced as a leading hypnotist in the field "who could hypnotize almost anyone." The expert was said to have several advanced degrees and to have authored several texts and numerous articles on hypnosis. For the non-authority condition, nothing was said concerning the same voice on the tape, except that it was that of a graduate student and trainee in hypnosis. The authority and non-authority condition was given alternately to groups of 15 to 20 subjects. Subjects falling in the top quarter of the range of dogmatism scores for this experiment were designated HD (x dogmatism score 134) and those falling in the bottom quarter as LD ( x dogmatism score 68). Of the 33 HD's, 22 were in the authority condition, 11 in the non-authority. Of the HD's, 21 were volunteers, 12 nonvolunteers. Eighteen ofthe 34 LD's were in the authority condition, 16 in the nonauthority. Twenty-five LD's were volunteers, 9 non-volunteers. RESULTS
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for HD's and LD's for the authority-nonauthority and volunteernonvolunteer conditions. The several t-tests computed are given in Table 2. As predicted, under the authority condition, HD's are significantly more susceptible than LD's. As also expected, when the authority
187
DOGMATISM, AUTHORITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
condition is removed (the nonauthority condition), there was no significant difference between HD's and LD's in susceptibility.
TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF HGS SCORES FOR HiGH AND Low DoGMATICS FOR AUTHORlTYNONAUTHORITY AND VOLUNTEER-NoNVOLUNTEER CONDITIONS High Low Dogmatic Dogmatic Total 40 N 22 18 Authority
X
6.50
4.33
3.44
2.72
Nonauthority
SD N
Total
SD N
Volunteer
SD N
Nonvolunteer
SD N
II 5.90 3.31 33 6.30 3.41 21 7.14 2.78 12 4.83 3.89 33 6.30 3.41
16 4.43 2.52 34 4.38 2.63 25 4.68 2.69 9 3.55 2.26 34 4.38 2.63
X X
X X
Total
SD N
X SD
5.52 3.32 27 5.03 2.96 67 5.28 3.23 46 5.80 2.99 21 4.28 3.35
TABLE 2 TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR HiGH AND Low DoGMATICS FOR AUTHORITY, NON-AUTHORITY CONDITIONS AND VOLUNTEER, NON-VOLUNTEER SUBJECTS P HD vs LD df = 66 .01 2.547 df = 32 N.S. 0.463 HD A vs HOriA df = 33 N.S. 0.107 LD A vs LOriA df = 39 HD A vs LD A .05 2.123 N.S. df = 26 1.259 HOriA vs LOriA HDv vs HOriv LDv vs LOriv HDv vs LD v HOriv vs LOriv Avs NA Vvs NV
HD, High Dogmatic LD, Low Dogmatic A, Authority Condition NA, Non-Authority V, Volunteer NV, Non-Volunteer
df df df df df df
= = = = = =
32 33
45 20 66 66
1.917 1.091 2.977 0.838 0.609 1.830
.05 N.S.
.01 N.S. N.S.
.05
Contrary to expectation, there was no significant difference (chi square = 0.054) between HD's and LD's in the frequency of volunteering. As expected, subjects who had indicated two weeks prior to the experiment that they would volunteer for a hypnotism study, were significantly more susceptible than nonvolunteer subjects. This was particularly true for HD volunteers who proved to be significantly more susceptible than HD nonvolunteers and LD volunteers. There was no difference in HGS scores between HD nonvolunteers and LD nonvolunteers. Thus, the greatest effect on susceptibility in terms of volunteering appears to be for the HD subject. No differences were found on attitude toward hypnosis scale values for HD versus LD or volunteer versus nonvolunteer groups. DISCUSSION
The hypothesis that HD's are more susceptible than LD's in an authority condition was confirmed. Under authority, HD's were more susceptible than LD's. This point also tends to further confirm Rokeach's concept of the inter-relationship of dogmatism and authority. As predicted, when authority is removed, there was no significant difference in susceptibility between HD's and LD's, although there was still a tendency for HD's to score higher on the HGS. Although the scores for HD subjects in the nonauthority condition were lower than those for HD's in the authority condition, the predicted difference was not significant. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that HD' s are more susceptible than LD's when the hypnotist is perceived as an authority figure. When he was not perceived as an authority in the field, the effect was not strong enough to yield significantly lower scores for the HD subjects; i.e., HD nonauthority scores, although lower than HD authority, were not significantly so.
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
188
This may possibly be due to the fact that the nonauthority condition was not completely devoid of authority figures since the experimenters themselves conducted the experimental sessions. Although the voice on the tape was not theirs, both are senior faculty members. Further studies in which the experimenter removes himself totally as an authority figure (perhaps through using graduate students), might fully substantiate the hypnothesis that HD's are more susceptible than LD's when they perceive the hypnotist as an authority. The results of the present experiment do not contradict Matheus' (1973) finding that experimenter prestige has no significant effect on the suggestibility of subjects. Matheus, following the suggestion by Sarbin and Anderson (1967) and Teitelbaum (1965) that the experimenter's prestige would enhance the subjects' susceptibility, did not deal directly with the question of authority and a specific type of subject, namely the high dogmatic. Since there was no difference between HD's and LD's in frequency of volunteering, we may not expect this factor to have any influence in terms of the HD volunteering more or less frequently for hypnotic experiments. However, when the HD subject does volunteer, he appears to be considerably more susceptible than HD and LD non-volunteers, and most importantly, LD volunteers. Since most subjects in hypnotic experiments are volunteers, this personality factor may explain the high susceptibility of a certain class of subjects and warrants further study. The fact that HD's did not differ from LD's in attitudes toward hypnosis was somewhat disconcerting since it was suspected that HD's would have a more negative attitude toward hypnosis. The failure to find such a difference may be due to two factors; first, HD subjects were drawn from upper level and graduate psychology courses where, particularly in the latter,
VACCHIANO AND STRAUSS
some acquaintance with hypnosis might be expected and could wash out attitudinal differences. This did not negate the impact of authority on dogmatism since Rokeach (1960) and other investigators had pointed out that dogmatism is a dependency on authority and an adherance to beliefs, regardless of what the authority or belief may be or represent. A second factor which may have accounted for the lack of difference lies with the mean level of dogmatism in the HD group. Subjects comprising the HD group (x dogmatism 134) may not truly fall into the high range of dogmatism, particularly when it is remembered that the maximum possible score is 240. Although Rokeach and other investigators have reported average scores as high as 175, the present investigators have not encountered many subjects in that category with the populations to which they have access. Perhaps if a greater spread between HD's and LD's could be obtained, the predicted differences in attitude toward hypnosis might be found. The same argument may be offered in looking for a greater magnification in the results reported for the authority condition. This latter point is also of importance here since it would seem that this study, with a limited number of subjects, suggests that HD's are more susceptible to hypnosis than LD's. This is particularly true for volunteer HD's falling into an authority condition. Further studies dealing with susceptibility to hypnosis and personality correlates might well consider the influences and interaction of dogmatism and authority on hypnotic susceptibility. We do not suggest that the major personality correlate of hypnotic susceptibility is dogmatism, but this concept (with the large amount of data now available on it) might provide a unifying theory for the use of a personality questionnaire to further explore hypnotic phenomena.
DOGMATISM, AUTHORITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY REFERENCES BARBER, T. X. Hypotizability, suggestibility, and personality: V. A critical review of research findings. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 299-
320. DECKERT, G. H., & WEST, L. J. The problem of hypnotizability: A review. International Journal
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 03:25 01 February 2015
ofClinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 205-235. HILGARD, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965. MATHEUS, J. A. Effects on suggestibility of experimenter prestige under hypnotic induction, task motivated, and waking imagination conditions.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 15, 199-208. MELEI, J. P., & HILGARD, E. R. Attitudes toward hypnosis, self-predictions, and hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 1964, 12,99-108. ROKEACH, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. 1960.
189
SARBIN, T. R. & ANDERSON, M. L. Role-theoretical analysis of hypnotic behavior. In Gorden, J. E., (Ed.), Handbook of clinical and experimental hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1967,319-344. SHOR, R. E., & ORNE, E. C. Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. TEITELBAUM, J. Hypnosis induction techniques. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1965. VACCHIANO, R. B., STRAUSS, P. S., & SCHIFFMAN, D. C. Personality correlates of dogmatism. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 83--85. VACCHIANO, R. B., STRAUSS, P. S., & HOCHMAN L. The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261-
273. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale• Forms A and B. Palo Alto, California. Consulting Psychologists' Press,
1962.
