International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
ISSN: 0020-7144 (Print) 1744-5183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20
Effects of “Deepening” Techniques on Hypnotic Depth and Responding Roger A. Page & George W. Handley To cite this article: Roger A. Page & George W. Handley (1992) Effects of “Deepening” Techniques on Hypnotic Depth and Responding, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40:3, 157-168, DOI: 10.1080/00207149208409654 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207149208409654
Published online: 31 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nhyp20 Download by: [Nanyang Technological University]
Date: 07 November 2015, At: 03:19
The InfrrnationulJournal UJ Clinicul and trpcrtnunld llypnuris 1982. Vol XL. No. 3. 157-163
EFFECTS OF “DEEPENING” TECHNIQUES ON HYPNOTIC DEPTH AND RESPONDING’ Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
ROGER A. PAGE
AND
GEORGE W. HANDLEYZs3
The Ohio State University, Limo
Abstract: The present study attempted to assess the effectiveness of commonly used deepening techniques and of surreptitiously provided stimulation on hypnotizability scores, in-hypnosis depth reports, retrospective realness ratings, and the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1%). High, medium, and low hypnotizables were assigned in equal numbers to 1 of 3 groups, each containing 54 Ss. Controls were compared to Ss receiving 2 deepening techniques or 2 suggestions for positive and negative hallucinations that were surreptitiously enhanced. Of the 4 dependent measures employed, the only significant difference between groups related to achange in depth reports for the manipulation items themselves, leading to the conclusion that the effect of the techniques was at best minimal and transient. Some methodological and conceptual issues are also discussed. Hypnotic techniques have sometimes included deceptions to h i l i t a t e S’s induction and subsequent hypnotic responding. These would include a suggestion to experience an event that the hypnotist actually furnishes - for example, suggesting a sensation of warmth on s’s forehead while producing this by holding a hand near to hisher forehead thus creating a dead air space. Wilson (1967) employed deceptions that included surreptitiously providing visual and auditory stimulation following suggestions for perceptual effects, but only waking S s were used and no formal hypnotic induction was carried out. Furthermore, although behavioral scores were affected, verbal ratings were not. Following the early work of Perky (1910) who showed that visual stimuli just above threshold levels (faint images surreptitiously projected on a ground glass window) could be mistaken for products of imagination by (waking) Ss, Wickless and Kirsch (1989) surreptitiously presented several supraliminal stimuli (five visual and one auditory) to S s who had just been exposed to their first hypnotic induction. Results were interpreted as supporting Kirsch’s (1985) response expectancy hypothesis, since responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions was significantly affected by the preceding manipulation of expectancies. Manuscript submitted November 7, 1990; final revision received June 2, 1992. ‘Portions of this paper were presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, August, 1990. ?he assistance of Lisa Arnett. Darrell Bryan, Wendy Covay. Mary Knowlton, Bridget Richey. Leslie Schmidt, and Ann Shortt in this research is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. %eprint requests should be addressed to Roger A. Page, Ph. D.. Department of Psychology. The Ohio State University, Lima Campus, 4240 Campus Drive, Lima, O H 45804. 157
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
158
PACE AND HANDLEY
A question of interest is whether this type of deception, administered following an induction, could serve to enhance the hypnotic experience (behaviorally and/or subjectively) of Ss who have previously experienced hypnosis (e.g., those Ss who have been preselected on the basis of their hypnotizability score on a group scale, as is so often done). (The methodological value of a similar type of manipulation in determining the degree to which pain reduction with hypnotic analgesia is due to the placebo effects of using hypnosis has already been demonstrated by McGlashan, Evans, & M. T. Orne, 1969.) An additional question would be whether these deceptions are comparable to commonly used “deepening techniques.” And are these techniques themselves effective? One such technique, “Fractionation,” (a brief awakening followed by rapid re-hypnosis) has often been recommended for its effectiveness (e.g., Ambrose & Newbold, 1980; Clarke & Jackson, 1983),but the results of a recent study by Hammond, Haskins-Bartsch, McGhee, and Grant (1987) have, “cast some doubt on the widespread belief in the unusual effectiveness of fractionation [p. 1191.” Another such technique, “visualization,” has also been recommended for its effectiveness, as can be seen by the following statement: “To achieve even greater depths of hypnosis, visual imagery suggestions are helpful . . . [Kroger, 1977, p. 821.” The present study was an attempt to assess the effects of deceptions, that is, artificially providing a suggested stimulus, as compared to the recommended deepening techniques mentioned above, on the hypnotizability scores, depth scores, and realness ratings of Ss preselected for hypnotizability. It was hypothesized that moderately hypnotizable Ss would show the greatest enhancement from the use of deceptions, while both high and low hypnotizable Ss would derive less benefit from their use, since the former are more likely to be able to experience the events (without “help”) anyway, and the latter are more likely to deny the experience.
METHOD Subjects The Ss were volunteers recruited from several undergraduate classes in introductory psychology at a midwestern university. They received course credit for their participation, were told that the study involved hypnosis, and were given a brief lecture intended to dispel myths about hypnosis. A shortened 10-item version (used by Hilgard, Crawford, Bowers, & Kihlstrom, 1979) of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. C. Orne (1962) was used to screen Ss in groups with a tape-recorded induction. Those scoring 7-10 were classified as high in hypnotizability (as suggested by Hilgard et al., 1979), while those scoring 0-3were classified as lows, since several studies employing the full HGSHS:A have use 0-4 as a range defining low
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
159
hypnotizables (e.g., Register & Kihlstrom, 1986). Those scoring 4-6 were classified as medium hypnotizables. A total of 162 students (72 males, 90 females) participated; their mean age was 21.4 years. Eight indicated that they had previously experienced hypnosis.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
Procedure The Ss were assigned (in equal numbers of high, medium, and low hypnotizability) to one of three groups: control, illusion, or deepening. Each group contained 54 Ss, with 18 Ss at each of the three levels of hypnotizability. In a second session, Ss in the control and illusion groups were given Tart’s (1970) Long Stanford Scale (LSS) instructions for an instant report (a 10-point scale, where 10 = very deep), since it has been demonstrated that use of LSS to assess depth during hypnosis does not seem to distract Ss or interfere with their response to suggestions (e.g., Council, Kirsch, & Haher, 1986;Tart, 1970).The Ss were then (individually) administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form B (SHSS:B) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959). For Ss in both the control and illusion groups, two hallucination items (an arm warming suggestion and a suggestion for the hum of an electric clock to fade away) were inserted in counterbalanced order between Items 6 and 7, and Items 10 and 11 of SHSS:B. Depth reports were obtained following each in-hypnosis item (SHSS:B Items 2-10), as well as the two inserted hallucination items, but not for SHSS:B Items 1, 11, or 12, all waking items. The S s in the control and illusion groups differed only in that the latter received surreptitious “help” in experiencing the suggestions by way of: (a) the clock hum (in reality a 250 C.P.S. tone generated by a hidden audio oscillator) being reduced in intensity (from 63 d p to 61 dS) by way of a rheostat; and (b) a hidden heating element on the arm of the chair which increased the baseline temperature 3 degrees Celsius. The intensities of both stimuli were, therefore, changed enough to be perceived, but not enough to arouse suspicion. These intensity changes were based on pilot group results to assure that they were minimally perceivable by all S S . In ~ postsession interviews, no Ss indicated that they were suspicious of the stimuli being surreptitiously manipulated. The Ss in the deepening group underwent a procedure identical to the above groups, with the exception that two deepening techniques were inserted in counterbalanced order in place of the hallucination items. The ‘Information regarding the pilot procedures as well as additional analyses have been deposited with the National Auxiliary Publications Service (NAPS). For 5 pages, order document No. 04968 from ASIS-NAPS, do Microfiche Publications, P. 0. Box 3513, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163-3513. Remit in advance. in U.S. funds only, $7.75 for photocopies or $4.00 for microfiche and make checks payable to Microfiche Publications NAPS. There is a $15.00 invoicing charge on all orders filled before payment. Outside the United States and some parts of Canada, add postage of $4.50 for a photocopy and $1.75 for a fiche.
-
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
160
PACE AND HANDLEY
techniques employed were fractionation and visualization. The former involved two successive slow counts from 20 up to 2 with suggestions to awaken slightly with each count (1being fully awake), each followed by a rapid count down to 20 with suggestions to go into an even deeper hypnotic state (e.g., see Ambrose & Newbold, 1980, for a description of a modification of the “Yo-yo” method in which S is not completely awakened). The latter involved instructions for Ss to focus on their breathing (e.g., see “breathing method,” Clarke & Jackson, 1983),while visualizing being some place very peaceful and enjoyable, to experience this place with all of their senses and let themselves drift enjoyably while listening effortlessly to E’s voice (e.g., see “imagery techniques,” Clarke & Jackson,
1983). Placement of the first of the deepening techniques after administration of one-half of the hypnotizability scale items was to ensure that Ss who were hypnotizable had been hypnotized to an adequate degree, since fractionation is less likely to deepen the response unless this has been achieved. Additionally, this leaves six items to detect the effects of the manipulations. The hallucination items in the illusion group were identically placed to allow for a direct comparison between groups. Following dehypnosis, all groups received the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965), followed by a 5-point rating scale of realness (for all items except the in-hypnosis deepening techniques) modeled after that of Barber and Wilson (1978/1979) for the Creative Imagination Scale. (A rating of 0 indicated it was not at all like a real experience, while a rating of 4 indicated that it was almost exactly the same as a real experience.) The session ended with an interview. The Ss were asked to guess the purpose of the study; most believed that it dealt with individual differences in hypnotic responding. To minimize the effect of E bias on SHSS:B scores, an assistant, blind to the hypothesis of the study, was present during the second session to cast the deciding vote in the event any items were not clearly passed or failed. (This in fact turned out to be rare, occurring on only nine occasions for all Ss.) Additionally, both Es and assistants were blind to Ss’HGSHS:A scores.
RESULTS A 3 x 3 ANOVA of Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth scores (initial Hypnotizability Level X Treatment group) revealed the expected main effect for initial hypnotizability (F = 25.3, df = 2,153;p < .001)but neither treatment group nor interaction was significant. Since changes occurring after the inserted manipulations would be of primary interest, all groups were compared by a one-way ANOVA on all SHSS:B items passed following the first manipulation. Although in the expected direction (means for Ss in the deepening, illusion, and control groups being 3.93,3.87,and 3.37,respectively), results were not significant (F = 1.64,df = 2,159;p < .20).When manipulation items passed
EFFECTS O F DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
1.2
-
1.0
-
0.8
-
0.8
-
I 0.4
-
0.2
-
0.0
I
c-
161
GROUP: 0 CONT'IOL ' I ILLUIION DCECLNINO
n W 0
,z W 0 2
< 0
I
u f
I
I
I
7
8
m
I
I
10
uz.
SHSS:B ITEM NUMBER
FIC. I . Mean change in depth report for manipulation and intervening SHSS:B items.
are included in the sums (available for Ss in the illusion and control goups), however, Ss in the illusion group scored significantly higher (X = 5.67, S.D.= 1.79) than control Ss (X = 4.80, S.D. = 2.21; t = 2.23, p = .03). Both depth report and realness ratings for each SHSS:B item after the manipulations were converted to change scores using the last premanipulation SHSS:B Item (6)as the baseline measurement. A 3 x 3 x 6 (Croup x Hypnotizability x Item) mixed ANOVA was then carried out on the change in depth reports for the two inserted illusion items (or the two deepening techniques in the case of the deepening group) as well as the four intervening SHSS:B Items 7-10. Neither the main effect for initial hypnotizability level nor treatment group reached significance. The Croup x Hypnotizability level interaction also was not significant. Not surprisingly, the within-% effect was highly significant (F = 8.47, df = 5,765; p C .001).The only significant interaction was for Croup x Trials (F = 3.44, d ! = 10,765; p C .001).Scheffb multiple comparisons revealed only one significant difference favoring the deepening over control group on the second manipulation item (F = 5.11, df = 2,159; p < .01). Additionally, Scheffks across the two manipulations (first verus second occasion) showed that both the illusion group and deepening group Ss' increase from the first to the second manipulation was significant (F = 7.08, df = 2,159; p C .01 and F = 6.37, df = 2,159; p < .01, respectively). Figure 1 shows the change in depth scores of all groups for the six items.
PACE AND HANDLEY
162
:::f
GROUP: 0 CONTROL
ILLUSION w DEEPENING
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
0.1
7
1
m
10
11
12
SHSS:B ITEM NUMBER
FIG.2. Mean change in (retrospective)realness rating for SHSS:B Items 7-12.
A similar ANOVA carried out on the change in realness ratings for the last six SHSS:B items (Items 7-10 which followed the first inserted manipulation item, and SHSS:B Items 11 and 12 which followed the second inserted item) revealed no significant main effects, while the within-% effect was highly significant (F = 59.8, df = 5,765; p C .001). Again, the only significant interaction was for Croup x Trials (F = 2.98, df = 10,765; p < .001). Scheffd comparisons revealed one significant difference favoring the deepening over control group on SHSS:B Item 12 (Amnesia)(F = 3.35, df = 2,159; p < .05). Figure 2 shows the change in realness ratings of all groups for the six SHSS:B items. To test for any trunrient effect that the manipulations may have had, several analyses were performed. The first was a chi-square test comparing the illusion and control groups for frequency passing the inserted manipulation items. Results approached significance for the first manipulation (x2 = 3.43, p = .oS)and reached significance for the second (x2 = 9.60, p = .002), with Ss in the illusion group passing more items for both manipulation occasions. (Neither group showed a significant difference between items passed for the first versus second manipulation.) Follow-up chi-squares comparing high, medium, and low hypnotizable Ss in the two groups revealed only one significant difference: between the low hypnotizables in the two groups. The Ss in the illusion group passed more items on both the first (16 versus 10, x2 = 4.99, p = .03)and second (17 versus 10, x2 = 7.26, p = .007) manipulations than did control Ss.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
163
To assess whether the illusion manipulation had any effect on the realness ratings of the manipulation items themselves, a final analysis compared (by t test) the change scores of these items for Ss in the illusion and control groups. (These data had not been included in the previous ANOVAs since no “realness” ratings were obtained for the deepening techniques themselves.) Although the illusion group change was superior to that of the control group for both manipulations, neither difference was significant. DISCUSSION
The initial analyses (along with the final t test analyses) would indicate that although the surreptitious manipulation of stimuli did result in a significant increase in number of items passed, it did not on the whole produce significant changes in subjective depth reports or realness ratings. This suggests an independence of hypnotic depth and hypnotizability, since the surreptitious stimuli affected pass percents but apparently not subjective depth or realness. Alternatively, one might argue that the stimuli did result in an increase in the subjective experience of the events enough to produce a pass (e.g., “It felt a little warmer.”; “The hum did fade a little.”), but not enough to produce signijicant differences in depth or realness ratings. In any event, the hypothesis of a differential effect for high through low hypnotizable Ss was, therefore, not confirmed. In fact, chi-square analyses would indicate that those “helped” most by surreptitious manipulation of stimuli were the low hypnotizables. The significant Croup x Trials interactions in the mixed ANOVAs (on depth and realness data) may have been in part due to demand characteristics. Deepening Ss may have tended to give deeper reports for manipulation items simply because reports were obtained immediately after a deepening technique that contained suggestions to go deeper. Likewise, deepening Ss may have reported the amnesia as more real than Ss in the illusion or control groups because of expectations that “being deeper” would automatically result in remembering less. At the same time, the results of the horizontal Scheffds on the depth data raise the possibility that a sort of “snowball” effect may have manifested itself in a significant manipulation-item difference between both experimental groups and the control group if a third manipulation item had been employed following more intervening SHSS:B items. One is tempted to conclude that the effect of both the deepening and illusion manipulations was at best minimal and transient. In interpreting the results, a manipulation failure can probably be ruled out since Ss in the deepening group did report greater deepening immediately following the deepening techniques, and Ss in the illusion group passed more of the manipulation items (than controls). The question is why the effects failed to be reflected in the depth reports and realness ratings for the surrounding SHSS:B items.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
164
PAGE AND HANDLEY
In the case of the deepening techniques, there are three possibilities. First, earlier placement (e.g., using visualization during the induction and fractionation after 3 or 4 items, which may have allowed enough time for the hypnotic response to be established) may have produced a more lasting effect. Second, it is possible that some lasting (experiential) effects were produced but were not reflected in depth or realness ratings. Third, the techniques may simply not be as effective as once believed to be, with the results serving as a partial confirmation of the Hammond et al. (1987) findings regarding fractionation, as well as extending them to include visualization. In the case of the illusion manipulations, similar possibilities exist. For example, earlier placement may have allowed a delayed effect to appear. Or,the dependent measures may not have detected any effects. Or,the manipulations simply may not have had a lasting impact. The present authors strongly suspect the last of these possibilities. But why did the illusion manipulations fail to have a lasting impact? Possibly because for many Ss the stimulus change was just perceivable (meeting a “lax” as opposed to “strict” detection criterion). This was necessitated by the nature of the experiment, since it was not practical to obtain each individual’s threshold beforehand without arousing suspicions or cuing Ss as to what to expect. (A future study might accomplish this by employing a series of “unrelated studies, one being a sensory detection task.) This means that for many Ss, they would not have been absolutely positiue the stimulus event was occurring (as opposed to being imagined). It is plausible that low hypnotizable Ss, rather than perceiving the changes as reality events, were denying their Occurrence by reasoning something like, “It’s just my imagination,”while Ss higher in hypnotizability were interpreting them as possible hypnotically hallucinated events. In other words, they may have mistaken the actual stimulus events for “only” hypnotically hallucinated events and thus did not perceive them to be “more real” than other hypnotic events (i.e., a “Perky effect” occurring in hypnosis). This explanation would account for two findings: low hypnotizable Ss in the illusion group passing significantly more manipulation items than controls, but not showing greater change in depth or realness for these items, and Ss in the illusion group as a whole not showing a significantly greater change in depth or realness for these items than controls. Is it really possible for a hypnotic S to experience a reality event as less real than another hypnotically suggested event? Apparently so. Support stems from a procedure described by M.T. Orne (1962) in which hypnotic Ss were given several suggestions (e.g., “you cannot bend your arm”), one of which was, “The metal ball you’re holding is growing hot.” The metal ball was in fact being heated chemically from within. When asked, “Did the feeling of the arm getting stiffer and stiffer feel more real than the ball getting hot?”, the S replied, “The arm being stiff was more
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
165
real [p. 684]!” Here we have a perfect example of a reality event being experienced as less real than a hypnotically suggested event. If this S was asked for a depth report following each suggestion, it would not be surprising to find the report following the ball item to be no deeper (or even less deep) than that following the arm rigidity item. There are several possible reasons that could account for the differing results of the present study and the previous study (Wickless & Kirsch, 1989) most similar to it. The first relates to the fact that the present Ss were pretested for hypnotizability rather than hypnotically naive. Pretesting could be seen as forming stable response expectancies (which naive Ss would lack) that might tend to reduce the effects of any surreptitious manipulation. A second possibility relates to a methodological difference between the two studies. The present study placed two manipulations among SHSS:B items. The previous study employed six consecutive manipulations following the induction but prior to any items in the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962). A final possibility relates to sample differences between the two studies. Being preselected to equally represent low through high hypnotizables, the 162 Ss in the present study necessarily were not representative of the general population in terms of hypnotizability. This is reflected in the low HGSHS:A mean of 4.97 (S.D. = 2.65), which, even if two points were added to their scores for the two omitted items, would still be considerably lower than the mean of 8.77 reported for volunteers in the HGSHS:A manual (p. 12). Thus, the present sample not only differed from the original norm group, but also from the Wickless and Kirsch (1989) sample. It is worth noting the limitations of the present study along with some methodological recommendations that might allow future research to address some of the issues that have been raised. To begin with, a future study might focus on either deepening techniques or surreptitious provision of stimuli rather than both, allowing the manipulations to be variously placed throughout the hypnotizability scale. This would allow one to determine the effect of placement of either type of manipulation. A second point concerns what Ss are subjectively experiencing when the events (hypnotically suggested or real) are occurring. A technique which might allow future research to more directly address this issue would be the Experiential Analysis Technique (EAT) of Sheehan and McConkey (1982). The EAT involves the video taping of the hypnotic session and the use of taped playback in conjunction with a postexperimental inquiry of S, and would be most helpful in getting at the heart of this issue. A final point concerns the fact that the present study determined level of hypnotizability by a single (group) testing. Hence, Ss were not plateaued prior to their individual hypnotic sessions. This raises the possibil-
PAGE AND HANDLEY
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
166
ity that many Ss may have shifted levels after repeated testings. To obtain an estimate of the extent to which shifting of levels may have occurred, SHSS:B scores of 54 contol Ss were grouped by level (0-4 = low, 5-8 =medium, 9-12 = high) and compared to their HGSHS:A level. (This group would be the most appropriate to use since its SHSS:B scores would not be "contaminated by either manipulation.) This comparison revealed that 19 out of the 54 Ss did change levels, although all were to an adjacent level (i.e., no S went from low to high or vice versa). The future use of plateaued Ss would provide a stronger test of the hypothesis of differential effects for hypnotizability level in the illusion manipulation part of the present study.
REFERENCES AMBROSE.C., & NEWBOLD. G. A handbook of medical hypnosis.London: BailliereTindall, 1980. BARBER,T.X., & WILSON,S. C. The Barber SuggestibilityScale and the Creative Imagination Scale: Experimental and clinical applications. Amer.]. din. Hypnosis, 197W1979. 21,64-108. CLARKE. J. C.. & JACKSON, J. A. Hypnosis and behavior therapy. New York: Springer, 1983. COUNCIL, J. R.. KIRSCH,I., & HAFNER.L. P. Expectancy versus absorption in the prediction of hypnotic responding. ]. Pers. soc. Psychol.. 1966.50,182189. FIELD,P. B. An inventory scale of hypnotic depth. Int.]. clin. exp. Hypnosis. 1965,13. 238-249. HAMMOND. D. C.. HASKINS-J~TSCH. C.,MCGHEE. M., & GRANT, C. W. The use of fractionation in self-hypnosis. Amer. J . din. Hypnosis. 1987.30, 119-124. HILGARD, E. R.. CRAWFORD, H. J., BOWERS, P., & KIHLSTROM, J. F. A tailored SHSSC. permitting user modification for special purposes. Int.]. clin. exp. Hypnosis. 1979. 27,125-133. KIRSCH, I. Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. Amer. Psychobgist, 1985.40, 1189-1202. KROCER, W.Clinical and ezperimental hypnosis. New York: Lippincott. 1977. MCGLASHAN, T.H.. EVANS, F. J.. & ORNE,M. T The nature of hypnotic analgesia and placebo response to experimental pain. Psychosom. Med.. 1969,31,227-246. OWE, M. T. Problems and research areas. In Medical Utes of hypnosis. New York: Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1962.F'p. 676689. PERKY,C. W. An experimental study of imagination. Amer.]. Psychol.. 1910,21.422452. REGISTER. P. A., & KJHLSTROM, J. F. Finding the hypnotic virtuoso. Int. I . d i n . ezp. Hypnosis, l986,34,84-07. SHEEHAN,P. W.,t MCCONKEY,K. M. The experiential analysis technique. In P. W. Sheehan6r K. M. McConkey, Hypnosisandcrpeticncs:Theezpbrationof phenomena and procesa. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.Pp. 75-100. SHOR,R. E.,& OWE, E. C. The Harwrd Croup Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. TART,C. T. Self-report scales of hypnotic depth. Int. 1. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 105-125.
WEITZENHOPFER, A. M., dt HILCARD,E. R. Stonford Hypnotic SusceppHbtltty Sc& Form A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M..& HILCAFID,E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
EFFECTS O F DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
I67
WICKLESS, C., & KIRSCH,I. Effects of verbal and experiential expectancy manipulations on hypnotic susceptibility. 1.P e n . soc. Psychol., 1989. 57,762-768.
WILSON, D.L. The role of confirmation of expectancies in hypnotic induction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina) Ann Arbor, MI: Univer. Microfilms, 1967. NO. 68-6781.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
Technikeneffekte des “Vertiefens” auf hypnotische Tiefe und Reaktion Roger A. Page und George W. Handley Abstrakt: Das vorliegende Studium versuchte, die Wirksamkeit der gebriuchlichen Vertiefenstechniken zu bewerten sowie die heimlich bewirkte Anregung auf hypnotisierbarkeitsresultate, Berichte iiber In-Hypnosetiefe, retrospektive Realititsbewertungen und das Fieldinventar der hypnotischen Tiefe (Field, 1965). Stark, mittel und schwach Hypnotisierbare wurden in gleichen Zahlen 1 von 3 Gruppen zugeteilt, jede enthielt 54 Vpn. Kontrollen wurden mit Vpn. verglichen, die 2 Vertiefungstechniken oder 2 Suggestionen fur positive und negative, heimlich verstiirkte Halluzinationen erhalten hatten. Von den 4 bedingten MaBen, die gebraucht wurden, bezog sich der einzige, bedeutende Unterschied zwischen den Gruppen auf eine h d e r u n g in Tiefenberichten fiir die Manipulationseinzelheiten in sich selbst, was zu dem Beschlull fiihrte, dall der Effekt der Techniken bestenfalls minimal und fliichtig war. Einige methodologische und begreifbare Folgen werden auch diskutiert.
Effets de techniques dapprofondissement sur la profondeur et la reponse hypnotique Roger A. Page et George W. Handley Resume: La presente ttude tente d’tvaluer I’efficacitt de techniques d’approfondissement conventionnelles et de stimulations subreptices sur les scores d’hypnotisabilitt, les rapports de profondeur durant I’hypnose, les evaluations rttrospectives du degrk de rtalitt, et I’Inventaire de Profondeur Hypnotique (Field, 1965). Des sujets fortement, moyennement et faiblement hypnotisables ont 6th assignts en nombre tgal B un de trois groupes contenant chacun 54 sujets. Les sujets contrdes ont t t t comparts. aux sujets recevant deux techniques dapprofondissement ou deux suggestions, rune dhallucination positive et I’autre dhallucination negative, renforcbes subrepticement. Des quatre variables d t pendantes utiliskes, seul le rapport de profondeur portant sur la manipulation des items distingue significativement les groupes, suggtrant ainsi que I’effet des techniques fut, tout au mieux, minimal et tphtmbre. Certains problhmes mtthodologiques et thhriques sont aussi discutts.
Efectos de ttcnicas de ‘profundizaci6n“ sobre la profundidad y la respuesta hipnbtica Roger A. Page y George W. Handley Resumen: Este estudio intent6 evaluar la efectividad de tknicas de profundizaci6n comunmente usadas y de estimu~aci6nsubrepticia sobre 10s puntajes de hipnotizabilidad, en 10s reportes de profundidad e n hipnosis, en loo promedios de realidad retrospectivor y en el Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965). Sujetos de alta, media y baja hipnotizahilidad fueron asignados en igual ndmero a uno de lor tres grupos, conteniendo cada uno 54 sujetos. h s controles fueron comparados con sujetos que recibieron 2 tecnicas de
168
PAGE AND HANDLEY
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
profundzaci6n o 2 sugestiones para alucinaciones positivas o negativas que fueron subrepticiamente acrecentah. De lar 4 medidas dependientes empleadas, la Gnica diferencia significative entre lor grupos, estaba relacionada con un eambio en 10s reportes d e profundidad para 10s mismos items d e manipulnci6n, llegando a la conch~si6nque el efecto de Ias thcnicas, en el mejor de 10s ~ 8 8 0 sfue mfnimo y transitorio. Se discuten t a m b i h algunas cuestiones metodol6gicas y conceptuales.
ISSN: 0020-7144 (Print) 1744-5183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20
Effects of “Deepening” Techniques on Hypnotic Depth and Responding Roger A. Page & George W. Handley To cite this article: Roger A. Page & George W. Handley (1992) Effects of “Deepening” Techniques on Hypnotic Depth and Responding, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40:3, 157-168, DOI: 10.1080/00207149208409654 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207149208409654
Published online: 31 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nhyp20 Download by: [Nanyang Technological University]
Date: 07 November 2015, At: 03:19
The InfrrnationulJournal UJ Clinicul and trpcrtnunld llypnuris 1982. Vol XL. No. 3. 157-163
EFFECTS OF “DEEPENING” TECHNIQUES ON HYPNOTIC DEPTH AND RESPONDING’ Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
ROGER A. PAGE
AND
GEORGE W. HANDLEYZs3
The Ohio State University, Limo
Abstract: The present study attempted to assess the effectiveness of commonly used deepening techniques and of surreptitiously provided stimulation on hypnotizability scores, in-hypnosis depth reports, retrospective realness ratings, and the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1%). High, medium, and low hypnotizables were assigned in equal numbers to 1 of 3 groups, each containing 54 Ss. Controls were compared to Ss receiving 2 deepening techniques or 2 suggestions for positive and negative hallucinations that were surreptitiously enhanced. Of the 4 dependent measures employed, the only significant difference between groups related to achange in depth reports for the manipulation items themselves, leading to the conclusion that the effect of the techniques was at best minimal and transient. Some methodological and conceptual issues are also discussed. Hypnotic techniques have sometimes included deceptions to h i l i t a t e S’s induction and subsequent hypnotic responding. These would include a suggestion to experience an event that the hypnotist actually furnishes - for example, suggesting a sensation of warmth on s’s forehead while producing this by holding a hand near to hisher forehead thus creating a dead air space. Wilson (1967) employed deceptions that included surreptitiously providing visual and auditory stimulation following suggestions for perceptual effects, but only waking S s were used and no formal hypnotic induction was carried out. Furthermore, although behavioral scores were affected, verbal ratings were not. Following the early work of Perky (1910) who showed that visual stimuli just above threshold levels (faint images surreptitiously projected on a ground glass window) could be mistaken for products of imagination by (waking) Ss, Wickless and Kirsch (1989) surreptitiously presented several supraliminal stimuli (five visual and one auditory) to S s who had just been exposed to their first hypnotic induction. Results were interpreted as supporting Kirsch’s (1985) response expectancy hypothesis, since responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions was significantly affected by the preceding manipulation of expectancies. Manuscript submitted November 7, 1990; final revision received June 2, 1992. ‘Portions of this paper were presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, August, 1990. ?he assistance of Lisa Arnett. Darrell Bryan, Wendy Covay. Mary Knowlton, Bridget Richey. Leslie Schmidt, and Ann Shortt in this research is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. %eprint requests should be addressed to Roger A. Page, Ph. D.. Department of Psychology. The Ohio State University, Lima Campus, 4240 Campus Drive, Lima, O H 45804. 157
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
158
PACE AND HANDLEY
A question of interest is whether this type of deception, administered following an induction, could serve to enhance the hypnotic experience (behaviorally and/or subjectively) of Ss who have previously experienced hypnosis (e.g., those Ss who have been preselected on the basis of their hypnotizability score on a group scale, as is so often done). (The methodological value of a similar type of manipulation in determining the degree to which pain reduction with hypnotic analgesia is due to the placebo effects of using hypnosis has already been demonstrated by McGlashan, Evans, & M. T. Orne, 1969.) An additional question would be whether these deceptions are comparable to commonly used “deepening techniques.” And are these techniques themselves effective? One such technique, “Fractionation,” (a brief awakening followed by rapid re-hypnosis) has often been recommended for its effectiveness (e.g., Ambrose & Newbold, 1980; Clarke & Jackson, 1983),but the results of a recent study by Hammond, Haskins-Bartsch, McGhee, and Grant (1987) have, “cast some doubt on the widespread belief in the unusual effectiveness of fractionation [p. 1191.” Another such technique, “visualization,” has also been recommended for its effectiveness, as can be seen by the following statement: “To achieve even greater depths of hypnosis, visual imagery suggestions are helpful . . . [Kroger, 1977, p. 821.” The present study was an attempt to assess the effects of deceptions, that is, artificially providing a suggested stimulus, as compared to the recommended deepening techniques mentioned above, on the hypnotizability scores, depth scores, and realness ratings of Ss preselected for hypnotizability. It was hypothesized that moderately hypnotizable Ss would show the greatest enhancement from the use of deceptions, while both high and low hypnotizable Ss would derive less benefit from their use, since the former are more likely to be able to experience the events (without “help”) anyway, and the latter are more likely to deny the experience.
METHOD Subjects The Ss were volunteers recruited from several undergraduate classes in introductory psychology at a midwestern university. They received course credit for their participation, were told that the study involved hypnosis, and were given a brief lecture intended to dispel myths about hypnosis. A shortened 10-item version (used by Hilgard, Crawford, Bowers, & Kihlstrom, 1979) of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. C. Orne (1962) was used to screen Ss in groups with a tape-recorded induction. Those scoring 7-10 were classified as high in hypnotizability (as suggested by Hilgard et al., 1979), while those scoring 0-3were classified as lows, since several studies employing the full HGSHS:A have use 0-4 as a range defining low
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
159
hypnotizables (e.g., Register & Kihlstrom, 1986). Those scoring 4-6 were classified as medium hypnotizables. A total of 162 students (72 males, 90 females) participated; their mean age was 21.4 years. Eight indicated that they had previously experienced hypnosis.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
Procedure The Ss were assigned (in equal numbers of high, medium, and low hypnotizability) to one of three groups: control, illusion, or deepening. Each group contained 54 Ss, with 18 Ss at each of the three levels of hypnotizability. In a second session, Ss in the control and illusion groups were given Tart’s (1970) Long Stanford Scale (LSS) instructions for an instant report (a 10-point scale, where 10 = very deep), since it has been demonstrated that use of LSS to assess depth during hypnosis does not seem to distract Ss or interfere with their response to suggestions (e.g., Council, Kirsch, & Haher, 1986;Tart, 1970).The Ss were then (individually) administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form B (SHSS:B) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959). For Ss in both the control and illusion groups, two hallucination items (an arm warming suggestion and a suggestion for the hum of an electric clock to fade away) were inserted in counterbalanced order between Items 6 and 7, and Items 10 and 11 of SHSS:B. Depth reports were obtained following each in-hypnosis item (SHSS:B Items 2-10), as well as the two inserted hallucination items, but not for SHSS:B Items 1, 11, or 12, all waking items. The S s in the control and illusion groups differed only in that the latter received surreptitious “help” in experiencing the suggestions by way of: (a) the clock hum (in reality a 250 C.P.S. tone generated by a hidden audio oscillator) being reduced in intensity (from 63 d p to 61 dS) by way of a rheostat; and (b) a hidden heating element on the arm of the chair which increased the baseline temperature 3 degrees Celsius. The intensities of both stimuli were, therefore, changed enough to be perceived, but not enough to arouse suspicion. These intensity changes were based on pilot group results to assure that they were minimally perceivable by all S S . In ~ postsession interviews, no Ss indicated that they were suspicious of the stimuli being surreptitiously manipulated. The Ss in the deepening group underwent a procedure identical to the above groups, with the exception that two deepening techniques were inserted in counterbalanced order in place of the hallucination items. The ‘Information regarding the pilot procedures as well as additional analyses have been deposited with the National Auxiliary Publications Service (NAPS). For 5 pages, order document No. 04968 from ASIS-NAPS, do Microfiche Publications, P. 0. Box 3513, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163-3513. Remit in advance. in U.S. funds only, $7.75 for photocopies or $4.00 for microfiche and make checks payable to Microfiche Publications NAPS. There is a $15.00 invoicing charge on all orders filled before payment. Outside the United States and some parts of Canada, add postage of $4.50 for a photocopy and $1.75 for a fiche.
-
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
160
PACE AND HANDLEY
techniques employed were fractionation and visualization. The former involved two successive slow counts from 20 up to 2 with suggestions to awaken slightly with each count (1being fully awake), each followed by a rapid count down to 20 with suggestions to go into an even deeper hypnotic state (e.g., see Ambrose & Newbold, 1980, for a description of a modification of the “Yo-yo” method in which S is not completely awakened). The latter involved instructions for Ss to focus on their breathing (e.g., see “breathing method,” Clarke & Jackson, 1983),while visualizing being some place very peaceful and enjoyable, to experience this place with all of their senses and let themselves drift enjoyably while listening effortlessly to E’s voice (e.g., see “imagery techniques,” Clarke & Jackson,
1983). Placement of the first of the deepening techniques after administration of one-half of the hypnotizability scale items was to ensure that Ss who were hypnotizable had been hypnotized to an adequate degree, since fractionation is less likely to deepen the response unless this has been achieved. Additionally, this leaves six items to detect the effects of the manipulations. The hallucination items in the illusion group were identically placed to allow for a direct comparison between groups. Following dehypnosis, all groups received the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965), followed by a 5-point rating scale of realness (for all items except the in-hypnosis deepening techniques) modeled after that of Barber and Wilson (1978/1979) for the Creative Imagination Scale. (A rating of 0 indicated it was not at all like a real experience, while a rating of 4 indicated that it was almost exactly the same as a real experience.) The session ended with an interview. The Ss were asked to guess the purpose of the study; most believed that it dealt with individual differences in hypnotic responding. To minimize the effect of E bias on SHSS:B scores, an assistant, blind to the hypothesis of the study, was present during the second session to cast the deciding vote in the event any items were not clearly passed or failed. (This in fact turned out to be rare, occurring on only nine occasions for all Ss.) Additionally, both Es and assistants were blind to Ss’HGSHS:A scores.
RESULTS A 3 x 3 ANOVA of Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth scores (initial Hypnotizability Level X Treatment group) revealed the expected main effect for initial hypnotizability (F = 25.3, df = 2,153;p < .001)but neither treatment group nor interaction was significant. Since changes occurring after the inserted manipulations would be of primary interest, all groups were compared by a one-way ANOVA on all SHSS:B items passed following the first manipulation. Although in the expected direction (means for Ss in the deepening, illusion, and control groups being 3.93,3.87,and 3.37,respectively), results were not significant (F = 1.64,df = 2,159;p < .20).When manipulation items passed
EFFECTS O F DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
1.2
-
1.0
-
0.8
-
0.8
-
I 0.4
-
0.2
-
0.0
I
c-
161
GROUP: 0 CONT'IOL ' I ILLUIION DCECLNINO
n W 0
,z W 0 2
< 0
I
u f
I
I
I
7
8
m
I
I
10
uz.
SHSS:B ITEM NUMBER
FIC. I . Mean change in depth report for manipulation and intervening SHSS:B items.
are included in the sums (available for Ss in the illusion and control goups), however, Ss in the illusion group scored significantly higher (X = 5.67, S.D.= 1.79) than control Ss (X = 4.80, S.D. = 2.21; t = 2.23, p = .03). Both depth report and realness ratings for each SHSS:B item after the manipulations were converted to change scores using the last premanipulation SHSS:B Item (6)as the baseline measurement. A 3 x 3 x 6 (Croup x Hypnotizability x Item) mixed ANOVA was then carried out on the change in depth reports for the two inserted illusion items (or the two deepening techniques in the case of the deepening group) as well as the four intervening SHSS:B Items 7-10. Neither the main effect for initial hypnotizability level nor treatment group reached significance. The Croup x Hypnotizability level interaction also was not significant. Not surprisingly, the within-% effect was highly significant (F = 8.47, df = 5,765; p C .001).The only significant interaction was for Croup x Trials (F = 3.44, d ! = 10,765; p C .001).Scheffb multiple comparisons revealed only one significant difference favoring the deepening over control group on the second manipulation item (F = 5.11, df = 2,159; p < .01). Additionally, Scheffks across the two manipulations (first verus second occasion) showed that both the illusion group and deepening group Ss' increase from the first to the second manipulation was significant (F = 7.08, df = 2,159; p C .01 and F = 6.37, df = 2,159; p < .01, respectively). Figure 1 shows the change in depth scores of all groups for the six items.
PACE AND HANDLEY
162
:::f
GROUP: 0 CONTROL
ILLUSION w DEEPENING
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
0.1
7
1
m
10
11
12
SHSS:B ITEM NUMBER
FIG.2. Mean change in (retrospective)realness rating for SHSS:B Items 7-12.
A similar ANOVA carried out on the change in realness ratings for the last six SHSS:B items (Items 7-10 which followed the first inserted manipulation item, and SHSS:B Items 11 and 12 which followed the second inserted item) revealed no significant main effects, while the within-% effect was highly significant (F = 59.8, df = 5,765; p C .001). Again, the only significant interaction was for Croup x Trials (F = 2.98, df = 10,765; p < .001). Scheffd comparisons revealed one significant difference favoring the deepening over control group on SHSS:B Item 12 (Amnesia)(F = 3.35, df = 2,159; p < .05). Figure 2 shows the change in realness ratings of all groups for the six SHSS:B items. To test for any trunrient effect that the manipulations may have had, several analyses were performed. The first was a chi-square test comparing the illusion and control groups for frequency passing the inserted manipulation items. Results approached significance for the first manipulation (x2 = 3.43, p = .oS)and reached significance for the second (x2 = 9.60, p = .002), with Ss in the illusion group passing more items for both manipulation occasions. (Neither group showed a significant difference between items passed for the first versus second manipulation.) Follow-up chi-squares comparing high, medium, and low hypnotizable Ss in the two groups revealed only one significant difference: between the low hypnotizables in the two groups. The Ss in the illusion group passed more items on both the first (16 versus 10, x2 = 4.99, p = .03)and second (17 versus 10, x2 = 7.26, p = .007) manipulations than did control Ss.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
163
To assess whether the illusion manipulation had any effect on the realness ratings of the manipulation items themselves, a final analysis compared (by t test) the change scores of these items for Ss in the illusion and control groups. (These data had not been included in the previous ANOVAs since no “realness” ratings were obtained for the deepening techniques themselves.) Although the illusion group change was superior to that of the control group for both manipulations, neither difference was significant. DISCUSSION
The initial analyses (along with the final t test analyses) would indicate that although the surreptitious manipulation of stimuli did result in a significant increase in number of items passed, it did not on the whole produce significant changes in subjective depth reports or realness ratings. This suggests an independence of hypnotic depth and hypnotizability, since the surreptitious stimuli affected pass percents but apparently not subjective depth or realness. Alternatively, one might argue that the stimuli did result in an increase in the subjective experience of the events enough to produce a pass (e.g., “It felt a little warmer.”; “The hum did fade a little.”), but not enough to produce signijicant differences in depth or realness ratings. In any event, the hypothesis of a differential effect for high through low hypnotizable Ss was, therefore, not confirmed. In fact, chi-square analyses would indicate that those “helped” most by surreptitious manipulation of stimuli were the low hypnotizables. The significant Croup x Trials interactions in the mixed ANOVAs (on depth and realness data) may have been in part due to demand characteristics. Deepening Ss may have tended to give deeper reports for manipulation items simply because reports were obtained immediately after a deepening technique that contained suggestions to go deeper. Likewise, deepening Ss may have reported the amnesia as more real than Ss in the illusion or control groups because of expectations that “being deeper” would automatically result in remembering less. At the same time, the results of the horizontal Scheffds on the depth data raise the possibility that a sort of “snowball” effect may have manifested itself in a significant manipulation-item difference between both experimental groups and the control group if a third manipulation item had been employed following more intervening SHSS:B items. One is tempted to conclude that the effect of both the deepening and illusion manipulations was at best minimal and transient. In interpreting the results, a manipulation failure can probably be ruled out since Ss in the deepening group did report greater deepening immediately following the deepening techniques, and Ss in the illusion group passed more of the manipulation items (than controls). The question is why the effects failed to be reflected in the depth reports and realness ratings for the surrounding SHSS:B items.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
164
PAGE AND HANDLEY
In the case of the deepening techniques, there are three possibilities. First, earlier placement (e.g., using visualization during the induction and fractionation after 3 or 4 items, which may have allowed enough time for the hypnotic response to be established) may have produced a more lasting effect. Second, it is possible that some lasting (experiential) effects were produced but were not reflected in depth or realness ratings. Third, the techniques may simply not be as effective as once believed to be, with the results serving as a partial confirmation of the Hammond et al. (1987) findings regarding fractionation, as well as extending them to include visualization. In the case of the illusion manipulations, similar possibilities exist. For example, earlier placement may have allowed a delayed effect to appear. Or,the dependent measures may not have detected any effects. Or,the manipulations simply may not have had a lasting impact. The present authors strongly suspect the last of these possibilities. But why did the illusion manipulations fail to have a lasting impact? Possibly because for many Ss the stimulus change was just perceivable (meeting a “lax” as opposed to “strict” detection criterion). This was necessitated by the nature of the experiment, since it was not practical to obtain each individual’s threshold beforehand without arousing suspicions or cuing Ss as to what to expect. (A future study might accomplish this by employing a series of “unrelated studies, one being a sensory detection task.) This means that for many Ss, they would not have been absolutely positiue the stimulus event was occurring (as opposed to being imagined). It is plausible that low hypnotizable Ss, rather than perceiving the changes as reality events, were denying their Occurrence by reasoning something like, “It’s just my imagination,”while Ss higher in hypnotizability were interpreting them as possible hypnotically hallucinated events. In other words, they may have mistaken the actual stimulus events for “only” hypnotically hallucinated events and thus did not perceive them to be “more real” than other hypnotic events (i.e., a “Perky effect” occurring in hypnosis). This explanation would account for two findings: low hypnotizable Ss in the illusion group passing significantly more manipulation items than controls, but not showing greater change in depth or realness for these items, and Ss in the illusion group as a whole not showing a significantly greater change in depth or realness for these items than controls. Is it really possible for a hypnotic S to experience a reality event as less real than another hypnotically suggested event? Apparently so. Support stems from a procedure described by M.T. Orne (1962) in which hypnotic Ss were given several suggestions (e.g., “you cannot bend your arm”), one of which was, “The metal ball you’re holding is growing hot.” The metal ball was in fact being heated chemically from within. When asked, “Did the feeling of the arm getting stiffer and stiffer feel more real than the ball getting hot?”, the S replied, “The arm being stiff was more
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
EFFECTS OF DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
165
real [p. 684]!” Here we have a perfect example of a reality event being experienced as less real than a hypnotically suggested event. If this S was asked for a depth report following each suggestion, it would not be surprising to find the report following the ball item to be no deeper (or even less deep) than that following the arm rigidity item. There are several possible reasons that could account for the differing results of the present study and the previous study (Wickless & Kirsch, 1989) most similar to it. The first relates to the fact that the present Ss were pretested for hypnotizability rather than hypnotically naive. Pretesting could be seen as forming stable response expectancies (which naive Ss would lack) that might tend to reduce the effects of any surreptitious manipulation. A second possibility relates to a methodological difference between the two studies. The present study placed two manipulations among SHSS:B items. The previous study employed six consecutive manipulations following the induction but prior to any items in the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962). A final possibility relates to sample differences between the two studies. Being preselected to equally represent low through high hypnotizables, the 162 Ss in the present study necessarily were not representative of the general population in terms of hypnotizability. This is reflected in the low HGSHS:A mean of 4.97 (S.D. = 2.65), which, even if two points were added to their scores for the two omitted items, would still be considerably lower than the mean of 8.77 reported for volunteers in the HGSHS:A manual (p. 12). Thus, the present sample not only differed from the original norm group, but also from the Wickless and Kirsch (1989) sample. It is worth noting the limitations of the present study along with some methodological recommendations that might allow future research to address some of the issues that have been raised. To begin with, a future study might focus on either deepening techniques or surreptitious provision of stimuli rather than both, allowing the manipulations to be variously placed throughout the hypnotizability scale. This would allow one to determine the effect of placement of either type of manipulation. A second point concerns what Ss are subjectively experiencing when the events (hypnotically suggested or real) are occurring. A technique which might allow future research to more directly address this issue would be the Experiential Analysis Technique (EAT) of Sheehan and McConkey (1982). The EAT involves the video taping of the hypnotic session and the use of taped playback in conjunction with a postexperimental inquiry of S, and would be most helpful in getting at the heart of this issue. A final point concerns the fact that the present study determined level of hypnotizability by a single (group) testing. Hence, Ss were not plateaued prior to their individual hypnotic sessions. This raises the possibil-
PAGE AND HANDLEY
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
166
ity that many Ss may have shifted levels after repeated testings. To obtain an estimate of the extent to which shifting of levels may have occurred, SHSS:B scores of 54 contol Ss were grouped by level (0-4 = low, 5-8 =medium, 9-12 = high) and compared to their HGSHS:A level. (This group would be the most appropriate to use since its SHSS:B scores would not be "contaminated by either manipulation.) This comparison revealed that 19 out of the 54 Ss did change levels, although all were to an adjacent level (i.e., no S went from low to high or vice versa). The future use of plateaued Ss would provide a stronger test of the hypothesis of differential effects for hypnotizability level in the illusion manipulation part of the present study.
REFERENCES AMBROSE.C., & NEWBOLD. G. A handbook of medical hypnosis.London: BailliereTindall, 1980. BARBER,T.X., & WILSON,S. C. The Barber SuggestibilityScale and the Creative Imagination Scale: Experimental and clinical applications. Amer.]. din. Hypnosis, 197W1979. 21,64-108. CLARKE. J. C.. & JACKSON, J. A. Hypnosis and behavior therapy. New York: Springer, 1983. COUNCIL, J. R.. KIRSCH,I., & HAFNER.L. P. Expectancy versus absorption in the prediction of hypnotic responding. ]. Pers. soc. Psychol.. 1966.50,182189. FIELD,P. B. An inventory scale of hypnotic depth. Int.]. clin. exp. Hypnosis. 1965,13. 238-249. HAMMOND. D. C.. HASKINS-J~TSCH. C.,MCGHEE. M., & GRANT, C. W. The use of fractionation in self-hypnosis. Amer. J . din. Hypnosis. 1987.30, 119-124. HILGARD, E. R.. CRAWFORD, H. J., BOWERS, P., & KIHLSTROM, J. F. A tailored SHSSC. permitting user modification for special purposes. Int.]. clin. exp. Hypnosis. 1979. 27,125-133. KIRSCH, I. Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. Amer. Psychobgist, 1985.40, 1189-1202. KROCER, W.Clinical and ezperimental hypnosis. New York: Lippincott. 1977. MCGLASHAN, T.H.. EVANS, F. J.. & ORNE,M. T The nature of hypnotic analgesia and placebo response to experimental pain. Psychosom. Med.. 1969,31,227-246. OWE, M. T. Problems and research areas. In Medical Utes of hypnosis. New York: Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1962.F'p. 676689. PERKY,C. W. An experimental study of imagination. Amer.]. Psychol.. 1910,21.422452. REGISTER. P. A., & KJHLSTROM, J. F. Finding the hypnotic virtuoso. Int. I . d i n . ezp. Hypnosis, l986,34,84-07. SHEEHAN,P. W.,t MCCONKEY,K. M. The experiential analysis technique. In P. W. Sheehan6r K. M. McConkey, Hypnosisandcrpeticncs:Theezpbrationof phenomena and procesa. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.Pp. 75-100. SHOR,R. E.,& OWE, E. C. The Harwrd Croup Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. TART,C. T. Self-report scales of hypnotic depth. Int. 1. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 105-125.
WEITZENHOPFER, A. M., dt HILCARD,E. R. Stonford Hypnotic SusceppHbtltty Sc& Form A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M..& HILCAFID,E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
EFFECTS O F DEEPENING TECHNIQUES
I67
WICKLESS, C., & KIRSCH,I. Effects of verbal and experiential expectancy manipulations on hypnotic susceptibility. 1.P e n . soc. Psychol., 1989. 57,762-768.
WILSON, D.L. The role of confirmation of expectancies in hypnotic induction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina) Ann Arbor, MI: Univer. Microfilms, 1967. NO. 68-6781.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
Technikeneffekte des “Vertiefens” auf hypnotische Tiefe und Reaktion Roger A. Page und George W. Handley Abstrakt: Das vorliegende Studium versuchte, die Wirksamkeit der gebriuchlichen Vertiefenstechniken zu bewerten sowie die heimlich bewirkte Anregung auf hypnotisierbarkeitsresultate, Berichte iiber In-Hypnosetiefe, retrospektive Realititsbewertungen und das Fieldinventar der hypnotischen Tiefe (Field, 1965). Stark, mittel und schwach Hypnotisierbare wurden in gleichen Zahlen 1 von 3 Gruppen zugeteilt, jede enthielt 54 Vpn. Kontrollen wurden mit Vpn. verglichen, die 2 Vertiefungstechniken oder 2 Suggestionen fur positive und negative, heimlich verstiirkte Halluzinationen erhalten hatten. Von den 4 bedingten MaBen, die gebraucht wurden, bezog sich der einzige, bedeutende Unterschied zwischen den Gruppen auf eine h d e r u n g in Tiefenberichten fiir die Manipulationseinzelheiten in sich selbst, was zu dem Beschlull fiihrte, dall der Effekt der Techniken bestenfalls minimal und fliichtig war. Einige methodologische und begreifbare Folgen werden auch diskutiert.
Effets de techniques dapprofondissement sur la profondeur et la reponse hypnotique Roger A. Page et George W. Handley Resume: La presente ttude tente d’tvaluer I’efficacitt de techniques d’approfondissement conventionnelles et de stimulations subreptices sur les scores d’hypnotisabilitt, les rapports de profondeur durant I’hypnose, les evaluations rttrospectives du degrk de rtalitt, et I’Inventaire de Profondeur Hypnotique (Field, 1965). Des sujets fortement, moyennement et faiblement hypnotisables ont 6th assignts en nombre tgal B un de trois groupes contenant chacun 54 sujets. Les sujets contrdes ont t t t comparts. aux sujets recevant deux techniques dapprofondissement ou deux suggestions, rune dhallucination positive et I’autre dhallucination negative, renforcbes subrepticement. Des quatre variables d t pendantes utiliskes, seul le rapport de profondeur portant sur la manipulation des items distingue significativement les groupes, suggtrant ainsi que I’effet des techniques fut, tout au mieux, minimal et tphtmbre. Certains problhmes mtthodologiques et thhriques sont aussi discutts.
Efectos de ttcnicas de ‘profundizaci6n“ sobre la profundidad y la respuesta hipnbtica Roger A. Page y George W. Handley Resumen: Este estudio intent6 evaluar la efectividad de tknicas de profundizaci6n comunmente usadas y de estimu~aci6nsubrepticia sobre 10s puntajes de hipnotizabilidad, en 10s reportes de profundidad e n hipnosis, en loo promedios de realidad retrospectivor y en el Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965). Sujetos de alta, media y baja hipnotizahilidad fueron asignados en igual ndmero a uno de lor tres grupos, conteniendo cada uno 54 sujetos. h s controles fueron comparados con sujetos que recibieron 2 tecnicas de
168
PAGE AND HANDLEY
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:19 07 November 2015
profundzaci6n o 2 sugestiones para alucinaciones positivas o negativas que fueron subrepticiamente acrecentah. De lar 4 medidas dependientes empleadas, la Gnica diferencia significative entre lor grupos, estaba relacionada con un eambio en 10s reportes d e profundidad para 10s mismos items d e manipulnci6n, llegando a la conch~si6nque el efecto de Ias thcnicas, en el mejor de 10s ~ 8 8 0 sfue mfnimo y transitorio. Se discuten t a m b i h algunas cuestiones metodol6gicas y conceptuales.
