International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
ISSN: 0020-7144 (Print) 1744-5183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20
Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal conditioning Dennis R. King & Roy D. McDonald To cite this article: Dennis R. King & Roy D. McDonald (1976) Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal conditioning, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 24:1, 29-37, DOI: 10.1080/00207147608405595 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207147608405595
Published online: 31 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nhyp20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 01:49
Thr Intrrnotional Journal of Clinical ond ErpPnmPntol Hypnosis 1976, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, 29-37
HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING’ DENNIS R. KING’
AND
ROY D. McDONALD”.“
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
California State University, San Di’ego
Abstract: 18 Ss highly susceptible to hypnosis and 18 Ss refractory to hypnosis were studied in a verbal conditioning task modeled after the one used by Taffel (1955). Results indicated that the highly susceptible group showed significantly greater conditioning than the low group. Awareness of the reinforcement contingency by S was not related to the learning task nor to hypnotic susceptibility. A measure of S’s attitude toward the reinforcement cue during learning showed that the highly susceptible group had a more positive set toward the cue, whereas the low group tended to respond to it in a neutral or negative manner. Results were interpreted in terms of the theoretical nature of hypnotic susceptibility.
Individual difference variables have long been considered important in determining responsivity to hypnosis as well as to verbal conditioning. Investigations of the relationship between these two phenomena have generated conflicting findings (Das, 1969). Using selected items from the California Psychological Inventory as an indirect measure of hypnotizability, Weiss, Ullman, and Krasner (1960) found that the likelihood of hypnotizability was positively associated with the number of emotional words reinforced to Ss’ verbal productions made to TAT-like pictures. Webb (19621, too, found that suggestibility, measured in response to a postural sway suggestion, was systematically associated with performance in the Greenspoon verbal conditioning paradigm. However, Clarke and Long (19641, using a paradigm of verbal conditioning somewhat similar to that of Weiss, et al. (1960), were not able to find a relationship between suggestibility and verbal conditioning. Their measure of hypnotizability consisted of S s’ performance on the Pascal induction Manuscript submitted November 3, 1972; final revision received May 2, 1975. * This study is based in part on an unpublished master’s thesis completed a t California State University, San Diego by the senior author. Now in Cleveland, Tennessee. The authors are grateful to Louis R. Franzini for his helpful criticism and suggestions in the preparation of this paper. Reprint requests should be addressed to Roy D. .McDonald, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Diego, 5402 College Avenue, San Diego, California 92115. 29
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
30
KING AND McDONALD
technique which purports to rely upon operant shaping of hypnotic behavior (Pascal & Salzberg, 1959). The inconsistent results from this representative sample of work on suggestibility and verbal conditioning appear to be in part a function of differences among studies in the method of assessing suggestibility as well as in the utilization of various experimental procedures for producing verbal conditioning. In addition, the investigations of the parameters of conditioning in human S s have frequently encountered the troublesome problems of subject-awareness of the reinforcement contingency and his emotional attitude toward the reinforcement cue itself (Das, 1969; Farber, 1963; Miller & Rumans, 1970). The present study was undertaken to assess further the effect of reinforcement on the verbal behavior of Ss who differ in their responsivity to hypnosis. A direct, reliable, and widely used device for measuring susceptibility to hypnosis was employed in selecting Ss in an effort to improve the assessment of this dimension over that utilized in previous investigations. It was predicted that individuals scoring high in hypnotic susceptibility would evidence greater learning than those relatively unresponsive to hypnotic suggestions. Inasmuch as the valence of the reinforcement cue and awareness of the reinforcement contingency have been found to affect markedly the performance of human Ss in conditioning experiments (Cairns & Lewis, 1962; Farber, 1963; Miller & Rumans, 1970; Spielberger, Levin, & Shepard, 19621, measures of these two dimensions were made in order to take into account their potentially contaminating effects.
METHOD Subjects Volunteer students from introductory psychology classes participated in the investigation to fulfill course requirements. They initially signed up in small groups to participate in a study of susceptibility to hypnosis to be conducted in a classroom on campus. At these sessions, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) was administered by tape recording. Subsequently, Ss scoring high and low on HGSHS:A were contacted by telephone and asked to participate in another experiment a t the Psychological Laboratory. High susceptible Ss were defined as scoring between 10-12 and low susceptible Ss between 0-4 on HGSHS:A. This usage of extreme scores insured a more reliable categorization on the susceptibility dimension than utilization of the entire range of susceptibility scores.
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
31
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
Among the 18 Ss in the High susceptible group there were 6 males and 13 females, while 7 males and 11females comprised the 18 S s in the Low susceptible group. Procedure The verbal conditioning procedure employed was that developed by Taffel (1955). Each S was serially presented 100, 3 x 5 unlined index cards in the center of which was a two-syllable, past tense verb. Below the verb, typed in upper-case letters on one line, were the pronouns I, WE, HE, SHE,THEY, and YOU, which were randomly assigned different orders for each card. The male E , who was blind as to Ss’ susceptibility status, instructed each S to make up a sentence using the verb and any one of the listed pronouns. For the first 20 trials E made no response to the verbal productions of S in order t o establish an operant level for usage of I and WE. Beginning with acquisition, E responded to usage of I or WE with the word “good” in a flat, unemotional tone of voice. This procedure was continued until trial 81 a t which point E initiated an extinction phase by withholding reinforcement for any S-response. Following the learning task, each S filled out an Awareness Questionnaire modeled after that of Miller and Rumans (1970). It consisted of the following questions: 1. What was the purpose of the experiment? 2. If the experimenter gave you some cues for how you should respond,
what were they? 3. If you noticed cues, what do you think they indicated? After completing the questionnaire, E asked each S the following questions to further assess awareness of the reinforcement contingency and to measure S’s attitude toward the reinforcement cue. 1. Did you notice that I did anything special? What? 2. Did I say “good” for a special reason? 3. What was the reason for my saying “good”? 4. How did hearing the word “good” affect you during the experiment? In a positive, negative, or neutral way?
RESULTS The unit of analysis was the number of I-WE usages subtracted from the baseline of that response class shown during the first 20 nonreinforced trials. Effect of Hypnotic Susceptibility
The raw number of correct responses for the two groups is plotted in blocks of 20 trials in Figure 1. An analysis of variance for repeated
32
KING AND McDONALD
12 v)
W VY
-
H i g h (N-18)
11
z
0
a VY W
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
a t-
u W
CL CL 0
0
>
I
Ope r a n t Ieve I
1
2
3
E x t I I l C t I011
BLOCK FIG. 1. Verbal conditioning as a function of hypnotic susceptibility
measures (Edwards, 1968) was applied to the means of the conditioning scores for each of the three blocks of acquisition trials. High susceptible Ss showed a significantly greater conditioning effect than low susceptible S s @' = 5.60, df = 1,34; p < .051. Conditioning significantly increased across trials for both groups (F = 8.01, df = 2,68; p < . O l ) , but no interaction effect between trials and level of susceptibility occurred. Two-tailed t tests were applied to differences between the two groups at each point on the abscissa in Figure 1. As expected, there was no significant difference between groups a t the operant baseline period (t = .12, df = 34). The mean number of correct responses for the High group at Block 1 was 7.7 while that for the Low group was 5.9 (t = 1.9, df = 34; n.s.). At Blocks 2 and 3 the differences between groups increased with the high susceptible Ss showing a mean of 9.7 vs. 6.3 for the low susceptible Ss (t = 2.06, df = 34;p < .05) and a mean of 10.4 vs. 6.3 for the low susceptible SSat Block 3 (t = 2.12, df = 34;p < .05). Although the High group continued to maintain a somewhat higher level of responding than the Low group during extinction (9.8 vs. 7.61, this difference did not reach statistical significance (t = .77, df = 34). Analysis of Awareness and Subject-Attitude A liberal criterion of awareness was established by classifying S aware if h e indicated either in the questionnaire or interview that he
33
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
was cognizant of the relationship between usage of I or WE and the E’s saying “good.” To assess whether awareness affected conditioning, a learning index was computed for each S by subtracting his operant level of response from the mean number of correct responses shown during the three blocks of acquisition trials. The Ss were then ordered and a median test was applied to those Ss aware or unaware and above or below the median learning index. A contingency coefficient of .28 indicated a minimal degree of association between the awareness dimension and learning (x2 = 2.96, d f = 1;p < .lo). The attitude toward reinforcement measure significantly differentiated the High and Low susceptibility groups. As can be seen in Table 1, the High group more consistently responded in a positive manner to the reinforcement cue wheras the Low group tended to give a neutral rating to the value of the reinforcement. (xz = 7.65, df = l;p < .on Awareness of the reinforcement contingency was by and large equally represented in the High and Low susceptibility groups. These frequencies yielded a x2 < 1. Further analysis of the data in Table 1 indicated that the Aware High Positive group’s learning index score differed significantly from the Aware Low Neutral group (t = 2.92, df = 16; p < .Ol), the Unaware Low Positive group (t = 2.91, d f = 12; p < .05), and the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 5.83, d f = l ; p < .001). Thus, the Aware High Positive group’s learning index score was significantly higher than the index scores of the three Low groups. Also, the Unaware High Positive group differed significantly from the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 2.70, d f = 7; p < .05). No other High groups differed from the Low groups and none of the High groups differed among themselves. Among the Low groups, only the UnaTABLE 1 MEANLEARNING INDEXSCORES FOR THE ACQUISITION PERIOD OF HIGHA N D Low HYPNOTIZABLE SUBJECTS High
Low
1
N
x
N
-
0
Aware
Positive Neutral
4.2
3.0
9 2
0.4
98‘
Unaware
Positive Neutral
1.9 1.7
5 2
1.0
5
- 2.5
4
One Aware Low S responded to the attitude questionnaire with a negative response. This S has been incorporated in the neutral category for purposes of analysis.
34
KING AND McDONALD
ware Low Positive group differed significantly from the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 2.67, df = 7 ; p < .05).
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
DISCUSSION These data show that hypnotic susceptibility is a n important variable in responsivity to verbal conditioning. They extend the findings not only of Das (1958) by showing that primary suggestibility is associated with operant as well as classical conditioning but also those of Weiss e t al. (1960) in illustrating that higher hypnotic susceptibility leads to enhanced verbal conditioning, using an improved measure of hypnotic susceptibility. The findings reported here on the effect of awareness of reinforcement contingencies indicate that this dimension per se is not sufficient to account for subject-differences in the acquisition of verbally conditioned responses. The characteristics tapped by HGSHS:A produce conditioning which cannot be accounted for by awareness alone. Moreover, the data of high susceptible Ss’ positive attitude toward reinforcement is consistent with the finding that high levels of hypnotic susceptibility are associated with personality variables of cooperativeness and a tendency to please others (Levitt, Brady, & Lubin, 1963). The fact that high susceptible 5 s here rated E’s cue more positively than low susceptible Ss is further consistent with some of the personological descriptions associated with hypnotic susceptibility which have been offered by Hilgard (1968). In addition, Cairns and Lewis (1962) and Spielberger et al. (1962) found that persons who assigned more positive value to the kind of reinforcement present in verbal conditioning experiments produced greater conditioning than Ss whose attitudes were less favorable or non-committal toward the reinforcement. This relationship is not clear-cut in the present data in that although the High groups had an overall more positive attitude regarding reinforcement, only the Aware High Positive group learned better than all the Low groups, while the only other High group learning better than a Low group was the Unaware High Positive which had a significantly better learning index score than the Unaware Low Neutral group. Moreover, positive attitude did not differentiate learning within the High groups or the Low groups. Thus, the present data are unclear regarding the role attitude plays in the acquisition of verbally conditioned responses. The roles of awareness and attitude could probably be better defined in future research using larger experimental groups. The attitude measure employed here was a gross one and a more sophisticated assessment of the valence characteristics of reinforcement cues could reveal more complex relationships in subsequent research. In
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
35
addition, a more careful assessment than was done here of the role of cooperation and demand characteristics would contribute substantially to understanding more completely the effect of awareness on these phenomena. The general indications regarding attitude may in part account for the increase in the production of conditioned responses in Figure 1 shown by the Low group during the extinction phase of this experiment. Although highly susceptible Ss show a decrease in the correct response with nonreinforcement, low susceptible S s begin to evidence an increase in the correct response. The attitude measure indicates that Ss in the Low group did not respond positively to the reinforcement cue, and one of these S s reported in the interview that he did not like being told what to do by the E.It can be speculated that these Ss were aware of the reinforcement contingency but did not “cooperate” until the reinforcement was absent. This follows the interpretation of Farber (1963)who found that aware Ss who conformed to the demand characteristics of the experimental situation showed greater verbal conditioning than those who were aware and nonconforming. It thus appears that a willingness to go along with E’s expectations and a positive, cooperative attitude are common features in individuals who make good hypnotic S s and who evidence an ‘enhanced propensity for verbal conditioning.
REFERENCES CAIRNS,R. E., & LEWIS,M. Dependency and the reinforcement value of a verbal stimulus. J . consult. Psychol., 1962,26, 1-8. J. R., & LONG,T. E. On the lack of relationship between hypnotizability and CLARKE, response to verbal conditioning. Psychol. Rep., 1964,14, 103-105. DAS,J . P. Conditioning and hypnosis. J . exp. Psychol., 1958,56, 110-113. DAS,J. P. Verbal conditioning a n d behauiour. Oxford, Eng. : Pergamon Press, 1969. EDWARDS, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. (3rd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. I. E. The things people say to themselves. Amer. Psychologist, 1963,18, 185FARBER, 197. HILGARD, E. R. The experience of hypnosis. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. LEVITT,E. E., BRADY,J. P., & LUBIN,B. Correlates of hypnotizability in young women: Anxiety and dependency. J . Pers., 1963,31, 52-57. J. Taffel and Greenspoon: Comparative effects of MILLER,A. W., JR., & RUMANS, obviousness of reinforcement and response structure. J . gen. Psychol., 1970,&7, 43-51. PASCAL,G. R., & SALZBERG, H. C. A systematic approach to inducing hypnotic behavior. Znt. J . din. exp. Hypnosis, 1959, 7, 161-167. SnoR, R. E., 8z ORNE,E. Haruard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A , Palo Alto, Calif. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. SPIELBERGER, C. D., LEVIN,S. M., & SHEPARD, M. The effects of awareness and
36
KING AND McDONALD
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
attitude toward the reinforcement on the operant conditioning of verbal behavior. J. Pers., 1962,30,106-121. TAFFEL, C.Anxiety and the conditioning of verbal behavior. J. abnorm. sac. Psychol., 1955,51,496-501. WEBB,R. A. Suggestibility and verbal conditioning. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 275-279. WEISS,R. L., ULLMANN, L. P., & KRASNER, L. On the relationship between hypnotizability and response to verbal operant conditioning. Psychol. Rep., 1960,6,59-60.
Hypnoseempfanglichkeit und Verbalkonditionierung Dennis R. King und Roy D. McDonald Abstrakt: 18 hoch-hypnoseempfangliche Vpn. und 18 hypnoserefraktare Vpn. wurden bei einer Aufgabe des Verbalkonditionierens studiert, die einem Modell glich, das Taffel (1955) gebrauchte. Es zeigte sich, dass die hoch-empfangliche Gruppe eine bedeutend bessere Konditionierung z u r Schau stellte als die niedrige Gruppe. Das Gewahrsein d e r Vp. von dem Verstarkungskontingent stand weder zu d e r zu lernenden Aufgabe noch zu Hypnoseempfanglichkeit in Beziehung. Beim Messen des Verhaltens d e r V p . zu dem verstarkten Anhaltspunkt wahrend des Lernens ergab sich, d a s s die hoch-empfangliche Gruppe eine positivere Stellung zu dem Anhaltspunkt einnahm, wahrend die niedrige Gruppe dazu neigte, auf ihn in neutraler oder negativer Weise zu reagieren. Die Ergebnisse wurden im Rahmen d e r theoretischen Natur der Hypnoseempfanglichkeit ausgewertet.
Susceptibilite hypnotique et conditionnement verbal Dennis R. King e t Roy D. McDonald Resume: Etude de 18 Ss de susceptibilite hypnotique elevee et de 18 S s refractaires a I’hypnose, a une tgche de conditionnment verbal modelee s u r celle de Taffel (1955). Les resultats indiquent que le conditionnement est significativement plus eleve dans le groupe d e Ss de susceptibilite hypnotique elevee que dans le groupe des Ss refractaires. La connaissance de la contingence du renforcement chez l e S n’est reliee ni 21 la t i c h e d’apprentissage, ni a la susceptibilite hypnotique. Une mesure de I’attitude des Ss a I’egard de I’indice d e renforcement durant I’apprentissage montre que l e groupe d e susceptibilite elevee a une attitude plus positive a I’egard de I’indice, alors que le groupe d e susceptibilite faible tend a repondre a I’indice d’une facon neutre ou negative. Les resultats sont interpretes du point de v u e de la nature theorique de la susceptibilite hypnotique.
Susceptibilidad hipnotica y condicionamiento verbal Dennis R. King y Roy D. McDonald Resumen: 18 Ss altamente susceptibles y 18 Ss refractarios a la hipnosis son estudiados con relacion a una tarea de condicionamiento verbal eonstruida d e acuerdo con la utilizada por Taffel (1955). Los resulta-dos indican que el grupo
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
37
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
altamente susceptible adquiere un condicionamiento significativamente mayor que el del grupo de baja susceptibilidad. La conciencia, por parte del S, de la eventualidad del refuerzo no guarda relaeion ni con la tarea del aprendizaje ni con la susceptibilidad hipnotica. Una medida de la actitud del S ante el indicio del refuerzo durante el aprendizaje muestra que el grupo altamente susceptible manifiesta una actitud global m8s positiva ante dicho indicio, a1 que el grupo poco susceptible responde de forma neutra o negativa. Los resultados son interpretados en terminos de la naturaleza teorica de la susceptibilidad hipnotica.
ISSN: 0020-7144 (Print) 1744-5183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20
Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal conditioning Dennis R. King & Roy D. McDonald To cite this article: Dennis R. King & Roy D. McDonald (1976) Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal conditioning, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 24:1, 29-37, DOI: 10.1080/00207147608405595 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207147608405595
Published online: 31 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nhyp20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 01:49
Thr Intrrnotional Journal of Clinical ond ErpPnmPntol Hypnosis 1976, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, 29-37
HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING’ DENNIS R. KING’
AND
ROY D. McDONALD”.“
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
California State University, San Di’ego
Abstract: 18 Ss highly susceptible to hypnosis and 18 Ss refractory to hypnosis were studied in a verbal conditioning task modeled after the one used by Taffel (1955). Results indicated that the highly susceptible group showed significantly greater conditioning than the low group. Awareness of the reinforcement contingency by S was not related to the learning task nor to hypnotic susceptibility. A measure of S’s attitude toward the reinforcement cue during learning showed that the highly susceptible group had a more positive set toward the cue, whereas the low group tended to respond to it in a neutral or negative manner. Results were interpreted in terms of the theoretical nature of hypnotic susceptibility.
Individual difference variables have long been considered important in determining responsivity to hypnosis as well as to verbal conditioning. Investigations of the relationship between these two phenomena have generated conflicting findings (Das, 1969). Using selected items from the California Psychological Inventory as an indirect measure of hypnotizability, Weiss, Ullman, and Krasner (1960) found that the likelihood of hypnotizability was positively associated with the number of emotional words reinforced to Ss’ verbal productions made to TAT-like pictures. Webb (19621, too, found that suggestibility, measured in response to a postural sway suggestion, was systematically associated with performance in the Greenspoon verbal conditioning paradigm. However, Clarke and Long (19641, using a paradigm of verbal conditioning somewhat similar to that of Weiss, et al. (1960), were not able to find a relationship between suggestibility and verbal conditioning. Their measure of hypnotizability consisted of S s’ performance on the Pascal induction Manuscript submitted November 3, 1972; final revision received May 2, 1975. * This study is based in part on an unpublished master’s thesis completed a t California State University, San Diego by the senior author. Now in Cleveland, Tennessee. The authors are grateful to Louis R. Franzini for his helpful criticism and suggestions in the preparation of this paper. Reprint requests should be addressed to Roy D. .McDonald, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Diego, 5402 College Avenue, San Diego, California 92115. 29
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
30
KING AND McDONALD
technique which purports to rely upon operant shaping of hypnotic behavior (Pascal & Salzberg, 1959). The inconsistent results from this representative sample of work on suggestibility and verbal conditioning appear to be in part a function of differences among studies in the method of assessing suggestibility as well as in the utilization of various experimental procedures for producing verbal conditioning. In addition, the investigations of the parameters of conditioning in human S s have frequently encountered the troublesome problems of subject-awareness of the reinforcement contingency and his emotional attitude toward the reinforcement cue itself (Das, 1969; Farber, 1963; Miller & Rumans, 1970). The present study was undertaken to assess further the effect of reinforcement on the verbal behavior of Ss who differ in their responsivity to hypnosis. A direct, reliable, and widely used device for measuring susceptibility to hypnosis was employed in selecting Ss in an effort to improve the assessment of this dimension over that utilized in previous investigations. It was predicted that individuals scoring high in hypnotic susceptibility would evidence greater learning than those relatively unresponsive to hypnotic suggestions. Inasmuch as the valence of the reinforcement cue and awareness of the reinforcement contingency have been found to affect markedly the performance of human Ss in conditioning experiments (Cairns & Lewis, 1962; Farber, 1963; Miller & Rumans, 1970; Spielberger, Levin, & Shepard, 19621, measures of these two dimensions were made in order to take into account their potentially contaminating effects.
METHOD Subjects Volunteer students from introductory psychology classes participated in the investigation to fulfill course requirements. They initially signed up in small groups to participate in a study of susceptibility to hypnosis to be conducted in a classroom on campus. At these sessions, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) was administered by tape recording. Subsequently, Ss scoring high and low on HGSHS:A were contacted by telephone and asked to participate in another experiment a t the Psychological Laboratory. High susceptible Ss were defined as scoring between 10-12 and low susceptible Ss between 0-4 on HGSHS:A. This usage of extreme scores insured a more reliable categorization on the susceptibility dimension than utilization of the entire range of susceptibility scores.
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
31
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
Among the 18 Ss in the High susceptible group there were 6 males and 13 females, while 7 males and 11females comprised the 18 S s in the Low susceptible group. Procedure The verbal conditioning procedure employed was that developed by Taffel (1955). Each S was serially presented 100, 3 x 5 unlined index cards in the center of which was a two-syllable, past tense verb. Below the verb, typed in upper-case letters on one line, were the pronouns I, WE, HE, SHE,THEY, and YOU, which were randomly assigned different orders for each card. The male E , who was blind as to Ss’ susceptibility status, instructed each S to make up a sentence using the verb and any one of the listed pronouns. For the first 20 trials E made no response to the verbal productions of S in order t o establish an operant level for usage of I and WE. Beginning with acquisition, E responded to usage of I or WE with the word “good” in a flat, unemotional tone of voice. This procedure was continued until trial 81 a t which point E initiated an extinction phase by withholding reinforcement for any S-response. Following the learning task, each S filled out an Awareness Questionnaire modeled after that of Miller and Rumans (1970). It consisted of the following questions: 1. What was the purpose of the experiment? 2. If the experimenter gave you some cues for how you should respond,
what were they? 3. If you noticed cues, what do you think they indicated? After completing the questionnaire, E asked each S the following questions to further assess awareness of the reinforcement contingency and to measure S’s attitude toward the reinforcement cue. 1. Did you notice that I did anything special? What? 2. Did I say “good” for a special reason? 3. What was the reason for my saying “good”? 4. How did hearing the word “good” affect you during the experiment? In a positive, negative, or neutral way?
RESULTS The unit of analysis was the number of I-WE usages subtracted from the baseline of that response class shown during the first 20 nonreinforced trials. Effect of Hypnotic Susceptibility
The raw number of correct responses for the two groups is plotted in blocks of 20 trials in Figure 1. An analysis of variance for repeated
32
KING AND McDONALD
12 v)
W VY
-
H i g h (N-18)
11
z
0
a VY W
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
a t-
u W
CL CL 0
0
>
I
Ope r a n t Ieve I
1
2
3
E x t I I l C t I011
BLOCK FIG. 1. Verbal conditioning as a function of hypnotic susceptibility
measures (Edwards, 1968) was applied to the means of the conditioning scores for each of the three blocks of acquisition trials. High susceptible Ss showed a significantly greater conditioning effect than low susceptible S s @' = 5.60, df = 1,34; p < .051. Conditioning significantly increased across trials for both groups (F = 8.01, df = 2,68; p < . O l ) , but no interaction effect between trials and level of susceptibility occurred. Two-tailed t tests were applied to differences between the two groups at each point on the abscissa in Figure 1. As expected, there was no significant difference between groups a t the operant baseline period (t = .12, df = 34). The mean number of correct responses for the High group at Block 1 was 7.7 while that for the Low group was 5.9 (t = 1.9, df = 34; n.s.). At Blocks 2 and 3 the differences between groups increased with the high susceptible Ss showing a mean of 9.7 vs. 6.3 for the low susceptible Ss (t = 2.06, df = 34;p < .05) and a mean of 10.4 vs. 6.3 for the low susceptible SSat Block 3 (t = 2.12, df = 34;p < .05). Although the High group continued to maintain a somewhat higher level of responding than the Low group during extinction (9.8 vs. 7.61, this difference did not reach statistical significance (t = .77, df = 34). Analysis of Awareness and Subject-Attitude A liberal criterion of awareness was established by classifying S aware if h e indicated either in the questionnaire or interview that he
33
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
was cognizant of the relationship between usage of I or WE and the E’s saying “good.” To assess whether awareness affected conditioning, a learning index was computed for each S by subtracting his operant level of response from the mean number of correct responses shown during the three blocks of acquisition trials. The Ss were then ordered and a median test was applied to those Ss aware or unaware and above or below the median learning index. A contingency coefficient of .28 indicated a minimal degree of association between the awareness dimension and learning (x2 = 2.96, d f = 1;p < .lo). The attitude toward reinforcement measure significantly differentiated the High and Low susceptibility groups. As can be seen in Table 1, the High group more consistently responded in a positive manner to the reinforcement cue wheras the Low group tended to give a neutral rating to the value of the reinforcement. (xz = 7.65, df = l;p < .on Awareness of the reinforcement contingency was by and large equally represented in the High and Low susceptibility groups. These frequencies yielded a x2 < 1. Further analysis of the data in Table 1 indicated that the Aware High Positive group’s learning index score differed significantly from the Aware Low Neutral group (t = 2.92, df = 16; p < .Ol), the Unaware Low Positive group (t = 2.91, d f = 12; p < .05), and the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 5.83, d f = l ; p < .001). Thus, the Aware High Positive group’s learning index score was significantly higher than the index scores of the three Low groups. Also, the Unaware High Positive group differed significantly from the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 2.70, d f = 7; p < .05). No other High groups differed from the Low groups and none of the High groups differed among themselves. Among the Low groups, only the UnaTABLE 1 MEANLEARNING INDEXSCORES FOR THE ACQUISITION PERIOD OF HIGHA N D Low HYPNOTIZABLE SUBJECTS High
Low
1
N
x
N
-
0
Aware
Positive Neutral
4.2
3.0
9 2
0.4
98‘
Unaware
Positive Neutral
1.9 1.7
5 2
1.0
5
- 2.5
4
One Aware Low S responded to the attitude questionnaire with a negative response. This S has been incorporated in the neutral category for purposes of analysis.
34
KING AND McDONALD
ware Low Positive group differed significantly from the Unaware Low Neutral group (t = 2.67, df = 7 ; p < .05).
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
DISCUSSION These data show that hypnotic susceptibility is a n important variable in responsivity to verbal conditioning. They extend the findings not only of Das (1958) by showing that primary suggestibility is associated with operant as well as classical conditioning but also those of Weiss e t al. (1960) in illustrating that higher hypnotic susceptibility leads to enhanced verbal conditioning, using an improved measure of hypnotic susceptibility. The findings reported here on the effect of awareness of reinforcement contingencies indicate that this dimension per se is not sufficient to account for subject-differences in the acquisition of verbally conditioned responses. The characteristics tapped by HGSHS:A produce conditioning which cannot be accounted for by awareness alone. Moreover, the data of high susceptible Ss’ positive attitude toward reinforcement is consistent with the finding that high levels of hypnotic susceptibility are associated with personality variables of cooperativeness and a tendency to please others (Levitt, Brady, & Lubin, 1963). The fact that high susceptible 5 s here rated E’s cue more positively than low susceptible Ss is further consistent with some of the personological descriptions associated with hypnotic susceptibility which have been offered by Hilgard (1968). In addition, Cairns and Lewis (1962) and Spielberger et al. (1962) found that persons who assigned more positive value to the kind of reinforcement present in verbal conditioning experiments produced greater conditioning than Ss whose attitudes were less favorable or non-committal toward the reinforcement. This relationship is not clear-cut in the present data in that although the High groups had an overall more positive attitude regarding reinforcement, only the Aware High Positive group learned better than all the Low groups, while the only other High group learning better than a Low group was the Unaware High Positive which had a significantly better learning index score than the Unaware Low Neutral group. Moreover, positive attitude did not differentiate learning within the High groups or the Low groups. Thus, the present data are unclear regarding the role attitude plays in the acquisition of verbally conditioned responses. The roles of awareness and attitude could probably be better defined in future research using larger experimental groups. The attitude measure employed here was a gross one and a more sophisticated assessment of the valence characteristics of reinforcement cues could reveal more complex relationships in subsequent research. In
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
35
addition, a more careful assessment than was done here of the role of cooperation and demand characteristics would contribute substantially to understanding more completely the effect of awareness on these phenomena. The general indications regarding attitude may in part account for the increase in the production of conditioned responses in Figure 1 shown by the Low group during the extinction phase of this experiment. Although highly susceptible Ss show a decrease in the correct response with nonreinforcement, low susceptible S s begin to evidence an increase in the correct response. The attitude measure indicates that Ss in the Low group did not respond positively to the reinforcement cue, and one of these S s reported in the interview that he did not like being told what to do by the E.It can be speculated that these Ss were aware of the reinforcement contingency but did not “cooperate” until the reinforcement was absent. This follows the interpretation of Farber (1963)who found that aware Ss who conformed to the demand characteristics of the experimental situation showed greater verbal conditioning than those who were aware and nonconforming. It thus appears that a willingness to go along with E’s expectations and a positive, cooperative attitude are common features in individuals who make good hypnotic S s and who evidence an ‘enhanced propensity for verbal conditioning.
REFERENCES CAIRNS,R. E., & LEWIS,M. Dependency and the reinforcement value of a verbal stimulus. J . consult. Psychol., 1962,26, 1-8. J. R., & LONG,T. E. On the lack of relationship between hypnotizability and CLARKE, response to verbal conditioning. Psychol. Rep., 1964,14, 103-105. DAS,J . P. Conditioning and hypnosis. J . exp. Psychol., 1958,56, 110-113. DAS,J. P. Verbal conditioning a n d behauiour. Oxford, Eng. : Pergamon Press, 1969. EDWARDS, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. (3rd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. I. E. The things people say to themselves. Amer. Psychologist, 1963,18, 185FARBER, 197. HILGARD, E. R. The experience of hypnosis. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. LEVITT,E. E., BRADY,J. P., & LUBIN,B. Correlates of hypnotizability in young women: Anxiety and dependency. J . Pers., 1963,31, 52-57. J. Taffel and Greenspoon: Comparative effects of MILLER,A. W., JR., & RUMANS, obviousness of reinforcement and response structure. J . gen. Psychol., 1970,&7, 43-51. PASCAL,G. R., & SALZBERG, H. C. A systematic approach to inducing hypnotic behavior. Znt. J . din. exp. Hypnosis, 1959, 7, 161-167. SnoR, R. E., 8z ORNE,E. Haruard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A , Palo Alto, Calif. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. SPIELBERGER, C. D., LEVIN,S. M., & SHEPARD, M. The effects of awareness and
36
KING AND McDONALD
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
attitude toward the reinforcement on the operant conditioning of verbal behavior. J. Pers., 1962,30,106-121. TAFFEL, C.Anxiety and the conditioning of verbal behavior. J. abnorm. sac. Psychol., 1955,51,496-501. WEBB,R. A. Suggestibility and verbal conditioning. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 275-279. WEISS,R. L., ULLMANN, L. P., & KRASNER, L. On the relationship between hypnotizability and response to verbal operant conditioning. Psychol. Rep., 1960,6,59-60.
Hypnoseempfanglichkeit und Verbalkonditionierung Dennis R. King und Roy D. McDonald Abstrakt: 18 hoch-hypnoseempfangliche Vpn. und 18 hypnoserefraktare Vpn. wurden bei einer Aufgabe des Verbalkonditionierens studiert, die einem Modell glich, das Taffel (1955) gebrauchte. Es zeigte sich, dass die hoch-empfangliche Gruppe eine bedeutend bessere Konditionierung z u r Schau stellte als die niedrige Gruppe. Das Gewahrsein d e r Vp. von dem Verstarkungskontingent stand weder zu d e r zu lernenden Aufgabe noch zu Hypnoseempfanglichkeit in Beziehung. Beim Messen des Verhaltens d e r V p . zu dem verstarkten Anhaltspunkt wahrend des Lernens ergab sich, d a s s die hoch-empfangliche Gruppe eine positivere Stellung zu dem Anhaltspunkt einnahm, wahrend die niedrige Gruppe dazu neigte, auf ihn in neutraler oder negativer Weise zu reagieren. Die Ergebnisse wurden im Rahmen d e r theoretischen Natur der Hypnoseempfanglichkeit ausgewertet.
Susceptibilite hypnotique et conditionnement verbal Dennis R. King e t Roy D. McDonald Resume: Etude de 18 Ss de susceptibilite hypnotique elevee et de 18 S s refractaires a I’hypnose, a une tgche de conditionnment verbal modelee s u r celle de Taffel (1955). Les resultats indiquent que le conditionnement est significativement plus eleve dans le groupe d e Ss de susceptibilite hypnotique elevee que dans le groupe des Ss refractaires. La connaissance de la contingence du renforcement chez l e S n’est reliee ni 21 la t i c h e d’apprentissage, ni a la susceptibilite hypnotique. Une mesure de I’attitude des Ss a I’egard de I’indice d e renforcement durant I’apprentissage montre que l e groupe d e susceptibilite elevee a une attitude plus positive a I’egard de I’indice, alors que le groupe d e susceptibilite faible tend a repondre a I’indice d’une facon neutre ou negative. Les resultats sont interpretes du point de v u e de la nature theorique de la susceptibilite hypnotique.
Susceptibilidad hipnotica y condicionamiento verbal Dennis R. King y Roy D. McDonald Resumen: 18 Ss altamente susceptibles y 18 Ss refractarios a la hipnosis son estudiados con relacion a una tarea de condicionamiento verbal eonstruida d e acuerdo con la utilizada por Taffel (1955). Los resulta-dos indican que el grupo
SUSCEPTIBILITY AND VERBAL CONDITIONING
37
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 01:49 06 November 2015
altamente susceptible adquiere un condicionamiento significativamente mayor que el del grupo de baja susceptibilidad. La conciencia, por parte del S, de la eventualidad del refuerzo no guarda relaeion ni con la tarea del aprendizaje ni con la susceptibilidad hipnotica. Una medida de la actitud del S ante el indicio del refuerzo durante el aprendizaje muestra que el grupo altamente susceptible manifiesta una actitud global m8s positiva ante dicho indicio, a1 que el grupo poco susceptible responde de forma neutra o negativa. Los resultados son interpretados en terminos de la naturaleza teorica de la susceptibilidad hipnotica.
