This article was downloaded by: [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] On: 10 December 2014, At: 11:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale a
Leslie M. Cooper Ph.D. & Perry London Ph.D. a
b
University of Utah , USA
b
University of Southern California , USA Published online: 22 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Leslie M. Cooper Ph.D. & Perry London Ph.D. (1978) The Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21:2-3, 170-185, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1978.10403970 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1978.10403970
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS Volume 21, Number 2 & 3 , October 1978 / J a n u a r y 1979 Printed in U.S.A.
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
LESLIE M . COOPER, Ph.D. University of Utah
and
PERRY LONDON, Ph.D. University of Southern California
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale is a measure of hypnotic responsiveness in children. This report describes the development of the scale and the standardization sample. It reports norms for the scale, reliability and validity data, and studies which have used the scale.
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (London, 1963), referred to hereafter as CHSS, is a measure of the responsiveness of a child to hypnotic suggestions. A standardized induction procedure and a quantitative system for assessing responses to this induction are provided. Susceptibility is operationally defined as the frequency a subject acts as a hypnotized person when the responses are elicited by the standardized procedure. Thus, the assignment of numerical values to responses is on a logical, rather than an empirical basis. It is, then, a test of typical performance rather than one of maximum performance. The CHSS consists of 22 items, divided into two parts. Many of the items utilized have been historically considered to be tests of suggestibility and discussed by various earlier writers. Part I consists of the 12 items contained in the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Forms A & B (SHSS: A & B) (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959). Part I1 consists of 10 items taken from the unpublished Stanford Depth Scale (see Hilgard, 1965, Ch. 12) from which the SHSS: Form C (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1962) and the Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Forms I and I1 (Weizenhof-
fer and Hilgard, 1963) were subsequently derived. All the items were rewritten to make them more suitable (i.e., appealing and understandable) for use with children. The CHSS was designed to be used with children over a wide age range. Consequently there are two forms: a younger (for ages 5-12) and an older (ages 13-16) form. They differ only in the wording of some of the instructions. Either form can be administered in approximately one hour. ADMINISTRATION The administration of the CHSS consists in presenting verbatim the standardized induction and suggestions to the subject. In addition to the wording of the scale, the manual of the CHSS includes extensive instructions for creating desirable physical arrangements, obtaining the readily available materials, and establishing rapport. As with any individually administered test, complete familiarization with the manual and supervised practice in the administration of the items are necessary before it is used in research or clinical practice. The manual suggests that “the ability . . . to make effective use of the Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale depends more on the ease with
170
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE
which they (those administering the scale) establish effective relationships with children than upon any experience they may have had in the use of hypnosis.” The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale has been reviewed by Moss (1970), Watkins (1970), and Weitzenhoffer (1963) and is listed in the 1975 edition of Buros (1975). It has been used to measure hypnotic responsiveness and/or referred to in the studies by Barber and Calverley (1963, 1969), Cooper and London (1966, 1971, 1976), Curran and Gibson (1974), Dumas (1977), Gardner (1974, 1977), Hilgard (1965, 1977), Hilgard and Hilgard (1975), London (1965, 1966, 1976), London and Cooper (1 969), London and Madsen (1968, 1969), Madsen and London (1966), Moore and Cooper (1966), Morgan and Hilgard (1973), Rotenberg, London, and Cooper (1976), and Ruch (1975). SCALEITEMSA N D SCORING Three different scores have been employed to represent responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions with the CHSS. The Overt Behavior (OB) score reflects the extent to which the child’s response to an item manifests behavior in compliance with the intent of the hypnotist’s suggestion. The OB score may be recorded as a dichotomy of pass (1) or fail (0) or on a four-point continum (0-3) which provides a more refined index of responsiveness. Scores of zero or one correspond to fail scores on the dichotomous scoring system, reflecting that the child responded negatively, failed to respond, or made only an inadequate attempt to respond to the suggestion. Scores of two and three comprise pass scores, reflecting that the child responded adequately or enthusiastically to the suggestion. The items of the CHSS with their minimal pass criterion for OB are listed in Table 1. The Subjective Involvement (SI) score was devised to permit a distinction between
171
“true” hypnotic compliance and apparent role-playing. This scale attempts to qualify the genuineness of the behavior elicited by the hypnotic suggestions. Children seem more prone than adults to respond to adult wishes, and to respond to the explicit demands, or even implicit expectations, of the hypnotist (examiner) without being hypnotized. When a child obtains a passing OB score on an item, the administrator assigns a SI score of 1 through 3, representing his impression that the child was “faking” or role-playing (score of 1), partially involved (score of 2) or deeply involved (score of 3). A third dimension provided a weighted combination of the OB and SI scores. This Total (T) score is obtained by multiplying the OB and SI scores for each item, then summing the products. It was thought the Total score would approximate the impressions a hypnotist would have of a subject under clinical conditions, where judgments of both overt behavior and apparent subjective involvement would be made simultaneously. A child’s score for Part I or Part I1 of the test is the sum of his item scores of that part for that scoring system (i.e., OB, SI, T). Scores for the full scale are the sum of scores for Part I and Part 11. Thus the maximum score possible for OB and SI is 66. The maximum T score is 198. While each method of scoring was thought to account for somewhat different aspects of the responses made to the items suggested, there is a common factor running through both the OB and SI scoring systems (and, therefore, the T score). Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the three methods of scoring for each part of the scale as well as the Full Scale score obtained by summing the parts. The correlations of the different scores within each part of the test are larger than those across parts. This suggests that there is a high degree of homogeneity in the various scoring methods and in the two parts of the scale.
COOPER AND LONDON
172
Table 1 ITEMS OF CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE(CHSS) WITH M I N I M A L OB PASS CRITERIA Item 1. Postural Sway
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
2. Eye Closure 3. Hand Lowering 4. Arm Immobilization 5 . Finger Lock 6 . Arm Rigidity 7. Hands together 8. Verbal Inhibition (Name) 9. Auditory Hallucination (Fly) 10. Eye Catalepsy 11. Posthypnotic suggestions
(Standing Up) 12. Amnesia 13. Posthypnotic suggestion ( Reinduction) 14. Visual and Auditory Hallucination (Television) 15. Cold Hallucination 16. Anesthesia 17. Taste Hallucination
18. Smell Hallucination (Perfume) 19. Visual Hallucination (Rabbit) 20. Age Regression 21. Dream 22. Awakening and Posthypnotic suggestion.
Minimal Pass Criterion Part I Loses balance and recovers without falling. Eyes close within 10 seconds after instructions to do so. Hand moves through 30 degree arc or more, but does not lower to rest. Hand rises from 1” to 3” by time limit. Incomplete separation of fingers with no effort made to do so. Arm bends less than 2” but little effort made to do so. Hands move to within 2” of each other. Name not spoken, but little effort made to do so. Appropriate movement but no apparent irritation Eyes remain closed but little effort to open them manifest. Remains seated and stretches or stands but does not stretch. Three or fewer items recalled with relative ease. PART I1 Closes eyes without apparent body relaxation, or eyes remain open but become glazed and puzzled. Completes significant portion of sequence but with some failures. Appropriate verbal response of cold sensation but no motor changes. Indicates awareness of stimulus, but cannot clearly describe it. Experiences only slight or vague taste sensations. Does not elaborate or describe odor of perfume. Completes portion of sequence with some inadequacies. Qualifies on either name or drawing or both. Perfunctory report or lack of emotionality but not made up. Completes portion of sequence but with some inadequacies.
173
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE Table 2 INTERCORRELATION OF PARTA N D FULLSCALESCORES OF CHILDRENS’ HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE Part 1
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
OB Part I QB SI .84 Total .92 Part I1 .72 OB .65 SI Total .70 Full Scale .94 OB .79 SI Total .86
Part I1
Full Scale
SI
Total
OB
S1
Total
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.98
-
-
-
-
-
.66 .79 .79
.72 .71 .79
.80 .90
-
-
-
-
-
-
.83 .95 .94
.89 .93 .95
.92 .78
.77 .94 .92
.86 .93 .94
.85 .92
.85
SI Total -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
.98
Note.-N = 240.OB = overt behavior; SI = subjective involvement. r . 1 8 , p = .01. London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission.
*
The influence of volunteer bias on exWhile the SI and T scores have been utilized in some analyses, the OB scores perimental outcome, especially in personality research, is well documented (Bell, alone have been used most frequently. 1962; London and Rosenhan, 1964). The sampling procedure used to obtain the STANDARDIZATION GROUP standardization sample for the CHSS inSampling. Upon the completion of a pilot volved a unique form of bias with respect to test of the CHSS, a larger sample of chil- the characteristics of the subjects. The acdren was selected by random sampling of tual volunteers for the study were parents the census deck of the public schools in (except for a few cases of late adolescents), Urbana, Illinois (London, 1965). When a but the subjects of the study were children child was selected for inclusion, a form let- who had not themselves volunteered indeter was sent to the parents explaining the pendently of their parents. The precise efstudy and requesting them and their child’s fects of this bias is difficult to determine. The net effect of the procedure provided participation. A total of 14%of the families thus contacted responded favorably. At a sample that was remarkably similar to the each age level from 5 to 16, ten boys and population of Urbana from which it was ten girls were randomly selected from the drawn in regard to a number of characteristotal subject pool to constitute a tics (London, 1965). This population was standardization sample of 240 children. of relatively high socioeconomic status. Age was determined to the nearest birthday The median income of families with two in a “closer to this year than another year” children was $6,416 and 18.8 percent had sense. Thus subjects 7 years, 7 months to 8 incomes greater than $10,000. All of the years, 6 months were categorized at 8 years families in the sample owned their own homes. Eighty-two percent of the fathers old.
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
174
were high school graduates and many held college degrees. Fifty-eight percent held professional or managerial positions. Procedure. Parents who responded favorably to the initial letter were contacted by phone and arrangements made to have their child brought for testing. The parents were always invited to watch the entire proceeding through a one-way mirror, accompanied by a member of the research team. This procedure resulted in such favorable public relations that it was continued in all subsequent experiments. It provided parents with reassurance that the children were not being endangered or mishandled. The scale was initially administered by one experimenter while the child’s parents and a second experimenter observed the proceedings through the one-way mirror. One week later the scale was administered again but by an experimenter who was not acquanited with the child’s earlier performance. The scale was subsequently administered again at one year intervals over a two year period. As with any longitudinal study, some attrition had to be expected. One-fourth of the total sample was lost during the first year, and an additional 30% during the second year. The reasons for dropping out of the study were varied but included moving away from the city, failing to keep appointments, or the child’s feeling that participation was now too childish. The data suggested that the attrition did not seriously bias the final results; dropout subjects were not significantly different from those who continued to cooperate in regard to the independent variable (Cooper and London, 1971). Norms. The means and standard deviations of susceptibility scores on the original testing for all three methods of scoring by one-year age grouping are presented in Table 3. Highly significant differences between age groups for each of the three methods of scoring have been found (London and Cooper, 1969). Susceptibility does
COOPER AND LONDON
differ with age, but the relationship is neither simple nor linear. A third-degree polynomial has been found to represent the relationship between susceptibility and age mathematically (Cooper and London, 1971). The means, standard deviations, and standard errors of measurement for the OB scores for males and females by one-year age grouping are presented in Table 4. No significant differences between the sexes at any age have been found in susceptibility scores or item difficulty. The susceptibility score distributions for all three methods of scoring and related summary data are presented in Table 5. Although the range of scores falling within the general levels of susceptibility is somewhat arbitrary, it is apparent that the majority of the scores fall into the upper two categories on both the OB and SI scales. Hypnotic susceptibility in children is not normally distributed but negatively skewed, that is, children tend to obtain high susceptibility scores. The percentage of children passing each item on the OB scale for two-year age groupings is presented in Table 6. Children’s greater susceptibility is again demonstrated by the relatively high percent passing each item. A much smaller percentage of children than of adults pass the eye closure item however (London and Cooper, 1969). Item interconelations for OB, SI, and T scores, respectively, are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9. A principle-axis factor analysis yielded eight factors for each scoring method (London, 1965). A shorter form of the scale results from using Part I (the first twelve items) only. The time required to administer only these items i s noticeably reduced from that required to administer all 32 items. It also allows more meaningful comparisons with results from adult samples when only twelve items have been used (See Cooper and London, 1976; and London and Cooper,
58.35 35.02 d
31.10 9.61 e
33.50 12.23 d
87.05 49.97 acd
bde
de
72.85 52.37 cd
39.10 13.04
40.25 14.67 abcd
35.00 14.15
37.45 14.45 ad
N=20
N=20
N=20
109.10 57.84 ab
abc
bcd
93.65 42.52 abc
44.95 14.44
40.20 11.89
45.30 18.53 abc
N=20
N=20
44.90 11.01 abc
9
8
120.50 47.72 ab
abc
47.30 13.44
49.90 11.19 b
N=20
10
127.05 48.15 b
a
50.30 12.14
48.55 12.97 bc
N=20
II
116.45 49.60 ab
abc
ac
119.20 47.82 ab
48.10 12.30
43.95 14.96 abc
N=20
13
48.55 11.83
46.10 14.19 abc
N=20
12
128.65 49.16 b
a
50.45 12.25
48.35 14.15 bc
N=20
14
AGEGROUPINGS
98.10 54.51 abc
abc
44.45 13.66
38.45 16.33 acd
N=20
15
London & Cooper (1969), Copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
Means in the same row which do not contain a common letter in the subscript differ significantly from each other at the .01 by Duncan test
S.D.
x
Total
S.D.
x
S.I. -
x S.D.
O.B.
7
6
AGE
(N = 240)
S T A N D A R D DEVIATIONS OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE BY O N E - Y E A R
5
MEANSA N D
Table 3
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
121.65 59.43 ab
a
49.50 14.60
44.70 17.86 abc
N=20
16
z
c,
IA
4
5
3E
5 8
vl
5I
3
z
4
X
zc!i
r
0
Mean 34.70 36.30 45.10 43.20 42.40 49.00 46.80 48.90 47.80 48.00 38.20 42.10
43.47
Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Combined
15.20
SD 10.27 16.43 15.61 11.72 23.90 9.33 9.92 11.27 12.76 16.12 15.16 21.37 1.39
SEm 3.25 5.20 4.94 3.71 7.56 2.95 3.14 3.56 4.04 5.10 4.79 6.76 43.43
Mean 32.30 38.60 35.40 41.50 48.20 50.80 50.30 43.30 40.10 48.70 38.70 47.30 14.88
SD 14.39 12.95 12.59 10.18 11.62 13.24 15.81 16.75 16.64 12.74 18.25 14.20 1.36
SEm 4.55 4.10 3.98 3.22 3.67 4.19 5.00 5.30 5.26 4.03 5.77 4.49 43.45
Mean 33.50 37.45 40.25 44.90 45.30 49.90 48.55 46.10 43.95 48.35 38.45 44.70 15.01
SD 12.23 14.45 14.67 11.01 18.53 11.19 12.97 14.19 14.96 14.15 16.33 17.86
4.75
SEmeas. 5.01 5.92 6.01 4.51 7.60 4.59 5.32 5.82 5.83 5.52 6.37 6.97
Table 4 MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS OF MEASUREMENT FOR OVERT BEHAVIOR SCORES FOR MALES,FEMALES, A N D COMBINED GROUPSBY ONE-YEARAGEGROUPINGS Males bemales Combined
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
SEm
.97
2.73 3.23 3.28 2.46 4.14 2.50 2.90 3.17 3.34 3.16 3.65 3.99
z
:
%U 5
;a
%
0
c)
6 6 - 71
High
2
Number of Cases
:I30 2
18
100%
;I8
Percent of Cases
X = 44.08 3. D. = 13.96
N = 240
0
18
33
Number of Cases
Subjective Involvement
51 34 170-
67 50 33 16
31
';I36
Percet of Cases
N = 240 100% X =104.38 S. D. = 53.34
14 74 10
"1
25] 13 86 21
27
119- 135 102 8 5 - 118 101 68 - 84
27
10
Number of Cases
187 - 293 170- 186 153 - 169 136- 152
Raw' Score Range
Total score
'Note: The weighted combination of O.B. & S.I. raw scores produces a new distribution of raw total scores. London & Coooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
100%
$12
!]40
Percent of Cases
N = 240 x = 43.45 S.D. = 15.01
0- 5
::
18 - 23
Low
15
42 - 47 31 36-41 241 3 0 - 35 17 95 24 - 29 23
Medium
48 - 53 36
Raw Score Range
General Level
Overt Behavior
Table 5 DISTRIBUTION OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY AS MEASURED BY OVERT BEHAVIOR, SUBJECTIVE NVOLVEMENT A N D TOTALSCORE
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
4 4
+-
0
v)
=! 0
178
COOPER AND LONDON Table 6 PERCENTOF SUBJECTS PASSING EACHITEMOVERTBEHAVIOR (N = 40 in each cell) Age Item
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
1. 2. 3. 4.
Postural Sway Eye Closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilization 5. Finger Lock 6. Arm Rigidity 7. Hands Together 8. Verbal Inhibition 9. Auditory Hallucination 10. Eye Catalepsy 11. Posthypnotic Suggestion 12. Amnesia 13. Posthypnotic Suggestion 14. Television 15. Cold Hallucination 16. Anesthesia 17. Taste Hallucination 18. Smell Hallucination 19. Visual Hallucination 20. Regression 21. Dream 22. Posthypnotic Suggestion
5-6
7-8
9-10
75 38 68 40 70 60 80 58 83 33 38 85 48 73 80 33 65 58 73 23 58 23
80 45 90 50 83 73 88 58 93 58 58 73 58 88 90 48 88 75 98 48 70 33
83 45 78
55 83 80 85 68 93 70 78 75 70 90 85 55 85 65 95 53 90 58
11-12 13-14 15-16 Ave.
93 33 80 60 78 65 78 58 95 53 80 80 45 90 85 55 93 83 95 68 90 68
88 43 80 65 83 55 85 65 90 63 73 63 60 80 80 48 78 63 85 68 88 35
88 55 78 45 60 45 83 45 78 43 60 60 53 65 75 45 55 68 68 73 88 58
84 43 79 52 76 63 83 59 89 53 65 73 56 81 83 47 77 69 86 56 81 46
London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
1969). The intercorrelation between OB Part I and OB Full Scale is .94. Furthermore, the intercorrelation between OB Part I dichotomous scoring and OB full scale extended scoring is .92. Consequently, it. is frequently more convenient to use Part I using OB dichotomous scoring. The mean for the standardization sample when so scored was 8 . 1 6 with a standard deviation of 3.10. The mean susceptibility score for each age is given in Table 10.
vidual and is predictive of that individual’s behavior in a hypnotic state. Interscorer reliability after approximately one week’s training, when measured as the correlation between the scores assigneu by the hypnotist and an observer (viewing through a one-way vision screen) ranged from .97 for OB to .88 for SI and .94 for the T score (London and Cooper, 1969). Reliability coefficients of the standardization sample (N = 240), estimated by the Kuder-Richardson formula (Formula 20), were .90 for OB, .94 for SI, and .94 for T. Retest reliabilities (N = 201) RELIABILITY (see London and Cooper, 1969) after one The CHSS is based on the premise that week were somewhat lower, as would be susceptibility is a characteristic that re- expected: .79 for OB, .75 for SI, and .78 mains fairly constant within any given indi- for T. These reliabilities compare favorably
Vebal Inhibition Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucinaton Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Post-Hypnotic Suggestion
6
7
.51 .52 .60 .25 .25 .36 -
-
5
8
9
.63
.60
.63 .54 .57 .63
.50
.57 .42 .51 .58 .64
.54
.63 .34 .34 .27 .25 .40 .33 .28 .28 .27 .32 .33 .29 .35 .27 .35 .30 .37 .28 .36 .34 .23 .35 .36 .33
.55
.60 .32 .40 .23 .32 .29 .36 .36 .43 .21 .43 .29 .38 .30 .40 .29 .42 .26 .40 .31 .38 .27 .42 .18 .41 .26
.71 .39 .32 .31 .28 .39 .32 .30 .34 .27 .42 .26 .33
.I6 .16 .39 .25 .23 .29 .06 .19 .24 .25 .25 .36 .15 .21 .32 .2 1 .20 .41 .13 , I 6 .24 .23 .25 .42 .I8 .I9 .31 .25 .16 .37 .27 .21 .33 .20 .19 .41 .22 .30 .35
.28 .38 .33 30
-
4
.66
.25 .23 .19 .23 .24
-
3
.I4 .20 .28 .54 .47 .58 .40 .29 .22 .28 .24 .30 .36 .33 .36
.29 .20 .10 .20 .18 .20
2
.61
.59 .68 .47
35
.32 .35 .54
1
.35 .31 .34 .31 .27 .45 .26 .39 .38 .33 .37 .36 .33
~
10
London & Cooper (1%9), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
15.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
2. Eye Closure 3. HandLowering 4. Arm Immobilize 5 . Finger Lock 6. Arm Rigidity 7. Hands Together
1. Postural Sway
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserialr’s)
.41 .33 .30 .29 .43 .40 .34 .35 .30 .45 .38 .37
-
11
.38 .41 .36 .40 .24 .35 .25 .38 .42 .38 .39
-
12
Item
.30 .21 .33 .20 .23 .25 .18 .27 .I2 .25
.28 .33 .23 .32 .I8 .29 .35 .31 .38
-
13
.47 .52 30
.60
.46 .35 .59 .32
-
14
.42 .53 .47 .39 .37 .44 .35
-
I5
.42 .47 .25 .37 .39 .34
-
16
.40 .57 .40 .47 .51
-
17
19
20
21
.36 .43 .42 .37 .53 .48 .41 .48 5 6 .56 -
-
18
TABLE 7 ITEMINTERCORRELAT~ONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALEFOR OVERTBEHAVIOR (N = 240)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
22
z
Fm
c,
CA
4
c4
2m,
m
E
CA
3F j
3
X
m z c i
r
c)
Postural Sway Eye closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilize Finger Lock Arm Rigidity Hands Together Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucination Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Post-Hypnotic Suggestion .63 .54 .57 .63 .60 .63
.64 .50
.58
3 1
.59 .68 .47 .54 .66 .57 .42
.55
.32 .35 .54 .28 .32 .I9 .27 .27 .26 .33 .20 .32 .23 .28 .32 .29 ,I9 .34 .27 .32 .29 .33 .26
1
.36 .21 .I9 .21 .28 .25 .I3 .22 .26 .23 .I9 .22 .20 .26 .14 .I8 .21 .24 .28
-
2
4
5
-
6
.SO
.34
.SO
.39 .44 .43
.SO
.61 .62
.34 .49 .45 .39 .38 .SO .42 .43 .39
.51 .53 .48 .48 .SO .46 .51 .28 .53 .39
.66 .55
7 8
.59 .59 .74 .52 .54 .56 .SO .54 .53 .47 .54 .SO .44 .45 .42 .51 .60 .56 .40 .33 .39 .57 .51 .53 .46 .48 .SO .54 .49 .50 .47 .47 .44 .49 .51 .51 .46 .51 .46 .40 .44 .47 .47 .51 .60 .46 .51 .51 .43 .60 .35 .58 .45
.64 .SO .64 .56 -
.52 .56 .65 .49 .64 .70
-
3 10 11
Item
.54 .54 .52 .54 .54 .55 .57 .54 .52 .SO .44 .52 .64 .55 .57 .41 .39 .31 .54 .52 .53 .48 .42 .39 .56 .48 .56 .53 .45 .52 .59 .46 .59 .SO .55 .52
9
London & Cooper (1%9), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
19. 20. 21. 22.
18.
16. 17.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15,
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10.
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserial r’s)
(N = 240)
.53 .41 .54 .37 .47 .48 .48 .48 .52 .51
-
12
.43 .53 .38 .44 .37 .41 .41 .42 .40
-
13
.66 .52 .69 .59 .65 .58
.51
15
-
16
.67 .53 .61 .52 .67 .45 .50 .44 .68 .49 3 6 .41
.SO
.70 -
-
14
.62 .75 .58 .69
.64 -
21
-
20
.60 .63
19
.62 .77 .I3
-
18
. .66 .62 .63 .67 .57
-
17
ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE FOR SUBJECTIVE INVOLVEMENT
TABLE 8
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
22
U
sz
U
z
P
c
Postural Sway €ye Closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilize Finger Lock Arm Rigidity Hands Together Verbal Inhibition Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucination Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Posthypnotic Suggestion
.32 .35 .54 .55 .59 .68 .47 .61 .54 .66 .57 .42 .51 .58 .64 .50 .63 .54 .57 .63 .60 .63
2
.63 .59 .45 .57 .42 .47 .39 .38 .40 .49 .35 .46 .31 .42
.64
-
.44
4
.53 .44 .61 .42 .44 .49 .45 .43 .46 .43 .48 .26 SO .34 .48
-
3
6
.69 .56 .51 .61 .68 .51 .50 .64 .66 .45 .52 .48 .51 .48 .44 .41 .47 .54 .52 .33 .40 .55 .54 .41 .45 .49 .48
-
5
.52 .52 .51 .48 .48 .48 .38 .53 .32 .46 .43 .44
-
7
.54 .75 .50 .49 .40 .39 .51 .38 50 .47 .43
-
8
.52 .53 .52 .48
-
9
.51 .52 .47 .42 .55 .40 .51 .44 .46
-
10
.55 .53 .51 .57 .32 SO .37 .52
-
11
Item
-
12
.44
.49 38 .64 .49 .42 .33 .53 .45 .52 .46 .50 .42 .34 .24 .41 .38 .46 .45 .45 .51 .56 .50 .52 .48 .35 .24 .51 .40 .50 .47 .42 .42 .56 .47 .56 .46 .31 .30 .43 .36 .41 .46 .44 .44 .50 .44 .51 .47
.32 .32 .34 .I5 .22 .26 .20 .25 .22 .28 .29 .21 .18 .35 .26 . I 9 .15 .36 .25 .20 .24 .30 .22 .31 .23 .29 .23 .16 . I 7 .33 .28 .26 .20 .37 .20
I
London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
10. 11.
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserial r’s)
.62 .46 .67 .47 .70
-
14
.50 .60 .61 .58
-
15
17
18
.60 .64 .54 .65 .54
.55
.49 .54 .56 .38 .71 .55
-
16
.40 .59 .57 .42 .41 .64 .61 .46 .42 .62 .53 .41
.40 .48 .33 .42 .31 .39
-
13
TABLE 9 ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE FOR TOTALSCORES (OVERT BEHAVIOR x SUBJECTIVE INVOLVEMENT) (N = 240)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
20
.58 .74 .69 .63 .62
-
19
.66 -
21
22
182
COOPER AND LONDON
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
TABLE 10 MEANSCORES FOR OB PARTI, DICHOTOMOUSSCORING BY ONE-YEAR ACEGROUPINGS Age
Mean
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6.24 7.03 7.58 8.52 8.60 9.50 9.24 8.75 8.32 9.20 7.23 8.48
TABLE 11 INTERCORRELATION OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE^, OVERTIME* 1-Week Retest 1-Week Retest 2-Year Retest Overt behavior: First session.
..
.
1-week retest.
..
1-year retest.
...
.
I-week retest.
...
1-year retest. .
..
...
.75 (201)
...
...
Total score: First session. . . .
1-year retest.
...
...
Subjective involvement: First session. . . .
1-week retest. . .
.79 (2011
.
.78 (2011
... ...
.56 (228) .65 (201)
.45 (1 34) .61 (134) .60 (134)
.56 (228) .57 (201)
.45 (134) .47 (134) .58 (1 34)
.59 (228) .64 (2011
.46 (134) .51 ( 134) .60 (134)
...
...
...
Note.- Number in parenthesis = number in sample. *All correlations significant at .01 level. Cooper & London (197 1), copyright 1971 , by the Society for Research in Child Development, reprinted by permission
183
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE TABLE 12 OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES, OVERT BEHAVIOR* INTERCORRELATION (N = 134)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
I-Week Retest I-Year Retest First session: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16 years. . . . 1-week retest: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16years. . . . I-year retest: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16 Years. . . .
2-Year Retest
.76 .74 .80
.58
.41 .63
.34 .62 .46
... ... ...
.47 .68 .79
.39 .66 .57
...
...
.45 .64 .71
..
*All correlations significant at .01 level. Cooper & London (1971), copyright 1971 by the Society for Research in Child Development, reprinted by permission
with those obtained in repeated testings of adult susceptibility (Hilgard, 1965). Retest reliabilities of susceptibility scores over time for all three scoring systems’ are presented in Table 11. These correlations are based upon the largest number of children available for any two sessions. Even though N changes as a function of attrition, these coefficients appear to be extremely stable. Note the correlations decrease in size as the time interval between testing increases (Cooper and London, 1971). The retest reliabilities for OB for different age groupings over time are presented in Table 12. Not only do the correlations decrease with increased intervals, but they are higher for older children (Cooper and London, 1971). VALIDTY The scale is composed of items which are themselves instances of the behaviors which the test seeks to measure. Thus face validity is more crucially important than empirical validity. Validity is attested to by the demonstra-
tion that some of the higher and lower scoring subjects made relatively better and worse hypnotic subjects on a later date. The data presented in this report suggest that the CHSS is a reliable and valid measure of hypnotic responsiveness in children. Department of Psychology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
REFERENCES BARBER, T. X . , & CALVERLEY, D. S. “Hypnoticlike” suggestiblity in children and adults. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 589-597. BARBER,T. X . , & CALVERLEY, D. S. Multidimensional analysis of ‘‘hypnotic” behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 7 4 , 209-220. BELL,C. R. Personality characteristics of volunteers for psychological studies. British Journal ofSocia1 and Clinical Psychology, 1962, I , 81-95. 0. K. (Ed.) Personality tests and reviews 11. BUROS, Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1975. COOPER,L. M. Hypnotic amnesia. In E. Fromin & R. E. Shor (Eds.) Hypnosis: Research development and perspectives. Chicago: Atherton, 1972.
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
184 COOPER,L. M., & LONDON,P. Sex and hypnotic susceptibility in children, International Journal of Clinical and Experitnentul Hypnosis, 1966, 14, 55-60. COOPER,L. M. & LONDON, P. The development of hypnotic susceptibility: A longitudinal (convergence) study. Child Development, 1971, 4 2 , 487-503. COOPER,L. M. & LONDON,P. Children’s hypnotic susceptibility, personality, and EEG patterns. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1976,24, 14Ck148. CURRAN, J. D. & GIBSON, H. B. Critique of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: British usage and factorial structure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 3 9 , 695-704. DUMAS, R. A. EEG Alpha - Hypnotizability correlations: A review. Psychophysiology , 1977, 14, 43 1-438. GARDNER, G. G. Parents: Obstacles or allies in child hypotherapy? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1974, 17, 44-49. GARDNER, G. G. Hypnosis with infants and preschool children. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1977, 19, 158-162. HILGARD, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965. E. R. Divided consciousness: Multiple HILGARD, controls in human thought and action. New York: Wiley, 1977. HILGARD, E. R. Divided consciousness: Multiple relief of pain. Los Altos, Calif.:William Kaufmann, Inc., 1975. LONDON, P. Hypnosis in children: An experimental approach. Internutional Journal of clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 79-91, LONDON,P. Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1963. LONDON,P. Developmental experiments in hypnosis. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1965, 2 9 , 189-199. LONDON, P. Child hypnosis and personality. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1966, 8 , 161168. LONDON, P. Kidding around with hypnosis. International Journal of Hypnosis, 1976, 2 4 , 105- I2 1. LONDON, P., & COOPER,L. M. Norms of hypnotic susceptibility in children. Developmental Psychology, 1969, I , 113-124. LONDON, P., & MADSEN, C. H. Effect of role playing on hypnotic susceptibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 66-68.
COOPER AND LONDON LONDON,P., & MADSEN, C. H. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children: 11. An extension and partial replication. International Journul of Clinical and E.uperitnenta1 H-ypnosis, 1969, 17, 37-49. MADSEN, C. H., & LONDON, P. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3 , 13-19. MOORE,R. K., & COOPER,L. M. Item difficulty in childhood hypnotic suspectibility scales as a function of item wording, repetition, and age. International Journal of Clinical and Experirnenral Hypnosis, 1966, 14, 316-323. E. R. Age differences MORGAN, A. H., & HILGARD, in susceptibility to hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and E.rperimenta1 Hypnosis, 1973, 21 , 78-85. MOSS,C. S . Review of Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. In 0. K . Buros (Ed), Personality rests and reviews. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1970. ROSENHAN, D., & LONDON, P. Hypnosis: Expectation, susceptibility, and performance. Journal OJ Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66. ROTENBERG, M., LONDON, P., & COOPER,L. M. Achievement motivation, socialization, and hypnotic susceptibility among youths from four Israeli subcultures. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, l 9 7 6 , 5 , 89-100. RUCH,J. C. Self-hypnosis: The result of heteropypnosis or vice versa? Internarional Journal of Clinical and E.rperimenta1 Hypnosis, 1975, 23, 282304. WATKINS, J. G. Review of Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. In 0. K. Buros (Ed), Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1970. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. Review of The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 5 , 336-337. W E I T Z E N H O F F EA. R , M . , & H I L G A R DE. , R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1959. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R.Stanford Hypnoric Susceptibility Scale, Form C . Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1962. WEIZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Projile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility, F o r m I and If. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press. 1963.
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE
No photographs available
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
LESLIE M. COOPER, Ph.D. Leslie M. Cooper is a Clinical Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1962. He has engaged in teaching and research at Stanford University, University of Southern California, Central Washington State College and Brigham Young University in addition to the University of Utah. He has been a consultant to the Utah State Training School; Alpine House, a halfway house associated with the Utah State Hospital; and the Utah State Prison. He has a special research interest in hypnosis as well as its application to the clinical setting. He is a diplomate in experimental hypnosis of the American Psychological Association. He is licensed to practice as a psychologist in the State of Utah where he has maintained a private practice for the last ten years.
PERRY LONDON, PH.D. Perry London is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern California and a Professor of Psychiatry at its College of Medicine. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1956. Besides acting as Clinical Psychologist at Madigan Army Hospital he has been consulting psychologist for several associations and hospitals as well as being Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois. London has participated in numerous sponsored research, team teaching, and is still a lecturer with the National Science Foundation Visiting Lecturer Program. His professional activities are legion including being Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the International Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. He serves as advisory editor or reviewer for several journals and publishers. He is frequently an invited speaker and discussant and his publications in psychology and hypnosis number approximately 100, including one for this Journal, “Child Hypnosis and Personality” in 1966.
185
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale a
Leslie M. Cooper Ph.D. & Perry London Ph.D. a
b
University of Utah , USA
b
University of Southern California , USA Published online: 22 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Leslie M. Cooper Ph.D. & Perry London Ph.D. (1978) The Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21:2-3, 170-185, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1978.10403970 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1978.10403970
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS Volume 21, Number 2 & 3 , October 1978 / J a n u a r y 1979 Printed in U.S.A.
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
LESLIE M . COOPER, Ph.D. University of Utah
and
PERRY LONDON, Ph.D. University of Southern California
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale is a measure of hypnotic responsiveness in children. This report describes the development of the scale and the standardization sample. It reports norms for the scale, reliability and validity data, and studies which have used the scale.
The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (London, 1963), referred to hereafter as CHSS, is a measure of the responsiveness of a child to hypnotic suggestions. A standardized induction procedure and a quantitative system for assessing responses to this induction are provided. Susceptibility is operationally defined as the frequency a subject acts as a hypnotized person when the responses are elicited by the standardized procedure. Thus, the assignment of numerical values to responses is on a logical, rather than an empirical basis. It is, then, a test of typical performance rather than one of maximum performance. The CHSS consists of 22 items, divided into two parts. Many of the items utilized have been historically considered to be tests of suggestibility and discussed by various earlier writers. Part I consists of the 12 items contained in the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Forms A & B (SHSS: A & B) (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959). Part I1 consists of 10 items taken from the unpublished Stanford Depth Scale (see Hilgard, 1965, Ch. 12) from which the SHSS: Form C (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1962) and the Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Forms I and I1 (Weizenhof-
fer and Hilgard, 1963) were subsequently derived. All the items were rewritten to make them more suitable (i.e., appealing and understandable) for use with children. The CHSS was designed to be used with children over a wide age range. Consequently there are two forms: a younger (for ages 5-12) and an older (ages 13-16) form. They differ only in the wording of some of the instructions. Either form can be administered in approximately one hour. ADMINISTRATION The administration of the CHSS consists in presenting verbatim the standardized induction and suggestions to the subject. In addition to the wording of the scale, the manual of the CHSS includes extensive instructions for creating desirable physical arrangements, obtaining the readily available materials, and establishing rapport. As with any individually administered test, complete familiarization with the manual and supervised practice in the administration of the items are necessary before it is used in research or clinical practice. The manual suggests that “the ability . . . to make effective use of the Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale depends more on the ease with
170
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE
which they (those administering the scale) establish effective relationships with children than upon any experience they may have had in the use of hypnosis.” The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale has been reviewed by Moss (1970), Watkins (1970), and Weitzenhoffer (1963) and is listed in the 1975 edition of Buros (1975). It has been used to measure hypnotic responsiveness and/or referred to in the studies by Barber and Calverley (1963, 1969), Cooper and London (1966, 1971, 1976), Curran and Gibson (1974), Dumas (1977), Gardner (1974, 1977), Hilgard (1965, 1977), Hilgard and Hilgard (1975), London (1965, 1966, 1976), London and Cooper (1 969), London and Madsen (1968, 1969), Madsen and London (1966), Moore and Cooper (1966), Morgan and Hilgard (1973), Rotenberg, London, and Cooper (1976), and Ruch (1975). SCALEITEMSA N D SCORING Three different scores have been employed to represent responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions with the CHSS. The Overt Behavior (OB) score reflects the extent to which the child’s response to an item manifests behavior in compliance with the intent of the hypnotist’s suggestion. The OB score may be recorded as a dichotomy of pass (1) or fail (0) or on a four-point continum (0-3) which provides a more refined index of responsiveness. Scores of zero or one correspond to fail scores on the dichotomous scoring system, reflecting that the child responded negatively, failed to respond, or made only an inadequate attempt to respond to the suggestion. Scores of two and three comprise pass scores, reflecting that the child responded adequately or enthusiastically to the suggestion. The items of the CHSS with their minimal pass criterion for OB are listed in Table 1. The Subjective Involvement (SI) score was devised to permit a distinction between
171
“true” hypnotic compliance and apparent role-playing. This scale attempts to qualify the genuineness of the behavior elicited by the hypnotic suggestions. Children seem more prone than adults to respond to adult wishes, and to respond to the explicit demands, or even implicit expectations, of the hypnotist (examiner) without being hypnotized. When a child obtains a passing OB score on an item, the administrator assigns a SI score of 1 through 3, representing his impression that the child was “faking” or role-playing (score of 1), partially involved (score of 2) or deeply involved (score of 3). A third dimension provided a weighted combination of the OB and SI scores. This Total (T) score is obtained by multiplying the OB and SI scores for each item, then summing the products. It was thought the Total score would approximate the impressions a hypnotist would have of a subject under clinical conditions, where judgments of both overt behavior and apparent subjective involvement would be made simultaneously. A child’s score for Part I or Part I1 of the test is the sum of his item scores of that part for that scoring system (i.e., OB, SI, T). Scores for the full scale are the sum of scores for Part I and Part 11. Thus the maximum score possible for OB and SI is 66. The maximum T score is 198. While each method of scoring was thought to account for somewhat different aspects of the responses made to the items suggested, there is a common factor running through both the OB and SI scoring systems (and, therefore, the T score). Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the three methods of scoring for each part of the scale as well as the Full Scale score obtained by summing the parts. The correlations of the different scores within each part of the test are larger than those across parts. This suggests that there is a high degree of homogeneity in the various scoring methods and in the two parts of the scale.
COOPER AND LONDON
172
Table 1 ITEMS OF CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE(CHSS) WITH M I N I M A L OB PASS CRITERIA Item 1. Postural Sway
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
2. Eye Closure 3. Hand Lowering 4. Arm Immobilization 5 . Finger Lock 6 . Arm Rigidity 7. Hands together 8. Verbal Inhibition (Name) 9. Auditory Hallucination (Fly) 10. Eye Catalepsy 11. Posthypnotic suggestions
(Standing Up) 12. Amnesia 13. Posthypnotic suggestion ( Reinduction) 14. Visual and Auditory Hallucination (Television) 15. Cold Hallucination 16. Anesthesia 17. Taste Hallucination
18. Smell Hallucination (Perfume) 19. Visual Hallucination (Rabbit) 20. Age Regression 21. Dream 22. Awakening and Posthypnotic suggestion.
Minimal Pass Criterion Part I Loses balance and recovers without falling. Eyes close within 10 seconds after instructions to do so. Hand moves through 30 degree arc or more, but does not lower to rest. Hand rises from 1” to 3” by time limit. Incomplete separation of fingers with no effort made to do so. Arm bends less than 2” but little effort made to do so. Hands move to within 2” of each other. Name not spoken, but little effort made to do so. Appropriate movement but no apparent irritation Eyes remain closed but little effort to open them manifest. Remains seated and stretches or stands but does not stretch. Three or fewer items recalled with relative ease. PART I1 Closes eyes without apparent body relaxation, or eyes remain open but become glazed and puzzled. Completes significant portion of sequence but with some failures. Appropriate verbal response of cold sensation but no motor changes. Indicates awareness of stimulus, but cannot clearly describe it. Experiences only slight or vague taste sensations. Does not elaborate or describe odor of perfume. Completes portion of sequence with some inadequacies. Qualifies on either name or drawing or both. Perfunctory report or lack of emotionality but not made up. Completes portion of sequence but with some inadequacies.
173
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE Table 2 INTERCORRELATION OF PARTA N D FULLSCALESCORES OF CHILDRENS’ HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE Part 1
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
OB Part I QB SI .84 Total .92 Part I1 .72 OB .65 SI Total .70 Full Scale .94 OB .79 SI Total .86
Part I1
Full Scale
SI
Total
OB
S1
Total
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.98
-
-
-
-
-
.66 .79 .79
.72 .71 .79
.80 .90
-
-
-
-
-
-
.83 .95 .94
.89 .93 .95
.92 .78
.77 .94 .92
.86 .93 .94
.85 .92
.85
SI Total -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
.98
Note.-N = 240.OB = overt behavior; SI = subjective involvement. r . 1 8 , p = .01. London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission.
*
The influence of volunteer bias on exWhile the SI and T scores have been utilized in some analyses, the OB scores perimental outcome, especially in personality research, is well documented (Bell, alone have been used most frequently. 1962; London and Rosenhan, 1964). The sampling procedure used to obtain the STANDARDIZATION GROUP standardization sample for the CHSS inSampling. Upon the completion of a pilot volved a unique form of bias with respect to test of the CHSS, a larger sample of chil- the characteristics of the subjects. The acdren was selected by random sampling of tual volunteers for the study were parents the census deck of the public schools in (except for a few cases of late adolescents), Urbana, Illinois (London, 1965). When a but the subjects of the study were children child was selected for inclusion, a form let- who had not themselves volunteered indeter was sent to the parents explaining the pendently of their parents. The precise efstudy and requesting them and their child’s fects of this bias is difficult to determine. The net effect of the procedure provided participation. A total of 14%of the families thus contacted responded favorably. At a sample that was remarkably similar to the each age level from 5 to 16, ten boys and population of Urbana from which it was ten girls were randomly selected from the drawn in regard to a number of characteristotal subject pool to constitute a tics (London, 1965). This population was standardization sample of 240 children. of relatively high socioeconomic status. Age was determined to the nearest birthday The median income of families with two in a “closer to this year than another year” children was $6,416 and 18.8 percent had sense. Thus subjects 7 years, 7 months to 8 incomes greater than $10,000. All of the years, 6 months were categorized at 8 years families in the sample owned their own homes. Eighty-two percent of the fathers old.
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
174
were high school graduates and many held college degrees. Fifty-eight percent held professional or managerial positions. Procedure. Parents who responded favorably to the initial letter were contacted by phone and arrangements made to have their child brought for testing. The parents were always invited to watch the entire proceeding through a one-way mirror, accompanied by a member of the research team. This procedure resulted in such favorable public relations that it was continued in all subsequent experiments. It provided parents with reassurance that the children were not being endangered or mishandled. The scale was initially administered by one experimenter while the child’s parents and a second experimenter observed the proceedings through the one-way mirror. One week later the scale was administered again but by an experimenter who was not acquanited with the child’s earlier performance. The scale was subsequently administered again at one year intervals over a two year period. As with any longitudinal study, some attrition had to be expected. One-fourth of the total sample was lost during the first year, and an additional 30% during the second year. The reasons for dropping out of the study were varied but included moving away from the city, failing to keep appointments, or the child’s feeling that participation was now too childish. The data suggested that the attrition did not seriously bias the final results; dropout subjects were not significantly different from those who continued to cooperate in regard to the independent variable (Cooper and London, 1971). Norms. The means and standard deviations of susceptibility scores on the original testing for all three methods of scoring by one-year age grouping are presented in Table 3. Highly significant differences between age groups for each of the three methods of scoring have been found (London and Cooper, 1969). Susceptibility does
COOPER AND LONDON
differ with age, but the relationship is neither simple nor linear. A third-degree polynomial has been found to represent the relationship between susceptibility and age mathematically (Cooper and London, 1971). The means, standard deviations, and standard errors of measurement for the OB scores for males and females by one-year age grouping are presented in Table 4. No significant differences between the sexes at any age have been found in susceptibility scores or item difficulty. The susceptibility score distributions for all three methods of scoring and related summary data are presented in Table 5. Although the range of scores falling within the general levels of susceptibility is somewhat arbitrary, it is apparent that the majority of the scores fall into the upper two categories on both the OB and SI scales. Hypnotic susceptibility in children is not normally distributed but negatively skewed, that is, children tend to obtain high susceptibility scores. The percentage of children passing each item on the OB scale for two-year age groupings is presented in Table 6. Children’s greater susceptibility is again demonstrated by the relatively high percent passing each item. A much smaller percentage of children than of adults pass the eye closure item however (London and Cooper, 1969). Item interconelations for OB, SI, and T scores, respectively, are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9. A principle-axis factor analysis yielded eight factors for each scoring method (London, 1965). A shorter form of the scale results from using Part I (the first twelve items) only. The time required to administer only these items i s noticeably reduced from that required to administer all 32 items. It also allows more meaningful comparisons with results from adult samples when only twelve items have been used (See Cooper and London, 1976; and London and Cooper,
58.35 35.02 d
31.10 9.61 e
33.50 12.23 d
87.05 49.97 acd
bde
de
72.85 52.37 cd
39.10 13.04
40.25 14.67 abcd
35.00 14.15
37.45 14.45 ad
N=20
N=20
N=20
109.10 57.84 ab
abc
bcd
93.65 42.52 abc
44.95 14.44
40.20 11.89
45.30 18.53 abc
N=20
N=20
44.90 11.01 abc
9
8
120.50 47.72 ab
abc
47.30 13.44
49.90 11.19 b
N=20
10
127.05 48.15 b
a
50.30 12.14
48.55 12.97 bc
N=20
II
116.45 49.60 ab
abc
ac
119.20 47.82 ab
48.10 12.30
43.95 14.96 abc
N=20
13
48.55 11.83
46.10 14.19 abc
N=20
12
128.65 49.16 b
a
50.45 12.25
48.35 14.15 bc
N=20
14
AGEGROUPINGS
98.10 54.51 abc
abc
44.45 13.66
38.45 16.33 acd
N=20
15
London & Cooper (1969), Copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
Means in the same row which do not contain a common letter in the subscript differ significantly from each other at the .01 by Duncan test
S.D.
x
Total
S.D.
x
S.I. -
x S.D.
O.B.
7
6
AGE
(N = 240)
S T A N D A R D DEVIATIONS OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE BY O N E - Y E A R
5
MEANSA N D
Table 3
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
121.65 59.43 ab
a
49.50 14.60
44.70 17.86 abc
N=20
16
z
c,
IA
4
5
3E
5 8
vl
5I
3
z
4
X
zc!i
r
0
Mean 34.70 36.30 45.10 43.20 42.40 49.00 46.80 48.90 47.80 48.00 38.20 42.10
43.47
Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Combined
15.20
SD 10.27 16.43 15.61 11.72 23.90 9.33 9.92 11.27 12.76 16.12 15.16 21.37 1.39
SEm 3.25 5.20 4.94 3.71 7.56 2.95 3.14 3.56 4.04 5.10 4.79 6.76 43.43
Mean 32.30 38.60 35.40 41.50 48.20 50.80 50.30 43.30 40.10 48.70 38.70 47.30 14.88
SD 14.39 12.95 12.59 10.18 11.62 13.24 15.81 16.75 16.64 12.74 18.25 14.20 1.36
SEm 4.55 4.10 3.98 3.22 3.67 4.19 5.00 5.30 5.26 4.03 5.77 4.49 43.45
Mean 33.50 37.45 40.25 44.90 45.30 49.90 48.55 46.10 43.95 48.35 38.45 44.70 15.01
SD 12.23 14.45 14.67 11.01 18.53 11.19 12.97 14.19 14.96 14.15 16.33 17.86
4.75
SEmeas. 5.01 5.92 6.01 4.51 7.60 4.59 5.32 5.82 5.83 5.52 6.37 6.97
Table 4 MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS OF MEASUREMENT FOR OVERT BEHAVIOR SCORES FOR MALES,FEMALES, A N D COMBINED GROUPSBY ONE-YEARAGEGROUPINGS Males bemales Combined
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
SEm
.97
2.73 3.23 3.28 2.46 4.14 2.50 2.90 3.17 3.34 3.16 3.65 3.99
z
:
%U 5
;a
%
0
c)
6 6 - 71
High
2
Number of Cases
:I30 2
18
100%
;I8
Percent of Cases
X = 44.08 3. D. = 13.96
N = 240
0
18
33
Number of Cases
Subjective Involvement
51 34 170-
67 50 33 16
31
';I36
Percet of Cases
N = 240 100% X =104.38 S. D. = 53.34
14 74 10
"1
25] 13 86 21
27
119- 135 102 8 5 - 118 101 68 - 84
27
10
Number of Cases
187 - 293 170- 186 153 - 169 136- 152
Raw' Score Range
Total score
'Note: The weighted combination of O.B. & S.I. raw scores produces a new distribution of raw total scores. London & Coooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
100%
$12
!]40
Percent of Cases
N = 240 x = 43.45 S.D. = 15.01
0- 5
::
18 - 23
Low
15
42 - 47 31 36-41 241 3 0 - 35 17 95 24 - 29 23
Medium
48 - 53 36
Raw Score Range
General Level
Overt Behavior
Table 5 DISTRIBUTION OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY AS MEASURED BY OVERT BEHAVIOR, SUBJECTIVE NVOLVEMENT A N D TOTALSCORE
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
4 4
+-
0
v)
=! 0
178
COOPER AND LONDON Table 6 PERCENTOF SUBJECTS PASSING EACHITEMOVERTBEHAVIOR (N = 40 in each cell) Age Item
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
1. 2. 3. 4.
Postural Sway Eye Closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilization 5. Finger Lock 6. Arm Rigidity 7. Hands Together 8. Verbal Inhibition 9. Auditory Hallucination 10. Eye Catalepsy 11. Posthypnotic Suggestion 12. Amnesia 13. Posthypnotic Suggestion 14. Television 15. Cold Hallucination 16. Anesthesia 17. Taste Hallucination 18. Smell Hallucination 19. Visual Hallucination 20. Regression 21. Dream 22. Posthypnotic Suggestion
5-6
7-8
9-10
75 38 68 40 70 60 80 58 83 33 38 85 48 73 80 33 65 58 73 23 58 23
80 45 90 50 83 73 88 58 93 58 58 73 58 88 90 48 88 75 98 48 70 33
83 45 78
55 83 80 85 68 93 70 78 75 70 90 85 55 85 65 95 53 90 58
11-12 13-14 15-16 Ave.
93 33 80 60 78 65 78 58 95 53 80 80 45 90 85 55 93 83 95 68 90 68
88 43 80 65 83 55 85 65 90 63 73 63 60 80 80 48 78 63 85 68 88 35
88 55 78 45 60 45 83 45 78 43 60 60 53 65 75 45 55 68 68 73 88 58
84 43 79 52 76 63 83 59 89 53 65 73 56 81 83 47 77 69 86 56 81 46
London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
1969). The intercorrelation between OB Part I and OB Full Scale is .94. Furthermore, the intercorrelation between OB Part I dichotomous scoring and OB full scale extended scoring is .92. Consequently, it. is frequently more convenient to use Part I using OB dichotomous scoring. The mean for the standardization sample when so scored was 8 . 1 6 with a standard deviation of 3.10. The mean susceptibility score for each age is given in Table 10.
vidual and is predictive of that individual’s behavior in a hypnotic state. Interscorer reliability after approximately one week’s training, when measured as the correlation between the scores assigneu by the hypnotist and an observer (viewing through a one-way vision screen) ranged from .97 for OB to .88 for SI and .94 for the T score (London and Cooper, 1969). Reliability coefficients of the standardization sample (N = 240), estimated by the Kuder-Richardson formula (Formula 20), were .90 for OB, .94 for SI, and .94 for T. Retest reliabilities (N = 201) RELIABILITY (see London and Cooper, 1969) after one The CHSS is based on the premise that week were somewhat lower, as would be susceptibility is a characteristic that re- expected: .79 for OB, .75 for SI, and .78 mains fairly constant within any given indi- for T. These reliabilities compare favorably
Vebal Inhibition Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucinaton Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Post-Hypnotic Suggestion
6
7
.51 .52 .60 .25 .25 .36 -
-
5
8
9
.63
.60
.63 .54 .57 .63
.50
.57 .42 .51 .58 .64
.54
.63 .34 .34 .27 .25 .40 .33 .28 .28 .27 .32 .33 .29 .35 .27 .35 .30 .37 .28 .36 .34 .23 .35 .36 .33
.55
.60 .32 .40 .23 .32 .29 .36 .36 .43 .21 .43 .29 .38 .30 .40 .29 .42 .26 .40 .31 .38 .27 .42 .18 .41 .26
.71 .39 .32 .31 .28 .39 .32 .30 .34 .27 .42 .26 .33
.I6 .16 .39 .25 .23 .29 .06 .19 .24 .25 .25 .36 .15 .21 .32 .2 1 .20 .41 .13 , I 6 .24 .23 .25 .42 .I8 .I9 .31 .25 .16 .37 .27 .21 .33 .20 .19 .41 .22 .30 .35
.28 .38 .33 30
-
4
.66
.25 .23 .19 .23 .24
-
3
.I4 .20 .28 .54 .47 .58 .40 .29 .22 .28 .24 .30 .36 .33 .36
.29 .20 .10 .20 .18 .20
2
.61
.59 .68 .47
35
.32 .35 .54
1
.35 .31 .34 .31 .27 .45 .26 .39 .38 .33 .37 .36 .33
~
10
London & Cooper (1%9), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
15.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
2. Eye Closure 3. HandLowering 4. Arm Immobilize 5 . Finger Lock 6. Arm Rigidity 7. Hands Together
1. Postural Sway
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserialr’s)
.41 .33 .30 .29 .43 .40 .34 .35 .30 .45 .38 .37
-
11
.38 .41 .36 .40 .24 .35 .25 .38 .42 .38 .39
-
12
Item
.30 .21 .33 .20 .23 .25 .18 .27 .I2 .25
.28 .33 .23 .32 .I8 .29 .35 .31 .38
-
13
.47 .52 30
.60
.46 .35 .59 .32
-
14
.42 .53 .47 .39 .37 .44 .35
-
I5
.42 .47 .25 .37 .39 .34
-
16
.40 .57 .40 .47 .51
-
17
19
20
21
.36 .43 .42 .37 .53 .48 .41 .48 5 6 .56 -
-
18
TABLE 7 ITEMINTERCORRELAT~ONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALEFOR OVERTBEHAVIOR (N = 240)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
22
z
Fm
c,
CA
4
c4
2m,
m
E
CA
3F j
3
X
m z c i
r
c)
Postural Sway Eye closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilize Finger Lock Arm Rigidity Hands Together Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucination Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Post-Hypnotic Suggestion .63 .54 .57 .63 .60 .63
.64 .50
.58
3 1
.59 .68 .47 .54 .66 .57 .42
.55
.32 .35 .54 .28 .32 .I9 .27 .27 .26 .33 .20 .32 .23 .28 .32 .29 ,I9 .34 .27 .32 .29 .33 .26
1
.36 .21 .I9 .21 .28 .25 .I3 .22 .26 .23 .I9 .22 .20 .26 .14 .I8 .21 .24 .28
-
2
4
5
-
6
.SO
.34
.SO
.39 .44 .43
.SO
.61 .62
.34 .49 .45 .39 .38 .SO .42 .43 .39
.51 .53 .48 .48 .SO .46 .51 .28 .53 .39
.66 .55
7 8
.59 .59 .74 .52 .54 .56 .SO .54 .53 .47 .54 .SO .44 .45 .42 .51 .60 .56 .40 .33 .39 .57 .51 .53 .46 .48 .SO .54 .49 .50 .47 .47 .44 .49 .51 .51 .46 .51 .46 .40 .44 .47 .47 .51 .60 .46 .51 .51 .43 .60 .35 .58 .45
.64 .SO .64 .56 -
.52 .56 .65 .49 .64 .70
-
3 10 11
Item
.54 .54 .52 .54 .54 .55 .57 .54 .52 .SO .44 .52 .64 .55 .57 .41 .39 .31 .54 .52 .53 .48 .42 .39 .56 .48 .56 .53 .45 .52 .59 .46 .59 .SO .55 .52
9
London & Cooper (1%9), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
19. 20. 21. 22.
18.
16. 17.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15,
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10.
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserial r’s)
(N = 240)
.53 .41 .54 .37 .47 .48 .48 .48 .52 .51
-
12
.43 .53 .38 .44 .37 .41 .41 .42 .40
-
13
.66 .52 .69 .59 .65 .58
.51
15
-
16
.67 .53 .61 .52 .67 .45 .50 .44 .68 .49 3 6 .41
.SO
.70 -
-
14
.62 .75 .58 .69
.64 -
21
-
20
.60 .63
19
.62 .77 .I3
-
18
. .66 .62 .63 .67 .57
-
17
ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE FOR SUBJECTIVE INVOLVEMENT
TABLE 8
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
22
U
sz
U
z
P
c
Postural Sway €ye Closure Hand Lowering Arm Immobilize Finger Lock Arm Rigidity Hands Together Verbal Inhibition Auditory Hallucination Eye Catalepsy Posthypnotic Suggestion Amnesia Posthypnotic Suggestion I1 Visual & Auditory Hallucination Cold Hallucination Anesthesia Taste Hallucination Smell Hallucination Visual Hallucination Age Regression Dream Awakening & Posthypnotic Suggestion
.32 .35 .54 .55 .59 .68 .47 .61 .54 .66 .57 .42 .51 .58 .64 .50 .63 .54 .57 .63 .60 .63
2
.63 .59 .45 .57 .42 .47 .39 .38 .40 .49 .35 .46 .31 .42
.64
-
.44
4
.53 .44 .61 .42 .44 .49 .45 .43 .46 .43 .48 .26 SO .34 .48
-
3
6
.69 .56 .51 .61 .68 .51 .50 .64 .66 .45 .52 .48 .51 .48 .44 .41 .47 .54 .52 .33 .40 .55 .54 .41 .45 .49 .48
-
5
.52 .52 .51 .48 .48 .48 .38 .53 .32 .46 .43 .44
-
7
.54 .75 .50 .49 .40 .39 .51 .38 50 .47 .43
-
8
.52 .53 .52 .48
-
9
.51 .52 .47 .42 .55 .40 .51 .44 .46
-
10
.55 .53 .51 .57 .32 SO .37 .52
-
11
Item
-
12
.44
.49 38 .64 .49 .42 .33 .53 .45 .52 .46 .50 .42 .34 .24 .41 .38 .46 .45 .45 .51 .56 .50 .52 .48 .35 .24 .51 .40 .50 .47 .42 .42 .56 .47 .56 .46 .31 .30 .43 .36 .41 .46 .44 .44 .50 .44 .51 .47
.32 .32 .34 .I5 .22 .26 .20 .25 .22 .28 .29 .21 .18 .35 .26 . I 9 .15 .36 .25 .20 .24 .30 .22 .31 .23 .29 .23 .16 . I 7 .33 .28 .26 .20 .37 .20
I
London & Cooper (1969), copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association, reprinted by permission
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
10. 11.
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Item
Correlation with Total Scale Minus this Item (Biserial r’s)
.62 .46 .67 .47 .70
-
14
.50 .60 .61 .58
-
15
17
18
.60 .64 .54 .65 .54
.55
.49 .54 .56 .38 .71 .55
-
16
.40 .59 .57 .42 .41 .64 .61 .46 .42 .62 .53 .41
.40 .48 .33 .42 .31 .39
-
13
TABLE 9 ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS ON THE CHILDREN’S HYPNOTICSUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE FOR TOTALSCORES (OVERT BEHAVIOR x SUBJECTIVE INVOLVEMENT) (N = 240)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
20
.58 .74 .69 .63 .62
-
19
.66 -
21
22
182
COOPER AND LONDON
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
TABLE 10 MEANSCORES FOR OB PARTI, DICHOTOMOUSSCORING BY ONE-YEAR ACEGROUPINGS Age
Mean
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6.24 7.03 7.58 8.52 8.60 9.50 9.24 8.75 8.32 9.20 7.23 8.48
TABLE 11 INTERCORRELATION OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE^, OVERTIME* 1-Week Retest 1-Week Retest 2-Year Retest Overt behavior: First session.
..
.
1-week retest.
..
1-year retest.
...
.
I-week retest.
...
1-year retest. .
..
...
.75 (201)
...
...
Total score: First session. . . .
1-year retest.
...
...
Subjective involvement: First session. . . .
1-week retest. . .
.79 (2011
.
.78 (2011
... ...
.56 (228) .65 (201)
.45 (1 34) .61 (134) .60 (134)
.56 (228) .57 (201)
.45 (134) .47 (134) .58 (1 34)
.59 (228) .64 (2011
.46 (134) .51 ( 134) .60 (134)
...
...
...
Note.- Number in parenthesis = number in sample. *All correlations significant at .01 level. Cooper & London (197 1), copyright 1971 , by the Society for Research in Child Development, reprinted by permission
183
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE TABLE 12 OF SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES, OVERT BEHAVIOR* INTERCORRELATION (N = 134)
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
I-Week Retest I-Year Retest First session: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16 years. . . . 1-week retest: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16years. . . . I-year retest: 5- 8 years. . . . 9-12 years. . . . 13-16 Years. . . .
2-Year Retest
.76 .74 .80
.58
.41 .63
.34 .62 .46
... ... ...
.47 .68 .79
.39 .66 .57
...
...
.45 .64 .71
..
*All correlations significant at .01 level. Cooper & London (1971), copyright 1971 by the Society for Research in Child Development, reprinted by permission
with those obtained in repeated testings of adult susceptibility (Hilgard, 1965). Retest reliabilities of susceptibility scores over time for all three scoring systems’ are presented in Table 11. These correlations are based upon the largest number of children available for any two sessions. Even though N changes as a function of attrition, these coefficients appear to be extremely stable. Note the correlations decrease in size as the time interval between testing increases (Cooper and London, 1971). The retest reliabilities for OB for different age groupings over time are presented in Table 12. Not only do the correlations decrease with increased intervals, but they are higher for older children (Cooper and London, 1971). VALIDTY The scale is composed of items which are themselves instances of the behaviors which the test seeks to measure. Thus face validity is more crucially important than empirical validity. Validity is attested to by the demonstra-
tion that some of the higher and lower scoring subjects made relatively better and worse hypnotic subjects on a later date. The data presented in this report suggest that the CHSS is a reliable and valid measure of hypnotic responsiveness in children. Department of Psychology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
REFERENCES BARBER, T. X . , & CALVERLEY, D. S. “Hypnoticlike” suggestiblity in children and adults. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 589-597. BARBER,T. X . , & CALVERLEY, D. S. Multidimensional analysis of ‘‘hypnotic” behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 7 4 , 209-220. BELL,C. R. Personality characteristics of volunteers for psychological studies. British Journal ofSocia1 and Clinical Psychology, 1962, I , 81-95. 0. K. (Ed.) Personality tests and reviews 11. BUROS, Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1975. COOPER,L. M. Hypnotic amnesia. In E. Fromin & R. E. Shor (Eds.) Hypnosis: Research development and perspectives. Chicago: Atherton, 1972.
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
184 COOPER,L. M., & LONDON,P. Sex and hypnotic susceptibility in children, International Journal of Clinical and Experitnentul Hypnosis, 1966, 14, 55-60. COOPER,L. M. & LONDON, P. The development of hypnotic susceptibility: A longitudinal (convergence) study. Child Development, 1971, 4 2 , 487-503. COOPER,L. M. & LONDON,P. Children’s hypnotic susceptibility, personality, and EEG patterns. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1976,24, 14Ck148. CURRAN, J. D. & GIBSON, H. B. Critique of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: British usage and factorial structure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 3 9 , 695-704. DUMAS, R. A. EEG Alpha - Hypnotizability correlations: A review. Psychophysiology , 1977, 14, 43 1-438. GARDNER, G. G. Parents: Obstacles or allies in child hypotherapy? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1974, 17, 44-49. GARDNER, G. G. Hypnosis with infants and preschool children. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1977, 19, 158-162. HILGARD, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965. E. R. Divided consciousness: Multiple HILGARD, controls in human thought and action. New York: Wiley, 1977. HILGARD, E. R. Divided consciousness: Multiple relief of pain. Los Altos, Calif.:William Kaufmann, Inc., 1975. LONDON, P. Hypnosis in children: An experimental approach. Internutional Journal of clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 79-91, LONDON,P. Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1963. LONDON,P. Developmental experiments in hypnosis. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1965, 2 9 , 189-199. LONDON, P. Child hypnosis and personality. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1966, 8 , 161168. LONDON, P. Kidding around with hypnosis. International Journal of Hypnosis, 1976, 2 4 , 105- I2 1. LONDON, P., & COOPER,L. M. Norms of hypnotic susceptibility in children. Developmental Psychology, 1969, I , 113-124. LONDON, P., & MADSEN, C. H. Effect of role playing on hypnotic susceptibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 66-68.
COOPER AND LONDON LONDON,P., & MADSEN, C. H. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children: 11. An extension and partial replication. International Journul of Clinical and E.uperitnenta1 H-ypnosis, 1969, 17, 37-49. MADSEN, C. H., & LONDON, P. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3 , 13-19. MOORE,R. K., & COOPER,L. M. Item difficulty in childhood hypnotic suspectibility scales as a function of item wording, repetition, and age. International Journal of Clinical and Experirnenral Hypnosis, 1966, 14, 316-323. E. R. Age differences MORGAN, A. H., & HILGARD, in susceptibility to hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and E.rperimenta1 Hypnosis, 1973, 21 , 78-85. MOSS,C. S . Review of Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. In 0. K . Buros (Ed), Personality rests and reviews. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1970. ROSENHAN, D., & LONDON, P. Hypnosis: Expectation, susceptibility, and performance. Journal OJ Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66. ROTENBERG, M., LONDON, P., & COOPER,L. M. Achievement motivation, socialization, and hypnotic susceptibility among youths from four Israeli subcultures. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, l 9 7 6 , 5 , 89-100. RUCH,J. C. Self-hypnosis: The result of heteropypnosis or vice versa? Internarional Journal of Clinical and E.rperimenta1 Hypnosis, 1975, 23, 282304. WATKINS, J. G. Review of Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. In 0. K. Buros (Ed), Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1970. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. Review of The Children’s Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 5 , 336-337. W E I T Z E N H O F F EA. R , M . , & H I L G A R DE. , R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1959. WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R.Stanford Hypnoric Susceptibility Scale, Form C . Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1962. WEIZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Projile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility, F o r m I and If. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press. 1963.
CHILDREN’S HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE
No photographs available
Downloaded by [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal] at 11:57 10 December 2014
LESLIE M. COOPER, Ph.D. Leslie M. Cooper is a Clinical Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1962. He has engaged in teaching and research at Stanford University, University of Southern California, Central Washington State College and Brigham Young University in addition to the University of Utah. He has been a consultant to the Utah State Training School; Alpine House, a halfway house associated with the Utah State Hospital; and the Utah State Prison. He has a special research interest in hypnosis as well as its application to the clinical setting. He is a diplomate in experimental hypnosis of the American Psychological Association. He is licensed to practice as a psychologist in the State of Utah where he has maintained a private practice for the last ten years.
PERRY LONDON, PH.D. Perry London is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern California and a Professor of Psychiatry at its College of Medicine. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1956. Besides acting as Clinical Psychologist at Madigan Army Hospital he has been consulting psychologist for several associations and hospitals as well as being Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois. London has participated in numerous sponsored research, team teaching, and is still a lecturer with the National Science Foundation Visiting Lecturer Program. His professional activities are legion including being Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the International Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. He serves as advisory editor or reviewer for several journals and publishers. He is frequently an invited speaker and discussant and his publications in psychology and hypnosis number approximately 100, including one for this Journal, “Child Hypnosis and Personality” in 1966.
185
