Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses☆
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Consciousness and Cognition 18 (1):255-265 (2009)
To examine the influence of hypnotic suggestibility testing as a source of individual differences in hypnotic responsiveness, we compared behavioral and subjective responses on three scales of hypnotic suggestibility: The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A . Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Berlin: Consulting Psychologists Press); the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale . The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Normative data and psychometric properties. Psychological Reports, 53, 523–535); and the Group Scale of Hypnotic Ability . The Group Scale of Hypnotic Ability and response booklet. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 20–31). Behavioral and subjective responses to the CURSS were significantly different than those on the HGSHS: A and GSHA. More participants were classified as “low suggestible” on the CURSS and they reported subjective experiences more similar to everyday mentation. Attitudes and expectancies of participants who received the GSHA were less predictive of responding, but rates of responding and subjective experiences were similar on the GSHA and the HGSHS: A. Discussion focuses on implications for the use of group hypnotic suggestibility scales
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Nicholas P. Spanos (1986). Hypnotic Behavior: A Social-Psychological Interpretation of Amnesia, Analgesia, and “Trance Logic”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9 (3):449.
Ronald J. Pekala & V. K. Kumar (2007). An Empirical-Phenomenological Approach to Quantifying Consciousness and States of Consciousness: With Particular Reference to Understanding the Nature of Hypnosis. In Graham A. Jamieson (ed.), Hypnosis and Conscious States: The Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Oxford University Press 167-194.
Citations of this work BETA
Inge Schweiger Gallo, Florian Pfau & Peter M. Gollwitzer (2012). Furnishing Hypnotic Instructions with Implementation Intentions Enhances Hypnotic Responsiveness. Consciousness and Cognition 21 (2):1023-1030.
Similar books and articles
Ronald J. Pekala & V. K. Kumar (2000). Individual Differences in Patterns of Hypnotic Experience Across Low and High Hypnotically Susceptible Individuals. In Robert G. Kunzendorf & Benjamin Wallace (eds.), Individual Differences in Conscious Experience. John Benjamins 309-335.
Ronald J. Pekala & V. K. Kumar (2000). Individual Differences in Patterns of Hypnotic Experience Across Low and High Hypnotically Susceptible Individuals. In (R. Kunzendorf & B. Wallace, Eds) Individual Differences in Conscious Experience. [REVIEW] John Benjamins.
M. C. & W. P. (2003). Hypnotic Control of Attention in the Stroop Task: A Historical Footnote. Consciousness and Cognition 12 (3):347-353.
C. M. MacLeod & P. W. Sheehan (2003). Hypnotic Control of Attention in the Stroop Task: A Historical Footnote. Consciousness and Cognition 12 (3):347-353.
O. Fassler, S. Lynn & J. Knox (2008). Is Hypnotic Suggestibility a Stable Trait?☆. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (1):240-253.
Richard A. Bryant & David Mallard (2003). Seeing is Believing: The Reality of Hypnotic Hallucinations. Consciousness and Cognition 12 (2):219-230.
Irving Kirsch & Steven Jay Lynn (2004). Hypnosis and Will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):667-668.
Devin Blair Terhune, Etzel Cardeña & Magnus Lindgren (2011). Dissociated Control as a Signature of Typological Variability in High Hypnotic Suggestibility. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (3):727-736.
Robert G. Kunzendorf & Benjamin Wallace (eds.) (2000). Individual Differences in Conscious Experience. Amsterdam: J Benjamins.
Zoltán Dienes, Elizabeth Brown, Sam Hutton, Irving Kirsch, Giuliana Mazzoni & Daniel B. Wright (2009). Hypnotic Suggestibility, Cognitive Inhibition, and Dissociation. Consciousness and Cognition 18 (4):837-847.
Jay Belsky (2000). Fixed Versus Flexible Strategists: Individual Differences in Facultative Responsiveness? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):591-592.
Hannes Eisler (1998). Distal Similarity, Shape Referents, Subjective World, and Redundancy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):470-470.
Vittorio Girotto (2000). Patterns of Individual Differences and Rational Choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):674-675.
Culum Brown (2005). Cerebral Lateralisation, “Social Constraints,” and Coordinated Anti-Predator Responses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):591-592.
Irving Kirsch (1997). Hypnotic Responding and Self-Deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):118-119.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads12 ( #290,851 of 1,906,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,570 of 1,906,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?