Journal of A bnormal Psychology 1974, Vol. 83, No.

3, 268-277

OPENNESS TO ABSORBING AND SELF-ALTERING EXPERIENCES ("ABSORPTION"), A TRAIT RELATED TO HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY1
AUKE TELLEGEN 2 University of Minnesota GILBERT ATKINSON Youngstown State University

A questionnaire containing items of varied content believed to be related to hypnotizability was administered to 481 female subjects. Two subsamples of 142 and 171 subjects, respectively, also completed Block's Ego Resiliency and Ego Control questionnaire scales and measures of hypnotic susceptibility. Analysis of the combined questionnaire data yielded three replicated higher order factors: the familiar dimensions of Stability and Introversion and a third factor, Absorption. Absorption is interpreted as a disposition for having episodes of "total" attention that fully engage one's representational (i.e., perceptual, enactive, imaginative, and ideational) resources. This kind of attentional functioning is believed to result in a heightened sense of the reality of the attentional object, imperviousness to distracting events, and an altered sense of reality in general, including an empathically altered sense of self. Only Absorption was consistently correlated with hypnotizability. Absorption appears to be of interest for the study of hypnosis and personality.

One of the most important advances in the study of hypnosis has been the development of standardized and reliable measures of individual differences in hypnotic susceptibility. Scales of this kind, for example, the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959, 1962), are direct measures of a subject's responsiveness to a series of specific suggestions. It is not surprising that psychologists have wanted to clarify the nature of hypnosis by investigating possible relations between these relatively stable but highly specific and circumscribed measures of susceptibility and broader dimensions of personality. Several such studies have appeared and have been reviewed fairly recently by Barber (1969)and Hilgard (1965). For the present purpose, these past studies can be divided into two groups. In one group of studies existing inventories were used, on the whole with negative results. Scales from inventories such as the California Personality Inventory, the 16 Personality Factor Scale, Guilford-Zimmerman, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Maudsley

Personality Inventory failed to show appreciable and consistent relations to hypnotic susceptibility. As Hilgard pointed out, the results of these studies suggest the possibility that these inventories do not adequately sample content areas that are related to susceptibility. In fact, there is growing evidence that purportedly multidimensional inventories, such as those just mentioned, are primarily saturated with two major dimensions (Block, 1965; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969; Nichols & Schnell, 1963; Sells, Demaree, & Wills, 1971). Eysenck has labeled these two dimensions Stability versus Neuroticism and Introversion versus Extraversion. It appears, then, that hypnotic susceptibility might not be strongly related to either Stability or Introversion. The second group of studies is more promising. In these studies special inventories were constructed consisting of items describing "hypnotic-like" experiences that occur in daily life or attitudes and tendencies that were thought to be specifically related to hypnotic "talent." The initial work was done by Shor (Shor, 1960; Shor, Orne, & O'Con1 This research was supported in part by National nell, 1962) and was followed up and extended Institute of Mental Health Grant MH 18856-03. by Ernest Hilgard's associates (e.g., As, 2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Auke 1963; As & Lauer, 1962; As, O'Hara, & Tellegen, Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall, Hunger, 1962; Lee-Teng, 1965) and by University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota S54SS. others (e.g., Roberts & Tellegen, 1973). The 268

ABSORPTION AND HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY measures in question were analyzed on the level of either items or scales, and in several of these studies the relation to measures of susceptibility was directly investigated. The results were generally positive, if not without exception (Barber & Calverley, 1965). As a result of these investigations, valuable information was obtained regarding characteristics related to hypnotizability. However, the findings resulting from these studies remain tentative and are for several reasons in need of further clarification. For example, the analyses were not conducted within the context of known major personality dimensions as reference variables. Each of the studies in question is also subject to several of the following limitations: a restricted item pool, a small number of subjects, reliance on a priori scales rather than on scales derived from an empirical dimensional analysis of the items, inclusion in the same dimensional analysis of variables representing different methods (producing results dominated by method dimensions), and failure to crossvalidate. These considerations suggested that a further investigation should address itself to the following three interrelated questions: First, how many and what kind of primary dimensions are present in a pool of items thought to be related to hypnotic susceptibility and representing a broad range of content? Second, how are these primary dimensions related to already established major or higher order dimensions of personality: Will the former be subsumed by the latter, or will one or more new major dimensions emerge? Third, having confirmed a final set of maior dimensions, what is the relation between each of these and hypnotic susceptibility? METHOD Measures
Research questionnaire ((W). A 71-item, self-report questionnaire was assembled (which will be referred to as 03) covering a wide range of content. Thirty of the items were taken from Lee-Teng (Lee, 1963; Lee-Teng, 1965), who had borrowed manv of her items from Shor (1960) and As (e.g., As, O'Hara, & Hunger, 1962). The selected items had either been found to be related individually to hypnotic susceptibility (As, 1963) or to belong to

269

scales showing that relationship (Lee-Teng, 196S). To conform to the format of Q3, these 30 items were reworded from "you" questions into declarative "I" statements. Several items were further changed so as to refer to a disposition (as did most of the other Q3 items) rather than to a particular incident in the subject's past. Some items were also shortened. Another 18 items were chosen from a previously constructed "Trust Rating Scale" (Roberts & Tellegen, 1973) on the basis of individual correlations with hypnotic susceptibility. These 18 items are the only ones written in the form of an adjective followed by a parenthetical defining sentence, for example, "ALOOF (maintains distance between self and others)." The remaining 23 items were new. Q3 was considered to represent at least the following five content areas: Absorption, Dissociation, Trust, Impulsiveness, and Relaxation. Any item, however, that seemed promising was included whether or not it could be assigned unequivocally to a particular category. Q3, then, was not designed to measure a fixed set of a priori dimensions. On the contrary, its internal structure was to be an object of exploratory analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in the Results section of this paper, at which point the content of the questionnaire is presented in more detail. Measures of stability-nturoticism and introversionextroversion. Recently, Block (1965) published what is probably the most intensive validation study in this country of measures of the stability and introversion dimensions which he renamed Ego Resiliency and Ego Control, respectively. Twenty items were selected from Block's pool of Ego Resiliency items to form a Stability-Neuroticism scale. Items with extreme endorsement frequencies or with content likely to elicit objections (Butcher & Tellegen, 1966) were avoided. In two samples to be reported in the present paper the Ego Resiliency scale had alpha reliability coefficients of .58 and .59, respectively. A 20-item Ego Control or Introversion-Extraversion scale was assembled in the same way, and its reliability in the same two samples was .78 and .71, respectively. These reliabilities, while rather low for individual measurement, were satisfactory for purposes of dimensional analysis. Group Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility (GSHS and GSHS-A). The GSHS is a modified version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962) and is described in detail by Roberts and Tellegen (1973). The GSHS, like the Harvard Scale, is a standard hypnotic induction procedure which may be administered to several individuals simultaneously (between 20 and 40 in the present investigation). The GSHS was used in one of the samples, while the GSHS-A (Atkinson, 1971) was used in another sample. The total scores drived from these two scales had identical compositions, with the exception that one of the GSHS motoric items was replaced in the GSHS-A by two hypnotic dream items. A further difference was the use of a

270

AUKE TELLKGEN AND GILBERT ATKINSON the diagonal. This set proved to be very similar to the first set but could be subsumed slightly better under the five a priori categories and was adopted for purposes of constructing the primary factor scales. The primary factor scales consisted of unweighted items assembled by assigning each item to one factor scale according to its highest loading, provided that this loading exceeded .30. Two of the resulting scales were discarded, one because its content defied interpretation, the other because it consisted of only two items. The 11 remaining primary factor scales had coherent and distinct contents and acceptable internal consistencies. The alpha reliability coefficients ranging between .48 and .74 in Sample 1 and between .S3 and .80 in Sample 2 are shown in Table 1. Before reporting their use in subsequent analyses, all scales are identified, and at least one item from each scale is reproduced. The 11 factor scales obviously represent a more detailed breakdown of the content of Q3 than the one provided by the five a priori categories. The classifications are nevertheless related, and each a priori category is used as a heading for the scale or scales that primarily emerged from its items. A bsorption Scale 1: Reality Absorption (a tendency to become immersed in movies, acting, nature, voices, past events, etc.):
The sound of a voice can be so fascinating to me that I can just go on listening to it. While acting in a play, I have sometimes really felt the emotions of the character and have "become" him (her) for the time being, forgetting, as it were, both myself and the audience. I can sometimes recollect certain past experiences in my life with such clarity and vividness that it is like living them again or almost so.

tape-recorded induction with the GSHS-A, whereas the GSHS induction was done in person. The alpha coefficients of the total score were .89 and .88, respectively, for the GSHS and GSHS-A. In a subsample of 40 subjects a correlation of .80 was obtained between GSHS total score and scores based on behavior ratings made by an independent observer during administration of the scale. Measure of hypnotic depth. Field (1965) developed a self-report Hypnotic Depth Scale which allows the subject to itemize in detail the subjective changes that took place during a preceding hypnotic session. The scale consists of those 38 items, out of an initial 300-item pool, which correlated highest with hypnotic susceptibility. While a subsequent factor analysis of the 38 items (Field & Palmer, 1969) suggested that four factors could be distinguished, the same data also indicated the presence of a substantial general factor. The Field scale was administered to one of our subsamples. The correlations among the four factor scales were all high (about .60) and were, therefore, combined in one overall Hypnotic Depth score. Only the overall score, which had an alpha coefficient of .92, is reported.

Subjects
The subjects were female undergraduate college students enrolled in the introductory psychology course who volunteered to participate for course credits. A total of 481 subjects took part in the studies to be reported. For purposes of analysis and presentation, different groups of subjects must be distinguished to whom different sets of measures were administered. All 481 subjects completed Q3, and they are referred to as the total sample. One subgroup of 142 subjects, to be called Sample 1, completed in addition to Q3 the Ego Resiliency and Ego Control scales, the GSHS, and the Hypnotic Depth Scale. A second subgroup of 171 subjects, Sample 2, were given Q3, the Ego Resiliency and Ego Control scales, and the GSHS-A.

RESULTS Identification of Primary Factors in Q3: Construction of Factor Scales The first analysis was conducted in order to replace the original 71 items of Q3 by a smaller number of homogeneous scales, each representing an empirically denned "primary factor." The 71 items were factor analyzed in the total sample by the method of principal axes, using squared multiple correlations as communality estimates. The first 13 principal axes, which accounted for 99% of the common variance, were rotated to a normal varimax solution. An alternative set of 13 rotated varimax factors was obtained using unities in

Scale 2: Fantasy Absorption:

If I wish, I can imagine (or daydream) some things so vividly that they hold my attention in the way a good movie or story does. I can tell a story with elaborations to make it sound better and then have the elaboration seem as real to me as the actual incident, or almost so. I am sometimes able to forget about my present self and get absorbed in a fantasy that I am someone else.

ABSORPTION AND HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY Dissociation Scale 3: Dissociation:

If I wish, I can imagine that my body is so heavy that I could not move it if I wanted to.

271

Scale 4: Sleep Automatism:

I know that at some time I have walked in my sleep.

Trust Scale 5: Openness to Experience:

I enjoyor would enjoygetting beyond the world of logic and reason to experience something new and different.

Scale 6: Devotion and Trust:

It gives meor would give medeep satisfaction to devote myself to someone I care about. TRUSTING (generally believes in other people's good intentions; is not afraid of having to depend upon others).

Scale 7: Autonomy-Skepticism. (Items decribe an opposite of "Trust.")

I would much rather stick to my own ideas than be guided by others. SKEPTICAL (tends to have persistent intellectual doubts about claims and assertions made by others).

Scale 8: Optimism-Placidity:
OPTIMISTIC (has faith in the future). Regardless of what happens around me, I stay and feel pretty much the same.

Scale 9: Aloofness-Reserve (another opposite of "Trust."):

I prefer not to "open up" much, not even to friends, but to maintain a certain distance.

Impulsiveness versus Control Scale 10: Caution vs. Impulsiveness:

When faced with a decision I usually ponder and weigh all aspects carefully.

Relaxation Scale 11: Relaxation:

When I want to take a nap during the day I can make myself go to sleep in very little time.

Identification oj Major Factors in Q3 The purpose of the next analysis was to identify the more inclusive or higher order dimensions of our questionnaire by means of

a factor analysis of the 13 scales now available, that is, the 11 primary factor scales and the Ego Resiliency and Ego Control scales. (It may be useful to point out that the 11 primary factor scales, while derived from orthogonal factor analysis, are not necessarily uncorrelated. While each item was assigned to a scale representing a particular primary factor because its highest loading was on that factor, it was allowed to have nontrivial secondary loadings on other factors as well. Consistent patterns of secondary loadings could give rise to substantial correlations between primary factor scales and thus reveal a higher order structure.) The 13 scales were analyzed separately in Samples 1 and 2. Using squared multiple correlations as communality estimates, three principal axes were found to account for approximately 100% of the common variance in both samples. Normal varimax rotations were carried out and the results are presented in Table 1. The table shows that the rotated factors are highly similar in the two samples. The factor tables, moreover, exhibit an almost ideal simple structure, with each variable having a high loading on one factor only. As for the interpretation of the three factors, two are familiar ones. One, the second one listed in Table 1, shows salient loadings on Block's Ego Resiliency scale as well as on the Optimism and Relaxation scales and clearly represents the Stability dimension. The third factor in Table 1 is characterized by salient loadings on Block's Ego Control scale and on the Aloofness and Caution scales, identifying it as the Introversion dimension. Inclusion of the Ego Resiliency and Ego Control scales as markers enabled us, therefore, to subsume 4 of the 11 Q3 scales under familiar constructs. The remaining Q3 scales identify a third major factor, the largest one in the present analysis and appearing first in Table 1. The scales with the highest loadings in both samples on this factor are Reality Absorption, Fantasy Absorption, Dissociation, and Openness to Experience, with Devotion-Trust and Autonomy-Criticality showing somewhat lower salient loadings. We labeled this factor "Openness to Absorbing and Self-Altering Experiences" or "Absorption."

272

AUKE TELLEGEN AND GILBERT ATKINSON TABLE 1

VARIMAX FACTOR MATRICES BASED ON THIRTEEN BASIC SCALES ANALYZED SEPARATELY IN Two SAMPLES
Factors in Sample 1 Scale
I

Factors in Sample 2 alpha

67 68 I

II 66 50 56
1.22

III 64 54 64
1.36

60 50 34 50 19 22 11 46 27 48 43 30 53
4.91

II 65 48 62
1.31

III
,

h>

alpha

Reality Absorption Fantasy Absorption Dissociation Openness to Experience Devotion-Trust Autonomy-Criticality Sleep Automatism Optimism-Placidity Relaxation Ego Resilience 9. Aloofness-Reserve 10. Caution vs. Impulsiveness Ego Control Factor Contribution

1. 2. 3. S. 6. 7. 4. 8. 11.

75

41

69 58 57

45
2.34

66 63 48 51 56 63 58 58 79 70 78

73 62 56 SI 52 38 37
2.12

1.32

62 55 64

54 47 31 44 29 18 15 43 25 43 42 31 52
4.75

69 67 48 74 62 51 68 66 51 59 72 68 71

Note. Decimals are omitted from factor loadings and communalities. Loadings smaller than ,35 in absolute value are not listed. Alpha = alpha coefficient of reliability. N for Sample 1 = 1 4 2 ; A" for Sample 2 = 171.

RELATIONS BETWEEN Q3 AND HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY The relations between the three major questionnaire factors and hypnotic susceptibility were analyzed. Factor scores were computed for each of the three major factors by means of multiple regression estimates which combined the 13 questionnaire scales in appropriately weighted composites. Separate sets of regression formulas were derived from Samples 1 and 2. For purposes of comparison, we also present results obtained with criterion-based or "empirical" questionnaire predictors of hypnotizability. These measures were developed in two ways. One approach involved a traditional item analysis. Q3 items correlating .20 or higher with hypnotic susceptibility were combined without special weights into a scale. Separate scales were developed in Samples 1 and 2. The second method involved developing multiple regression equations predicting hypnotic susceptibility from the 11 primary factor scales. Again, two formulas were derived separately in the two samples. All factorial and empirical measures were correlated with hypnotic susceptibility in both samples. In other words, factor scores and scores on the criterion-based measures were not only computed and correlated with

hypnotizability in the derivation sample but were also cross-validated in the other sample. The results are presented in Table 2. The table shows correlations with the hypnotic susceptibility scales in Samples 1 and 2 and with Field's Hypnotic Depth Inventory in Sample 1. The correlations show a clear pattern. Of the three factor scores, only Absorption shows positive correlations (of .27, .42 and .43, respectively) with indicators of hypnotizability. Interestingly, the two kinds of criterionbased measures, which were specifically designed to predict hypnotic susceptibility, were on cross-validation not superior to the Absorption factor measure. The possibility still existed that the criterion-based measures predicted a component of hypnotic susceptibility differing from the one predicted by Absorption. This possibility was investigated by computing from the available cross-validation results partial correlations between the twocriterion based measures and all three measures of hypnotizability, with the contribution of Absorption partialed out. The mean partial correlation in the two samples was .02. Thus the unique contribution of the criterion-based measures proved negligible and Absorption, by the same token, proved sufficient for representing those individual differences tapped by

ABSORPTION AND HYPNOTIC Q3 that were related to hypnotic susceptibility. It may also be noted that the correlations involving the criterion-based measures show the expected shrinkage relative to the correlations in the derivation samples. Since the factor estimates, on the other hand, are not criterion based, they do not show such correlational shrinkage. Finally, two 20-item scales (about the same length as the empirical scales) were constructed using items which did not belong to the Absorption group and which were all keyed in the affirmative direction. In both samples the two scales were correlated with the hypnotizability measures. The mean correlation was .11, showing that the relationship between responses to Q3 items and hypnotic susceptibility cannot be attributed simply to variations in "acquiescence," that is, a general and relatively indiscriminate tendency to endorse items of varied content. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Relative to the investigations referred to earlier (e.g., As & Lauer, 19.62; As, O'Hara, & Munger, 1962; Lee-Teng, 1965), the present findings appear to provide an extension and clarification. For example, in Lee-Teng's study, it was found that three out of five a priori scales correlated significantly with hypnotic susceptibility. Items belonging to these

SUSCEPTIBILITY

273

scales were incorporated in our questionnaire; thus it could be determined that Lee-Teng's Role-Playing, Trancelike Experiences, and Impulsivity scales contained several items representing aspects of Absorption. Lee-Teng's Impulsivity scale, on the other hand, also contained a number of Caution versus Impulsiveness items, now identified as belonging to the Introversion dimension. It is of particular interest that our questionnaire, while covering a wide range of content drawn from various sources, yielded, nevertheless, only one major dimension other than Stability and Introversion. This dimension, Absorption, encompasses a substantial portion of Q3's varied content; it exemplifies the combination of substantive divergence and structural convergence that is suggestive of a major dimension or, in Eysenck's terms, a "combinatorial" trait (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). How should the Absorption factor be interpreted? Some tentative notions are here proposed which we hope will have some heuristic value and which are based on the item content of scales with salient Absorption loadings. Our working assumption is that item responses often represent essentially correct self-descriptions; the status of this assumption appears to have improved of late (e.g.,

TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS OP FACTOR MEASURES AND CRITERION-BASED MEASURES WITH HYPNOTIZABILITY
Sample 1 Item Hypnotic Susceptibility Hypnotic Depth Sample 2 Hypnotic Susceptibility 43** (42)

Factor measures I : Absorption II: Stability III: Introversion Criterion-based measures Item composite Scale composite

27* (27) 13 (16) -14 (-14)

42** (41) 16 (20) -03 (-06) 39** (55) 39** (48)

-02 (-05) -18 (-16)

29** (51) 29** (42)

37** (51) 35** (49)

Note. Decimals are omitted from the correlation coefficients. The correlations observed in the derivation sample are listed in parentheses underneath the correlations in the cross-validation sample. AT for Sample 1 = 142; N for Sample 2 = 171. *p <.01.

274

AUKE TELLEGEN AND GILBERT ATKINSON my imagination" or "this is not really happening." Imperviousness to Normally Distracting Events The absorbed individual often seems not to notice external events that would normally draw attention. This too could be seen as inherent to having an already fully committed representational system. An Altered Sense oj Reality in General and oj the Self in Particular Absorbed attention is highly "centered" (in a roughly Piagetian sense) and amplifies greatly the experience of one part of reality, while other aspects recede from awareness. Consequently, the vivid subjective reality experienced during episodes of absorbed attention may well, in retrospect, during more "decentered" normal states of wakefulness, impress one as "altered," "unreal," or "imaginary." It should, perhaps, be noted that in at least one interpretation of imagination, namely Sartre's classical phenomenological study (Sartre, 1940; see also Spiegelberg, 1969, v. II) the element of unreality is treated as a core feature. According to Sartre the imaginative attitude poses its object under a negative aspect, as, for example, not here or not existing, or, using the word that later became central in his philosophy, as a "nothing." Thus the imaginative attitude as denned by Sartre involves precisely those negating metacognitions that are incompatible with absorbed attention, even if it is directed to a memory object. It would seem, then, that Sartre's concept of imagination has more in common with a retrospective sense of altered reality of the kind just described than with absorbed imagination. If some aspect of the self, for example, one's breathing or the weight of one's hand, happened to be the object of immersed attention, then an alteration of self could take place and be experienced as such in retrospect. (Here and throughout we are referring to the "self-as-object," a region of one's constructed reality, rather than to the "self-asprocess" [cf. Hall & Lindzey, 1970].) If there is a marked discontinuity between the

Hase & Goldberg, 1967; Jackson, 1971; Payne & Wiggins, 1972). Our point of departure is the frequent reference of Absorption items to episodes of a special attentional object relationship which can be described by such terms as "absorption" and "fascination." These terms suggest a state of "total attention" during which the available representational apparatus seems to be entirely dedicated to experiencing and modeling the attentional object, be it a landscape, a human being, a sound, a remembered incident, or an aspect of one's self. Phenomena of this kind, while apparently overlooked by contemporary academic treatments of attention, perception, and memory, have been described and discussed widely in literature on meditation, expanded awareness, peak experiences, mysticism, esthetic experience, regression in the serivce of the ego, altered states of consciousness, and in the literature on drug effects. For example, Maslow (1968) spoke of the "fascination" and "complete absorption" that characterize peak experiences. Schachtel (1959), to whom Maslow refers, described the "allocentric" perceptual mode as involving "totality of interest [p. 221]," and openness to the object in all its aspects with all one's senses, including one's kinesthetic experience. We suggest, in a similar vein, that the attention described in Absorption items is a "total" attention, involving a \ull commitment oj available perceptual, motoric, imaginative and ideational resources to a unified representation oj the attentional object. If we consider this kind of attentional process to be at the core of Absorption, then the following phenomena might be seen as inherent correlates: A Heightened Sense oj the Reality oj the Attentional Object Even when the attentional object is constructed from memory, it is experienced as present and real. It is assumed that an already fully engaged representational system cannot, in addition to representations of the focal object, maintain salient qualifying "meta-cognitions," that is, thoughts about the primary representation, such as "this is only

ABSORPTION AND HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY usual self and the self during an episode of absorbed concentration on some aspect of the self, then we may, indeed, speak of a "dissociative experience" of the kind suggested by several of the Fantasy Absorption and Dissociation items. Absorbed attention can also result in an altered self when the attentional object is someone else. Full representation of someone else's activities and experiences often involves the enactive or "body-english" component of absorbed attention. The resulting kinesthetic feedback enhances empathic participation and an experience of equivalence of the attentional object and one's self. This identification with the object, in turn, implies a temporary alteration of one's usual self of the kind described in some Reality Absorption and Fantasy Absorption items. One might add that self-altering identifications appear to be possible with a very wide range of animate and inanimate .things and that their occurrence may not be entirely dependent on enactive representation. Objects of absorbed attention acquire an importance and intimacy that are normally reserved for the self and may, therefore, acquire a temporary self-like quality. These object identifications have mystical overtones. And, indeed, one would expect high-absorption persons to have an affinity for mystical experience, even if true unio mystica is, itself, a rare attainment. These varied phenomena are seen as statelike manifestations of the cognitive-motivational trait Absorption. The cognitive component of this trait appears to include the ability to operate diverse representational modalities synergistically so that a full but unified experience is realized. This imaginative and integrative aspect is, perhaps, captured by the term "syngnosia," (analogous to "synesthesia" which may be one of its components). It is reminiscent of the Freudian mechanism of "condensation" and may be an important ingredient of creativity, particularly imageoriented, artistic creativity. Another cognitive aspect involves the empathic quality and versatility of the representations of high-Absorption persons. It seems plausible that this ability to realize

275

diverse states of being could be cultivated and elaborated into role-playing skills in the more specific interpersonal and theatrical sense. The motivational-affective component would seem to consist in a sentient and tolerant "openness to experience" (Fitzgerald, 1966), a desire and readiness for object relationships, temporary or lasting, that permit experiences of deep involvement. The content of several Absorption markers, including the Openness to Experience and Devotion-Trust scales, is suggestive in this respect. While absorbed attention is in itself unreserved and "wholehearted," Absorption also reflects a distinctive cognitive style and may generate unconventional and idiosyncratic appraisals. For this reason, high-Absorption persons may feel the need for cognitive independence that is reflected in one other variable with low but consistent Absorption loadings, the Autonomy-Skepticism scale. Finally, a valid conception of Absorption cannot contradict its independence of Stability (or Ego Resiliency) and Introversion (or Ego Control). Whether endowed with much or little Absorption, a person may either show the adaptability of Block's Ego Resilient subjects or the vulnerability to stress associaated with low Resiliency. Similarly, he may exhibit the restraint and reflectiveness characteristic of high Ego Control or the impulsiveness Block found associated with low Ego Control (Block, 1965). Of the three dimensions, Stability, Introversion, and Absorption, only Absorption is consistently associated with hypnotic susceptibility. The strength of this association is only modest and would of course have been greater had the present Absorption measure and the hypnotic susceptibility scales only reflected the capacity for absorbed attention. However, method factors undoubtedly affect both kinds of measures and attenuate the relations between them (e.g., Lee-Teng, 196S). The assessment of Absorption can undoubtedly be improved by developing additional methods. Efforts in that direction are presently underway. As for measures of hypnotic susceptibility, these indicators, too, surely reflect more than a capacity for ab-

276

AUKE TELLEGEN AND GILBERT ATKINSON

sorbed attention. In the case of the usual hyp- or capacity for organismic involvement (e.g., notic phenomena the hypnotic "essence" is, Sarbin, 1950; Sarbin & Coe, 1972) again according to Orne (19S9), partially obscured refers to an important aspect of Absorption. by various "artifacts" such as the response Recently, Barber and DeMoor (1972) and to demand characteristics. The influence of Spanos (1971) have likewise emphasized such factors has also been documented by goal-motivated fantasy as an important aspect Barber and his co-workers (e.g., Barber, of hypnosis. Shor's (1962) concepts of depth 1969). Even if Absorption belongs to the of role-taking involvement, depth of trance, essence of hypnotic susceptibility, nonhyp- and depth of archaic involvement would seem notic artifacts would attenuate the relation- to have approximate counterparts in the ship between the present measures of the two. Absorption facets of, respectively, enactive The present data are, nevertheless, clear representation, heightened sense of reality, enough to indicate that hypnotic perform- and devotion-trust. Most directly pertinent to the present findance, in part, reflects the trait Absorption. To some extent, then, it is possible to view hyp- ings, however, is the intensive interview study notic phenomena as experiential and behav- by Josephine Hilgard (1970). Hilgard docuioral manifestations of a certain kind of mented the occurrence among her subjects of thought process, namely, the imaginative, en- deep involvements in a variety of experiences active, and self-altering representation of an and activities and advances the concept of attentional object. For example, the immobili- "imaginative involvement." The nature of the zation of an arm following a suggestion that involvements of Hilgard's subjects correit is stiff and rigid or chasing a fly in response sponds to the content of the Absorption facto the suggestion that one is buzzing around tor, particularly that of its two strongest annoyingly could be explained as the observ- markers, the Reality Absorption and Fantasy able manifestations of an imaginative and en- Absorption scales. Hilgard, furthermore, found active thought process by which the subject the frequency of involvements to be related fully immerses himself in the representation to hypnotic susceptibility, just as we found to of a rigid arm or of his annoyance over a be the case for Absorption. Her findings, then, bothersome insect. In these cases, at least to are clearly supported by the present traitthe extent that they are expressions of Ab- oriented psychometric investigation. In general, the manifestations of Absorpsorption, there is no direct compliance with explicit or implicit demands to act in a tion appear to encompass in one covariational certain way; there is compliance only with structure several of the features emphasized in different conceptions relating to hypnosis. respect to the choice of attentional object. Thus we conclude that Absorption, inter- Continued study of this trait should prove preted as a capacity for absorbed and self- fruitful for the study of both personality and altering attention, represents an essential hypnosis. component of hypnotic susceptibility. The litREFERENCES erature on hypnosis, in fact, often refers to hypnotic characteristics which have an affin- As, A. Hypnotizability as a function of nonhypnotic experiences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyity with aspects of Absorption. A few illuschology, 1963, 66, 142-150. trative examples are cited briefly. White has elaborated Braid's concept of mono-ideism As, A., & Lauer, L. W. A factor analytic study of hypnotizability and related personal experiences. (see Sarbin, 1950), a concept reminiscent of International Journal of Clinical and Experimental the centering of attention which we have assoHypnosis, 1962, 10, 169-181. ciated with Absorption. Hilgard (1965) has As, A., O'Hara, J. W., & Hunger, M. P. The meaassigned a central role to dissociation in the surement of subjective experiences presumably related to hypnotic susceptibility. Scandinavian explanation of hypnosis, and, as suggested Journal of Psychology, 1962, 3, 47-64. earlier, some such concept appears also to be Atkinson, G. A. Personality and hypnotic cognition. intrinsic to Absorption. Sarbin's interpretaUnpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1971. tion of hypnosis in terms of imaginative skills

ABSORPTION AND HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY

Barber, T. X. Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969. Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality. II. Assessment of previous imaginative-fantasy experiences by the As, Barber-Glass, and Shor questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1965, 21, 57-58. Barber, T. X., & DeMoor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, 15, 112-135. Block, J. The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Butcher, J. N., & Tellegen, A. Objections to MMPI items. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, S27-S34. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. Personality structure and measurement. San Diego, Calif.: Knapp, 1969. Field, P. B. An inventory scale of hypnotic depth. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1965, 13, 238-249. Field, P. B., & Palmer, R. D. Factor analysis: Hypnosis inventory. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1969, 17, 50-61. Fitzgerald, E. T. Measurement of openness to experience; a study of regression in the service of the ego. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 655-663. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. Theories of personality. New York: Wiley, 1970. Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. R. The comparative validity of different strategies of deriving personality inventory scales. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67, 231-248. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965. Hilgard, J. R. Personality and hypnosis: A study of imaginative involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Jackson, D. N. The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 229-248. Lee, E. M. A questionnaire measure of hypnotic characteristics and their relationship to hypnotizability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1963. Lee-Teng, E. Trance-susceptibility, induction-susceptibility, and acquiescence as factors in hypnotic performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 383-389. Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. (2nd ed.) Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1968. Nichols, R. C., & Schnell, R. R. Factor scales for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 228-23S.

277

Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Artifact arid essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 277-299. Payne, F. D., & Wiggins, J. S. MMPI profile types and the self-report of psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 79, 1-8. Roberts, A. H., & Tellegen, A. Ratings of "trust" and hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1973, 21, 289-297. Sarbin, T. R. Contributions to role-taking theory: I. Hypnotic behavior. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 255-270. Sarbin, T. R., & Coe, W. C. Hypnosis: A social psychological analysis of influence communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Sartre, J-P. L'imaginaire. Paris: Gallimard, 1940. Schachtel, E. G. Metamorphosis: On the development of affect, perception, attention, and memory. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Sells, S. B., Demaree, R. G., & Wills, D. P., Jr. Dimensions of personality: II. Separate factor structures in Guilford and Cattell Trait Markers. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1971, 6, 135-185. Shor, R. E. The frequency of naturally occurring "hypnotic-like" experiences in the normal college population. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1960, 8, 151-163. Shor, R. E. Three dimensions of hypnotic depth. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 23-28. Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. Shor, R. E., Orne, M. T., O'Connell, D. N. Validation and cross-validation of a scale of self-reported personal experiences which predict hypnotizability. Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 55-75. Spanos, N. P. Goal-directed fantasy and the performance of hypnotic test suggestions. Psychiatry, 1971, 34, 86-96. Spiegelberg, H. The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction. (2nd ed.) The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, 1969. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. (Received September 12, 1973)