Lynn2011 Responding To Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Suggestions Performance Standards Imaginative Suggestibility and Response Expectancies

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]
On: 04 September 2013, At: 09:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Clinical

and Experimental Hypnosis
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20
Responding to Hypnotic and

Nonhypnotic Suggestions:
Performance Standards,
Imaginative Suggestibility, and
Response Expectancies
a a
Eric C. Meyer & Steven Jay Lynn
a
Binghamton University, State University of New York,
USA
Published online: 01 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Eric C. Meyer & Steven Jay Lynn (2011) Responding to Hypnotic and
Nonhypnotic Suggestions: Performance Standards, Imaginative Suggestibility, and Response
Expectancies , International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59:3, 327-349,
DOI: 10.1080/00207144.2011.570660
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207144.2011.570660
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
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 09:21 04 September 2013
Intl. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59(3): 327–349, 2011
Copyright © International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
ISSN: 0020-7144 print / 1744-5183 online
DOI: 10.1080/00207144.2011.570660
RESPONDING TO HYPNOTIC AND

NONHYPNOTIC SUGGESTIONS:
Performance Standards, Imaginative
Suggestibility, and Response Expectancies1
Eric C. Meyer and Steven Jay Lynn2,3
Binghamton University, State University of New York, USA
Abstract: This study examined the relative impact of hypnotic induc-

tions and several other variables on hypnotic and nonhypnotic
responsiveness to imaginative suggestions. The authors examined
how imaginative suggestibility, response expectancies, motivation to
respond to suggestions, and hypnotist-induced performance standards
affected participants’ responses to both hypnotic and nonhypnotic sug-
gestions and their suggestion-related experiences. Suggestions were
administered to 5 groups of participants using a test-retest design:
(a) stringent performance standards; (b) lenient performance stan-
dards; (c) hypnosis test-retest; (d) no-hypnosis test-retest; and (e)
no-hypnosis/hypnosis control. The authors found no support for
the influence of a hypnotic induction or performance standards on
responding to suggestions but found considerable support for the role
of imaginative suggestibility and response expectancies in predicting
responses to both hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestions.
It has long been recognized that individuals vary in their propen-

sity to respond to hypnotic and nonhypnotic imaginative suggestions.
In attempting to explain this variance with reference to hypnosis, some
theorists (see Kirsch & Lynn, 1995; Lynn & Rhue, 1991, for reviews)
have contended that hypnosis involves an enduring, relatively stable,
Manuscript submitted July 7, 2010; final revision accepted November 1, 2010.

1 This research is the basis of the first author’s Master of Science thesis. Portions
of this study were presented at the 53rd Meeting of the Society for Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, Boston, MA (November 2002). The authors would like to thank
Karen Ecklund, James MacKillop, Kelley Shindler, and Holly Vanderhoff for their help
with data collection.
2 Eric C. Meyer is now at DVA VISN 17 Center of Excellence for Research on Returning
War Veterans; and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Texas A & M
Health Science Center, College of Medicine.
3 Address correspondence to Eric C. Meyer, DVA VISN 17 Center of Excellence for
Research on Returning War Veterans, Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System (151C),
4800 Memorial Drive, Waco, TX 76710, USA. E-mail: Eric.Meyer2@va.gov
327
328 ERIC C. MEYER AND STEVEN JAY LYNN
trait-like ability (Hilgard, 1965; Piccione, Hilgard, & Zimbardo, 1989)

to enter into a hypnotic state or condition. In contrast, sociocognitive
theorists (Barber, Spanos, & Chaves, 1974; Spanos, 1982; Spanos & Coe,
1992) assert that hypnotic responsiveness (also referred to as hypnotic
suggestibility, hypnotizability, and hypnotic susceptibility) emanates
from an amalgam of contextual (e.g., demand characteristics, word-
ing, and nature of imaginative suggestions) and individual difference
variables (e.g., expectancies, motivation, attitudes, beliefs, interpreta-
tion of suggestions, imaginative/fantasy abilities), and the complex

interactions among these variables.
In support of the sociocognitive perspective, contextual and indi-
vidual difference variables account for substantial variance in hyp-
notic responding. For example, imaginative suggestibility, sometimes
termed nonhypnotic or waking suggestibility (see Braffman & Kirsch,
1999), is the best predictor of hypnotic responsiveness (Barber & Glass,
1962; Braffman & Kirsch, 1999; Hilgard & Tart, 1966; Hull, 1933), with
correlations between imaginative and hypnotic suggestibility rang-
ing from .54 to .99. Besides imaginative suggestibility, correlations
are strongest between expectancies (Kirsch, 1985, 1991) and hyp-
notic responsiveness (Kirsch, Council, & Mobayed, 1987; Kirsch, Silva,
Comey, & Reed, 1995).
Braffman and Kirsch (1999) conducted two studies using the
Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS;
Spanos, Radke, Hodgins, Bertrand, & Stam, 1981) in which subjects
responded to nonhypnotic suggestions during one session and to hyp-
notic suggestions in a second session. The addition of a hypnotic induc-
tion led to a small but statistically significant increase in response to
suggestion in one of the studies. However, in both studies the addition
of an induction failed to lead to an increase in hypnotic responsive-
ness for a majority of participants. Moreover, a substantial minority
of participants was more responsive to suggestions without the use of
a hypnotic induction, perhaps as a result of random variation associ-
ated with less than perfect scale reliability. As expected, across studies,
imaginative suggestibility accounted for a large portion of the variance
in hypnotic responding. In fact, imaginative suggestibility, response
expectancy, and motivation to respond to suggestions accounted for
a proportion of the variance in hypnotic responding that approached
the reliability of the CURSS (Spanos et al., 1983). Nonetheless, Braffman
and Kirsch were cautious in interpreting these findings, recommending
that future studies assess within-subjects changes in response to sug-
gestion through the use of both hypnotic and nonhypnotic test-retest
conditions.
In a recent study, Milling, Coursen, Shores, and Waskiewicz (2010)
evaluated the utility of operationalizing hypnotic responsiveness along
the lines suggested by Braffman and Kirsch (1999). As hypothesized,
HYPNOTIC AND NONHYPNOTIC RESPONSES TO SUGGESTIONS 329
the investigators found that hypnotic responsiveness predicted intrain-

dividual differences in responding to an imaginative and hypnotic
analgesia suggestion. However, this effect was obtained only when the
hypnotic analgesia suggestion was administered after the imaginative
analgesia suggestion, implying that hypnotizability operationalized à
la Braffman and Kirsch is a useful predictor of the effect of adding
a hypnotic induction to an imaginative suggestion. The researchers
determined that, like Braffman and Kirsch, a substantial number of
people scored higher on imaginative suggestibility and “the majority

of our participants did not score higher on hypnotic suggestibility than
on imaginative suggestibility” (Braffman & Kirsch, p. 129).
A number of researchers (K. S. Bowers, 1976; Perry, 1977) have
argued that a single assessment underestimates participants’ “true”
score because of factors such as the novelty of the test situation and
fears of being controlled. Accordingly, researchers have criticized stud-
ies that did not reveal differences between hypnotic and nonhypnotic
conditions in a single testing session, based on the argument that partic-
ipants have not reached their optimal level of hypnotic responsiveness
(Perry, 1977). Alternately, participants might exaggerate their responses
during hypnosis if they have previously been tested with no hypnosis
(Braffman & Kirsch, 1999). Contrary to these arguments, most studies
find that participants generally do not increase responding across trials
(Spanos, 1986): Responsiveness typically remains stable or decreases
over trials (Barber & Calverley, 1966; Fassler, Lynn, & Knox, 2008; Lynn,
Weekes, Matyi, & Neufeld, 1988; Spanos, Robertson, Menary, Brett, &
Smith, 1987).
The current study extended Braffman and Kirsch’s (1999) work
examining the relations among imaginative suggestibility, response
expectancy, and hypnotic responsiveness and incorporated Braffman
and Krisch’s methodological recommendations by examining hypnotic
and nonhypnotic test-retest groups to assess change in responsive-
ness over two sessions. Additionally, to assess the generalizability of
Braffman and Kirsch’s and Milling et al.’s (2010) findings, we used a
different measure of hypnotic responsiveness.
Our second goal was to examine the impact of performance stan-
dards on hypnotic responding, defined as criteria by which behaviors
or subjective experiences are evaluated (Lynn, Green, Jaquith, & Gasior,
2003). Performance standards may be distinguished from response
expectancies. Whereas response expectancy refers to the expectation
that Response A will occur, performance standards are the crite-
ria by which Response A is evaluated. Two individuals may have
similar suggestion-related expectancies and experiences regarding a
particular suggestion (e.g., arm raising) yet assess their individual
experiences quite differently on the basis of differing performance
standards.
Lynn and colleagues (Lynn & Rhue, 1991; Lynn, Rhue, & Weekes,
1991) suggested that when actual performance fails to meet a person’s
criteria for successful hypnotic responding, the likely outcome is
performance-related concern/anxiety, inhibited involvement with the
hypnotic procedure, negative self-evaluation, and attenuated response
expectancies. Hypnosis practitioners implicitly recognize the impor-
tance of establishing “lenient” or attainable performance standards
when they suggest naturally occurring phenomena (e.g., arm lowering
following a period of elevating one’s arm) to facilitate successful hyp-

notic responding or when they define any response to a suggestion as
successful (e.g., Erickson, Rossi, & Rossi, 1976; Lynn & Hallquist, 2004).
Rhue and Lynn (1987) found that participants who adopted a lenient
response criterion (i.e., reported they could “see” the image even when
it had a transparent quality) were more likely to successfully respond
to a suggestion to hallucinate a suggested event. McConkey (1986)
found that 80% of low hypnotizable participants believed that hypno-
sis involves an altered state of consciousness such as a trance state (i.e.,
a difficult or stringent performance standard), whereas medium and
highly suggestible participants generally endorsed the belief that hyp-
nosis involves a normal state of focused attention (see also Green, 2003;
Green, Page, Rasekhy, Johnson, & Bernhardt, 2006).
In addition, Lynn, Vanderhoff, Shindler, and Stafford (2002) found
that participants who were told that their ability to respond hyp-
notically depended entirely on their ability to enter into an altered
state of consciousness or trance (stringent standard) responded to
fewer suggestions than participants informed that their responsiveness
depended on their willingness to cooperate with the hypnotist (lenient
standard). Lynn et al. (2003) informed participants in a stringent stan-
dards condition that “good” hypnotic subjects respond immediately
to suggestions and that participants who do not respond immediately
are “not likely to respond to many suggestions” (p. 56). Participants
in the stringent condition were also informed that “good” hypnotic
subjects imagine suggested events “as real as real,” something few par-
ticipants are able to achieve. Participants in the lenient performance
standards group were told that “good” hypnotic subjects do not nec-
essarily respond immediately to suggestions or imagine very vividly,
and that even participants who do not respond immediately are “likely
to respond to more than a few suggestions” (Lynn et al., 2003, p. 56). A
control group was not provided with any explicit standards regarding
responding. Participants in the stringent standard and lenient stan-
dard groups responded comparably in terms of outward, behavioral
responses. However, participants in the stringent group reported that
they responded to significantly fewer suggestions, experienced less
suggestion-related involvement and reported less involuntariness than
participants in the control group. However, the finding that lenient per-
formance standards also led to inhibited behavioral responding relative
to the control group was counterintuitive.
Lynn et al. (2003) suggested that “when any performance standard
is made salient, participants compare their hypnotic experience and
performance with that standard and engage in a matching-to-standard
process that generates task-irrelevant performance concerns, interrupts
the free flow of experience, and attenuates attention to suggested events
and accompanying feelings of involuntariness” (p. 62). A limitation of

the Lynn et al. study is that the performance standards they used may
have also affected participants’ response expectancies and motivation
to respond, variables consistently found to influence hypnotic respond-
ing (Braffman & Kirsch, 1999). That is, specific references were made
in the performance standard instructional sets to what is required of
“good” hypnotic subjects, and explicit statements were made regard-
ing the specific number of suggestions participants could expect to
pass. Thus, the results of Lynn et al.’s study are difficult to interpret
with respect to the independent influence of performance standards on
successful responding. Accordingly, the instructional sets used in the
current study make no reference to what is required of a “good” partic-
ipant or to the number of suggestions a participant may expect to pass.
Because the hypnotic and nonhypnotic test-retest groups do not contain
a performance standards manipulation, it was also possible to exam-
ine the impact of adding any performance standards manipulation on
hypnotic responding at retest.
Finally, we examined the construct validity of a measure of subjec-
tive experiences associated with responding to suggestions. Our study
represents the first use of the Posthypnotic Experiences Scale (PES;
Brentar, 1992) adapted for use with nonhypnotic suggestions.
Method
Participants
A total of 357 undergraduate students (males n = 124; females n
= 233; median age = 19) volunteered in exchange for course credit.
Participants signed up for a two-session study titled “Experiences”
with no indication that it would involve hypnosis. Participants signed
up for one of five sessions that corresponded to the different study
conditions with no knowledge that there would be any difference
among the groups. This self-selection led to the following group
composition: (a) Stringent performance standards (n = 63; 63.5%
female); (b) Lenient performance standards (n = 74; 74.3% female);
(c) no-hypnosis/hypnosis control group (n = 78; 60.3% female);
(d) No-hypnosis test-retest group (n = 72; 63.9% female); and (e)

Hypnosis test-retest group (n = 70; 64.3% female). Note that partici-
pants in Groups a and b received no hypnotic induction in Session 1
and hypnosis in Session 2.
Instruments
We measured hypnotic and imaginative responsiveness to sug-
gestions with the 12-suggestion Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of

Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (WSGC; K. S. Bowers, 1998; P. G.
Bowers, Laurence, & Hart, 1982). Behavioral responding scores are
the total number of suggestions participants pass with an objective,
behavioral response (based on self-report posthypnosis). The behav-
ioral scale shows adequate (α = .80) internal consistency (K. S. Bowers,
1998). The correlation between the WSGC and the Harvard Group
Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, is .70 (K. S. Bowers, 1993).
Nonhypnotic suggestions were referred to as “experimental” sugges-
tions. For the WSGC experiential scale (Kirsch, Milling, & Burgess,
1998), participants rate subjective involvement with each suggestion
on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from no involvement (e.g., I did not feel
anything pulling my hands together) to full involvement (I felt a strong force
pulling my hands together). The experiential scale displays good internal
consistency (α = .89) and criterion validity (Kirsch et al., 1998).
The response expectancies measure asked subjects to predict the
number of suggestions to which they would respond as follows:
“Today you will receive 12 hypnotic [experimental] suggestions. How
many suggestions do you think you will respond to?” Motivation to
respond was assessed using a Likert-style measure as follows: “How
important is it to you that you respond to hypnotic [experimental] sug-
gestions?” (1 = not at all important; 3 = moderately important; 5 = very
important).
Experiences associated with responding to suggestions were mea-
sured using the Postsuggestion Experiences Scale (PES), formerly
known as the Posthypnotic Experiences Scale (Brentar, 1992). The
characteristics measured by the PES are not exclusively related to hyp-
nosis, and the scale contains no references to hypnosis. The PES is
a 65-item scale that asks participants to rate experiences commonly
associated with participation in hypnotic or other suggestion-based
procedures. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). The PES exhibits a reliable factor structure
composed of four types of experiences: (a) pleasant, (b) somatic-
kinesthetic, (c) irritability/anger, and (d) anxiety (Brentar, Lynn, &
Carlson, 1992). Factor scores comprised total scores for each factor. PES
factor scores correlate significantly with well-established measures of
hypnotic responsiveness and exhibit good discriminant validity and
high internal consistency (Brentar et al., 1992). The PES demonstrated

good internal consistency across groups in the present study (α = .92).
Procedure
Session 1. All Session 1 groups lasted approximately 1 hour and
were conducted by the first author. During Session 1, the suggestions
contained in the WSGC were administered in a nonhypnotic context.
That is, a modified version of the WSGC was used in which all refer-
ences to hypnosis were removed, and suggestions were referred to as

“experimental” (i.e., “experimental suggestions” rather than “hypnotic
suggestions”). This was the case for all groups except the hypno-
sis test-retest group, in which the suggestions were administered in
a hypnotic context (the induction and suggestions included frequent
references to hypnosis) during both sessions. Following the admin-
istration of suggestions, all participants completed the self-reported
behavioral and experiential scales of the WSGC and reported their
experiences on the PES. All sessions were conducted in groups of 30
to 50 participants.
Session 2. The Session 2 procedures were conducted 1 week after
Session 1 in the same room that the Session 1 procedures were admin-
istered. Again, all sessions lasted approximately 1 hour and were
conducted in groups of 30 to 50 subjects. The Session 2 procedures were
administered by one of four clinical psychology doctoral students other
than the first author. These experimenters were blind to the experimen-
tal hypotheses. Each experimenter conducted sessions with at least two
different groups to assess for the presence of experimenter effects. At
the beginning of Session 2, participants were informed whether the ses-
sion would involve hypnosis via an informed consent form, which was
administered separately for each session. Next, participants recorded
their response expectancies and motivation to respond to suggestions.
The experimenter then read aloud the performance standards or con-
trol instructional sets. The key excerpts from the performance standard
instructional sets are presented here:
Stringent condition:
There are two things about responding to suggestions that you should
know. The first is that participants who respond to suggestions in the
hypnotic situation report that they are able to experience hypnotic
effects quickly, immediately. That is, participants who are responsive
to hypnotic suggestions feel the effects immediately, like your eyes
closing or your head falling forward. If people do not respond imme-
diately, they are not likely to respond to many hypnotic suggestions.
The second thing is that hypnotic responsiveness requires imagining
suggestions in a particularly vivid way, far more vividly than you are
able to imagine in everyday life. Responsive participants often report
that their hypnotic images are as real as real, and that they have a
vivid, lifelike sense of what is suggested, no matter what the sugges-
tion may be. So, the hypnotic response is not only immediate but the
images associated with it are realistic and lifelike, and far more vivid
than the images that are formed in everyday life.
Lenient condition:
There are two things about responding to suggestions that you should
know. The first is that participants who respond to suggestions in
the hypnotic situation do not necessarily report that they are able to
experience hypnotic effects quickly, immediately. That is, participants
who are responsive to hypnotic suggestions do not necessarily feel
the effects immediately, like your eyes closing or your head falling
forward. In fact, if people do not respond immediately, they can
still respond to many hypnotic suggestions. The second thing is that
hypnotic responsiveness does not necessarily require imagining sug-
gestions in a particularly vivid way, or any more vividly than you are
able to imagine in everyday life. Responsive participants do not often
report that their hypnotic images are as real as real, or that they have
a vivid, lifelike sense of what is suggested. In fact, not only is the hyp-
notic response not necessarily immediate, but hypnotic images are not
necessarily realistic and lifelike. Nor are the images necessarily more
vivid than the images that are formed in everyday life.
The hypnosis and no-hypnosis test-retest groups, as well as the

no-hypnosis/hypnosis control group did not receive any information
regarding performance standards. Instead, these groups were informed
that they were participating in a second test of their ability to respond
to suggestions, and that their responding may increase, decrease,
or remain the same compared to the first session. Immediately fol-
lowing the administration of the performance standards or control
instructional sets, participants recorded their response expectancies
and motivation to respond a second time.
Next, the WSGC induction and suggestions were administered in
a hypnotic context for all groups except the no-hypnosis test-retest
group. The subjects in the no-hypnosis test-retest group again received
an induction that referred to “experimental” suggestions and that did
not include any references to hypnosis. Participants then completed
the self-reported behavioral and experiential scales of the WSGC and
rated their experiences on the PES. Finally, following Braffman and
Kirsch (1999), participants in the four hypnosis groups responded to
the following question: “Did you suspect or know that this experiment
involved hypnosis before you began the experiment?” The response
options were: (a) “No, I had no idea that this experiment involved hyp-
nosis”; (b) “I thought it might involve hypnosis, but I wasn’t sure”;
(c) “Yes, I knew that the experiment involved hypnosis.”
Results
Preliminary analyses revealed no effects of gender or knowledge

that the study may have involved hypnosis on any of the dependent
variables. No experimenter effects were found. Therefore, the data were
collapsed across these variables.
Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics for the WSGC behavioral and
experiential scores and PES factor scores for both sessions and response
expectancies and motivation to respond. A one-way analysis of vari-

ance (ANOVA) revealed no effect of group membership on Session 1
behavioral, F(4, 352) = 0.51, p = ns, or experiential, F(4, 352) = 0.53,
p = ns, scores. WSGC scores were compared between the participants
that received a hypnotic induction (hypnotic test-retest group) and all
other participants that did not receive a hypnotic induction (collapsed
into one group). Two independent-samples t tests verified that there
was no difference as a function of hypnotic induction in terms of either
behavioral, t(355) = 0.04, p = ns, or experiential, t(355) = 0.75, p = ns,
responding during the first session.
Prior to the administration of the instructional sets, a between-
subjects ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group on
expectancies, F(4, 352) = 8.77, p < .001. A Scheffe post hoc test indi-
cated that the no-hypnosis test-retest group reported significantly
greater response expectancies than the hypnosis test-retest (p < .001),
no-hypnosis/hypnosis control (p < .001), and lenient performance stan-
dard groups (p < .01) and a trend for greater expectancies than the
stringent performance standard group (p = .10). For motivation to
respond to suggestions prior to the administration of the performance
standards, a between-subjects ANOVA revealed a significant effect of
group, F(4,352) = 5.78, p < .001. A Scheffe post hoc test revealed that
the no-hypnosis test-retest group reported significantly greater moti-
vation to respond than the no-hypnosis/hypnosis control (p < .001)
and lenient performance standard groups (p < .01), as well as a trend
for greater motivation than the hypnosis test-retest group (p = .10).
Because of these baseline group differences, analyses of covariance
(ANCOVAs) were conducted to examine the impact of group mem-
bership on expectancies and motivation to respond to suggestions
following the administration of the performance standards/control
instructional sets. Covarying baseline expectancies, there was no effect
of group membership on expectancies following the administration
of the performance standards/control instructional sets, F(4,351) =
0.51, p = ns. Covarying baseline motivation, there was no effect of
group on motivation following administration of the performance
standards/control instructional sets, F(4,351) = 1.36, p = ns. Inspection
of Table 1 reveals that expectancies and motivation were virtually
unchanged following the administration of the performance standards
Table 1
WSGC Behavioral and Experiential Scores, PES Factor Scores, Response Expectancies, and Response Motivation by Group
336
Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis

Performance Performance Hypnosis Test-Retest Test-Retest
Standards Standards Control
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
WSGC Scoresa
Behavioral 1 5.03 2.2 4.62 2.2 4.85 1.9 5.06 1.9 4.87 2.1
Behavioral 2 3.98 2.2 3.35 1.9 3.49 1.8 3.94 2.2 3.43 2.4
Experiential 1 28.65 7.8 28.07 6.6 27.79 6.6 29.13 7.1 29.10 7.7
Experiential 2 24.52 8.2 22.49 6.6 22.23 6.7 24.64 7.9 22.53 7.9
PES Factor Scoresa
Pleasant 1 57.1 17.9 59.3 20.7 57.7 19.1 58.7 16.2 59.5 19.4
Pleasant 2 51.3 15.6 49.1 18.1 49.6 16.0 49.1 18.6 51.0 18.2
Somat/Kin 1 20.8 7.4 23.8 8.7 21.5 7.6 22.8 9.0 22.4 6.8
Somat/Kin 2 18.7 6.1 19.0 7.1 17.3 4.2 19.0 6.7 18.2 5.8
Anger/Irrit 1 16.7 6.9 17.2 6.7 16.0 6.0 17.1 7.3 15.5 5.2
Anger/Irrit 2 16.4 7.2 17.0 6.9 16.6 6.9 16.8 7.3 15.4 5.4
Anxiety 1 16.2 4.2 17.5 4.5 16.1 4.0 16.0 4.4 17.2 4.8
Anxiety 2 14.4 3.1 15.4 4.0 14.3 2.9 15.0 4.4 14.7 3.2
Expectancies and Motivationb
ERIC C. MEYER AND STEVEN JAY LYNN
Expectancy 1 4.89 3.2 4.51 3.1 3.73 2.9 6.36 3.2 3.86 2.8
Expectancy 2 4.65 3.1 4.43 3.0 3.78 2.9 6.26 3.2 3.88 2.9
Motivation 1 2.11 1.1 1.91 1.0 1.81 0.9 2.54 1.0 2.07 1.0
Motivation 2 2.13 1.0 1.82 0.9 1.92 1.0 2.50 1.1 2.07 1.1
Note. Behavioral scores are rating of behavioral responses to suggestions. Experiential scores are ratings of the degree to which participants felt the
subjective effects called for in each suggestion. WSGC = Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form C. PES = Post-Suggestions
Experiences Scale. Somat/Kin = Somatic/Kinesthetic. Anger/Irrit = Anger/Irritability.
a 1 = 1st session; 2 = 2nd session. b 1 = Prior to administration of instructional sets; 2 = Following instructional sets.
across all groups, and a series of paired-samples t tests verified that

there was no change in expectancies or motivation following the
instructional sets for any of the groups.
To examine the effect of group membership on Session 2 WSGC
behavioral and experiential scores, two ANCOVAs were conducted,
covarying baseline responsiveness (Session 1 WSGC scores).4 With
Session 1 WSGC behavioral scores as the covariate, there was no effect
of group membership on Session 2 behavioral scores, F(4, 351) = 1.07, p =
ns. Covarying Session 1 WSGC experiential scores, group membership

did not significantly affect Session 2 experiential scores, F(4,351) =
1.98, p = ns. A series of paired-sample t tests verified that there was
a significant decrease in both behavioral and experiential scores from
the first to the second session for all groups (all p values < .001).
Because of the baseline group differences in expectancies and moti-
vation, these variables were used as covariates in examining the effect
of group membership on Session 2 WSGC scores. The initial values for
expectancies and motivation were used, as these values were virtually
unchanged following administration of the performance standards. An
ANCOVA with expectancies and motivation as the covariates indicated
no effect of group on Session 2 WSGC behavioral scores, F(4, 350) =
0.81, p = ns. Similarly, with expectancies and motivation as covariates,
there was no effect of group on Session 2 WSGC experiential scores,
F (4, 350) = 0.64, p = ns.
Given the lack of impact of the performance standards manipula-
tion, the three groups that received nonhypnotic suggestions in Session
1 followed by hypnotic suggestions in Session 2 (stringent standards,
lenient standards, no-hypnosis/hypnosis control) were collapsed into
one group. This combined group was compared with the hypnosis
test-retest and the no-hypnosis test-retest groups. An ANCOVA with
Session 1 WSGC behavioral scores as the covariate revealed no signif-
icant effect of method on Session 2 behavioral scores, F(2, 353) = 0.98,
p = ns. Similarly, with Session 1 WSGC experiential scores as the covari-
ate, there was no effect of method on Session 2 experiential scores, F(2,
353) = 2.13, p = ns. A series of paired-sample t tests verified that there
was a significant decrease in both WSGC behavioral and experiential
scores from the first to the second session across all three methods (all
p values <.001).
Table 2 indicates the number and percentage of participants whose
WSGC behavioral scores increased, decreased or did not change from
4 The WSGC behavioral and experiential scores were also analyzed using two mixed
ANOVAs with group as the between-subjects variable and trial (session) as the within-
subjects variable. There was no main effect of group or group-by-trial interaction for
behavioral or experiential scores. There was a highly significant trial effect for both
behavioral and experiential scores.
338
Table 2
Change in WSGC Behavioral Scores by Group and Baseline Responsiveness
Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis Total

n % n % n % n % n % n %
Low Hypnotizable
Decrease 20 58.8 34 63.0 26 53.1 27 56.3 27 62.8 134 58.8
No Change 3 8.8 9 16.7 8 16.3 9 18.8 8 18.6 37 16.2
Increase 11 32.4 11 20.4 15 30.6 12 25.0 8 18.6 57 25.0
Total 34 54.0 54 73.0 49 62.8 48 66.7 43 61.4 228 –
High Hypnotizable
Decrease 21 72.4 18 90.0 27 93.1 18 75.0 20 74.1 104 80.6
No Change 3 10.3 2 10.0 1 3.4 4 16.7 3 11.1 13 10.0
Increase 5 17.2 0 0.0 1 3.4 2 8.3 4 14.8 12 9.3
Total 29 46.0 20 27.0 29 37.2 24 33.3 27 38.6 129 –
Total
Decrease 41 65.1 52 70.2 53 67.9 45 62.5 47 67.1 238 66.7
No Change 6 9.5 11 14.9 9 11.5 13 18.1 11 15.7 50 14.0

Increase 16 25.4 11 14.9 16 20.5 14 19.4 12 17.1 69 19.3
Note. Low Hypnotizable = 0–5 suggestions passed during session one and High Hypnotizable = 6–12 suggestions passed during session
one based on WSGC session one behavioral score.
the first to the second session as a function of group and baseline

hypnotic responsiveness based on Session 1 WSGC behavioral scores.
The majority of participants across groups and level of baseline
responsiveness reported decreases in responding to suggestions from
Session 1 to Session 2.
The correlations among WSGC behavioral and experiential scores,
response expectancies, and motivation can be inspected in Table 3.
Because expectancies and motivation were virtually unchanged fol-
lowing administration of the instructional sets, only the initial values

are presented. Large correlations were found between WSGC behav-
ioral and experiential scores both during and across sessions. Overall,
expectancies and motivation were associated with both behavioral and
experiential scores. In addition, expectancies and motivation were asso-
ciated with each other, except for in the hypnosis test-retest group.
The descriptive statistics for the PES factor scores can be inspected in
Table 1. Due to extreme scores, five outliers were removed from analy-
sis of the pleasant factor, seven from analysis of the somatic/kinesthetic
factor, three from the anger/irritability factor, and four from the anxi-
ety factor. Four between-subjects ANOVAs verified that there were no
group differences on any of the PES factor scores for Session 1 (all p val-
ues = ns). We compared the four groups that did not receive a hypnotic
induction during the first session with the hypnotic test-retest group.
Four independent-samples t tests verified that the addition of a hyp-
notic induction did not have a significant impact on any of the four
PES factor scores during the first session (all p values = ns).
Four ANCOVAs with Session 1 PES factor scores as the covari-
ate were conducted on the Session 2 PES factor scores.5 Covarying
Session 1 factor scores, there was no significant effect of group on any
of the Session 2 factor scores (all p values = ns). Four paired-samples
t tests indicated that there were significant trial effects that reflected
decreases from the first to the second session for pleasant, t(351) =
9.19, p < .001, somatic/kinesthetic, t(349) = 9.72, p < .001, and anxi-
ety experiences, t(352) = 8.21, p < .001. There was no trial effect for
anger/irritability experiences, t(353) = .02, p = ns. For both pleasant and
somatic/kinesthetic experiences, follow-up paired-sample t tests veri-
fied significant decreases for all groups (all p values < .05). For anxiety
experiences, there was a significant decrease (p < .01) for all but the no-
hypnosis test-retest group, for which there was a trend (p = .08) toward
a significant decrease. Correlations between the PES factor scores and
5 The PES factor scores were also analyzed using four mixed ANOVAs with group
as the between-subjects variable and trial (session) as the within-subjects variable. There
was no main effect of group or group-by-trial interaction for any of the PES factors. There
was a highly significant trial effect (p < .001) for all factors except the anger/irritability
factor (p = ns).
Table 3
340
Correlations Among WSGC Behavioral and Experiential Scores, Expectancies, and Motivation
Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis

Behavioral 1
Experiential 1 .73∗∗∗ .69∗∗∗ .67∗∗∗ .66∗∗∗ .77∗∗∗
Behavioral 2 .57∗∗∗ .50∗∗∗ .28 .63∗∗∗ .61∗∗∗
Experiential 2 .53∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗ .55∗∗∗ .59∗∗∗
Expectancy .52∗∗∗ .32∗∗ .21 .20 .43∗∗∗
Motivation .53∗∗ .06 .15 .40∗∗∗ .27∗∗∗
Experiential 1
Behavioral 2 .61∗∗∗ .51∗∗∗ .28 .46∗∗∗ .57∗∗∗
Experiential 2 .67∗∗∗ .54∗∗∗ .50∗∗∗ .60∗∗∗ .62∗∗∗
Expectancy .60∗∗∗ .48∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗ .22 .45∗∗∗
Motivation .51∗∗∗ .27 .32∗∗ .34∗∗ .31∗∗
Behavioral 2
Experiential 2 .80∗∗∗ .71∗∗∗ .71∗∗∗ .77∗∗∗ .78∗∗∗
Expectancy .45∗∗∗ .49∗∗∗ .24 .29 .24
Motivation .55∗∗∗ .17 .16 .40∗∗∗ .30
Experiential 2
Expectancy .51∗∗∗ .50∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗ .36∗∗ .38∗∗∗
Motivation .50∗∗∗ .23 .23 .37∗∗ .30
Expectancy
Motivation .53∗∗∗ .31∗∗ .34∗∗ .58∗∗∗ .21
Note. 1 = Session one; 2 = Session two.

∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Table 4
Correlations Among WSGC Behavioral and Experiential Scores and PES Factor
Scores Collapsed Across Group
Behav Exper Pleasant Somat/ Anger/ Anxiety

Kin Irrit
Behavioral .53∗∗∗ .70∗∗∗ .20∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗ –.20∗∗∗ .14

Experiential .76∗∗∗ .59∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .36∗∗∗ −.16∗∗ .25∗∗∗
.19∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .56∗∗∗ .22∗∗∗ −.27∗∗∗ .18∗∗∗
Pleasant
Somat/Kin .27∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .20∗∗∗ .53∗∗∗ .04 .47∗∗∗
Anger/Irrit −.07 –.16∗∗ –.20∗∗∗ .03 .51∗∗∗ .12
Anxiety .25∗∗∗ .24∗∗∗ .10 .45∗∗∗ .32∗∗∗ .51∗∗∗
Note. Correlations above the diagonal (values in italics) are from session one. Those
below the diagonal are from the session two. Those along the diagonal are the
correlations between sessions for each variable.
∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
WSGC behavioral and experiential scores (collapsed across groups) can

be inspected in Table 4. Significant correlations were found among the
WSGC behavioral and experiential scores and each of the PES factors.
The largest positive correlations were between both WSGC scores and
somatic/kinesthetic experiences. Significant, negative correlations were
found between the WSGC scores and the anger/irritability factor.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine which
variables best predicted responding to hypnotic suggestions. Because
the purpose was to determine which variables (including respon-
siveness to nonhypnotic suggestions) were the strongest predictors
of hypnotic responding during the second session, the hypnosis
and no-hypnosis test-retest groups were excluded from these regres-
sion analyses.6 Regression analyses were used to predict Session 2
WSGC behavioral and experiential scores. Group membership (strin-
gent standards, lenient standards, or no-hypnosis/hypnosis control)
was “dummy coded” (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Following Braffman and
Kirsch (1999), Session 2 WSGC behavioral scores were regressed onto
Session 1 behavioral scores and then onto the other predictor variables
(group membership, response expectancies, motivation to respond,
and the PES factor scores) simultaneously. Session 1 behavioral scores
accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in Session 2
behavioral scores (β = .46, p < .001). After controlling for Session 1
behavioral scores, both expectancies (β = .19, p < .005) and motivation
(β = .13, p < .05) remained significant predictors of Session 2 behavioral
6 Each of the regression analyses described was also conducted with the hypnosis and
no-hypnosis test-retest groups included, and the results were nearly identical.
scores. Neither group membership nor any of the PES factor scores
accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in behavioral
responding, although the PES pleasant factor approached significance
(β = .11, p = .09). This regression model accounted for 34% of the vari-
ance in behavioral responding to hypnotic suggestions, whereas the
multiple correlation (R = .57) nearly matched the internal reliability of
the WSGC behavioral scale in this study (α = .59).
An identical regression analysis was used to predict Session 2 WSGC
experiential scores. Session 1 WSGC experiential scores were entered

first, followed by the other predictors simultaneously. After control-
ling for Session 1 WSGC experiential scores (β = .58, p < .001),
expectancies (β = .20, p < .001) and PES pleasant experiences (β =
.18, p < .005) accounted for unique variance in Session 2 experiential
scores. Motivation, group membership, and the other PES factors did
not account for a significant amount of unique variance. This model
accounted for 45% of the variance in experiential responding to hyp-
notic suggestions, and the multiple correlation (R = .67) approached
the internal consistency of the experiential scale in this study (α = .81).
Discussion
We determined that a hypnotic induction conferred no advantage in

responding to suggestions. During the first session, participants that
received a hypnotic induction did not respond to more suggestions
than individuals that did not receive a hypnotic induction in terms
of behavioral or experiential responding. Similarly, during the second
session, behavioral and experiential responding to suggestions was
virtually identical across groups, regardless of whether participants
received hypnotic suggestions or nonhypnotic, imaginative sugges-
tions. Our findings are consonant with previous studies (Braffman &
Kirsch, 1999; Milling et al., 2010) that found equivalent responding
across imaginative and hypnotic conditions, and that a substantial
number of people scored higher on imaginative suggestibility than in
response to hypnotic suggestions.
We observed significant decrements from the first to the second
session in both behavioral and experiential responding in all five
groups. Among participants who received nonhypnotic suggestions
during Session 1 followed by hypnotic suggestions during Session 2,
over 80% either exhibited a decrease or showed no change in behav-
ioral responding to suggestions. A greater percentage of participants
with high responsiveness (greater responsiveness to suggestions dur-
ing Session 1) showed a decrease in responding with the addition of
a hypnotic induction compared with participants with low baseline
responsiveness. Regression to the mean is a plausible interpretation
for the decreases in suggestibility among individuals who pass many

suggestions during the first session.
Our findings are consistent with other studies that revealed decre-
ments in hypnotic responding. This effect has been obtained in studies
using a variety of hypnotic responsiveness scales and has now been
well replicated (e.g., Barber, 1969; Braffman & Kirsch, 1999; Fassler
et al., 2008; Lynn et al., 1988). For example, Lynn and colleagues
(1988) found decrements between sessions on measures of objective
responding, involuntariness, and subjective involvement with the hyp-

notic procedures that paralleled diminished involvement with the
hypnotist. These decrements were observed for two different types of
hypnotic suggestions (direct and indirect) regardless of the order of
administration, as well as in test-retest conditions.
The significant decrements in responding observed across groups
may indicate that participants became bored or annoyed with the pro-
cedure. It is possible that this boredom factor, perhaps particularly
evident in test-retest designs (see Barber & Calverley, 1966), may have
obscured any impact that the addition of a hypnotic induction or per-
formance standards may have exerted on responding to suggestions.
In further support of the boredom hypothesis, participants reported
less overall suggestion-related experiences during the second session
than the first. Large decreases were observed across all groups in terms
of pleasant experiences, somatic/kinesthetic experiences, and anxiety;
each of which was associated with both behavioral and experien-
tial responding to suggestions. Smaller, nonsignificant decreases were
observed on the anger/irritability factor for four of the groups, with
one group (no-hypnosis/hypnosis control group) actually exhibiting a
nonsignificant increase in anger/irritability. The anger/irritability fac-
tor was negatively associated with both behavioral and experiential
responding. These findings suggest that participants became both less
involved and somewhat annoyed with the experimental protocol dur-
ing the second session, presumably due to its length and similarity to
the earlier procedures. However, additional research is needed to deter-
mine whether decrements across trials will be observed in individual
testing with the Stanford scales and other individually administered
scales of hypnotic responsiveness.
Much debate has focused on determining the most valid method
of measuring hypnotic responsiveness. Proponents of the test-retest
approach point to the large correlation between nonhypnotic and
hypnotic response to suggestion as evidence for the need to use non-
hypnotic responsiveness to suggestions as a covariate or to compute
change scores in order to obtain an accurate measure of hypnotic
responding. On the other hand, there are psychometric difficulties asso-
ciated with change scores (Hilgard, 1981). In addition, the results of the
current study add to a body of evidence suggesting that participants
become bored with repeated measures, potentially obscuring impor-

tant hypnotic phenomena in retest designs.
At the beginning of the second session, the no-hypnosis test-
retest group reported greater response expectancies and motivation to
respond to suggestions than each of the other groups. This finding was
surprising and requires further discussion. The only differences among
the groups at that point in the experimental procedure were that (a) the
hypnosis test-retest group had received a hypnotic induction during
the first session whereas the other groups had not, and (b) the groups
that were about to receive a hypnotic induction during the second
session had just been informed of this fact via the informed consent
form. Given that many individuals were not particularly responsive to
hypnotic or imaginative suggestions during the first session, a likely
interpretation is that the prospect of being hypnotized at retest might
have been daunting and dampened participants’ expectancies and
motivation relative to the no-hypnosis test-retest group.
Our study was the first to examine the influence of hypnotist-
induced performance standards on responding to suggestions in which
hypnotic responding was measured using a test-retest design. No
support was found for the impact of performance standards on hyp-
notic responding. This lack of significant findings remained even after
covarying baseline responsiveness to suggestions, response expectan-
cies, and motivation to respond. In addition, the performance stan-
dards did not affect participants’ response expectancies, motivation
to respond, or suggestion-related experiences. In short, our research
failed to confirm the hypothesis that performance standards play an
important role in hypnotic responding. Perhaps in order to effectively
influence hypnotic behavior and experience, performance standards
need to be more explicit than the ones used in the current study (Lynn,
Neufeld, & Matyi, 1987).
In contrast with our null findings related to performance stan-
dards, we garnered considerable evidence for the predictive validity
of imaginative suggestibility, expectancies, and motivation in predict-
ing hypnotic responding. It is noteworthy that the correlations among
expectancies, motivation, and responding to suggestions obtained in
the current study were nearly identical to those obtained by Braffman
and Kirsch (1999). In their study, expectancies and motivation were
measured with questionnaires describing each suggestion in detail. In
our study, expectancies and motivation were assessed with single-item
measures of both overall expectancies and motivation. That similar
correlations were found across the two studies, despite the psychome-
tric limitations associated with single-item measures, demonstrates the
robustness of these relationships.
Our study replicated and extended the findings of Braffman and
Kirsch (1999), who demonstrated that imaginative suggestibility,
response expectancies, and motivation to respond to suggestions

accounted for the majority of the variance in hypnotic responding. In
our study, nonhypnotic suggestibility again accounted for a large por-
tion of the total variance in hypnotic responding. After controlling for
nonhypnotic suggestibility (i.e., behavioral responding to nonhypnotic
suggestions), we found that expectancies and motivation indepen-
dently accounted for significant amounts of variance in behavioral
responding to hypnotic suggestions. In terms of predicting experien-
tial responding to hypnotic suggestions, a regression model consisting

of experiential responding to nonhypnotic suggestions, expectancies,
and PES pleasant experiences accounted for nearly half of the variance.
The current study provided support for the construct validity of the
PES. Whereas previous research documented significant correlations
among the PES factors and several measures of hypnotic responsive-
ness (Brentar, 1992; Brentar et al., 1992), the current study was the first
to examine the correlations among the PES factors and the WSGC.
Significant correlations were found among several of the PES factors
and both the WSGC behavioral and experiential scores, and the signif-
icant decreases from the first to the second session on three of the PES
factors (pleasant, somatic/kinesthetic, and anxiety) paralleled the sig-
nificant decreases in WSGC behavioral and experiential scores. The
current study was also the first to examine the relation between the PES
and responding to nonhypnotic suggestions. Significant correlations
were obtained among the PES factor scores and responding to both
hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestions. The significant correlations
among the PES factors and responding to nonhypnotic suggestions
indicate that the PES taps into experiences associated with respond-
ing to imaginative suggestions in general, and that it is not exclusively
related to hypnotic responding. Additionally, our findings imply that
hypnosis is no more likely to induce an “altered state” than suggestions
administered in a nonhypnotic context. Finally, our research demon-
strates the potential utility of the PES in research examining various
types of suggestibility.
The results of the current study are consistent with sociocognitive
models asserting that hypnotic responding is not necessarily “trait like”
but rather varies as a function of an amalgam of social and cogni-
tive variables. Several studies have now demonstrated that imaginative
suggestibility, response expectancies, motivation to respond to sugges-
tions account for an amount of variance that approaches the reliability
of the scales used to measure hypnotic responsiveness. However, it
is also true that substantial variance is not yet accounted for and
may be related to individual differences in attention and information
processing related to the ability to convert suggestions into convinc-
ing “felt” experiences. Perhaps empirical research should increasingly
move toward identifying correlates and processes associated with
responses to imaginative versus hypnotic suggestions, which would

be of significant interest to psychotherapists and other clinicians who
frequently utilize suggestions, whether implicitly or explicitly.
References
Barber, T. X. (1969). Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. (1966). Toward a theory of “hypnotic” behavior:
Experimental analyses of suggested amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71,

95–107.
Barber, T. X., & Glass, L. B. (1962). Significant factors in hypnotic behavior. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 222–228.
Barber, T. X., Spanos, N. P., & Chaves, J. F. (1974). Hypnosis, imagination, and human
potentialities. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Bowers, K. S. (1976). Hypnosis for the seriously curious. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bowers, K. S. (1993). The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) Scale of Hypnotic
Susceptibility: Normative and comparative data. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 35–46.
Bowers, K. S. (1998). Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form
C: Manual and response booklet. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 46, 250–268.
Bowers, P. G., Laurence, J.-R., & Hart, D. (1982). A group scale of hypnotic susceptibility:
Revision and expansion of Form C. New York, NY: National Auxiliary Publications
Service.
Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An
empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 578–587.
Brentar, J. T. (1992). The development of an inventory to assess posthypnotic experience:
The Posthypnotic Experiences Scale. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 6076–6077.
Brentar, J., Lynn, S. J., & Carlson, B. (1992, August). The Posthypnotic Experiences Scale:
Validity and reliability studies. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. (1976). Hypnotic realities: The induction of clinical
hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. New York, NY: Irvington.
Fassler, O., Lynn, S. J., & Knox, J. (2008). Is hypnotic suggestibility a stable trait?
Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 17, 240–253.
Green, J. P. (2003). Beliefs about hypnosis: Popular beliefs, misconceptions, and the impor-
tance of experience. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51,
369–381.
Green, J. P., Page, R. A., Rasekhy, R., Johnson, L. K., & Bernhardt, S. E. (2006). Cultural
views and attitudes about hypnosis: A survey of college students across four coun-
tries. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54, 263–280.
Hilgard, E. R. (1965). Hypnotic susceptibility. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Hypnotic susceptibility scales under attack: An examination of
Weitzenhoffer’s criticisms. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
29, 24–41.
Hilgard, E. R., & Tart, C.T. (1966). Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and
imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 71, 196–208.
Hull, C. L. (1933). Hypnosis and suggestibility: An experimental approach. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kirsch, I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior.

American Psychologist, 40, 1189–1202.
Kirsch, I. (1991). The social learning theory of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn, & J. W. Rhue
(Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 439–466). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Kirsch, I., Council, J. R., & Mobayed, C. (1987). Imagery and response expectancy as deter-
minants of hypnotic behavior. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 4(1),
25–31.
Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1995). Altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical
landscape. American Psychologist, 50, 846–858.
Kirsch, I., Milling, L. S., & Burgess, C. (1998). Experiential scoring for the Waterloo-
Stanford Group C Scale. The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
46, 269–279.
Kirsch, I., Silva, C. E., Comey, G., & Reed, S. (1995). A spectral analysis of cognitive and
personality variables in hypnosis: Empirical disconfirmation of the two-factor model
of hypnotic responding. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 167–175.
Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Jaquith, L., & Gasior, D. (2003). Hypnosis and performance
standards. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 51–65.
Lynn, S. J., & Hallquist, M. (2004). Toward a scientific understanding of Milton H.
Erickson’s Strategies and Tactics: Hypnosis, response sets and common factors in
psychotherapy. Contemporary Hypnosis, 21, 63–78.
Lynn, S. J., Neufeld, V., & Matyi, C. L. (1987). Inductions versus suggestions: Effects
of direct and indirect wording on hypnotic responding and experience. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 96(1), 76–79.
Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1991). An integrative model of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn &
J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 397–438).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Lynn, S. J., Rhue, J. W., & Weekes, J. R. (1991). Hypnotic involuntariness: A social-
cognitive analysis. Psychological Review, 97, 169–184.
Lynn, S. J., Vanderhoff, H., Shindler, K., & Stafford, J. (2002). Defining hypnosis as a trance
vs. cooperation: Hypnotic inductions, suggestibility, and performance standards.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 44, 231–240.
Lynn, S. J., Weekes, J. R., Matyi, C. L., & Neufeld, V. (1988). Direct versus indirect sugges-
tions, archaic involvement, and hypnotic experience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
97, 296–301.
McConkey, K. M. (1986). Opinions about hypnosis and self-hypnosis before and after
hypnotic testing. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 311–319.
Milling, L. S., Coursen, E. L., Shores, J. S., & Waskiewicz, J. A. (2010). The predictive
utility of hypnotizability: The change in suggestibility produced by hypnosis. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 126–130.
Perry, C. (1977). Is hypnotizability modifiable? International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 25, 125–146.
Piccione, C., Hilgard, E. R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1989). On the degree of stability of mea-
sured hypnotizability over a 25-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56, 289–295.
Rhue, J. W., & Lynn, S. J. (1987). Fantasy proneness: The ability to hallucinate “as real as
real.” British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 4, 173–180.
Spanos, N. P. (1982). A social psychological approach to hypnotic behavior. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Spanos, N. P. (1986). Hypnotic behavior: A social-psychological interpretation of amnesia,
analgesia, and “trance logic.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 499–502.
Spanos, N. P., & Coe, W. C. (1992). A social-psychological approach to hypnosis. In E.
Fromm and M.R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary Hypnosis Research (pp. 102–130). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Spanos, N. P., Radke, H. L., Hodgins, D. C., Bertrand, L. D., & Stam, H. J. (1981).
The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale. Unpublished manuscript,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Spanos, N. P., Radke, H. L., Hodgins, D. C., Bertrand, L. D., Stam, H. J., & Dubreil, D.
L. (1983). The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Stability, reli-
ability, and relationships with expectancy and “hypnotic experiences.” Psychological
Reports, 53, 555–563.
Spanos, N. P., Robertson, L. A., Menary, E. P., Brett, P. J., & Smith, J. (1987). Effects of
repeated baseline testing on cognitive-skill-training-induced increments in hypnotic
susceptibility. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1230–1235.
Reaktion auf hypnotische und nichthypnotische Suggestionen:

Leistungsstandards, imaginative Suggestibilität und Antworterwartungen
Eric C. Meyer und Steven Jay Lynn

Abstract: Diese Studie untersuchte den relativen Einfluss hypnotischer
Induktionen sowie mehrerer anderen Variablen auf die hypnotische und
nichthypnotische Reaktionsfähigkeit auf imaginative Suggestionen.
Die Autoren untersuchten, inwiefern imaginative Suggestibilität,
Antworterwartungen, die Motivation, auf Suggestionen zu reagieren sowie
Hypnotiseur-Leistungsstandards die Antworten der betroffenen Teilnehmer
sowohl auf hypnotische als auch auf nichthypnotische Suggestionen
und deren suggestionsbezogene Erfahrungen beeinflussen können. Die
Suggestionen wurden 5 Gruppen von Teilnehmern im Rahmen eines eines
Test-Retest-Designs präsentiert: (a) strenge Leistungsstandards (b) milde
Leistungsstandards; (c) Hypnose Test-Retest, (d) Keine-Hypnose Test-Retest
und (e) Keine Hypnose/Hypnose Kontrollgruppe. Die Autoren fanden
keine Belege für den Einfluss einer hypnotischen Induktion oder von
Leistungsstandards auf die Reaktion auf Suggestionen, sie fanden jedoch
beachtliche Hinweise auf die Rolle der imaginativen Suggestibilität sowie
für Antworterwartungen bei der Vorhersage von Antworten sowohl auf
hypnotische als auch auf nichthypnotische Suggestionen.
Jan Mikulica
University of Konstanz, Germany
Réagir aux suggestions hypnotiques ou non hypnotiques: Normes de

performance, suggestibilité imaginative et anticipations des réactions
Eric C. Meyer et Steven Jay Lynn

Résumé: Cette étude porte sur l’impact relatif des inductions hypnotiques et
de plusieurs autres variables sur la réactivité hypnotique ou non hypnotique
à des suggestions faisant appel à l’imagination. Les auteurs ont examiné en
quoi la suggestibilité faisant appel à l’imagination, les attentes relativement
aux réactions, la motivation à répondre aux suggestions et les normes de ren-
dement résultant de l’hypnose influençaient les réactions des participants
aux suggestions tant hypnotiques que non hypnotiques et leurs expériences
liées aux suggestions. Des suggestions ont été soumises au moyen de la
méthode du test-retest à cinq (5) groupes de participants répartis selon les
principes d’expérience suivants: (a) normes de rendement rigoureuses; (b)

normes de rendement flexibles; (c) tests-retests sous hypnose; (d) tests-retests
sans hypnose; et (e) contrôle avec/sans hypnose. Les auteurs n’ont découvert
aucune preuve de l’influence d’une induction hypnotique ni de l’application
de normes de rendement sur les réactions aux suggestions, mais ils ont trouvé
par contre une preuve étoffée du rôle de la suggestibilité d’imagination et
des attentes relativement aux réactions dans la prédiction des réactions aux
suggestions, tant hypnotiques que non hypnotiques.
Johanne Reynault
C. Tr. (STIBC)
Respuestas a sugerencias hipnóticas y no hipnóticas: Estándares de

desempeño, sugestionabilidad imaginativa, y expectativas de respuesta
Eric C. Meyer y Steven Jay Lynn

Resumen: Este estudio examinó el impacto relativo de inducciones hip-
nóticas y otras variables en las respuestas hipnóticas y no hipnóticas a
sugestiones imaginativas. Los autores examinaron cómo la sugestionabilidad
imaginativa, expectativas de respuesta, motivación a responder a sugeren-
cias, y estándares de desempeño inducidos por el hipnotista afectaron las
respuestas de los participantes tanto a las sugerencias hipnóticas como no
hipnóticas y sus experiencias relacionadas con la sugestión. Las sugerencias
se administraron a 5 grupos de participantes utilizando un diseño prueba-
posprueba: (a) estándares estrictos de desempeño; (b) estándares laxos de
desempeño; (c) prueba-posprueba con hipnosis; (d) prueba-posprueba sin
hipnosis; y (e) no hipnosis y control con hipnosis. Los autores no encon-
traron apoyo para la influencia de la inducción hipnótica o los estándares de
desempeño en las respuestas a sugerencias, pero encontraron sustento con-
siderable para el rol de la sugestionabilidad imaginativa y las expectativas
de respuesta en la predicción de respuestas tanto a sugerencias hipnóticas
como no hipnóticas.
Omar Sánchez-Armáss Cappello
Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi,
Mexico

Lynn2011 Responding To Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Suggestions Performance Standards Imaginative Suggestibility and Response Expectancies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lynn2011 Responding To Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Suggestions Performance Standards Imaginative Suggestibility and Response Expectancies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]

On: 04 September 2013, At: 09:21

International Journal of Clinical

Responding to Hypnotic and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207144.2011.570660

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

RESPONDING TO HYPNOTIC AND

Eric C. Meyer and Steven Jay Lynn2,3

Binghamton University, State University of New York, USA

Abstract: This study examined the relative impact of hypnotic induc-

It has long been recognized that individuals vary in their propen-

Manuscript submitted July 7, 2010; final revision accepted November 1, 2010.

trait-like ability (Hilgard, 1965; Piccione, Hilgard, & Zimbardo, 1989)

tion of suggestions, imaginative/fantasy abilities), and the complex

the investigators found that hypnotic responsiveness predicted intrain-

people scored higher on imaginative suggestibility and “the majority

following a period of elevating one’s arm) to facilitate successful hyp-

and accompanying feelings of involuntariness” (p. 62). A limitation of

(d) No-hypnosis test-retest group (n = 72; 63.9% female); and (e)

gestions with the 12-suggestion Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of

high internal consistency (Brentar et al., 1992). The PES demonstrated

ences to hypnosis were removed, and suggestions were referred to as

The hypnosis and no-hypnosis test-retest groups, as well as the

Preliminary analyses revealed no effects of gender or knowledge

expectancies and motivation to respond. A one-way analysis of vari-

Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis

across all groups, and a series of paired-samples t tests verified that

ns. Covarying Session 1 WSGC experiential scores, group membership

Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis Total

No Change 6 9.5 11 14.9 9 11.5 13 18.1 11 15.7 50 14.0

the first to the second session as a function of group and baseline

lowing administration of the instructional sets, only the initial values

Stringent Lenient No-Hypnosis/ No-Hypnosis Hypnosis

Note. 1 = Session one; 2 = Session two.

Behav Exper Pleasant Somat/ Anger/ Anxiety

Behavioral .53∗∗∗ .70∗∗∗ .20∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗ –.20∗∗∗ .14

WSGC behavioral and experiential scores (collapsed across groups) can

experiential scores. Session 1 WSGC experiential scores were entered

We determined that a hypnotic induction conferred no advantage in

for the decreases in suggestibility among individuals who pass many

responding, involuntariness, and subjective involvement with the hyp-

become bored with repeated measures, potentially obscuring impor-

response expectancies, and motivation to respond to suggestions

tial responding to hypnotic suggestions, a regression model consisting

responses to imaginative versus hypnotic suggestions, which would

Experimental analyses of suggested amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71,

Kirsch, I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior.

Reaktion auf hypnotische und nichthypnotische Suggestionen:

Eric C. Meyer und Steven Jay Lynn

Réagir aux suggestions hypnotiques ou non hypnotiques: Normes de

Eric C. Meyer et Steven Jay Lynn

principes d’expérience suivants: (a) normes de rendement rigoureuses; (b)

Respuestas a sugerencias hipnóticas y no hipnóticas: Estándares de

Eric C. Meyer y Steven Jay Lynn

You might also like