This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]

On: 04 December 2014, At: 11:30

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

American Journal of Clinical

Hypnosis
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20

Attributions, Involuntariness, and

Hypnotic Rapport
a a
Steven Jay Lynn Ph.D. , Michael Snodgrass , Judith W.
a b a c a d
Rhue , Michael R. Nash & David C. Frauman
a
Ohio University , USA
b
University of Toledo , Toledo, Ohio, USA
c
University of Tennessee , Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
d
St. Vincent Stress Center and the Indiana University School
of Medicine , Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Published online: 21 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Steven Jay Lynn Ph.D. , Michael Snodgrass , Judith W. Rhue , Michael
R. Nash & David C. Frauman (1987) Attributions, Involuntariness, and Hypnotic Rapport,
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 30:1, 36-43

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1987.10402720

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 [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
VOLUME 30. NUMBER I. JULY 1987

Attributions, Involuntariness, and Hypnotic

Rapport

Steven Jay Lynn, Michael Snodgrass, Judith W. Rhue, Michael R.

Nash, and David C. Frauman'
Ohio University
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014

Subjects' attributions of their hypnotic responsiveness to the hypnotist's abil-

ities and efforts were associated with reports of suggestion-related involuntar-
iness. In addition, rapport with the hypnotist was found to correlate with
experienced involuntariness. As predicted, high-susceptible subjects expressed
greater positive rapport and liking for the hypnotist and experienced greater
involuntariness than their low-susceptible counterparts; they also attributed more
of their responsiveness to the hypnotist's ability and efforts. Medium suscep-
tibles were distinguishable from both highs and lows on all measures except
liking for the hypnotist, in which case they were similar to the highs. Subjects
viewed ability and effort as independent sources of hypnotic responsiveness.

In 1974 Weitzenhoffer used the term
"classical suggestion effect" to describe
the subject's "transformation of the es-
sential, manifest, ideational content of a
Received May 16, 1985; revised February 5,
1986; second revision September 5, 1986; ac-
cepted for publication September 8, 1986.
I The authors wish to thank Frank Bellezza for
his statistical consultation. Judith W. Rhue is now
at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Mi-
chael R. Nash is now at University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee; and David C. Frauman is
now at the St. Vincent Stress Center and the In-
diana University School of Medicine, Indianap-
olis, Indiana.
For reprints write to Steven Jay Lynn,
Ph.D., Psychology Department, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio 45701.
communication" into behavior that is ex-
perienced as involuntary. However, more
than 30 years before Weitzenhoffer pro-
vided this characterization, White (1941)
maintained that suggestion-related invol-
untariness was so central to the experi-
ence of hypnosis that it was incumbent
upon theorists to address this domain of
experience. Hypnosis theorists (Arnold,
1946; Bowers, 1976; Coe, 1978; Hilgard,
1977,1981; Sarbin & Coe, 1972; Spanos,
Rivers, & Ross, 1977; Spanos 1982;
Weitzenhoffer, 1974) have risen to the
challenge of explaining the well-docu-
mented finding (e.g., K. Bowers, 1981;
P. Bowers, 1982; Farthing, Brown, &
Venturino, 1983; Spanos, Rivers, & Ross,
1977) that hypnotizable subjects who pass
test suggestions characterize their re-
sponses as more automatic or nonvoli-

36
 ATIRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS
tional than subjects who fail suggestions.
Diverse theoretical accounts have var-
iously emphasized dissociative processes
(Bowers, 1976; Hilgard, 1977), vivid and
sustained suggestion-related imagery (Ar-
nold, 1946), and contextual and social
psychological variables (Coe, 1978; Sar-
bin & Coe, 1979; Spanos, Rivers, & Ross,
1977; Spanos, 1982).
Sarbin and Coe (1979) have observed
that subjects' interpretations of their ex-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
periences may reflect on implicit distinc-
tion between "doings" (seeing themselves
as agents of goal-directed, purposeful ac-
tions) and "happenings" (viewing them-
selves as passive respondents). Along
similar lines, Spanos (1982) has noted that
"Interpreting behavior as an action in-
volves attributing causality to the self (e.g.,
I did it), while interpreting it as a hap-
pening requires that causality be attrib-
uted to sources other than the self (e.g.,
it happened to me)." Given prevalent
misconceptions of hypnosis that center
around perceptions of the hypnotist as a
Svengali-like figure, along with the pop-
ular belief that hypnotized subjects are
passive, hypnotizability is likely to be as-
sociated with subjects' attributing their
responsiveness and subjective experi-
ences to the hypnotist, as well as to their
own hypnotic ability. Further, it is likely
that subjects' ratings of involuntariness
would be associated with attributions of
response causality to external factors such
as the hypnotist's ability and effort rather
than to perceptions of the self as an active
effortful agent and author of hypnotic ex-
perience. Documentation of this relation-
ship would be consistent with research that
has shown subjects' beliefs about hyp-
nosis are associated with reports of in-
voluntariness and hypnotic responding
(Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Swee-
ney, 1984; Spanos, Cobb, & Gorassini,
37
1984; Spanos, Weekes, & deGroh, 1984),
and with recent survey data indicating that
the majority of subjects endorse the state-
ment, "The extent to which hypnosis is
successful depends on the skill of the hyp-
notist" (Wilson, Greene, & Loftus, 1986).
The present study examines the rela-
tionship between subjects' reports of in-
voluntariness and their attributions
concerning the source of their responsive-
ness on the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne,
1962), that is, how much of their respon-
siveness was due to their own ability and!
or efforts or to the hypnotist's ability and!
or efforts. Ability and effort were the fo-
cus of the present research because they
are two dimensions postulated by attri-
bution theory (Weiner, 1972) to be re-
lated to attributions of causality. It is
hypothesized that subjects' reports of in-
voluntariness and hypnotic responding will
be positively associated with viewing the
hypnotist as being responsible for their
hypnotic responsiveness (i.e., external at-
tribution).
This study is also designed to evaluate
the possibility that subjects' involvement
in fantasy and imaginative experiences in
their daily lives is related to their tend-
ency to attribute the locus of their hyp-
notic responsiveness to their own abilities
and efforts. By requiring that subjects
complete an inventory of fantasy and im-
aginative experiences (Inventory of
Childhood Memories and Imaginings;
Wilson & Barber, 1982), it will be pos-
sible to address the question of whether
subjects who report a history of everyday
fantasy involvements will be more likely
to attribute their hypnotic responsiveness
and involuntariness to their own abilities
and efforts rather that those of the hyp-
notist.
Another focus of the present research
is on the relationship between subjects'
 38 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAUMAN
rapport with the hypnotist and experi-
enced involuntariness. A number of re-
searchers (Lynn et aI., 1984; Dolby &
Sheehan, 1977; Sheehan, 1971, 1980;
Sheehan & Dolby, 1975) have shown that
some susceptible subjects display very
positive rapport with the hypnotist and
appear to be specially motivated to re-
spond in accord with his or her intent.
Subjects who exhibit positive rapport may
be more likely to view the hypnotist as a
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
powerful figure and attribute their hyp-
notic responsiveness to his or her abilities
and efforts. Although previous research
has not assessed the relationship between
rapport, involuntariness, and the external
attribution of response causality, it seems
reasonable to expect that rapport and lik-
ing for the hypnotist will be positively
related to attributions of responsiveness to
the hypnotist's ability and effort as well
as to involuntariness. Finally, high-sus-
ceptible subjects are predicted to express
more positive rapport, liking for the hyp-
notist, involuntariness, and attributions of
responsivenss to the efforts and ability of
the hypnotist than low-susceptible sub-
jects. Medium-susceptible subjects will be
included in the experimental design but
no predictions will be made for these sub-
jects.
Method
Subjects
The subjects were 205 undergraduate
psychology students who received extra
course credit for their participation. High-
(N=66, 12 male, 54 female; M=8.68,
range= 8-10), medium- (N= 114, 48
male, 66 female; M=5.60, range = 4-7),
and low- (N = 25, 10 male, 15 female;
M = 2.16, range = 0-3) susceptible sub-
jects were assigned to groups on the basis
of their scores on a slightly shortened, 10
item version of the Harvard Group Scale
of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A
(HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962)
which omitted items of arm rigidity and
hands moving together.
Procedure
The present study was conducted in the
context of an ongoing research project on
hypnotic experience and the develop-
mental correlates of hypnotic susceptibil-
ity. The subjects were tested in four
evening sessions in groups of approxi-
mately 50 persons. The overall study was
presented to subjects as an investigation
of hypnosis, hypnotic experience, and early
life experience. Informed consent was ob-
tained for all subjects. Prior to the admin-
istration of the HGSHS:A and the
questionnaires of relevance to the present
study, the hypnotist asked subjects to
complete an inventory of early childhood
experiences and the 52-item Inventory of
Childhood Memories and Imaginings
(ICMI) of Wilson and Barber (1982). This
inventory correlates highly with the Tel-
legen Absorption Scale (range-r= .61 to
.85) and has adequate validity and reli-
ability (Lynn & Rhue, 1986; Rhue &
Lynn, in press). Next, the HGSHS:A was
administered. The standard preliminary
remarks about hypnosis also were in-
cluded. The subjects then completed a
questionnaire entitled "Hypnotic Experi-
ence Scale." The instructions, which were
read by the hypnotist and presented in
written form, emphasized reading and
carefully responding to each question in
an honest and straightforward manner.
Subjects were assured that the hypnotist
would not have an opportunity to see their
responses. Two male hypnotists partici-
pated in the study; each was responsible
for conducting two of the group sessions.
 ATIRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS
Dependent Measures
All of the items on the "Hypnotic Ex-
perience Scale" were presented in a 5-
point Liken-type format. The following
four questions assessed subjects' attribu-
tions: (1) How much of your responsive-
ness to the suggestions was based on your
hypnotic ability? (2) How much of your
responsiveness to the suggestions was
based on the ability of the hypnotist? (3)
How much of your responsiveness to the
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
suggestions was based on your efforts to
go along with the suggestions? and (4)
How much of your responsiveness to the
suggestions was based on the efforts of
the hypnotist? Each of the above ques-
tions was anchored 1 = none of it; 3 =
some of it; 5 = all of it. To gauge sub-
jects' experience of nonvolition, subjects
were asked "To what extent did you ex-
perience your responses to the sugges-
tions as happening automatically or
involuntarily vs. under your conscious,
deliberate, voluntary control?" (1 = to-
tally voluntary; 5 = totally involuntary).
The rapport with the hypnotist item asked
subjects to rate "Rapport with the hyp-
notist (quality of your relationship with
the hypnotist)" (1 = very good; 3 = neu-
tral; 5 = very poor). Liking for the hyp-
notist was assessed by the item "I basically
_ _ _ the hypnotist"(1 = dislike; 3
feel neutral about; 5 = like).
Results
Preliminary analyses of variance were
performed on the data to determine whether
differential effects for the two hypnotists
were evident. Because no such effects were
obtained, the data were collapsed across
hypnotists for the analyses that follow.
A 2 (sex of subject) X 3 (high, me-
dium, low susceptible) multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOYA) was
39
performed on the seven dependent varia-
bles. No overall effect for sex of subject
was found; additionally, no interaction ef-
fect between sex of subject and hypnotic
susceptibility was observed. A highly sig-
nificant effect for susceptibility was found
(F [14, 382] = 8.56, P <(01). There-
fore, univariate F-tests were examined for
each of the seven dependent variables for
the susceptibility main effect. The results
are presented in Table 1.
An inspection of the data reveals sig-
nificant main effects for all of the depen-
dent variables. To interpret these findings,
Newman-Keuls posttests (criterion set at
p < .05) were performed on the suscep-
tibility group means for each of the de-
pendent variables presented in Table 1.
Highs differed from low susceptibles in
the predicted direction on the rapport and
attraction measure. On the attributional
measures, high-, medium-, and low-sus-
ceptible subjects were all significantly
different, in the predicted direction, on
the measures of attributions of respon-
siveness of ability and effort to the hyp-
notist. Self-attributions were as follows:
low susceptibles attributed less of their
responsiveness to their own ability than
either mediums or highs who did not dif-
fer in their attributions. Low susceptibles
attributed more of their responsiveness to
their own efforts that medium suscepti-
bles. High susceptibles did not differ from
either low or medium susceptibles on this
measure. On the measure of involuntari-
ness, highs experienced greater involun-
tariness than mediums who, in turn,
experienced more involuntariness than low
susceptibles.P
The zero order correlations between
2 The pooled total group standard deviation is
.94.
 40 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAUMAN

Table 1
Cell Means, F-Ratios of the Dependent Variables, and Correlations with Susceptibility
Susceptibility Univariate F
High Medium Low (df=2,199)
Rapport*** 1.91 2.43 3.20 22.03**
Liking 3.53 3.38 2.96 4.28*
Ability-Self 3.64 3.29 2.12 21.22**
Effort-Self 3.58 3.30 3.84 3.11*
Ability-Hypnotist 3.85 3.35 2.24 25.19**
Effort-Hypnotist 3.91 3.45 2.68 16.91**
Involuntariness 3.83 3.27 2.20 30.10**
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014

***Iower value represents greater rapport

**p<.OI
*p<.05

susceptibility and the dependent variables
presented in Table I are all in the pre-
dicted direction. Partial correlational
analyses were also conducted with hyp-
notic susceptibilityand involuntariness with
the variance attributable to other variables
partialed out of the scores of imaginative
involvement; internal (self-ability and ef-
fort), external attribution measures (hyp-
notist ability and effort), and the attraction
ratings (rapport and liking) were corre-
lated with involuntariness and suscepti-
bility with each of the other sets of
variables and ICMI scores partialed out.
These results are presented in Table 2.
Finally, a stepwise multiple regression
analysis was performed using involuntar-
iness scores as the criterion variable. Each
of the dependent measures was included
as a predictor variable; however, the only
two significant predictors of involuntari-
ness were attributions to the hypnotist's
ability (Step 1 multiplier = .33; F (1,195)
= 23.85, P <.00 I) and rapport with the
hypnotist (Step 2 multiplier = .36; change
F (2, 194) = 5.35, P < .(02).
Discussion
As predicted, high susceptibles ex-
pressed greater positive rapport, liking for
the hypnotist, and greater experienced in-
voluntariness than their low-susceptible
counterparts; they also attributed more of
their responsiveness to the hypnotist's
ability and efforts. Medium susceptibles
were distinguishable from both highs and
lows on all of these measures except lik-
ing for the hypnotist, in which case they
were similar to highs. The correlation be-
tween experienced involuntariness and
hypnotic susceptibility obtained in our
study is quite comparable to that secured
in previous research with the Harvard
Group Scale (e.g., Farthing, Brown, &
Venturino, 1983); even with the variance
attributable to the other measures par-
tialed out, hypnotizability and involuntar-
iness remained significantly correlated.
Further, involuntariness ratings were pre-
dicted by the measures of attribution of
responsiveness to the hypnotist's ability
and rapport with the hypnotist, and partial
correlational analyses revealed that invo-
luntariness and an external attribution rat-
ing (responsiveness to the hypnotist's
ability) correlated even when the variance
due to other variables was partialed out.
Taken together, these findings are con-
 ATTRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS 41

Table 2
First Order Correlations of All Measures and Partial Correlations with Involuntariness and
Hypnotizability
Hyp ICMI Rap Like In Sel-Ab Sel-Ef Hy-Ab Hy-Ef
Hypnotizability .32** .46** .16* .47** .47** .03 .50** .41**
(.25**) (.25**) (.07) (.33**) (.21 **) (.12) (.21 **) (.23**)
ICMI .22** .10* .08 .12 .05 .16* .14*
(.02)
Rapport .31** .31** .32** .09 .40** .26*
(.13)
Liking .18** .21** .05 .29** .18*
(.05)
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014

Involuntariness .30** .01 .33** .24**

(.17*) (.04) (.14*) (.05)
Self-Ability .57** .45**
Self-Effort .05 .13
Hypnotist-Ability .71**
Note: Partial correlations are presented in parentheses.
**p<.OI; *p<.05 (two tailed)

sonant with the hypothesis that external
attributions of response causality are as-
sociated with hypnotic responding and in-
voluntariness ratings. Hypnotizable
subjects tend to rate their hypnotic expe-
riences as involuntary and view the hyp-
notist both in positive terms and as a
relatively powerful figure through which
their responses and experiences are man-
ifested.
Whereas high susceptibles attributed
more of their responsiveness to their own
ability than low susceptibles, medium- and
high-susceptible subjects were indistin-
guishable. This finding may well reflect
subjects' tendency to make hypnotic abil-
ity attributions on the basis of observa-
tions of their own behavior (see Coe,
1983).
Low-susceptible subjects attributed more
of their responsiveness to their own ef-
forts than medium susceptibles. Interest-
ingly, low susceptibles did not differ from
high susceptibles on this measure. It may
be, as McConkey and Sheehan (1982) have
suggested, that "effort" is an ambiguous
term; that is, "effort" could be inter-
preted by subjects as either reflecting the
application of their abilities to the hyp-
notic setting (becoming involved in sug-
gestion-related imaginings, etc.) or as
reflecting the quality of their hypnotic ex-
periences. Given the likelihood that high-
and low-susceptible subjects experience
hypnosis very differently, high suscepti-
bles may interpret self-effort attributions
in terms of ability employment; whereas
low susceptibles may interpret self-effort
attributions in terms of their largely un-
successful attempts to experience hyp-
notic suggestions. It is unclear whether
low-susceptible subjects apportioned re-
sponsibility for what little success they
had or for their more substantial failures.
Future research can make a contribution
by clarifying aspects of the attribution
process and providing subjects with an
opportunity to make attributions regard-
ing other potential causes noted by attri-
bution theory (Weiner, 1972) such as task
 42 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAU MAN
difficulty and chance factors. It would also
be of interest to investigate subjects' at-
tributions in an experiment in which there
is greater hypnotist-subject involvement
in order to enhance the meaningfulness of
subjects' attributions to the hypnotist's
abilities and efforts.
Differential experiences of hypnosis may
also account for unhypnotizable subjects
rating the hypnotist as less positive and
according him less responsibility for their
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
responsiveness than high susceptibles who
have a more positive and less frustrating
experience of hypnosis. Further, since
susceptible subjects are more responsive
to suggestions than medium and low sus-
ceptibles, more extreme ability and hyp-
notist-relatedattributions may be a function
of their having greater responsiveness to,
in effect, "parcel out" to various sources.
However, recent research in our labora-
tory (Lynn, Snodgrass, Hardaway, &
Lenz, 1984) suggests that high- and low-
susceptible subjects differ in their judg-
ments about the degree to which their re-
sponses are a function of their own versus
the hypnotist's abilities and efforts even
before they are hypnotized. Subjects' re-
sponse predictions regarding the hypno-
tist's ability and effort correlated positively
with subjects' hypnotic responsiveness and
their ratings of involuntariness assessed
after hypnosis.
The current study did not find support
for the possibility that subjects' everyday
involvement in fantasy and imaginative
experiences is related to their tendency to
attribute response causality to their own
abilities and efforts. In fact, low but sig-
nificant correlations were obtained be-
tween the imagination measure and
external attributions of causality. In clos-
ing, examining the variables and processes
associated with subjects' causal attribu-
tions can play a role in elaborating the
cognitive dimension of the experience of
hypnosis.
References
Arnold, M. D. (1946). On the mechanism of
suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 41, 107-128.
Bowers, K. (1976). Hypnosisfor the seriously
curious. New York: W. W. Norton.
Bowers, K. (1981). Do the Stanford Scales
tap the "classic suggestion effect"? Inter-
national Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 29,42-53.
Bowers, P. (1982). The classic suggestion ef-
fect: Relationships with scales of hypnotiz-
ability, effortless experiencing, and imagery
vividness. International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis. 30, 270-279.
Coe, W. C. (1978). The credibility of post-
hypnotic amnesia: A contextualist's view.
International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental, Hypnosis, 26218-245.
Coe, W. C. (1983, August) Measuring non-
volitional experiences of hypnotic subjects
with state and control reports. Paper pre-
sented at the annual convention of the
American Psychological Association, Ana-
heim, CA.
Dolby, R. & Sheehan, P. (1977) Cognitive
processing and expectancy behavior in hyp-
nosis. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology. 86,
334--345.
Farthing, G., Brown, S., & Venturino, M.
(1983). Involuntariness of response on the
Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscep-
tibility. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 31,170-180.
Hilgard, E. (1977). Divided consciousness:
Multiple controls in human thought and ac-
tion. New York: Wiley.
Hilgard, E. (1981). Hypnotic susceptibility
scales under attack: An examination of
Weitzenhoffer's criticisms. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis. 29, 24--41.
Lynn, S. J., Nash. M. R. J., Frauman, D., &
Sweeney, C. (1984) Nonvolition, expectan-
 ATTRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS
cies, and hypnotic rapport. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 93,295-303.
Lynn, S. J. & Rhue, J. W. (1986). The fan-
tasy prone person: Hypnosis, imagination,
and creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 447-452.
Lynn, S. J., Snodgrass, M., Hardaway, R.,
& Lenz, J. (1984) Hypnotic susceptibility:
Predictons and evaluations of performance
and experience. Paper presented at the
Meeting of the American Psychological As-
sociation.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 11:30 04 December 2014
McConkey, K. & Sheehan, P. (1982) Effort
and experience on the Creative Imagination
Scale. International Journal ofClinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 30, 280-288.
Rhue, J. W. & Lynn, S. J. (in press). Fantasy
proneness: Developmental antecedents.
Journal of Personality.
Sarbin, T. R. & cee, W. C. (1972) A social
psychological analysis of influence com-
munication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Sarbin, T. R. & Coe, W. C. (1979). Hypnosis
and psychopathology: On the futility of
mental state concepts. Journal ofAbnormal
Psychology, 88, 506-526.
Sheehan, P. (1971). Countering preconcep-
tions about hypnosis: An objective index of
involvement with the hypnotist. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology Monograph, 78,299-
322.
Sheehan, P. (1980). Factors influencing rap-
port in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 89, 263-281.
Sheehan, P. & Dolby, R. (1975). Hypnosis
and the influence of most recently perceived
events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
84331-345.
Shor, R., & Orne, E. (1962). The Harvard
Group Scale ofHypnotic Susceptibility, Form
43
A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Spanos, N. (1982) Hypnotic behavior: A cog-
nitive, social psychological perspective.
Research Communications in Psychology,
Psychiatry, and Behavior, 7, 199-213.
Spanos, N., Cobb, P. C., & Gorassini, D. R.
(1983). Failing to resist hypnotic test sug-
gestions: A strategy for self-presenting as
deeply hypnotized. Unpublished manu-
script, Carleton University.
Spanos, N., Rivers" S., & Ross" S. (1977).
Experienced involuntariness and response
to hypnotic suggestions. In W. Edmonston,
Jr. (Ed.), Conceptual and investigative ap-
proaches to hypnosis and hypnotic phenom-
ena. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 296, 208-221.
Spanos, N., Weekes, J. R., & de Groh, M.
(1984). The "involuntary" countering of
suggested requests: A test of the ideomotor
hypothesis of hypnotic responsiveness.
British Journal of Experimental and Clini-
cal Hypnosis, 1, 3-11.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation:
From mechanism to cognition. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Weitzenhoffer, A. (1974). When is an "in-
struction an instruction?" International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis, 22, 258-269.
White, R. (1941). A preface toward a theory
of hypnotism. Journal ofAbnormal and So-
cial Psychology, 36, 477-505.
Wilson, S. & Barber, T. (1982) The Inventory
of Childhood Memories and Imaginings.
Unpublished manuscript. Cushing Hospital.
Wilson, L., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1986).
Beliefs about forensic hypnosis. Interna-
tional Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 34, 110-121.