Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1990, Vol. 99, No. 1,16-21 0021-843X/90/I00.75

Literalism as a Marker of Hypnotic "Trance": Discontinuing Evidence

Joseph P. Green, Steven Jay Lynn, John R. Weekes, Bruce W. Carlson,
John Brentar, Lance Latham, and Robert Kurzhals
Ohio University

The responses given by highly hypnotizable, hypnotic subjects and those of unhypnotizable subjects
who simulated hypnosis to questions of the type, "Do you mind telling me your name?" and "Do
you mind standing up?" were contrasted. The purpose was to examine Erickson's (1980) assertion
that literalism (answering "yes" or "no" verbally or nonverbally without any cognitive elaboration)
is a marker of hypnotic "trance." Simulators exhibited a greater rate of literalism than hypnotic
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

"virtuosos" (i.e., extreme scorers on both group and individual hypnotizability measures). Hypno-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tized subjects and nonhypnotized subjects approached in the campus library responded comparably.
Because less than a third of hypnotic virtuosos responded literally, our results strongly refuted Erick-
son's assertion that literalism is a cognitive feature of hypnosis.

One feature commonly attributed to the hypnotic state has
been literalism of response. To illustrate, White (1941) stated
that the hypnotized subject's manner "differs from the ordi-
nary: he seems literal and humorless, he shows no surprise and
makes no apology for bizarre behavior, he appears entirely un-
self-conscious, and very often he acts abstracted, inattentive,
almost as if he were insulated against his surroundings" (p.
481). Pattie (1956) believed that characteristics of the hypnotic
state included "passivity. . . disinclination to talk. . . literal-
mindedness, and a lack of spontaneity and initiative" (p. 208).
Weitzenhoffer (1957) maintained that, even when behaving in
a most natural manner, hypnotized subjects "still show a con-
striction of awareness, a characteristic literal-mindedness, some
psychomotor retardation, and possibly a degree of automatism"
(p. 212). More recently, Shor (1962, 1979) noted that the hyp-
notized subject "opens his eyes and interacts with reality objects
but perceives them in a fresh, literal, concrete, here and now
way, isolated from their conventional meanings and abstract
evaluative interpretations" (p. 123).
Despite being recognized as a hypnotic phenomenon, literal-
ism was not hailed as an indicator of a trance state until Milton
Erickson (Erickson, Hershman, & Secter, 1961) observed that
the presence of "trance" included literalness of response. Erick-
son (Erickson, Rossi, & Rossi, 1976) forcefully stated that "lit-
eralism . . . is a classical indication of deep trance" (p. 160).
According to Erickson, literalism involves an exact reception
of ideas without an elaboration of them in terms of implied or
associated meanings.
Erickson (1980) claimed to have experimentally assessed lit-
eralness in 1,800 hypnotized subjects' responses and 3,000 re-
This research is based on Joseph P. Green's master's thesis, conducted
under the supervision of Steven Jay Lynn.
We would like to express our appreciation to John F. Kihlstrom, Ju-
dith R. Rhue, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on
an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven
Jay Lynn, Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
45701.
16
sponses of waking subjects over a period of more than 25 years.
Erickson asked questions such as, "Do you mind telling me
your name?" or "Do you mind reading this?" (while handing
subjects a card bearing a typed sentence, such as "This is a nice
day"). Erickson reported that 95% of the subjects in the waking
state—whether a friend, an acquaintance, or even a total
stranger to the hypnotist—acquiesced to the implication of the
question—they would actually say their name or read the card,
for example. In contrast, 80% of the subjects in a "light trance"
uttered "no" or exhibited a negative shaking of the head; 90%
of subjects in a "medium trance" and 97% of subjects in a "deep
trance" behaved in this manner. In short, although Erickson
claimed that literalism of response was a classical indication of
deep trance, the majority of subjects at any level of "trance"
exhibited literalism.
Unfortunately, Erickson's experiment comprises a series of
informal trials that are impossible to replicate exactly. The
questions themselves and the order of questions were not stan-
dardized; the situation in which questioning occurred was not
held constant; the hypnotist/experimenter was apparently
aware of the experimental hypotheses; and some subjects were
asked questions in the "wake" state and in hypnosis, whereas
others were only hypnotized or tested in the wake state. Further-
more, "light," "medium," and "deep" trance were not denned
or operationalized. The fact that Erickson believed that literal-
ism was a classical indicator of trance suggests that the presence
of literalism and judgments about trance might have been con-
founded.
Only two subsequent investigations (Lynn, Green, et al.,
1989; McCue & McCue, 1988) have been undertaken to deter-
mine whether literalism is a valid marker of hypnosis. In an
experiment consisting of "three stages," McCue and McCue
(1988) found no evidence for literalness: Even when subjects
were cued to respond in a literal manner, "only a minority of
subjects displayed purely literal responses" (p. 197). Unfortu-
nately, the following limitations render the interpretation of
their findings questionable: Not all their subjects were prese-
lected for high hypnotizability, nor was hypnotizability uni-
formly assessed in a conventional, standardized manner, some
subjects were tested twice, their performance confounded by
 LITERALISM AS A MARKER OF HYPNOTIC TRANCE
their earlier responses; the exact questions used to assess literal-
ism were neither standardized nor reported; "it was not always
clear whether a S had passed a particular scale item" (p. 193),
nor were all subjects' verbal responses heard clearly, which fur-
ther complicated scoring; and, finally, it was unclear whether
the experimenter waited for some time after the subject indi-
cated "yes" or "no" or whether the next question in a series was
asked immediately. The third stage of the research program also
apparently contained strong cues to respond behaviorally (non-
literally).
In the first controlled study of literalism, Lynn, Green, et al.
(1989) compared the performance of highly hypnotizable, hyp-
notic subjects with that of task-motivated (Barber, 1969) sub-
jects. In contrast to Erickson's claims, Lynn, Green, et al. found
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
that 87.5% of hypnotizable subjects' responses were nonliteral.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Furthermore, hypnotic and task-motivated subjects did not
differ in their rate of literal responding. In summary, this re-
search, taken together with McCue and McCue's (1988) study,
suggests that Erickson's (1980) claims are highly misleading.
The present study was designed to provide a stronger test of
the hypothesis that literalism is a marker of hypnotizable sub-
jects' hypnotic responses. To do so, we examined literalism of
responding in subjects who scored at the top range of hypnotiz-
ability on two standardized measures of hypnotizability (so
called "hypnotic virtuosos") and compared their responses
with those of a group of unhypnotizable, simulating (Orne,
1971) subjects.
Register and Kihlstrom (1986) have shown that only 36% of
the subjects scoring in the high range (10-12) of the Harvard
Group Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (HGHSS:A; Shor & Orne,
1962) continue to do so on the individually administered Stan-
ford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C; Weitzen-
hoffer & Hilgard, 1962). The Stanford scale is thought to be a
particularly demanding hypnotizability scale, because many of
its suggestions call for perceptual and cognitive alterations. Reg-
ister and Kihlstrom (1986) have shown that only about 5% to
10% of the population score in the virtuoso range on the SHSS:
c (11 -12). To secure a sample of subjects whose hypnotic ability
was truly unassailable, we required our subjects to pass at least
11 of the 12 Harvard scale suggestions and to pass at least 11 of
the 12 Stanford scale suggestions.
Hilgard (1988) has described Erickson as a master "play-
wright" and "director." If this characterization is apt, then his
clients' behavior may be attributable to their willingness and
ability to enact and profit from the "roles" that were directly
or indirectly suggested by Erickson. Thus, the high degree of
literalism of response exhibited by Erickson's subjects might
have been a function of their perception of the requirements of
the hypnotic situation—part of the role they enacted in re-
sponse to perceived demands. For this reason, we thought it was
particularly important to examine the responses of unhypno-
tizable simulating subjects to evaluate the demand characteris-
tics of the experimental situation. Because the simulating model
(Orne, 1959, 1971) ensures that the hypnotist is blind to the
hypnotizability status of the subject, the possibility of inadver-
tent subject cuing is minimized.
In our first study (Lynn, Green, et al., 1989), there was a 1-
min interval between the questions that constituted the tests of
literalism. It is possible that this interval cued subjects that a
more complete (i.e., nonliteral) response was expected. On the
17
other hand, asking the next question immediately following the
subject's saying "yes" or "no" could cue a literal, "yes" or "no"
response to subsequent questions. To minimize the cue proper-
ties of the interquestion interval, subjects in the present study
were provided with a rationale for this time period. We in-
formed subjects in advance of hypnosis that they would be
asked a number of questions and that there would be a brief
period between questions to allow the hypnotist to record their
responses. Finally, in addition to randomizing the order of pre-
sentation of the tests of literalism, we inquired about subjects'
expectancies and how active or passive subjects felt when asked
each of the questions.
To evaluate Erickson's claim that subjects in the wake state
almost invariably respond in a nonliteral manner, we tested
nonhypnotized subjects for literalism in a naturalistic setting—
the university library. This condition permitted us to examine
the base rate of literal versus nonliteral responding in the college
student population and to compare these frequencies with hyp-
notic and simulating subjects' responses.
Method
Subjects
The 24 hypnotic and simulating subjects (16 women and 8 men) par-
ticipated in order to receive extra course credit The 12 hypnotizable
subjects (6 women and 6 men) were required to meet two criteria: (1)
To achieve a score of 11 or above on the 12-suggestion HGHSS:A admin-
istered in a screening session (M = 11.33, SD = 0.49) and (2) to achieve
a score of 11 or above on the 12-suggestion SHSS:C (Weitzenhoffer &
Hilgard, 1962), as well as to pass the posthypnotic amnesia suggestion.
In order to secure the sample of 12 hypnotizable subjects (Stanford scale
M = 11.08, SD = 0.29), it was necessary to hypnotize 23 subjects who
scored in the highest range on the Harvard scale. Thus, 52% of the sub-
jects who scored in the virtuoso range of the Harvard scale did so on
the Stanford scale. Twelve unhypnotizable subjects who scored three or
below on the HGHSSIA were selected for participation as simulators
(M = 1.92; SD = 0.92); these subjects scored 10.67 (SD = 0.78) on the
SHSS:C. That unhypnotizable subjects successfully simulated hypnosis
is evident in the fact that the hypnotists were able to correctly identify
only 25% of the simulators posthypnotically.
The library sample consisted of 101 subjects (63 women and 38 men).
Hypnotizability scores were unavailable for these subjects.
Test of Literalism
The following four questions constituted the test of literalism: (1) "Do
you mind telling me your name?" (2) "Do you mind standing up?" (3)
"Are you willing to tell me where you are?" (4) "Say something." The
first two questions were included in Erickson's research on literal re-
sponding (Erickson, 1980) and in our first study. The last two tests of
literalism were taken from measures of literalism in the Indirect Trance
Assessment Scale (ITAS of Rossi, 1986). The questions and statement
were chosen because they tap diverse dimensions of responding (i.e., a
verbal expression of information; a behavioral, motor response; a verbal
expression of spatial/reality orientation; and a verbal response to an
open-formatted, unstructured question).
Procedure: Hypnotized and Simulating Subjects
In the initial screening session, four mate clinical psychology graduate
students administered a live HGSHS:A to subjects in groups ranging in
size from approximately 40 to 80 subjects. Subjects were informed that
our research group was attempting to compile a profile of how Ohio
 18 GREEN ET AL.

University students compare with other hypnosis subjects across the na- Table 1
tion. Only subjects motivated to take part in other studies were asked to Number of Literal Versus Nonliteral Responses of Hypnotized,
volunteer. Eligible subjects were contacted by telephone by the project Simulating, and Library Subjects
coordinator and invited to volunteer to participate in an individual hyp-
nosis session. Question Nonliteral Literal
Treatment of hypnotic and simulating subjects. For the actual experi-
mental phase, an experimental assistant read subjects simulating in- Tell name
structions (Orne, 1971) that informed simulators that if their pretense Hypnosis 10 2
were detected, the session and the experiment would be terminated. Simulating 5 7
The simulators were informed that hypnotizable subjects would also
Library 26 3
Stand up
participate in the research. Simulators were asked to continue their role Hypnosis 7 5
playing until the experimental assistant signaled them to stop, after a Simulating 3 9
postexperimental questionnaire was completed. The hypnotic subjects Library 19 8
had no knowledge that simulating subjects were participating in the Where you are
study. The hypnotists were unaware of the subjects' group status but Hypnosis 9 3
were required to guess whether subjects were hypnotized or simulating. Simulating 4 8
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Prior to the administration of the Stanford induction, subjects were Library 11 4

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

informed that the hypnotist would ask the subject a number of ques-
tions during the induction. They were told that a brief time period
would follow each question to allow the hypnotist to record their an-
swers. To make this salient, subjects were asked whether they had any
questions about how the experiment would be conducted. The hypno-
tist then administered the Stanford scale. After the 12 suggestions were
administered, the experimenter asked subjects the four questions that
constituted the tests of literalism, with a 1 S-s interquestion interval. The
questions were presented in a random order, and the experimenter re-
corded the response latencies to each of the four questions.
Postexperimental questionnaire. For each of the questions, subjects
were asked how active or passive they felt when the question was asked.
For example, the question regarding standing up was worded as follows:
"When the hypnotist asked the question, 'Do you mind standing up?',
how did you feel?" (1 = passive, did not feel like moving; 3 = neither
passive nor active; 5 = active, felt like moving).
Subjects also received scales designed to examine their beliefs about
how the hypnotist expected them to respond. For each test of literalism,
they received a question of the following form: "When the hypnotist
asked the question, 'Do you mind telling me your name?', the hypnotist
expected me to respond b y . . . a. answering "Yes" or "No" b. stating
my name."
Treatment of the library sample. Six undergraduate research assis-
tants (3 men and 3 women) served as experimenters. Each experimenter
asked between 14 and 19 subjects one of the questions that constituted
a test of literalism. The experimenters were instructed not to select sub-
jects on the basis of dress, race, or physical appearance. Personal ac-
quaintance was a basis for exclusion. To approximate a more random
basis of selection, the research assistants were instructed to ask ques-
tions of subjects who were walking in or out of the library, looking for
books, or sitting in the library cafeteria, in order of appearance or seat-
ing arrangement. Prior to reading the question, the experimenters were
told to say, "Excuse me." They then asked the question, recorded the
answer and the response latencies, and said, "Thank you" at the end of
the interaction. If the subject responded with "What?" or "Why?", the
experimenter restated the question as often as needed. The experiment-
ers did not inform the subjects that it was an experiment unless the
subject asked them about the purpose of the question or after the subject
had responded. Experimenters were told nothing about the purpose of
the research. However, they were told to anticipate a variety of re-
sponses. All of the subjects' responses were scored unless they clearly
refused to respond to the question (e.g., walked away or stated they were
too busy) or simply stated, "Why" repeatedly and never answered di-
rectly. Six responses were not scored for these reasons.
Scoring of literalism. Independent raters, who scored subjects' re-
sponses for literalism, examined transcripts of subjects' responses re-
corded by the hypnotist. Inasmuch as pilot testing revealed perfect
agreement between the judges in rating the presence or absence of non-
verbal responses, the hypnotist was responsible for recording subjects'
Say something
Hypnosis 8 4
Simulating 8 4
Library 23 7
nonverbal responses. The raters were not associated with any other
phase of the research; they were unaware of subjects' condition and the
research questions under consideration.
Following Rossi (1986), we adopted literalism scoring criteria of re-
sponding "yes" or "no," verbally or nonverbally, to the first three ques-
tions without enacting a behavioral response. None of the subjects re-
sponded nonverbally in the absence of a behavioral response or a verbal
"yes" or "no" acknowledgment. The request "Say something" was
scored as literal if subjects responded with the reply "something." A
composite literalism score was derived by summing subjects' responses
across the four questions. The raters agreed on 100% of the hypnotized
and simulating subjects' responses and disagreed on only 2 of the 101
responses of the subjects tested in the library sample. Differences were
resolved through discussion.
Results
Measures of literalism of responding. Table 1 presents the
number of literal versus nonliteral responses of hypnotized,
simulating, and library subjects across the four questions. An
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the composite literalism mea-
sure indicated that simulating subjects (M = 2.33, SD = 1.07)
exhibited more literalism of responding than hypnotizable sub-
jects (M = 1.17, SD = 1.03) across the four questions, F(l,
22) = 7.38,p=.01.'
To analyze the frequency of literal versus nonliteral responses
across each of the four questions, for hypnotized versus simulat-
ing subjects, separate chi-square analyses were performed. Sim-
ulators exhibited a greater frequency of literal responses than
did hypnotized subjects to the questions that asked subjects
' Erickson clearly stated that subjects who exhibited literalism simply
answered "yes" or "no" without making any behavioral response (Er-
ickson, 1980, p. 9). However, to provide a liberal or nonstringent test of
literalism, we performed an analysis in which we scored responses as
literal when the subject simply answered "yes" or "no" or when the
subject first responded "yes" or "no" and then enacted a behavioral
response. According to this index of literalism, hypnotized subjects
failed to differ in their responses from both simulating and "library"
subjects.
 LITERALISM AS A MARKER OF HYPNOTIC TRANCE
whether they would mind telling the hypnotist their name and
stating where they were, \2(l,N= 24) = 4.44 and 4.20, respec-
tively, p < .05. Odds ratios computed between hypnotized and
simulating subjects on the type of response showed that the
probability for simulators to respond literally to the question,
"Do you mind telling me your name?" was approximately
seven times greater than the probability for hypnotized subjects
to respond literally to that question (O = 6.99). The probability
for simulators to respond literally to the question, "Are you
willing to tell me where you are?" was approximately six times
greater for simulators than for hypnotized subjects (O = 5.99).
Simulators and hypnotized subjects did not differ in the fre-
quency of literal responses to the questions that involved their
responding to "Say something" and being asked whether they
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
minded standing up, x20> N = 24) < 1 and 2.74, respectively,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
both ns.
Separate chi-square analyses across each of the four questions
were conducted for subjects in the library group versus hypno-
tized subjects. None of the chi-squares achieved significance (all
X2 values < 1).
An examination of the percentage of literal versus nonliteral
responses for subjects in each of the three groups is informative.
The percentage of literal responses of the hypnotized and the
library subjects were quite comparable (29.17% vs. 21.78%, re-
spectively). In contrast, the simulating subjects responded liter-
ally to 58.33% of the questions.
Latencies. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
comparing real and simulators' latencies in response to each of
the questions separately failed to reach significance, F(4,
19) = 1.26.
Active/passive measure. To explore real-simulating differ-
ences on the measure of active/passive feelings for the four tests
of literalism, MANOVA was performed. This analysis failed to
reveal a multivariate effect, F(4, 19) < 1. For each of the ques-
tions, we performed an ANOVA to determine whether hypnotiz-
able and simulating subjects who responded literally felt more
passive than did subjects who responded nonliterally. We found
support for this hypothesis in relation to three of the four ques-
tions: tell name, f\l, 22) = 10.24, p = .004 (Mliteral respon-
ses = 3.11, SD = 0.61; M nonliteral = 4.13); stand up, P(l,
22)= 18.25, p < .0001 (M literal = 2.14, SD = 1.02; M
nonliteral = 3.80, SD = 0.79); tell where, P(l, 22) = 5.16, p =
.033 (M literal = 3.46, SD = 0.82; M nonliteral = 4.15, SD =
0.69). No differences were evident with respect to the statement
"Say something," F( 1,22) < 1.
Expectancies. An ANOVA was conducted on subjects' expec-
tations by summing the frequency of endorsed literal expectan-
cies (e.g., the hypnotist expected a literal response) on the ex-
pectancy questionnaire across each of the four tests of literal-
ism. A tendency was observed for simulating (M = 2.42, SD =
1.08) subjects' expectancies for literal responding to exceed that
of hypnotizable (M = 1.42, SD = 1.56) subjects, P(l, 22) =
3.31, p = .082. Chi-square analyses, performed on individual
questions, revealed that simulators more frequently believed
that the hypnotist expected a literal response than did hypnotic
subjects, in response to two questions: "Do you mind standing
up," X2( 1, N = 24) = 4.44, p < .05 (Hypnotized = 41.66%; Sim-
ulators = 83.33%) and "Do you mind telling me where you
are?", X2( 1, N = 24) = 4.20, p < .05 (Hypnotized = 25%, Simu-
lators = 66.66%). Cohen's kappa (1960) was computed for each
19
question to obtain a measure of agreement between type of re-
sponse and expectation. Agreement between type of response
and expectation was above chance on each question (z name =
2.11, p < .05; z stand = 2.78, p < .05; z where = 4.07, p < .05;
z something = 4.06, p < .05). Kappa values ranged from .42
("Do . . . standing up?") to .83 ("Do . . . where you are?").
Kappas conditional on type of response, computed for each
question, showed that the agreement between responding liter-
ally and reporting an expectation to respond literally was
greater than or equal to the amount of agreement between re-
sponding nonliterally and expectation to respond nonliterally.
Conditional kappas ranged from .56 (name) to .83 (where) for
literal responses and from .33 (name) to .83 (where) for nonlit-
eral responses.
Discussion
This study constitutes the most definitive disconfirmation of
Erickson's literalism hypothesis to date. Our design examined
the responses of the most hypnotizable individuals in the college
population. If literalism is a characteristic of hypnotized sub-
jects' responses, as Erickson has claimed, we would expect the
greatest frequency of literalism to be exhibited by these talented
hypnotic virtuosos. Despite the fact that we provided perhaps
the most propitious conditions for literalism to emerge, less
than a third of the hypnotized subjects' responses were literal
in nature. This stands in sharp contrast to Erickson's claim that
97% of subjects in a deep trance respond literally. The failure
of highly hypnotizable subjects to exhibit literalism cannot
readily be attributed to experimenter cuing or to the ambiguity
of the interquestion interval. Experimenter blindness, the inclu-
sion of simulating subjects in the experimental design, and the
fact that subjects were prehypnotically informed about the
meaning of the interquestion interval minimized these possibil-
ities. Our findings are entirely consistent with our first study
and with McCue and McCue's (1988) findings that literal re-
sponses to questions are infrequent and are by no means mark-
ers of hypnotic responding.
Not only did hypnotizable subjects generally not respond in
a literal manner, but unhypnotizable subjects, asked to role play
hypnosis, were twice as likely to respond literally. Hypnotizable
and simulating subjects were not found to differ in their latency
of responding to the questions. However, the fact that simulators
were more responsive on the literalism index is particularly in-
teresting: Very few studies have found that hypnotizable and
simulating subjects can be distinguished in terms of their behav-
iors and cognitive processes.
Literalism of response can now be added to a handful of mea-
sures that differentiate hypnotizable and simulating subjects.
These include measures of trance logic (see Peters, 1973;
Spanos, 1986 for a review), "involuntary" response to counter-
suggestions (see Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Sweeney,
1984), posthypnotic behavior outside the experimental setting
(Orne, Sheehan, & Evans, 1968), and source amnesia (Evans,
1979), although the interpretation of real-simulator differences
in each instance has been questioned (e.g., Lynn, Rhue, &
Weekes, 1989; Spanos, 1986; Spanos, Gwynn, Delia Malva, &
Bertrand, 1988; St. Jean, 1978).
Simulators were found to be more likely than hypnotizable
subjects to respond in a manner consistent with theoretical pre-
 20 GREEN ET AL.
dictions regarding trance behavior. This finding is compatible
with research (e.g., Hilgard, 1977; Spanos, deGroot, & Gwynn,
1987; Williamsen, Johnson, & Erikson, 1965) showing that
simulators tend to respond in an "ideal" fashion, to the point of
outperforming hypnotized subjects. The fact that simulators—
whose sole task is to discern the task demands and to respond
accordingly—were more literal than hypnotized subjects sug-
gests an explanation of the relatively high levels of literalism
of response reported by Erickson. It is possible that Erickson's
subjects' literal responses were not associated with "hypnosis,"
or hypnotizability, but instead were the product of the demands
of therapy or the test context, which encouraged literal respond-
ing. Erickson's belief that literalism was a classic marker of hyp-
nosis, combined with his subjects' belief that literalism was an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
accompaniment of hypnosis, could have resulted in a high level
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of literal responding.
A rather different account of the real-simulator differences
emphasizes differences in the task demands and goals of hypno-
tized and simulating subjects. Because simulators' primary task
is to role play hypnotic behavior and to avoid detection as a
faker, in situations in which the appropriate response is ambigu-
ous, as is perhaps the case in the present study, the safest re-
sponse may be to respond in a minimal or constricted (Sheehan,
1971) manner, by responding only "yes" or "no" (i.e., literally)
rather than engaging in a behavioral response. Furthermore, be-
cause hypnotized subjects may adopt a more cooperative set
than simulating subjects, who assume a virtual adversarial posi-
tion with the hypnotist, hypnotized subjects may be more likely
to behave in accordance with the implicit demand of the hypno-
tist's request (e.g., to stand up) and to thereby exhibit a nonlit-
eral response.
Whereas Erickson asserted that literalism was a ubiquitous
characteristic of hypnotizable subjects, he stated with equal
force that nonliteral responding characterized nonhypnotic re-
sponses: Erickson reported that 95% of the subjects in the wak-
ing state, even in the presence of a total stranger, responded in a
nonliteral manner. When we directly tested this claim, we found
that it was not valid. About a fifth of the subjects, tested infor-
mally in a naturalistic setting, responded in a literal manner to
questions they were asked. Indeed, an important finding of our
research was that the frequency of literal responses of awake
subjects tested for literalism in a naturalistic setting was indis-
tinguishable from that of our hypnotic virtuosos.
As Barber (1969) has pointed out, many of the supposed
trancelike characteristics that have been ascribed to hypnotized
subjects, such as drowsiness, sleepiness, and relaxation, are
themselves suggested. Answering a question "yes" or "no" dur-
ing hypnosis has been conceptualized as a "literal" response.
However, if we think of a simple "yes" or "no" as a minimal
response to a question, it is possible that subjects who feel
drowsy, sleepy, passive, and relaxed would be particularly in-
clined to respond this way, especially if they believed that it was
consistent with the hypnotist's intentions and the experimental
demands. A literal response might, therefore, be viewed by
some subjects as proof, or as a way of demonstrating, that they
are deeply hypnotized. Our findings provide support for this
possibility. Although hypnotizable and simulating subjects did
not differ in their feelings of passivity in their responses to the
questions, passive feelings were generally associated with more
literal responses.
On each of the four tests of literalism, moderate-to-high
agreement was found between literal responses and subjects'
postsession belief that the hypnotist expected a literal response.
Conversely, moderate-to-high agreement was found between
nonliteral responses and subjects' reports that the hypnotist ex-
pected them to respond in a nonliteral manner. These findings
suggest that literal responses are expectancy-based. However, it
is unclear whether subjects responded in accordance with how
they perceived they were expected to respond or whether their
attribution of how the hypnotist expected them to respond was
a post hoc attribution based on how subjects actually re-
sponded. To begin to tease out these possibilities, it is necessary
to manipulate subjects' prehypnotic expectancies about literal-
ism as a marker of hypnotizable subjects' performance.
Concluding Comments
Although investigators (e.g., Erickson, 1980; Pattie, 1956;
Shor, 1962, 1979; Weitzenhoffer, 1957; White, 1941) have
maintained that literalism is a marker of hypnosis, the available
research clearly contradicts this assertion. Across multiple tests
of literalism, hypnotizable subjects' rate of literal responding
varied from slightly more than 10%, when nonstringently
screened subjects were tested (Lynn, Green, et al., 1989), to less
than 30%, when the most talented subjects in the college popu-
lation were tested in the present study. These rates are dramati-
cally lower than those reported by Erickson. Furthermore, in
our previous research (Lynn, Green, et al., 1989), nonhypnotic,
task-motivated subjects equalled the performance of hypnotiz-
able subjects, and, in the present study, hypnotizable subjects'
performance was equalled by nonhypnotic subjects tested in a
naturalistic setting and was surpassed by nonhypnotizable sim-
ulating subjects. Thus, our research indicates that literalism of
response is neither unique to hypnosis nor virtually absent in
unhypnotized subjects.
Erickson failed to specify exactly how he tested for literalism.
Nonetheless, three studies that used somewhat different ways of
assessing literalism of response by cuing versus noncuing sub-
jects for literalism (McCue & McCue, 1988), by testing literal-
ism formally (Lynn, Green, et al., 1989, and the present study)
versus informally (McCue & McCue, 1988), and by adopting
brief (as in the present study) versus long (Lynn, Green, et al.,
1989) interquestion intervals, have universally failed to support
Erickson's claims. Regardless of the method used to test literal-
ism, the great majority of hypnotized subjects fail to exhibit
literalism of response. Our research underlines the need for the
controlled investigation of hypnotic phenomena and supports
our contention that literalism arises as a function of hypnotiz-
able subjects' sensitivity to the broad demands of the testing
context rather than as a function of a purported trance state.
References
Barber, T. X. (1969). Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New Jersey: Power
Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Erickson, M. H. (1980). Literalness: An experimental study. In E. Rossi
(Ed.), The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson on hypnosis: Vol. 3.
Hypnotic investigation of psychodynamic processes. New \brk: Ir-
vington.
 LITERALISM AS A MARKER OF HYPNOTIC TRANCE
Erickson, M. H., Hershman, S., & Secter, I. I. (1961). The practical
applications of medical dental hypnosis. New York: Julian.
Erickson, M. H, Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. (1976). Hypnotic realities.
New York: Irvington.
Erickson, M. H, & Rossi, E. L. (1979). Hypnotherapy: An exploratory
casebook. New York: Irvington.
Evans, F. J. (1979). Contextual forgetting: Posthypnotic source amne-
sia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,556-563.
Hilgard, J. R. (1977). Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in hu-
man thought and action. New \brk: John Wiley.
Hilgard, J. R. (1988). Milton Erickson as playwright and director. Inter-
national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 128-
140.
Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Weekes, J. R., Carlson, B. W., Brentar, J., La-
tham, L., & Kurzhals, R. (1989). Literalism in hypnotized and task
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
motivated subjects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Lynn, S. J., Nash, M. R., Rhue, J. W., Frauman, D. C, & Sweeney, C.
(1984). Nonvolition, expectancies, and hypnotic rapport. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 93,295-303.
Lynn, S. J., Rhue, J. R., & Weekes, J. R. (1989). Hypnosis and experi-
enced nonvdition: An integrative social-cognitive model. In N. P.
Spanos & 1. Chaves (Eds.), Hypnosis: A cognitive-behavioral perspec-
tive(pp. 78-109). New York: Prometheus Books.
McCue, P. A., &. McCue, E. C. (1988). Literalness: An unsuggested
(spontaneous) item of hypnotic behavior? International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36,192-197.
Orne, M. T. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277-299.
Orne, M. T. (1971). The simulation of hypnosis: Why, how, and what it
means. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
19, 183-210.
Orne, M. T, Sheehan, P. W., & Evans, F. J. (1968). Occurrence of post-
hypnotic behavior outside of the experimental setting. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 9, 189-196.
Pattie, F. A. (1956). Methods of induction, susceptibility of subjects,
and criteria of hypnosis. In R. M. Dorcus (Ed.), Hypnosis and its
therapeutic applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Peters, J. E. (1973). Trance logic: Artifact or essence in hypnosis. Un-
published doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.
Register, P. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1986). Finding the hypnotic virtuoso.
21
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34,
84-97.
Rossi, E. L. (1986). The Indirect Trance Assessment Scale (ITAS): A
preliminary outline and learning tool. In M. Yapko (Ed.), Hypnotic
and strategic interventions: Principles and practice. New York: Irving-
ton.
Sheehan, P. W. (1971). A methodological analysis of the simulating
technique. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis, 19,83-99.
Shor, R. E. (1962). Three dimensions of hypnotic depth. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 10,23-28.
Shor, R. E. (1979). A phenomenological method for the measurement
of variables important to an understanding of the nature of hypnosis.
In E. Fromm & R. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Developments in research
and new perspectives. New \brk: Aldine.
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic
Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spanos, N. P. (1986). Hypnotic behavior A social-psychological inter-
pretation of amnesia, analgesia, and "trance logic." The Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 9,449-503.
Spanos, N. P., deGroot, H., & Gwynn, M. (1987). Hypnosis as incom-
plete responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
911-921.
Spanos, N. P., Gwynn, M. I., Delia Malva, C. L., & Bertrand, L. (1988).
Social psychological factors in the genesis of posthypnotic source am-
nesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 322-329.
St. Jean, R. (1978). Posthypnotic behavior as a function of experimental
surveillance. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 20,250-255.
Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1957). General techniques of hypnotism. New
York: Grune and Stratton.
Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Sus-
ceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
White, R. W. (1941). A preface to the theory of hypnotism. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36,447-505.
Williamsen, J. A., Johnson, H. J., & Eriksen, C. W. (1965). Some char-
acteristics of posthypnotic amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
70, 123-131.
Received January 12,1989
Revision received July 14,1989
Accepted July 21,1989 •