Page R A, Handley G W
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Lima 45804.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1992 Jul;40(3):157-68. doi: 10.1080/00207149208409654.
The present study attempted to assess the effectiveness of commonly used deepening techniques and of surreptitiously provided stimulation on hypnotizability scores, in-hypnosis depth reports, retrospective realness ratings, and the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth (Field, 1965). High, medium, and low hypnotizables were assigned in equal numbers to 1 of 3 groups, each containing 54 Ss. Controls were compared to Ss receiving 2 deepening techniques or 2 suggestions for positive and negative hallucinations that were surreptitiously enhanced. Of the 4 dependent measures employed, the only significant difference between groups related to a change in depth reports for the manipulation items themselves, leading to the conclusion that the effect of the techniques was at best minimal and transient. Some methodological and conceptual issues are also discussed.
本研究试图评估常用的深化技术以及暗中提供的刺激对催眠易感性分数、催眠深度报告、回顾性真实感评分和催眠深度现场量表（菲尔德，1965年）的有效性。将高、中、低催眠易感性者平均分配到3组中的1组，每组有54名被试。将对照组与接受两种深化技术或两种关于正性和负性幻觉的暗示（暗中增强）的被试进行比较。在所采用的4项因变量测量中，各组之间唯一显著的差异与操纵项目本身的深度报告变化有关，得出的结论是，这些技术的效果充其量是微小且短暂的。还讨论了一些方法学和概念性问题。
