Page R A, Handley G W
Ohio State University, Lima 45804.
Am J Clin Hypn. 1992 Oct;35(2):138-44. doi: 10.1080/00029157.1992.10402996.
First we exposed experimental subjects to either the hypnotic items they were about to experience or to those items embedded in a longer list of hypnotic items. We then asked them to give item-difficulty ratings prior to administration of a standard group susceptibility scale. Controls received no prior exposure to any hypnotic items. We obtained four dependent measures: hypnotic susceptibility score, an in-hypnosis depth report, Field (1965) Depth Inventory score, and retrospective depth reports. The three groups did not differ significantly on any of the dependent measures. Although this result differs from that of Shor, Pistole, Easton, and Kihlstrom (1984), who found that prior knowledge of items depressed susceptibility scores, this may be due to procedural differences between the two studies. Subjects' self-predictions of item difficulty were poor to modest, and accuracy of predictions was not related to any of the four dependent measures.
首先，我们让实验对象接触他们即将体验的催眠项目，或者接触包含在更长的催眠项目列表中的那些项目。然后，在施用标准的群体易受催眠性量表之前，我们要求他们给出项目难度评分。对照组事先没有接触任何催眠项目。我们获得了四项因变量指标：催眠易受性得分、催眠深度报告、菲尔德（1965年）深度量表得分以及回顾性深度报告。在任何一项因变量指标上，三组之间均无显著差异。尽管这一结果与肖尔、皮斯托尔、伊斯顿和基尔斯特龙（1984年）的研究结果不同，他们发现事先了解项目会降低易受性得分，但这可能是由于两项研究在程序上存在差异。受试者对项目难度的自我预测能力较差到中等，且预测准确性与四项因变量指标中的任何一项均无关联。
