Barnes Sean M, Lynn Steven Jay, Pekala Ronald J
Psychology Department, Binghamton University, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13905, USA.
Conscious Cogn. 2009 Mar;18(1):255-65. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.07.006. Epub 2008 Sep 7.
To examine the influence of hypnotic suggestibility testing as a source of individual differences in hypnotic responsiveness, we compared behavioral and subjective responses on three scales of hypnotic suggestibility: The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A; Shor, R. E., Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Berlin: Consulting Psychologists Press); the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS; Spanos, N. P., Radtke, H. L., Hodgins, D. C., Stam, H. J., Bertrand, L. D. (1983b). The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Normative data and psychometric properties. Psychological Reports, 53, 523-535); and the Group Scale of Hypnotic Ability (GSHA; Hawkins, R., Wenzel, L. (1999). The Group Scale of Hypnotic Ability and response booklet. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 20-31). Behavioral and subjective responses to the CURSS were significantly different than those on the HGSHS: A and GSHA. More participants were classified as "low suggestible" on the CURSS and they reported subjective experiences more similar to everyday mentation. Attitudes and expectancies of participants who received the GSHA were less predictive of responding, but rates of responding and subjective experiences were similar on the GSHA and the HGSHS: A. Discussion focuses on implications for the use of group hypnotic suggestibility scales.
为检验催眠易感性测试作为催眠反应个体差异来源的影响,我们比较了在三种催眠易感性量表上的行为和主观反应:哈佛群体催眠易感性量表A版(HGSHS:A;肖尔,R.E.,奥恩,E.C.(1962年)。哈佛群体催眠易感性量表。柏林:咨询心理学家出版社);卡尔顿大学暗示反应量表(CURSS;斯帕诺斯,N.P.,拉德克,H.L.,霍奇斯,D.C.,斯坦姆,H.J.,伯特兰,L.D.(1983年b)。卡尔顿大学暗示反应量表:常模数据和心理测量特性。《心理报告》,53,523 - 535);以及催眠能力群体量表(GSHA;霍金斯,R.,温泽尔,L.(1999年)。催眠能力群体量表及反应手册。《澳大利亚临床与实验催眠杂志》,27,20 - 31)。对CURSS的行为和主观反应与对HGSHS:A和GSHA的反应显著不同。在CURSS上更多参与者被归类为“低易感性”,并且他们报告的主观体验更类似于日常思维。接受GSHA的参与者的态度和期望对反应的预测性较低,但在GSHA和HGSHS:A上的反应率和主观体验相似。讨论聚焦于群体催眠易感性量表使用的意义。