Holroyd J
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1989 Jul;37(3):189-91. doi: 10.1080/00207148908414471.
17 research psychologists, identified as reflecting state or nonstate theoretical positions regarding hypnosis, were requested to provide anonymous information about their personal hypnosis test scores. There were no differences between the state and nonstate groups in mean scores on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962) or the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), and no differences in the numbers who reported that they used hypnotherapy to treat patients. Small sample size suggests caution in interpretation of the present results, but it appears that commitment to a state or nonstate theory is not necessarily related to the hypnosis researcher's personal experience with hypnosis.
17位研究心理学家被要求提供有关他们个人催眠测试分数的匿名信息,这些心理学家被认定为反映了关于催眠的状态或非状态理论立场。在哈佛团体催眠感受性量表A式(肖尔和E. 奥恩,1962年)或斯坦福催眠感受性量表C式(魏岑霍弗和希尔加德,1962年)的平均分数上,状态组和非状态组之间没有差异,在报告使用催眠疗法治疗患者的人数上也没有差异。小样本量表明在解释当前结果时要谨慎,但似乎对状态或非状态理论的信奉并不一定与催眠研究者的个人催眠体验相关。