Putnam F W, Helmers K, Horowitz L A, Trickett P K
Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Child Abuse Negl. 1995 May;19(5):645-55. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(95)00022-z.
Research on the relation between hypnotizability and clinical dissociation has led to contradictory findings. Measures of hypnotizability and dissociation are only weakly correlated in general population samples, but studies of posttraumatic stress and dissociative disorders patients have found elevated levels of clinical dissociation and hypnotizability respectively. This study assesses the relationships among hypnotizability, clinical dissociation and traumatic antecedents in 54 sexually abused girls, ages 6-15 years, and 51 matched controls. Hypnotizability was assessed on initial evaluation and again in matched subsamples at one year using the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Children. Clinical dissociation was assessed using the Child Dissociative Checklist. Abuse variables were extracted from Child Protective Services reports. There were no significant differences in hypnotizability between abuse and control subjects. There were significant differences in clinical dissociation initially and on 1-year retest. Hypnotizability and clinical dissociation were only weakly correlated (r(105) = .118, p = NS). However, in the abuse group, highly hypnotizable subjects were significantly more dissociative. Higher levels of clinical dissociation were associated with abuse by multiple perpetrators and co-presence of physical abuse independent of the sexual abuse. A small subgroup of "double dissociative" subjects, high in both hypnotizability and dissociativity, was identified. Double dissociation was associated with multiple perpetrators and earlier onset of sexual abuse.
关于催眠易感性与临床解离之间关系的研究得出了相互矛盾的结果。在一般人群样本中，催眠易感性和解离的测量指标通常仅有微弱的相关性，但对创伤后应激障碍和分离性障碍患者的研究分别发现临床解离和催眠易感性水平升高。本研究评估了54名年龄在6至15岁之间遭受性虐待的女孩和51名匹配对照者的催眠易感性、临床解离与创伤性经历之间的关系。在初次评估时以及一年后对匹配的子样本再次使用斯坦福儿童催眠临床量表评估催眠易感性。使用儿童解离检查表评估临床解离。从儿童保护服务报告中提取虐待变量。受虐待组和对照组在催眠易感性方面无显著差异。在初次评估和一年后的复测中，临床解离存在显著差异。催眠易感性与临床解离仅有微弱的相关性（r(105) = .118，p = 无统计学意义）。然而，在受虐待组中，高度催眠易感性的受试者解离程度显著更高。更高水平的临床解离与多名施虐者的虐待以及身体虐待与性虐待并存有关，与性虐待无关。确定了一小部分“双重解离”受试者，他们在催眠易感性和解离性方面都很高。双重解离与多名施虐者以及性虐待的更早发病有关。
