Brodeur J B, Kurtz R M, Strube M J
Department of Psychology, Washington, University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1998 Jul;46(3):240-9. doi: 10.1080/00207149808410005.
This study reexamined Spanos, Hodgins, Stam, and Gwynn's (1984) contention that susceptibility testing order effects generated a relationship between waking analgesia pain reduction and level of hypnotic responsiveness. Undergraduate volunteers with no previous hypnosis experience were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1 (n = 69) first received a cold pressor pain protocol, and then was administered the Standford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). Group 2 (n = 69) was administered the SHSS:C prior to the cold pressor pain protocol. Our findings do not support Spanos, Hodgins et al.'s contention that susceptibility testing order effects generate the often reported relationship between waking analgesia and level of hypnotic responsiveness. We found significant partial correlation coefficients between the SHSS:C and nonhypnotic pain reduction regardless of order of susceptibility testing. Implications regarding the adequacy of design-generated expectancies to explain hypnotic analgesia phenomena were examined.
本研究重新审视了斯帕诺斯、霍金斯、斯坦姆和格温（1984年）的论点，即易感性测试顺序效应导致了清醒镇痛时的疼痛减轻与催眠反应水平之间的关系。没有催眠经验的本科志愿者被随机分为两组。第一组（n = 69）先接受冷压痛觉测试方案，然后接受斯坦福催眠易感性量表C型（SHSS:C）测试。第二组（n = 69）在冷压痛觉测试方案之前接受SHSS:C测试。我们的研究结果不支持斯帕诺斯、霍金斯等人的论点，即易感性测试顺序效应导致了清醒镇痛与催眠反应水平之间经常报道的关系。我们发现，无论易感性测试顺序如何，SHSS:C与非催眠性疼痛减轻之间都存在显著的偏相关系数。我们还研究了关于设计产生的预期能否充分解释催眠镇痛现象的问题。
