The Relationship between Hypnotisation and the Language Employed - Dissertation Example

? The Relationship between Hypnotisation and the Language Employed There are views that the depth of hypnotisability is dependent upon the language employed in the hypnotic sessions. In the attempt of investigating the relationship between hypnotisability and language employed, a research was conducted. This research entailed a comparison of hypnotisability depths based on employment of version of Russian translation, English and mixed English-Russian versions of HGSHS. In this study, fifteen participants were chosen, all of whom spoke Russian as their first language and also spoke fluent English. Each participant was given written explanation on research and hypnosis, and answer booklets so that they could answer the questions using their respective languages. The translation and recordings for the responses obtained were made. The result was that one man and two women from the group of English-Russian complained that they had a problem of relaxing due to their Russian accent. Other participants from the English group found no irritation at all. These findings reveal that indeed, the relationship between the depth of hypnosis and the employed language is indispensable. Introduction Hypnosis is a certain state of trance characterized by extreme relaxation, imagination, as well as extreme suggestibility. More often than not, hypnosis is regarded as the state of mind. On the other hand, hypnotisability, coined from hypnosis, is a process of inducing hypnosis. This is a process that is considered to be part of social interaction. In this process, one person responds to some suggestions that are given by another person. It is a process that is based in the imaginative experience, which may involve some changes in the memory, perceptions, and the voluntary action of control. Hypnotization technique has been applied for several decades. Indeed, it is a technique that has proven its worth in exploration of areas of the psychology, which is closely associated with the conscious mind. Needless to say, hypnotism plays a pivotal role in hypnotic therapy, among other areas. A number of researchers have explored this field. The researches have not only focused on biological processes occurring inside the brain, but also the effects of different techniques in administering hypnosis, as well as techniques of evaluating its results. Their research depicts the many factors affecting the depth of hypnotic trance. Such factors include attitude and aptitude. As such, people with the negative attitude, as well as those with limited motivation and willingness, may not experience hypnosis. Aptitude or hypnotisability, on the other hand, pertains to the easy at which an individual falls into a trance. Most current researches have focussed on hypnotisability (Nash, 2008). Indeed, the crucial question has been about the reliability of hypnosis, especially when applied in varied circumstances. In general, it is widely agreeable that hypnosis is a technique that is particularly objective when carried out by qualified professionals. Most recent researches pertaining to hypnotism have inclined on hypnotization administered on the monolingual context, wherein both the practitioner and client share a common language. Thus, one of the areas that may need exploration is hypnotism carried out on bilingual context. In this respect, the analysis of bi-lingual hypnosis situations and evaluation of any variation of the effect of different languages on the hypnosis process is an area that should be sought. In the current world, in the twenty first century, the state of international contacts has changed, thanks to globalisation. On the other hand, the advent of new technologies, such as the internet, as well as fast and affordable international travel, has painted the world different. The eventuality is that both permanent and temporary migration of population groups appears to be on the increase, implying that people have to make adjustments in all aspects of life. As such, the ways of conducting and administering hypnosis, not to mention the underlying approaches, are not an exception. Indeed, it is expectable that professional contact will be made with people who might not share the same ethnical, cultural and linguistic heritage. Thus, a research on hypnotism administered in the bilingual context would be particularly pivotal. Various approaches have come up, questioning whether the depth of hypnotic trance would differ depending on the language used. In attempts to answer this question, this research was set to explore the relationship between the depth of hypnotic trance, and the suggestions, repetition and tone variation of different language use. A comparison of hypnotisability data using an original version of Russian translation, English and mixed English-Russian versions of HGSHS: A group of fifteen Russian participants was involved in the research. The objective for the research was to find out the relationship between language use and the hypnotic trance depth. The hypothesis for the research is: “The depth of the hypnotic trance differs in English and English-Russian usage because the hypnosis in each case is unique”. One of the researched areas that are pertinent to this study pertains to the scalability of hypnotism. The key question that is being explored is the hypothesis that there is measurable variation in the effect of hypnotism when different languages are used. Besides the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, there are other scales, notably the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A., which is designed for individual use, and they are more suited to clinical use (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959). The main value of the HGSHS: A is that it provides a standardised framework for measuring how susceptible people are to the hypnosis process. This has been a notoriously difficult undertaking ever since the technique was first developed. For many years, there has been no sure way of viewing what goes on inside the human brain. Therefore, measurements had to be taken using other physiological signs, such as closing eyes, pace of breathing among other signs. This signs were observed by the administrator of the hypnosis also called a hypnotist, or from self-reporting on the part of the subjects. These types of measurements are normally affected by an element of subjectivity, and they can never be 100% reliable or useful for comparative purposes. The HGSHS: A provides, at best, a way of reducing the subjectivity involved in measuring susceptibility to hypnosis. This is done by setting down a fixed and timed hypnosis delivery model. Then defining specific susceptibility categories, and arranging the categories in a 12 point scale, which the subjects themselves report on. This model allows researchers to gather and analyse data across large groups. This data can be obtained at different times, and in a way that allows different variables to be tested. The more uniform the initial hypnosis effect is made to be, the comparable the results will be with that of other researchers. This document has proved to be valuable in the years since its first creation. Thus, it would prove useful to assess the effect of language on hypnotisability since it has not been applied in the bilingual context. Purpose. To establish the relationship between the depth of hypnotic trance, and the language use of a group of fifteen Russian participants Method and Design. This study was an ethnographic design. An ethnographic design is normally a qualitative method of research that is aimed towards understanding and learning certain phenomenon, which may reflect in one way, or another to the systems and knowledge that guides the life of a certain group. This design is employed in gathering data that are empirical on cultures and societies of humans. Data collection in ethnographic design can take a form of a questionnaire, an interview or observation. In this study, the collection of data was done using observation, and questionnaire. The questionnaire used in this study was in the form of a booklet. The booklet had a number of questions and concerns that needed responses from the subjects. The subjects were divided into three groups. Participants were allocated into the three groups first by ensuring that they possessed fluent English, conversational skills and that their first language was Russian. Next the participants of this study were divided into English group, English-Russian group and Russian group. The dependent variable for this study was the hypnotisability response whereas the independent variable was the language used by different groups. The controlled variable for this study was the participants’ ages. This is because the age of the participants did not have any effect on the hypnotisability response. Despite the different ages of the subjects, there were no proofs of the age effect on the hypnotisability response because change in the hypnotisability response was due to the language use in the group. Participants The opportunity sample for this study was made up of fifteen participants. Some participants were obtained from Russian Saturday School Parents while others were the friend of the researcher. The participants were selected by using the fact that they had to be individuals whose first language was Russian and had to poses fluent conversational English. The participants of this research were volunteers. Three groups consisting of five participants were made. The three groups were given names according to the language use. The first group, which was the English group, had two women and two men of ages between 26 and 40 years. The second group which was the English-Russian group had equally five participants. Of the five subjects, four were women and one was a man. These participants were of age between 37 and 55 years old. The third group, which was the Russian group, had four women and one man of ages between 30 and 44 years respectively. The mean age of the first group was about thirty one point two; the mean age for the second group was about forty four point two, and whereas that for the third group was about thirty eight point two. Due to the busy schedule of the subjects, the participants from one group could not be found at the same place at a particular time. Therefore, a self administered test was the only option for this study. Materials used. The apparatus that were used for this study included: A recorded CD, Oral and written explanations about hypnosis, a research study, a response booklet and scale or rating hypnotic. The scales used are: 1--------2--------3--------4--------5--------6--------7--------8--------9--------10 And -----1--------2--------3 Not at all Very much. Procedure All subjects were given oral and written explanation on research and hypnosis. The subjects were then given response booklets with highlighted questions in hypnosis that needed to be answered. The participants were asked to give out information on whether they had ever seen anyone on movies or television was hypnotized, whether they had read a novel about any individual or come across an individual who was hypnotized and whether they had personally been hypnotised. They were then asked to give a brief explanation of whatever transpired to the target that they had met before. After this, a recorded CD was given to each participant. The participants were then given prior suggestions about the CD and requested to give out their own impression on how they had experienced their suggestions. Using a scale, the participants were asked to describe their experience during the process of hypnotic by rating their specific experience. Another scale with position one represents people who are not hypnotized and position ten representing people who were deeply hypnotized and advanced to the subjects. These subjects were asked to put a mark on the scale in order to show out how they deeply or subjectively hypnotised they were in the tape- recorded session. The subjects were given a number of items in a table and asked to confirm the specific suggestion. The, twelve specific suggestions were administered to the subjects. The participants were then asked to estimate whether the objectively given responses to the 12 suggestions, if observed by an onlooker would have certain, definite responses. The subjects were then asked to refer only to the outward behavioural responses irrespective of any other experience that may appear to be subjective. Another part of the questionnaire needed the subjective inward response of the participants. Here, they were given twelve suggestions that were specific and asked to give out subjective responses to the suggestions, regardless of the observation that would have been given by an objective onlooker. A sample response booklet that was given to each participant is shown below in appendix H. Each participant was then asked to do the test while at home at home. After completion of the test, the booklets having all responses were then collected for analysis. Results The hypnotisability of each group of participants was measured using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Measuring of the hypnotisability was done using a scoring range of 0 to 12. One man and two women from the group of English-Russian complained that they had a problem of relaxing due to their Russian accent. Other participants from the English group found no irritation at all. Different scores of hypnotisability of each specific group were obtained. The mean and the standard deviation of the scores were also calculated. The results of the research were recorded in the table shown below (Table 2). Table2: Table showing the results of the hypnotisability scores. Group 1 ( English) Group two (English-Russian) Group three (Russian) Members 3 women, 2 men 4 women, 1 man 4 women, 1 man Age range 26-40 37-55 30-44 Mean age 31.2 44.2 38.2 SD 5.63 6.68 5.67 Total hypnotisability. Success scores 30 18 29 Data analysis The data collected was analysed by use STSS program. Independent group design, two tailed theory, one way ANOVA test were used to test the significant difference between groups. The mean, standard deviation, standard error, lower bound, minimum, maximum, and the component variance for all the scores of the entries of each group was calculated and recorded in the table in Appendix A. The mean was calculated using STSS program. All the values obtained after calculation were recorded in a table as shown in appendix A. A test of the homogeneity for different variances was also obtained and recorded in a table as shown in appendix B. The hypnotisability response for each group was obtained and tabulated as shown in appendix C. A test for equality of the obtained means was equally obtained and recorded in a table as shown in appendix D. A multiple comparison of the mean and the data collected was done and results tabulated as shown in appendix D. After this the homogeneous subsets of each group were determined and the results tabulated in a table shown in appendix F. After all these, a graph of the mean of the hypnotisability response, against a group of participants, was plotted as shown in the appendix G. In this case, the dependent variable for the research was the hypnotisability response whereas the independent variable of the research was the different group of participants. Interpretation of results From the graph drawn, the response for the hypnotisability was high for the English. This was a score of about 6.00. For the Russian group, the hypnotisability response was slightly lower than that of the English group but higher than that of the English- Russian group. This was about 5.75. The hypnotisability response in English-Russian, on the other hand, was unusually low, about 3.50. The different scores for the hypnotisability response show clearly how unique the outcomes of hypnosis are to each individual. Each group had its own specific hypnotisability response, indicating that a change from one group changed the response. This means that as the use of language changes from one group to another, the depth of the hypnotic trance also changes. This, therefore, means that the hypnotic depth trance differs with language use. Heterogeneity of the variance was determined to test the validity of the statistical tests. Testing the equity of a means score was done in order to determine whether the correlated normal distribution, the t statistic that is based in the observational differences was appropriate. Discussion The statistical result doesn’t show that there is significant difference between groups given that F= 1. 56, p= 0. 25 (p value> 0. 05).It might have been because translation and CD recordings were done by researcher whose first language is Russia and with English as a second language. What if CD will be recorded without accent? The research wasn’t carried as it had been planned at the beginning. This happened because of the busy life of participants it was not possible to do group hypnosis. Participants were given CDs, respond booklets, oral and written explanations but they had been listening that CDs few hours or even days after that. This meant that rapport between hypnotist and client had been lost. All participants had learnt English as foreign language. This is why it was their second language. There are people for whom two languages could become first. This is because; each particular group recorded its own specific hypnotisability response. This study involved the fractionation method. In this method, the process is normally broken down into a number of stages. The participant is normally questioned in each particular point. This will make participants provide their verbal description of their experience. This method is called fractionation because it is a method that induces hypnosis where by a subjects’ personal experience is discovered when they enter into trance. The feedback of this experience would take the subjects deeper. It occurs when one finds out some experience due to a certain condition or a situation, and in this case this particular condition was language use. In this research, the participants were each given a research and a recorded CD. After this response, booklet was given to them. This research was testing hypnosis when subjects articulated the answers to the questions using their respective languages. From the results, one man and two women from the group of English-Russian complained that they had a problem of relaxing due to their Russian accent. In this instance, the personal experience of the participants as they started to get into trance was established. The hypnosis for this group of participants was the irritation due to the Russian accent. The participants in the group of English-Russian were describing the best way they normally get hypnotized. Some other participants from the English group found no irritation at all. This is an indication that the relaxation of the subjects in this group, was because they were in the early stage of trance. When relaxation occurred in the early stage, the feedback of this information takes a participant deeper. In reality hypnosis is an experience that is highly subjective and despite having a number of common elements, still there are many experiences that may seem to be unique to each subject and, in some cases, they may not be realized. In the English-Russian group, provided that one two and one women experienced some irritation due to their Russian accent is an evidence for the claims that female participants often score higher than males in hypnotisability. Supporting Theories and Literature These findings are reinforced by various hypotheses pertaining to the effect of language on the perceptions of the adherents. Such crucial theories include Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, cognitive therapy hypothesis and behavioural, economic approach. Sapir-Whorf theory posits that structures of grammar of the vernacular language affect the way individuals perceive the surrounding. Despite the fact that the approach is a subject to limited empirical support, it may be used to shed light on how language affects the depth of hypnotism. For instance, based on this approach, speakers of languages without subjunctive mood, such as the Chinese, have the likelihood of encountering hypothetical problems. Similarly, adherents exhibit high likelihood of remembering a certain colour when their mother’s language is used in denoting the colours. Based on cognitive therapy approach, human behaviour and emotions are triggered by their internal state of dialogue. In this regard, human beings can learn how to challenge their ways of thinking to correct cognitive distortions. Based on behavioural economics approach, human beings hold perceptions in things that are vividly described, as opposed to those that lack vivid descriptions. Such theories dismiss the relationship between hypnotisability and language. This finding is farther supported by other research studies. One of the supporting researches is the pilot study conducted by Sears and Talcott (1958). What is worth noting is that this report was carried out some time before the Harvard Group Scale was published, yet the results remain supportive. The research conducted on the participants through the use of tapes revealed that language had an impact on the hypnotisability. Indeed, considering that the study did ascertain the responsible feature underlying the phenomenon, it may not be disputed that such could not be attributable to the type and familiarity of language employed. Furthermore, these findings are reinforced by the research conducted by Peter and Piesbergen (2006). Such a research entailed 114 German-speaking participants based on German language version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, administered by tape. The results did not significantly differ from those obtained by Sears and Talcott (1958). Peter and Piesbergen (2006) went further to describe the relationship based on the motoric coordination. What makes the research even highly reinforcing is the fact that this experiment entailed data pertaining to anxiety levels and differential personality. This yielded various hypotheses concerning the influence of various factors on hypnotisability. It also covered aspects such as gender, left and right handedness, day and night or sleeping and waking rhythms, all of which could play a crucial role in hypnotisability compared to language. Thus, basing on the study by Piesbergen and Peter (2006), it may be worth considering that elements such as personality, stress and anxiety, as well as previous experiences, are also the aspects that determine language perceptions. Another pertinent research that reinforces this finding is that carried out by Denver et al. (1979) reports on an experiment which explored susceptibility to hypnosis in relation to language differences. The only contradiction is that Denver et al. (1979) assume that the level of second language proficiency is not critical for the state of hypnosis to be achieved. He cites the fact that even deaf and dumb subjects can be hypnotised, using non-verbal methods, which suggests that definitions of language may need to be exceptionally broad. Focusing deeply on the Denver et al view, it can be argued that even the deaf can only be hypnotized when familiar sign language is employed. Undoubtedly, the underlying factors govern language perception by the adherents. An article by Gruzelier (2007) approaches this topic from a more biological angle, and looks at neurophysiologic changes in the brain which occur under hypnosis. The crucial finding for the study is that it confirms that neurocognitive changes do take place when a subject undergoes hypnosis. The study concluded that it is possible to observe evidence of some kind of frontal involvement in hypnosis, and possibly disconnection which might not be in parallel with this frontal involvement. Such are the factors that govern hypnotisability. There is no relationship between language and hypnotisability. In this regard, the variation in the studies may be attributable to confounding factors such as ego and superego personalities, rather than strictly inclining on language. Personality refers to the combination of attitudinal, behavioural and emotional response patterns that people exhibit. Evidently, personality is diverse and a subject of various variables. However, personality can be classified as superego and ego. This paper explains ego and superego personality. First, the superego personality is a derivative of internalized ideals that people acquire from the social environment. It may well be perceived as the psyche supervisor since it monitors the human activities by officiating processes of making of judgments to determine the morality of the behaviours. Superego personality exists as long as a person interacts with the nurturing society. The nurtured values, upon internalization, yield superego personality. For instance, brothers nurtured in the Christian society will always consider certain acts, such as killing, as sins. The Christian perceptions would influence judgments, resulting in superego personality. On the other hand, ego personality is a derivative of self perceptions. This personality dictates the action of people according the inner perceptions of the real world as triggered by real life experiences. The ego personality component is an attribute of differences observable from people that develop in more or less same environment, yet end up living lives that are totally different. For instance, consider two sisters, say X and Y, born and raised by a father who repeatedly defiles them. Upon growing up, X matures into a prostitute while Y nurtures a happy family. Worthwhile is the point that ego personality is neither a subject of physical, emotional nor social attributes. Instead, it is purely a subject of individual perceptions and how they relate with personal experiences. Undoubtedly, the ego and superego personality could affect hypnotisability levels. Additionally, it could be argue that the process of hypnotisability is dependent on other senses rather than hearing. Such could be well elaborated using the Gardeners theory. The Gardener’s theory posits that there are seven ways in which people perceive and understand the world. These seven ways are what Gardener referred to as the “intelligences”. These include verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematics, visual-spatial, body kinaesthetic, musical rhythm, interpersonal and intra personal. Linguistic pertains to the ability to utilize written or spoken English. Logical mathematics entails the ability to carry out deductive and inductive reasoning. Logical-mathematics also entails logic and the ability to use numbers and recognize patterns. Visual spatial is the intelligence that enables a person to visualize spatial dimensions and objects. Body kinaesthetic is the ability to control the body and initiate physical motion. Musical rhythm is the ability that enables a person master the elements of music such as tones and beats, rhythms, among others. Interpersonal is the intelligence that enables a person communicate and relate effectively with other people. The intrapersonal intelligences help understand the self such as emotions, self reflection and motivation. The logical-mathematics and verbal-linguistics are applied in traditional education curricula. Learning and perception of language requires the verbal-linguistic ability while mathematics learning requires logical mathematic intelligence. Visual spatial enables a person to understand and perceive the environment, hence respond accordingly. Visual-spatial intelligence will let one know whether on the road and not in class; hence respond accordingly. Body kinaesthetic intelligence enables a person to control the body in order to suit certain circumstances, and it is pivotal for physical education. Musical rhythm facilitates sound perception. A person can recognize lion’s sound, distinguishing it from that of a friend, by utilizing musical-rhythm intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence enables a person to communicate and relate with others. People communicate and live in harmony because they have effective interpersonal intelligence. On the other hand, people are able to judge whether a certain action is wrong by applying interpersonal intelligence. The senses could affect hypnotisability in various ways. The previous research studies may have also been distorted by social desirability bias, such as ethnicity and racism. The popularity of research, as far as day to day life is concerned, has grown to extents that are beyond overemphasizing. The world populations are increasingly acknowledging the usefulness of research and statistics. However, researches are as reliable as they can be realistic; not all researches are realistic after all. There are various impediments to reliability of research studies. Social desirability bias is one of the many impediments. Social Desirability is the likelihood for respondents to answer questions in a manner that is considered conventional by other people, rather in a manner to reflect their self inclinations. This paper explains how and why social desirability bias is likely to affect the reliability of a research study pertaining to how diverse groups of post-graduate master students spend their time on academic work. First, in order to ascertain whether or not the social desirability is likely to affect any research study, evaluation of characteristics of the survey samples as well as the method to employ in the investigations is crucial. More often than not, social desirability only happens when interviewing people. This is because human beings are rational and gregarious, always willing to live in ways that are considered desirable. Furthermore, administering questions to children may yield a different impression since they may not be rationally fully-fledged. In this case, the vulnerability of the research study to social desirability bias is high considering it entails a various adult, human beings. On the other hand, social desirability bias is likely because such a research study may incline on the methodology of using interview technique techniques, rather than other methods such as direct observation. This is because interviewing is significantly reliable. Direct observations may be unnecessarily involving, yet cannot yield information about the master’s students’ weekly routines. Needless to say, it is inconvenient to monitor the activities of a highly mobile people at every moment. This leaves interviewing, a method with high vulnerability to social desirability bias, as the only option. Topics of particular concern for social desirable bias are reports pertaining to ability, personality, drug abuse and sexual behavior. For instance, when question about the numbers of time college female respondents engage in sex, they are likely to respond that they seldom engage. Other topics of particular concern as far as social desirability bias is concerned include personal income, cults, patriotism, intellectual achievement, physical appearance and illegal acts, as well as other undesirable traits and racism. In this regard, the tendency of dedicating limited time to academics may be characterized as an undesirable trait, as far as academics are concerned. It is conventional for post-graduate master’s students to exercise substantial dedication on academic work and most of them only know these well. In this regard, if interviewed on the amount of time that they dedicated to academic work, they are likely to exaggerate the response to suit what is desirable. It is indispensable that the trends in education have changed and affected ways in which students view academic work. Students are increasingly developing a culture of engaging in other activities that reaps academic work of time. Arguably, a significant number of students have other life commitments besides academic work. Even intriguing is the fact that some students resort to hiring other people to handle assignments on their behalf, yet with social desirability bias, students will hardly reflect these when responding to the interviews. Most may respond that they use well over thirty five hours a week when they hardly use over ten hours. Such confounding factors are what may have distorted the previous research findings leading to erroneous inferences. Conclusion. From the statistical result, it was established that hypnotic depth does not differ with language use. This research, therefore, fails to prove the hypothesis that was set for the research. Considering that there is no relationship between language used and depth of hypnotism, it would be necessary that hypnotizing sessions be designed to put into consideration the aspect of language. The Hypnotherapists, among other practitioners, should come up with new methods to increase the effectiveness of the hypnotism. On the other hand, the question about the disparities of hypnotisability scores by different sex participants in relation language is a critical area that needs to be researched. It is for this reason that I recommend further reading and research in this aspect. References Cardena, E., Kallio, S., Terhune, D.B. and Loof, A. (2007) The Effects of Translation and Sex on Hypnotisability Testing. Contemporary Hypnosis 24 (4), 154-160. Denver, D.R., Grove, R.N., de Varennes, D. and Gagnon, F. (1979) Effects of Two Language Modalities on Hypnotic Induction by Groups. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 21 (4), 252-257. Gruzelier, J.H. (2006). Frontal Functions, Connectivity and Neural Efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility. Contemporary Hypnosis 23 (1), 15-32. Nash, M.R., Barnier, A.J. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piesberger, C. and Peter, B. (2006) An investigation of the factor structure of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSH: A). Contemporary Hypnosis 23 (2), 59-71. Razygraev, I.I., Psycholinguistic Modelling of suggestive states. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www.gipnos.ru Sears, A.B. and Talcott, M.M. (1958) Hypnotic induction by use of non-meaningful languages: A pilot study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 6 (3), 136-138. Shor, R.E. and Orne, E.C. (1962) Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility Form A (Manual). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. Appendices Appendix A Descriptives hyp.respond N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Between- Component Variance Lower Bound Upper Bound En 5 6.0000 1.00000 .44721 4.7583 7.2417 5.00 7.00 enru 5 3.6000 2.50998 1.12250 .4834 6.7166 .00 7.00 Ru 5 5.8000 3.11448 1.39284 1.9329 9.6671 2.00 9.00 Total 15 5.1333 2.47463 .63895 3.7629 6.5037 .00 9.00 Model Fixed Effects 2.38048 .61464 3.7942 6.4725 Random Effects .76884 1.8253 8.4414 .64000 Appendix B Test of Homogeneity of Variances hyp.respond Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.208 2 12 .077 Appencix C ANOVA hyp.respond Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 17.733 2 8.867 1.565 .249 Within Groups 68.000 12 5.667 Total 85.733 14 Appendix D Robust Tests of Equality of Means hyp.respond Statistica df1 df2 Sig. Welch 1.792 2 6.462 .240 Brown-Forsythe 1.565 2 8.577 .263 a. Asymptotically F distributed. Appendix E Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons hyp.respond Tukey HSD (I) group (J) group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound dimension2 en dimension3 enru 2.40000 1.50555 .285 -1.6166 6.4166 ru .20000 1.50555 .990 -3.8166 4.2166 enru dimension3 en -2.40000 1.50555 .285 -6.4166 1.6166 ru -2.20000 1.50555 .343 -6.2166 1.8166 ru dimension3 en -.20000 1.50555 .990 -4.2166 3.8166 enru 2.20000 1.50555 .343 -1.8166 6.2166 Appendix F Homogeneous Subsets hyp.respond Tukey HSDa group N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 dimension1 enru 5 3.6000 Ru 5 5.8000 En 5 6.0000 Sig. .285 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 5.000. Appendix G A graph of the mean hypnotisability response against group Appendix H HARVARD GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY FORM A Response Booklet Name: Date: / / please print Age: Birth date: / / Sex: Expected Graduation: Campus Address: Telephone: Permanent Address: Telephone: Have you ever seen anyone on television or in the movies who was hypnotized? Have you ever read a novel about anyone who was hypnotized? Have you ever known anyone who was hypnotized? Have you yourself ever been hypnotized before? If so, please cite the circumstances and describe your experience. PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL THE EXPERIMENTER SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTS YOU TO DO SO. Now please write down briefly, in your own words, a list of all the things that happened since you began looking at the target. Please do not go into detail. Spend three minutes, no longer, in writing out your reply. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE EXPERIMENTER SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTS YOU TO DO SO Page 2 On this page please write down a list of anything else that you now remember that you did not remember previously. Please do not go into details. Spend two minutes, no longer, in writing out your reply. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE EXPERIMENTER SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTS YOU TO DO SO Page 3 Now please complete the rest of the pages in this booklet. None of the other sections are timed. Just proceed at your own pace, turning pages as finish. You need not wait for further instructions from the experimenter. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE ANY ENTRIES ON THE EARLIER PAGES. Page 4 SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF RESPONSE During the tape recording, several suggestions were administered. We are interested in your impressions about how you experienced these suggestions. The items, listed in the order presented, are described briefly below. For each item, please check the appropriate column. Item Suggestion Successful Unsuccessful 01. Head falling forward. 02. Eyes becoming heavy and closing. 03. Extended left arm becoming heavy and pulling down 04. Right arm heavy and difficulty in lifting it 05. Difficulty in separating interlocked fingers 06. Extended left arm becoming stiff and difficult to bend. 07. Outstretched arms, hands being pulled together. 08. Difficulty in shaking head "no". 09. Getting rid of annoying fly. 10. Difficulty in opening eyes. 11. Touching left ankle at tapping sound. 12. Temporary difficulty in remembering events of hypnosis. SECTION ON OBJECTIVE, OUTWARD RESPONSES Listed on the next three pages, in chronological order, are 12 specific suggestions that were administered to you during the standardized hypnotic procedure. We would like you to estimate whether or not you objectively responded to these 12 suggestions; i.e., whether or not an onlooker would have observed that you did or did not make certain definite responses by certain specific, pre-defined criteria. In this section we are interested in your estimates of your outward behavior and not in what your inner, subjective experience was like. Later on you will be given more opportunity to describe your inner, subjective experience, but in this section refer only to the outward behavioral responses irrespective of what the experience may have been like subjectively. It is understood that your estimates may in some cases not be as accurate as you might wish them to be and that you might even have to guess. But we want you to make whatever you feel to be your best estimates regardless. Beneath a description of each of the 12 suggestions are two sets of responses, labeled A and B. Please circle either A or B for each question, whichever you judge to be more accurate. Please answer every question. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN TO EARLIER PAGES Page 6 01. HEAD FALLING You were first told to sit up straight in your chair for 30 seconds and then to think of your head falling forward. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your head fell forward at least 2 inches during the time you were thinking about it happening? Circle one: A. My head fell forward at least 2 inches. B. My head fell forward less than 2 inches. 02. EYE CLOSURE You were next told to rest your hands in your lap and pick out a spot on either hand as a target and concentrate on it. You were then told that your eyelids were becoming tired and heavy. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your eyelids had closed (before the time you were told to close them deliberately)? Circle one: A. My eyelids had closed by then. B. My eyelids had not closed by then. 03. LEFT HAND LOWERING You were next told to extend your left arm straight out and feel it becoming heavy as though a weight were pulling the hand and arm down. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your hand lowered at least 6 inches (before the time you were told to let your hand down deliberately)? Circle one: A. My hand lowered at least 6 inches by then. B. My hand lowered less than 6 inches by then. 04. RIGHT ARM IMMOBILIZATION You were next told how heavy your right hand and arm felt and then told to try to lift your hand up. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that you did not lift your hand and arm up at least 1 inch (before you were told to stop trying)? Circle one: A. I did not lift my hand and arm at least 1 inch by then. B. I did lift my hand and arm 1 inch or more by then. Page 7 05. FINGER LOCK You were next told to interlock your fingers, told how your fingers would become tightly interlocked, and then told to try to take your hands apart. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your fingers were incompletely separated (before you were told to stop trying to take them apart)? Circle one: A. My fingers were still incompletely separated by then. B. My fingers had completely separated by then. 06. LEFT ARM RIGIDITY You were next told to extend your left arm straight out and make a fist, told to notice it becoming stiff, and then told to try to bend it. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that there was less than 2 inches of arm bending (before you were told to stop trying)? Circle one: A. My arm was bent less than 2 inches by then. B. My arm was bent 2 or more inches by then. 07. MOVING HANDS TOGETHER You were next told to hold your hands out in front of you about a foot apart and then told to imagine a force pulling your hands together. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your hands were not over 6 inches apart (before you were told to return your hands to their resting position)? Circle one: A. My hands were not more than 6 inches apart by then. B. My hands were still more than 6 inches apart by then. 08. COMMUNICATION INHIBITION You were next told to think how hard it might be to shake your head to indicate "no", and then told to try. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed you make a recognizable shake of the head "no" (before you were told to stop trying)? Circle one: A. I did not recognizably shake my head "no". B. I did recognizably shake my head "no". Page 8 09. EXPERIENCING OF FLY You were next told to become aware of the buzzing of a fly which was said to become annoying, and then you were told to shoo it away. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed you make any grimacing, any movement, any outward acknowledgement of an effect (regardless of what it was like subjectively)? Circle one: A. I did make some outward acknowledgement. B. I did not make any outward acknowledgement. 10. EYE CATALEPSY You were next told that your eyelids were so tightly closed that you could not open them, and then you were told to try to do so. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed that your eyes remained closed (before you were told to stop trying)? Circle one: A. My eyes remained closed. B. My eyes had opened. 11. POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION (TOUCHING LEFT ANKLE) You were next told that after you were awakened you would hear a tapping noise at which time you would reach down and touch your left ankle. You were further informed that you would do this but forget being told to do so. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have observed either that you reached down and touched your left ankle, or that you made any partial movement to do so? Circle one: A. I made at least a partial observable movement to touch my left ankle. B. I did not make even a partial movement, which would have been observable, to touch my left ankle. Page 9 SECTION ON SUBJECTIVE, INWARD RESPONSES The 12 specific suggestions are listed, again in chronological order, on the next four pages. This time, you should focus on your subjective feelings while responding to these suggestions, regardless of what an objective onlooker would have observed, and even if you responded only partially to a suggestion. People respond to hypnotic suggestions in a variety of ways. • Sometimes, their response is mostly voluntary and deliberate. For example, when it is suggested that their hands are moving together (Item #03), they purposefully direct the movement of their hands most of the time. • Sometimes their response is mostly involuntary and automatic. For example, they may find their hands moving together without their helping them. • Sometimes their response is a mixture of voluntary and involuntary response, so that it is impossible to distinguish between the two feelings. For example, they may find that they cannot tell whether their hands moved voluntarily or involuntarily. • Sometimes the feeling of purposefulness is replaced by the feeling of involuntariness. For example, people may begin by purposefully directing the movements of their hands, but later find that their hands continue to move together with no further effort on their part. • Sometimes the opposite occurs: the feeling of involuntariness is replaced by the feeling of purposefulness. For example, their hands might begin to move together by themselves, but they find that they have to complete the suggestion deliberately. • Sometimes the response is hard to define in these sorts of terms. • And, of course, sometimes there is no response at all. To the extent that you responded positively to any of the 12 suggestions, whether fully or only in part, please on the next four pages indicate to what degree your response was voluntary, and to what degree it was involuntary. For each of the 12 suggestions, please circle the letter corresponding to the description that most closely characterizes your experience. Again, it is understood that your estimates may in some cases not be as accurate as you might wish them to be and that you might even have to guess. But we want you to make whatever you feel to be your best estimates regardless. Please answer every question. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN TO EARLIER PAGES. Page 10 01. HEAD FALLING You were first told to sit up straight in your chair for 30 seconds and then to think of your head falling forward. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 02. EYE CLOSURE You were next told to rest your hands in your lap and pick out a spot on either hand as a target and concentrate on it. You were then told that your eyelids were becoming tired and heavy. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 03. LEFT HAND LOWERING You were next told to extend your left arm straight out and feel it becoming heavy as though a weight were pulling the hand and arm down. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. Page 11 04. RIGHT ARM IMMOBILIZATION up. You were next told how heavy your right hand and arm felt and then told to try to lift your hand Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 05. FINGER LOCK You were next told to interlock your fingers, told how your fingers would become tightly interlocked, and then told to try to take your hands apart. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 06. LEFT ARM RIGIDITY You were next told to extend your left arm straight out and make a fist, told to notice it becoming stiff, and then told to try to bend it. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it Voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. Page 12 07. MOVING HANDS TOGETHER You were next told to hold your hands out in front of you about a foot apart and then told to imagine a force pulling your hands together. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 08. COMMUNICATION INHIBITION You were next told to think how hard it might be to shake your head to indicate "no", and then told to try to do so anyway. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 09. EXPERIENCING OF FLY You were next told to become aware of the buzzing of a fly which was said to become annoying, and then you were told to shoo it away. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. Page 13 10. EYE CATALEPSY You were next told that your eyelids were so tightly closed that you could not open them, and then you were told to try to do so. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 11. POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION (TOUCHING LEFT ANKLE) You were next told that after you were awakened you would hear a tapping noise at which time you would reach down and touch your left ankle. You were further informed that you would do this but forget being told to do so. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. 12. POSTHYPNOTIC AMNESIA (TEMPORARY FORGETTING) You were also told that after you came out of hypnosis you would be unable to remember the things you did while you were hypnotized, until you were told you could remember everything. Circle one: A. I did not respond at all during this time. B. My response was mostly voluntary. C. At first my response was involuntary, but then later on I had to continue it voluntarily. D. The feeling that my response was voluntary was completely intermixed with the feeling that it was involuntary. E. At first my response was voluntary, but then later on it continued to occur involuntarily. F. My response was mostly involuntary. Page 14 OTHER SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES This page contains some statements that people sometimes use to describe their experiences while hypnotized. Use the following scale to describe your experiences during the tape-recorded hypnosis session. Please respond to each statement, even if you are not sure of your answer. Circle the number that best represents your response. 0--------1--------2--------3 Not at all Very much Item Experience Rating 01. The experience was quite out of the ordinary, very strange and mysterious 0 1 2 3 02. I felt that I had more than my normal capacity to do and understand things. 0 1 2 3 03. I think that I was unaware of my surroundings most of the time. 0 1 2 3 04. It seems as though I stayed at a constant level of hypnosis during the session. 0 1 2 3 05. I felt separated from the things around me, and lost track of where I was at times. 0 1 2 3 06. I thought I could not come out of hypnosis or overcome the suggestions at will. 0 1 2 3 07. Things happened automatically, without effort on my part, and I had trouble resisting the suggestions. 0 1 2 3 08. I lost track of time during hypnosis and was surprised at how much time had gone by when I came out of it.. 0 1 2 3 Page 15 OVERALL SUBJECTIVE RATING On the following scale, position "1" represents completely unhypnotized, while position "10" represents as deeply hypnotized as anyone could become. Please put a mark on the scale to indicate, subjectively, how deeply hypnotized you became during the tape-recorded hypnosis session. 1--------2--------3--------4--------5--------6--------7--------8--------9--------10 Briefly explain why you chose this number. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Page 16 Read More