{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Oconnellorneshorhypnotizabilitydiagnosticratingsshssa -...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
O'Connell, D. N., Orne, M. T., & Shor, R. E. A comparison of hypnotic susceptibility as assessed by diagnostic ratings and initial standardized test scores. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1966, 14, 324-332. A COMPARISON OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY AS ASSESSED BY DIAGNOSTIC RATINGS AND INITIAL STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES 1 DONALD N. O'CONNELL, MARTIN T. ORNE Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital and University of Pennsylvania AND RONALD E. SHOR 2, 3 LaSalle College Abstract: In a nonrandom sample of 63 Ss, a correlation of .79 was found between Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959) scores and diagnostic ratings of hypnotizability. This degree of correlation corresponds to an index of forecasting efficiency of 36.8%. Limitations on the interpretation of this finding both as a validity coefficient and as an indicant of the predictive value of SHSS:A are discussed. Individual differences in hypnotic susceptibility have generally been assessed by one of two qualitatively different types of measurement: either by the traditional use of diagnostic ratings or by the use of standardized objective scales. These two procedures are operationally different in several important ways. Diagnostic ratings are clinical evaluations made by experienced judges using whatever induction procedures and diagnostic criteria seem relevant for assessing hypnotic depth. 4 Induction procedures may be chosen to utilize idiosyncratic aspects of the personality of S in order to achieve maximum hypnotic depth. The specific suggestions used as criteria of depth are evaluated not only in behavioral terms but also on the basis of subjective reports during both hypnosis and posthypnotic waking recall. In contrast, the fluidity of interpersonal relationships integral to diagnostic rating procedures is intentionally minimized in objective Manuscript submitted June 7, 1965. 1 This study was supported in part by grant, MH 11028-01, Public Health Service, and by grant AF-AFOSR 707-65, Air Force Office of Scientific Research. 2 Affiliated with the Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital and the University of Pennsylvania at the time of this study.
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
3 The authors wish to thank their colleagues, U. Neisser, Emily C. Orne, and F. J. Evans for their helpful comments during the preparation of this manuscript. 4 For a review of procedures for the assessment of hypnotizability see Hilgard, Weitzenhoffer, Landes, and Moore (1961), and Hilgard (1965). 324 325 A COMPARISON OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY scales so that standardization may be attained, and reliance on subjective reports is reduced in the interest of ease of administration. A hypnotic susceptibility score obtained with such a scale is the total number of items passed in a series of items of varying difficulty, as defined by statistically determined frequencies of success or failure in a normative sample. The criterion for passing each item is fixed and objective. For example, two persons who pass a challenge item such as Arm Catalepsy may differ
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}