Ernest Hilgard: Quick Links To Online Content

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
HYPNOSISl,2
By ERNEST R. HILGARD
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CLASSICAL BOOKS
Following the discrediting of Mesmer toward the end of the eighteenth

century there ensued a cyclical rise and fall of interest in hypnosis, culminat
ing in a flourishing period late in the nineteenth century. After a few decades
of lessened interest, attention to hypnotic phenomena has again become en
hanced, and a number of the classical books have been reissued, commonly
Access provided by University of Southampton on 08/31/16. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1965.16:157-180. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
with introductory statements by contemporary writers. Among these are the

books by Bernheim (24), Braid, (27) Bramwell (28), Esdaile (46), and Moll
(108). For those interested in the approaches of the experimental laboratory
the much later book by Hull (79) is by now a classic, and for the 20 years after
Hull the most thorough review is that by Weitzenhoffer (168). A great many
books on hypnosis have appeared since Weitzenhoffer's, more often than not
concerned with medical applications of hypnosis. While the clinical applica
tions of hypnosis lie outside this review, for those who wish to find access to
this literature the recent books by Kline (84), Kroger (87), and Schneck (144)
will be found useful. The status of hypnosis in various nations throughout the
world is well described by Marcuse (104); the main treatises in the various
languages are listed there. Several other books for background reading may
be noted: Dorcus (39) for general and theoretical issues as well as for clinical
applications, Weitzenhoffer (169) for a variety of techniques of hypnotic
induction, Estabrooks (47) for a miscellany of contemporary work in the
United States, Gill & Brenman (57) for a contemporary psychoanalytic
point of view, for Soviet research Platonov (124) and Svorad & Hoskovec
(163). This review will be concerned more particularly with experimental and
other nonclinical investigations since 1960.
Pronouncements favorable to the teaching of hypnosis in medical schools
and to its use in medical practice were made by the British Medical Associa
tion in 1955, and by the American Medical Association in 1958 (104). The
American Psychological Association in 1960 gave official recognition to a
certifying board known as The American Board of Examiners in Psycho
logical Hyp nos is , and those meeting its qualifications are listed in the official
publications of the American Psychological Association (3). Two classifica
tions are recognized: experimental hypnosis and clinical hypnosis. Thus there
emerges a kind of recognition of hypnosis as an experimental and clinical
field which augurs well for its survival. The Roman Catholic Church has from
time to time made pronouncements about hypnosis; these have recently been
1The survey of the literature pertaining to this review was concluded in April 1964.
tThis review was aided by Grant M-3859 from the National Institute of Mental
Health, Public Health Service.
157
158 HILGARD
reviewed by Gormley (60) and Murray (112) , with conclusions indicating a

tolerant attitude of the church toward investigations of hypnotic phe
nomena.
THE DEFINITION OF HYPNOSIS
We know approximately what we mean by hypnosis when we point to
what is commonly done to hypnotize a person, and when we call attention to
the kinds of responses a hypnotized person makes to the suggestions of the
hypnotist The particular metaphors that are used to describe the procedures
.
and the resulting psychological state are not essential to the definition; such
words as hypnotic sleep, trance, somnambulism, or role-enactment may in
deed be misleading because they introduce theory into what should be a mere
definition. In order to make the provisional ostensive definition more precise

we try to find what is essential in the manipulations and in the resulting be
haviors, thus excluding irrelevancies and sharpening the distinction between
hypnosis and related phenomena. Hence we need to examine, first, the essen
tial features of hypnotic induction, and, second, the distinguishing features of
the hypnotic state and the phenomena produced within it.
Hypnotic induction.-The hypnotist usually talks to a cooperating subject
in a conversational, if somewhat monotonous, voice, stressing one or more of
the following: (a) relaxation, (b) imagi nati on, (c) concentration of attention
(with inattention to the surroundings, other than the hypnotist's voice) , and
(d) entering a sleeplike state. If sleep is suggested the qualification is usually
made that hypnotic sleep is not real sleep, i.e., the subject will always be able
to hear the hypnotist and do what he tells him to do. There is a kind of back
ground to this conversation that in one way or another helps the subject to
make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary action. If the subject
cooperates voluntarily with the hypnotist, the subject will presently be able
to do things involuntarily; if indeed he does voluntarily what he is supposed
to do involuntarily, he is breaking the terms of the agreement with the hyp
notist, as pointed out by Haley (65). Just what happens during induction is
the subject of considerable speculation, and some controversy. Gill & Bren
man (57) believe that there is a period of personality disorganization through
regression, followed by a reorganization at a partially regressed level. the new
organization permitting the coherent, if unusual, behavior of the hypnotized

person Kubie (88) also stresses the importance of distinguishing between the
.
processes going on within induction and within the established state. At the
other extreme, Barber in a long series of investigations has taken the position
that hypnotic induction is not essential to the production of hypnotic phe
nomena (9-20), and Sarbin & Anderson (1 40) tend to agree.
While the basic theoretical issues remain unresolved, careful experiments
show conclusively that the procedure of hypnotic induction enhances re
sponsiveness to the hypnotist's suggestions. These experiments are performed
by using the same tests of suggestion with and without a prior induction ( 1 9,
48, 178). Of most interest are Evans' experiments because he included in his
factor analysis of hypnotic measurements only items that were responded to
HYPNOSIS 159
more frequently following an indirect hypnotic induction than in waking
suggestion, whether the waking suggestions were given before or after the
experience of hypnosis. They turned out to be the same kinds of items that
make up most of the current hypnotic susceptibility scales. The reservations
with respect to these findings are that some other procedures, such as short
imagination instructions or a placebo without induction, provided they
lead to expectation of hypnosis, may resemble hypnotic induction in their
effects (19, 173). Certainly many subjects can yield nearly all of the phe
nomena of hypnosis without a formal induction; this is of theoretical interest
in giving emphasis to an "ability" with respect to hypnotizability, quite
apart from the hypnotist's skill. Some puzzling problems of the nature of
induction remain unanswered; these are dramatized by the success of various

self-hypnosis techniques, one form having become the basis of a fairly widely
used psychotherapy known as autogenic training (146).
Distinguishing features of the hypnotic st ate . Several investigators have
-
either wittingly or unwittingly led readers to doubt the reality of hypnotic

phenomena. Thus Sarbin (137), having classified hypnosis as role-taking be
havior, has given the impression that there is something deceptive or deliber
ate about what the subject does, although he goes to pains to indicate that
hypnotic behavior is not sham behavior; careful reading of what he has said
shows that he accepts a large component of role-taking aptitude in hypnosis,
going beyond any desire to please (or to mislead) the hypnotist; if there can
be essentially "unconscious" role-enactment, then role-enactment theory
does not detract from the reality of hypnotic phenomena (139). The theory
has not gone unchallenged [e. g., Leuba (93)]. Orne (117), by stressing
the demand-characteristics of the hypnotic situation, and the need to
use simulators as controls in hypnotic experiments, has given the im
pression to some readers that he was very suspicious of the behavior pro
duced by hypnotic subjects; actually, however, he was making a strong case
for the difference between the truly hypnotized subjects and the simula
tors, stressing the nature of "trance logic" which differentiates them. His
later writings make clear that he has no doubts about the reality of hypnotic
phenomena, despite the obvious need for careful experimental controls (119,
120). Sutcliffe ( 1 61, 1 62) has distinguished between the "skeptical" and
"credulous" views of hypnotic phenomena, showing that many common
beliefs about hypnotic phenomena may indeed be in error, thus supporting
the skeptical view. Weitzenhoffer (170, 171) has given a detailed, though
somewhat heated, reply, defending the "credulous" view. It would take too
much space here to discuss all the issues involved; I prefer to point out at this
stage that Sutcliffe's own work does not lead him to abandon his belief in the
reality of the hypnotic state, although he doubts the distinctiveness of some
of its manifestations (8). Barber (14) seems to have convinced himself that
hypnosis is not distinguishable from other states, preferring to write "hyp
nosis" in quotation marks. His main point, as mentioned above, has to do
with the lack of necessity of formal hypnotic induction, not with the failure
to produce the usual phenomena.
160 HILGARD
Without attempting a formal definition of hypnosis, the field appears to

be well enough specified by the increased suggestibility of subjects following
induction procedures stressing relaxation, free play of imagination, and the
withdrawal of reality supports through closed eyes, narrowing of attention,
and concentration on the voice of the hypnotist. That some of the same
phenomena will occur outside of hypnosis is to be expected, and this fact
does not invalidate hypnosis as a research topic.
THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HYPNOTIZED SUBJECT
A number of aspects of hypnotic behavior are so typical as to become

occasions for investigation in their own right, manifestations such as post
hypnotic amnesia, analgesia, age regression, hallucinations. In this section

ten topics have been selected for brief review, with emphasis upon the more
recent literature.
Amnesia.-Posthypnotic amnesia, whether spontaneous or suggested, is
the most often cited mark of deep hypnosis ever since its accidental dis
covery by de Puysegur in 1784; it was the indication for Bernheim and his
followers of the depth of trance to be designated somnambulistic. Among the
types of amnesia that need to be distinguished are (a) posthypnotic amnesia
for events within the hypnotic session, (b) posthypnotic amnesia for the re
sults of learning (e.g., lists of words memorized) within the session, (c) post
hypnotic source amnesia, i.e., a retention of material learned within the
trance, with forgetting of the fact that it was learned there, and (d) amnesia
within the trance for earlier events within the trance, while the subject re
mains hypnotized.
The general distribution of the ability to yield posthypnotic amnesia was
studied by Hilgard and others (75), who found a tendency toward a bimodal
distribution, with about one-fourth of a normal college sample falling within
the upper mode of susceptibility. Hilgard & Hommel (73) found that when a
subject was not completely amnesic he tended to forget those items on which
he failed to act like a hypnotized person and to recall those items on which he
responded successfully, i.e., toward which he behaved similarly to a more
highly hypnotizable person. They interpreted this to mean that the surprise
at behaving like a hypnotized subject enhanced attention to, hence memory
for, those items on which the subject was successful. Clemes (32) found that
he could suggest a partial posthypnotic amnesia, i.e., amnesia for half the
words in a list mastered to perfection, and that the words that became the
target for this selected amnesia turned out to be the ones that would be ex
pected to become the targets for repression on the basis of earlier obtained
responses on a word association test. Levitt and others (98), like Clemes, see
amnesia as analogous to repression. Evans & Thorn (49) can attention to
source amnesia, its distribution being distinguishable from the more usual
posthypnotic amnesia for events within hypnosis. Barber (12) includes
amnesia among the manifestations which can be produced by susceptible
subjects without prior hypnotic induction; an experimental investigation by
HYPNOSIS 161
Williamsen, Johnson & Eriksen (1 80), however, supports the genuineness of
the amnesia.
Hypermnesia.-Breuer & Freud (29) found the recall of forgotten early
memories under hypnosis an important strategy for psychotherapy, and the
use of hypnosis as an "uncovering" technique is favorably reported by con
temporary therapists such as Dorcus (40), LeCron (90), and Pulver (125).
The most careful laboratory study to date has been that of Reiff & Scheerer
(126), in which age regression was used in the recovery of childhood memo
ries. Young adults who could not remember their early teachers or other
pupils in their classrooms were able to recall some of their names under
hypnosis, and the accuracy of recall could be checked against old school
records. Although there are other aspects of this study that are subject to
criticism (122), this general finding appears convincing.

As (4) found a college student who had entirely lost a childhood lan
guage, being unable to identify very simple and familiar words in the lan
guage either by reading or by hearing them spoken by one familiar with the
language, a Finnish-Swedish dialect. Under hypnotic age regression he was
able to identify some words and to reply to simple questions. One interesting
aspect of this case was a tendency, even with regression, to reply in English
to an understood question in the native language.
Cheek (31) has considered the possibility that words spoken while a pa
tient is under surgical anesthesia are recorded by him, and influence his be
havior, although amnesia for them persists afterwards. He claims to have
recovered these memories under hypnosis following the operation, and uses
this evidence to argue against careless conversation during surgery.
Age regression.-Under hypnosis the subject can be made to act in some
respects as though he is reliving an earlier experience, or can perform tasks
as though he were at a younger age. These phenomena have been the subject
of reviews by Barber (1 3), Gebhard (56), and Yates (182). Apart from the re
covering of memories appropriate to the earlier age, as discussed above,
interest has centered upon the accuracy with which the age-appropriate be
havior is produced under hypnosis, testing the alternate theories of role
enactment and "ablation, " in which later memories are said to be function
ally destroyed. Evidence from recent studies can be summarized rather
simply: there will be regression in behavior as tested by various psycho
metric procedures, but the results will tend to be those for an age somewhat
more mature than that to which the subject is presumably regressed. This is
the general conclusion of the reviews cited, plus studies which have since
appeared (e.g. , 78). In general, an "observing ego" is retained, so that, even
when the regressed behavior is exhibited, there is little shock experienced
when the hypnotist again enters the picture to request a return to the pres
ent. Thus the "ablation" theory, although it receives occasional encourage
ment (43), is too extreme to support, while the role-enactment theory does
not account fully for either the subjective reality or the compulsive quality
of the regressed behavior (44).
162 HILGARD
Dreams.-Hypnotic dreams are convenient for the investigator because
they can be produced when they are wanted, and they can be influenced by
the suggestions of the hypnotist. Interest in hypnotic dreams has been height
ened by the new methods of studying night dreams, combining rapid eye
movements (REMs) with the EEG. Schiff, Bunney & Freedman (143) have
shown that eye movements in a subject's hypnotic dreams are similar to
those found in night dreams, but the background EEG is different from that
of Stage-l sleep. Stoyva (158) and Tart (164) have also used EEG and eye
movement monitoring in connection with hypnotic dreams.
The argument over whether or not hypnotic. dreams are "genuine"
dreams revolves over their identity with night dreams. The REM, EEG
Stage-1 night dreams are best defined by these operations of specifying and
locating them; hypnotic dreams are not like these, in terms of their physio
logical correlates, except perhaps for that variety of posthypnotic dream
which is dreamt at night within sleep. The more usual hypnotic dream,
dreamt in the midst of an hypnotic session, can scarcely be expected to be
like a night dream in any complete sense: if there is anything at all to Freud's
theory of dreams, such a dream would differ from a night dream because (a)
it cannot have the function of protecting the sleep of the hypnotized subject,
(b) it cannot be determined impulsively (by "primary process" thinking)
if the substance is given by instruction, and (c) it must lack something of the
privacy of a night dream, because the hypnotist suggests that it can be re
ported in detail. These differences do not deny that the hypnotic dream
might have much in common with a night dream; despite the differences it
can illustrate displacement, condensation, and symbolization. The content of
hypnotic dreams is determined in part by the situation in which they are
called forth, according to Newman, Katz & Rubenstein (116) ; this content
may be influenced by posthypnotic suggestions (158, 164) . Clinicians con
tinue to find meaningful relations between hypnotic dreams and behavior
(30, 167) .
Several forms of the semantic differential were used by Moss (111) to
illustrate the feasibility of objectifying dream symbolism.
Hallucinations.Hallucinations are difficult to assess, but if we can ac
cept the subject's account, hallucinations under mescaline and hypnosis are
similar, according to Halpern (66) . Fogel & Hoffer (53) found that a subject
who had vivid visual hallucinations under LSD-25 could have these halluci
nations suppressed hypnotically: later, very similar hallucinations were pro
duced under hypnosis without LSD. Orne (117, 120) has shown quite con
vincingly that the hallucinations described by truly hypnotized subjects
differ in demonstrable ways from those produced by subjects simulating
hypnosis.
An experimental approach to the study of hallucinations that holds some
promise is to combine them with perceptions in such a manner as to produce
effects unexpected by the subject. Some early work along these lines was
initiated by Leuba (92) ; the later work of Naruse & Obonai (115) has been
placed in a theoretical context by Naruse (113, 114) . These investigators
HYPNOSIS 163
used the paradigm of conditioned responses to produce an hallucination
under hypnosis through pairing a picture with a conditioned stimulus, such
as a sounding buzzer; later, in a posthypnotic condition involving amnesia
for the conditioning procedure, the buzzer alone would produce the visual
haIlucination of the picture earlier associated with it. These hallucinated
products are essentially like percepts, and can be combined in various ways
with environmental stimuli so patterned as to yield structured percepts, e.g.,
a half circle to complement the hallucinated half circle and thus yield the
perception of a completed circle. By projecting the hallucination of a set of
radiating lines, square figures superimposed on them may be judged to be
distorted according to the familiar OrbeIli illusion. Some success in using this
method was reported by Weitzenhoffer & Mo ore (177), but Jess success was
achieved by Underwood (166) in a related study. The results have been

criticized by Sarbin & Andersen (139) because positive findings can be found
with some subjects without hypnosis.
Goldiamond & Malpass (59) experimented with hypnotically induced
changes in color responses, using a modified Bidwell apparatus in which an
inserted color card may appear either in its own color or in the complemen
tary color, the specific effect being unknown to the subject. While color dis
tortions could be produced under hypnotic suggestion, results indicated a
response locus rather than a sensory locus for the changes.
A nalgesia.-The problem of laboratory pain turns out to be a baffling one,
whether or not the approach is by way of hypnosis. Beecher (21) , a leading
anesthesiologist, finds subjective measures more satisfactory than physio
logical measures in judging the effects of opiates, and the importance of pain
as felt is stressed by several of the contributors to an important French
symposium on pain (1). It is not surprising that those who have reviewed the
problem of hypnotic anesthesia are baffled by the contradictions in the litera
ture (14, 148, 149, 161, 162). The conclusions from the reviews to date can be
best summarized as follows: (a) there is universal agreement that many
hypnotic subjects following appropriate suggestions will not react by with
drawal movements and will report no pain to stimuli that would normally
cause violent reactions, (b) there is no single physiological indicator which is
invariably re duced following stimulation of the presumably analgesic mem
ber, and (e) an appreciable number of subjects can reduce their responses to
pain in a manner similar to hypnotized subjects without undergoing a prior
hypnotic induction [Barber & Hahn (20)J. The success of analgesia for pur
poses of surgery when hypnosis is the only anesthetic is by now widely at
tested, so that the possibility of reducing subjective pain by hypnotic-like
procedures cannot be questioned; any doubters need only read a dentist's
account of a difficult surgical tooth extraction done under self-hypnosis with
a leading medical hypnotist (Meares) as the subject (103). The subject's own
account is included; his only apprehension was lest the dentist had fooled him
by giving him a chemical anesthetic unnoticed, so insensitive was he to the
bone chipping.
Posthypnotic phenomena.-There are two classes of posthypnotic effects:
164 HILGARD
first, changes which occur merely as a result of having been hypnotized
(usually unintended by the hypnotist), and, second, specific effects that
occur as a result of suggestions given during hypnosis.
Apart from spontaneous amnesia, which is studied along with suggested
posthypnotic amnesia, the other effects have been studied rather inciden
tally. Alarming reports about bad consequences of psychotherapy under
hypnosis have been reiterated by Rosen (130) and Rosen & Bartemeier (131)
on the basis of a few unfortunate cases, most of whom had numerous dis
turbed episodes before they came to a hypnotist. A careful follow-up of 220
nonpatient university subjects by Hilgard, Hilgard & Newman (77) showed
only a few transient aftereffects of hypnosis, such as drowsiness and head
aches, but nothing serious. It was found that those subjects who had had bad
experiences with ether anesthesia in childhood (struggling, nausea, head

aches) were more likely than others to show slight sequelae to attempted
hypnotic induction, whether or not they proved susceptible.
The kind of posthypnotic effect most often studied is that suggested by
the hypnotist. One of these, posthypnotic amnesia, has already been con
sidered. It becomes intertwined with other posthypnotic effects because
amnesia for the posthypnotic suggestion is usually given, although a subject
may feel compelled to carry out a posthypnotic suggestion even though he is
aware of it. A common supposition is that a subject re-enters the hypnotic
state while carrying out a posthypnotic suggestion, though this cannot be
considered firmly established.
Techniques for giving posthypnotic suggestions have been summarized by
Levitsky (95). The problem of the duration of posthypnotic suggestions has
been examined by Edwards (45) , who found many variations in the decay
effects of a posthypnotic finger response to a buzzer, the longest duration
tested being 405 days. Orne (121) gave posthypnotic suggestions to subjects
to mail in a postcard daily from a stack of cards provided; the daily receipts
fell off gradually, and much more rapidly than they did from a corresponding
group who were invited, without hypnosis, to send in one card each day.
Thus the desire to cooperate cannot be a sufficient explanation for posthyp
notic compliance.
The possibility of posthypnotic control of behavior raises the old issue of
the use of hypnosis for producing antisocial behavior. The evidence has been
summarized by Barber (10) and Orne (118) and discussed also by Reyher
(127). The issue is not a black-or-white one, in view of latent criminal tenden
cies within subjects and the possibility that something congenial might be
suggested as a posthypnotic act; the general position still seems justifiable
that little socially significant behavior is likely to be produced through blind
posthypnotic suggestion that cannot be produced without it. At least tempo
rary changes in attitude were produced under hypnosis by Rosenberg (1 32),
leading to cognitive reorganization that would fit these revised attitudes into
the value system of the subject.
Posthypnotic emotional states were produced by Gladfelter & Crasilneck
HYPNOSIS 165
(58) , and conflicts with psychosomatic repercussions by Reyher (128) .
Graham, Kabler & Graham (63) provided a test of the "specificity" hypothe
sis according to which there is a relationship between attitude and psycho
somatic symptom. They induced appropriate attitudes in normal subjects
under hypnosis and found changes in the predicted direction of rise in skin
temperature under "hives" attitudes and rise in diastolic blood pressure
under "hypertension" attitudes. Thus it is possible to study symptom forma
tion under laboratory condi tions.
Attention.-The comment that hypnosis represents a narrowing of atten
tion has been made again by Barber (9) and by Leuba(94) , but the experi
mental evidence gives only moderate support to this plausible belief. Amadeo
& S haga ss (2) found hypnotic subjects less able to attend to a mental arith
metic task than the subjects in the waking state, and their study of eye move
ments corroborated the performance measures. Roberts (129) , using a num
ber of tests of attention derived from Sullwold (160) , found essentially no
correlations with hypnotic susceptibility. However, Das (37) has reported
some correlations with a measure of vigilance, but the correlations are nega
tive; that is, the more sustained the attention to the appearance of odd num
bers over a long period of time, the less hypnotizable the subject.
The evidence to date is so unclear that it is quite possible that attention
tends to be rather sluggish un der hypnosis, the narrowing being not a result of
heightened concentration but of an inability to pay very much attention at
all and hence to direct such attention as is available only to what the hypno
,
tist impresses upon the subject.

Learning and performance.-The evidence with respect to the influence of
hypnosis upon learning and retention is ambiguous, but both Uhr (165) and
Salzberg (136) , upon reviewing what is known, conclude that suggestions
within hypnosis can improve some kinds of performances beyond those ob
tained with waking suggestion. Major difficulties arise because of the impor
tance of motivating instructions in both the waking and hypnotic conditions.
That is, in comparing waking and hypnotic performances, it is necessary to
deal with achievement motivation, optimum tension, and inhibitory factors
such as anxiety and lack of self-confidence. Thus in the experiments of
Schulman & London (145) , in which verbal learning performances in hyp
nosis were rather poor, the subjects within the hypnotic state were rather
groggy, a condition which could have been corrected without destroying the
hypnosis. When hypnosis is compared with a waking condition, it is impor
tant that motivation conditions and alertness are both as near to the upper
limit as possible, or the comparison will have little meaning. Thus, in experi
ments such as those of Barber & Calverley (16) and Levitt & Brady (97), task
motivation instructions in the waking state are compared with hypnosis
without the same task motivating instructions, so that the resulting com
parison is not very instructive; the correct comparison would be between
the effect of task motivation instructions in the waking state and the same
task motivating instructions in the hypnotic state; only then could it be
166 HILGARD
ascertained whether or not hypnosis made a difference. When such a com

parison is made, hypnosis is indeed found to make a difference (155).
A puzzling variable has been introduced into experiments on performance
under hypnosis because of reported differences between the nonhypnotizable
control subjects and the hypnotizable experimental subjects prior to at
tempted hypnotic induction. Thus London & Fuhrer (102) found nonhyp
notizable subjects to perform less well than hypnotizable ones on some motor
learning tasks before hypnosis; while such prehypnosis differences favored
the hypnotizable subjects in a later study by Rosenhan & London (134), the
two studies agreed in finding greater learning improvement under attempted
hypnosis for the rtonhypnotizable subjects. Thus the general relaxation of the
hypnotic induction procedures may facilitate learning more among those who
do not drift into the hypnotic state than among those who do. The authors
rightly point to the importance of careful knowledge of subject and task
characteristics before comparisons of this kind are attempted. In related
studies, Scharf & Zamansky (142) have shown that word recognition thresh
olds could be reduced under hypnosis, but it turned out that the thresholds
were elevated prior to hypnosis when the subject knew that hypnosis was to
follow; hence no firm conclusions were possible with respect to the influence
of hypnosis on such thresholds. Either the subjects were made anxious be
cause of expected hypnosis, with consequent elevation of thresholds, or they
"held back" in some manner in order to permit improvement under hypnosis.
The more natural motivational conditions of the clinic or the athletic
field provide some illustrations of enhanced performances. Thus Kelsey &
Barron (82) report the three-weeks maintenance of an awkward posture with
out discomfort by a patient undergoing plastic surgery, this performance
being made possible by hypnosis. Some of the advantages of high motivation
are found in a series of studies concerned with athletic-type performances by
Johnson & Kramer (SO) and Johnson, Massey & Kramer (S1), In general,
hypnotic suggestions did not produce any consistent improvement in physical
performance either directly or posthypnotically, but performances were
readily decreased through hypnotic suggestion.
On the whole, the present evidence for facilitating new learning or for
producing supernormal performance under hypnosis is not favorable, but
many unanswered questions remain.
Time distort ion. Al though Cooper & Erickson (33) indicated some rather
-
dramatic results under hypnotic time distortion, few experimenters have

followed their lead with further studies. Barber & Calverley (lS) showed
that a certain amount of subjective time distortion can be produced through
suggestion without hypnosis, in line with their other studies designed to
minimize the importance of hypnotic induction; they found no improvement
in nonsense syllable learning within time distortion, but a slight loss of reten
tion relative to other groups occurred in the hypnotic time distortion group.
In a study examining much more carefully the meaning of time distortion,
Weitzenhoffer (1 72) found some lawful relationships both in establishing time
distortion, and in recovering from it, permitting quantitative analysis of the
HYPNOSIS 167
data. For most of his subjects, responses under hypnosis differed from re
sponses under simulation, although one subject, in simulation, produced
effects similar to her own under hypnosis.
PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF HYPNOSIS
The attempt to find a physiological explanation of the hypnotic trance

has not proved successful i even the search for indicators specific to the hyp
notic state has yielded a mass of contradictions. A major review of the physio
logical changes associated with hypnosis was prepared in 1949 by Gorton
(61) , and this was carried forward to 1959 by Crasilneck & Hall (34) . Later
reviews have been prepared by Barber (11) , Gorton (62), Kleitman (83) , and
Levitt & Brady (96). A great many studies are appearing concerned with
electrodermal responses, EEG's, heart reactions, chemical changes in the

blood, electroretinograms; these would justify a special review and will not be
surveyed here.
The effects of hypnosis commonly take place at such a high level of cogni
tive functioning that simple physiological correlates are not to be expected.
Thus to perceive the ace of 5pades as a blank card and not to perceive the ace
of clubs as blank requires some sort of discrimination of the ace of spades be
fore it is blocked out in perception. If this is indeed the case, there is little
reason to expect such indicators as evoked potentials in the cortex to be
blocked by this kind of selective blindness.
It may be that there will be some characteristics of specific hypnotic
states that will have identifying correlates, and these would prove to be use
ful even if they did not define all of hypnosis. Thus, in a fairly "neutral"
hypnotic state, somewhat resembling sleep, it is possible that indicators such
as skin potentials or evoked cortical potentials may prove useful. In this
state it is quite possible that there are changes in the habituation to repeti
tive stimuli (failure of the "orientation reflex" to adapt) for which some evi
dence has been given by Stern and others (156) .
The control conditions have to be observed meticulously in order for
conclusive results to emerge. Thus definite physiological changes can be pro
duced when specific emotions are requested under hypnosis, but Damaser,
Shor & Orne (35) found that these could be produced equally well by non
susceptible subjects simulating hypnosis.
Russian writers tend to be satisfied with a Pavlovian interpretation of
hypnosis on the basis of a clash of excitation and inhibition in the cortex, but
these interpretations have not been widely accepted by American scientists.
A useful introduction is provided by Platonov (124) , whose book, while
Pavlovian in theory, is essentially a colIection of case studies in hypno
therapy. The relationship between hypnosis and conditioned inhibition con
tinues to be investigated in the USSR, e.g., by Korotkin & Suslova (85) .
HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY
Scales for assessing susceptibility.-There is little doubt that some people

are more readily hypnotized than others, and this appears to be a relatively
168 HILGARD
enduring aspect of individual differences. A number of scales have been de

veloped to measure this relative susceptibility. As psychometric instruments,
these scales ordinarily involve a standard induction, so that susceptibility is
measured as a "work sample" of hypnotic like performances foHowing this
-
standard induction. Not all tests involve a standard induction, and, for those
that do, experiments can be performed with various procedures (imagination,
relaxation, concentration of attention, task motivation) substituting for the
standard induction. Such scales, with normative data, are of great impor
tance in specifying the nature of subjects used in hypnotic experiments, in
establishing matched control groups, in selecting nonsusceptible subjects to
serve as simulators; the scores are of course valuable as criterion scores when
correlates of hypnotic susceptibility are under investigation.

The recent scales have been modifications and elaborations of the kind of
scale proposed earlier by Friedlander & Sarbin (54). Three of these, from the
Stanford laboratory, are designed to serve slightly different purposes.
The basic scales, known as Forms A and B of the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale (SHS) (75, 174), are intended for general screening
purposes; although somewhat overstressing motor effects, their scores corre
late satisfactorily with other scales sampling a wider range of phenomena.
Form A has served as the basis for the construction of the Harvard Group
Scale (HGS), prepared by Shor & Orne (151). Group administration has been
found quite comparable to individual administration by Shor & Orne (152) ,
Bentler & Hilgard (22), and Bentler & Roberts (23). The SHS is also the
basis for the first half of the Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (CHS)
prepared by London (99) . Form C of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scale contains more items of the cognitive type than Forms A and B, and is
arranged in an ascending order of item difficulty, so that short forms of ad
ministration are possible (175).
The Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility (SPS) prepared in
two forms (Forms I and II) by Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard (176) are intended
to play up the specific factors associated with individual differences in hyp
notic susceptibility, and six subscale scores are derived: AG, agnosia and
cognitive distortion; HP, hallucinations, positive; HN, hallucinations, nega
tive; DR, dreams and regressions; AM, amnesia and posthypnotic sugges
tion; and MC, loss of motor control. The last two subscales make use of some
scores from SHS, Form A, intended to be available before testing with the
profile scales. The six subscale scores can be plotted on forms provided to
yield profiles, in standard score form, indicating the relative standing of the
subject on each subscale in comparison wi th the scores of the standardization
sample [Hilgard et al. (74)].
Another scale, named the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS) has been
extensively used by Barber and his associates, e.g., with adults by Barber &
Glass (19), with children by Barber & Calverley (17). It differs from those
previously m entioned in that it is intended to test hypnotic-like behaviors
without prior induction of hypnosis. When subjects were first tested under
HYPNOSIS 169
"imagination" instructions, and later following a typical hypnotic induction,
the rank correlation for 30 subjects was found by Barber & Glass (19) to
be .85.
Factor structure of hypnotic ability.-The composition of hypnotic abilities
has been studied by way of a number of factor analyses. Early studies by
Eysenck (51) and Eysenck & Furneaux (52) distinguished between "primary
suggestibility," essentially the common factor in most hypnotic susceptibility
scales, and "secondary suggestibility," based on such tests as the Binet test of
progressive weights. Their distinctions have been supported by Stukat ( 159)
and Duke (42). Tests of "gullibility," including tests of social suggestibility,
have yielded insignificant relationships to hypnotic susceptibility, or at best
very low correlations (109). Within scales saturated with primary suggesti
bility there are, however, other specific factors of less weight. These have
been noted in the investigations of Das (36), Evans (48), Hammer, Evans &
Bartlett (67), and Hilgard (72). The three main factors are identified by
Hammer, Evans & Bartlett as ideomotor responsiveness, vividness of
imagery, and dissociation. The factors in the SPS (with motor items omitted)
have been tentatively identified as an inhibitory factor, a fantasy-memory
factor, and a factor permitting the maintenance through time of reality dis
tortion (72). The last two of these correspond in a rough way to the imagina
tion and dissociation factors of Hammer, Evans & Bartlett. Evans (48) be
lieves his factors to be essentially those of Hammer, Evans & Bartlett.
Correlates of susceptibitity.-Because tests of hypnotic ability are essen
tially work-samples of what the subject can do either within hypnosis or in an
hypnotic-like situation, these scores serve as criteria to be related to other
types of measurement, or to other parameters, outside the hypnotic situa
tion. Investigations of some of these relationships follow.
(a) Age.-Stukat (159) found an age trend in secondary suggestibility, with
decreasing performance with age from ages 8 to 14, but no trend in primary
suggestibility, presumably related to hypnosis. Both London (100) and
Moore & Lauer (110) found differences in response pattern between children
and adults, but the age trends were unclear. Later London (101) found maxi
mum hypnotizability among children at ages 9-14, reducing to adult levels at
15-16. Barber & Calverley (17), while not using a formal induction, found
highest hypnotic-like susceptibility between the ages of eight and ten, level
ling off to adult levels by ages 14-15. The contradictions between these find
ings and those of Stukat remain unexplained.
(b) Sex.-Studies in relatively large samples of college students show no sex
differences in scores on standardized susceptibility scales (72, 75), and
Weitzenhoffer & Weitzenhoffer (179) showed that these findings hold up
regardless of the sex of the hypnotist.
Diagnostic Cat egories . Despite the many years that hypnosis has been
-
used in psychotherapy, little is known about the relative hypnotizability of

patients fitting the various diagnostic patterns. Gill & Brenman (57) indi-
170 HILGARD
cated a belief that neurotics are less hypnotizable than normals, while hyster
ics arc perhaps more hypnotizable than other neurotics, and schizophrenics
are rather refractory to hypnosis. Studies show that in fact substantial num
bers of psychotic patients are highly susceptible (55, 68, 86). There is also
supposed to be some slight relationship to inteIJigence, yet many mentally
deficient individuals have also been found to be susceptible, according to
Sternlicht & Wanderer (157).
Part of the confusion results from a failure to use standard tests of hyp.
notic susceptibility when dealing with patients, and from the uncertainty of
the relationship between hypnotic depth and therapeutic efficacy. According
to Platonov (124), many patients are helped by hypnotherapy who enter
only the very lightest stages of hypnosis; he calls the method of treatment in
the slightly drowsy state the Bekhterev-Bernheim method, because thesl!

early therapists knew that these light stages sufficed for successful treatment
by suggestion.
Personality tests.-The usual psychometric measures of personality show
very slight relationships to hypnotic susceptibility, the positive results re
ported in one investigation being almost immediately denied by the next
investigator who attempts to replicate them. The literature has been the
subject of recent reviews by Barber (15), Deckert & West (38), and Hilgard
(72).
Without reviewing the contradictory results with such personality inven
tories as the MMPI, the MPI, the CPI, the ICL, and other pencil-and-paper
measures, or with the Rorschach and TAT, mention may be made of two
slightly more promising leads.
One of these has to do with inventories of hypnotic-like experiences in
everyday life presumably related to experiences within hypnosis. The
method, introduced by Shor (147) has consistently yielded small but signifi
cant correlations with hypnotic susceptibility in the studies by As (5), As &
Lauer (6), Evans & Thorn (50), Lee (91), and Shor, Orne & O'Connell (153,
154). Lee has pointed out the technical difficulty that most of the items are
keyed in the "true" direction, so that the interpretation is made somewhat
uncertain because of the prominence of the acquiescence tendency important
in the responses to such inventories.
The second lead that shows some promise is tests which depart from
pencil-and-paper, or verbal report, to include other kinds of behavior. There
is abundant evidence that "primary suggestibility" can be tested in the wak
ing state, but such behavioral measures, while predictive of hypnosis, are
not illuminating because they sample the kinds of performances (such as
motor responses to suggestion) usually measured within hypnosis. What one
seeks is tests that are not obviously measures of direct suggestion, but tap
other funCtions hypothesized to contribute to hypnosis. Das (37), using tests
of vigilance and satiation, found some significa.nt correlations. On a vigilance
test, requiring response to each successive set of three consecutive odd num
bers within a 30-min run of oral number presentations, he found errors in
vigilance correlated with hypnosis, but the distributions were odd so that the
HYPNOSIS 171
Pearsonian correlation for 62 cases was a nonsignificant .15, and the biserial r
was .40, judged to be significant. The satiation test calls for loss of meaning on
the semantic differential after a word is frequently presented; Das found the
opposite (enrichment of meaning) associated with hypnotic susceptibility
(r=.67, N=62). This is opposite to his original conjecture about errors in
vigilance and satiation; in view of some difficulties in the study, including the
bilingualism of his subjects, replication on other populations is needed.
Roberts (129) employed various laboratory tests of attention to test the
concentration of attention theory, and also found little relation to hypnosis.
Her one positive finding was a correlation of -.30 with some scores of the
Witkin rod-and-frame test for 30 female subjects, not holding for males. The
correlation suggests, for females, that the .more field dependent are less
hypnotizable.
Developmental background and interttiew data.- It is plausible that both the
abilities related to hypnosis and the relevant attitudes may develop in child
hood, particularly in relation to parental figures (69, 76). Preliminary evi
dence exists that split identifications as between the parents may contribute
importantly to hypnotic susceptibility (71). There may also be alternate
developmental paths into hypnosis; two such paths may be by way of ad
venturesomeness on the one hand and by fantasy on the other (71). If this is
the case, personality measurements will have to employ some sort of moder
ating variable before obtained correlations will account for an appreciable
amount of the variance of hypnotic susceptibility.
Complications and ca utions. Dorcus (41) believes that attempts to relate
-
personality characteristics to hypnotizability are likely to be futile because a

person not hypnotizable under one set of conditions and with one hypnotist
may be hypnotizable under other circumstances. The bulk of the evidence
favors stability, although there is, of course, nothing absolute about this. As,
Hilgard & Weitzenhoffer (7) made a concerted effort to enhance the sus
ceptibility of ten subjects moderately susceptible to begin with; while a few
changes occurred, these were not striking. Their results agree with the experi.
ence of Gill & Brenman (57). More success was reported for two subjects by
Blum (26). Wiseman & Reyher (181) were able to improve posthypnotic
amnesia in a number of subjects by using their dreams within hypnosis as a
period of enhanced suggestibility. It is known that a hypnotizable subject
can resist hypnosis, so that the possibility is great that some hypnotizable
subjects will be found among low scorers on a susceptibility test; hypnosis
can also be simulated. Therefore some drift in measurements is to be ex
pected; the surprising thing is the high retest correlations, in the range of .80
to .95, that are commonly found.
HYPNOTIC CONTROL OF VARIABLES IN EXPERIMENTS CONCERNED WITH
OTHER TOPICS
Blum (25, 26) has made a strong case for the use of hypnosis as a means of
control in experiments on such topics as learning, memory, and perception,
particularly if psychodynamic influences (anxiety, repression) are to be in
1 72 HILGARD
vestigated. His experiments are ingenious and provocative, although some
what incompletely reported ; they invite others to follow his l ead Reyher
.
(128) has proposed a paradigm for using hypnotically induced conflicts in a

clinically relevant fashion. Rosenberg's (132, 133) study of attitude change
under hypnosis was intended to test some theories of attitude structure hav
ing nothing to do with hypnosis as such. The chief drawback to the use of hyp
nosis for purposes of control is that not all subjects are susceptible to hyp
nosis; this can be overcome as a drawback by selecting subjects of known
hypnotizability as measured by the existing scales, and then matching them
as necessary within control and experimental groups.
Theories of hypnosis.-A review of hypnosis is incomplete without a dis
cussion of the theories that have emerged in trying to understand hypnotic
phenomena. While there have been innumerable theories, none has gained
wide acceptance, and few of them have been stated so as to be put to experi
mental test. Yet it may be stated with some confidence that an adequate
theory of hypnosis would be very illuminating not only for elucidating hyp
notic phenomena but for what it would have to offer psychology generally as
a contribution to the understanding of the issues within voluntary-involun
tary action, states of awareness, motivation, and personality organ ization.
A very useful review, as of its date, was presented by Pattie (123). In it
he listed and discussed the theory that hypnosis is a form of sleep, the dis
sociation theory, ideomotor and conditioned-response theories, hypnosis as
goal-directed behavior in an altered state of the person, hypnosis as role
taking behavior, the three-factor theory of Weitzenhoffer (168) , and theories
of psychoanalytic origin. While a number of these theories have had further
statements by their proponents, the two that have had most vigorous and
explicit recent statement are the role-enactment theory of Sarbin (137-141)
and the psychoanalytic theory of Gill & Brenman (57) . Sarbin's more recent
statements have changed his discussion very little, except to adopt the ex
pression role-enactment for the earlier role-taking, in order to get away from
t he implication of deliberate play-acting in hypnosis. Gill & Brenman have
followed up the kind of theory earlier proposed by Kubie & Margolin (89) by
stressing the breaking down of the normal personality structure in hypnotic
induction through regression, and then stabilizing a new but regressed partial
personality structure within the established hypnotic state, preserving intact
a nonregressed regnant ego. Hypnotic regression is distinguished from a true
regression because it is reversible, hence a form of what is called regression in
the service of the ego.
A relative newcomer to the field of theory, though anticipated in many of
the earlier statements, is communication analysis. The Russians, having
adopted Pavlov's second signal system (i.e., speech and language) as most
relevant to hypnosis, early began to emphasize the word as basic in hypnosis
(124) . Kubie & Margolin discussed the hypnotist's voice becoming part of
the subject's ego, and this kind of interpretation was extended by Miller,
Galanter & Pribram (107) who i ndicate that the subject's self-planning that
HYPNOSIS 1 73
commonly goes on through talking to himself may be taken over by the
hypnotist. Haley (64) has stressed the double-bind character of hypnotic
instructions, in which the subject is told to keep his eyes open and, at the
same time, that his eyes are closing. The complexity of the statements of the
hypnotist to the subject has been illustrated by Hilgard (70) through distin
guishing between the simple instruction, the direct suggestion, and the
challenge ("You can't do it; go ahead and try !").
Theories of hypnosis are not all concerned with the same aspects of hyp
nosis. For convenience we may classify them as theories of induction, theories
of the established hypnotic state, and theories of differential susceptibility to
hypnosis. Of course a more general theory would attempt to encompass all of
these aspects.
Among "theories of induction" are those stressing regression, and con

flicting communication, as already mentioned; other theories stress concen
tration, imagination, or partial sleep. Against these are the theories that tend
to de-emphasize induction as unnecessary or as serving merely task-motivat
ing purposes. The leader in this minimizing of the role of induction has been
Barber (9-20) , but Sarbin's role-enactment theory has tended in the same
direction.
Among "theories of the established hypnotic state" are those of regressive
reorganization, including an atavistic theory which accounts for the state on
evolutionary grounds (105). Shor ( 150) stresses archaic involvement as one of
three factors in hypnotic depth, the other two being hypnotic role-taking
involvement and trance depth. Interpreting the hypnotic state is, of course,
a favorite area for neurophysiological speculation, including various forms of
dissociation theory, and the Pavlovian theory of spreading cortical inhibition
or partial sleep. The hypnotic state must almost certainly involve some kind
of "central" reorganization, for such phenomena as partial deafness preserve
the hearing mechanisms intact for those environmental inputs not inhibited.
When a "response locus" (59) is inferred, the interpretation is that the phe
nomena are essentially motivational, but it is not clear what this means
physiologically. A role-enactment theory is a variety of such motivational
theory ( 138).
Various theories of differential susceptibility have arisen to explain why
some subjects are more hypnotizable than others, and why among hypno
tizable subjects some can do one thing, some another. Most theorists distin
guish between an attitude component and an ability component; this is
natural enough because it is known that a responsive subject may resist
being hypnotized if he wishes to, but some remain unresponsive even though
they want very much to be hypnotized. The obtained correlations with atti
tude are, in fact, very low, although they have been shown to reach signifi
cance for male college students though not for female ones (106, 1 35). Both
the Barber and the Sarbin positions stress the ability component, for they
recognize wide individual differences in the ability to perform the tasks called
for in hypnotic experiments, while minimizing the role of hypnotic induction,
1 74 HILGARD
and the uniqueness of the hypnotic state. Those who stress the similarity be
tween experiences outside hypnosis and the experiences inside hypnosis also
give support to an attitude-ability interpretation. It can be argued that these
interpretations simply place the explanatory problem elsewhere, i.e., the
explanation needed to answer the question : Where does this ability come
from ? To answer this question reference is commonly made to native ability,
learning, and socialization, but little direct evidence is available. To provide
a search-pattern for such evidence, a developmental-interactive theory has
been proposed, which stresses early life experience as producing the abilities
favorable to hypnosis, which are then released under the special circum
stances of the hypnotic interaction (69, 76). While conclusive evidence has
not yet been reported, it appears that early development of imagination, or a

spirit of adventure, fostered by parents through contagion, is likely to pro

vide the background for hypnotic susceptibility (71).
LITERATURE CITED
1 . Alajouanine, T., Ed. La Douleur et les 10. Barber, T. X. Antisocial and criminal
Douleurs (Masson et Cie, Paris, 345 acts induced by hypnosis : a review
pp. , 1957) of experimental and clinical findings.
2. Amadeo, M., and Shagass, C. Eye A rch. Gen. Psy,hiat., 5, 301-12
movements, attention, and hyp (1961)
nosis. J. Nervous Ment. Dis. , 136, 11. Barber, T. X. Physiological effects of
139-45 (1963) hypnosis. Psychol. Bull., 58, 390-
3. American Board of Examiners in Psy 419 (1961)
chological Hypnosis. Am. Psychol., 12. Barber, T. X. Toward a theory of
16, 203-5 (1961) hypnosis ; post-hypnotic behavior.
4. As, A. The recovery of forgotten lan A rch. Gen. Psychiat., 7, 321-42
guage knowledge through hypnotic (1962)
age regression : a case report. Am. J. 13. Barber, T. X. Hypnotic age regression:
GUn. Hypn., 5, 24-29 (1962) a critical review. Psychosom. Med.,
5. A s, A. Hypnotizability as a function of 24, 286-99 (1962)
nonhypnotic experiences. J. A b 14. Barber, T. X. The effects of "hyp
norm. Soc. Psychol., 66, 142-50 nosis" on pain: a critical review of
(1963) experimental and clinical findings.
6. As, A., and Lauer, L. W. A factor Psychosom. Med., 24, 303-33 (1963)
analytic study of hypnotizability 15. Barber, T. X. Hypnotizability, sug
and related personal experiences. gestibility, and personality : V. A
Intern. J. GUn. ExPtl. Hypn., 10, critical review of research findings.
169-81 (1962) Psychol. Rept . , 14, 299-320 (1964)
7. As, A., Hilgard, E. R., and Weitzen 16. Barber, T. X., and Calverley, D. S.
hoffer, A. M. An attempt at experi The relative effectiveness of task
mental modification of hypnotiza motivating instructions and trance
bility through repeated individual induction procedure in the produc
ized hypnotic experience. Scand. J. tion of "hypnotic-like" behaviors.
Psychol., 4, 8 1-89 (1963) J. Nervous Ment. Dis., 137, 107-16
8. Austin, M., Perry, C. , Sutcliffe, J. P., (1963)
and Yeomans, N. Can somnambu 1 7 . Barber, T. X., and Calverley, D. S.
lists successfully simulate hypnotic "Hypnotic-like" suggestibility in
behavior without becoming en children and adults. J. A bnorm.
tranced? Intern. J. GUn. Exptl. Soc. Psychol. , 66, 589-97 (1963)
Hypn., 11, 175-86 (1963) 18. Barber, T. X., and Calverley, D. S.
9. Barber, T. X. The necessary and suffi Toward a theory of "hypnotic" be
cient conditions for hypnotic be havior. Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 10,
havior. Am. J. GUn. Hypn., 3, 31- 209-16 (1964)
42 (1960) 19. Barber, T. X., and Glass, L. B. Signifi-
HYPNOSIS 175
cant factors in hyp notic behavior. (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore,
J. A bnorm. Soc. Psychol., 64, 222- M d . , 206 pp., 1 959)
28 (1962) 34. Crasilneck, H. B . , and Hall, J. A.
20. Barber, T. X., and Hahn, K. W., Jr. Physiological changes associated
Physiological and subjective re with hypnosis : a review of the litera
sponses to pain-producing stimula ture since 1948. Intern. J. Clin.
tion under hypnotically suggested Exptl. Hypn., 7, 9-50 (19:;9)
and waking-imagined "analgesia." 35. Damaser, E. C., Shor, R. E., and Orne,
J. A mann. Soc. Psychol., 65, 411- M. T. Physiological effects during
1 8 (1962) hypnotically requested emotions.
2 1 . Beecher, H. K. The Measurement of Psychosom. Med., 25, 334-43 (1963)
Subjective Response (Oxford Univ. 36. Das, J. P. Factor analysis of a hyp
Press, New York, 494 pp., 1959) notic scale. Indian J. Psychol., 33,
22. Bentler, . M . , and Hilgard, E. R. A 97- 100 (1958)
comparison of group and individual 37. Das, J. P. Hypnosis, verbal satiation,
induction of hypnosis with self vigilance, and personality factors :
scoring and observer-scoring. In a correlational study. J. A bnorm.

tern. J. CUn. Expel. Hypn. , 1 1, 49- Soc. Psychol. , 68, 72-78 (1964)
54 (1963) 38. Deckert, G. H . , and West, L. J. The
23. Bentler, P. M., and Roberts, M . R. problem of hypnotizability: a re
Hypnotic susceptibility assessed in view. Intern. J. CUn. Exptl.
large groups. Intern. J. CUn. Exptl. Hypn., 1 1, 205-35 (1963)
Hypn., 1 1 , 93-97 (1963) 39. Dorcns. R. M., Ed. Hypnosis and Its
24. Bernheim, H. Hypnosis and Suggestion Therapeutic APPlications (McGraw
in Psychotherapy (University Books, Hill, New York, 3 2 7 pp., 1956)
New Hyde Park, N.Y., 428 pp., 40. Dorcus R. M. Recall under hypnosis
,
1964) (Original, 1891) of amnestic events. Intern. J. CUn.

25. Blum, G. S. A Model of the Mind: Ex Exptl. Hypn. 7, 57-61 (1960)
,
plored by Hypnotically Controlled 41. Dorcu9, R. M. Fallacies in predictions

Experiments and Examined for its of susceptibili t y to hypnosis based
Psychodynamic Implications (Wiley, on personality characteristics. Am.
New York, 229 pp., 1961) J. CUn. Hypn., 5, 163-70 (1963)
26. Blum, G. S. Programming people to 42. Duke, J. D. Intercorrelational status
simulate machines. In Computer of suggestibility tests and hypnotiz
Simulation of Personality, Chap. 7, ability. Psychol. Rec., 14, 7 1 -80
1 2 7 - 5 7 (Tomkins, S. S., and M es (1964)
sick, S. , Eds., Wiley, New York, 43. Edmonston, W. E., Jr. An experi
325 pp., 1963) mental investigation of hypnotic
27. Braid, J. Braid on Hypnotism. The age regression . Am. J. CUn. Hypn.
-
Beginnings of Modern Hypnosis. 3, 1 2 7-38 (1961)

(Rev. ed. by Waite, A. E., Ju lian 44. Edmonston, W. E., Jr. Hypnotic age
Press, New York, 380 pp., 1960) regression : an evaluation of role
(Original, 1 843) taking theory. Am. J. CUn. Hypn.,
28. Bramwell, J. M. Hypnotism (Julian 5, 3-7 (1962)
Press, New York, 480 pp., 1956) 45. E dwards , G. Duration of post-hyp
(Original, 1903) notic effect. Brit. J. Psychiat., 109,
29. Breuer, J., and Freud, S. Studies on 259-66 (1963)
Hysteria (Basic Books, New York, 46. Esdaile, J. Hypnosis in Medicine and
335 pp., 1957) (Original, 1 895) Surgery (Julian Press, New York,
30. Cheek, D. B. Physiological impact of 259 pp., 19 5 7 ) (Original, 1850)
fear in dreams: postoperative 47. Estabrooks, G. H., Ed. Hypnosis:
hemorrhage. Am. J. CUn. Hypn., 5, Current Problems (Harper & Row,
206-8 (1963) New York 285 pp., 1962)
,
31. Cheek, D. B. Surgical memory and 48. Evans , F. J. The Structure of Hypnosis:
reaction to care less conversation. A Factor-A nalytic Investigation
Am. J. CUn. Hypn., 6, 237-40 (Doctoral thesis in preparation,
(1964) Vniv. Sydney, Sydney, Australia,
32. Clemes, S. R. Repression and hypnotic 1963)
amnesia. J. A bnorm. Soc. Psychol., 49. Evans, F. J., and Thorn, W. A. F.
69, 62-69 (1964) Source amnesia after hypnosis. Am.
33. Cooper, L., and Erickson, M. H. Time Psychologist, 18, 373 (Abstr., 1963)
DistDrtion in Hypnosis. 2nd ed. 50. Evans. F. J. and Thorn W. A. F.
1 76 HILGARD
Questionnaire scales correlating (Grune & Stratton, New York, 204
with factors of hypnosis : a pre pp., 1963)
liminary report. Psychol. Rept., 14, 66. Halpern, S. On the similarity between
67-70 (1964) hypnotic and mescaline hallucina
5 1 . Eysenck, H. J. Suggestibility and tions. Int. J. CUn. Exptl. Hypn., 9,
hypnosis-an experimental anal 139-49 (1961)
ysis. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) , 36, 67. Hammer, A. G., Evans, F. J., and
349-54 (1943) Bartlett, M. Factors in hypnosis
52. Eysenck , H. J., and Furneaux, W. D. and suggestion. J. A bnorm. Soc.
Primary and secondary suggesti Psychol. , 67, 15-23 (1963)
bility: an experimental and sta 68. Heath, E. S., Hoaken, P. C. S., and
tistical study. J. Exptl. Psychol., 35, Sainz, A. A. Hypnotizability in
485-503 (1945) state-hospitalized schizophrenics.
53. Fogel, S., and Hoffer, A. The use of Psychiat. Quart., 34, 65- 68 (1960)
hyp nosis to interrupt and to repro 69. Hilgard , E. R. Lawfulness within
duce an LSD-25 experience. J. CUn. hypnotic phenomena. In Hypnosis:
Exptl. Psychopath., 23, 1 1-1 6 (1962) Current Problems, Chap. I, 1-29

54. Friedlander, J. W., and Sarbin, T. R. (Estabrooks, G. H., Ed., Harper &
The depth of hypnosis. J. A bnorm. Row, New York, 285 Pp., 1962)
Soc. Psychol. , 33, 281-94 (1938) 70. Hilgard, E. R. Abil ity to resist sugges
55. Gale, C., & Herman, M. Hypnosis and tions within the hypnotic state :
the psychotic patient. Psychiat. responsiveness to conflicting com
Quart. , 30, 4 1 7-24 (1956) munications. Psychol. Rept. , 12, 3-
56. Gebhard, J, W. Hypnotic age-regres 1 3 (1963)
sion: a review. Am. J. CUn. Hypn., 71. Hilgard, E. R. The Motivational Rele
3, 1 39-68 (1961) vance of Hypnosis (Presented at
57. Gill, M. M., and Brenman, M. Hyp Nebraska SymP. on Motivation,
nosis and Related States: Psycho Lincoln, Nebr., March 20, 1964)
analytic Studies in Regression 72. Hilgard , E. R. Individual differences
(International Univ. Press, New in hypnotizability. In Handbook of
York, 405 pp., 1959) Hypnosis (Gordon, J. E., Ed.,
58. Gladfelter, J. H., and Crasilneck, Macmillan, New York, 1964)
H. B. The effects of post-hyp 73. Hilgard, E. R., and Hommel, L. S.
notically induced emotional states Selective amnesia for events withi n
on vocabulary skills. J. Gen. hypnosis in relation to repression.
Psychol., 62, 269-72 (1960) J. Pers. , 29, 205-16 (1961)
59. Goldiamond, I . , and Malpass, L. F. 74. Hilgard, E. R., Lauer, L. W., and
Locus of hypnotically induced Morgan, A. H. Manual for Stanford
changes of color vision respones. J. Profile Scales of Hypnotic Suscepti.
Opt. Soc. Am., 51, 1 1 17-21 (1961) bility, Forms I and II (Consulting
60. Gormley, W. J. Medical Hypnosis Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
(Catholic Univ. of America Press, Calif., 80 pp., 1963)
Washington, 167 pp., 1961) 75. Hilgard , E. R., Weitzenhoffer, A. M . ,
61. Gorton, B. E. The physiology of Landes, J., and Moore, R. K. The
hypnosis : II. A review of the litera distribution of susceptibility to
ture. Psychiat. Quart., 23, 457-85 hypnosis in a student population: a
(1949) study using the Stanford Hypnotic
62. Gorton, B. E. Current problems of Susceptibility Scale. Psychol.
p h ysiologic research in hypnosis. In Monogr., 75 (512) , 22 pp. (1961)
Hypnosis: Current Problems, Chap. 76. Hilgard, J. R., and Hilgard , E. R.
2, 30-53 (Estabrooks, G. H., Ed., Developmental-interactive aspects
Harper & Row, New York, 285 pp., of hypnosis: some illustrative cases.
1962) Genet. Psychol. Monogr. , 66, 143-78
63. Graham, D. T., Kabler, J. D., and (1962)
Graham , F. K. Physiological re 77. Hilgard, J. R. , Hilgard E. R., and
sponse to the suggestion of attitudes Newman, M. Sequelae to hypnotic
specific for hives and hypertension. induction with special reference to
Psychosom. Med., 24, 1 59-69 (1962) earlier chemical anesthesia. J.
64. Haley, J. An interactional explanation Nervous Menl. Dis., 133, 461-78
of hypnosis. Am. J. CUn. HyPn., I , (1961)
41-57 (1958) 78. Hoskovec, J., and Horval, I. Speech
65. Haley, J. Strategies of Psychotherapy manifestations in hypnotic age
HYPNOSIS 177
regression. A ctivitas Nervosa Supe 93. Leuba, C. The reality of hypnotic
dar (Prague) , 5, 13-21 (1963) phenomena : a critique of the role
79. Hull, C. L. Hypnosis and Suggestibil playing theory of hypnosis. J. CUn.
ity: An Experimental Approach Exptl. Hypn., 5, 32-38 (1957)
(Appleton-Century, New York, 94. Leuba, C. Theories of hypnosis : a
416 pp., 1933) critique and a proposal. Am. J. CUn.
80. Johnson, W. R., and Kramer, G. F. Hypn., 3, 43-48 (1960)
Effects of stereotyped non-hypnotic, 95. Levitsky, A. Techniques of giving
hypnotic, and posthypnotic sugges posthypnotic suggestions. Am. J.
tions upon strength, power, and CUn. Hypn. , 4, 1 58-61 (1962)
endurance. Am. Assoc. HUh., Phys. 96. Levitt, E. E., and Brady, J. P. PSYCho
Educ. Recr. , 32, 522-29 (1961) physiology of hypnosis. In Hyp
81. Johnson, W. R., Massey, B. n., and nosis in Modern Medicine, Chap. 10,
Kramer, G. F. Effects of post 3 14-62 (Schneck, J. M., Ed., 3rd
hypnotic suggestions on all-out ed., Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 452
effort of short duration. Res. Quart. , pp., 1963)
31, 142-46 (1960) 97. Levitt, E. E., and Brady, J. P. Muscu

82. Kelsey, D., and Barron, J. N. Mainte- lar endurance under hypnosis and
nance of posture by hypnotic sug in the motivated waking state. Int .
gestion in patient undergoing plastic J. CUn. Exptl. Hypn., 12, 2 1-27
surgery. Brit. Med. J., 5073, 756-57 (1964)
(19 5 8) 98. Levitt, E. E., Persky, H., Brady, J. P.,
83. Kleitman, N. Sleep and Wakefulness Fitzgerald, J., and den Breeijen, A.
(Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 552 Evidence for hypnotically induced
pp., 1963) amnesia as an analog of repression.
84. Kline, M. V., Ed. Clinical Correlations J. Nervous Ment. Dis., 133, 2 18-21
of Experimental Hypnosis (Thomas, (1961)
Springfield, m., 524 pp., 1963) 99. London, P. The Children's Hypnotic
85. Korotkin, I. I., and Suslova, M. M. Susceptibility Scale (Consulting Psy
An attempt to change the localiza chologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif. ,
tion of conditioned inhibition by 57 pp., 1962)
verbal suggestion in hypnosis. Zh. 100. London, P. Hypnosis in children: an
Vysshei NerlJ1loi Deyatel'nosti Pav experimental approach. Intern. J.
lov, 12, 778-87 (1962) Clin. Exptl. Hypn., to, 79-91 (1962)
86. Kramer, E., and Brennan, E. P. Hyp 101. London, P. Experiments in Hypnosis
notic susceptibility of schizophrenic with Children (Presented at the
patients. J. A bnarm. Soc. Psychol., 71st Ann. Convention Am. Psycho!.
1964 (to appear) Assoc., Philadelphia, Sept. 2, 1963)
87. Kroger, W. S. Clinical and Experi 102. London, P., and Fuhrer, M. Hypnosis,
mental Hypnosis : In Medicine, motivation, and performance. J.
Dentistry, and Psychology (Lippin Pers., 29, 321-33 (1961)
cott, Philadelphia, 361 pp., 1963) 103. McCay, A. R. Dental extraction under
88. Kubie, L. S. Hypnotism : a focus for self-hypnosis. Med. J. Australia,
psychophysiological and psycho June I, 820-22 (1963)
analytic investigations. Arch. Gen. 104. Marcuse, F. L., Ed. Hypnosis
Psychiat. , 4, 40-54 ( 19 61) Throughout the World (Thomas,
89. Kubie, L. S., and Margolin, S. The Springfield, Ill., 312 pp., 1964)
process of hypnotism and the na 105. Meares, A. The atavistic theory of
ture of the hypnotic state. Am. J. hypnosis. Med. J. Australia, 49,
Psychiat., 100, 61 1-22 (1944) 7 1 1-14 (1962)
90. LeCron, L. M. Uncovering early 106. M eld, J. P., and Hilgard, E, R. Atti
memories by ideomotor responses to tudes toward hypnosis, self-predic
questioning. Int. J. CUn. Exptl. tions, and hypnotic susceptibility.
Hypn., 11, 137-42 (1963) Int. J. Clin. Exptl. Hypn. , 12. 99-
91. Lee, E. M. A Questionnaire Measure of 108 (1964)
Hypnotic Characteristics and Their 107. Miller, G. A" Galanter, E., and
RelationshiP to Hypnotizability Pribram, K. H. Plans and the Struc
(Doctoral thesis, Stanford Univ., ture of Behavior (Holt, New York.
Stanford, Calif. , 1963) 226 pp., 1960)
92. Leuba, C. Images as conditioned sensa 108. Moll, A. The Study of Hypnosi)
tions. J. Exptl. Psychol., 26, 345-57 Gulian Press, New York, 410 pp.,
{1940l 1958) (Original 1889)
178 HILGARD
109. Moore, R. K. Susceptibility to hyp Memory and Hypnotic Age Regres
nosis and susceptibility to social sion. Contemp . Psychol., 0, 70-7 2
influence. J. A bnorm. Soc. Psycho!., (1961)
68, 282-94 (1964) 123. Pattie, F. A. Theories of hypnosis. In
1 10. Moore, R. K., and Lauer, L. W. Hyp Hypnosis and Its Therapeutic AP
notic susceptibility in middle child Plications, Chap. 1, 1-30 (Dorcus,
hood. Intern. J. CUn. Expl/. Hypn., R. M., Ed., McGraw-Hill, New
1 1 , 167-74 (1963) York, 327 pp., 1956)
1 1 1. Moss, C. S. Experimental paradigms 124. Platonov, K. 1. The Word as a Physio
for the hypnotic investigation of logical and Therapeutic Factor
dream symbolism. Intern. J. CUn. (Foreign Languages Pub!. House,
Exptl. Hypn., 9, 105-17 (1961) Moscow, 452 pp., 1959)
1 12. Murray, J. B. Hypnosis : a review of 125. Pulver , S. E. Delusions following
research. Calh. Psychol. Rec., 2, hypnosis. Intern. J. CUn. Exptl.
9-3 2 (1964) Hypn., 1 1, 1 1 -2 2 (1963)
1 13. Naruse, G. A contribution to system 126. Reiff, R., and Scheerer, M. Memory
atic understanding of modification and Hypnotic Age Regression

in posthypnotic and hypnotic hal (Intern. Univ. Press., New York,
lucination. Jap . J. Educ. Soc. 253 pp., 1960)
Psycho!., 3, 1-14 (1962) 127. Reyher, J. Posthypnotic stimulation
1 14. Naruse, G. Hypnosis as a state of of hypnotically induced conflict in
medi tative concentration and its relation to antisocial behavior. J.
relationship to the perceptual proc Soc. Ther., 7, 92-97 (1961)
ess. In The Nature of Hypnosis, 35- 128. Reyher, J. A paradigm for determining
55 (Kline, M. V., Ed., Inst. for Re the c1inicalrelevance of hypnotically
search in Hypnosis, New York, 133 induced psychopathology. Psychol.
pp., 1962) Bull., 59, 344-54 (1962)
1 15. Naruse, G., and Obonai, T. Decompo 129. Roberts, M. R. A ttention and Related
sition and fusion of mental images A bilities as Affecting Hypnotic
in the drowsy and post-hypnotic Susceptibility (Doctoral thesis, Stan
hallucinatory state. J. CUn. Exptl. ford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1964)
Hypn., 1, 23-41 (1953) 130. Rosen, H. Hypnosis, mental hygiene
1 1 6. Newman, R., Katz , J., and Ruben and the dentist-hypnotist. A psy
stein, R. The experimental situa chiatric discussion of dangers and
tion as a determinant of hypnotic potentialities of hypnosis in dental
dreams. Psychiat., 23, 63-73 (1960) practice. J. Am. Dental Assoc. , 54,
1 1 7. Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: 808-18 (1957)
artifact and essence. J. A bnorm. 131. Rosen, H., and Bartemeier, L. H. Hyp
Soc. Psychol., 58, 2 77-99 (1959) nosis in med iC'dl practice. J. Am.
1 1 8. Orne, M. T. Antisocial behavior and Med. Assoc., 175, 976-79 (1961)
hypnosis. In Hypnosis: Current 132. Rosenberg, M . J. Cognitive reorganiza
Problems, Chap. 7, 137-92 (Esta tion in response to the hypnotic
brooks , G. H., Ed., Harper & Row, reversal of attitu dinal affect. J.
New York, 285 pp., 1962) Pers., 28, 39-63 (1960)
1 19. Orne, M . T. On the social psychology 133. Rosenberg, M. J. An analysis of affec
of the psychological experiment : tive-cognitive consistency. In A tti
with particular reference to demand tude Organization and Change, Chap.
characteristics and their implica 2, 15-64 (Hovland, C. !., and Rosen
tions. Am. Psychologist , 17, 77 6-83 berg, M . J . Eds., Yale Univ. Press,
(1962) New Haven, Conn., 239 pp., 1960)
120. Orne, M. T. Hypnotically induced 134. Rosenhan, D. L., and London, P. Hyp
hallucinations. In Hallucinations, nosis in the unhypnotizable: a
2 1 1-19 (West, L. J. , Ed., Grune & study in rote learning. J. Exptl.
Stratton New York, 295 pp., 1962)
, Psychol. , OS, 30-34 (1963)
1 2 1 . Orne, M. T. The Nature of the Hypnotic 135. Rosenhan, D. L., and Tomkins, S. S.
Phenomenon: Recent EmpiricalStud On preference for hypnosis and
ies (Presented at the 7 1 st Ann. hypnotizab ility. Intern. J . CUn.
Convent ion Am. Psycho!. Assoc., Exptl. Hypn. , 12, 109-14 (1964)
Philadelphia, Sept. 2 , 1963) 136. Salzberg, H. C. The effects of hyp
12:i!. Orne, M. T., and O'Connell, D. N. notic, posthypnotic, and waking
Age regression by hypnosis, a re suggestion on performance using
view of Reiff, R., and Scheerer, M., tasks varied in complexity. Intern.
HYPNOSIS 1 79
J. Glin. Exptl. Hypn., 8, 251-58 Exptl. Hypn., 10, 183-202 (1962)
(1960) 150. Shor, R. E. Three dimensions of hyp
137. Sarbin, T. R. Contributions to role notic depth. Intern. J. Glin. Exptl.
taking theory: 1. Hypnotic be Hypn., 10, 23-38 (1962)
havior. Psychol. Rev., 5'7, 255-70 1 5 1 . Shor, R . E., and Orne, E. C. Harvard
(1950) Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscepti
138. Sarbin, T. R. Physiological effects of bility (ConSUlting Psychologists
hypnotic stimulation. In Hypnosis Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 26 pp.,
and Its Therapeutic Applications, 1962)
Chap. 4, 1-57 (Dorcus, R. M . , Ed., 152. Shor, R. E., and Orne, E. C. Norms on
McGraw-Hill, New York, 327 pp., the Harvard Group Scale of Hyp
1956) notic Susceptibility, Form A . In
139. Sarbin, T. R., and Andersen, M. L. tern. J. Clin. Exptl. Hypn., 1 1 , 39-
Base-rate expectancies and per 48 (1963)
ceptual alterations in hypnosis. 153. Shor, R. E., Orne, M . T., and O'Con
Brit. J. Soc. GUn. PsychoZ., 2, 1 1 2- nell, D. N. Validation and cross
21 (1963) validation of a scale of self-reported

140. Sarbin, T. R., and Andersen, M. L. personal experiences which predicts
Role-theoretical analysis of hyp hypnotizability. J. Psychol., 53, 55-
notic behavior. In Handbook of 75 (1962)
Hypnosis (Gordon, J., Ed. , Macmil 154. Shor, R. E., Orne, M . T., and O'Con
lan, New York, 1964) nell, D. N. A Study of the Psycha
141. Sarbin, T. R. , and Lim. D . T. Some logical Correlates of Hypnotizability
evidence in support of the role (Presented at 7 1 st Ann. Conven
taking hypothesis in hypnosis.!nt. tion Am. Psycho!. Assoc. , Phila
J. Clin. Exptl. Hypn., 1 1 , 98-103 delphia, August 30, 1963)
(1963) 155. Slotnick, R. S. , Liebert , R. M., and
142. Scharf, B., and Zamansky, H. S. Re Hilgard, E. R. The enhancement of
duction of word-recognition thresh muscular performance in hypnosis
old under hypnosis. Percept. Mot. through exhortation and involving
Skills, 17, 499-510 (1963) instructions. J. Pers., 1964 (to
143. Schiff, S. K., Bunney, W. E., and appear)
Freedman, D. X. A study of ocular 156. Stern, J. A., Edmonston, W., Vlett,
movements in hypnotically induced G. A., and Levitsky, A. Electro
dreams. J. Nervous Ment. Dis. , 133, dermal measures in experimental
59-68 (1961) amnesia. J. A bnorm. Soc. Psychol. ,
144. Schneck, J. M., Ed. Hypnosis in Mod 67, 397-401 (1963)
ern Medicine, 3rd ed., (Thomas, 157. Sternlicht, M . , and Wanderer, Z. W.
Springfield, 111. , 452 pp., 1963) Hypnotic susceptibility and mental
1 45 . Schul man , R. E., and London , P. deficiency. Intern. J. CUn. Exptl.
Hypnosis and verbal learning. J. Hypn., 1 1 , 104- 1 1 (1963)
A bnorm. Soc. Psychol., 67, 363-70 158. Stoyva, J. M . The Effect of Suggested
(1963) Dreams on the Length of Rapid Eye
146. Schultz, J. H . , & Luthe, W. A utogenic Movement Periods (Doctoral thesis,
Training (Grune & Stratton, New Univ. Chicago, Chicago, 1961)
York, 289 pp., 1959) 159. Stukat, K.-G. Suggestibility: A Fac
147. Shor, R. E. The frequency of naturally torial and Experimental Analysis
occurring "hypnotic-like" experi (Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm,
ences in the normal college popula 248 pp., 1958)
tion. Intern. J . Glin. Exptl. Hypn. , 160. Siillwold , F. Ein Beitrag zur Analyze
8 , 15 1-63 (1960) der Aufmerksamkeit. Z. Experim.
148. Shor, R. E. On the physiological Angewandte Psychol., 2, 495-513
effects of painful stimulation during (1954)
hypnotic analgesia : basic issues for 1 6 1 . Sutcliffe,J. P. "Credulous" and
further research. In Hypnosis: "skeptical" views of hypnotic
Current Problems, Chap. 3, 54-75 phenomena. A review of certain
(Estabrooks, G. H., Ed., Harper & evidence and methodology. Intern.
Row, New York, 285 pp., 1962) J. CUn. Exptl. Hypn., 8, 73-101
149. Shor, R. E. Physiological effects of (1960)
painful stimulation during hypnotic 162. Sutcliffe, J. P. "Credulous" and
analgesia under conditions designed "skeptical" views of hypnotic
to minimize anxiety. Intern. J. Glin. phenomena : experiments on
1 80 HILGARD
esthesia, hallucination, and delu (1964)
sion. J. A bnorm. Soc. Psychol., 62, 173. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., Gough, P. B.,
1 89-200 (1961) and Landes, J. A study of the Braid
163. Svorad, D., and Hoskovec, J. Experi effect : hypnosis by visual fixation.
mental and clinical study of hyp J. Physiol., 47, 67-80 (1959)
nosis in the Soviet Union and the 1 74. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard,
European socialist countries: bibli E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti
ography. Am. J. CUn. Hypn., 4, bility Scale, Forms A and B (Con
36-46 (1961) sulting Psychologists Press, Palo
164. Tart, C. T. Effects of Posthypnotic Alto, Calif. , 56 pp., 1959)
Suggestion on the Process of Dream 175. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard,
ing (Doctoral thesis, Univ. North E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti
Carolina, Chapel Hill. N.C . 1963) bility Scale, Form C (Consulting
165. Uhr, L. Learning under hypnosis: Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
What do we know? What should Calif. , 48 pp., 1962)
we know? J. Clin. Exptl. Hypn., 6, 176. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard ,
12 1-35 (1958) E. R. Stanford Profile Scales of

166. Underwood , H. W. The validity of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Forms I
hypnotically induced visual hal and II (Consulting Psychologists
lucinations. J. A bnorm. Soc. Psy Press, Palo Alto , CaliL , 46 pp.,
chol., 61, 39-46 (1960) 1963)
167. Weiss, S. W. Hypnosis and dream 177. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Moore,
production in a patient with mi R. K. The influence of certain hyp
graine headache. Medical Times, notic suggestions upon a type of
90, 395-99 (1962) visual illusion: preliminary report.
168. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. Hypnotism: A n Percept. Mot. Skills, 1 1, 1 37 (1960)
Objective Study in Suggestibility 1 78. Weitzenhoffer, A. M . , and Sjoberg,
(Wiley, New York, 380 pp., 1953) B. M . , Jr. Suggestibility with and
169. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. General Tech without "induction of hypnosis. J.
II
niques of Hypnotism (Grune & Nervous Ment. Dis., 132, 204-20

Stratton, New York , 460 pp., 1957) (1961)
170. Weitzenhoffer, A. M . "Credulity" and 1 79. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Weitzen
"skepticism" in hypnotic research : hoffer, G. B. Sex, transference, and
a critical examination of Sutcliffe's susceptibility to hypnosis. Am. J.
thesis and evidence : Part 1. Am. J. CUn. Hypn., I, 15-24 (1958)
CUn. Hypn., 6, 137-62 (1963) 180. Williamsen, J. A., Johnson, H. J., and
1 7 1 . Weitzenhoffer, A. M . "Credulity" and Eriksen, C. W. Some characteristics
"skepticism" in hypnotic research : of posthypnotic amnesia. J. A b
a critical examination of Sutcliffe's norm. Soc. Psychol. (1964) (to ap
thesis and evidence : Part II. Am. J. pear)
CUn. Hypn., 6, 241-68 (1964) 181. Wiseman , R. J., and Reyher, J. A
1 72. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. Explorations in procedure utilizing dreams for
hypnotic time distortions. I : Acqui deepening the hypnotic trance. Am.
sition of temporal reference frames J. Clin. Hypn., 5, 105-10 (1962)
under conditions of time distortion. 182. Yates, A. J. Hypnotic age regression.
J. Nervous Ment. Dis., 138, 3 54-6 6 Psychol. Bull., 58, 429-40 (1961)

Ernest Hilgard: Quick Links To Online Content

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ernest Hilgard: Quick Links To Online Content

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ANNUAL

Following the discrediting of Mesmer toward the end of the eighteenth

with introductory statements by contemporary writers. Among these are the

reviewed by Gormley (60) and Murray (112) , with conclusions indicating a

definition. In order to make the provisional ostensive definition more precise

organization permitting the coherent, if unusual, behavior of the hypnotized

induction remain unanswered; these are dramatized by the success of various

either wittingly or unwittingly led readers to doubt the reality of hypnotic

Without attempting a formal definition of hypnosis, the field appears to

A number of aspects of hypnotic behavior are so typical as to become

hypnotic amnesia, analgesia, age regression, hallucinations. In this section

criticism (122), this general finding appears convincing.

achieved by Underwood (166) in a related study. The results have been

experiences with ether anesthesia in childhood (struggling, nausea, head

tist impresses upon the subject.

ascertained whether or not hypnosis made a difference. When such a com

dramatic results under hypnotic time distortion, few experimenters have

The attempt to find a physiological explanation of the hypnotic trance

electrodermal responses, EEG's, heart reactions, chemical changes in the

Scales for assessing susceptibility.-There is little doubt that some people

enduring aspect of individual differences. A number of scales have been de

correlates of hypnotic susceptibility are under investigation.

used in psychotherapy, little is known about the relative hypnotizability of

the slightly drowsy state the Bekhterev-Bernheim method, because thesl!

personality characteristics to hypnotizability are likely to be futile because a

(128) has proposed a paradigm for using hypnotically induced conflicts in a

Among "theories of induction" are those stressing regression, and con

not yet been reported, it appears that early development of imagination, or a

spirit of adventure, fostered by parents through contagion, is likely to pro

scoring and observer-scoring. In a correlational study. J. A bnorm.

1964) (Original, 1891) of amnestic events. Intern. J. CUn.

plored by Hypnotically Controlled 41. Dorcu9, R. M. Fallacies in predictions

Beginnings of Modern Hypnosis. 3, 1 2 7-38 (1961)

Exptl. Psychopath., 23, 1 1-1 6 (1962) Current Problems, Chap. I, 1-29

31, 142-46 (1960) 97. Levitt, E. E., and Brady, J. P. Muscu

atic understanding of modification and Hypnotic Age Regression

21 (1963) validation of a scale of self-reported

12 1-35 (1958) E. R. Stanford Profile Scales of

niques of Hypnotism (Grune & Nervous Ment. Dis., 132, 204-20

Você também pode gostar