Advertisement

A Study of Self-Hypnosis, with Implications for Other Self-Control Procedures

  • John C. Ruch

Abstract

Self-hypnosis and the effects of prior hypnotic experience on self-hypnosis were investigated with hypnotically naive college students. Adaptations of conventional hypnotic scales were used to provide for group testing and to assess self-hypnotic performance. The question investigated was whether experience with conventional heterohypnosis would inhibit later self-hypnosis rather than enhance it, as is customarily believed. In testing this proposition, three groups of about 30 subjects each (final N = 88) were tested in four hypnotic sessions. One group had two initial heterohypnosis scales of a conventional type, one had similar scales phrased completely in the first person, and one had two initial experiences with untrained self-hypnosis. All three groups then had one session of self-hypnosis and one of conventional heterohypnosis.

Keywords

Conventional Group Subjective Score Objective Score Autogenic Training Conventional Induction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, T.X., & Glass, L.B. Significant factors in hypnotic behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 222–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diamond, M.J. The use of observationally-presented information to modify hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 79, 174–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fromm, E., Litchman, J., & Brown, D. Similarities and differences between hetero-hypnosis and self-hypnosis: A phenomenological study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Newport Beach, California, December, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. Hilgard, E.R., & Tart, C.T. Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 196–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hilgard, J.R. Personality and hypnosis: A study of imaginative involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  6. Kinney, J.M., & Sachs, L.B. Increasing hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83, 145–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ruch, J.C. Self-hypnosis: The result of heterohypnosis or vice-versa? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1975, 23, 282–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ruch, J.C. Morgan, A.H., & Hilgard, E.R. Brief reports: Behavioral predictions for hypnotic responsiveness scores when obtained with and without prior induction procedures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82, 543–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schultz, J.H., & Luthe, W. Autogenic training: A psychophysiological approach to psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Shor, R.E., & Easton, R.D. A preliminary report on research comparing self- and hetero-hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 16, 37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shor, R.E., & Orne, E.C. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  12. Waite, A.E. (editor) Braid on hypnotism. (Re-issue of 1889 edition) New York: Julian Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  13. Weitzenhoffer, A.M., & Hilgard, E.R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  14. Weitzenhoffer, A.M., & Hilgard, E.R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Ruch
    • 1
  1. 1.Mills CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations