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

Beach Elimin 

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