Lorne D. Bertrand

The Carleton University responsiveness to suggestion scale: normative data and psychometric properties.

A normative sample of 400 subjects was administered the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) in small groups. The Carleton scale yields three suggestibility scores for each subject; objective (CURSS:O) scores reflect overt response to suggestion, subjective (CURSS:S) scores reflect experiential response to suggestion, and objective-involuntariness (CURSS:OI) scores reflect the extent to which objectively “passed” responses were experienced as occurring involuntarily. Guttman scale analyses and factor analyses indicate that each dimension is primarily unidimensional and cumulative. CURSS:O scores had a bell-shaped distribution while CURSS:OI scores were much more strongly skewed toward the low suggestibility end of the distribution. Subjects who “passed” suggestions by objective criteria frequently rated their responses as primarily voluntary rather than involuntary. Implications of these findings for the measurement of hypnotic susceptibility are discussed.

The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Relationship with other Measures of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Expectancies, and Absorption

The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) yields scores on three suggestibility dimensions. Objective (CURSS:0) scores and subjective (CURSS:S) scores reflect overt and experiential response to suggestion, respectively. Objective-Involuntariness (CURSS:OI) scores indicate the number of objective responses rated as feeling involuntary. Study 1 indicated that all three suggestibility dimensions correlated significantly with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, and Study 2 showed the three Catleton suggestibility dimensions correlated significantly with Form C of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. The majority of subjects who obtained high scores on the Stanford:C also scored high on the Carleton suggestibility dimensions. Like the Harvard:A and Stanford:C the three Carleton suggestibility dimensions also correlated significantly with attitude/expectancy measures, absorption, and Fields (1965) “hypnotic experiences” inventory. CURSS:VC (voluntary-cooperation) scores reflect the number of objective responses rated as feeling primarily voluntary rather than involuntary. CURSS:VC scores did not correlate significantly with attitude/expectancy variables, absorption or “hypnotic experiences.” Theoretical implications are discussed.

The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Stability, Reliability, and Relationships with Expectancy and “Hypnotic Experiences”

The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale was administered twice to 152 subjects in small groups. The interval between testings ranged from 2 wk. to 3 mo. The three suggestibility dimensions remained relatively stable across testings. For both testings scores on the Objective dimension (CURSS: O) were substantially higher than those on the Objective-Involuntariness dimension (CURSS: OI). This indicates that many subjects who “passed” suggestions in terms of overt response, rated their responses as primarily voluntary rather than involuntary. All three suggestibility dimensions correlated significantly with expectations for hypnosis and Fields “hypnotic experiences” inventory. However, neither expectancies nor “hypnotic experiences” correlated significantly with the number of “passed” responses rated as primarily voluntary (CURSS: VC, i.e., Voluntary Cooperation scores). Theoretical implications are discussed.

Test of the Dissipation Hypothesis of Hypnotic Amnesia

The hypothesis that hypnotic amnesia dissipates spontaneously with time was investigated by systematically increasing the time period between two amnesia-challenge trials. Retest subjects received two amnesia-challenge trials without an intervening pause. Short-delay subjects received a 1-min. pause between the two challenges, while Long-delay subjects received a 2-min. pause between challenges. All subjects recalled significantly more target material on the second trial than on the first. However, this increment in recall was unrelated to the length of time between challenges. These results are inconsistent with the dissipation hypothesis of hypnotic amnesia.

Variables affecting subjective organization during posthypnotic amnesia

Abstract Subjects learned a list of unrelated words to a criterion of either two successive correct trials (standard criterion), or two successive correct trials plus five additional recall trials (extra criterion). The extra recall trials significantly increased the subjective organization of recall. In the extra criterion group, a posthypnotic amnesia suggestion and a nonhypnotic distraction task produced equivalent decrements both in the amount recalled and in the subjective organization of recall. In the standard criterion group, suggestion and distraction reduced the amount recalled, but not the subjective organization of recall. The implications of these findings for understanding the contradictory results of earlier studies of recall organization during amnesia are discussed. Implications for theories of hypnotic amnesia are also discussed.

The dissipation hypothesis of hypnotic amnesia: more disconfirming evidence.

Hypnotic subjects were administered a suggestion to forget a previously overlearned word list. Before cancellation of the suggestion they were challenged twice to try and recall the words. Subjects in one group received a second challenge immediately after response to the first. Those in the second group were given a 15-min. delay before their second challenge. Subjects in both groups showed less amnesia after the second challenge than after the first, but the length of delay between challenges had no effect on amnesia scores. These findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that hypnotic amnesia involves an involuntary blockage of memory that decays spontaneously with time.

The Organization of Recall during Hypnotic Suggestions for Complete and Selective Amnesia

Hypnotic subjects learned a nine item list that contained three words in each of three categories. Afterwards, they were instructed to forget either the entire list, the items in one category, or one item from each category. Clustering of recall was measured on the recall trials immediately before the suggestion, during amnesia testing, and after cancelling the suggestion. Partial amnesics asked to forget the entire list clustered significantly less during amnesia testing than before or after the suggestion, and testified that they shifted attention away from the recall task during amnesia testing. Subjects in the two selective amnesia treatments showed high levels of clustering during amnesia testing. Instead of disattending from the recall task at this time, these subjects devised strategies for segregating the to-be-forgotten and to-be-remembered items. These findings support the hypothesis that hypnotic amnesia involves strategic enactment, and that amnesic subjects maintain control over their memory processes.

Serial organization during hypnotic amnesia under two conditions of item presentation

Abstract Hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects learned a 16 item list of unrelated words using either a standard presentation order (all items presented in the same order on all trials) or an incremental order (on Trial 1 only the first item was presented, on Trial 2 the first item followed by the second, etc.). Following criterion learning, the hypnotic subjects were administered an amnesia suggestion and challenged to recall, while nonhypnotic subjects engaged in a distraction task while attempting to recall. Hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects who exhibited reduced recall (i.e., nonrecallers) showed equivalent decrements in seriation on the amnesia/distraction trial. Incremental presentation produced initial levels of seriation higher than those of standard presentation. Among nonrecallers, the incremental presentation was associated with a substantially larger reduction in seriation than was the standard procedure. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Effects of Instructing Subjects to Pretend Forgetting on Disorganized Recall

Two experiments investigated the role of instructions to pretend forgetting on disorganized recall. Exp. 1 indicated that the wording of instructions to pretend influenced both the tendency of subjects to show disorganization and their tendency to guess the disorganization hypothesis. Importantly, only instructions to pretend that led to guessing the hypothesis also led to disorganization. Exp. 2 indicated that subjects exhibited significant disorganization even when they were instructed both to pretend to forget and to recall a specific number of words. Implications of these findings for research on hypnotic amnesia are discussed.