Michael Venturino

Relationship between two different types of imagery vividness questionnaire items and three hypnotic susceptibility scale factors: A brief communication

Abstract 122 Ss were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHSA) of Shor and E. Orne (1962), the Tellegen Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), and 2 tape-recorded questionnaires on vividness of mental imagery. On 1 imagery questionnaire the items were impersonal, objective visual scenes (MIQ:VS), whereas on the other questionnaire the items involved discrete personal actions which elicited a combination of visual and kinesthetic imagery (MIQ:PA). Imagery vividness scores from both questionnaires correlated significantly with hypnotizability scores. M1Q:VS vividness scores were better than MIQ:PA vividness scores at predicting cognitive factor item scores of HGSHS:A, but not ideomotor or challenge factor items scores. Multiple correlations involving MIQ:VS vividness and the Tellegen Absorption Scale predicted cognitive factor scores better than ideomotor or challenge factor scores.

Involuntariness of response on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Abstract Following a tape-recorded administration of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962), some 272 Ss recorded their objective responses in the standard scoring booklet and then rated the voluntariness-involuntari-ness of their responses to each HGSHS:A item. The ratings indicated that in about 75% of the instances where HCSHS:A items were objectively passed, Ss experienced their response as completely or mostly involuntary, and this percentage did not differ between ideomotor items and the more difficult challenge items. For a subset of 35 Ss tested on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitz-enhoffer and Hilgard (1962), SHSS:C score was predicted reliably by HGSHS:A objective score. Thus, HGSHS:A is an adequate predictor of hypnotic susceptibility according to a criterion measure (SHSS:C), in spite of the fact that individual HGSHS:A items are not perfect measures of the classical suggestion effect according to the c...

Effects of hypnotizability and mental imagery on signal detection sensitivity and response bias

Abstract It was hypothesized that the ability to selectively concentrate attention on mental images would be greater among high hypnotizable Ss than among low hypnotizable Ss, as indicated by a greater interference with visual signal detection by concurrent visual mental imagery in response to specified nouns. This hypothesis was not supported in the overall results, though the finding of a significant interference effect among the high hypnotizable female Ss, but not among other subgroups, indicates that further research with a more refined procedure might be worthwhile. On the control trials without images, the high hypnotizable Ss made more false alarms than lows, and had a significantly different bias index indicating that high hypnotizable Ss were more likely than lows to respond “yes” when uncertain about whether the signal was present; false alarms can be interpreted as a nonhypnotic measure of suggestibility. The high and low hypnotizable Ss did not differ in their times to generate images in resp...

Internal and external distraction in the control of cold-pressor pain as a function of hypnotizability.

The effectiveness of different pain-distraction tasks was compared as a function of level of hypnotizability, using the cold-pressor pain-testing procedure. Selected high, medium, or low hypnotizable participants first underwent a 1-minute baseline immersion of a hand in ice water, with periodic pain ratings. Independent groups were then given 4-minute test immersions under one of five conditions. Analgesia suggestion and guided imagery were conceived to be internal distractors, whereas word memory and pursuit-rotor tasks were external distractors. Placebo-control groups were given permission to let their minds wander. All four experimental treatments reduced pain significantly for highly hypnotizable participants, compared to the control group, whereas none of the experimental treatments were effective for low hypnotizables. The different treatment instructions did not produce different preimmersion anxiety state ratings, so the treatment effects on pain ratings could not be explained in terms of their effects on anxiety. It appears that high hypnotizables are more effective than low hypnotizables at diverting attention to control pain, regardless of whether internal or external distractor tasks are used. Treatment effects on pain ratings did not change between 1 and 4 minutes of test immersion.