This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 04 December 2014, At: 11:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of ClinicalHypnosisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20

Attributions, Involuntariness, andHypnotic RapportSteven Jay Lynn Ph.D. a , Michael Snodgrass a , Judith W.Rhue a b , Michael R. Nash a c & David C. Frauman a da Ohio University , USAb University of Toledo , Toledo, Ohio, USAc University of Tennessee , Knoxville, Tennessee, USAd St. Vincent Stress Center and the Indiana University Schoolof Medicine , Indianapolis, Indiana, USAPublished online: 21 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Steven Jay Lynn Ph.D. , Michael Snodgrass , Judith W. Rhue , MichaelR. Nash & David C. Frauman (1987) Attributions, Involuntariness, and Hypnotic Rapport,American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 30:1, 36-43

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1987.10402720

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS

VOLUME 30. NUMBER I. JULY 1987

Attributions, Involuntariness, and HypnoticRapport

Steven Jay Lynn, Michael Snodgrass, Judith W. Rhue, Michael R.Nash, and David C. Frauman'

Ohio University

Subjects' attributions of their hypnotic responsiveness to the hypnotist's abil­ities and efforts were associated with reports of suggestion-related involuntar­iness. In addition, rapport with the hypnotist was found to correlate withexperienced involuntariness. As predicted, high-susceptible subjects expressedgreater positive rapport and liking for the hypnotist and experienced greaterinvoluntariness than their low-susceptible counterparts; they also attributed moreof their responsiveness to the hypnotist's ability and efforts. Medium suscep­tibles were distinguishable from both highs and lows on all measures exceptliking for the hypnotist, in which case they were similar to the highs. Subjectsviewed ability and effort as independent sources of hypnotic responsiveness.

In 1974 Weitzenhoffer used the term"classical suggestion effect" to describethe subject's "transformation of the es­sential, manifest, ideational content of a

Received May 16, 1985; revised February 5,1986; second revision September 5, 1986; ac­cepted for publication September 8, 1986.

I The authors wish to thank Frank Bellezza forhis statistical consultation. Judith W. Rhue is nowat the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Mi­chael R. Nash is now at University of Tennessee,Knoxville, Tennessee; and David C. Frauman isnow at the St. Vincent Stress Center and the In­diana University School of Medicine, Indianap­olis, Indiana.

For reprints write to Steven Jay Lynn,Ph.D., Psychology Department, OhioUniversity, Athens, Ohio 45701.

communication" into behavior that is ex­perienced as involuntary. However, morethan 30 years before Weitzenhoffer pro­vided this characterization, White (1941)maintained that suggestion-related invol­untariness was so central to the experi­ence of hypnosis that it was incumbentupon theorists to address this domain ofexperience. Hypnosis theorists (Arnold,1946; Bowers, 1976;Coe, 1978; Hilgard,1977,1981; Sarbin & Coe, 1972;Spanos,Rivers, & Ross, 1977; Spanos 1982;Weitzenhoffer, 1974) have risen to thechallenge of explaining the well-docu­mented finding (e.g., K. Bowers, 1981;P. Bowers, 1982; Farthing, Brown, &Venturino, 1983; Spanos, Rivers, & Ross,1977) that hypnotizable subjects who passtest suggestions characterize their re­sponses as more automatic or nonvoli-

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

ATIRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS

tional than subjects who fail suggestions.Diverse theoretical accounts have var­iously emphasized dissociative processes(Bowers, 1976; Hilgard, 1977), vivid andsustained suggestion-related imagery (Ar­nold, 1946), and contextual and socialpsychological variables (Coe, 1978; Sar­bin & Coe, 1979; Spanos, Rivers, & Ross,1977; Spanos, 1982).

Sarbin and Coe (1979) have observedthat subjects' interpretations of their ex­periences may reflect on implicit distinc­tion between "doings" (seeing themselvesas agents of goal-directed, purposeful ac­tions) and "happenings" (viewing them­selves as passive respondents). Alongsimilar lines, Spanos (1982) has noted that"Interpreting behavior as an action in­volves attributing causality to the self (e.g.,I did it), while interpreting it as a hap­pening requires that causality be attrib­uted to sources other than the self (e.g.,it happened to me)." Given prevalentmisconceptions of hypnosis that centeraround perceptions of the hypnotist as aSvengali-like figure, along with the pop­ular belief that hypnotized subjects arepassive, hypnotizability is likely to be as­sociated with subjects' attributing theirresponsiveness and subjective experi­ences to the hypnotist, as well as to theirown hypnotic ability. Further, it is likelythat subjects' ratings of involuntarinesswould be associated with attributions ofresponse causality to external factors suchas the hypnotist's ability and effort ratherthan to perceptions of the self as an activeeffortful agent and author of hypnotic ex­perience. Documentation of this relation­ship would be consistent with research thathas shown subjects' beliefs about hyp­nosis are associated with reports of in­voluntariness and hypnotic responding(Lynn, Nash, Rhue, Frauman, & Swee­ney, 1984; Spanos, Cobb, & Gorassini,

37

1984; Spanos, Weekes, & deGroh, 1984),and with recent survey data indicating thatthe majority of subjects endorse the state­ment, "The extent to which hypnosis issuccessful depends on the skill of the hyp­notist" (Wilson, Greene, & Loftus, 1986).

The present study examines the rela­tionship between subjects' reports of in­voluntariness and their attributionsconcerning the source of their responsive­ness on the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne,1962), that is, how much of their respon­siveness was due to their own ability and!or efforts or to the hypnotist's ability and!or efforts. Ability and effort were the fo­cus of the present research because theyare two dimensions postulated by attri­bution theory (Weiner, 1972) to be re­lated to attributions of causality. It ishypothesized that subjects' reports of in­voluntariness and hypnotic responding willbe positively associated with viewing thehypnotist as being responsible for theirhypnotic responsiveness (i.e., external at­tribution).

This study is also designed to evaluatethe possibility that subjects' involvementin fantasy and imaginative experiences intheir daily lives is related to their tend­ency to attribute the locus of their hyp­notic responsiveness to their own abilitiesand efforts. By requiring that subjectscomplete an inventory of fantasy and im­aginative experiences (Inventory ofChildhood Memories and Imaginings;Wilson & Barber, 1982), it will be pos­sible to address the question of whethersubjects who report a history of everydayfantasy involvements will be more likelyto attribute their hypnotic responsivenessand involuntariness to their own abilitiesand efforts rather that those of the hyp­notist.

Another focus of the present researchis on the relationship between subjects'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAUMAN

rapport with the hypnotist and experi­enced involuntariness. A number of re­searchers (Lynn et aI., 1984; Dolby &Sheehan, 1977; Sheehan, 1971, 1980;Sheehan & Dolby, 1975) have shown thatsome susceptible subjects display verypositive rapport with the hypnotist andappear to be specially motivated to re­spond in accord with his or her intent.Subjects who exhibit positive rapport maybe more likely to view the hypnotist as apowerful figure and attribute their hyp­notic responsiveness to his or her abilitiesand efforts. Although previous researchhas not assessed the relationship betweenrapport, involuntariness, and the externalattribution of response causality, it seemsreasonable to expect that rapport and lik­ing for the hypnotist will be positivelyrelated to attributions of responsiveness tothe hypnotist's ability and effort as wellas to involuntariness. Finally, high-sus­ceptible subjects are predicted to expressmore positive rapport, liking for the hyp­notist, involuntariness, and attributions ofresponsivenss to the efforts and ability ofthe hypnotist than low-susceptible sub­jects. Medium-susceptible subjects will beincluded in the experimental design butno predictions will be made for these sub­jects.

Method

Subjects

The subjects were 205 undergraduatepsychology students who received extracourse credit for their participation. High­(N=66, 12 male, 54 female; M=8.68,range= 8-10), medium- (N= 114, 48male, 66 female; M=5.60, range = 4-7),and low- (N = 25, 10 male, 15 female;M = 2.16, range = 0-3) susceptible sub­jects were assigned to groups on the basisof their scores on a slightly shortened, 10

item version of the Harvard Group Scaleof Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A(HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962)which omitted items of arm rigidity andhands moving together.

Procedure

The present study was conducted in thecontext of an ongoing research project onhypnotic experience and the develop­mental correlates of hypnotic susceptibil­ity. The subjects were tested in fourevening sessions in groups of approxi­mately 50 persons. The overall study waspresented to subjects as an investigationof hypnosis, hypnoticexperience, and earlylife experience. Informed consent was ob­tained for all subjects. Prior to the admin­istration of the HGSHS:A and thequestionnaires of relevance to the presentstudy, the hypnotist asked subjects tocomplete an inventory of early childhoodexperiences and the 52-item Inventory ofChildhood Memories and Imaginings(ICMI) of Wilson and Barber (1982). Thisinventory correlates highly with the Tel­legen Absorption Scale (range-r= .61 to.85) and has adequate validity and reli­ability (Lynn & Rhue, 1986; Rhue &Lynn, in press). Next, the HGSHS:A wasadministered. The standard preliminaryremarks about hypnosis also were in­cluded. The subjects then completed aquestionnaire entitled "Hypnotic Experi­ence Scale." The instructions, which wereread by the hypnotist and presented inwritten form, emphasized reading andcarefully responding to each question inan honest and straightforward manner.Subjects were assured that the hypnotistwould not have an opportunity to see theirresponses. Two male hypnotists partici­pated in the study; each was responsiblefor conducting two of the group sessions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

ATIRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS

Dependent Measures

All of the items on the "Hypnotic Ex­perience Scale" were presented in a 5­point Liken-type format. The followingfour questions assessed subjects' attribu­tions: (1) How much of your responsive­ness to the suggestions was based on yourhypnotic ability? (2) How much of yourresponsiveness to the suggestions wasbased on the ability of the hypnotist? (3)How much of your responsiveness to thesuggestions was based on your efforts togo along with the suggestions? and (4)How much of your responsiveness to thesuggestions was based on the efforts ofthe hypnotist? Each of the above ques­tions was anchored 1 = none of it; 3 =some of it; 5 = all of it. To gauge sub­jects' experience of nonvolition, subjectswere asked "To what extent did you ex­perience your responses to the sugges­tions as happening automatically orinvoluntarily vs. under your conscious,deliberate, voluntary control?" (1 = to­tally voluntary; 5 = totally involuntary).The rapport with the hypnotist item askedsubjects to rate "Rapport with the hyp­notist (quality of your relationship withthe hypnotist)" (1 = very good; 3 =neu­tral; 5 = very poor). Liking for the hyp­notist was assessed by the item "I basically___ the hypnotist"(1 = dislike; 3

feel neutral about; 5 = like).

Results

Preliminary analyses of variance wereperformed on the data to determine whetherdifferential effects for the two hypnotistswere evident. Because no such effects wereobtained, the data were collapsed acrosshypnotists for the analyses that follow.

A 2 (sex of subject) X 3 (high, me­dium, low susceptible) multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOYA) was

39

performed on the seven dependent varia­bles. No overall effect for sex of subjectwas found; additionally, no interaction ef­fect between sex of subject and hypnoticsusceptibility was observed. A highly sig­nificant effect for susceptibility was found(F [14, 382] = 8.56, P <(01). There­fore, univariate F-tests were examined foreach of the seven dependent variables forthe susceptibility main effect. The resultsare presented in Table 1.

An inspection of the data reveals sig­nificant main effects for all of the depen­dent variables. To interpret these findings,Newman-Keuls posttests (criterion set atp < .05) were performed on the suscep­tibility group means for each of the de­pendent variables presented in Table 1.Highs differed from low susceptibles inthe predicted direction on the rapport andattraction measure. On the attributionalmeasures, high-, medium-, and low-sus­ceptible subjects were all significantlydifferent, in the predicted direction, onthe measures of attributions of respon­siveness of ability and effort to the hyp­notist. Self-attributions were as follows:low susceptibles attributed less of theirresponsiveness to their own ability thaneither mediums or highs who did not dif­fer in their attributions. Low susceptiblesattributed more of their responsiveness totheir own efforts that medium suscepti­bles. High susceptibles did not differ fromeither low or medium susceptibles on thismeasure. On the measure of involuntari­ness, highs experienced greater involun­tariness than mediums who, in turn,experienced more involuntariness than lowsusceptibles.P

The zero order correlations between

2 The pooled total group standard deviation is.94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAUMAN

Table 1

Cell Means, F-Ratios of the Dependent Variables, and Correlations with SusceptibilitySusceptibility Univariate F

High Medium Low (df=2,199)

Rapport*** 1.91 2.43 3.20 22.03**Liking 3.53 3.38 2.96 4.28*Ability-Self 3.64 3.29 2.12 21.22**Effort-Self 3.58 3.30 3.84 3.11*Ability-Hypnotist 3.85 3.35 2.24 25.19**Effort-Hypnotist 3.91 3.45 2.68 16.91**Involuntariness 3.83 3.27 2.20 30.10**

***Iower value represents greater rapport**p<.OI*p<.05

susceptibility and the dependent variablespresented in Table I are all in the pre­dicted direction. Partial correlationalanalyses were also conducted with hyp­notic susceptibilityand involuntariness withthe variance attributable to other variablespartialed out of the scores of imaginativeinvolvement; internal (self-ability and ef­fort), external attribution measures (hyp­notist ability and effort), and the attractionratings (rapport and liking) were corre­lated with involuntariness and suscepti­bility with each of the other sets ofvariables and ICMI scores partialed out.These results are presented in Table 2.

Finally, a stepwise multiple regressionanalysis was performed using involuntar­iness scores as the criterion variable. Eachof the dependent measures was includedas a predictor variable; however, the onlytwo significant predictors of involuntari­ness were attributions to the hypnotist'sability (Step 1 multiplier = .33; F (1,195)= 23.85, P <.00 I) and rapport with thehypnotist (Step 2 multiplier = .36; changeF (2, 194) = 5.35, P < .(02).

Discussion

As predicted, high susceptibles ex-

pressed greater positive rapport, liking forthe hypnotist, and greater experienced in­voluntariness than their low-susceptiblecounterparts; they also attributed more oftheir responsiveness to the hypnotist'sability and efforts. Medium susceptibleswere distinguishable from both highs andlows on all of these measures except lik­ing for the hypnotist, in which case theywere similar to highs. The correlation be­tween experienced involuntariness andhypnotic susceptibility obtained in ourstudy is quite comparable to that securedin previous research with the HarvardGroup Scale (e.g., Farthing, Brown, &Venturino, 1983); even with the varianceattributable to the other measures par­tialed out, hypnotizability and involuntar­iness remained significantly correlated.Further, involuntariness ratings were pre­dicted by the measures of attribution ofresponsiveness to the hypnotist's abilityand rapport with the hypnotist, and partialcorrelational analyses revealed that invo­luntariness and an external attribution rat­ing (responsiveness to the hypnotist'sability) correlated even when the variancedue to other variables was partialed out.Taken together, these findings are con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

ATTRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS 41

Table 2

Hy-EfHy-AbSel-EfSel-Ab

First Order Correlations of All Measures and Partial Correlations with Involuntariness andHypnotizability

Hyp ICMI Rap Like In

.32** .09 .40** .26*

.21** .05 .29** .18*

.30** .01 .33** .24**(.17*) (.04) (.14*) (.05)

.57** .45**

.05 .13.71**

Hypnotizability

ICMI

Rapport

Liking

Involuntariness

Self-AbilitySelf-EffortHypnotist-Ability

.32** .46** .16* .47**(.25**) (.25**) (.07) (.33**)

.22** .10* .08(.02)

.31** .31**(.13).18**

(.05)

.47**(.21 **).12

.03(.12).05

.50** .41**(.21 **) (.23**)

.16* .14*

Note: Partial correlations are presented in parentheses.**p<.OI; *p<.05 (two tailed)

sonant with the hypothesis that externalattributions of response causality are as­sociated with hypnotic responding and in­voluntariness ratings. Hypnotizablesubjects tend to rate their hypnotic expe­riences as involuntary and view the hyp­notist both in positive terms and as arelatively powerful figure through whichtheir responses and experiences are man­ifested.

Whereas high susceptibles attributedmore of their responsiveness to their ownability than low susceptibles, medium- andhigh-susceptible subjects were indistin­guishable. This finding may well reflectsubjects' tendency to make hypnotic abil­ity attributions on the basis of observa­tions of their own behavior (see Coe,1983).

Low-susceptible subjects attributed moreof their responsiveness to their own ef­forts than medium susceptibles. Interest­ingly, low susceptibles did not differ fromhigh susceptibles on this measure. It maybe, as McConkey and Sheehan (1982) have

suggested, that "effort" is an ambiguousterm; that is, "effort" could be inter­preted by subjects as either reflecting theapplication of their abilities to the hyp­notic setting (becoming involved in sug­gestion-related imaginings, etc.) or asreflecting the quality of their hypnotic ex­periences. Given the likelihood that high­and low-susceptible subjects experiencehypnosis very differently, high suscepti­bles may interpret self-effort attributionsin terms of ability employment; whereaslow susceptibles may interpret self-effortattributions in terms of their largely un­successful attempts to experience hyp­notic suggestions. It is unclear whetherlow-susceptible subjects apportioned re­sponsibility for what little success theyhad or for their more substantial failures.Future research can make a contributionby clarifying aspects of the attributionprocess and providing subjects with anopportunity to make attributions regard­ing other potential causes noted by attri­bution theory (Weiner, 1972) such as task

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

42 LYNN, SNODGRASS, RHUE, NASH AND FRAU MAN

difficulty and chance factors. It would alsobe of interest to investigate subjects' at­tributions in an experiment in which thereis greater hypnotist-subject involvementin order to enhance the meaningfulness ofsubjects' attributions to the hypnotist'sabilities and efforts.

Differentialexperiences of hypnosis mayalso account for unhypnotizable subjectsrating the hypnotist as less positive andaccording him less responsibility for theirresponsiveness than high susceptibles whohave a more positive and less frustratingexperience of hypnosis. Further, sincesusceptible subjects are more responsiveto suggestions than medium and low sus­ceptibles, more extreme ability and hyp­notist-relatedattributions may be a functionof their having greater responsiveness to,in effect, "parcel out" to various sources.However, recent research in our labora­tory (Lynn, Snodgrass, Hardaway, &Lenz, 1984) suggests that high- and low­susceptible subjects differ in their judg­ments about the degree to which their re­sponses are a function of their own versusthe hypnotist's abilities and efforts evenbefore they are hypnotized. Subjects' re­sponse predictions regarding the hypno­tist's ability and effort correlated positivelywith subjects' hypnotic responsiveness andtheir ratings of involuntariness assessedafter hypnosis.

The current study did not find supportfor the possibility that subjects' everydayinvolvement in fantasy and imaginativeexperiences is related to their tendency toattribute response causality to their ownabilities and efforts. In fact, low but sig­nificant correlations were obtained be­tween the imagination measure andexternal attributions of causality. In clos­ing, examining the variables and processesassociated with subjects' causal attribu­tions can play a role in elaborating the

cognitive dimension of the experience ofhypnosis.

ReferencesArnold, M. D. (1946). On the mechanism of

suggestion and hypnosis. Journal ofAbnor­mal and Social Psychology, 41, 107-128.

Bowers, K. (1976). Hypnosisfor the seriouslycurious. New York: W. W. Norton.

Bowers, K. (1981). Do the Stanford Scalestap the "classic suggestion effect"? Inter­national Journal of Clinical and Experi­mental Hypnosis, 29,42-53.

Bowers, P. (1982). The classic suggestion ef­fect: Relationships with scales of hypnotiz­ability, effortless experiencing, and imageryvividness. International Journal ofClinicaland Experimental Hypnosis. 30, 270-279.

Coe, W. C. (1978). The credibility of post­hypnotic amnesia: A contextualist's view.International Journal of Clinical and Ex­perimental, Hypnosis, 26218-245.

Coe, W. C. (1983, August) Measuring non­volitional experiences of hypnotic subjectswith state and control reports. Paper pre­sented at the annual convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, Ana­heim, CA.

Dolby, R. & Sheehan, P. (1977) Cognitiveprocessing and expectancy behavior in hyp­nosis. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology. 86,334--345.

Farthing, G., Brown, S., & Venturino, M.(1983). Involuntariness of response on theHarvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscep­tibility. International Journal ofClinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 31,170-180.

Hilgard, E. (1977). Divided consciousness:Multiple controls in human thought and ac­tion. New York: Wiley.

Hilgard, E. (1981). Hypnotic susceptibilityscales under attack: An examination ofWeitzenhoffer's criticisms. InternationalJournal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp­nosis. 29, 24--41.

Lynn, S. J., Nash. M. R. J., Frauman, D., &Sweeney, C. (1984) Nonvolition, expectan-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

11:

30 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

ATTRIBUTIONS AND INVOLUNTARINESS

cies, and hypnotic rapport. Journal of Ab­normal Psychology, 93,295-303.

Lynn, S. J. & Rhue, J. W. (1986). The fan­tasy prone person: Hypnosis, imagination,and creativity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 447-452.

Lynn, S. J., Snodgrass, M., Hardaway, R.,& Lenz, J. (1984) Hypnotic susceptibility:Predictons and evaluations of performanceand experience. Paper presented at theMeeting of the American Psychological As­sociation.

McConkey, K. & Sheehan, P. (1982) Effortand experience on the Creative ImaginationScale. International Journal ofClinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 30, 280-288.

Rhue, J. W. & Lynn, S. J. (in press). Fantasyproneness: Developmental antecedents.Journal of Personality.

Sarbin, T. R. & cee, W. C. (1972) A socialpsychological analysis of influence com­munication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Sarbin, T. R. & Coe, W. C. (1979). Hypnosisand psychopathology: On the futility ofmental state concepts. Journal ofAbnormalPsychology, 88, 506-526.

Sheehan, P. (1971). Countering preconcep­tions about hypnosis: An objective index ofinvolvement with the hypnotist. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology Monograph, 78,299­322.

Sheehan, P. (1980). Factors influencing rap­port in hypnosis. Journal ofAbnormal Psy­chology, 89, 263-281.

Sheehan, P. & Dolby, R. (1975). Hypnosisand the influence of most recently perceivedevents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,84331-345.

Shor, R., & Orne, E. (1962). The HarvardGroup Scale ofHypnotic Susceptibility, Form

43

A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Spanos, N. (1982) Hypnotic behavior: A cog­nitive, social psychological perspective.Research Communications in Psychology,Psychiatry, and Behavior, 7, 199-213.

Spanos, N., Cobb, P. C., & Gorassini, D. R.(1983). Failing to resist hypnotic test sug­gestions: A strategy for self-presenting asdeeply hypnotized. Unpublished manu­script, Carleton University.

Spanos, N., Rivers" S., & Ross" S. (1977).Experienced involuntariness and responseto hypnotic suggestions. In W. Edmonston,Jr. (Ed.), Conceptual and investigative ap­proaches to hypnosis and hypnotic phenom­ena. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 296, 208-221.

Spanos, N., Weekes, J. R., & de Groh, M.(1984). The "involuntary" countering ofsuggested requests: A test of the ideomotorhypothesis of hypnotic responsiveness.British Journal of Experimental and Clini­cal Hypnosis, 1, 3-11.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation:From mechanism to cognition. Chicago:Rand McNally.

Weitzenhoffer, A. (1974). When is an "in­struction an instruction?" InternationalJournal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp­nosis, 22, 258-269.

White, R. (1941). A preface toward a theoryof hypnotism. Journal ofAbnormal and So­cial Psychology, 36, 477-505.

Wilson, S. & Barber, T. (1982) The Inventoryof Childhood Memories and Imaginings.Unpublished manuscript. Cushing Hospital.

Wilson, L., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1986).Beliefs about forensic hypnosis. Interna­tional Journal ofClinical and ExperimentalHypnosis, 34, 110-121.D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tor

onto

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:30

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14