1966•International Journal of Clinical and Experimental HypnosisRequires access

Relationship between the harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility and the stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale: Form c

Frederick John Owen Evans, Del Schmeidler

Open publisher page 43 citations

Abstract

3 subgroups of 20 Ss with high, medium, or low scores on a slightly modified, tape-recorded version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) were later administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962). HGSHSrA and SHSSrC correlated .59 which is lower than would be predicted by scale reliabilities. This, together with other data based on item characteristics, indicates that the 2 scales are not equivalent, but in part measure different aspects of hypnotic performance. Scores on HGSHSrA for low Ss are predictive of SHSS:C scores, but the stability of performance between HGSHS:A and SHSS:C is not as marked for medium and high Ss on HGSHS:A. This is partly a result of the failure of passive motor (primary) suggestibility to discriminate between levels of susceptibility, although challenge items do. The 2 clusters of items correlate .23 and .43 in HGSHS:A and SHSS:C respectively. The passive suggestibility items detract from the validity of the 2 scales.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

3 subgroups of 20 Ss with high, medium, or low scores on a slightly modified, tape-recorded version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) were later administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962). HGSHSrA and SHSSrC correlated .59 which is lower than would be predicted by scale reliabilities. This, together with other data based on item characteristics, indicates that the 2 scales are not equivalent, but in part measure different aspects of hypnotic performance. Scores on HGSHSrA for low Ss are predictive of SHSS:C scores, but the stability of performance between HGSHS:A and SHSS:C is not as marked for medium and high Ss on HGSHS:A. This is partly a result of the failure of passive motor (primary) suggestibility to discriminate between levels of susceptibility, although challenge items do. The 2 clusters of items correlate .23 and .43 in HGSHS:A and SHSS:C respectively. The passive suggestibility items detract from the validity of the 2 scales.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 43 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

3 subgroups of 20 Ss with high, medium, or low scores on a slightly modified, tape-recorded version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) of Shor and E. Orne (1962) were later administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1962). HGSHSrA and SHSSrC correlated .59 which is lower than would be predicted by scale reliabilities. This, together with other data based on item characteristics, indicates that the 2 scales are not equivalent, but in part measure different aspects of hypnotic performance. Scores on HGSHSrA for low Ss are predictive of SHSS:C scores, but the stability of performance between HGSHS:A and SHSS:C is not as marked for medium and high Ss on HGSHS:A. This is partly a result of the failure of passive motor (primary) suggestibility to discriminate between levels of susceptibility, although challenge items do. The 2 clusters of items correlate .23 and .43 in HGSHS:A and SHSS:C respectively. The passive suggestibility items detract from the validity of the 2 scales.

Key concepts: Hypnotic susceptibility, Suggestibility, Hypnosis, Psychology, Scale (ratio), Hypnotic, Clinical psychology, Developmental psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Relationship between the harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility and the stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale: Form c — Research Paper | ScholarLens