orne et al 1979 ijceh
1 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
Orne, M. T., Hilgard, E. R., Spiegel, H., Spiegel, D., Crawford, H.J., Evans, F. J., Orne, E. C., &
Frischholz, E. J. The relation between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scales, Forms A and C. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1979,
27, 85-102.
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HYPNOTIC INDUCTION PROFILE AND THE STANFORD
HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALES, FORMS A AND C l
MARTIN T. ORNE
The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital and University of Pennsylvania
ERNEST R. HILGARD
Stanford University
HERBERT SPIEGEL 2
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University
DAVID SPIEGEL
Stanford University
HELEN JOAN CRAWFORD 3
Stanford University
FREDERICK J. EVANS
The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital and University of Pennsylvania
EMILY CAROTA ORNE
The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital and University of Pennsylvania
AND EDWARD J. FRISCHHOLZ
Columbia University
Abstract: Measures from the clinically derived Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) of Spiegel (1974a) were
correlated with those from the
Manuscript submitted December 24, 1977; final revision received March 27, 1979.
1 The research reported by the Philadelphia laboratory was supported in part by grant #MH-19156 from
the National Institute of Mental Health and by a grant from the Institute for Experimental Psychiatry. The
research reported by the Stanford laboratory was supported in part by grant #MH-03859 from the
National Institute of Mental Health.
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
2 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
2 Herbert and David Spiegel would like to acknowledge the consultation of Joseph L. Fleiss and Helena C.
Kraemer and the assistance of Donnel B. Stem, Brian L. Maruffi, and Mark J. Trentalange who
participated in the assessment of the data.
3 Now at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
85
86 ORNE ET AL.
laboratory derived Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A and C (SHSS:A, SHSS:C) of
Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard (1959, 1962), and with some scores from the related Harvard Group Scale of
Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962). Ss were paid volunteers from student
populations at the University of Pennsylvania (N = 87) and from Stanford University (N = 58). Some
differences in sampling procedures and orders of testing are discussed, but only minimal differences
between the 2 samples resulted. Positive but nonsignificant correlations were found between the Eye-Roll
sign alone and SHSS in the 2 samples. Both the Induction (IND) and Profile scoring methods of HIP were
compared with SHSS. The IND, an actuarial scale, was positively correlated with SHSS. A representative
value is the significant correlation of .34 between IND and SHSS:(A + C)/2 scores when the 2 samples
were pooled together. Dichotomized scores of the nominal Profile configurations score (intact versus
nonintact) corresponded significantly by appropriate chi square analysis with both the dichotomized IND
scores and the dichotomized SHSS scores. The results indicate that HIP, even when applied outside of its
usual clinical context, was found to have a moderate relationship with SHSS.
A new clinical test for hypnotizability, involving a novel Eye-Roll sign, hypothesized to be a measure of
biological capacity for hypnosis, combined with a more traditional trance induction test, was announced at
the 1970 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, with impressive evidence from
2,000 consecutive patients who had had their trance states graded on the 10-minute Hypnotic Induction
Profile (HIP) (H. Spiegel, 1972). The HIP manual was published the same year (H. Spiegel & Bridger,
1970), and has been revised twice since then (H. Spiegel, 1974a; H. Spiegel & D. Spiegel, 1978a).
The Hypnotic Induction Profile was developed on a clinical population of psychiatric outpatients for the
purpose of enabling the clinician to rapidly assess the relevance of hypnosis in the treatment of various
psychiatric problems for a given patient (H. Spiegel, 1977). Spiegel emphasized the brevity of the HIP as
making it a convenient and appropriate means for clinicians to assess hypnotizability systematically. "In 5
to 10 minutes the Hypnotic Induction Profile measurement can provide the clinician an opportunity to
grade this capacity with sharper focus and more certainty [H. Spiegel, 1972, p. 27]."
In the HIP, stress is placed upon the Eye-Roll (ER) sign as a measure of a physiological or structural,
rather than a psychological trait which is "responsible for a person's potential to experience trance [H.
Spiegel, 1977, p. 130]." Spiegel's data indicate a relationship between a positive (1.0 to 4.0) or zero ER
and the presence or absence of clinically useable hypnotizability. However, this relationship is
complicated by the hypothesized decline in hypnotic capacity resulting from the impairment
87 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
of concentration often associated with serious psychiatric illness. Spiegel's data suggest that when the ER
is a false positive indicator of hypnotizability there is likely to be a higher incidence of severe
psychopathology (H. Spiegel, Fleiss, Bridger, & Aronson, 1975; H. Spiegel, Stern, & Maruffi 4).
The second part of the HIP concerns itself with a trance induction test and, when the ER is not
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
3 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
considered, measures phenomena which have long been recognized as belonging to hypnosis: involuntary
motor responses, concentrated or divided attention, and dissociated subjective experiences. The HIP was
devised for the clinical purpose of identifying which psychotherapy patients could be expected to obtain
the most benefit from hypnotic strategies. The longer laboratory scales of hypnotic responsiveness, the
Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A and C (SHSS:A and SHSS:C) prepared by Weitzenhoffer
and Hilgard (1959, 1962) were devised as research instruments. Whatever one's theory about hypnosis,
the domain that defines what is commonly accepted as hypnotic performances and experiences is hardly
controversial (Hilgard, 1973). In the HIP the acceptance of this domain is evident in most of those items
which are independent of the ER and associated chiefly with arm levitation. The discovery experiences of
dissociation and differential control in one hand are not specifically instructed but are inferred by the
subject and reported later. This is unusual in testing for hypnotizability. It is a measure of various aspects
of one continuous, brief, hypnotic experience. More particularly, the experiences that characterize the
very highly hypnotizable, known as the Grade 5 on the HIP (H. Spiegel, 1974b) are the kinds tested in
longer hypnotic scales, such as the SHSS:C and Stanford Profile Scales, Forms I and II (Weitzenhoffer &
Hilgard, 1967), the scores of which correlate with one another and the SHSS:A. The following quotation
indicates this relationship between the highly hypnotizable, as conceived by H. Spiegel and as conceived
by those who designed the other standard scales, and by society at large:
Those subjects whom the literature refers to as classic somnambulists or deeply hypnotizable individuals
are Grade 5's. In terms of initial measurement, a Grade 5 is a Grade 4 whom additional testing [emphasis
added] reveals to have such epiphenomena as experiencing age regression in the present tense, sustained
bizarre posthypnotic motor alterations and posthypnotic hallucinatory responses to a cue; and/or global
amnesia for the entire hypnotic episode. This group comprises not more than 10% of the population [H.
Spiegel, 1974b, p. 304].
4 Spiegel, H., Stern, D. B., & Maruffi, B. L. The Hypnotic Induction Profile in the assessment of severity
of psychopathology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
88 ORNE ET AL.
It should be noted that the additional testing to which reference is made is not done routinely. In the
ordinary Profile Grade scale, the Grades 4 and 5 are expected to appear together as Grade 4. Hence, for
research purposes in which it is desirable to maximize the distinctions among subjects, the HIP of those 12
% of subjects who score a Grade 4 (H. Spiegel et al., 1975) must be supplemented by tests of the abovementioned items. However, the HIP was developed more for the purpose of identifying intact
hypnotizability for clinical purposes than for distinguishing among highly hypnotizable subjects.
Spiegel et al. (1976) have reported on the reliability and construct validity of the HIP. The main sample
consisted of an unselected population of 1674 patients. A factor analysis showed that the HIP measured
two factors instead of one. When rotated, the factor in which the ER loaded a high .92 (maximum possible
= 1.00) was separated out from the hypnotic induction factor (IND) on which the ER loaded an
insignificant .08. This means that the ER is unrelated to the hypnotic induction factor in the total sample.
The raw correlations that entered into the factor analysis showed the ER to correlate below .20 with 6 of
the 9 individual items (other than up-gaze which was related to it .77); the highest correlation with
something independent of an ER was .37 with initial arm levitation. The obtained correlation between ER
and the IND was .22. It is evident that, whatever the ER measures, within an unselected patient
population, it is not highly correlated with measured hypnotizability.
Recent reports by H. Spiegel and his collaborators emphasize that the ER alone is not a measure of
hypnotizability per se, but rather of the presumed capacity to experience hypnosis. This capacity may be
interfered with by various kinds of psychological, pharmacological, and neurological disturbance.
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
4 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
Therefore, the ER would not be a useful indicator of hypnotizability if measured out of the context of the
entire HIP, which is needed for an estimate of clinical hypnotizability. These reports also seem to indicate
that the ER may be useful for other purposes in relation to the diagnosis of psychopathology or as a guide
to appropriate psychotherapeutic procedures in addition to its use as an indicator of inherent trance
capacity. This is a separate issue which the present investigation has not addressed. The two issues are
readily confused, and in the interest of clarity it is desirable to study them one at a time, after which any
interactions between them will be better understood.
The investigation reported here was carried out in two parts. The earlier was conducted at the Unit for
Experimental Psychiatry at The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, and was initially intended to evaluate
the HIP in a group of 87 subjects whose hypnotic responsivity was stable
89 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
and had been carefully established by several investigators. Economic considerations made it necessary to
administer the HIP after the hypnotic response had become stable. The administration and scoring of the
HIP was carried out by Herbert Spiegel. Though the results were promising, before any general
conclusions were justified, it was clearly essential to carry out an evaluation in the reverse order -- with
the HIP preceding rather than following the other hypnotic assessment. A variety of practical
considerations made the execution of the second part of the Pennsylvania study impractical. By mutual
agreement it was decided to conduct this aspect at Stanford. Here the HIP was first administered to a
sample of 58 subjects who were subsequently assessed with the aid of two independent Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scales. The administration and scoring of the HIP were carried out by David Spiegel.
The combined investigation was intended to clarify objectively some of the questions raised in the earlier
studies without commitment to any special theory about hypnosis and without any prejudgments as to the
outcome.
METHOD
For the sake of brevity, those aspects of subject selection and procedure which were different in the
Pennsylvania and Stanford studies will be described separately, followed by a description of those aspects
which were the same for the two studies.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STUDY
Subjects
The Pennsylvania study involved 87 paid subject volunteers between the ages of 20 to 33 years, with a
mean of 25.0, who had participated in previous experiments with the laboratory and demonstrated a
consistent response to hypnosis over time. When initially solicited as paid volunteers by classroom
announcements or advertisements, all subjects were students in local universities. Each subject had been
administered an initial standardized scale -- either the SHSS:A or the group version, the HGSHS:A.5 This
was always followed by SHSS:C, individually administered by a different experimenter. Further, each
subject had at least two diagnostic ratings on the five-point clinical hypnotic rating scale described by
Orne and O'Connell (1967), again administered by a different investigator. If there were inconsistencies in
the subject's response, additional diagnostic sessions were administered by another ex5 As noted earlier, some of the Pennsylvania sample (N = 52) received the HGSHS:A and some (N = 35)
received the SHSS:A. The results obtained with these two parallel scales are sufficiently similar that these
data are combined.
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
5 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
90 ORNE ET AL.
perimenter to assure that subjects achieved a stable measure of plateau hypnotizability (Shor, Orne, &
O'Connell, 1966).
Subjects had participated in a variety of studies with the laboratory over a period from one to ten years
prior to this particular experiment. It was felt that using a sample of subjects who had achieved plateau
hypnotizability would provide an opportunity to assess the relationship between the HIP and the more
typical measures of hypnosis generally employed under the most favorable possible circumstances.
Finally, because hypnotizability approximates a normal distribution, tapering off to a few cases at the
upper and lower extremes, few individuals with extreme scores are usually seen in a relatively small
sample, and, therefore, an effort was made to include subjects who scored both very high and very low in
their hypnotizability ratings as assessed by the diagnostic rating scale.
Procedure
All subjects were asked to participate in an important follow-up experiment. The sample includes many
individuals who had since graduated and now held responsible positions in business and the professions.
The HIP was administered at the Unit by Dr. Herbert Spiegel over a three-day period. He was unaware of
the subject's previous hypnotizability scores and saw each subject for approximately ten minutes, limiting
his interaction to the administration of the HIP. In order to facilitate rapport, subjects had been led to
anticipate an interesting, novel, and important experience. They particularly looked forward to meeting
Dr. Spiegel since it was emphasized in the initial telephone discussion about the experiment that he was a
distinguished visiting professor and an authority on hypnosis participating in an important collaborative
effort. The purpose of this emphasis in the Pennsylvania study was to help approximate the kind of
expectancies which a private patient would have after having made an appointment with a well-known
clinician, thus creating a setting for the administration of the HIP more closely parallel to that where the
normative data had been collected.
THE STANFORD STUDY
Subjects
The Stanford study was carried out with 58 paid volunteers, ranging in age from 18 to 34 years, with a
mean of 22.9, who had responded to a university student newspaper advertisement. No subjects had
previous hypnotic experience.
Procedure
The HIP was administered by David Spiegel as the first procedure and
91 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
was followed by the SHSS:A and SHSS:C administered by various trained experimenters in the Laboratory
of Hypnosis Research. Individual testing occurred on three separate days, usually but not always
consecutive. Experimenters were blind as to the scores received in any of the other sessions. Subjects
were discouraged from talking about their HIP or SHSS experiences with other experimenters. In
retrospect, differences between the procedures of the two studies were apparent. Unlike the Pennsylvania
study, no attempt was made in the Stanford study to enhance motivation by approximating the atmosphere
of the clinical setting. The importance of the study was not stressed nor were the examiner's qualifications
and experience discussed.
If the scores of a group of college student volunteers are compared with a patient population, certain
factors must be taken into consideration. Differences in age, socioeconomic status, psychopathology, and
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
6 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
motivation for hypnosis are to be expected. In addition, the scales compared have been used primarily on
different groups, and for different purposes. The HIP was designed and standardized on patients coming
for psychiatric treatment and the other scales (HGSHS:A, SHSS:A, SHSS:C) have been standardized on
college students, and studied largely in nonpatient populations. When they are administered in the
laboratory, scores on these scales are usually the primary focus of attention. Because of the differences in
populations and intended purposes of the scales, the question of their relationship is essentially an
empirical one, to be determined by the distributions of the hypnotic responsiveness scores and their
correlations when both scales are administered to the same subjects.
RESULTS
The Eye-Roll (ER) and the SHSS Scores
While the Eye-Roll Sign (ER) forms an integral part of the HIP, it should not be considered as a score
related to hypnotizability by itself. It is a sign of a presumed capacity to experience hypnosis and is only
meaningful when used in conjunction with the entire HIP. A detailed presentation of how to score the ER
can be found in Spiegel (1972).
92 ORNE ET AL.
The relationships between the Eye-Roll sign (ER) and the SHSS are presented in Table 1. In both the
Pennsylvania and Stanford samples the correlations, while positive in sign, are not statistically significant.
These findings agree with the factor analysis that had shown the ER as a factor separate from the arm
levitation measurements (Spiegel, Aronson, Fleiss, & Haber, 1976), and the findings of others (Eliseo,
1974; Switras, 1974; Wheeler, Reis, Wolff, Grupsmith, & Mordkoff, 1974). It is also consistent with the
previously published hypothesis that the ER alone is not a measure of hypnotic potential in a population
unscreened for the presence of psychopathology (Spiegel et al., 1975).
Scoring Methods on the HIP
There are two methods of scoring the HIP. One is the Induction Score (IND), which is an actuarial scale.
It is an additive score related primarily to arm levitation and responses associated with it. The ER is
disregarded in computing the IND, so that the IND corresponds most directly to the type of measurement
used in the Stanford Scales.
The Profile scoring method is a configurational score. As used in this investigation, it is a dichotomized
nominal score so that all subjects were classified as intact or nonintact. The intact-nonintact distinction is
similar to a hypnotizable-nonhypnotizable distinction. However, different nominal categories within the
intact-nonintact scoring system are used to identify clinically feasible hypnotizability. A detailed
explanation of the IND and Profile scoring methods can be found in Spiegel and Spiegel (1978b).6
It is evident from Table 2 that the Pennsylvania sample differs very little from the patient sample (limited
to those patients of approximately the same age as the students). The Stanford sample shows a
significantly larger proportion of low scores than either the patient sample (x2 = 5.85, d.f. = 1, p<.02) or
the Pennsylvania sample (x2 =4.91, d.f. = 1, p<.05). For this variable, the Pennsylvania sample does not
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
7 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
differ from the patient sample (in a later comparison it will be shown that the Stanford sample is the one
that does not differ).
6 The absence of any reference in the results of this investigation to Grade scores (0-5) may be noted.
These are based on earlier scoring methods. As stated in Spiegel and Spiegel (1978b), pages 336-337:
"Earlier normative observations and statistical evaluations of reliability of the profile pattern (Spiegel et
al., 1976) are no longer applicable and should be replaced by those described here. The earlier
standardization data on the induction score and ER (Spiegel et al., 1976) may still be used." Hence, in this
statistical study, the Grade scores have not been analyzed. Provision continues to be made for Grade
scores on the revised scoring forms, for their use in special contexts, such as clusters associated with
personality types (e.g., Spiegel and Spiegel, 1978b, Chapter 5).
93 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
It is a matter of some interest to find whether the differences between the Pennsylvania and Stanford
samples may be a consequence of other differences in the samples, or may reflect in some manner
differences in procedures or order of testing. Additional comparisons of the Pennsylvania and Stanford
scores, including those on SHSS as well as IND are given in Table 3. The difference between the
Pennsylvania and the Stanford samples are so slight as to be insignificant throughout, when the full range
of data is taken into consideration.
Correlations between IND and SHSS scores. The relationships between the IND and the SHSS scores are
found in Table 4. By the usual
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
8 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
94 ORNE ET AL.
statistical conventions, the three correlations based on the Pennsylvania sample are all significantly
different from zero, while the Stanford correlations fail by a few points to reach significance at the .05
level. However, the Stanford correlations do not differ significantly from the Pennsylvania ones, and when
the two samples are combined (using Fisher's Z transformation [Snedecor & Cochran, 1967]), all
correlations with SHSS:A, SHSS:C and the two tests combined are statistically significant; a representative
correlation is that of .34 with SHSS: (A + C)/2.
It should be noted that SHSS:A and SHSS:C intercorrelate .77 and .65 in the Pennsylvania and Stanford
samples respectively. This constitutes a ceiling on the correlations between the Induction scoring method
of the HIP and SHSS, since one could not expect another test to correlate more than SHSS:A and SHSS:C
do with one another.
Distribution of SHSS scores for dichotomized IND scores. Although there are statistically significant
correlations between IND scores and both SHSS:A and SHSS:C scores, the IND scores are highly skewed,
so that most of the scores cluster at the high end. Hence it is informative to compare the low scores (0 to
6) on the IND scale and the high scores (6.25 to 10) with the corresponding scores on the SHSS:A and
SHSS:C scales. This has been done in Table 5.
It can be seen that the low IND scores fall predominantly at the low end of the SHSS score distribution,
and in no case reach the highest level on SHSS:A or SHSS:C in either sample. Those who score high on
IND however, show a wide dispersion of scores across the range of scores from very low to very high on
the Stanford Scales.
95 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
9 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
Intact and Nonintact Profiles and SHSS Scores
The final scoring method to be considered is the classification of the results of the HIP into intact and
nonintact profiles. These classes are related to scores on SHSS:A and SHSS:C.
Distribution of Intact-Nonintact Profiles in the samples. The first question to be answered bears on the
adequacy of the samples. Do the intact and nonintact profiles distribute in a common manner between a
patient population and the student population being studied? The answer is supplied by Table 6.
The distributions of the patient sample and the Stanford sample are nearly identical. In contrast, the
Pennsylvania sample shows significantly fewer nonintact and zero profiles than either the patient group
(x2 = 5.09, d.f. = 1, p< 05) or the Stanford sample (x2 = 3.84, d.f. = 1, p<.05). Both here and in Table 2
the differences, while statistically significant, are not large. In any event, since the two samples are never
combined (rather, results for the separate samples are averaged), the effects will be minimal on the
interpretation of the results as they were on the relationship between HIP and SHSS.
Relationship between Intact-Nonintact Profiles and the ER. Because profile scores are related to the ER,
the relationship needs to be clearly understood. Intact and nonintact profiles require an ER of 1.00 or
greater, and in that manner are distinguished from zero configurations for which the ER is less than 1.00,
and from IND scores in which the ER does not enter. In this investigation zeros were included with
nonintact profiles, so that, empirically, the ER did not affect the classification into intact or nonintact
profiles, that is, all subjects were placed in one or the other configurations without regard to ER. This
inclusion of zeros among the nonintacts, while conceptually questionable, made little empirical difference,
because in this general age group, zero ERs are expected in less than 2 % of the subjects (Stern, H.
Spiegel, & Nee, 1978/1979). No zeros occurred in the Stanford sample, while four were found in the
Pennsylvania sample, a total of 4/145 = 2.8%.
96 ORNE ET AL.
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
10 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
The basis for classification, therefore, was determined primarily by the presence of either zero Control
Differential, or zero Signalled Arm Levitation, both also aspects of the IND. The main point is that the low
correlation between the ER and the Stanford scores does not affect the relationship between the intactnonintact profiles and the Stanford scores.
Relation between Intact-Nonintact Profiles and dichotomized IND scores. Examination of the previously
presented Tables 2 and 6 shows that the dichotomization of the IND scores (0-6, and 6.25-10) yields
proportions of high and low hypnotizables essentially the same as those produced by the intact-nonintact
dichotomization. Because these scores are both derived from arm levitation, it is of interest to know how
closely they are related. If the relationship is close, then they should both be similarly related to the SHSS
scores. The appropriate data are presented in Table 7. It turns out that the two scores are indeed very
closely related, as indicated by the highly significant x2 in the two individual samples as well as by the
Mantel-Haenszel pooled x2 with one degree of freedom (Snedecor & Cochran, 1967). Hence, a positive
relationship between intact-nonintact profiles and SHSS scores may be expected similar to that already
demonstrated for the IND scores.
Intact-Nonintact Profiles and dichotomized SHSS scores. If the SHSS (A + C)/2 scores are dichotomized
into categories of less and more hypnotizable, a comparison can be made with the intact-nonintact Profile
configuration. For this purpose the division point on the SHSS: (A + C)/2 scores was selected to yield a
division such that subjects in the combined
97 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
samples would most closely approximate the proportions of intact and nonintact profiles.7 This proved to
be possible by assigning to lower hypnotizability those scoring 0 to 4, and to higher hypnotizability those
scoring 3 to 12. The results are given in Table 8, separately for the two samples and for the pooled
samples using the Mantel-Haenszel method.
As expected the results are quite similar to those obtained with IND scores. The relationship is significant
within the Pennsylvania sample, not within the Stanford sample, but highly significant when both samples
are combined using the Mantel-Haenszel method. However, significance tests alone may be quite
misleading. Within both samples, intactness is highly related to the higher scores on SHSS: (A + C)/2. Of
the 72 subjects classified as intact in the Pennsylvania sample and the 39 classified as intact in the
Stanford sample, 60/72 (83 % ) and 32/39 (82 % ) are classified as high by their SHSS scores respectively.
However, nonintactness is less predictive of lower scores on SHSS. Of the 15 subjects classified as
nonintact in the Pennsylvania sample and the 19 subjects classified as nonintact in the Stanford sample,
6/15 (40%) and 11/19 (58%) received higher scores on SHSS respectively. Thus, the high x2 results from
the intact classification, not from the nonintact one.
Another way of demonstrating that those with nonintact profiles score significantly lower on the Stanford
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
11 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
scales than those with intact profiles is shown in Table 9. Here the SHSS:A, SHSS:C and SHSS: (A + C)/2
mean scores with their standard deviations, are presented for the intact and nonintact classifications.
Consistent with the other analyses, the differences are significant throughout for the Pennsylvania sample,
and in
7 Several other dichotomizations were also tested, with similar results. The decision to select the one that
produced the most nearly identical margins was made a priori.
98 ORNE ET AL.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In this empirical comparison of the HIP and the SHSS scores it should be noted that the HIP was devised
as an ancillary test in a clinical setting. These studies were conducted out of the ordinary context of its use
and within the usual context of the SHSS, i.e., in the laboratory with unscreened volunteers. Critical issues
such as motivational set and central vs. peripheral interest in the test situation were not investigated. The
relationships between ER, psychopathology, and personality configurations were not examined. The
ultimate clinical value of the ER sign cannot be evaluated until these relationships are explored.
8 From the data presented in Table 9 it is possible to compute point biserial correlations, if an
approximation to the correlation between the intact-nonintact configuration and the SHSS scores is
desired. These range between .19 and .38, of the same order as the correlation between IND and the SHSS
scores.
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
12 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
99 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
In view of these considerations, throughout this report, and in this summary, areas of agreement and
disagreement between the scores and configurations derived from the HIP, and those based on SHSS, are
presented without attempting to explain the relationships as found. The differences that have been noted
are not evaluated, except as they bear directly on the measurement of realized potential for hypnosis
among university students.
The summary that follows refers directly to the data as presented in the statistical tables.
1. The distribution of scores on the HIP in two student populations turned out to be sufficiently similar to
that in a clinical population to justify a correlational study done on students as subjects. Only minor
differences were found (Tables 2 and 6).
2. Possible differences between the Pennsylvania and Stanford samples, associated with sampling and
testing procedures, were anticipated, for reasons stated in the introductory discussion of procedures.
These differences turned out to be unimportant. None of the mean scores for IND, SHSS:A, and SHSS:C
turned out to differ significantly between the two samples (Table 3). Also, none of the correlations
between the IND and the SHSS scores differed significantly between the two student groups (Table 4).
3. The Eye-Roll sign (ER) alone did not correlate significantly with any of the SHSS scales, the obtained
positive correlations ranging between .10 and .18 in the various subsamples (Table 1). These results agree
with the ER hypothesis and the findings of others.
4. The induction score (IND), computed independently of the ER, correlated a significant .34 with the
combined total SHSS scores (Table 4). When IND scores were dichotomized into lower and higher scores
some of the low scorers were among the high scorers on the SHSS, but none of the low scorers were
among the highest scorers on the SHSS. The higher scores on the IND scattered widely over the total
range of SHSS scores (Table 5).
5. The Profile scores were categorized as intact and nonintact. They were found to correspond closely to
dichotomized IND scores (Table 7). In the context of measured hypnotic responsiveness, intactness refers
to higher responsiveness, and nonintactness to lower hypnotic responsiveness. The intact-nonintact
profiles corresponded in a significant manner to SHSS scores, comparable to the correspondence between
dichotomized IND scores (Tables 8 and 9).
These are the empirical findings. There are enough significant relationships to indicate that hypnotic
responsiveness as defined by the two scales have empirical common bases. Thus, in this project the 5 to
10
100 ORNE ET AL.
minute HIP, as summarized by the Induction and Profile scoring methods, was found to be moderately
related to the two hour SHSS: (A + C)/2 testing procedure. The differences that were found between these
two tests set problems for explanation and further investigation.
REFERENCES
ELISEO, T. S. The Hypnotic Induction Profile and hypnotic susceptibility. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis,
1974, 22, 320-326.
HILGARD, E. R. The domain of hypnosis: With some comments on alternative paradigms. Amer.
Psychologist, 1973, 28, 972, 982.
ORNE, M. T., & O'CONNELL, D. N. Diagnostic ratings of hypnotizability. Int. J.clin. exp. Hypnosis,
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
13 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
1967, 15, 125-133.
SHOR, R. E., & ORNE, E. C. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
SHOR, R. E., ORNE, M. T., & O'CONNELL, D. N. Psychological correlates of plateau hypnotizability in
a special volunteer sample. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 1966,3, 80-95.
SNEDECOR, G. W., & COCHRAN, W. G. Statistical methods. (6th ed.) Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univer.
Press, 1967.
SPIEGEL, H. An eye-roll test for hypnotizability. Amer. J. clin. Hypnosis, 1972,15, 25-28.
SPIEGEL, H. Manual for Hypnotic Induction Profile: Eye-roll levitation method. (Rev. ed.) New York:
Soni Medica, 1974. (a)
SPIEGEL, H. The grade 5 syndrome: The highly hypnotizable person. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1974, 22,
303-319. (b)
SPIEGEL, H. The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP): A review of its development. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.,
1977, 296, 129-142.
SPIEGEL, H., ARONSON, M., FLEISS, J. L., & HABER, J. Psychometric analysis of the Hypnotic
Induction Profile. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1976, 24, 300-315.
SPIEGEL, H., & BRIDGER, A. A. Manual for Hypnotic Induction Profile: Eye-roll levitation method.
New York: Soni Medica, 1970.
SPIEGEL, H., FLEISS, J. L., BRIDGER, A. A., & ARONSON, M. Hypnotizability and mental health. In
S. Arieti & G. Chrzanowski (Eds.), New dimensions in psychiatry: A world view. New York: Wiley &
Sons, 1975. Pp. 341-356.
SPIEGEL, H., & SPIEGEL, D. Manual for Hypnotic Induction Profile. (Rev. ed.) New York: Basic
Books, 1978. (a)
SPIEGEL, H., & SPIEGEL, D. Trance and treatment: clinical uses of hypnosis. New York: Basic Books,
1978. (b)
STERN, D. B., SPIEGEL, H., & NEE, J. C. M. The Hypnotic Induction Profile: Normative observations,
reliability and validity. Amer. J. clin. Hypnosis, 1978/1979, 21, 109-133.
SWITRAS, J. E. A comparison of the Eye-Roll Test for Hypnotizability and the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale, Form A. Amer. J. clin. Hypnosis, 1974, 17, 54-55.
WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.
WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Revised Stanford Profile Scales of Hypnotic
Susceptibility, Forms I and II. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1967.
101 THE HIP AND SHSS:A AND SHSS:C
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
14 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
WHEELER, L., REIS, H. T., WOLFF, E., GRUPSMITH, E., & MORDKOFF, A. M. Eye-roll and
hypnotic susceptibility. Int. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1974, 22, 327-334.
Die Beziehung zwischen dem Hypnoseinduktionsprofil und den StanfordHypnoseempfindlichkeitsskalen
Martin T. Orne, Ernest R. Hilgard, Herbert Spiegel, David Spiegel, Helen Joan Crawford,
Frederick J. Evans, Emily Carota Orne und Edward J. Frischholz
Abstrakt: Messungen, die an dem von Spiegel (1974a) klinisch entwickelten Hypnose-Induktions-Profil
(HIP) vorgenommen waren, wurden mit denen del im Laboratorium entwickelten StanfordHypnoseempfindlichkeitsskalen, Formen A und C (SHSS:A, SHSS:C) von Weitzenhoffer und Hilgard
(1959, 1962), und einigen Resultaten des verwandten Harvard-Gruppenmaszstabs fur
Hypnoseempfindlichkeit, Form A (Shor & E. Orne, 1962), in Beziehung gebracht. Die Subjekte stellten
bezahlte Volontare aus der Studentenbevolkerung der Universitat von Pennsylvania (N = 87) und der
Stanford-Universitat (N = 58) dar. Es werden bier einige Unterschiede im Verfahren des Probens und der
Testanordnung diskutiert, doch traten nur minimale Unterschiede zwischen den 2 Mustern auf. Positive,
jedoch unbedeutende, Korrelationen wurden zwischen dem Augenrollensignal allein und dem SHSS bei
den 2 Mustern gefunden. Die Methoden des Resultatsgewinns fur die Induktion (IND) sowie das Profil
des HIP wurden mit dem SHSS verglichen. Die IND, eine statistische Skala, entsprach in positiver Weise
del des SHSS. Ein reprasentativer Wert ist die bedeutende Korrelation von .34 zwischen den IND- und
SHSS:(A + C)/2-Resultaten, wenn man die 2 Muster vereinigte. Bei Anwendung einer angeeigneten
chi-Quadratanalyse korrespondieren die zweigeteilten Resultate der Konfigurationspunkte des nominalen
Profils (intakt versus beschadigt) bedeutlich mit den zweigeteilten IND-Resultaten wie auch den
zweigeteilten SHSS-Resultaten. Die Befunde deuten an, dass das HIP eine massige Beziehung zu dem
SHSS aufwies, selbst wenn es ausserhalb seines gewohnlichen, klinischen Rahmens gebraucht wurde.
La relation entre le Hypnotic Induction Profile et les Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales: Form
A&C
Martin T. Orne, Ernest R. Hilgard, Herbert Spiegel, David Spiegel, Helen Joan Crawford,
Frederick J. Evans, Emily Carota Orne et Edward J. Frischholz
Resume: Les resultats de l'Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) de Spiegel (1974a), obtenus en situation
clinique, sont correles avec ceux du Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A & C (SHSS:A,
SHSS:C) de Weitzenhoffer et Hilgard (1959, 1962), obtenus en laboratoire, et aussi avec quelques scores
du Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor et E. Orne, 1962), fournis par des
volontaires payes issus des populations etudiantes de l'Universite de la Pennsylvanie (N = 87) et de
l'Universite de Stanford (N = 58). Les auteurs discutent les differences existant entre les procedures
d'echantillon- nage et entre l'ordre de passation des echelles, mais ne trouvent que des differences minimes
entre les deux echantillons. Des correlations positives mais non significatives sont observees entre l'indice
du "roulement d'yeux" et le SHSS, dans les deux echantillons. Les deux types de scores du HIP, soit les
scores d'induction (IND) et les scores globaux, sont compares avec ceux du SHSS. Une correlation
positive apparait entre le IND, qui con-
102 ORNE ET AL.
stitue une echelle actuarielle, et le SHSS. Le coefficient de correlation de .34 obtenu entre les scores du
IND et ceux du SHSS ((A + C)/2), lorsque les scores des deux echantillons sont mis en commun, est
19/03/2012 18:39
orne et al 1979 ijceh
15 de 15
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/history/orne/orneetal1979ijceh85102.html
representatif de cette correlation significative. Le Chi-carre montre que la dichotomie des scores issus des
configurations de profil du HIP (soit intact, soit non- intact) correspond de maniere significative a la
dichotomie des scores du IND, et a la dichotomie des scores du SHSS. Les resultats indiquent qu'il existe
un rapport modere entre le SHSS et le HIP, meme lorsque le HIP est utilise hors de son habituel contexte
clinique.
La relacion entre el Hypnotic Induction Profile y el Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms
A&C
Martin T. Orne, Ernest R. Hilgard, Herbert Spiegel, David Spiegel, Helen Joan Crawford,
Frederick J. Evans, Emily Carota Orne y Edward J. Frischholz
Resumen: Se hace una correlacion entre los resultados del Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) de Spiegel y
Bridger (1970), obtenidos en clinica, y el Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A & C (SHSS:A,
SHSS:C) de Weitzenhoffer y Hilgard (1959, 1962), obtenidos en laboratorio, y tambien con algunos
punteados del Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (Shor y E. Orne, 1962) obtenidos
de algunos voluntarios, estudiantes de la universidad de la Pennsylvania (N = 87) y la de Stanford (N =
58). Los autores discuten las diferencias que existen entre los procedimientos de seleccion y del orden de
administracion de las escalas, y encuentran diferencias minimas. Se observan correlaciones positivas pero
no significativas entre el indice del "mover los ojos hacia arriba" y el SHSS, en las dos selecciones. Las
dos clases de punteados del HIP, sea el punteado de induccion (IND) sea lo global, se comparan con las
del SHSS. Hay una correlacion positiva entre el IND, que constituye una escala actual, y el SHSS. Esta
correlacion significativa se encuentra en el coeficiente de correlacion de .34, obtenido entre los punteados
del IND y los del SHSS ((A + C)2). El Chi-cuadro muestra que la dicotomia de los punteados de
configuracion del profil del HIP (sea intacto, sea non intacto) corresponden significativamente a la
dicotomia de los punteados del IND, y a la de los punteados del SHSS. Los resultados indican que hay una
relacion moderata entre el SHSS y el HIP, aun cuando el HIP se aplica fuera de su contexto clinico.
The preceding paper is a reproduction of the following article (Orne, M. T., Hilgard, E. R., Spiegel, H.,
Spiegel, D., Crawford, H.J., Evans, F. J., Orne, E. C., & Frischholz, E. J. The relation between the
Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A and C. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1979, 27, 85-102.). It is reproduced here with the kind
permission of the Editor-in-Chief of The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
19/03/2012 18:39