An Observation about "Susceptibility" Scales

Comment

Comment by Saul Rosenfeld on December 15, 2009 at 6:17am

Conca,

You would probably LOVE the discussions that took place on Hugh Cole's "Real dangers of illegal unlawful stage hypnosis", and
Michael Ellner's thread "Talking point: Instant inductions and modern hypnotic practice"...!!!

Saul

www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com

Comment by Saul Rosenfeld on December 14, 2009 at 6:45pm

James H. and James M.,

I must respectfully disagree about their usefulness EVEN in a "lab" setting for the reasons that I summed up (albeit briefly) in the final paragraph of my last post (PART THREE)- e.g. "so many faults, flaws, weaknesses, inconsistencies and contradictions..."

Actually, those three parts that I've pasted on here only comprise about HALF of the content relating to these tests that appears in the "Summary and Conclusion" section of my book- since I can hardly be expected to paste the entire "Conclusion" chapter, not to mention all of the OTHER chapters that deal with each and every aspect of why such "susceptibility" tests are the height of ignorance and folly (such as "The Time Factor", Communicational Factor", Interpersonal Factor", "Motivational Factor", "Emotional Factor", Modifiable Factor", Hypnotic "depth", "Relationship between "Depth" and Suggestion", etc.) here on this thread.

But it's a start...; - )

Saul

Comment by James Malone on December 14, 2009 at 4:54pm

James, I believe the depth scale idea may have some usefulness in the lab setting, but it really can be less than helpful in real world practice. Convincers or trance ratification can definitely enhance the experience for our clients, but getting stuck on what "level" they are reaching is in my opinion, limiting.

You can almost imagine some hapless hypnotist working with a client who won't "lose the numbers" shouting "Nurse, we're losing him, administer 500 mgs of somnambulism STAT!!!!"

Comment by Saul Rosenfeld on December 14, 2009 at 1:06pm

James,

And thank YOU for using the term "Rosenfeldian" (has a nice ring to it if I say so myself) LOL

But seriously, although I do understand the reasoning behind the Traditionalists' desire to to cloak the
phenomenon in an "respectable" "empirical" "scientific" aura by means of such tests, they have ultimately been responsible for causing a GREAT deal of mischief.
In that respect, here is PART THREE (the final part) of my book's summary that deals with "susceptibility" tests:


"Now, while susceptibility tests have clearly been responsible for causing these types of problems, there are certain things they can never be accused of doing.
Weitzenhoffer (1957), for instance, mentioned the fact that: “They do not provide any information concerning the type of responses the subject will give once he is hypnotized...They tell us very little or nothing concerning the outcome of training; and they do not usually tell us what factors may interfere with the manifestation of the subject’s suggestibility.” (p. 181)
“Furthermore”, wrote Kroger (1963/1977): “...they do not indicate what method will enable the subject to be hypnotized effectively." (p. 44)

Gilligan (1987) was particularly lucid in this respect when he stated that:
“There are some major problems with this approach. First, it assumes that a standardized induction, which essentially instructs a person to relax and imagine various things, is a valid way of assessing an individual’s general hypnotic ability. This is like assessing dancing skills in terms of one’s ability to do the fox-trot. The point is that some people can disco but not waltz...Some subjects can readily mold their experience to relaxation instructions; others, particularly those with a good deal of internal dialogue, will only be responsive to other inductional communications.”
(p. 7)

In short, as van der Hart (1982, p. 367) aptly concluded, the so-called hypnotizability tests do not measure a person's "trance capacity", but rather their sensitivity to a certain style of communication.




@@@





Though there is obviously no shortage of problems caused by the use of susceptibility tests, it wouldn’t be fair to say that they are entirely lacking in "advantages".
For one thing, there’s an element of Power involved which most probably appeals to a certain type of operator.
Heron (1950) summarized his thoughts on the subject by suggesting that: “...because many of the phenomena...are dramatic and seemingly produced by a word from the hypnotist, it frequently gives the latter a great deal of ego-inflation to have these patients go through these various tests.” (p. 23)

Yet another potential "advantage" of using susceptibility tests is the fact that they make a very convenient scapegoat. In the event of failure, the operator is excused from all responsibility because blame can be attributed to something as inarguable as Natural Selection (“nature had endowed him that way”).

Finally, susceptibility tests can serve as a confidence-builder for those operators who aren’t really all that..comfortable..with this whole business.
Or, as A. Mason (1960) so wryly put it: “Personally, I have always felt that suggestion tests were...probably designed by people uncertain of themselves and their techniques, and who needed the reassurance given by the successful outcome of a test to enable them to go on and attempt hypnosis.” (p. 41)

Maybe it’s just another sign of the times...


In any event, aside from those rather dubious “advantages”, if one considers all of the faults, flaws, weaknesses, inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the use of these tests, it seems hopelessly optimistic to expect that they’ll ever be able to provide us with any really meaningful data- either regarding peoples’ hypnotic “capacity” or, for that matter, even their specific “degree” of hypnotic depth.
In the long run, you see, susceptibility tests are about as unreliable a method of prediction as are newspaper horoscopes."

Comment by Hugh Cole on December 14, 2009 at 12:53pm

@James.. its cool anyway... Same thing happened with the video I posted, It all got upside down, It's an interesting topic and one where we all have a general agreement. Thanks for fleshing out the fine points of topic.

Comment by James Hazlerig - HypnosisAustin on December 14, 2009 at 12:49pm

@Saul--Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.

Comment by James Hazlerig - HypnosisAustin on December 14, 2009 at 12:40pm

@Hugh--There has definitely been develoment in the hypnotic field since 1962. Part of that is the recognition of greats like Erickson and Elman, but unfortunately another part of it has been the widespread misapplication and public misinterpretation of susceptibility scales.

I came across an interesting discussion of this in The Hypnotic Brain by Peter M. Brown, MD. He quotes an article he co-wrote in 1987:

"Hypnotizability can be viewed as a quasi-stable trait, which some people have more of than do other people. Like any other personality trait, hypnotizability is a relatively enduring characteristic that presumably exists independently of whether one has been hypnotized before. However, as with many traits, the degree to which this enduring characteristic is manifest varies with the situation. Expectation, motivation, attitude, anxiety, mood, and rapport with the hypnotist--all influence the degree of manifestation of this trait."

In other words, it sounds a lot like talent. :-)

Brown goes on to add: "There is a danger in equating hypnosis with a particular scale and not taking into account such factors as motivation, expectations, rapport, and context as part of the hypnotherapeutic field." (1991, p. 175)

So it appears that at least some academics recognize the misinterpretation that takes place.

If I had known this would spark so many comments, I'd have started it as a thread. :-)

Comment by Saul Rosenfeld on December 14, 2009 at 12:34pm

PART TWO (of the susceptibility scale section of my summery):


"In addition to all of the aforementioned factors- any one of which may substantially affect a person’s hypnotic “capacity”- it appears that other problems have actually been created by the use of susceptibility scales.

One of the most serious problems resulting from the use of these scales is the fact that in the event a subject, for whatever reason, fails to respond successfully, he’s invariably burdened with the notion that failure was due to some inherent “lack of susceptibility” on his part.
The result? Well, as Yapko (1984) pointed out: “Unfortunately, the typical layperson will actually believe she cannot be hypnotized on the word of the professional, and the degree to which the episode will affect her self-image negatively is unknown.” (p. 35)

An educated guess, however, would be not inconsiderably.
For example, J. Barber (1982, p. 46) declared that prescreening patients may not only be unnecessary, but might actually be harmful to them, since achieving a "low susceptible" score will prevent them from being able to utilize hypnosis in treatment, as well as creating an experience of failure.
Sacerdote (1982a), in turn, described how: “...the patient who does poorly on the scales becomes easily frustrated, feels he has no hypnotic capability, is a failure, or, conversely, that the therapist has insufficient ability or experience.” (p. 362)
As he furthermore concluded: “It is debatable whether it would be ethical, in working clinically with a series of patients...to deprive even a small minority of the potential help of hypnosis because of the negative impact of low susceptibility scores.”
(idem, p. 372)

By the way, there are those who feel that the scales have a decidedly “negative impact” on the operator as well.
For example, Van der Hart (1982) cautioned that the scales: “...are poor instruments for beginning hypnotherapists because they learn to depend on rigid procedures instead of developing their own flexibility and inventiveness.” (p. 370)
Need I add that this doesn’t only apply to beginning hypnotherapists...?




@@@






And then there’s the image problem that results from what can only be described as the comically dated authoritarian techniques employed in most of these scales.
As was seen in Chapter 10, both the methodology used (simple, direct suggestion) and many of the items called for in modern day susceptibility tests (postural sway, limb catalepsy) bear a truly uncanny resemblance in style to those used by advocates of the old Authoritarian approach.
As far as that goes, Gibbons (1979, p. 61) warned that many popular misconceptions about hypnosis are probably due to the outward appearance of the procedure, together with the use of challenge items as subsequent tests of responsiveness- which tend to counteract previous "assurances" that hypnotized subjects do not have to "surrender their will".
Sacerdote (1982b, p. 66) noted that his main objection to utilizing scales in clinical practice was the presence of several challenge items with “the unsavory smell of old-fashioned authoritarian techniques”, seeing as how these actually tended to increase resistance.
By the same token, Meares (1960) reported that: “These tests have distinct disadvantages. In the first place, there is a dramatic or bizarre quality about them which rather savors of the variety stage. This in itself is sufficient to alienate the sensitive patient...” (p. 111)

And not only the sensitive patient.
Because, to hear Marcuse (1959/1977) tell it: “Some physicians indicate that they would enlist the aid of hypnosis except that its tests for susceptibility smack of the stage.”
(p. 141)

It is precisely this whiff of quackery that causes both subjects and operators alike to harbor such deep misgivings about employing the phenomenon.
There is no point in minimizing the difficulties; and it should by now come as no surprise that traditional hypnosis still has a serious image problem which may frequently render induction difficult.
In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that the image of hypnotism today, among both the public and health-care professionals, is often little more than a sorry replay of the 1890’s.

That, gentle reader, is the legacy which results from this manner of employing hypnosis!"

Comment by Saul Rosenfeld on December 14, 2009 at 11:55am

"Saul's book also blows up the IvoryTowers and their susceptibilty scales and other ca-ca."

Thanks for that beautifully succinct observation Michael LOL.
I just got back from my daily 8 mile hike in the woods and am bushed (no pun intended?) so rather than delineating the various points one by one, I'll take the lazy way out and simply paste part of my book's summary- which, although it just touches very briefly on all the various points I attempted to make in those individual chapters, it might nevertheless be of some interest to this discussion.
Because the posts here appear in reverse order and the text probably won't fit in this one post, I'll put "PART ONE" and "PART TWO" at the top so that it's (hopefully) not read out of sequence:


"Up till now, it’s been shown that a considerable number of problems exist with regard to the Standardized approach and its reliance on various Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales.
There are problems arising from the tendency to always demand the production of certain phenomena as “proof” of hypnosis- taking it for granted that phenomena such as catalepsy or amnesia are an integral part of the trance experience instead of perhaps just being incidental by-products thereof.

Difficulties surrounding the Traditionalist concept of hypnotic “depth” have been equally extensive.
There are problems stemming from the failure to remember that “trance depth” is a highly relative concept, with the phenomena exhibited by some people only in “light” hypnosis being seen in others only during “deep” states of trance.
Problems resulting from unexpected fluctuations in depth during the course of a session (“floating phenomenon”) are yet another source of difficulty.

Or how about some of the problems pertaining to the very concept of “suggestibility”- such as the lack of straightforward linear correlation between hypnotism and suggestion; or the prospect that non-responsive subjects may sometimes only be demonstrating selective suggestibility.

There’s also a chance that certain refractory subjects are not really “unsusceptible”, but merely too deeply hypnotized to successfully respond to test suggestions.
And finally, it must not be forgotten that just because someone happens to be “hypnotized”, this does not mean that they will have to automatically comply with any of the operator’s suggestions.

Another possible reason for someone's failure to comply is the lack of attention paid to interpersonal dynamics.
While a subject may be refractory to suggestions given by one particular operator, that same subject might well be responsive to identical suggestions if given by another.
This type of selective non-responsiveness can either be due to aesthetic objections (something annoying about an operator’s looks, clothes, office, etc.), a lack of sufficient trust in a particular hypnotist, or the fact that one chose an operator who just happened to be technically deficient in his craft.

Failure may also be caused by problems involving the communicational process.
A subject may be unresponsive simply because he dislikes the pitch or tone of an operator’s voice. His manner of speaking (tempo, accent, etc.) may similarly be a source of irritation strong enough to prevent induction.
The unwitting use of certain words or phrases that happen to be charged with meaning for a particular subject may also result in failure.
What's more, a hypnotist can make all the right noises and still fail to succeed, if his subjects happen to perceive a lack of conviction or sincerity in his manner of delivery.

And consider the influence of the emotional factor.
People who feel uncomfortable in the hypnotic situation are unlikely to be very responsive.
It’s also been seen just how easy it is for a subject’s “hypnotic capacity” to be altered either by existing moods or past conditionings.
The presence of fear is probably the most frequent cause for this type of failure- specifically, the fear of looking foolish, the fear of exposing oneself to a traumatic experience, and above all, the fear of being “made” to surrender one’s will.

Yet another variable commonly overlooked by Traditionalist theory is the motivational factor.
Susceptibility test results can be totally distorted by the fact that a seemingly “unsusceptible” subject may, on certain occasions, be much more motivated to develop trance than at other times.
There is even evidence to suggest that different types of motivation are actually instrumental in deciding the nature and extent of subjects’ trance experience- whether for clinical, experimental, demonstration, entertainment, forensic purposes, or even just spontaneous trance.

And how about all the evidence showing that “hypnotic susceptibility” is modifiable?
Altering the “atmospherics” of the situation (confidence, trust, etc.) has been just one way of accomplishing this task.
Another entails exploiting such natural forces as peoples’ biorhythms.
It's also worth remembering that training subjects in hypnosis has proven to be yet another way of modifying results; and it’s clear that a greater appreciation of the time factor will provide many formerly “unsusceptible” subjects with sufficient opportunity to develop trance at their own individual pace.

The list goes on and on; and this litany of mistakes is as familiar as it is depressing.
What's more, it would be foolish to assume that this is all just an exercise in theoretical debate, because each and every one of these factors is highly influential without the least regard as to whether we believe it or not!"

Comment by Hugh Cole on December 14, 2009 at 11:42am

@James... point well taken ... but erickson didn't become Erickson and elman didn't become Elman and boyne didn't become Boyne until a bit later in thier careers. We of course have the benefit of hindsight to understand how significant and widespread thier work would become. As with all innovative thinkers I am sure they had thier share of detractors and nay sayers they had to outgrow. I trust you will concede to me that there has been significant growth in the field of Hypnosis since 1962 and that you as a hypnotist have far better acess to teaching and information and understandings about Hypnosis than even a University Professor in 1962 would have. (Heck Scott Sandland wasn't born until 1980.)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page