Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An experimental investigation of the effects of hypnotically induced suggestions on self concept and… Koe, George Gerald 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A2 K06.pdf [ 10.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054388.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054388-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054388-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054388-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054388-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054388-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054388-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054388-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054388.ris

Full Text

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF HYPNOTICALLY INDUCED SUGGESTIONS ON SELF CONCEPT AND READING PERFORMANCE by GEORGE GERALD KOE B.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia , 1970 M.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia , 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION :_in - THE -MCUIuIJC-JiP, QR^ IJATJS- .SSJDDilES- -. > ( Department of Educational Psychology ) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE , 1981 (_) George G e r a l d Koe, 198l ( In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f ftrhtrti 1 t ,-*A />I / jfHycArrC^-^ , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date LJ^AO fi&l i i ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which post-hypnotic suggestions could be used to improve self concept rand to influence reading performance without instruction in reading. Self concept and achievement suggestions were compared to determine which would have the greater effect on subjective reports of improvement on the Debriefing Questionnaire and in scores on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) and Nelson-Denny Reading Test (N-D). Self-esteem and other-esteem suggestions were compared to determine which would have the greater effect on se l f concept. Fifty-two volunteer subjects from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia student population were assigned randomly to the c e l l s of the design. A Latin-square 1 design was used to administer four sets of tape-recorded post-hypnotic suggestions designed to improve either self concept or reading performance. Adaptations of Hartland's Ego Strengthening Technique were used. Hypnotic depth was measured during each session. Differences among groups were compared using a regression analysis with pre-test performance, IQ, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , hypnotic depth, and sex as covariates. Main eff e c t s were found for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y on the Debriefing Questionnaire, N-D, and TSCS. On each measure, susceptible subjects scored higher than unsusceptible subjects. Main effects for t r a n c e a b i l i t y were found on two subtests of the Debriefing Questionnaire and one subtest of the TSCS. On each measure, tranceable subjects scored higher than untranceable subjects. Post-hypnotic suggestion was found to be e f f e c t i v e in improving some aspects of reading achievement and se l f concept. However, subjects were unable to relate subjective reports of the benefits of hypnosis with their actual test performance. I n a b i l i t y to id e n t i f y c o r r e c t l y areas of improvement, when actual improvement was made, casts doubt on the usefulness of subjective reports of the ef f i c a c y of treatment in studies using hypnosis. Post-hypnotic suggestions directed towards a l t e r i n g the subject's perception of the opinion of others were found to be more e f f e c t i v e than self-esteem suggestions in a l t e r i n g self concept. However, the high i n i t i a l l e v e l of s e l f -s a t i s f a c t i o n may have confounded th i s r e s u l t . A change in attitude may have also reduced the effectiveness of s e l f -esteem suggestions. The study also suggested that post-hypnotic suggestions may be a negative and f r u s t r a t i n g experience for highly susceptible subjects when the post-hypnotic suggestions do not meet subject expectations. The majority of subjects apparently expected suggestions in the area of self concept. This expectation may have decreased the effectiveness of achievement suggestions. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES . . . v i i LIST OF APPENDICES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT x i i CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM 1 Background of the Problem 1 Statement of the Problem 6 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 6 Hypotheses and Research Questions 11 Assumptions of the Study 16 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study 20 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 22 Methodological D i f f i c u l t i e s 22 Hypnosis in Relation to Learning 27 Subjective Perception of Improvement 32 Summary . . 33 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 35 Subjects 35 Measuring Instruments 36 P i l o t Studies 44 Procedure 44 Design 51 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures 53 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 57 R e l i a b i l i t i e s 57 Tests of Equivalency 60 Tests of Hypotheses 63 Summary 103 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...105 Summary of the Study 105 Findings 107 Implications of the Study ....120 Limitations of the Study 123 Recommendations for Further Research 124 REFERENCES 127 APPENDICES 139 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 111 — 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s of the Nelson-Denny. Reading Test Subtests for the Study and Normative Populations 38 III-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale Subtests for the Study and Normative Populations 42 III-3 Factors in the Regression Analyses 55 IV-1 Intercorrelations of the Four Administrations of the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth (LSS) 59 IV-2 Correlations between the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 66 IV-3 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of S u s c e p t i b i l i t y on the Debriefing Questionnaire 69 IV-4 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Tranceability on the Debriefing Questionnaire 71 IV-5 Regression Analyses Testing the Ef f e c t of Self-Esteem Suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire 73 IV-6 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire 74 IV-7 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of the Interaction of S e l f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire 75 IV-8 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of S u s c e p t i b i l i t y on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 81 v i I V - 9 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of " Tranceability on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 83 IV-10 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Self-Esteem Suggestions on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 84 IV-11 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test ". 85 IV-12 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of the Interaction of S e l f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 86 IV-13 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of S u s c e p t i b i l i t y on the Tennessee Self Concept Scales 90 IV-14 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Tranceability on the Tennessee Self Concept Scales 92 IV-15 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Self-Esteem Suggestions on the Tennessee Self Concept Scales 94 IV-16 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Tennessee Self Concept Scales 95 IV-17 Regression Analyses Testing the Effect of the Interaction of Se l f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions on the Tennessee Self Concept Scales 96 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 111 -1 Design of the Study 52 IV-1 Interaction between Self-Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability on the Debriefing Questionnaire Questions 77 IV-2 Interaction between Self and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for Others 78 IV-3 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and ' Sex the Nelson-Denny Comprehension Subtest. - 88 IV-4 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability on Row 3 (Behaviour) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 97 IV-5 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability on Column C (Personal Self) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 99 IV-6 Interaction between Self and Other-Esteem Suggestions and S u s c e p t i b i l i t y on Row 3 (Behaviour) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale . 100 IV-7 Interaction between Self and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on Column C (Personal Self) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 101 IV-8 Interaction between Self and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on Column E .(Social Self) of the Tennessee Self .Concept Scale 102 v i i i LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Hypnotic Procedures 139 A-1 State Expectations 139 A-2 Relaxation Procedure 142 A-3 Modifications of the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale Induction ...145 A-4 Deepending Procedure 146 A-5 Long Stanford Scale 148 A-6 Session IV Suggestions 149 A-7 Session V Suggestions 152 A-7 Session VI Suggestions 155 A-7 Session VII Suggestions 159 B. Questionnaires 162 B-1 Study Information 162 B-2 Subject Information Form 162 B-3 Hypnotic Depth Index Card 166 B-4 Debriefing Questionnaire 167 C. P i l o t Study Analyses 171 C-1 P i l o t Study Procedures and Results 174 C-2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for the Pre-Study Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale .. 174 C-3 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for the Pre-Study Debriefing Questionnaire Questions 175 D. C l i n i c a l Notes . * 176 ix E. Tests of Equivalency 180 E-1 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Self Concept Questions on the Subject Information Form 180 E-2 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Achievement Questions on the Subject Information Form 181 E-3 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the Subject Information Form 182 E-4 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Subtest Scores on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity 184 E-5 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity 185 E-6 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Subtest Scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 186 E-7 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the Nelson-Denny Reading Test 187 E-8 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Subtest Scores on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 188 E-9 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 189 E-10 Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y 190 E-11 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y ..191 X E-12 Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth 192 E-13 Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance for the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth 193 F. Regression Analyses Results 194 F-1 Regression Analysis for the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for Self 194 F-2 Regression Analysis for the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for Others ......195 F-3 Regression Analysis for the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale Total 196 F-4 Regression Analysis for the Debriefing Questionnaire Questions 197 F-5 Regression Analysis for the Nelson-Denny Vocabulary Subtest 198 F-6 Regression Analysis for the Nelson-Denny Comprehension Subtest 199 F-7 Regression Analysis for the Nelson-Denny Total Test 200 F-8 Regression Analysis for the Nelson-Denny Speed Subtest 201 F-9 Regression Analysis for the Total Positive (P) Score of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 202 F-10 Regression Analysis for Row 1 of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale .203 xi F-11 Regression Analysis for Row 2 of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 204 F-12 Regression Analysis for Row 3 of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 205 F-13 Regression Analysis for Column A of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 206 F-14 Regression Analysis for Column B of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 207 F-15 Regression Analysis for Column C of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 208 F-16 Regression Analysis for Column D of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 209 F-17 Regression Analysis for Column E of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 210 G. Debriefing Questionnaire Analyses 211 G-1 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for Question 2 (Did your achievement improve?) on the Debriefing Questionnaire 211 G-2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for Question 3 (Did your self concept improve?) on the Debriefing Questionnaire 212 G-3 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for Question 5 (Did you benefit in other ways than in questions one, two, three, and four from the hypnotic induction?) on the Debriefing Questionnaire 213 H. Intercorrelations of Measures .....214 H-1 Intercorrelations of Dependent Measures .....214 H-2 Intercorrelations of Independent Measures 215 xi i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would l i k e to thank my Supervisory Committee for their help in the production of th i s thesis. In par t i c u l a r I would l i k e to thank my Research Supervisor, Buff Oldridge, for his help in the conceptualization of this study and his support throughout the study; David Bain for his suggestions in the area of self concept and background of the problem; Torry Westemark for his help with suggestions in the area of reading and p a r t i c u l a r l y for his help in improving the review of the l i t e r a t u r e ; and Bob Conry for his help with s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, general format, and presentation of resul t s . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM There have been many experimental investigations of the effe c t s of post-hypnotic . suggestions on learning since Young's (1925) i n i t i a l investigations in this area. During recent years, these, investigations have been c r i t i c i z e d for f a i l u r e to implement adequate experimental controls (Edmonston & Stanek, 1966) and for f a i l u r e to specify c l e a r l y the independent variables (Barber, 1965). It i s the intent of thi s study to address these problems. Background of the Problem During the past t h i r t y years, hypnosis has become accepted as a therapeutic tool in such professional f i e l d s as surgery, dentistry, o b s t e t r i c s , and psychotherapy. Hilgard (1968) points out that the judicious use of hypnosis was accepted by the B r i t i s h Medical Association in 1955, the American Medical Association in 1958, and the American Psychological Association in 1960. Some hypnotic techniques have also gained educational acceptance. Krippner (1971) points out that: "Classroom teachers use hypnotic p r i n c i p l e s when they attempt to relax their pupils before embarking on a d i f f i c u l t assignment. High school a t h l e t i c coaches who motivate their teams by del i v e r i n g 'pep talks' are c a p i t a l i z i n g on another form of hypnosis. College instructors who capture their students' attention by the use of c o l o r f u l language and vi s u a l aids are u t i l i z i n g another hypnotic technique. Hypnosis , in one form or another, has long been used as an educational t o o l . " (p.5) 2 However, the use of hypnosis in educational settings i s confined largely to the use of techniques r e l a t i n g to attitude and motivation. Hypnosis has been recommended in c l i n i c a l reports (Krippner, 1970; Lodatb, 1963) for motivating students, improving concentration and study habits, reducing test anxiety, and f a c i l i t a t i n g learning. Favourable results have been reported in studies by E i s e l e & Higgins (1962), Erickson (1961), Lodato (1968), McCord _ S h e r r i l l (1961), Sears (1962), and Summo & Rouke (1965) using hypnosis to calm anxiety, improve study habits, and increase concentration. Hypnosis has been used in experimental studies to improve s p e l l i n g performance (Radaker, 1959,1963), to lower word recognition thresholds (Kliman & Goldberg, 1962), to increase reading speed (Mutke, 1967), and to improve reading performance (Krippner, 1966). One prevalent finding in studies using hypnosis i s that subjects perceive themselves as benefiting from and responding favourably to hypnosis. C l i n i c a l reports frequently c i t e subjects' perceptions of improvement as evidence of the e f f i c a c y of the hypnotic treatment. Experimental studies also report that subjects perceive themselves as benefiting from the hypnotic suggestion even when there has been no measurable change in performance (Cooper & T u t h i l l , 1952; Fowler, 1958). These reports raise the question as to whether the subject has responded so as .3 to please the hypnotist or genuinely believes that he/she has benefited from the experimental treatment. The be l i e f that one has benefited from the experimental treatment suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of a t t i t u d i n a l change and a change in s e l f concept. 1 Subjective perception of improvement, as reported by Cooper & T u t h i l l (1952) and Fowler (1958), may be, to some extent, an experimental a r t i f a c t . A major c r i t i c i s m of studies investigating the effect of post-hypnotic suggestions on performance has been the f a i l u r e to separate the independent variable (Barber, 1965). Frequently, induction procedures include post-hypnotic suggestions to improve self concept along with suggestions intended to manipulate the independent variable. For instance, the subject might be to l d that he/she w i l l feel confident when reading, and that he/she w i l l be. able to read faster. The intended variable is reading speed. Feeling confident when reading i s a self-esteem suggestion. Suggestions regarding confidence in reading may contribute to subjective reports of improvement in reading speed. The most prevalent suggestions included in hypnotic induction procedures are designed to improve self concept. ^ e l f concept refers to the way an individual perceives himself and his behaviour, and his opinion of how others view him. 4 In analyzing post-hypnotic suggestions, Hartland (1971) concluded: "They a l l tended to strengthen the patient's 'EGO' -his confidence in himself - and his general 'EGO-Defences'." (p.2) While suggestions designed to improve self concept are included frequently in hypnotic induction procedures, the effect of these suggestions has not been investigated. Several authors suggest that self concept can be improved through the use of post-hypnotic suggestions (Gorman, 1973; Hartland, 1971; Jabush, 1976; Susskind, 1976). Including self-esteem suggestions with the independent variable may have a posi t i v e effect upon the manner in which an individual perceives himself . However, the effect on performance is unknown. There is some evidence to suggest that the inclusion of self-esteem suggestions in the experimental treatment may influence performance p o s i t i v e l y . There has been considerable research establishing a low posi t i v e relationship between self concept and reading performance (Brookover, Thomas & Patterson, 1964; Caplin, 1969; Cummings, 1971; DeLisle, 1953; Fink, 1962; Lamy, 1965; Ozehosky, 1971; Wattenberg & C l i f f o r d , 1964; Williams & Cole, 1968). Williams (1973) points out that the majority of empirical studies show correlations of less than 0.30 between tests of self concept and tests of reading performance. This correlation decreases at progressively 5 higher grade l e v e l s . As such, either variable accounts for less than nine percent of the variance in the other variable. Consequently, the manipulation of either construct would not necessarily be expected to result in a. s i g n i f i c a n t change in the other. While the relationship between self concept and reading performance seems to be well established, the d i r e c t i o n of this relationship i s c r i t i c a l . Purkey (1970) states: "The best evidence now available suggests that i t is a two-way street, that there i s a continuous interaction between the self and academic achievement, and that each d i r e c t l y influences the other." (p.23) Because the correlation between self concept and reading performance is apparently b i - d i r e c t i o n a l , the manipulation of either construct should not result in an unexpectedly large change in the other. It i s therefore l o g i c a l l y possible, rather than using a c l a s s i c a l • control group, to use post-hypnotic esteem suggestions as a comparison for achievement suggestions when achievement i s the dependent variable. It i s also possible to use post-hypnotic achievement suggestions as a comparison for esteem suggestions when self concept is the dependent variable. The corr e l a t i o n between the two variables may decrease s l i g h t l y the pr o b a b i l i t y of obtaining s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , but should not affect ' the treatments d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . 6 Statement of The Problem The purpose of this study was to compare the presence and absence of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions to determine which would have the greater effect on subjective reports of improvement, reading performance and self concept. De f i n i t i o n of Terms S u s c e p t i b i l i t y S u s c e p t i b i l i t y refers to the ease with which a subject may be hypnotized. For the purpose of t h i s study, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y was defined in terms of scores on the Harvard Group Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale. This scale was derived from Forms A and B of the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) with minimal alte r a t i o n s permitting i t s use with small groups of subjects. Susceptible subjects (SS). Subjects who are ea s i l y hypnotized. In this study, susceptible subjects were defined as subjects who scored above the mean of thi s sample on the Harvard Group Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale. Unsusceptible subjects (US). Subjects who are not easily hypnotized. In this study, unsusceptible subjects were defined as subjects who scored below the mean on the Harvard Group Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale. Tranceability Tranceability refers to the depth of hypnosis for a subject. For the purpose of t h i s study, t r a n c e a b i l i t y was defined in terms of scores on the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth. (See Appendix A-5.) Tranceable subjects (T). Subjects who become deeply hypnotized. For the purpose of t h i s study, tranceable subjects were subjects who scored above the mean of this sample on the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth. Untranceable subjects (UT). Subjects who did not become deeply hypnotized. Untranceable subjects were subjects who scored below the mean of t h i s sample on the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth. Intelligence Intelligence is defined as the subject's score on the C a l i f o r n i a Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity, 1963 Revision, Level 5 (CTMM-SF). Perception of Improvement Perception of improvement refers to subjective appraisal of the e f f i c a c y of the post-hypnotic suggestions. Subjects rated the effectiveness of self-esteem and other-esteem questions on an eighteen-question rating scale on the Debriefing Questionnaire. Subjects also responded to a set of six questions on the Debriefing Questionnaire regarding the e f f i c a c y of the hypnotic treatment. This set of questions included the questions: " 8 -2. Did your reading performance improve? 3. Did your self concept improve? Responses to the above questions were considered to be measures of subject perception of improvement. The Debriefing Questionnaire i s presented in Appendix B-4. Reading Performance Reading performance i s defined as the subject's to _ a l raw score on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (N-D). Self Concept Self concept refers to the way an individual perceives himself and his opinion of how others perceive him. Self concept i s defined as the subject's t o t a l P score on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS). State Expectations The manner in which a subject performs under hypnosis appears to be a function of his expectations regarding hypnosis (White, 1937; Liebert, Rubin & Hilgard, 1965). Subjects were given expectations designed to a l l e v i a t e their concerns regarding hypnosis and to provide a. consistent, a l e r t and attentive state. These state expectations are presented in Appendix A-1. Relaxation Procedure The muscular relaxation procedure, as outlined by Krumboltz & Thorensen (1969), was used to help subjects relax prior to the hypnotic induction. This procedure i s presented in Appendix A-2. 9 Hypnosis Krippner's (1970) d e f i n i t i o n of hypnosis i s used in this study. He states: "Hypnosis i s generally defined as a procedure which induces a state of consciousness characterized by heightened responsiveness to dir e c t suggestion." (p. 451) Hypnotic Procedure The hypnotic induction procedure attempts to interfere with the subject's normal attention to his/her environment, concentrate attention as .directed by the hypnotist, and create a rapport between subject and hypnotist. For the purposes of this study, the hypnotic induction procedure was similar to that used by London & Fuhrer (1961), Rosenham & London (1963a, 1963b) and Slotnick & London (1965). The procedure was adapted from the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale, Form A (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). The induction procedure i s presented in Appendix A-3. Deepening Procedure The deepening procedure attempts to associate the l e v e l of hypnosis with incremental stimuli such that the l e v e l of hypnosis varies d i r e c t l y with the s t i m u l i . The deepening procedure used in this study involved having subjects v i s u a l i z e a scene and become more and more relaxed as they imagined themselves entering the scene. This procedure is presented in Appendix A-4. , 10 Hypnotic Depth Indicator (HDI) Hypnotic depth refers to the • subject's reported judgement of the degree to which he believes that he was hypnotized. For the purpose of thi s study, hypnotic depth refers to the mean performance on the Long Stanford Scale (Tart, 1972) over four t r i a l s . This scale i s presented in Appendix A-5. Self-Esteem Self-esteem i s defined as "... A personal judgement of worthiness that i s expressed in the attitudes the individual holds towards himself. It is a subjective appraisal of personal worthiness." (Coopersmith, 1966, p.5). It refers to the individual's s a t i s f a c t i o n with self concept. Self-esteem suggestions. The self-esteem suggestions used in this study were adapted from Hartland's (1971) "Ego-Strengthening Technique" as proposed by Gorman (1973). The suggestions are presented in Appendix A-6 following the prefix "SELF-...". Other-esteem suggestions. The self-esteem suggestions used in the study were modified to delete references regarding the subject's perception of him/her s e l f . S e l f -esteem references were replaced with suggestions a l t e r i n g the subject's perception of others' opinions of him/her. These suggestions are presented in Appendix A-6 following the prefix "OTHERS-...". 11 Combined-esteem suggestions. The suggestions for the combined-esteem group included references regarding the subject's perception of him/her self as well as other peoples' opinions of him/her. These suggestions are presented in Appendix A-6 following the prefix "COMBINED-ft • • • • Achievement suggestions. The achievement group was given the same suggestions as the self-esteem and other-esteem groups with the deletion of a l l references to the subject's perception of him/her self and the subject's perception of other people's opinions of him/her. These suggestions are presented in Appendix A-6 in the form of unbracketed text. Hypotheses and Research Questions  Correlational Hypotheses Tart (1972) indicated that hypnotic depth generally w i l l vary d i r e c t l y with s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . It was therefore hypothesized that: H1 There would be a s i g n i f i c a n t positive c o r r e l a t i o n between the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y and the Long Stanford Scale. Many previous studies have established the po s i t i v e relationship between self concept and reading achievement (Brookover, Thomas & Patterson, 1964; Caplin, 1969; Cummings, 1971; DeLisle, 1953; Fink, 1962; Lamy, 1965; Ozehosky, 1971; Wattenberg & C l i f f o r d , 1964; Williams & 1 2 Cole, 1968). The Tennessee Self Concept Test subtests were previously found to account for approximately thirteen percent of the variance in predicting scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading . Test for a college-age population (Drummond, Clayton & Smith, 1977). It was therefore hypothesized that: H2 There would be a s i g n i f i c a n t positive c o r r e l a t i o n between the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Debriefing Questionnaire Hypotheses Barron (1953) found that subjects with low scores on his Ego Strength Scale were more susceptible to persuasive communications and less self assertive than subjects with higher scores. Consequently, susceptible subjects should be more responsive to suggestions than unsusceptible subjects. It was hypothesized that: H3 Susceptible subjects (SS's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects (US's) on a l l dimensions of the Debriefing Questionnaire. Tart (1972) indicates that hypnotic depth generally w i l l vary d i r e c t l y with s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . It was therefore hypothesized that: H4 Tranceable subjects (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable subjects (UT's) on a l l dimensions of the Debriefing Questionnaire. Subjective reports of improvement seem to be a common factor in studies using hypnosis. The c l i n i c a l reports of Gorman (1973), Hartland (1971), Jabush (1976), and Susskind (1976) suggest that subjective reports of improvement may 1 3 occur with esteem suggestions. Studies by Cooper & T u t h i l l (1952) and by Fowler (1958) suggest that subjective reports of improvement may occur with achievement suggestions. The following research question was posed: RQ1 What i s the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions on Debriefing Questionnaire scores? No information could be found in the l i t e r a t u r e to suggest the possible outcome of interactions between the covariates 1 used in this study and the type of esteem suggestions. Thus the following research question was asked: RQ2 What i s the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in t h i s study and the type of esteem suggestion, in terms of performance on a l l dimensions of the Debriefing Questionnaire? Achievement Hypotheses' London & Fuhrer (1961) suggest that the hypnotic-induction procedure may be a f r u s t r a t i n g and negative experience for unsusceptible subjects. The majority of studies using hypnosis report that s i g n i f i c a n t improvement in achievement i s usually r e s t r i c t e d to highly susceptible subjects (Fellows & Armstrong, 1977; Hoen, 1978; London, Conant & Davison, 1966; London & Fuhrer, 1961; Rosenham & London, 1963a, 1963b; Young, 1925). It was therefore 1The covariates used . were: TSCS/N-D, CTMM-SF, HGSHS, LSS, Sex. 14 hypothesized that: H5 Susceptible subjects (SS's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects (US's) on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Because Tart (1972) suggests that hypnotic depth correlates p o s i t i v e l y with s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , i t was hypothesized that: H6 Tranceable subjects (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable subjects (UT's) on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. The studies of Hammer (1954) and Mutke (1967) suggest that • reading speed can be improved through post-hypnotic suggestions. The studies of Radaker (1959,1963) and Krippner (1966) suggest that post-hypnotic suggestions also may result in achievement gains. Therefore, the following research question was asked: RQ3 What i s the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test? As there was no information available in the l i t e r a t u r e to predict the form of interactions between the covariates and the types of esteem suggestions used in the study, the following research question was asked: RQ4 What is the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in this study and the type of esteem suggestion, on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test? 15 Self Concept Hypotheses Hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y appears to be correlated negatively with self concept (Pedersen & Cooper, 1963). Barron (1953) suggests that susceptible subjects have lower ego strength than unsusceptible subjects. It was hypothesized that: H7 Susceptible subjects (SS's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects. (US's) on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. As Tart (1972) indicates that hypnotic depth generally w i l l vary d i r e c t l y with s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , i t was hypothesized that: a H8 Tranceable subjects (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable subjects (UT's) on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. C l i n i c a l reports by Gorman (1973), Hartland (1971), Jabush (1976), and Susskind (1976) suggest that post-hypnotic suggestions may improve self concept. Therefore, the following research question was asked: RQ5 What is the r e l a t i v e effect of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions oh the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale? As there was no information available in the l i t e r a t u r e to suggest the possible form of interactions between the types of esteem suggestions and the covariates used in th i s study, the following research question was asked: 16 RQ6 What is the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in t h i s study and the type of esteem suggestion, in terms of performance on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale? Assumptions of the Study Several assumptions are inherent in these hypotheses. 1. It was assumed that random assignment of subjects to conditions would assign randomly i n i t i a l differences in self concept and achievement. If this was not the case, pre-treatment measures should detect any differences between groups. Pre-treatment performances on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Nelson-Denny Reading Test were used as covariates to control for th i s p o s s i b i l i t y . While in t e l l i g e n c e has not been found to correlate with self concept (Milgram & Milgram, 1976; Wattenberg & C l i f f o r d , 1964), the relationship between i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement is well established. The C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity was used as an additional covariate to control for differences attributable to i n t e l l i g e n c e . 2. It was assumed that random assignment of subjects to esteem conditions would result in approximately equal numbers of males and females being assigned to each c e l l of the design. While sex and hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y appear to be uncorrelated (Hilgard, 1967; Weitzenhoffer & Weitzenhoffer, 1958), sex of subjects and s e l f concept may be correlated. Meyer & Thompson (1956) indicate that teachers approve more of g i r l s than boys and that t h i s 17 approval i s perceived by peers. Primavera, Simon' & Primavera (1974) report a posit i v e relationship between self-esteem and achievement for females but not for males. Purkey (1970) also notes that both high- and low-achieving g i r l s report higher self concepts than boys at the same achievement l e v e l . The o r i g i n a l developmental data for the TSCS concluded that sex exerted no systematic effect upon the self concept for a college age population ( F i t t s , 1965). However, as there are contradictory findings with regard to the influence of sex on self concept and academic performance, sex was used as an additional covariate. 3. It was assumed that the hypnotic induction procedure would hypnotize subjects. Tart (1972) points out that "...simply defining a group as 'hypnotized' because the experimenter has gone through a t r a d i t i o n a l hypnotic induction procedure is . . . f a l l a c i o u s , as many subjects w i l l not become hypnotized..." (p. 477). Pre-study experimentation was implemented to ensure that the procedures used in the study would result in highly susceptible subjects obtaining a minimum hypnotic depth score of five on the Long Stanford Scale. 4. It was assumed that four sessions of the the post-hypnotic suggestions proposed by Hartland (1971) would be s u f f i c i e n t to result in changes in subjective perception of improvement on the Debriefing Questionnaire. Hartland (1971) claims a success rate of seventy percent using t h i s 18 technique in psychotherapy with individuals he describes as being in states of neurotic anxiety, tension, and phobia. Pre-study experimentation was conducted to ensure that the post-hypnotic suggestions would change subjective reports of the e f f i c a c y of treatment. (See Appendix C.) 5. It was assumed that four sessions of post-hypnotic suggestions over a period of approximately one month would be s u f f i c i e n t for the purpose of t h i s study. Several investigators have conducted studies using only one session of hypnotic induction (Dhanens & Lundy, 1975; Edmonston & Stanek, 1965; Fellows _ Armstrong, 1977; Hoen, 1958; Liebert, Rubin, & Hilgard, 1965; London, Conant & Davison, 1966). Other investigators have used extensive reinforcement of post-hypnotic suggestions. Hartland (1971) recommends twenty sessions for using his approach in psychotherapy. However, the majority of experimental studies reviewed used fewer than four sessions to reinforce post-hypnotic suggestions. Pre-study experimentation was conducted to ensure that a single randomly chosen session, of the four post-hypnotic sessions used in the study, would be s u f f i c i e n t to produce subjective reports of the e f f i c a c y of treatment. (See Appendix C.) 6." It was assumed that the c o r r e l a t i o n between the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Nelson Denny Reading Test would be s u f f i c i e n t l y low that changes in self concept would not result in s i g n i f i c a n t changes in achievement or 19 vice versa. It was also assumed that the relationship between the TSCS and the N-D would not be d i r e c t i o n a l . 7. It was assumed that susceptible and unsusceptible subjects would volunteer for the study. While susceptible subjects may be less l i k e l y than unsusceptible subjects to volunteer (Levitt, Lubin, & Brady, 1962; Martin & Marcuse, 1957), obtaining susceptible subjects has not been a reported d i f f i c u l t y in other studies using hypnosis. The opportunity to be hypnotized should a t t r a c t susceptible subjects. 8. It was assumed that random assignment of subjects to groups would result in approximately equal numbers of susceptible and unsusceptible subjects being assigned to the c e l l s of the design. Possible differences in c e l l means for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y were controlled for by blocking subjects on the basis of their scores on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS) prior to their assignment to groups. Scores on the HGSHS were also used as a covariate to control for differences due to s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . Scores on the Long Stanford Scale were also used as a covariate to control for spurious differences in t r a n c e a b i l i t y during the treatments. 9. It was assumed that the adjusted error components were dis t r i b u t e d within each treatment population independently, normally, and with a mean of zero and homogeneous variances (Myers, 1972, p. 327). 20 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study Krippner (1971) points out that: "The use of hypnosis in education deserves wider app l i c a t i o n . For those students who are able to enter at least a l i g h t hypnotic trance, improvement may occur in such areas as studying course material, taking examinations, and committing oneself to long-range educational and vocational goals." (p.12) In discussing hypnosis, Woody & Herr (1968) point out: "It i s only a matter of time u n t i l i t s s u i t a b i l i t y for the specialty of school psychology must be considered." (p.254) Hypnosis appears to provide therapeutic techniques which might be helpful to the school psychologist. Much investigation i s required i f hypnosis is to gain general educational acceptance and become a therapeutic tool commonly used by school psychologists. Investigation needs to be directed towards finding areas in which hypnosis can best be used in the school setting. Studies investigating the e f f e c t of post-hypnotic suggestions on academic performance tend to be poorly controlled. A major c r i t i c i s m of these studies has been the f a i l u r e to specify c l e a r l y the experimental variable (Barber, 1965). Self concept suggestions have been included with achievement suggestions. Both constructs may influence performance. The review of the l i t e r a t u r e i d e n t i f i e d no studies which experimentally have manipulated the presence or absence of esteem suggestions and which have attempted to examine the outcomes of this manipulation separately for 21 self concept and achievement. It i s the purpose of this study to make separate investigations of these constructs.. 22 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Review of the Literature is presented in three sections. In the f i r s t section, the l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed to determine what variables influence results in studies r e l a t i n g hypnosis to "learning. In the second section, the l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed to determine potential methods of using post-hypnotic suggestions to improve learning. In the t h i r d section, subjective reports of improvement are discussed. C l i n i c a l reports were not included in the review except where pertinent to subsequent experimental findings. Methodological D i f f i c u l t i e s The p o s s i b i l i t y that hypnosis might be used to f a c i l i t a t e learning has interested researchers since Young's i n i t i a l work in th i s area in 1925. However, the majority of studies on the effects of hypnosis upon learning tend to report non-significant findings and evidence major methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s . In a review of the l i t e r a t u r e Uhr (1958) points out that: "A careful review of the evidence forming the basis for our present knowledge of the effects of hypnosis seems to lead to a conclusion almost diametric to that commonly believed: f i r s t , there is l i t t l e i f any conclusive experimental evidence treating this question, but second, what evidence there i s , and the overwhelming impression gained from c l i n i c a l observation, indicates quite d e f i n i t e and possibly s t r i k i n g improvements in learning done while under a well-managed hypnotic trance. " (p. 121) One major confounding effect in studies on hypnosis 23 results from the subject's attempts to please the hypnotist. In a review of the use of hypnosis tor- improving academic achievement, Krippner (1970) states: "Hypnosis i s generally defined as a procedure which induces a state of consciousness characterized by heightened responsiveness to dire c t suggestion." (p. 451) In t h i s 'state', the subject may respond in a manner calculated to please the hypnotist. Heightened responsiveness to dir e c t suggestion may confound treatment measures. In a series of two experiments using twenty-four subjects at Northeastern University, Scharf & Zamansky (1963) reported that pre-treatment means for the recognition threshold of t a c h i s t o s c o p i c a l l y presented common English words was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher for the control group than the hypnosis group. This finding was confirmed by Zamansky, Scharf & B r i g h t b i l l (1964). They suggest that the expectancy for hypnosis leads to larger gain scores because the subject, wishing to please the hypnotist, 'holds back' in the pre-treatment phase in order to allow for improvement in the treatment phase. Heightened responsiveness to direct suggestion seriously questions the interpretation of gain scores and subjective reports in studies dealing with hypnosis. Another major confounding effect in studies using hypnosis i s the subject's expectation of hypnosis. White (1937) distinguished between an active and a passive state, in terms of subject- expectations of hypnosis. Liebert, 24 Rubin & Hilgard (1965) reported that when suggestions of alertness and attention were included in the subject's expectation of hypnosis, performance was superior to t r a d i t i o n a l hypnosis. T r a d i t i o n a l hypnosis appears to reduce attention to learning tasks. Liebert, Rubin & Hilgard (1965) also suggest that the relaxation associated with t r a d i t i o n a l hypnosis is more of a detriment to learning for some subjects than the a l e r t state is f a c i l i t a t i n g . These studies emphasize the importance of the induction procedure and the need to standardize the induction procedure and to specify c l e a r l y the 'state' expectations of the subject. The s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of subjects also appears to be an extremely - important design variable. Young (1925) reported that r e l a t i v e l y unsusceptible subjects memorized nonsense sy l l a b l e s better than did very susceptible subjects. London and Fuhrer (1961) suggest that people who are r e l a t i v e l y unsusceptible to hypnosis are generally superior in performance to individuals who are . very susceptible to hypnosis. These differences in performance between susceptible and unsusceptible subjects may be due to i n t e l l i g e n c e (Curtis, 1943), or confidence since unsusceptible subjects: a) do achieve well, and b) need to please others l e s s . It i s c r i t i c a l that studies investigating the e f f e c t s of 25 hypnosis on learning control s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and use IQ as a covariate to equalize groups with respect to i n t e l l i g e n c e . In t h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e , only one study (Schulman & London, 1963) was found that attempted to control for i n t e l l i g e n c e . The importance of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y as a design variable extends beyond pre-treatment differences. Rosenham &. London (1963a, 1963b) found that hypnosis improved the performance of susceptible subjects while having l i t t l e e f f e c t on unsusceptible subjects in terms of performance on a hand dynamometer, endurance task, and tremor task. London & Fuhrer (1961) suggest that hypnosis improves the performance of susceptible subjects and depresses the performance of unsusceptible subjects r e l a t i v e to their own unhypnotized performance. London & Fuhrer's (1961) study also suggests that the p o s i t i v e effects of hypnosis are confined largely to susceptible subjects and that the induction procedure for unsusceptible subjects may be a f r u s t r a t i n g and negative experience. Therefore, i t i s c r i t i c a l that studies using hypnosis take 1 s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of subjects into consideration as a design or control variable. There i s also some indication that the nature of ' the material used in learning experiments involving hypnosis may be an additional confounding factor. Dhanens & Lundy (1975) point out that in studies where hypnosis has p o s i t i v e l y influenced r e c a l l (Rosenthal, 1944; Stalnaker & Riddle, 26 1932; White, Fox & Harris, 1940) the learned material was contextual. In studies where negative results were found (Huse, 1930; Barber & Calverly, 1966) the learned material was nonsense material. Salzberg (1959) also reported that subjects tended to improve more, as tasks became more complex, requiring reasoning and abstraction as opposed to memory and rote counting. Dhanens & Lundy (1975) confirm t h i s finding and suggest that hypnosis probably a f f e c t s , i n some way, the memory r e t r i e v a l organization of the subject. Hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y seems to be related to v i s u a l -imaging a b i l i t y (Sheehan, 1972) 'imaginative involvement' or absorption (Hilgard, 1965, 1970, 1974). Research has shown that susceptible subjects have a greater capacity for involvement in imaginary a c t i v i t i e s than unsusceptible subjects (Arnold, 1946; As, 1963; Camberari,1958; Hilgard, 1970, 1974; Jenness, 1944, 1965; McBain, 1954; Richardson, 1969; Shor, Orne & O'Connell, 1962; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). In a well controlled study, Hoen (1978) found that high-imagery words were recalled s i g n i f i c a n t l y better by susceptible than by unsusceptible subjects. Therefore, i t is important that studies take into consideration the imagery content of the material they use. The c r i t i c i s m that many studies f a i l to implement adequate experimental controls was supported by the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Subject expectations of the experiment, hypnotic state expectations, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , t r a n c e a b i l i t y , 21 i n t e l l i g e n c e , and the nature of the material learned may influence r e s u l t s . Gain scores, c l i n i c a l reports, and subjective reports of improvement appear unreliable. No studies were found that adequately controlled for a l l of the above factors. Hypnosis in Relation to Learning Hypnosis has been put to several innovative uses to improve academic achievement. One of these has been the use of hypnosis to provide the subject with a f e e l i n g of increased practice time. Several studies have suggested that learning may be enhanced by using a hypnotic trance to d i s t o r t practice time (Cooper, 1948; Cooper & Erickson, 1950, 1959; Cooper & Rodgin, 1952). However, these studies lacked adequate control groups. Barber & Calverly (1964), Casey (1966), Cooper & T u t h i l l (1952), and Edmonston & Erbeck (1967), in better controlled experiments, found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between time-distorted practice and practice in a non-hypnotic state. Cooper & T u t h i l l (1952) pointed out that hallucinated practice under time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis gives the subject a feeling of having acquired the effects of a similar amount of practice in the waking state. Zimbardo, Maslach & Marshall (1972) further suggest that i t i s possible to modify subject awareness of the rate of movement of time by means of hypnotic suggestion. However, while the subject's awareness of rate of movement of time may be altered, and while the subject may f e e l that 28 he/she has benefited from time-distorted practice, there i s no evidence that the learning process i t s e l f i s f a c i l i t a t e d by time-distorted practice. Hypnosis frequently has been used to aid r e c a l l of information learned in the normal waking state. Rosenthal (1944) pointed out that: "It has been claimed that the state of hypnosis has considerable capacity for increasing r e c a l l . Among the powers attributed to i t are the a b i l i t y to e f f e c t r e c a l l of forgotten childhood experiences, to remove traumatic amnesias, and to reproduce in more complete d e t a i l than in the waking state the most casual observations and even s u p e r f i c i a l l y memorized material." (p.369) These claims have been made largely 'on the basis of uncontrolled c l i n i c a l observations. However, there i s a growing body of controlled studies that suggest that hypnosis may be used to aid r e c a l l under some circumstances. It would appear that memory for meaningful material is better than memory for nonsense material under hypnosis (Dhanens & Lundy, 1975). Huse (1930) and M i t c h e l l (1932) reported that nonsense s y l l a b l e s were rec a l l e d no better under hypnosis than in waking conditions. Young (1925, 1926) reported similar findings for adjective-noun associates and casual observations of a room. However, hypnosis does appear to improve r e c a l l of meaningful material for susceptible subjects. Stalnaker & Riddle (1932) reported using post-hypnotic suggestions to improve memory for poems. White, Fox & Harris (1940) confirmed t h i s finding for poetry and extended i t to r e c a l l of motion 29 pictures. Rosenthal (1944) also replicated this finding for poetry. Therefore, i t appears that hypnosis may be used e f f e c t i v e l y to improve r e c a l l of meaningful material. If the material also has an emotional content, hypnosis may further improve r e c a l l . Cheek & LeCron (1968), Coe, Baugher, Krimm, & Smith (1976) and Swiercinsky & Coe, (1970) suggested that hypnosis helps the r e c a l l of events occurring when the individual is aroused. Goldstein & S i p p r e l l e (1970) also suggested that emotional trauma i s a factor in the production of amnesia and that the removal of t h i s trauma through hypnotic suggestion can aid r e c a l l . In fact, the use of hypnosis to aid police students r e c a l l their observations of a staged crime has been reported by Burch (1974) and has gained s u f f i c i e n t acceptance to be advocated for use in courtroom testimony .(Schafer & Rubio, 1978). The studies of Cheek & LeCron (1968), Coe, Baugher, Krimm & Smith (1976) and Swiercinsky & Coe (1970) further emphasize the effectiveness of hypnosis in improving r e c a l l . Several studies have investigated the p o s s i b i l i t y of reducing perceptual thresholds under hypnosis. S t e r l i n g & M i l l e r (1940) attempted to lower the figure-recognition, vi s u a l detection, and auditory detection thresholds without success. Scharf & Zamansky (1963) were able to lower the recognition threshold for the v i s u a l perception of common English words. They found that susceptible subjects s i g n i f i c a n t l y raised their recognition threshold. However, 30 they also found that susceptible subjects had unexpectedly low i n i t i a l thresholds. It appeared that susceptible subjects had not performed as well as possible on pre-treatment measures in order to leave room for improvement. The d i f f e r e n t performance between susceptible and unsusceptible subjects on pre-treatment measures invalidates Scharf & Zamansky's (1963) finding. However, there i s some additional evidence that perceptual thresholds may be lowered by hypnotic suggestion. Kliman & Goldberg (1962) reported that hypnosis improved subject a b i l i t y to recognize f i v e - l e t t e r English words under low le v e l s of illumination. Their data did not show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t i a l pre-treatment means. At the present time, there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to suggest whether hypnosis i s or i s not e f f e c t i v e in reducing perceptual thresholds. While experimental results tend to be somewhat contradictory with respect to the e f f i c a c y of hypnotic suggestions in reducing perceptual thresholds, i t would appear that hypnosis offers some potential for increasing performance rate. Hammer (1954) reported that post-hypnotic suggestions were used successfully with nine subjects to increase rate of reading comprehension. Mutke (1967) found that subject could read four times as fast as control subjects. Unfortunately, the studies of Hammer (1954) and Mutke (1967) f a i l e d to control for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , IQ, or hypnotic depth and f a i l e d to use standardized hypnotic 31 procedures. Several studies have investigated the use of hypnosis to improve academic performance. Fowler (1958), in a series of three experiments, found that suggestions to improve memory, concentration, confidence, and motivation did not result in performance gains on either the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental A b i l i t y Test, or on the Iowa Silen t Reading Tests. While subjects did not make achievement gains, they perceived themselves as concentrating better, reading better, remembering more, and enjoying more. Gray (1934) also reported i n s i g n i f i c a n t gains for hypnotic s p e l l i n g practice with six children who had sp e l l i n g problems. However, Fowler's (1958) and Gray's (1934) study lacked adequate comparison groups, standardized hypnotic procedures and f a i l e d to control for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , hypnotic depth, i n t e l l i g e n c e , or sex of subjects. In addition, the analysis of gain scores is questionnable (Scharf & Zamansky, 1963), as pre-treatment differences were not considered. While Fowler (1958) and Gray (1934) did not find hypnotic suggestions e f f e c t i v e in improving academic performance, Radaker (1959, 1963) and Krippner (1966) reported that hypnosis was e f f e c t i v e in improving performance. Radaker (1959,1963) trained subjects in v i s u a l imagery and found that this was an e f f e c t i v e method for' improving memory for abstract designs, objects, and word forms. During the summer of 1964, Krippner ,(1966) used 32 Radaker's technique in a five-week reading c l i n i c and reported pos i t i v e r e s u l t s . Unfortunately, Radaker (1959, 1963) and Krippner (1966) f a i l e d to use adequate controls. Like Fowler (1958) and Gray (1934), Krippner (1966) and Radaker (1959,1963) f a i l e d to use standardized hypnotic procedures and f a i l e d to control for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , hypnotic depth, i n t e l l i g e n c e , sex of subjects or pre-treatment differences.. It i s therefore d i f f i c u l t to determine whether s i g n i f i c a n t results can be attributed to the hypnotic suggestions or rather to other confounding variables. The superiority of any p a r t i c u l a r technique for using post-hypnotic suggestions to improve performance was not demonstrated by the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The review considered the use of post-hypnotic suggestions to d i s t o r t practice time, aid r e c a l l , reduce perceptual thresholds, aid imagery, and improve reading performance. Generalized suggestions seemed to predominate the l i t e r a t u r e and appeared to be the most e f f e c t i v e technique. Subjective Perception of Improvement Several studies report subjects perceive themselves as benefiting from the hypnotic suggestions, even when there i s no measurable change in performance. Cooper & T u t h i l l (1952) point out that hallucinated practice under time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis gives the subject a feeling of having acquired practice e f f e c t s . Fowler (1958) . claims that 33 subjects perceived themselves as concentrating better, reading better, remembering more, and enjoying more, even though their actual achievement was unchanged. Subjective reports of improvement seem to be a common factor in studies using hypnosis. This data also i s c i t e d frequently as supportive evidence in c l i n i c a l reports and implies the hypnotic procedure was e f f e c t i v e even though s i g n i f i c a n t results were not obtained. That the subject perceives him/her self as benefiting from the hypnotic suggestion - when, in fact, no measurable improvement has been made - suggests either that the subject is responding to please the hypnotist, or that he/she i s convinced there has been genuine improvement. This i s a c r i t i c a l issue. If the subject i s merely responding to please the hypnotist, then he/she might be expected to say that he/she has benefited from the experimental treatment while showing no change in self concept or performance. If the subject sincerely believes that he/she has changed as a result of the hypnotic suggestions then t h i s b e l i e f may be evident as a change in self concept. Summary Many studies in hypnosis may have been confounded by x methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s such as f a i l u r e to use standardized hypnotic procedures and f a i l u r e to control for subject's expectations, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , IQ, hypnotic depth, and sex. In addition, studies have allowed the confounding 34 of independent variables (Barber, 1969) and f a i l e d to use adequate comparison groups. Despite the lack of adequate experimental studies, the use of post-hypnotic suggestion to improve se l f concept i s well established in c l i n i c a l practice (Groman, 1973; Hartland, 1971; Jabush, 1976; Susskind, 1976). The use of post-hypnotic suggestions to improve academic performance i s also recommended by several authors (Krippner, 1966, 1970; Radaker 1959, 1963; Uhr, 1958). While the preponderance of c l i n i c a l data seems to support the use of hypnosis, there is a c r i t i c a l need for well-controlled experimental studies that investigate the e f f i c a c y of post-hypnotic suggestions on self concept and academic performance. Additionally, there i s a need for studies to investigate whether subjective reports of improvement are indeed support for performance gains. It i s the intent of t h i s study to address these problems. 35 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The study was designed to control for such variables as subject expectations of the experiment, hypnotic state expectations, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , t r a n c e a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , sex, and the nature of the material. The selection of subjects is presented. Measuring instruments are described. The development of the experimental procedures is discussed. The design and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures are also presented. Subjects Volunteer subjects were obtained from the student population at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia through posters, newspaper advertisements, and talks in the Education Faculty. These procedures resulted in sixty subjects volunteering for the study. A t t r i t i o n resulted in the loss of eight subjects. One of these indicated that she was unsusceptible and did not enjoy s i t t i n g through the procedure. Complete data was not obtained for fi v e subjects who subsequently were dropped from the experiment. These subjects indicated a c o n f l i c t in time commitments. An additional two subjects were deleted randomly from the self-esteem suggestion group in order to equalize c e l l N's at thirteen subjects . It has been shown that subjects volunteering for pa r t i c i p a t i o n in psychological experiments using hypnosis may d i f f e r in personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from those who do 36 not volunteer (Levitt, Lubin, & Brady, 1962; Martin & Marcuse, 1957). The high motivational l e v e l and ego strength (Cooper & Pedersen, 1965) of volunteer subjects may tend to obscure r e s u l t s . Subjects volunteering for this study scored above the mean in terms of self s a t i s f a c t i o n on the TSCS. (See Table III-2.) While there appears to be a s l i g h t decline in hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y with age (Barber & Calverly, 1963; Pedersen & Cooper, 1963) the decrease is not s u f f i c i e n t to interfere with the experimental manipulation in this study. Self concept i s also an age-dependent variable (Grant, 1966). However, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, the dependent measure of self concept in this study, shows no s i g n i f i c a n t variations in the age range proposed for the study (Thompson, 1972). Measuring Instruments A "Subject Information Form" was administered to obtain demographic data, information regarding the personality correlates of self concept (as proposed by Thompson, 1972) and information regarding academic d i f f i c u l t i e s . This form is presented in Appendix B-2. The C a l i f o r n i a Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity 1963 Revision Level 5 was used as a covariate to adjust pre-treatment means on i n t e l l i g e n c e . The CTMM-SF was selected because i t provided a short (50 minutes), e a s i l y scored, highly r e l i a b l e (KR-21: 0.92 to 0.95) indicator of 37 scholastic aptitude. The test includes sections on l o g i c a l reasoning, s p a t i a l relationships, numerical reasoning, verbal concepts, and memory. Language IQ , non language IQ, and t o t a l IQ scores are generated. The CTMM-SF was selected because i t i s consistent with the types of complex reasoning and abstraction reported by Salzberg (1959) and contextual material reported by Rosenthal (1944), Stalnaker & Riddle (1932), and White, Fox & Harris (1940) which resulted in performance gains in studies using hypnosis. College norms were available for thi s test and i t appeared to be the best available group int e l l i g e n c e test for a college age population. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test: Vocabulary-Comprehension-Rate (1973) was selected as the dependent measure of reading performance. The Nelson-Denny was selected because of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of college norms, high r e l i a b i l i t y for the t o t a l test score (0.93) and ease of administration. (See Table 1 1 1 — 1 . ) It i s a challenging, highly-academic test. The test consists of. a vocabulary section (100 items) and comprehension section (36 items). The Nelson-Denny appeared to be the best available short group test of reading performance for college students. The Nelson-Denny was also f e l t to be consistent with the types of reasoning, abstraction, and contextual material associated with achievement gains in studies using hypnosis (Rosenthal, 1944; Salzberg, 1959; Stalnaker & Riddle, 1932; 38 TABLE 111- 1 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES OF THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST SUBTESTS FOR THE STUDY AND NORMATIVE POPULATIONS (N=52) SUBTEST N-D11 N-D22 NORM.3 REL.4 Vocabulary 0.97 Mean 49.06 59.65 39.49 S.D.5 15.86 18.31 16.62 Comprehension 0.82 Mean 37.96 46 . 1 9 42.99 S.D. 11.21 12.55 11.25 Total t e s t 6 0.95 Mean 86.50 107.84 82.48 S.D. 22.84 27.41 25.41 Speed 7  Mean 272.35 330.62 278.85 S.D. 105.96 114.68 104.46 ^ - D l - F i r s t administration of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 2N-D2 - Second administration of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 3NORM.- Normative population as reported in test manual. "REL. - R e l i a b i l i t y as reported in test manual. 5S.D. - Standard Deviation. 6The t o t a l score on the Nelson-Denny is derived from the Vocabulary and Comprehension subtest scores. 7The u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the Speed subtest of the Nelson-Denny l i m i t s interpretation of findings with regard to reading speed. 39 White, Fox, & Harris, 1940). The Tennessee Self Concept Scale (1964) was chosen as the dependent measure of self concept. The TSCS consists of 100 s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e statements to which the subject • responds on a five-point scale ranging from 'completely true' to 'completely f a l s e ' . Ten of the items constitute the Self C r i t i c i s m Score - a measure of overt defensiveness 1. The remaining ninety.items are summed to provide the t o t a l "P" score, which r e f l e c t s the general le v e l of self-esteem. This scale includes items such as: 1. I have a healthy body. 2. I am an a t t r a c t i v e person. The t o t a l P score was used in t h i s study as the primary measure of self concept. In addition to the t o t a l P score, eight subscales of the TSCS were also considered. They are described by F i t t s (1965) as follows: "Row 1 - Identity. These are the "what I am" items. Here the individual is describing his basic identity - what he is as he sees himself. Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n . This score comes from those items where the individual describes how he feels about the self he perceives. In general this score r e f l e c t s the l e v e l of self s a t i s f a c t i o n or s e l f acceptance. Row 3 - Behaviour. This score comes 1These items are taken d i r e c t l y from the L-Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (1951), Copyright 1943, The University of Minnesota. 40 from those items that say "thi s is what I do, or t h i s i s the way I act." Thus thi s score measures the individual's perceptipn of his own behaviour or the way he functions. Column A - Physical S e l f . Here the individual is presenting his view of his body, his state of health, his physical appearance, s k i l l s , and sexuality. Column B - Moral-Ethical S e l f . This score describes the self from a moral-e t h i c a l frame of reference — moral worth, relationship to God, feelings of being a "good" or "bad" person, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with one's r e l i g i o n or lack of i t . Column C - Personal S e l f . This score r e f l e c t s the individual's sense of personal worth, his feeling of adequacy as a person and his evaluation of his personality apart from his body or his relationships to others. Column D - Family S e l f . This score r e f l e c t s one's feelings of adequacy, worth, and value as a family member. It refers to the individual's perception of self in reference to his closest and most immediate c i r c l e of associates. Column E - Social Self. This i s another "sel f as perceived in r e l a t i o n to others" category but pertains to "others" in a more general way. It r e f l e c t s the person's sense of adequacy and worth in his s o c i a l interaction with other people in general. " (pp. 2-3) The esteem suggestions used in t h i s study were general esteem suggestions. Hartland (1971) points out that s p e c i f i c esteem suggestions may increase subject defensiveness and impede compliance with these very suggestions. The post-hypnotic suggestions used in the experimental treatment were, therefore, general in nature. 0 41 The TSCS was judged to be the best available instrument to sample the content of these suggestions. The TSCS was also judged to be the best available group test of self concept. It has been suggested that the TSCS is too general a test to assess adequately the rel a t i o n s h i p between academic performance and self concept ( F i t t s , 1972). However, in view of Williams (1973) finding that tests of self concept tend to correlate less than 0.30 with tests of reading performance, the TSCS does not appear to be i n f e r i o r to other tests of self concept. The TSCS subtests account for approximately thirteen percent of the variance in predicting reading performance on the Nelson-Denny for the college age population (Drummond, Clayton & Smith, 1977). It i s a r e l i a b l e test, with test re-test r e l i a b i l i t i e s of 0.85 and higher. (See Table 111-2.) It also evidences concurrent v a l i d i t y , c orrelating 0.91 with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Because the s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of subjects to hypnosis appears to be a c r i t i c a l variable in studies using hypnosis (London, Conant & Davison, 1966; London & Fuhrer, 1961; Rosenham & London, 1963a, 1963b; Young, 1925) a l l subjects were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS). This scale i s an adaption of the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale (SHSS), Forms A & B (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). 42 TABLE II1-2 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE SUBTESTS FOR THE STUDY AND NORMATIVE POPULATIONS (N=52) SUBTEST1 TSCS1 2 TSCS23 NORM.4 REL. Total Mean 335.86 351.77 345.57 S.D.5 34.08 39.94 30.70 Rel. 0.92 Row 1 Mean 119.69 123.63 127.10 Identity S.D. Rel. 10.65 13.11 9.96 0.91 Row 2 Mean 107.65 113.37 103.67 Sa t i s f a c t i o n S.D. 1 4.56 16.08 13.79 Rel. 0.88 Row 3 Mean 108.71 114.77 115.01 Behaviour S.D. Rel. 1 1 .80 13.18 1 1 .22 0.88 Column A Mean 64.58 67.48 71 .78 Physical S.D. Rel. 7.72 10.66 7.67 0.87 Column B Mean C71.92 74.31 70.33 Moral S.D. Rel. 7.60 7.29 8.70 0.80 Column C Mean 64.05 68.09 64.55 Personal S.D. Rel. 8.23 9.34 7.41 0.85 Column D Mean 66.86 70. 15 70.83 Family S.D. Rel. 1 0.82 10.81 8.43 0.89 Column E Mean 67.67 71 .02 68. 1 4 Soc i a l S.D. Rel. 8.57 9.34 7.86 0.90 1See page 39 for a description of the subtests of the TSCS. 2TSCS1 - F i r s t administration of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 3TSCS2 - Second administration of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. "NORM. - Normative population as reported in test manual. 5REL. - R e l i a b i l i t y . 6S.D. - Standard Deviation. 43 Kline (1965) indicates that the SHSS " . . . ( i s ) better constructed (standardized) than previously existing scales" (p.179). Test re-test r e l i a b i l i t y i s 0.83 (Moss, 1965). The SHSS takes approximately forty minutes to administer and must be administered i n d i v i d u a l l y . The HGSHS i s a close approximation of the SHSS but has been adapted so that i t can be administered to small groups. Because of the advantage of small group administration the HGSHS was chosen for use in thi s study. After each induction, hypnotic depth was measured using the Long Stanford Scale. This scale was chosen for measuring hypnotic depth because of i t s ease of administration and high correlation with behavioural indices of hypnosis (Tart, 1972). The LSS i s consistent with the induction procedure used in t h i s study and correlates between 0.66 and 0.77 with other measures of hypnotic depth. The directions for administering the LSS are presented in Appendix A-5. Following administration of the dependent measures, subjects were requested to respond to the Debriefing Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t information regarding the Subject's perceptions of the effi c a c y of the post-hypnotic suggestions. Four dependent measures were obtained from this scale. They were: 1. Self perception of improvement, 2. Other perception of improvement, 4 4 • 3 . Total perception of improvement, and 4. Responses to questions. The Debriefing Questionnaire i s presented in Appendix B-4. P i l o t Studies A series of p i l o t studies was implemented to ensure that the hypnotic procedures were e f f e c t i v e and that subjects reported change in their behaviour as a result of the post-hypnotic suggestions. A description of these p i l o t studies and the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of results is presented in Appendix C. Procedure Potential subjects expressed their interest in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study by contacting the Education C l i n i c . These individuals were given a form which provided additional information about the study and which requested written consent for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study. The Subject Consent Form is presented in Appendix. B - 1 . Individuals interested in p a r t i c i p a t i n g were also provided with a Subject Information Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t information regarding academic d i f f i c u l t i e s and self concept and i s presented in Appendix B-2. Subjects were to l d that a session was to be provided, at which answers would be given to any questions or concerns they might have about the experiment. They were informed of the time and location of Session I, and they were asked to 45 complete the Subject Consent Form and Subject Information Questionnaire and bring them to Session I. Session I A l l subjects met as a group for Session I. They were given a brief description of the background, design, and methodology of the study. It was emphasized that any subject could withdraw at any time, that individual i d e n t i t i e s would be s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l , and that the raw data would be kept for a period of only one year beyond completion of the study. Subjects were informed that upon completion of Session IX, they could arrange private consultations to obtain their results on the TSCS, Nelson-Denny, CTMM-SF, and HGSHS. They were provided a brief history of hypnosis and were given 'state' suggestions of alertness, attention and expectations regarding hypnosis. These suggestions were used to control subject expectations and create an active state (White, 1937; Liebert, Rubin & Hilgard, 1965). These suggestions are presented in Appendix A-1 . Subjects were provided the opportunity to ask questions regarding the nature of the study and the procedures used. During Session I, the Subject Consent Form and Subject Information Questionnaire were c o l l e c t e d . Those subjects consenting to participate in the study were administered the CTMM-SF and were informed of the time and location of Session 11. 4 6 Session II A l l subjects were administered the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and Nelson-Denny Reading Test in a group session. The TSCS was administered prior to the Nelson-Denny in both the pre- and post-testing sessions so that the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the N-D would not confound performance on the TSCS. Session II lasted approximately two hours. At the end of Session II, subjects were allowed to select a convenient time and date for the small group administrations of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS). Session III A l l subjects were administered a taped presentation of the HGSHS in small group sessions. Subjects were ordered in terms of their performance on the HGSHS and were assigned randomly to the four c e l l s of the design. (See Table I I I -1.) Random assignment was accomplished by drawing one of four coloured poker chips from a bag for each individual in each group of four subjects. Fifteen subjects were assigned i n i t i a l l y to each treatment condition. A t t r i t i o n reduced this t o t a l to thirteen. At the end of Session III, subjects were told the times and locations of Sessions IV, V, VI & VII. A . l i s t of the times and locations of these sessions was also posted in the room used for Session I I I . 47 Sessions, IV,V,VI, , VII A four-by-fqur Latin square design was used to determine the order of treatment sessions. Time and order of sessions were counterbalanced. Each group received four sessions of hypnotic induction and post-hypnotic suggestion, separated by approximately one week. Make-up sessions were held for any subjects unable to attend the group sessions. At the start of each treatment session, subjects were given an index card. They were requested to record their name on this card. A sample of the index card i s presented in Appendix B-3. Pre-study experimentation with the hypnotic induction procedures had indicated that subjects were unable to relax as instructed in the Stanford Induction Procedure. To help subjects relax, comfortable chairs were used and subjects were administered the muscular relaxation procedure described by Krumboltz & Thoresen (1969). This procedure i s presented in Appendix A-2. The thirteen subjects in each c e l l of the design were given a hypnotic induction using a taped presentation of the relaxation procedure described by Krumboltz & Thoresen (1969) and a modified version of the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale (SHSS) Form A (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) induction procedure. The procedure is presented in Appendix A-3. Pre-study experimentation with the hypnotic induction 48 procedures had also indicated that subjects reached a maximum depth of two on a scale of one to ten as a result of induction using the Stanford Induction Procedure. This depth of hypnosis was not f e l t to be s u f f i c i e n t . Therefore, a hypnotic deepening procedure was constructed and added to the Stanford Induction Procedure. This deepening procedure increased subjective reports of hypnotic depth to a mean response of f i v e . This procedure is presented in Appendix A-4. The use of a taped presentation for the hypnotic procedures ensured equivalent treatment of groups. Barber & Calverley (1964) and Hoskovec, Svorad & Lane (1963) have demonstrated that taped hypnotic induction i s equivalent in terms of hypnotic depth to voice-presented induction. Tart (1972) points out that "...simply defining a group as 'hypnotized' because the experimenter has gone through a t r a d i t i o n a l hypnotic induction procedure is . . . f a l l a c i o u s , as many subjects w i l l not become hypnotized..." (p.477). The Long Stanford Scale was administered to index the effectiveness of the hypnotic induction procedure.. After induction, each subject's hypnotic depth was assessed using the LSS. This scale is presented in Appendix A-5. Subjects were given a post-hypnotic suggestion to r e c a l l their hypnotic depth. When subjects were brought out of the hypnotic trance, they were requested to record their hypnotic depth on the index card provided at the beginning 49 of each session. Following the post-hypnotic suggestion to remember hypnotic depth, each group of subjects was given a taped presentation of the appropriate esteem suggestions, modified from Gorman (1973). These suggestions are presented in Appendix A-6. At the end of each session, subjects were brought out of the hypnotic 'trance'. Subjects recorded their hypnotic depth on the index cards and these cards were col l e c t e d . C l i n i c a l impressions were recorded during each session and are presented in Appendix D. At the end of Session VII, subjects were informed of the times and locations for Session VIII by posting a l i s t in the room. Session VIII A l l subjects were re-administered the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and Nelson-Denny Reading Test. The TSCS was administered prior to the Nelson-Denny to maintain the i n i t i a l order of presentation of these instruments in Session II, and to ensure that performance on the achievement test did not influence performance on the self concept scale. Following administration of the TSCS and the Nelson-Denny, subjects were administered the Debriefing Questionnaire. This questionnaire was administered following the TSCS and the Nelson-Denny. Several studies suggest that, while subjects may not make academic gains, c 50 subjects report that they have experienced the desired effects (Cooper & T u t h i l l , 1952; Fowler, 1958). The purpose of t h i s questionnaire was to obtain subjective reports of improvement in self concept and reading performance. At the end of Session VIII, subjects were to l d a time and date for the small group re-administrations of the HGSHS. A l i s t of times and dates was also posted in the room used for Session IX. Procedures similar to those used for assigning subjects for Session III were used to select groups for administration of the HGSHS. Session IX Subjects were assigned to small groups, and the taped presentation of the HGSHS was re-administered. Hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y was re-tested because of the p o s s i b i l i t y that the practice effect of hypnosis over a period of four sessions would lead to changes in the hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of subjects and hence the d i s t i n c t i o n between tranceable and untranceable subjects. The co r r e l a t i o n between the f i r s t and second administration of the HGSHS. was 0.77. However, only twenty-seven subjects showed up for the second session. The second administration of the HGSHS was subsequently dropped from the analyses. At the end of Session VIII and IX, subjects were offered an opportunity to sign up for individual interviews to discuss their test r e s u l t s . A l l but two subjects opted to do so. 51 Design In order to test the ef f e c t s of post-hypnotic s e l f -esteem suggestions and achievement suggestions on self concept and achievement, a two-by-two f a c t o r i a l design was employed using three dependent measures. The factors were: a) Self-esteem suggestions (Present or Absent) and b) Other-esteem suggestions (Present or Absent). The design of the study i s presented in Figure 111 — 1 . Dependent measures were: subjective reports of se l f concept and achievement change as reported on the Debriefing Questionnaire, self concept as measured by the Total P score of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and reading performance as measured by the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. The Sub-scales of the Debriefing Questionnaire were analyzed separately because of the nature of the experimental manipulation. In addition, Debriefing Questionnaire questions two, three, and five were analyzed separately to provide information regarding subject perception of gains. Because of the exploratory nature of the study and the complex nature of the post-hypnotic esteem and achievement suggestions, the row and column subtests of the TSCS and the N-D subtest scores were also analyzed as dependent measures. FACTOR GROUP 2 2 3 3 4' OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Present Present Absent Absent SELF-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Present Absent Present Absent SEX COMPOSITION M=4 F=9 M=2 F=1 1 M=5 F = 8 M=3 F=1 0 N=52 1Group 1 received combined-esteem suggestions. 2Group 2 received other-esteem suggestions. 3Group 3 received self-esteem suggestions. "Group 4 received achievement suggestions. These suggestions were the same as in Groups 1,2 and 3 with the references to self concept deleted. F i g . 111-1 Design of the Study. 53 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures The data was processed at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. The Triangular Regression  Package:UBC TRP (Le & T e n i s c i , 1978) program was used to compute correlations between hypnotic depth and hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , and between reading performance and self concept. A stepwise regression analysis was performed using the Stepwise Regression BMP:02R program (Halm, 1974). Regression analysis was chosen as i t enabled the use of continuous variables (HGSHS, LSS) and dichotomous variables (Treatment,Sex) as independent measures (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). It also enabled the estimation of the interaction between continuous and dichotomous variables. A stepwise regression was chosen as i t enabled a structured rather than 'floating' ordering for the analyses. A multiple regression approximation of analysis of covariance was used to improve the s e n s i t i v i t y of the analyses (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). Five individual difference measures were selected on the basis of previous research indicating they might interact d i f f e r e n t i a l l y with treatment e f f e c t s . They were: 54 1. (N-D1 or TSCS 2) 2. CTMM-SF t o t a l score 3. HGSHS t o t a l score 4. LSS t o t a l score 5. Sex. The p r i o r i t i e s of terms entered in the regression analyses are presented in Table III-3. Terms with the highest number (9) were entered f i r s t . In the case that variables were assigned the same number (HGSHS & LSS), the variable having the highest co r r e l a t i o n with the dependent measure was entered f i r s t . Variance attributable to the individual difference measures was entered f i r s t into the regression analysis to reduce the variance in the residual error component (Myers, 1972). P r i o r i t i e s for entering variables were based on correlations with the dependent measures previously reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . Pre-test performance (TSCS or N-D) was accounted for f i r s t . ^-D refers to pre-treatment performance on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. This covariate was only considered when the Nelson-Denny was the dependent measure. 2TSCS refers to pre-treatment performance on. the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This covariate was only considered when the TSCS was the dependent measure. 55 TABLE II1-3 FACTORS IN THE REGRESSION ANALYSES (N=52) Source Degrees Order 1 Hypotheses of of of and Variation Freedom Variables Research Questions DQ N-D TSCS Covariates (N-D1 / TSCS1) 2 1 9 CTMM 1 8 HGSHS 1 8 H3 H5 H7 LSS 1 8 H4 H6 H8 Sex 1 6 Independent Variables RQ1 RQ3 RQ5 Self (S) 1 5 Other (0) 1 5 Interactions RQ2 RQ4 RQ6 Self-Other (S-0) 1 4 S-HGSHS 1 3 S-LSS 1 3 S-Sex 1 3 0-HGSHS 1 3 0-LSS 1 3 O-Sex 1 3 S-O-HGSHS 1 3 S-O-LSS 1 3 S-O-Sex 1 3 1Terms with the highest number (9) were entered f i r s t . In the case that terms were assigned the same number, the term having the highest c o r r e l a t i o n with the dependent variable was entered f i r s t . 2The f i r s t administration of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test was used as a covariate for the f i n a l administration of thi s te s t . The f i r s t administration of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale was used as a covariate for the f i n a l administration of t h i s t e s t . Scores on the N-D and TSCS were not used as covariates on the Debriefing Questionnaire. 56 Intelligence (CTMM-SF) was entered second. Hypnotic responsiveness (HHSHS and LSS) was considered t h i r d and sex was considered l a s t . After variance due to the covariates had been removed, variance attributable to the independent variables was entered. The independent variables were: 1. Self-esteem suggestions (Present or Absent) 2. Other-esteem suggestions (Present or Absent) Only a limited number of interactions were examined. The interaction between the experimental variables was considered f i r s t . The experimental variables and their interaction were combined with s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS), tr a n c e a b i l i t y (LSS) and sex in a one factor interaction. A l l other two and three factor interactions were treated as error variance (Kaufman & Sweet, 1974). The F r a t i o for each test of significance was calculated using the following formula: R.SQ. (Source) / df (Source) F_ 1-R.SQ. (Full) / df (Full) where: F = The calculated^F r a t i o . R.SQ. (Source) = Increase in the square of the co r r e l a t i o n due to the entered variable df (Source) = Degrees of freedom for source being tested. R.SQ.' (Full) = Total square of the co r r e l a t i o n accounted for by the variables entered in the regression analysis. df (Full) = N-1-Total number of sources. 57 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The results of the study are presented in three sections. They are: 1. R e l i a b i l i t y of measures, 2. Tests of equivalency, 3. Tests of hypotheses. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the HGSHS, LSS, Subject Information Form, and Debriefing Questionnaire i s discussed. Tests of equivalency for groups on the Subject Information Form, pre-test variables (CTMM-SF, N-D, TSCS, HGSHS), and the hypnotic procedures (LSS) are presented. Tests of hypotheses include c o r r e l a t i o n a l hypotheses and hypotheses r e l a t i n g to the three dependent measures (Debriefing Questionnaire, N-D, TSCS) used in the study. R e l i a b i l i t i e s As r e l i a b i l i t y i s not reported in the manual for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y or for the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth, i t was necessary to compute the r e l i a b i l i t y of these measures. It was also necessary to compute the r e l i a b i l i t y of the rating scales on the Subject Information Form as these measures were also used in the tests of equivalency for groups. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the Debriefing Questionnaire variables used as dependent measures were also calculated. The HGSHS was administered twice to subjects during the 58 experiment. It was found to have Hoyt (1941) internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of 0.81 (pre-) to 0.86 (post-). The LSS was administered four times to subjects during the experiment. Test re-test r e l i a b i l i t y ranged from 0.15 to 0.62. Inter-test correlations are presented in Table IV-1 . The Subject Information Form was composed of six questions r e l a t i n g to self concept and eight questions re l a t i n g to academic achievement. The Hoyt internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y for the self concept questions was 0.54. The internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y for the achievement questions was 0.47. The internal consistency r e l i a b i l i l t y for the composite test was 0.37 and Cronbach's Alpha for the composite test was 0.34. The Debriefing Questionnaire was also composed of two sections. The f i r s t section consisted of an eighteen question rating scale regarding subject perceptions of the effects of each form of post-hypnotic suggestions. The second section consisted of six questions concerning the benefits of the hypnotic treatment. 59 TABLE IV-1 INTERCORRELATIONS OF THE FOUR ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE LONG STANFORD i SCALE OF HYPNOTIC DEPTH (LSS) (N=52) Variable HD1 1 HD2 2 HD3 3 HD4" HDT5 HD1 1.0000 HD2 0.2725 1.0000 HD3 0.1541 0.6155 1.0000 HD4 0.3343 0.3651 0.3003 1.0000 HDT 0.4536 0.7149 0.7403 0.7332 1.0000 1HD1 = F i r s t administration of LSS 2HD2 = Second administration of LSS 3HD3 = Third administration of LSS "HD4 = Fourth administration of LSS 5HDT = Composite LSS 60 The Hoyt (1941) internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y for the rating scale in the f i r s t section was 0.92. The internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y for the questions in the second section was 0.66. The internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y for the composite test was 0.96. Tests of Equivalency The tests of equivalency among groups were divided into three parts: responses on the Subject Information Form, pre-test variables, and the hypnotic procedure. A multi-variate analysis of variance was used to test for equivalency of a l l continuous variables. The factors (independent variables) used in t h i s analysis were: 1) Self Suggestions - Present/Absent, and 2) Other Suggestions -Present/Absent. Subject Information Form Variables A l l questions on the Subject information Form were analyzed as dependent variables. In addition, sub-totals were analyzed for questions r e l a t i n g to s e l f concept and questions r e l a t i n g to academic performance. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.05) were found on any of the analyses on the Subject Information Form. The multi-variate analysis for the Subject Information Form, and c e l l means and standard deviations, are presented in Appendices E-1, E-2, and E-3. Pre-test Variables The tests of equivalency for the pre-test variables were divided into four parts. Part one involved analysis of 61 the sub-totals of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM). Part two was an analysis of the sub-totals of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Part three was an analysis of the major sub-scales on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and part four involved an analysis of performance on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y . A multi-variate analysis of variance was used to test for group equivalency on a l l continuous variables. The factors (independent variables) used in t h i s analysis were: 1) Self Suggestions - Present/Absent, and 2) Other Suggestions - Present/Absent. No s i g n i f i c a n t group differences (p<.05) were found on any of. the pre-test variables. The dependent variables for the pre-test measures on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity were: 1. Verbal Score 2. Numerical Score 3. Language Score 4. Non-Language Score 5. Total Score. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences in scores on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity were found between groups (p<.05). C e l l means and standard deviations, and the multi-variate analysis for the CTMM-SF are presented in Appendices E-4 and E-5. The dependent variables for the pre-test measures on 62 the Nelson-Denny Reading Test were: 1. Vocabulary 2. Comprehension 3. Total Test 4. Reading Speed. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.05) were found on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. C e l l means and standard deviations, and the multi-variate analysis of variance for the N-D i s presented in Appendices E-6 and E-7. The dependent variables for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale were: 1. Total 2. Row 1 - Identity 3. Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n 4. Row 3 - Behaviour 5. Column A - Physical Self 6. Column B - Moral-Ethical Self 7. Column C - Personal Self 8. Column D - Family Self 9. Column E - Social S e l f . No s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups were found on the pre-test subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (p<.05). C e l l means and standard deviations, and the multi-variate analysis for the TSCS are presented in Appendices E-8 and E-9. I n i t i a l performance on the Harvard Group Scale of .63 Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y was also analyzed as a pre-test variable. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups were found (p<.05). C e l l means and standard deviations, and the multi-variate analysis for the HGSHS are presented in Appendices E-10 and E-11. Hypnotic Procedure Subjects in a l l groups were given the same tape recorded hypnotic induction procedure. However, there was a p o s s i b i l i t y that the hypnotic induction procedure might be influenced by events not controlled, between groups, such as ambient noise. To determine i f thi s was the case, performance on the Long Stanford Scale was analyzed as a dependent variable for each treatment session. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.05) between groups were found for any of the sessions. C e l l means and standard deviations, and the analysis for the LSS are presented in Appendices E-12 and E-13. Tests of Hypotheses The regression analysis used in t h i s study i s based on techniques described by Kerlinger & Pedhazur (1973). Selection of regression analysis enabled the use of both continuous variables ( t r a n c e a b i l i t y and hypnotic depth) and dichotomous variables (treatment and sex) as independent measures. It also enabled the estimation of the interaction between continuous and dichotomous variables. The stepwise regression analsysis was performed using 64 Stepwise Regression (BMD:02R; Halm, 1974) as adapted from BMD (UCLArDixon, 1970) which i s available at the Computing Centre of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The factors (independent variables) used in this analysis were.: 1) Self Suggestions - Present/Absent, and 2) Other Suggestions Present/Absent. Analysis of covariance was used to improve the s e n s i t i v i t y of the analysis (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). Five general covariates were selected on the basis of previous research indicating they might be associated with d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment e f f e c t s . These covariates were: 1. (N-D1/TSCS1) 2. CTMM-SF t o t a l score 3. HGSHS1 t o t a l score 4. LSS t o t a l score 5. Sex. The tests of hypotheses were divided into four parts. They were: 1 . Correlational hypotheses 2. Debriefing Questionnaire hypotheses 3. Achievement hypotheses 4. Self Concept Hypotheses. Correlational Hypotheses The c o r r e l a t i o n a l hypotheses we're designed to test the degree to which s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and t r a n c e a b i l i t y were related and the degree to which achievement and s e l f concept 65 were related. Tart (1972) reported that correlations between the HGSHS and the LSS generally range from 0.58 to 0.85. It was hypothesized that: H1 There would be a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlation between the Harvard Group Scale o i Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS) and the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth (LSS). The results of the TRP analysis revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=0.38, df = 51, p<.0l) between the f i r s t administrations of the HGSHS and the LSS, and a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=0.64, d f = 5 l , p < . 0 0 l ) between the second administrations of the HGSHS and the LSS. Studies by Brookover, Thomas & Patterson (1964), Caplin (1969), Cummings (1971), DeLisle (1953), Fink (1962), Lamy (1965) Ozehosky (1971), Wattenberg & C l i f f o r d (1964), and Williams & Cole (1968) suggest a low positive c o r r e l a t i o n between se l f concept and reading performance. Drummond, Clayton _ Smith (1977) reported a co r r e l a t i o n of 0.39 between the N-D and TSCS for a college age population. It was hypothesized that: H2 There would be a s i g n i f i c a n t positive c o r r e l a t i o n between the Nelson Denny Reading Test and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This hypothesis was not supported. (See Table IV-2.) 6 6 TABLE IV-2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST AND THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) N-D1 N-D2 TSCS1 0. 172 0.185 TSCS2 0.192 0.185 The c r i t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n at a prob a b i l i t y l e v e l of 0.10 i s 0.231 . 67 * D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used to measure s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s of improvement. (See Appendix B-4) I t i n c l u d e d four s c a l e s . They were: 1. S e l f p e r c e p t i o n of improvement 2. Other p e r c e p t i o n of improvement 3. T o t a l p e r c e p t i o n of improvement 4. Questions r e g a r d i n g improvement. Subjects r a t e d t h e i r improvement on the f i r s t three s c a l e s i n r e l a t i o n to the major areas of p o s t - h y p n o t i c suggestions they r e c e i v e d . These i n c l u d e d how h e a l t h y , s u c c e s s f u l , motivated, secure, f r i e n d l y , r e s t e d , c o n f i d e n t , happy, and l o g i c a l s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d themselves. C o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from 0.73 to 0.95 among these measures. Subje c t s were a l s o asked to respond to q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of improvement in s e l f concept and achievement. T h i s s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d between 0.45 and 0.60 with the other s c a l e s . Acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of hypotheses was based on t o t a l p e r c e p t i o n of improvement. However, because of the e x p l o r a t o r y nature of the study, and the general nature of the post-hypnotic suggestions, sub-scale performance was analyzed. As the subscales were not independent, t h i s 6 8 procedure may have s p u r i o u s l y i n f l a t e d a l p h a 1 l e v e l s . I t was hypothesized t h a t : H3 SS's would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than US's on a l l dimensions of the D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The r e s u l t s of the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (F=23.72-; df=1,35; p<. 01 ) on the D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t i n g s c a l e . T h i s r e s u l t h e l d f o r how s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d themselves (F=12.45, df=1,35, p<.0l) and how they f e l t others p e r c e i v e d them (F=19.35; df=1,35; p<.0l). The r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s a l s o r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t on the D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r how p o s i t i v e l y s u b j e c t s responded to the ques t i o n s (F=16.90; df=1,33; p<.0l). (See Table IV-3 and Appendices F-1 to F-4 f o r the r e g r e s s i o n analyses.) At t h i s p o i n t i n the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , v a r i a n c e due to i n t e l l i g e n c e had been removed. SS's scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean scores than US's with respect to how p o s i t i v e l y they p e r c e i v e d themselves (SS-X=47.01, US-X=43.13), how p o s i t i v e l y others p e r c e i v e d them (SS-X=43.83, US-X=36.69), t o t a l Rating Scale responses (SS-X=90.90, US-X=82.83), and how p o s i t i v e l y they responded to the ques t i o n s on the D e b r i e f i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SS-X=11.31, US-X=10.26). 1The alpha l e v e l i s the p r o b a b i l i t y of acceptance of a f a l s e hypothesi s. 69 TABLE IV-3 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF SUSCEPTIBILITY ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF LATED FREEDOM F 2 R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ.3 Rating Scale Total Rating Scale Self Rating Scale Others Questions 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 16.8985 0.5119 0.2620 12.4494 0.4319 0.1865 19.3466 0.5581 0.3114 23.7239 0.5339 0.2850 1This represents the HGSHS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate > dependent measures of the Debriefing Questionnaire. 2This i s the F-value used to calculate s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Each test of s t a t i s t i c a l significance used the same degrees of freedom. 3This square of the multiple c o r r e l a t i o n represents the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variables after variance due to larger or equally weighted variables (CTMM-SF,LSS) has been removed. Note. The format used for footnotes two and three w i l l be followed in a l l subsequent tables of the same type. **Indicates p<.0l. . This format w i l l be used in a l l subsequent tables. 70 It was also hypothesized that: H4 Tranceable subjects (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable subjects (UT's) on a l l dimensions of the Debriefing Questionnaire. The results of the analysis did not support this hypothesis, either with regard to o v e r a l l performance on the rating scale, or with regard to how subjects thought others perceived them. However, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect (F=4.40; df=1,35; p<.05) for how p o s i t i v e l y subjects perceived themselves, and a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect (F=6.74; df=1,35; p<.05) for how p o s i t i v e l y subjects responded to questions regarding the benefits of the hypnotic treatment. (See Table IV-4 and Appendices F-1 to F-4 for the regression analyses.) At this point in the analysis variance due to i n t e l l i g e n c e had been removed. T's (X=47.84) scored higher mean scores than UT's (X=42.60) with respect to how p o s i t i v e l y they perceived themselves; and T's scored higher mean scores (X=11.44) than UT's (X=10.296) with respect to how p o s i t i v e l y they responded to the questions regarding the benefits and enjoyment of the hypnotic treatment. The following research question was asked: RQ1 What are the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of s e l f -and other-esteem suggestions on Debriefing Questionnaire scores? TABLE IV-4 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF TRANCEABILITY ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF LATED FREEDOM F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. Rating Scale Total Rating Scale Self Rating Scale Others Questions 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 3.2244 0.5551 0.3081 4.4045 0.5000 0.2500 1.4915 0.5766 0.3325 6.7418 0.6037 0.3644 ^ h i s represents the LSS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Debriefing Questionnaire. •Indicates p<.05. This format w i l l be used in a l l subsequent tables. 72 The results of the analysis did not reveal a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for self-esteem suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire. Results are summarized in Table IV-5. (See Appendices F-1 to F-4 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for other-esteem suggestion (F=5.18; df=1,35; p<.05) with regard to how subjects perceived themselves on the Debriefing Questionnaire rating scale. At t h i s point in the regression analysis variance due to i n t e l l i g e n c e , hypnotic susceptibility,hypnotic depth, and sex had been removed. Subjects in the group given other-esteem suggestions (X=47.19) scored higher than subjects not receiving other-esteem suggestions (X=43.46). This e f f e c t did not generalize to how subjects thought others perceived them, to how p o s i t i v e l y subjects responded on the t o t a l rating scale, or to how p o s i t i v e l y subjects responded to the Debriefing Questionnaire questions. Results are summarized in Table IV-6. (See Appendices F-1 to F-4 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) The results of the analysis did not reveal a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire. . Results are summarized in Table IV-7. (See Appendices F-1 to F-4 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) TABLE IV-5 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF SELF-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF LATED FREEDOM F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. Rating Scale Total Rating Scale Self Rating Scale Other Questions 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1.9025 0.6245 0.3901 2.1814 0.6080 0.3697 1.1932 0.5970 0.3564 1.7492 0.6559 0.4302 1This represents self-esteem suggestions as a source of vari a t i o n in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Debriefing Questionnaire. TABLE IV-6 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF. LATED FREEDOM F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. Rating Scale Total Rating Scale Self Rating Scale Other Questions 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 , 35 1 ,35 3.0146 0.6Q23 0.3628 5.1757 0.5816 0.3383 0.7884 0.6062 0.3675 2.1143 0.6559 0.4302 ^ h i s represents self-suggestions as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Debriefing Questionnaire. 75 TABLE IV-7 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF THE INTERACTION OF SELF- AND OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF LATED FREEDOM F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. Rating Scale Total Rating Scale Self Rating Scale Other Quest ions 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1 ,35 1.7136 0.6438 0.4145 1.6118 0.6268 0.3929 1.4773 0.6232 0.3883 3.5917 0.6874 0.4725 'This represents the interaction of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestion as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Debriefing Questionnaire. 7 6 The following research question was asked: RQ2 What i s the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in thi s study and the type of esteem suggestion, in terms of performance on a l l dimensions of the Debriefing Questionnaire? The results of the analysis revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t disordinal interaction (F=4.13; df=1,35; p<.05) between self-esteem suggestions and t r a n c e a b i l i t y on the Debriefing Questionnaire questions. The form of thi s interaction was such that the correlation between t r a n c e a b i l i t y and responses to Debriefing Questionnaire questions became higher given self-esteem suggestions. This interaction is i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure IV-1. (See Appendices F-1 to F-4 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t three factor interaction (F=4.64; df=1,35; p<.05) between s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions and sex on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for the opinions of others. Compared to the mean performance for females (X=42.26), females responded less p o s i t i v e l y on the rating scale when given self-esteem suggestions (X=40.00). Compared to the mean performance for males (X=41.29), males responded more p o s i t i v e l y when given other-esteem suggestions (X=45.50). This interaction i s shown in Figure IV-2. (See Appendices F-1 to F-4 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) 77 12 11 DEBRIEFING 10 QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES SELF-ESTEEM PRESENT (N=26) SELF-ESTEEM ABSENT (N=26) 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 TRANCEABILITY Fig.'IV-l Interaction between Sel f -Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability • on the Debriefing Questionnaire Questions. 78 48 47 46 45 44 DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE 4 3 SCORES 42 41 40 39 0 OTHERS-SELF-Male (N = 14) I I Female (N=38) PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT ABSENT ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Fi g . IV-2 Interaction between S e l f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for Others. 7 9 Achievement Hypotheses The dependent measure for the achievement hypotheses was the Nelson-Denny Reading Test t o t a l score. This test consists of Vocabulary, Comprehension and Speed subtests. The t o t a l score is based on performance on the Vocabulary and Comprehension subtests. Subscales on the Nelson-Denny correlate 0.41 to 0.93. The Vocabulary subtest Intercorrelations are presented in Appendix H-1. Acceptance or rejection of hypotheses was based on the t o t a l test score on the Nelson-Denny Reading test. However, because of the exploratory nature of the study, and the general nature of the post-hypnotic suggestions, subscale performance was also analyzed. As subscales were not independent, this procedure may have spuriously i n f l a t e d alpha l e v e l s . It was hypothesized that: H5 Susceptible subjects (SS's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects (US's) on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. The analyses of the Nelson-Denny Reading test supported the above hypothesis. After c o n t r o l l i n g for variance due to i n i t i a l differences on the Nelson-Denny and CTMM-SF, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (F=7.83; 8 0 df = 1 ,34;- p<.01 ) 1 on the Nelson-Denny T o t a l T e s t . SS's (X=108.48) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher means, than US's (X=102.52). The s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y a l s o was a l s o found on the Nelson-Denny Vocabulary subtest (F=4.73; df = 1,34; p<.05). The Vocabulary subtest i s the most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d subtest (r=0.93) with the t o t a l t e s t score on the Nelson-Denny. Again SS's (X=60.21) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher means than US's (X=58.96). However, t h i s r e s u l t d i d not hol d f o r the Nelson-Denny Comprehension or Speed s u b t e s t . R e s u l t s are summarized i n Table IV-8. (See Appendices F-5 to F-8 f o r a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s of the r e g r e s s i o n analyses.) It was a l s o hypothesized t h a t : H6 Tranceable s u b j e c t s (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable s u b j e c t s (UT's) on the four p o s t -treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading T e s t . The r e s u l t s of the analyses d i d not support t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . R e s u l t s are summarized i n Table IV-9. (See Appendices F-5 to F-8 f o r a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s of the r e g r e s s i o n analyses.) 'The removal of pre-test performance on the Nelson-Denny reduced the degrees of freedom in the error term by one from that noted for the Debriefing Questionnaire. 81 TABLE REGRESSION ANALYSES 1 TESTING ON THE NELSON-DENNY IV-8 THE EFFECT OF SUSCEPTIBILITY READING TEST (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES CALCU-OF LATED FREEDOM F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. N-D Vocab. N-D Comp. N-D Total N-D Speed 1 ,34 1 ,34 1 ,34 1 ,34 4.7.250 3 . 7 9 1 8 7 . 8 3 4 5 0 . 0 8 0 4 0 . 9 1 8 9 0 . 8 0 3 8 0 . 9 0 1 2 0 . 8 2 3 5 0 . 8 4 4 3 * 0.6461 0 . 8 1 2 1 ** 0.67 8 1 'This represents the HGSHS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 82 TABLE REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING ON THE NELSON-DENNY IV-9 THE EFFECT OF TRANCEABILITY READING TEST (N=52) DEPENDENT DEGREES CALCU- R WITH CHANGE VARIABLE OF LATED DEPENDENT IN FREEDOM F VARIABLE R.SQ. N-D Vocab. 1,34 N-D Comp. 1,34 N-D Total 1,34 N-D Speed 1,34 3.9190 0.9262 0.8579 1.0881 0.8079 0.6527 3.4181 0.9074 0.8234 0.0536 0.8231 0.6776 'This represents the LSS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 83 The research question was asked: RQ3 What is the r e l a t i v e effect of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading test? After variance due to i n i t i a l differences on the Nelson-Denny, i n t e l l i g e n c e , s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , hypnotic depth and sex had been removed there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for other-esteem suggestions (F=5.17; df=1,34; p<.05) on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test t o t a l score. The mean for subjects given other-esteem suggestions was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (X=106.73) than for subjects not given other-esteem suggestions (X=104.96). The analyses of the Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Speed subtests of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for other-esteem suggestions. Results are summarized in Tables IV-10, 11, and 12. (See Appendices F-5 to F-8 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) The following research question was asked: RQ4 What is the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in t h i s study and the type of esteem suggestion, on the four post-treatment measures of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test? There was a s i g n i f i c a n t ordinal interaction (F=4.39; df=1,35; p<.05) between other-esteem suggestions and sex on the Comprehension subtest of the Nelson-Denny Reading test. Males (X=47.78) scored higher than females (X=44.00) when given other-esteem suggestions. 84 TABLE IV-10 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF SELF-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (N=52) DEPENDENT DEGREES CALCU- R WITH CHANGE VARIABLE OF LATED DEPENDENT IN FREEDOM F VARIABLE R SQ. N-D Vocab. 1,34 N-D Comp. 1,34 N-D Total 1,34 N-D Speed 1,34 0.1153 0.9312 0.8672 2.6707 0.8232 0.6777 0.2722 0.9617 0.8419 0.0804 0.8318 0.6918 1This represents other suggestions as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. TABLE IV-11 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLE CHANGE IN R SQ. N-D Vocab. 1,34 2.3630 0.9310 0.8668 N-D Comp. 1,34 1.4343 0.8191 0.6710 N-D Total 1,34 5.1726 0.9171 0.8410 N-D Speed 1,34 1.8085 0.8317 0.6918 ^ h i s represents other-esteem suggestions as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 86 TABLE IV-12 REGESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF THE INTERACTION OF SELF- AND OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (N=52) DEPENDENT DEGREES CALCU- R WITH CHANGE VARIABLE OF LATED DEPENDENT IN FREEDOM F ' VARIABLE R SQ. N-D Vocab. 1,34 N-D Comp. 1,34 N-D Total 1,34 N-D Speed 1,34 0.0864 0.9314 0.8675 2.6707 0.8330 0.6939 1.1495 0.9196 0.8457 0.5894 0.8344 0.6963 1This represents the interaction of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for four separate dependent measures on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. 87 Males (X=47.60) scored s i m i l a r scores to females (X=47.43) when not given other-esteem s u g g e s t i o n s . T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n appears to be due mainly to females not improving i n performance when given other-esteem s u g g e s t i o n s . The i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown i n F i g u r e IV-3. (See Appendices F-5 to F-8 f o r a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s of the r e g r e s s i o n analyses.) S e l f Concept Hypotheses The dependent measure f o r the s e l f concept hypotheses was the Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e . The TSCS c o n s i s t s of a t o t a l s e l f concept score and e i g h t subtest scores r e l a t i n g to s e l f concept. (See p. 39 f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of the sub t e s t s . ) I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of these s u b t e s t s range from 0.52 to 0.96. (See Appendix H-1 f o r i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . ) Acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of hypotheses was based on the t o t a l s e l f concept score on the TSCS. T h i s score i s the most r e l i a b l e measure of s e l f concept on t h i s t e s t (0.92). However, because of the e x p l o r a t o r y nature of the study, and the g e n e r a l nature of the po s t - h y p n o t i c suggestions, subtest performance on the TSCS was analyzed f o r the s e l f concept s u b s c a l e s . As these subscales were not independent, t h i s procedure may have s p u r i o u s l y i n f l a t e d alpha l e v e l s to some unknown degree. 50 49 48 47 MEAN SCORES 4 6 ON THE NELSON-DENNY COMPREHENSION 4 5 SUBTEST 44 .A I__ZI Male (N=14) I I Female (N=38) PRESENT ABSENT OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Fig. IV-3 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on the Nelson-Denny Comprehension Subtest 89 It was hypothesized that: H7 Susceptible subjects (SS's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects (US's) on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. The t o t a l P score on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (F=4.53; df=1,34; p<.05). After variance due to i n i t i a l performance on the TSCS and i n t e l l i g e n c e had been p a r t i a l l e d out, SS's scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (X=359.55) than US's (X=341.96). Two of the row and column subtests of the TSCS also supported the above hypothesis. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y on Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n (F=7.15; df=1,34; p<.05). SS's (X=116.17) scored higher than US's (X=109.83). There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y on Column C -Personal Self (F=12.80; df=1,34; p<.00l). Again the mean for SS's (X=70.89) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than US's (X=64.57). Results are summarized in Table IV-13. (See Appendices F-9 to F-17 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) It was also hypothesized that: H8 Tranceable subjects (T's) would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than untranceable subjects (UT's) on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 90 TABLE IV-13 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF SUSCEPTIBILITY ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALES2 (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLE CHANGE IN R SQ. TSCS Total 1 ,34 4.5291 0.7143 0.5103 Row 1 1 ,34 2.9860 0.6798 0.4622 Row 2 1 ,34 7.1454 0.7055 0.4977 Row 3 1 ,34 2.9429 0.7335 0.5380 Column A 1 ,34 0.9352 0.7159 0.5125 Column B 1,34 0.4303 0.6397 0.4092 Column C 1 ,34 12.7989 0.6663 0.4440 Column D 1 ,34 3. 1769 0.7520 0.5655 Column E 1 ,34 3.7141 0.7546 0.5694 1This represents the HGSHS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for nine separate dependent measures on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 2A description of the TSCS subscales i s presented on page 39. 91 The analysis of the t o t a l P score on the TSCS did not support the above hypothesis. However, a f t e r variance due to i n i t i a l differences on the TSCS and CTMM-SF were p a r t i a l l e d out, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for hypnotic depth on Column A - Physical Self (F=8.34; df=1,34; P<.01). The mean for T's was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (X=69.32) than UT's (X=65.78). Results are summarized in Table IV-14. (See Appendices F-9 to F-17 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) The research question was asked: RQ5 What i s the r e l a t i v e effect of s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale? The analysis of the t o t a l P score on the TSCS did not answer the above research question. However, after variance due to i n i t i a l differences on the TSCS, i n t e l l i g e n c e , s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , depth, and sex were p a r t i a l l e d out, two of the column sub-totals did reveal a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for other-esteem suggestions. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effe c t for other-esteem suggestions on Column A - Physical Self (F-9.15; df=1,34; p<.0l). 92 TABLE IV-14 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF TRANCEABILITY ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALES2 (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLE CHANGE IN R SQ. TSCS Total 1 ,34 1.4709 0.7240 0.5242 Row 1 1 ,34 0.5102 0.6843 0.4683 Row 2 1 , 34 2.7656 0.7243 0.5246 Row 3 1 , 34 0.9392 0.7386 0.5455 Column A 1 , 34 8.3414 0.7098 0.5038 ** Column B 1 ,34 1.9971 0.6355 0.4039 Column C 1,34 1.0115 0.6720 0.4515 Column D 1 ,34 0.9244 0.7578 0.5742 Column E 1 , 34 0.0499 0.7549 0.5698 1This represents the LSS as a source of variation in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for nine separate dependent measures on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. . • 2A description of the TSCS subscales i s provided on page 39. 93 The mean for s-ubjects given other-esteem suggestions was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (X=71.23) than the mean for subjects not given other-esteem suggestions (X=63.74). There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for other-esteem suggestions on Column C - Personal Self (F=5.89; df=1,34; p<.05). The mean for subjects given other-esteem suggestions was again s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (X=71.12) than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions (X=65.08). Results are summarized in Tables IV-15, 16, and 17. (See Appendices F-9 to F-17 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) The following research question was asked: RQ6 What i s the nature of the interaction between the covariates used in t h i s study and the type of esteem suggestion, in terms of performance on the nine post-treatment measures of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale? The results of the analyses revealed s i g n i f i c a n t d i s o r d i n a l interactions between other-esteem suggestions and tr a n c e a b i l i t y on Row 3 - Behaviour (F=4.63; df=1,34; p<.05) and on Column C - Personal Self (F=7.42; df=1,34; p<.05) of the TSCS. The correlation between t r a n c e a b i l i t y and self concept becomes higher when given other-esteem suggestions. These interactions are presented in Figures IV-4 and IV-5. (See Appendices F-12 and F-15 for the regression analyses.) The results of the analyses also revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t three factor interaction between s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y on 94 TABLE IV-15 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF SELF-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALES2 (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH CHANGE DEPENDENT IN VARIABLE R SQ. TSCS Total 1 ,34 0.6455 0.7523 0.5660 Row 1 1 ,34 0.2091 0.7147 0.5108 Row 2 1 , 34 0.4627 0.7515 0.5647 ROW 3 1 ,34 0.8265 0.7620 0.5807 Column A 1 ,34 0.7954 0.7750 0.6006 Column B 1 ,34 0.0162 0.6601 0.4357 Column C 1 ,34 2.8187 0.7511 0.5641 Column D 1 ,34 0.201 9 0.7648 0.5850 Column E 1 ,34 2.9040 0.7797 0.6079 1This represents self-esteem suggestions as a source of vari a t i o n in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for nine separate dependent measures on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 2A description of the TSCS subscales i s provided on page 39. 95 TABLE IV-16 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALES2 (N=52) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLE CHANGE IN R SQ. TSCS Total 1 ,34 3.7778 0.7483 0.5599 Row 1 1 ,34 3.1449 0.7130 0.5083 Row 2 1 , 34 3.5779 0.7485 0.5602 Row 3 1 ,34 3.1433 0.7577 0.5741 Column A 1 ,34 9.1476 0.7750 0.6006 ** Column B 1 ,34 2.0864 0.6600 0.4356 Column C 1 ,34 5.8937 0.7370 0.5432 * Column D 1 ,34 0.6588 0.7635 0.5330 Column E 1 ,34 1.1840 0.7858 0.6175 1This represents other-esteem suggestions as a source of va r i a t i o n in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for nine separate dependent measures on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 2A description of the TSCS subscales is provided on page 39. 96 TABLE IV-17 REGRESSION ANALYSES1 TESTING THE EFFECT OF THE INTERACTION OF SELF- AND OTHER-ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALES2 (N=52) DEPEDENT VARIABLE. DEGREES OF FREEDOM CALCU-LATED F R WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLE CHANGE IN R SQ. TSCS Total 1 ,34 0.0000 0.7523 0.5660 Row 1 1 ,34 0. 1589 0.7161 0.5127 Row 2 1 ,34 0.0103 0.7516 0.5648 Row 3 1 ,34 0.1127 0.7626 0.5816 Column A 1 ,34 0.0322 0.7752 0.6010 Column B 1 ,34 0.6901 0.6665 0.4442 Column C 1 ,34 3.1964 0.7666 0.5877 Column D 1 ,34 0.0106 0.7649 0.5850 Column E 1 ,34 0.5609 0.7886 0.6219 1This represents s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions as a source of var i a t i o n in step-wise regression approximations of analyses of covariance for nine separate dependent measures on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 2A description of the TSCS subscales i s provided on page 39. 97 130 SCORES ON ROW 3 OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE 120 110 100 0 • OTHER-ESTEEM PRESENT ( N = 2 6 ) OTHER-ESTEEM ABSENT (N=26) 12 15 .18 21 24 TRANCEABILITY 27 30 33 36 Fig. IV-4 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability on Row 3 (Behaviour) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 98 Row 3 - Behaviour (F=5.55, df=1,34,p<.05) of the TSCS. The cor r e l a t i o n between s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and s e l f concept becomes higher when given s e l f - , other-, or combined-esteem suggestions. This interaction i s presented in Figure IV-6. (See Appendix F-12 for the regression analysis.) There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t three factor interaction between s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions and sex on Column C - Personal Self (F=9.93; df=1,34; p<.0l) and Column E -Social Self (F=5.53; df=1,34; p<.05) of the TSCS. Compared to the mean performance for males (X=66.14) and females (X=68.81), esteem suggestions improved the personal self concept scores of males (Self X=70.50, Other X=69.50). Only other-esteem suggestions improved the personal self concept scores of females (Other X=71.27, Combined X=74.10). Achievement suggestions lowered personal self concept scores for both males (X=58.33) and females (X=58.33). Compared to the average performance for ^ males (X=67.42), other-esteem suggestions decreased s o c i a l self concept scores. Compared to the average performance for females (X=72.34), combined esteem suggestions improved soc i a l self concept scores (X=77.11). These interactions are presented in Figures IV-7 and IV-8. (See Appendix F-15 and F-17 for additional d e t a i l s of the regression analyses.) 99 85 80 75 SCORES ON COLUMN C 70 OF THE TENNESSEE 65 SELF CONCEPT 60 SCALE 55 0 • OTHER-ESTEEM PRESENT (N = 26) OTHER-ESTEEM ABSENT (N=26) 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 TRANCEABILITY Fi g . IV-5 Interaction between Other-Esteem Suggestions and Tranceability on Column C (Personal Self) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 100 140 SCORES 130 ON ROW 3 OF THE 120 TENNESSEE SELF 110 CONCEPT SCALE 100 90 80 0 SELF- (N=13) OTHER- (N=13) COMBINED- (N=13) ACHIEVEMENT (N=13) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SUSCEPTIBILITY F i g . IV-6 Interaction between Sel f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Su s c e p t i b i l i t y on Row 3 (Behaviour) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 101 MEAN SCORES ON COLUMN C OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE 80 75 70 65 60 55 UT\ Males (N=14) I I Females (N=38) .A OTHERS- PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT ABSENT SELF- PRESENT ABSENT ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Fig. IV-7 Interaction between Sel f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on Column C (Personal Self) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 102 MEAN SCORES ON COLUMN E OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE 80 75 70 65 60 0 OTHERS-SELF-LZZ! Males Females (N=14) (N=38) .A PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT ABSENT ESTEEM SUGGESTIONS Fig . IV-8 Interaction between Sel f - and Other-Esteem Suggestions and Sex on Column E (Social Self) of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 103 Summary The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the HGSHS (0.81 to 0.86) and Debriefing Questionnaire (0.66 to 0.92) were s u f f i c i e n t l y high to ensure that e f f e c t s due to s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and performance on the Debriefing Questionnaire were not unduly influenced by measurement error. However, the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the LSS (0.15 to 0.62) and Subject Information Form (0.34 to 0.54) were excessively low. Therefore, scores on these measures, and p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t s due to tr a n c e a b i l i t y , should be interpreted with caution. The tests of equivalency did not reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups in terms of expectations of the experiment (Subject Information Form) or on the covariates (CTMM-SF, N-D, TSCS, LSS). While the LSS was not measured prior to treatments, there were l o g i c a l grounds for concluding that scores on the LSS were unaffected by treatments. The analysis of variance over the four sessions of the experiment supports t h i s conclusion. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between groups in terms of tr a n c e a b i l i t y . A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the LSS and HGSHS (r=0.36). This c o r r e l a t i o n suggests that effects due to s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and t r a n c e a b i l i t y should be si m i l a r . This correlation increased (r=0.64) with the second administration of the HGSHS. This increase seemed to be mainly due to the low test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS. 104 A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was not found between the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (r=0.17 to 0.19). The f a i l u r e to find a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between these two measures indicates that they are independent. This supports the contention that achievement suggestions should not s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence self concept or vice versa. A s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y was found on the Debriefing Questionnaire t o t a l , Nelson-Denny t o t a l , and Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l . This effect supported the study hypotheses: in each case susceptible subjects scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects. A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect was not found for t r a n c e a b i l i t y on the Debriefing Questionnaire t o t a l , Nelson-Denny t o t a l , or Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l . The f a i l u r e to find s i g n i f i c a n t effects for t r a n c e a b i l i t y may be due to the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS. Treatments were not correlated (r=0.00). Treatment ef f e c t s were found for other-esteem suggestions on the Nelson Denny Reading Test t o t a l . Supportive findings were also noted for subscale scores on the Debriefing Questionnaire, Nelson-Denny and Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 105 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate the effi c a c y of post-hypnotic suggestions designed to improve self concept and reading performance. The r e l a t i v e effects of achievement, self-esteem, other-esteem and combined-esteem suggestions were compared in terms of subjective reports of improvement, performance on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and performance on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. The general hypothesis underlying t h i s study was that post-hypnotic suggestion would be e f f e c t i v e in improving self concept and reading performance. It was hypothesized that subjects would express a more posit i v e self-image and evidence a more positive self concept when given post-hypnotic self-esteem suggestions. It was also hypothesized that subjects would evidence improved reading performance when given post-hypnotic achievement enhancing suggestions. Summary of the Study Fifty-two volunteer subjects, nineteen years of age or older, were recruited from the student population at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l subjects were administered the Subject Information Form, C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity, Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y prior to assignment to groups. Subjects were 106 blocked in groups of four on the basis of their scores on the HGSHS, and individuals in each block were assigned randomly to the four c e l l s in the design. The study used a two-by-two f a c t o r i a l design with three dependent measures. The factors were: a) s e l f suggestions (Present or Absent) and b) other suggestions (Present or Absent). Combinations of these factors resulted in four groups. Each group received four sets of post-hypnotic suggestions. The order of suggestions was held constant for each group. The time of presentation was counterbalanced using a Latin square design. A tape-recorded hypnotic induction stimulus was used, and hypnotic depth was measured during each treatment using the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth. The dependent measures were performance on the Debriefing Questionnaire, Nelson-Denny Reading Test, and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This resulted in a t o t a l of seventeen dependent measures, as subtest performance on the Debriefing Questionnaire, N-D, and TSCS was considered. (Intercorrelations o'f the dependent measures are presented in Appendix H-1.) A regression approximation of analysis of covariance was used to improve the s e n s i t i v i t y of the analysis and to control for potential confounding effects due to: 107 1. I n i t i a l performance (N-D1/TSCS1) 2. Intelligence (CTMM-SF) 3. Hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS) 4. Hypnotic depth (LSS) 5. Sex Findings Interrelationships Among Measures of Hypnotic Responsiveness Hypnotic responsiveness appears to be a major factor in studies using hypnosis. London & Fuhrer (1961) point out that the positive effects of hypnosis are largely confined to susceptible subjects. Two measures of hypnotic responsiveness were used in the study. They were: 1) s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , and 2) t r a n c e a b i l i t y . S u s c e p t i b i l i t y refers to the ease with which a subject may be hypnotized based on subjective reports of responsiveness to suggestions while hypnotized. It was measured by performance on the HGSHS. Tranceability refers to the subjects perception of his state of hypnosis at a p a r t i c u l a r instance when hypnotized. It was measured by performance on the LSS. Both measures involve subjective reports of responsiveness while hypnotized. Subjects volunteering for the study achieved a mean score of 7.35 (S.D. = 2.69) on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y . The mean reported in the manual of the HGSHS for the Group Form was 7.39. It appears that the subjects volunteering for the study were in the normal range 108 of hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . A s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y was found on the Debriefing Questionnaire t o t a l , Nelson-Denny t o t a l , and Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l . In each case susceptible subjects scored higher than unsusceptible subjects. Intercorrelations among these measures ranged from -0.14 to 0.21. Therefore, these measures may be considered independent. Supportive findings were also noted for a l l three subscales of the Debriefing Questionnaire, the Nelson-Denny Vocabulary subtest and Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n and Column C - Personal Self of the TSCS. Intercorrelations on the Debriefing Questionnaire ranged from 0.45 to 0.95. The Nelson-Denny Vocabulary subtest is> correlated 0.93 with the t o t a l score. Row 2 is correlated 0.96 and Column C i s correlated 0.89 with the t o t a l score on the TSCS. The findings for susceptibity support London & Fuhrer's (1961) observation that the posit i v e effects of hypnosis largely are confined to susceptible subjects. The tendency for susceptible subjects to score higher regardless of the type of suggestion -they received indicates that hypnosis may act as a motivational catalyst for susceptible subjects enabling them to perform. Eighty-one percent of the subjects reported that they were hypnotized during the experiment. The mean hypnotic depth, as measured by the. Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic 109 Depth, was 4.53 (S.D.=2.11). As the LSS measures on a scale of zero to ten, there i s reason to believe that subjects were hypnotized during the experiment. Tart (1972) claims that a depth of 5 on the LSS indicates deep hypnosis. A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for t r a n c e a b i l i t y was not found on the Debriefing Questionnaire t o t a l , Nelson-Denny t o t a l , or TSCS t o t a l . However, main ef f e c t s for tr a n c e a b i l i t y were found on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for self perception, the Debriefing Questionnaire Questions, and Column A - Physical Self of the TSCS. Intercorrelations of these measures ranged from 0.15 to 0.60. (See Appendix H-1 for inte r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the dependent measures.) The ef f e c t for t r a n c e a b i l i t y was such that T's tended to score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than UT's on post-treatment measures regardless of the actual post-hypnotic suggestions. The findings for t r a n c e a b i l i t y were consistent with the findings for s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and seem to also support London & Fuhrer's (1961) observation that the positi v e effects of hypnosis are confined largely to susceptible subjects. While s u s c e p t i b i l i t y ostensibly measures a t r a i t and t r a n c e a b i l i t y a state, both measures involve subjective reports of compliance while hypnotized. The subject rates compliance to ten hypnotic suggestions on the HGSHS. On the LSS, the subject rates his o v e r a l l 'state of compliance' on a scale of zero to ten. Given that hypnosis is e s s e n t i a l l y n o a function of motivation, attitude, and expectations (Barber, 1972), a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p exists between tr a n c e a b i l i t y and s u s c e p t i b l i t y . The co r r e l a t i o n between the HGSHS and the LSS in th i s study was 0.38. While th i s c o r r e l a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t , i t was considerably less than expected. Tart (1972) reports correlations between the LSS and SHSS (the HGSHS is an adaption of the SHSS) ranging from 0.58 to 0.85. The low corr e l a t i o n between the HGSHS and the LSS in the present sample may be accounted for p a r t i a l l y by differences in hypnotic induction procedures. The HGSHS used an eye-fix induction. A relaxation induction was used with the LSS. It is possible that expectations aroused by diffe r e n t induction procedures may result in d i f f e r i n g response sets for subjects (White, 1937; Liebert, Rubin & Hilgard, 1965). However, another possible explanation for the low correlation between the HGSHS and the LSS may be the low test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS. Tart (1970) warns that: ...variations in depth in a given subject throughout the course of an experiment, as well as such variation across subjects, could seriously confound results, even to the point of increasing variance s u f f i c i e n t l y to wash out genuine e f f e c t s . P.451 Intercorrelatio'ns among the four measures of hypnotic depth ranged from 0.15 to 0.62. The u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS may have surpressed the cor r e l a t i o n between the LSS and the 111 HGSHS. The u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS questions the construct v a l i d i t y of Barber's (1972) paradigm for hypnosis. He claims that hypnotic responsivity i s defined in terms of . subject motivation, attitude, and expectations, the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS should be similar to the HGSHS as the same factors influence both t e s t s . This i s not the case. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y on the HGSHS in thi s study was 0.77. Tart (1972) points out that test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y on the LSS is t y p i c a l l y less than the HGSHS. In this study i t ranged from 0.15 to 0.62. The tendency for the test - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS to vary in a manner di f f e r e n t from the HGSHS suggests that attitudes, expectancies, and motivation must influence these measures d i f f e r e n t l y . As the HGSHS and LSS appear to be similar measures, Barber's (1972) paradigm does not seem to adequately explain t h i s e f f e c t . A g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y study needs to be done to validate the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the LSS. Hypnotic Responsiveness as Related to Subject Expectations Subject expectations have previously been reported to have a profound effect on the manner in which a subject responds under hypnosis (White, 1937; Liebert, Rubin & • Hilgard, 1965). While subjects were given state expectations prior to the experiment, i t appears that the nature of the hypnotic induction procedure may also influence subject expectations. The low cor r e l a t i o n between 1 12 the LSS and HGSHS (r=0.38) suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of di f f e r e n t hypnotic induction procedures changing subject expectations. Subject expectations of the hypnotic suggestions may also influence performance. There were s i g n i f i c a n t interactions between other-esteem suggestions and t r a n c e a b i l i t y on Row 3 - Behaviour and Column C - Personal Self of the TSCS, as well as a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between combined-esteem suggestions and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y on Row 3 - Behaviour of the TSCS. These interactions are best shown in Figure IV-6. Achievement suggestions improved the se l f concept of unsusceptible subjects. Esteem suggestions improved the self concept of susceptible subjects . These interactions may have been influenced by subject expectations. The majority of subjects were seeking improvement in self concept rather than achievement. Receiving achievement suggestions may have been a fr u s t r a t i n g and negative experience for highly susceptible subjects who expected self concept suggestions. (See Figure IV-6.) This finding supports Rosenham & London's (1963) unexpected finding that hypnosis may adversely influence susceptible subjects. Hypnotic Responsiveness as Related to Type of Post-Hypnotic  Suggestion T r a d i t i o n a l l y studies in hypnosis have tended to give subjects suggestions regarding self perception. In :this 1 13 study subjects were given suggestions regarding s e l f -perception and perception of the opinions of others. Other-esteem suggestions were found e f f e c t i v e in influencing Reading performance. Subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test t o t a l . However, th i s effect was not found for s e l f -esteem suggestions. The main eff e c t for other-esteem suggestions was not found on the Vocabulary, Comprehension, or Speed subtests of the Nelson-Denny possibly because of the lower r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the subtests as compared to the t o t a l t e s t . Supportive findings were also noted on the Debriefing Questionnaire subtests and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale subtests. The regression analysis revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for other-esteem suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire. Subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions with respect to their perception of themselves on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale. However, subjects were not influenced by other-esteem suggestions in terms of how they f e l t others viewed them on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale. This finding suggests that subjects who changed in self-image as a result of a change in their perception of. how others viewed them were unaware of t h i s change in their perception. (See 1 1 4 Appendix D.) While the t o t a l P score on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale was not influenced s i g n i f i c a n t l y by the experimental manipulation, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for other-esteem suggestions on Column A - Physical Self and Column C - Personal Self of the TSCS. In each case, subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions. 'This finding indicates that post-hypnotic suggestions regarding the opinion of others may influence some aspects of self concept. Subjective Reports of Improvement One of the major objectives of t h i s study was to determine whether subjective reports of improvement were v a l i d indications of the e f f e c t of post-hypnotic suggestions. Given Barber's (1972) paradigm, i t i s reasonable to assume that subjects should be able to report whether or not they had benefited from the post-hypnotic suggestions. Ninety-four percent of subjects reported that they enjoyed the hypnotic induction. Eighty-one percent reported they were hypnotized; one subject did not want to be hypnotized again. Sixty-three percent of subjects reported that their reading performance had improved and seventy-two percent reported that their self concept had improved. Eighty-one percent of subjects reported that they had 115 benefited in ways other than reading performance, s e l f concept, or enjoyment of the hypnosis. While sixty-three percent of subjects reported that their reading performance had improved, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found whether subjects were given post-hypnotic achievement or esteem suggestions in terms of their perception of improvement in reading performance. (See Appendix G-1 for the analysis of covariance.) Likewise, although seventy-two percent of subjects reported that their self concept had improved, subjects who were given post-hypnotic achievement suggestions did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in perception of improvement of self concept from those subjects given esteem suggestions. (See Appendix G-2 for the analysis of covariance.) Therefore, i t would appear that subjective reports of reading performance and self concept improvement were not related to differences in the type of post-hypnotic suggestion. The regression analysis also revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for other-esteem suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire. Subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions with respect to their perception of themselves on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale. However, subjects perceptions of how others viewed them were not influenced by other-esteem suggestions. This finding suggests that subjects who changed in self-image as a result 116 of a change in their perception of how others viewed them were unaware of this change in their perception. (See Appendix D.) The regression analyses on the Debriefing Questionnaire (See Appendices F-1 to F-4.) and the analyses of covariance on questions two and three on the Debriefing Questionnaire (See Appendices G-1 to G-2.) suggest that subjects were es s e n t i a l l y unaware of the benefits of the hypnotic suggestions at a conscious l e v e l . This finding casts doubt on the v a l i d i t y of reporting subjective perception as evidence of the e f f i c a c y of hypnotic treatment in studies using post-hypnotic suggestions (e.g., Cooper & T u t h i l l , 1952; Fowler, 1958). Hypnotic Responsivity as Related to Reading Performance A major objective of the study was to determine whether post-hypnotic achievement suggestions would improve reading performance. This was not the case.. However, self concept suggestions were found to improve reading performance. Subjects volunteering for the study appeared to have normal reading a b i l i t y as measured by Nelson-Denny Reading Test norms. Vocabulary and Total scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test were s l i g h t l y above norms for a college population. Mean scores on the Comprehension and Speed subtests of the N-D were s l i g h t l y below the norm for a college population. (See Table 111-1 .) Reading performance appeared to be enhanced by post-1 17 hypnotic suggestions. Susceptible subjects scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than unsusceptible subjects on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test t o t a l . However, esteem suggestions appeared to be more e f f e c t i v e in improving reading performance than achievement suggestions. Subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test t o t a l . This effect was not found for self-esteem suggestions. The positive e f f e c t of other-esteem suggestions on reading performance suggests that results in studies investigating the ef f e c t s of post-hypnotic suggestions on learning may be influenced by the inadvertent inclusion of esteem suggestions (Barber, 1965). Hypnotic Responsivity as Related to Self Concept Another major objective of the study was to determine whether post-hypnotic esteem suggestions would improve self concept. While post-hypnotic esteem suggestions did not improve t o t a l scores on the TSCS, there was some indication in analyses of the subtests, that other-esteem suggestions may be e f f e c t i v e in improving some aspects of self concept. Self concept appeared to be enhanced by post-hypnotic esteem suggestions. Susceptible subjects scored higher than unsusceptible subjects on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l . However, esteem suggestions did not appear to be more e f f e c t i v e than achievement suggestions in terms of performance on the TSCS t o t a l score. 118 While the Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced by the type of esteem suggestion, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main eff e c t for other-esteem suggestions on Column A - Physical Self and Column C Personal Self on the TSCS. In each case, subjects given other-esteem suggestions scored higher than subjects not given other-esteem suggestions. These findings suggest that post-hypnotic suggestions regarding the opinions of others may have potential for influencing some aspects of s e l f concept. The f a i l u r e to find a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for esteem suggestions on the TSCS t o t a l may be p a r t i a l l y due to the high i n i t i a l l evels of s e l f s a t i s f a c t i o n of subjects. Responses on the Subject Information Form indicated that the majority of subjects volunteering for the study were seeking improvement in self concept. I n i t i a l performance on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale was below the norms in a l l areas except Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n and Column B - Moral-E t h i c a l Self. The i n i t i a l high l e v e l of self s a t i s f a c t i o n of the volunteer subjects may have limited the effectiveness of self-esteem suggestions for improving s e l f concept. The high ego strength (Cooper & Pedersen, 1965) of volunteer subjects, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to self . s a t i s f a c t i o n , may be a c r i t i c a l confounding factor in studies using t r a d i t i o n a l self-esteem suggestions. The findings suggest that Hartland's (1971) post-119 hypnotic suggestions may be e f f e c t i v e in improving some aspects of self concept. Row 3 - Behaviour, Column A Physical Self, and Column C - Personal Self were the subtests most influenced by post-hypnotic esteem suggestions on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Hypnotic Responsivity as Related to Sex Results for sex differences were somewhat limited by the small number of males (N=14) volunteering for the study (See F i g . 111 — 1 for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of males and females in each c e l l of the design.) No s i g n i f i c a n t interactions with sex were found for the Debriefing Questionnaire t o t a l , Nelson-Denny t o t a l , or Tennessee Self Concept Scale t o t a l . However, interactions were found between sex and type of suggestions on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for others, Nelson-Denny Comprehension subtest, and Tennessee Self Concept Scale Personal Self and Social Self subtests. These interactions suggest that males and females may respond d i f f e r e n t l y to s e l f - and other- esteem suggestions. The regression analysis revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between combinations of esteem suggestions and sex on the Debriefing Questionnaire Rating Scale for others. This interaction indicated that other-esteem suggestions improved how p o s i t i v e l y ' males rated the perception of others. Females reacted negatively to self-esteem suggestions with respect to how p o s i t i v e l y they rated the perception of others. There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t 1 20 disor d i n a l interaction between other-esteem suggestions and sex on the Comprehension subtest of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (N-DC). Females given other-esteem suggestions did not improve in comprehension on the Nelson-Denny Reading test compared to i n i t i a l performance on th i s subtest. The regression analyses also revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for sex and a three-way interaction between sex and combinations of esteem-suggestions on Column C - Personal Self and Column E - Social Self on the TSCS. Females tended to benefit more from self-concept suggestions than males in terms of their personal and s o c i a l s e l f . Self-esteem suggestions seemed to improve the Personal Self concept of males and other-esteem suggestions improved the Personal Self concept of females. Other-esteem suggestions improved the Social Self concept of females. Implications of the Study The results of the study indicated that post-hypnotic esteem-suggestions can be e f f e c t i v e for improving performance in vocabulary and comprehension for susceptible university students. Teachers who hope to motivate susceptible students to better reading performance may find esteem suggestions superior to achievement suggestions. Sig n i f i c a n t differences were not found for rate of reading as reported by Hammer (1954) and Mutke (1967). The results of the study also suggest that Hartland's (1971) Ego Strengthening technique can be e f f e c t i v e for 121 improving some aspects of self concept in susceptible university students. The suggestions mainly influenced three areas on the TSCS. F i t t s (1965) describes the content of these areas as follows: "Row 3 - Behavior. This score comes from those items that say "this i s what I do or t h i s i s the way I act•" Thus th i s score measures the individual's perception of his own behaviour or the way he functions. Column A - Physical Self. Here the individual i s presenting his view of his body, his state of health, his physical appearance, s k i l l s , and sexuality. Column C - Personal Self. This score r e f l e c t s the individual's sense of personal worth, his feeling of adequacy as a person and his evaluation of his personality apart from his body or relationships to others." (p.2-3) Susceptible subjects tended to benefit more than unsusceptible subjects regardless of the nature of the post-hypnotic suggestions. It therefore appears that s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to hypnosis i s largely a function of attitude and motivation. Teachers who intend to use suggestion as a means of improving performance should direct suggestions towards improving attitude and motivation. The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y . did not correlate s u f f i c i e n t l y well with the Long Stanford Scale to make the LSS a useful or r e l i a b l e measure of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . The low c o r r e l a t i o n may-have been due to \ 122 low test re-test r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the LSS. However, the low correlation also suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t 'states of hypnosis' associated with d i f f e r e n t induction procedures. Tr a d i t i o n a l forms of hypnotic self-esteem suggestions may be less e f f e c t i v e than other-esteem suggestions, p a r t i c u l a r l y for females. Subjects appeared to benefit most from suggestions intended to a l t e r t h e i r perceptions of how others perceive them. However, an a t t i t u d i n a l change in the group given self-esteem suggestions may have confounded th i s r e s u l t . (See Appendix D.) Teachers who hope to use suggestion as a means of improving performance should stress suggestions regarding the positive perceptions of others. The high i n i t i a l levels of self s a t i s f a c t i o n of subjects may have also confounded e f f e c t s for self-esteem suggestions. This may be a c r i t i c a l problem in studies using volunteers. Cooper & Pedersen (1965) point out that the high motivational l e v e l and ego strength of volunteer subjects may tend to surpress results.. This may explain p a r t i a l l y the f a i l u r e of many studies to obtain s i g n i f i c a n t results when using self-esteem suggestions. The practice of c i t i n g subjective reports of improvement as evidence of the e f f i c a c y of post-hypnotic treatment appears u n j u s t i f i e d in view of the f a i l u r e of subjects to d i f f e r e n t i a t e c o r r e c t l y the area of gains in this study. Even though subjects were instructed that they 1 23 would remember the suggestions given to them under hypnosis, they were unable to corr e c t l y i d e n t i f y gains. Many subjects obviously were unaware of gains and, in fact, expressed the opinion that their achievement or self concept had not improved. Limitations of the Study 1. The study population involved volunteer subjects, nineteen years of age or older, from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 2. The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of findings i s further limited by the hypnotic procedure. A taped relaxation procedure and an adaptation of Hartland's ( 1 9 7 1 ) Ego Strengthening Technique were used. 3. The results of the study are short-term e f f e c t s . The time span between the f i n a l induction procedure and administration of the dependent measures was approximately one week. 4. It should be noted that due to the i n i t i a l high lev e l s of s elf s a t i s f a c t i o n of subjects, the p r o b a b i l i t y of obtaining s i g n i f i c a n t results for self-esteem suggestions may have been decreased. 5. It should be noted that due to the i n i t i a l high levels of reading a b i l i t y , the pr o b a b i l i t y of obtaining s i g n i f i c a n t results for post-hypnotic achievement suggestions may have been decreased. 124 Recommendations for Further Research The f a i l u r e of the Long Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Depth to correlate well with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t 'states of hypnosis' associated with d i f f e r e n t induction procedures. Further investigation of the relationship between hypnotic depth and hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y might help to c l a r i f y t h i s area. Subjective reports of improvement seem to be a common factor in c l i n i c a l reports and studies using hypnosis. While between sixty-three and eighty-one percent of subjects believed they had benefited from the post-hypnotic suggestions, they were unable c o r r e c t l y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e benefits even when actual gains had been made. Subjects given achievement suggestions did not perceive s i g n i f i c a n t l y more gains in achievement than did subjects given s e l f concept suggestions. Subjects given self concept suggestions did not perceive s i g n i f i c a n t l y more gains in self concept than did subjects given achievement suggestions. The finding that subjects were e s s e n t i a l l y unaware, at a conscious l e v e l , of the e f f e c t s of the hypnotic suggestions needs further research. There seems to be a major need in studies using hypnosis to pre-test for subject expectations on the post-hypnotic suggestions. Many subjects requested stronger and more personal suggestions. Susceptible subjects seem to 125 find receiving suggestions, that are less than or contrary to their expectations, a negative and f r u s t r a t i n g experience. During the study i t became apparent that some subjects were mediating the hypnotic suggestions. Subjects commented on changing words to make them stronger such as can to w i l l , repeating suggestions, v i s u a l i z i n g suggestions, and even giving themselves personal suggestions. The effects of t h i s mediating process needs further investigation. In t h i s study, other-esteem post hypnotic suggestions seemed to be most e f f e c t i v e . However, the high i n i t i a l l e v e l of self s a t i s f a c t i o n of subjects may have confounded t h i s r e s u l t . A t r a i t treatment interaction study needs to be done on the interaction between s e l f - and other-directed individuals and s e l f - and other-esteem suggestions. The findings of Rosenhan & London (1963a) and London, Conant & Davison (1966) suggest that exhortation is as e f f e c t i v e as hypnosis. Parker & Barber (1964) contend that the presumed 'trance state' appears unnecessary for producing enhanced performance. Attitude, motivation and expectancy are seen as an alternative paradigm. However, these studies lack controls to ensure that exhorted subjects are not 'hypnotized' by the exhortation. In addition, there i s no reason to believe that differences between the hypnotic group and the control group were due to anything other than an ' opportunity to express s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . A 1 2 6 study comparing hypnotic suggestions to exhortation needs to be done where hypnotic depth is. contro l l e d . In addition, studies need to be done that compare exhortation and post-hypnotic suggestions in a manner such that the variance due to t r a n c e a b i l i t y can be removed. More ' research also needs to be directed towards confirming the findings of t h i s study with regard to achievement and self concept and with regard to the e f f e c t s of self-esteem as opposed to other-esteem suggestions. Findings need to be extended across age ranges and suggestion formats before the use of hypnosis can be extended to the school system. 1 2 7 REFERENCES Aaronson, B.S. L i l l i p u t and Brobdingnag - Self and world. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1 9 6 8 , 1 0 , 1 6 0 -1 6 6 . Ammerman, M.S., & Fryrear, J.L. Photographic enhancement of children's self-esteem. Psychology in the Schools, 1 9 7 5 , J_2 ( 3 ) , 31 9 - 3 2 5 . Arnold, M.B. On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1 9 4 6 , 41 , 1 0 7 - 1 2 8 . As, A. Hypnotizability as a function of nonhypnotic experiences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1 9 6 3 , 6 6 , 1 4 2 - 1 5 0 . Barber, T.X. The effects of "hypnosis" on learning and r e c a l l : a methodological c r i t i q u e . Journal of C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1 9 6 5 , 2 J _ , 1 9 - 2 5 . Barber, T.X. & Calverley, D.S. "Hypnotic-like" s u g g e s t i b i l i t y in children and adults. Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1 9 6 3 , 6 6 , 5 8 9 - 5 9 7 . Barber, T.X. & Calverley, D.S. Comparative effects on "hypnotic-like" s u g g e s t i b i l i t y of recorded and spoken suggestions. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 9 6 4 , 2 8 , 3 8 4 . Barber, T.X. & Silverman, M.J. Fact, f i c t i o n and the experimenter bias e f f e c t . Psychological B u l l e t i n  Monographs Supplement, 1 9 6 9 , 7_0, 1 . Barnett, D.W., & Zucker, K.B. The others-concept and fri e n d l y and cooperative behavior in children. Psychology in the Schools, 1 9 7 5 , J_2 ( 4 ) , 4 9 5 - 5 0 1 . Barron, F. An ego strength scale which predicts responses to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 9 5 3 , J J , 3 2 7 - 3 3 3 . Boucher, R.G., & Hilgard, E.R. Volunteer bias in hypnotic experimentation. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis , 1 9 6 2 , 5 , 4 9 - 5 1 . 0 1 28 Brookover, W., Thomas, S., & Patterson, A. Self Concept of a b i l i t y and school achievement. Sociology of Education , 1964, 37, 271-278. Burch, G.W. Hypnosis as an aid to police interrogations. Unpublished master's thesis, C a l i f o r n i a State University at Long Beach, June, 1974. Cambareri, J.D. The effects of sensory i s o l a t i o n on suggestible and non-suggestible psychology graduate students. Dissertation Abstracts, 1959, J_9, 1813. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966. Caplin, M.D. The relationship between self-concept and academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 1969, 37, 13-15. Casey, G.A. Hypnotic time d i s t o r t i o n and learning. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27, 2116-2117. Cheek, D.B., & LeCron, L.M. C l i n i c a l Hypnotherapy. New York: Grune _ Stratton, 1968. Coe, W.C., Baugher, R.J., Krimm, W.R., & Smith, J.A. A further examination of selective r e c a l l following hypnosis. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1976, 24 (1 ) , 13-21. Cooper, L.F. Time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis. B u l l e t i n  Georgetown University Medical Center, 1948, _1_ (6) , 214-221. Cooper-, L.F. _ Erickson, M.H. Time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis I I . B u l l e t i n Georgetown University Medical Center, • 1950, 4 (3), 50-68. ! Cooper, L.F., & Erickson, M.H. Time Distortion in Hypnosis  (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1959. Cooper, L.M., & Pedersen, D.M. A note on the f a i l u r e to find personality differences between volunteers and nonvolunteers for hypnotic research. International  Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1965, 13 (4), 274-278. 1.29 Cooper L.F., & Rodgin, D.W. Time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis and non-motor learning. Science, 1952, 115, 500-502. Cooper, L.F.. , & T u t h i l l , C.E. Time d i s t o r t i o n in hypnosis and motor learning. Journal of Psychology, 1952, 34, 67-76. Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1966. Cummings, R.N. A study of the relationship between s e l f -concept and reading achievement at third-grade l e v e l . Dissertation Abstracts, 1971, 3J_ (10-A), 5195. Curtis, J.W. A study of the relationship between s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1943, 3_3, 337-339. Dhanens, T.P., & Lundy, R.M. Hypnotic and waking suggestions and r e c a l l . International Journal of  C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1975, 23 (1), 68-79. DeLisle, F.H. A study of the relationship of the s e l f -concept to adjustment in a selected group of college women. Dissertation Abstracts, 1953, _1_3, 719. Dengrove, E. Hypnosis and Behaviour Therapy. S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, 1976. Drummond, R.J. Pinette, C.A., & Smith, R.K. Examining the e f f e c t s of self-concept and work values on reading achievement. Reading World, 1977, j_6, 206-212. Edmonston, W.E., & Erbeck, J.R. Hypnotic time d i s t o r t i o n : a note. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1963, 10 (2), 79-80. Edmonston, W.E., & Stanek, F.J. The effects of hypnosis and motivational instructions on kinesthetic learning. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1967, 9, 252-255. Edmonston, W.E., & Stanek, F.J. The effects of hypnosis and meaningfulness of material on verbal learning. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1966, 8, 257-1 30 E i s e l e , G. & Higgins, J.J. Hypnosis in education and moral problems. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1962, 4, 2 5 9 - 2 6 3 . Erickson, M.H. H i s t o r i c a l note on the hand l e v i t a t i o n and other ideomotor techniques. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1961, 3, 196-199. Estabrooks, G.H., & Gross, N.E. The Future of the Human  Mind. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1961. Fellows, B.J., & Armstrong, V. An experimental investigation of the relationship between hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and reading involvement. American  Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1977, 20 ( 2 ) , 101-105. Fink, M.B. Self-concept as i t relates to academic under-achievement. C a l i f o r n i a Journal of Educational Research, 1962, J_3, 57-62. F i t t s , W.H. Manual for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. , Nashville: Counsellor Recordings & Tests, 1965. F i t t s , W.H. The Self Concept and Performance . Nashville: Dede Wallace Center, Monograph V, A p r i l , 1972. Fowler, W.L. Hypnosis and learning. Journal of C l i n i c a l  and Experimental Hypnosis, 1958, 6 ( 1 ) , 2 2 3 - 2 3 2 . Fromm, E., & Shor, R.E. Hypnosis: Research Developments and  Perspectives. New York: Aldine & Atherton, 1972. Goldstein, M.S., & Si p p r e l l e , C.N. Hypnotically induced amnesia versus ablation of memory. International  Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1970, _J3 , 211-216. Gorman, B.J. An abstract technique of ego-strengtheni,ng. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1973, J_6, 209-2 1 1 . Grant, C.H. Age differences in self concept from early adulthood through old age. Dissertation Abstracts  International, 1966, 67-10, 663. 663. Gray, W.H. The ef f e c t s of hypnosis on learning to s p e l l . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1934, 25, 4 7 1 - 4 7 3 . 131 Hammer, E.F. Post-hypnotic suggestion and test performance. Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1954, 2, 178-185. Hartland, J. Further observations on the use of "ego-strengthening" techniques. American Journal of  C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1971, 14, 1-8. Hilgard, E.R. Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965. Hilgard, E.R. Individual differences in h y p n o t i z a b i l i t y . In J.E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Hypnosis, New York: Macmillan Company, 1967. Hilgard, E.R. The Experience of Hypnosis . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. Hilgard, J.R. Personality and Hypnosis: a Study of Imaginative Involvement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Hilgard, J.R. Imaginative involvement: some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the highly hypnotizable and the non-hypnotizable. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental  Hypnosis, 1974, 22, 138-156. Hilgard, E.R., Bentler, P.M. Predicting hypnotizability from the Maudsley Personality Inventory. B r i t i s h  Journal of Psychology, 1963, 5_4, 63-69. Hoen, P.T. Effects of. hypnotizability and v i s u a l i z i n g a b i l i t y on imagery mediated learning. Internat ional  Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1978, 26 (1), 45-54. Hoskovec, J., Svorad, D., & Lane, 0. The comparative effectiveness of spoken and tape recorded suggestions of body sway. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and  Experimental Hypnosis, 1963, 163-166. Hoyt, C. Test r e l i a b i l i t y estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrica, 1941, 6 (13), 153-160. Huse, B. Does the hypnotic trance favor the r e c a l l of .faint memories? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1930, 13 , 519-529. 1 32 Jabush, M. Ego exhilarative techniques in hypnotherapy. In E. Dengrove (Ed.), Hypnosis and Behaviour Therapy. Sp r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1976, 330-334. Jenness, A. Hypnotism. In J. MeV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and Behavior Disorders, New York: The Ronald Press,.1944, 466-502. Jenness, A. Somnambulism, imagery, and h y p n o t i z a b i l i t y . Paper presented at the Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, 1965. Kaufman, D., & Sweet, K. Contrast coding in least square regression analysis. American Educational Research  Journal, 1974, 7, 359-377. Kerlinger, F.N. & Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple Regression in  Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Kliman, G., & Golderg, E.L. Improved visu a l recognition during hypnosis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1962, 7, 155-62. Kline, M.V. Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale review in O.K. Buros (Ed.) The Sixth Mental Measurements  Yearbook, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965. Krippner, S. The use of hypnosis with elementary and secondary school children in a summer reading c l i n i c . American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1966, 8, 261-266. Krippner, S. The use of hypnosis and the improvement of academic achievement. Journal of Special Education, 1970, 4, 451-460. Krippner, S. . Hypnosis as verbal programming in educational therapy. Academic Therapy, 1971, 7, 5-12. Krumboltz, J.D. & Thoresen, C.E. Behavioral Counseling  Cases and Techniques. New York:' Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Lamy, M.W. Relationship of self-perceptions of early primary children to achievement in reading. In I.J. Gordon (Ed.), Human Development: Readings in Research. Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1965. 133 Lawrence, T.W. The effects of counselling on retarded readers. Educational Research, 1970, _1_3, 119-124. Liebert, R.M., Rubin, N., & Hilgard, E.R. The effects of suggestions of alertness in hypnosis on paired-associate learning. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 605-612. L e v i t t , E.E., Lubin, B., & Brady J.P. The e f f e c t of the pseudovolunteer on studies of volunteers for psychological experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 962, j_0, 39-41. L e v i t t , E.E., Lubin, B., & Zuckerman, M. The effect of incentives on volunteering for a hypnosis experiment. International Journal of C l i n i c a l . a n d Experimental  Hypnosis, 1962, J^ O, 39-41. Lodato, F.J. Hypnosis as an adjunct to test performance. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1963, 6, 271-273. Lodato, F.J. Hypnosis: an adjunct to test performance. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1968, 129-1 30. London, P., Conant, M., & Davison, G.C. More hypnosis in the unhypnotizable: effects of hypnosis and exhortation on rote learning. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 71-79. London, P., Cooper, L.M., & Johnson, H.J. Subject c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in hypnosis research: I I . Attitudes towards hypnosis, volunteer status, and personality measures. I I I . Some correlates of ' hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . International Journal of C l i n i c a l and  Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, j_0, 13-21. London, P., & Fuhrer, M. Hypnosis, motivation, and performance. Journal of Personality, 1961, 29, 321-333. Martin, R.M., & Marcuse, F.L. Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of volunteers and nonvolunteers for hypnosis. Journal of C l i n i c a l  and Experimental Hypnosis, 1957, 5, 176-180. McBain, W.N. Imagery and s u g g e s t i b i l i t y : A test of the Arnold hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 1954, 49, 36-44. 1 3 4 McCord, H., & S h e r r i l l , C.I. A note on increased a b i l i t y to do calculus post-hypnotically. American Journal of  C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1 9 6 1 , J J _ , 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 . Meyer, W.T., & Thompson, G.G. Sex differences in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of teacher approval and disapproval among ninth grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 9 5 6 , 4_7, 3 8 5 - 3 9 6 . Milgram, R.M., & Milgram, N.A. Self-concept as . a function of i n t e l l i g e n c e and c r e a t i v i t y in g i f t e d I s r a e l i children. Psychology in the Schools, 1 9 7 6 , __3 ( 1 ) , 9 1 -9 6 . M i t c h e l l , M.B. Retroactive i n h i b i t i o n and hypnosis. Journal of General Psychology, 1 9 3 2 , 7 , 3 4 3 - 3 5 9 . Moss, C.S. Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale review in O.K. Buros (Ed.), The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1 9 6 5 . Mutke, P.H.C. Increased reading comprehension through hypnosis. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1 9 6 7 , 9 , 2 6 2 - 2 6 6 . Myers, J.L. Fundamentals of Experimental Design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1 9 7 3 . Ozehosky, R.J. Children's self-concept and kindergarten achievement. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , St. John's University, Ann Arbor Michigan: University Microfilms, 1 9 6 7 , No. 6 7 - 1 1 4 5 . Parker, P.D., & Barber, T.X. "Hypnosis", task motivating instructions and learning performance. Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1 9 6 4 , 6 9 , 4 9 9 - 5 0 4 . Pedersen, D.M.., & Cooper, L.M. Some personality correlates of hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . International Journal of  C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1 9 6 3 , 1 3 ( 3 ) , 1 9 3 -2 0 2 . Primavera, L.H., William, E.S., & Primavera, A.M. The relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement: an investigation of sex differences. Psychology in the Schools, 1 9 7 4 , J J _ ( 2 ) , 2 1 3 - 2 1 6 . 135 Purkey, W.W. Self Concept and School Achievement . New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Radaker, L.D. Visual imagery as a factor in memory for word forms. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania State University, 1959. Radaker, L.D.. The effect of vis u a l imagery upon s p e l l i n g performance. Journal of Educational Research, 1963, 56 , 370-372. Richardson, A. Mental Imagery. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc., 1969. Rosenhan, D., & London, P. Hypnosis in the unhypnotizable: A study in rote learning. Journal of Experimental  Psychology, 1963a, 65, 30-34. Rosenhan, D., & London, P. Hypnosis: expectation, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y , .and performance. Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1963b, 66, 77-81. Rosenthal, B.G. Hypnotic r e c a l l of material learned under anxiety- and non-anxiety-producing conditions. Journal  of Experimental Psychology, 1944, 34, 369-389. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobsen, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, 1968. Salzberg, H.C. The effects of hypnotic, post-hypnotic and waking suggestion on performance using tasks varied in complexity. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1959, 7 (1 ), 251-258. Schafer, D.W., & Rubio, R. Hypnosis to aid the r e c a l l of witnesses. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 1978, 26 (2), 81-91. Scharf, B., & Zamansky, H.S. Reduction of word-recognition, threshold under hypnosis. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1963, Y7, 499-510. Schulman, R.E., & London, P. Hypnosis and verbal learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67 (4), 363-370. Sears, A.B. Hypnosis and r e c a l l . Journal of C l i n i c a l and  Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 4_, 165-171. 1 3 6 Sheehan, P.W. Hypnosis and manifestation of "imagination". In E. Fromm & R.E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research  Developments and Perspectives, , Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1 9 7 2 , 2 9 3 - 3 1 9 . Shor, R.E., Orne, M.T., & O'Connell, D. N. Validation and cross- va l i d a t i o n of a scale of self-reported, personal experiences which predicts h y p n o t i z a b i l i t y . Journal of  Psychology, 1 9 6 2 , 5 3 , 5 5 - 7 5 . Slotnick, R., & London, P. Influence of instructions on hypnotic and non-hypnotic performance. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1 9 6 5 , 7 0 , 3 8 - 4 6 . Spielberger, CD. (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior. Academic Press, 1 9 6 6 . Stalnaker, J.M., & Riddle, E.E. The effect of hypnosis on long- delayed r e c a l l . Journal of General Psychology. 1 9 3 2 , 6, 4 2 9 - 4 4 0 . S t e r l i n g , K. & M i l l e r , J.G. The effect of hypnosis upon visua l and auditory acuity. American Journal of  Psychology, 1 9 4 0 , 5 3 , 2 6 9 - 2 7 6 . Summo, A.J., & Rouke, F.J. The use of hypnosis in a college counseling service. American Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1 9 6 5 , 8, 1 1 4 - 1 1 6 . Susskind, D.J. The idealized self-image and the development of learned resourcefulness. In E. Dengrove (Ed.), Hypnosis and Behaviour Therapy, S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1 9 6 7 , 3 1 7 - 3 2 9 . Swiercinsky, D., _ Coe, W. Hyposis, hypnotic responsiveness, and learning meaningful material. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental  Hypnosis, 1 9 7 0 , J_8, 2 1 7 - 2 2 2 . Tart, C T . Measuring hypnotic depth. In E. Fromm & R.E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research Developments and Perspectives, Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1 9 7 2 . Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. Openness to absorbing and s e l f - a l t e r i n g experiences ("absorption"), a t r a i t related to- hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1 9 7 4 , 8 3 , 2 6 8 - 2 7 7 . 1 37 Thompson, W. Correlates of the Self Concept. Nashville, Tennessee: Dede Wallace Center, Monograph VI, 1972. Uhr, L. Learning uder hypnosis: what do we know? What should . we know? Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental  Hypnosis, 1958, 6 (1), 121-232. Wattengerg, W.W., & C l i f f o r d , C. Relation of self-concept to beginning achievement in reading. Child Development , 1964, 35, 460-467. Weitzenhoffer, A.M., & Hilgard, E.R. Stanford Hypnotic  S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale, Forms A & B. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Weitzenhoffer, A.M., & Weitzenhoffer, , G.B. Sex, transference, and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to hypnosis. American  Journal of C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1958, J_, 15-24. White, R.W. Prediction of hypnotic s u s c e p t i b i l i t y from a knowledge of subject's attitude. Journal of Psychology , 1937, 3, 265-277. White, R.W., Fox, G.F., & Harris, W.W. Hypnotic hypermnesia for recently learned material. Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 88-103. Wilder, J. The law of i n i t i a l values. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1950, 12, 385-392. Wilder, J. The law of i n i t i a l values in neurology and psychiatry. Journal of Nervous and Mental D i s a b i l i t i e s 1957, 125, 73-86. Williams, J.H. The relationship of self-concept and reading achievement in f i r s t grade children. Journal of  Educational Research, 1973, 8, 6_6, 378-380. Williams, R.L., & Cole, S. Self-concept and school adjustment. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 478-481. Woody, R.H., & Herr, E.L. Psychologists and hypnosis: Part II. Use in educational settings. American Journal of  C l i n i c a l Hypnosis, 1966, 8, 254-257. Young, P.C. An experimental study of mental and physical functions in the normal and hypnotic states. American  Journal of Psychology, 1925, 36, 214-232. 138 Young, P.C. An experimental study of mental and physical functions in the normal and hypnotic states: additional r e s u l t s . American Journal of Psychology, 1926 , 37, 345-356. Zamansky, H.S., Scharf, B., & B r i g h t b i l l , R. The eff e c t of expectancy for hypnosis on prehypnotic performance. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 236-248. Zimbardo, P.G., Maslach, C , & Marshall, G. Hypnosis and the psychology of cognitive and behavioral cont r o l . In E. Fromm & R.E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research  Developments and Perspectives, Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1972. 139 APPENDIX A HYPNOTIC PROCEDURES APPENDIX A-1 STATE EXPECTATIONS The practice of hypnotism goes back to remote antiquity. In many early cultures p r i e s t s , healers and magicians placed themselves in special trances. In early Egypt, soothsayers used a detached state to predict future events. Young women were trained to enter t h i s state by gazing in a s t i l l pool of water or a mirror in order to predict future events^ An ancient Greek engraving pictures the physician Chiron putting his pupil Aesculapius into a trance. The famous Delphic Oracle in Greece (actually a series of young women) was apparently entranced by the fumes of a volcano. The practice of hypnotism today i s s t i l l shrouded in as much mystery as i t was in ancient times. Hypnotism has been known by such names as Mesmerism, Somnambulism, Braidism and Hypnotism. The name 'hypnosis' i s derived from the Greek god of sleep 'Hypnos' who was the brother of Oniros (god of dreams) and Thanatos (god of death). Likewise, the name 'Somnambulism' i s derived from the Roman god of sleep 'Somnus' who was the son of Night and twin brother of Death. S c i e n t i f i c interest in hypnotism originated in the l a t t e r portion of the eighteenth century. In 1774, Mesmer began to practice what he c a l l e d "magnetic" treatments. Mesmer believed that health was due to the Harmonious d i s t r i b u t i o n of ethereal f l u i d in the mind and body. This ethereal f l u i d was c a l l e d Animal Magnetism and was likened to gravity. Mesmer thought disease was due to imbalance in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s f l u i d . He held that the ethereal f l u i d could be controlled by w i l l or by magnets. Mesmer believed that by laying his hands or magnets on a patient he could w i l l his own f l u i d to flow into the patient causing a greater imbalance in the patient. The patient was then expected to undergo a convulsive seizure after which equilibrium would be restored. Ten years l a t e r in 1784, Armand Chastenet, Marquis de Puysegur, who was one of Mesmer's layman d i s c i p l e s , wrote a l e t t e r to a friend outlining his discovery of a r t i f i c i a l somnambulism. In this state, subjects could speak l u c i d l y , open their eyes, walk about, respond to commands and 140 displayed amnesia. Ghastenet was responsible for re-di r e c t i n g concern from the convulsive c r i e s of Mesmer's patients to the study of hypnotically-induced sleep walking and amnesia. This re-direction of concern resulted in patients a l t e r i n g their behaviour under hypnosis and led to the cessation of convulsive c r i e s as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of hypnosis. By 1814, Jose Custodi di Faria was suggesting that somnambulism was produced solely by the subject's heightened expectations and receptive attitude. Faria's insight was responsible for j u s t i f y i n g the s c i e n t i f i c study of hypnotic phenomena and establishing t h i s phenomena as a concern for psychology. Throughout history, hypnotism has been shrouded in controversy, enjoying periods of popularity and periods of rejection. The nature of hypnotism i s s t i l l a major controversial area today. Whether hypnotism involves a separate special state that can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the normal waking state remains to be demonstrated. Many people believe that the state of hypnotism is not d i f f e r e n t than the waking state and that the use of hypnotism pervades our l i v e s without our knowing i t . Krippner (1971) points out that: "Classroom teachers use hypnotic p r i n c i p l e s when they attempt to relax their pupils before embarking on a d i f f i c u l t assignment. High school a t h l e t i c coaches who motivate their teams by delivering 'pep talks' are c a p i t a l i z i n g on another form of hypnosis. College instructors who capture their students' attention by the use of c o l o r f u l language and vis u a l aids are u t i l i z i n g another hypnotic technique. Hypnosis, in one form or another, has long been used as an educational t o o l . " (p.5) In this study, hypnosis is defined as a heightened state of consciousness, characterized by heightened responsiveness to direct suggestion. This d e f i n i t i o n i s consistent with Faria's speculations and does not assume a separate state from the waking state. Under hypnosis, subjects are able to stay as a l e r t and attentive as they are in the waking state. In fact, l i g h t hypnosis feels so ordinary that during a f i r s t session most people w i l l claim that they have not been hypnotized at a l l . Even in a very deep trance, subjects can be aware of what i s happening and can continue to communicate with the hypnotist. Some people are concerned that, while under hypnosis, they w i l l loose control and be made to do or say things that 141 they would not normally wish to do or reveal. In fact, subjects retain s u f f i c i e n t control under hypnosis, that i f they do not wish to discuss an area or perform an action, they w i l l bring themselves out of the hypnotic state. I f , for any reason, you bring yourself out of the hypnotic state, please remain seated quietly for the remainder of the procedure so as to not disturb others. If you f e e l you must leave the room, please do so qu i e t l y and Dr. Oldridge w i l l a s s i s t you. When trying hypnosis for the f i r s t time, some people are also concerned that they w i l l not awaken from the hypnotic trance. In the event that a subject does not awaken on command, please do not disturb the person or attempt to wake them. They are l i k e l y t i r e d or else enjoying the procedure so much they do not wish to waken. There are procedures for waking the subject. Should these procedures not be implemented, the subject w i l l waken normally after sleeping. In t h i s study, a l l suggestions given w i l l be pos i t i v e and designed to promote personal growth. Subjects w i l l not be asked to perform or reveal facts about their personal l i v e s such as you may have seen done in stage presentations of hypnosis. Our purpose is to use hypnosis as an educational and therapeutic tool for your benefit. Should you find that any of the suggestions r e c a l l to your conscious mind an unpleasant memory, please see me immediately after the session. Rest assured that there are techniques for dealing with t h i s . In view of the nature of the suggestions used in this study, t h i s is a highly unlikely event. However, I want to ensure that a l l of you w i l l enjoy your experience with hypnosis. Most people find hypnosis to be an extremely enjoyable experience. They feel relaxed during hypnosis and wake refreshed and at ease. Most people desire to be hypnotized whenever they have the opportunity once they have experienced hypnosis. We w i l l begin in a few seconds. Are there any questions or concerns? ... We w i l l s t a r t by just relaxing you. Feel free to take off your shoes, loosen r e s t r i c t i v e clothing, or do anything else that w i l l help you relax. 142 APPENDIX A-2 RELAXATION PROCEDURE O.K. Just s e t t l e back in the chair and relax as much as possible. I am going to ask you to tighten various muscle groups. As I count toward five I want you to tighten your muscles more and more. When I reach five you may relax the muscle and fe e l the warmth and relaxation. Take a few deep breaths and begin to feel yourself l e t go ... .Now, extending both arms straight out clench your f i s t s more and more t i g h t l y as I count up toward f i v e ...1...2...3...Good...4...5...Relax... . Just l e t your arms drop wherever they w i l l and begin to appreciate the difference between the feelings of tension, which you f e l t a few seconds ago, and the feelings of relaxation in your hands and arms now... .Now l e t ' s concentrate on the muscles in your forearms. Extend both arms straight out once again. Only th i s time spread the fingers of your hand ... 1...2...3...4...Hold i t . . . 5 . . . . Now relax... . Just l e t your arms go and concentrate on the warm, t i n g l i n g feelings of relaxation spreading throughout your forearms... O.K., fine, l e t ' s concentrate now on the muscles in your upper arms. To do this bend both arms at the elbow and tighten your biceps more and more as I count toward five ...1. . . 2...3...4...5... . Relax... . Attend to the heavy, warm feelings associated with relaxation as they spread downward throughout your arms right to the t i p s of your fingers... . We are now going to wrinkle the muscles on your forehead. When I reach the count of 5, relax, and concentrate on smoothing your forehead and relaxing these muscles. Wrinkle up your forehead (or frown) by r a i s i n g your eyebrows ...1...2...more and more...3...4...5... Now do the opposite of tension and relax... .Just l e t a l l the muscles in your forehead smooth out and become smoother and smoother... . O.K. Let's work on the area surrounding your eyes and nose. Close your eyes more and more t i g h t l y as I count up toward five ...1...2...3...feel the tension ...4...5... . Relax... . While keeping your eyes closed, just enjoy the soothing calm feeling in your eyes, similar perhaps to that which you feel when closing your eyes after reading for a long period of time... . Now with your eyes closed and relaxed l e t ' s start concentrating on the area surrounding your l i p s , cheeks and jaw..." . Just draw the corners of your mouth back further and further, try and get that ear to ear grin . . . 1 . . . 2...3...4...5... . Relax... Just l e t your jaw hang loose... . Appreciate the feeling of relaxation... . Now, g r i t your teeth and feel the tenseness in your throat muscles get greater and greater as I count up toward five ...1...2...3...4...5... . Relax... Just l e t your neck hang loose... . Let i t relax at \ 143 whatever position i t feels most comfortable... . As you continue to relax further and further notice how your breathing has become more and more easy... . Your breathing takes a nice easy pattern and helps you to relax... . Good... . Now, l e t ' s concentrate on your shoulder muscles. Go ahead and shrug your shoulders and try and touch your ears ...1...2...3...4...Good...5... Relax... . Let your shoulders slump and attend to the warm, t i n g l i n g feelings as they spread throughout your shoulders and connect up with the relaxation in your arms... Let the t i n g l i n g feeling spread throughout your arms right to the tip s of your fingers... . Now, go ahead and arch your back more and more as I count up toward f i v e . Bend your back backwards, thighten the muscles, and arch your spine. . . . 1 .. . 2...3...4...hold i t . . . 5 . . . . Now relax... . Let your whole body just slump back into the chair... . Let the chair support the weight of your body. Just l e t your whole body relax further and further... Good. Let's concentrate now on your stomach muscles Tighten your stomach muscles as I count up to five ... 1 . ..2...3...4...hold i t . . . 5 . . . . Now relax. Let your stomach muscles relax...and each time you breathe in th i s relaxation begins to spread throughout your entire body... Further and further... . Notice how you're breathing freely and e a s i l y . . . . Freely and e a s i l y . . . . Now l e t ' s concentrate our attention on the muscles in your thighs... Straighten out both your legs and bend your toes back toward your head. Feel the tension in your thighs ...1...2...3...more and more...4...5... . Relax... . Let your legs drop and attend to the difference between the feelings of tension and now the feelings of relaxation... A warm, t i n g l i n g feeling spreading throughout your legs... Once again, go ahead and straighten out both your legs. Only th i s time bend your toes away from your head, tensing your c a l f muscles . . . 1 . . . 2. . . 3...4...5... . Now, relax... No more tension at a l l now... . Nothing but relaxation... . Enjoy the calm, sooothing feeling of relaxation as i t spreads right to the t i p of your toes... In order to help you relax even further I'm going to mention the various muscle groups you've been tensing and relaxing, only t h i s time don't tense them, simply relax them further and further... . . Try and get that extra b i t of relaxation in every muscle group as I mention i t . . . . Your forehead... . The area around your eyes and nose... Your l i p s , cheeks and jaw... . Just begin to fe e l a wave of relaxation spreading downward across your f a c i a l muscles... . Let this wave of relaxation continue to spread downward through your neck muscles... . Across you shoulder... . Down through your arms right to the t i p s of your fingers... . Across your chest and down your back... Into your stomach muscles... . Notice how your breathing becomes more and more relaxed... . As each 144 breath goes out, notice yourself relaxing more and more... As you breath out, your body collapses into the chair and you feel heavier and heavier... . Concentrate on the waves of relaxation as they continue downward through your thighs...and calves... . Right to the t i p s of your toes. 1 45 APPENDIX A-3 MODIFICATIONS OF THE STANFORD HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE INDUCTION Just relax in the chair and make yourself very comfortable... . That's f i n e . Now, just keep your eyes closed and l e t yourself rest in the chair - that's i t , just leave your eyes gently closed while I t a l k . . . .The important thing is simply for you to relax in the chair and enjoy t h i s experience while I say a few things that w i l l be of interest to you... As you relax there, very deep and very drowsy, you find i t easy just to l e t things ride by your mind without attending very much to them... . You can hear my voice c l e a r l y enough, and you can hear any other sounds that are around t h i s room - but i t i s too much e f f o r t for you to pay attention to those outside sounds, so nothing makes much impression on your mind except the things that I am saying to y o u . . . . In fact, your attention becomes so fixed on what I am saying that you can completely forget about anything else -you stop thinking about anything except what I am about to t e l l you - you l i s t e n to me, very c a r e f u l l y , without any real e f f o r t on your part, and you disregard a l l other thoughts and memories... . You become conscious of my voice only, i t f i l l s your mind and thoughts and leaves room for you to attend only to what I say... 146 APPENDIX A-4 DEEPENING PROCEDURE I want you to v i s u a l i z e a scene that you enjoy. One that makes you fe e l at ease, rested, at peace with the world... . Just imagine the scene as you usually think of i t . . . . It may be a special spot where you go when you need to feel alone and at peace with yourself... . Note how peaceful you feel when looking at t h i s scene... . It makes you f e e l relaxed and happy... I want you to imagine yourself as being part of th i s scene... . Just imagine yourself as lying there in the scene... . You feel peaceful, calm, and relaxed... Feel the wind on your face... . Smell the breeze... Hear the sounds... . Feel the ground underfoot... . Make yourself t o t a l l y at one with your surroundings... I am now going to count backwards from ten... . As I count backwards , you w i l l go deeper and deeper into the scene... . Your body w i l l become just a thing l e f t behind... . As I count backwards, you w i l l feel your body increase in weight... . A warmness w i l l spread through you... . You w i l l feel more and more relaxed... . The passage of time w i l l become meaningless to you... You w i l l continue to be aware of my voice... . As you l i e there relaxed, things w i l l become dimmer and dimmer u n t i l your v i s u a l space i s black... . You w i l l attend only to my voice unless I ask you to look at something... . As you go deeper and deeper into the scene, you w i l l f e e l an increasing sense of oneness with the things around you... As you go deeper and deeper into the scene, you w i l l become more and more relaxed u n t i l you become part of your surroundings... I am going to start to count now. ... Ten ... You begin to go deeper into the scene. ... Nine ... You are going deeper and deeper into the scene. ... Eight ... You are beginning to have a feeling of oneness with the scene. ... Seven ... You are now a part of the scene. ... Six ... You are going deeper s t i l l . ... Five ... Time becomes meaningless to you. You leave your body behind and become part of the r e a l i t y of the scene. ... Four ... You are now in quite a deep state of relaxation. ... Three ... Your feeling of oneness has increased to the point where you fee l you are part of your surroundings. ... Two ... You are deeply relaxed now but continue to go deeper. ... One ... You are very deeply relaxed now. ... Zero I want you to remain as deeply relaxed as you are right now u n t i l I t e l l you to wake up. 148 APPENDIX A-5 LONG STANFORD SCALE During your experience of hypnosis, I w i l l be interested in knowing just how deeply relaxed your are. You w i l l be able to t e l l me by v i s u a l i z i n g a number from zero to ten, depending on how relaxed you f e e l yourself to be. Zero w i l l mean that you are awake and a l e r t , as you normally are. One w i l l mean a kind of borderline state, between sleeping and waking. Two w i l l mean that you are l i g h t l y relaxed. If you v i s u a l i z e the number five , i t w i l l mean that you fe e l quite strongly and deeply relaxed. If you feel r e a l l y very relaxed, you would v i s u a l i z e an eight or nine. Ten w i l l mean that you are so deeply relaxed that you fe e l that you are in a state similar to the state you are in the moment before you loose consciousness and drop off to sleep. You can do just about anything I suggest to you. Naturally, relaxation can increase and decrease in depth from time to time, and that is the kind of thing I ' l l be interested in finding out from you. Let me explain how y o u ' l l report your state of relaxation. When I ask "State?" I want you to v i s u a l i z e yourself standing in a room in front of a blackboard. On the blackboard is a horizontal l i n e drawn in chalk. The numbers zero to ten . are marked on the l i n e at even in t e r v a l s . One of these numbers w i l l represent your state of relaxation. The number representing your state of relaxation w i l l come to your mind at the count of three. I want you to remember the f i r s t number that pops into your mind, and this w i l l represent your state at that time. Upon completion of this session, I w i l l ask you to write the number on the index card that I have provided for you. We have found that this f i r s t impression is more accurate than i f you stop to think about just what the number should, be. This may seem a l i t t l e hard at f i r s t but i t w i l l get easier as you go along. Just v i s u a l i z e and remember the f i r s t number that comes into your mind when I ask, "State?". Remember, the number zero means your normal waking state, five means quite deeply relaxed, and.ten means you are as relaxed as you are in that moment just before you drop off to sleep . Just v i s u a l i z e and remember the f i r s t number from zero to ten that comes to your mind when I ask, "State?". Let's try i t now. I am going to count to three. When I reach three, I w i l l ask you for your state. I want you to v i s u a l i z e the number l i n e and remember the number representing your state. ...One ...Two ...Three ...State? In each of the sessions, I ' l l ask for your state and y o u ' l l remember the f i r s t number that pops into your mind. 1 49 APPENDIX A-6 SESSION IV SUGGESTIONS You are now so deeply relaxed that your mind has become very receptive. In this state of deep relaxation the c r i t i c a l part of your conscious mind i s also very deeply relaxed so that you can accept any idea you wish to accept for your own good. Because I wish you to remain in t h i s u n c r i t i c a l state, I am not going to give you any d i r e c t suggestions with regard to any of your p a r t i c u l a r problems. I am only going to ask you to think about certain words and their meanings (SELF-and associations for you; OTHERS-and associations for others; COMBINED-and associations for you and for others). I want you to think l a z i l y of these words, to turn them over in your mind, to examine them, to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind. The f i r s t word I want you to think about is the word health, and I want you now and always to couple i t with the word good. What can the words good health mean? They can mean a sense of superb physical well-being, with strong heart and lungs, perfect functioning of a l l the organs, nerves,/glands and systems of the entire body; firm, strong muscles, bones and j o i n t s , smooth, healthy, e l a s t i c skin and the absence of any excess fat or f l e s h ; greater increased resistance to a l l forms of i n f e c t i o n or disease and an increasingly great measure of control of both the Autonomic Nervous System and the hormone glands which, between them control a l l the functions and conditions of the body. Good health not only means physical health but also a healthy attitude of mind in which the nerves are stronger and steadier, the mind calm and clea r ; more composed; more tran q u i l ; more relaxed; more confident. It can mean (SELF-a greater feeling of self-esteem; OTHERS-a greater feeling of esteem in the eyes of others; COMBINED-a greater feeling of self-esteem and esteem in the eyes of others) a greater feeling of personal well-being, safety, security and happiness than has ever been f e l t before. It can mean (SELF-complete control of your thoughts and emotions, with; OTHERS-others w i l l perceive you as having complete control of your thoughts and emotions, with; COMBINED-complete control of your thoughts and emotions and that others w i l l perceive you as having complete control of your thoughts and emotions, with) the a b i l i t y to concentrate 150 better and u t i l i z e a l l the vast resources of the memory and the f u l l i n t e l l e c t u a l powers of the sub-conscious mind. It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l have; OTHERS-that others w i l l perceive you as having; COMBINED-that you w i l l have and others w i l l perceive you as having) the a b i l i t y to sleep deeply and refreshingly at night and to awake in the morning feeling calm, relaxed, confident and cheerful; ready to meet a l l ' the challenges of the new day with boundless energy and enthusiasm. The words good health can mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED- to you and to others) any or a l l of these things and more. These words have tremendous power. I want you to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, which always can reproduce in you your dominant thoughts. The next word I would l i k e you to think about i s success. It may mean a sense of recognition; a f u l f i l l m e n t of your desires. ^ It may mean (SELF-the a b i l i t y to set and achieve goals in l i f e which you feel are r e a l i s t i c worthwhile and progressive, and the; OTHERS-the a b i l i t y to set and achieve goals in l i f e which people who are important to you consider to be r e a l i s t i c worthwhile and progressive, and the; COMBINED- the a b i l i t y to set and achieve goals in l i f e which you feel are r e a l i s t i c worthwhile and progressive and which people who are important to you consider to be r e a l i s t i c worthwhile and progressive, and the) motivation and determination to achieve (those) goals. It may mean (the) confidence (SELF-enabling you to throw off your i n h i b i t i o n s ; being spontaneous; expressing your feelings without fear or hesitation; OTHERS- to recognize that friends perceive you as being able to throw off your i n h i b i t i o n s ; being spontaneous; expressing your feelings without fear or hesitation; COMBINED-enabling you and recognizing that friends perceive you as being able to throw off your i n h i b i t i o n s ; being spontaneous; expressing your feelings without fear or. hesi t a t i o n . Success may mean wealth in terms of money and the things that money can buy, or security for yourself and your family. It can also show i t s e l f in the attitude of mind which gives inner happiness regardless of material possessions or circumstances. It could mean the a b i l i t y to overcome some p a r t i c u l a r problem; perhaps even some problem about which you do not know. (SELF-Whatever the word success means to you, I want you to use thi s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in 151 you a l l the feelings which go with success. OTHERS-Whatever the word success means to others, I want you to use t h i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings which go with success. COMBINED-Whatever the word success means to you and to others, I want you to use t h i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings which go with success.) F i n a l l y , I want you to think of the word motivation. What can i t mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED-to you and to others)? (It can mean a gradual but progressive strengthening of one's desire to be in,charge of one's l i f e ; to destroy the old recordings of habit patterns; to play new music instead of old; to cease being a puppet to one's early conditioning and to become a creator of a new, healthy, happy, successful s c r i p t in the play of l i f e . ) It can mean (SELF-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger f e e l i n g of self-esteem u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and; OTHERS-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence is much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and; COMBINED- the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of self-esteem and of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and) achieving high grades at university presents no d i f f i c u l t y , hardship or discomfort for you. We have a l l been conditioned since b i r t h to associate words with feelings. (Words are therefore the tools which we are going to use to produce the feelings and results which we want.) And these words are health, success, and motivation. In a few seconds, I w i l l slowly count to three. When I do, you w i l l come out of the hypnotic trance you are in now. You w i l l remember the suggestions given you regarding health, success, and motivation while you were hypnotized. (You w i l l incorporate these suggestions into your self image.) When you wake.you w i l l f e e l deeply relaxed. You w i l l remember being hypnotized as an enjoyable and pleasant experience. Ready now. I am going to count to three. One you are st a r t i n g to wake up... . Two - your eyes are s t a r t i n g to open... . Three - your eyes are open now and you are completely out of the hypnotic trance. 152 APPENDIX A-7 •SESSION V SUGGESTIONS You are now so deeply relaxed that your mind has become very receptive. In t h i s state of deep relaxation the c r i t i c a l part of your conscious mind i s also very deeply relaxed so that you can accept any idea you wish to accept for your own good. Because I wish you to remain in t h i s u n c r i t i c a l state, I am not going to give you any di r e c t suggestions with regard to any of your p a r t i c u l a r problems. I am only going to ask you to think about certain words and their meanings (SELF-for you; OTHERS- for others; COMBINED-for you and for others). I want you to think l a z i l y of these words, to turn them over in your mind, to examine them, to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, (SELF-until they become woven into the very fabric of your substance and of your self-image; OTHERS-until they become woven into the very fabric of your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you; COMBINED-unti1 they become woven into the very fabric of your self image and your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you) . The f i r s t word I want you to think about i s the word health, and I want you now and always to couple i t with the word good. What can the words good health mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED-to you and to others)? They can mean a sense of superb physical well being; with a well conditioned, well functioning body. They can mean that the body feels f u l l of power and strength, with greater balance and stamina, increased resistance to fatigue and disease, more slender with firm muscle tone and vibrant complexion. Good health can result in greater awareness of the body, greater control of a l l parts of the body, and a sense of harmony in the functioning of the body. Good health not only means physical health but also a healthy attitude of mind; (SELF-in which you f e e l ; OTHERS-in which others see you as f e e l i n g ; COMBINED-in which you f e e l and others see you as feeling) more calm, safe, secure; more confident and sure of yourself, more happy and self s a t i s f i e d (than you ever f e l t before at u n i v e r s i t y . ) . It can mean (SELF-that you f e e l that you are able; OTHERS-that others perceive you as being able; COMBINED-1hat you f e e l you are able and others perceive you as being able) to control your thoughts and emotions. It can mean (SELF-that you feel you are able; OTHERS-153 that others perceive you as being able; COMBINED-1hat you feel you are able, and others perceive you as being able ) to concentrate better on your studies at university. It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l f e e l that you are able; OTHERS-that others perceive you as being able; COMBINED-that you w i l l f e e l and others w i l l perceive you as being able) to sleep better at night. It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l be ; OTHERS-that others w i l l perceive you as; COMBINED- that you w i l l feel and others w i l l perceive you as; ) feeling calm, confident, and cheerful in the morning when you r i s e ready to meet the challenges of a new day. The words good health can mean any or a l l of these things and more. These words have tremendous power. I want you to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, which always can reproduce in you your dominant thoughts. The next word I would l i k e you to think about is success. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l ; OTHERS-that others see you as feeling; COMBINED-that you feel and others see you as feeling) a sense of worthiness or f u l f i l l m e n t ; the attainment of your desires in terms of your achievement at university. It may mean (SELF-that you feel you have; OTHERS-that others see you as having; COMBINED-that you f e e l you have and others perceive you as having) the a b i l i t y to set and achieve goals at university which are r e a l i s t i c , worthwhile, and progressive; and the motivation and determination to achieve those goals. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l you have; OTHERS- that friends see you as having; COMBINED-that you feel you have and friends see you as having) the confidence to ask questions in cl a s s , (to enable you) to be spontaneous; to express feelings without fear or h e s i t a t i o n . Success may mean higher marks at university, which may mean security for you and your family. It can also manifest i t s e l f in the inner happiness that comes when one knows that one has done the best they can. It could mean the a b i l i t y to overcome some p a r t i c u l a r problem that i s i n t e r f e r i n g with your university achievement. (SELF-Whatever the word success means to you, I want you to use t h i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success. OTHERS-Whatever the word success means to others, I want you to use t h i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success. COMBINED-Whatever the word success means to you and to others, I want you to use this 1 54 word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success.) F i n a l l y , I want you to think of the word motivation. What can i t mean? It can mean the desire, determination, and d r i v i n g force to achieve at university. (It can mean a gradual but progressive strengthening of one's desire to be in charge of one's l i f e , to change habit patterns so that they f a c i l i t a t e the goal of high achievement at university.) It can mean (SELF-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of self-esteem u n t i l your self confidence is much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e , and; OTHERS-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence is much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e , and; COMBINED-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of self-esteem and a stronger and stronger f e e l i n g of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e , and) achieving high grades at university presents no d i f f i c u l t y , hardship, or discomfort for you. We have a l l been conditioned since b i r t h to associate words with feelings. (Words are therfore the tools, which we are going to use to produce the feelings and results which we want.) And these words are health; success; and motivation. In a few seconds, I w i l l slowly count to three. When I do, you w i l l come out of the hypnotic trance you are in now. You w i l l remember the suggestions given you regarding health, success, and motivation, while you were hypnotized. (You w i l l incorporate these suggestions into your self image.) When you wake up you w i l l f e e l deeply relaxed. You w i l l remember being hypnotized as an enjoyable and pleasant experience. Ready now. I am going to count to three. One - you are starting to wake up... . Two - your eyes are sta r t i n g to open... . Three - your eyes are open now and you are completely out of the hypnotic trance. 155 APPENDIX A-8 SESSION VI SUGGESTIONS You are now so deeply relaxed that your mind has become very receptive. In this state of deep relaxation the c r i t i c a l part of your conscious mind i s also very deeply relaxed so that you can accept any idea you wish to accept for your own good. Because I wish you to remain in t h i s u n c r i t i c a l state, I am not going to give you any d i r e c t suggestions with regard to any of your p a r t i c u l a r problems. I am only going to ask you to think about certain words and their meanings (SELF-and associations for you; OTHERS-and associations for others; COMBINED-and associations for you and for others). I want you to think l a z i l y of these words, to turn them over in your mind, to examine them, to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, (SELF-until they become woven into the very fabric of your substance and of your self-image; OTHERS-until they become woven into the very fabric of your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you; COMBINED-until they become woven into the very fabric of your substance and of your self-image and into the very fabric of your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you). The f i r s t word I want you to think about i s the word health, and I want you now and always to couple i t with the word good. What can the words good health mean? They can mean (SELF-that you w i l l be; OTHERS-that people w i l l perceive you as; COMBINED-that you w i l l and that other people w i l l perceive you as) feeling good physically; a l e r t when studying; strong and healthy; and happy with how your body looks and responds. Good health may mean less fatigue and i l l n e s s , better body weight, less muscle s t r a i n and other i r r i t a t i o n s which keep you from performing to your f u l l e s t capacity in your studies and work. It may mean (SELF-you f e e l that you are; OTHERS-friends perceive you as; COMBINED-you fe e l and friends perceive you as) looking good as well as f e e l i n g good. Good health not only means physical health, but also a healthy attitude of mind (SELF-in which you f e e l better about yourself than ever before; OTHERS-in which your friends perceive you as feeling better about yourself than ever before; COMBINED-in which you perceive yourself and friends perceive you as feeling better about yourself than ever before); more confident in and sure of your a b i l i t y to analyze the material you read; more calm and relaxed when expressing yourself; more happy and s a t i s f i e d in your classes this year than ever before. 156 It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l f e e l that; OTHERS-that others w i l l f e e l that; COMBINED-that you and others w i l l feel that) you are more able to control your thoughts and attention; more able to concentrate and remember information in the material you read. It can mean that (SELF-you w i l l f e e l that; OTHERS-friends w i l l feel that ; COMBINED- you w i l l feel that and friends w i l l f e e l that) you are able to use your subconscious mind to the f u l l extent of your a b i l i t y ; allowing your subconscious mind to focus on pertinent data when needed. It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l f e e l ; OTHERS-that others w i l l f e e l ; COMBINED-that you and others w i l l feel) that you are able to sleep better at night; free from anxiety and self doubt; awaking calm and confident in the morning. It can mean (SELF-that you w i l l be; OTHERS- that friends w i l l perceive you as; COMBINED-that you and others w i l l perceive you as) feeling wide awake in the morning eager and ready to absorb a l l you can from the coming day. The words good health can mean any or a l l of these things and more. These words have tremendous power. I want you to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, which always can reproduce in you your dominant thoughts. The next word I would l i k e you to think about is success. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l ; OTHERS-that friends see you as fee l i n g ; COMBINED-that you f e e l and friends see you as feeling) a sense of accomplishment as you improve in your reading speed and comprehension; a sense of s a t i s f a c t i o n with th i s accomplishment. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l you have; OTHERS-that others f e e l you have; COMBINED-that you f e e l you have and others feel you have) the a b i l i t y to set r e a l i s t i c goals in study habits. It may mean (SELF-you f e e l you have; OTHERS-others see you as having; COMBINED-you feel you have and others see you as having) the motivation and determination to achieve these goals. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l ; OTHERS-that others feel ; COMBINED-that you feel you are and others feel ) you are confident when reading or studying; eas i l y making connections between material read and information stored in memory. It may mean (SELF-that you f e e l ; OTHERS-that others think; COMBINED-that you f e e l and others think) you e a s i l y remember important facts and information and are able to ea s i l y i d e n t i f y c r u c i a l issues, lead discussions, and in general be a superior student. Success may mean wealth in terms of money and the things that money can buy, or security for yourself and your family. It can also show i t s e l f in the attitude of mind 157 which gives inner happiness regardless of material possessions or circumstances. It could mean the a b i l i t y to overcome some pa r t i c u l a r problem; perhaps even some problem about which you do not know. (SELF-Whatever the word success means to you, I want you to use this word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success. OTHERS-Whatever the word success means to others, I want you to use this word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success. COMBINED-Whatever the word success means to you and to others, I want you to use thi s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings that go with success.) F i n a l l y , I want you to think of the word motivation. What can i t mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED-to you and to others)? It can mean (SELF-you fe e l yourself as having; OTHERS-that friends perceive you as having; COMBINED-you feel yourself and friends perceive you as having) the desire to improve your reading. It can mean (SELF-you fe e l you have; OTHERS-they fe e l you have; COMBINED-you and they f e e l you have) the drive and determination to improve your* achievement. It can mean (SELF-you fe e l you have; OTHERS-they feel you have; COMBINED- you feel you have and they feel you have) the progressive desire to change habits, to take control of your l i f e rather than to passively respond to old feeli n g s . It can mean (SELF-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger f e e l i n g of self-esteem u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and; OTHERS-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and; COMBINED-the gradual but progressive building of a stronger and stronger feeling of self-esteem and a stronger and stronger f e e l i n g of how p o s i t i v e l y others perceive you u n t i l your self confidence i s much stronger than your fear of f a i l u r e and) achieving high grades at university presents no d i f f i c u l t y , hardship, or discomfort for you. We have a l l been conditioned since b i r t h to associate words with feelings. (Words are therefore the tools which we are going to use to produce the feelings and results which we want.) And these words are health; success; and motivation. In a few seconds, I w i l l slowly count to three. When I 158 do, you w i l l come out of the hypnotic trance you are in now. You w i l l remember the suggestions given you regarding health, success, and motivation while you were hypnotized. (You w i l l incorporate these suggestions into your self concept.) When you wake up you w i l l feel deeply relaxed. You w i l l remember being hypnotized as an enjoyable and pleasant experience. Ready now. I am going to count to three. One you are s t a r t i n g to wake up... . Two - your eyes are star t i n g to open... . Three - your eyes are open now and you are completely out of the.hypnotic trance. 159 APPENDIX A-9 SESSION VII SUGGESTIONS You are now so deeply relaxed that your mind has become very receptive. In this state of deep relaxation the c r i t i c a l part of your conscious mind i s also very deeply relaxed so that you can accept any idea you wish to accept for your own good. Because I wish you to remain in th i s u n c r i t i c a l state, I am not going to give you any di r e c t suggestions with regard to any of your pa r t i c u l a r problems. I am only going to ask you to think about certain words and their meanings (SELF-and associations for you; OTHERS- and associations for others; COMBINED-and associations for you and for others). I want you to think l a z i l y of these words, to turn them over in your mind, to examine them, to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind (SELF-until they become woven into the very fabric of your substance and of your self-image; OTHERS-until they become woven into the very fabric of your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you; COMBINED-unti1 they become woven into the very fabric of your substance and of your self-image and of your b e l i e f s as to how others perceive you). The f i r s t word I want you to think about i s the word health, and I want you now and always to couple i t with the word good. What can the words good health mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED- to you and to others)? They can mean (SELF-that you f e e l ; OTHERS-that others perceive; COMBINED-that you feel and others perceive) your body is in top physical shape. It feels good to exercise and exert your body. It feels good to s t r i v e and achieve physical l i m i t s . You find exercise exhilarating rather than fatiguing. By keeping physically f i t , studying comes easy because the mind feels a l e r t in a healthy body. This feeling may r e f l e c t in your work because you spends less time away from work as a result of fatigue or tiredness. Good health not only means physical health but also a healthy attitude of mind. Because you know and accept your body l i m i t s you feel calm and confident in your a b i l i t y to succeed in your endeavours. Knowing you approach your l i m i t s gives you a feeling of pride and confidence in a job well done. It can mean (SELF-feeling you are; OTHERS-appearing to others to be; COMBINED-feeling you are and appearing to others to be) being in charge of your thought processes; thinking calmly; l o g i c a l l y ; and making good decisions on the 160 information a v a i l a b l e . (SELF-You feel you; OTHERS-Others fe e l you; COMBINED-You and others fe e l you) weigh and use a l l the information before drawing conclusions or making inferences. (SELF-You fe e l you are; OTHERS-They fee l you are; COMBINED-You and they fe e l you are) able to concentrate better, remember more, and progressively gain more information each day. It can mean (SELF-you f e e l ; OTHERS-friends f e e l ; COMBINED-you and your friends feel) you sleep more deeply at night and awake more a l e r t in the morning ready to assimilate new material. Because you are rested, yesterday's problems are seen with a new perspective and you are able to make decisions which enhance success. The words good health can mean to you any or a l l of these things and more. These words have tremendous power. I want you to l e t them sink deeply into your sub-conscious mind, which always can reproduce in you your dominant thoughts. The next word I would l i k e you to think about i s success. It can mean high achievement in c l a s s , outstanding performance on exams; recognition and rewards. It may mean (SELF-you f e e l ; OTHERS-you appear; COMBINED-you fee l and appear) calm and confident during your exams, e a s i l y r e c a l l i n g pertinent facts and knowing that you w i l l be successful despite transitory d i f f i c u l t i e s . (SELF-You w i l l feel you are; OTHERS-You w i l l appear to be; COMBINED-You w i l l feel you are and appear to be) motivated to re-read questions on exams to be sure you f u l l y understand their implications so that you can answer completely and in a l o g i c a l manner. (SELF-You w i l l f e e l ; OTHERS-others w i l l perceive you as fee l i n g ; COMBINED- you w i l l f e e l and others w i l l perceive you as feeling) motivated to re- check answers on examinations to ensure success. If you don't know an answer, (SELF-you w i l l f e e l ; OTHERS-you w i l l appear; COMBINED-you w i l l f e e l and appear) confident to allow yourself to make spontaneous guesses, knowing that your subconscious mind w i l l help r e c a l l the correct answer. Success may mean higher marks at university because of improved examination performance. It may also mean, more security for you and your family. It can mean (SELF-you w i l l f e e l ; OTHERS-friends w i l l perceive you as fee l i n g ; COMBINED-you w i l l feel and friends w i l l perceive you as feeling) the happiness (and self worth) that comes from making the best e f f o r t you can, not only in study habits, but in exam performance. It could mean the a b i l i t y to overcome some pa r t i c u l a r 161 problem that i s i n t e r f e r i n g with your exam performance. (SELF-Whatever the word success means to you, I want you to use t h i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings which go with success. OTHERS-Whatever the word success means to others, I want you to use th i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings which go with success. COMBINED-Whatever the word success means to you or to others, I want you to use th i s word as an emotional stimulus to produce in you a l l the feelings which go with success.) F i n a l l y , I want you to think of the word motivation. What can i t mean (SELF-to you; OTHERS-to others; COMBINED-to you and to others)? It can mean the willingness to apply yourself for gradually increasing periods of time while studying. It can mean the determination to use the f u l l allotment of time on exams. It can mean the willingness to ask the instructor to c l a r i f y obscure or ambiguous questions. It can mean the desire to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for your own performance onto yourself, to take charge of your l i f e and your successes rather than l e t t i n g l i f e ' s forces mold and shape your performance. You (SELF-feel t h i s way and; OTHERS-appear this way to others and; COMBINED-feel thi s way and appear this way to others and) seem to have the perseverance and a b i l i t y to achieve the goals you desire. We have a l l been conditioned since b i r t h to associate words with feelings. (Words are therefore the tools which we are going to use to produce the feelings and res u l t s which we want.) And these words are health; success; and motivation. In a few seconds, I w i l l slowly count to three. When I do you w i l l come out of the hypnotic trance you are in now. You w i l l remember the suggestions given you regarding health, success, and motivation while you were hypnotized. (You w i l l incorporate these suggestions into your s e l f concept.) When you wake up you w i l l feel deeply relaxed. You w i l l remember being hypnotized as an enjoyable and pleasant experience. Ready now. I am going to count to three. One - you are st a r t i n g to wake up... . Two - your eyes are start i n g to open... . Three - your eyes are open now and you are completely out of the hypnotic trance. 1 62 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX B-1 STUDY INFORMATION You are considering volunteering for a study which has been designed to investigate the ef f e c t of post-hypnotic suggestions on reading achievement. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in this study w i l l require approximately ten hours of your time over a period of two months. You w i l l be required to attend nine sessions. Sessions w i l l be scheduled during the early evenings so as to not c o n f l i c t with your course work. At the end of the study we w i l l be happy to share test results with you regarding your hypnotic s u g g e s t i b i l i t y , IQ, self concept and reading achievement. Pa r t i c i p a t i o n in thi s study w i l l require hypnotic induction by a l l subjects. Standard c l i n i c a l procedures w i l l be used and trained personnel w i l l be present to a s s i s t you. The induction procedure w i l l be a modification of the Stanford Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y Scale induction procedure. Most subjects find hypnotic induction to be a pleasant and rewarding experience. Only posi t i v e post-hypnotic suggestions w i l l be given. No one w i l l be required to "perform" under hypnosis. Should you desire to withdraw from the experiment, you are free to do so at any time. If you would l i k e to parti c i p a t e in thi s study, please sign the attached consent form and leave i t and the attached questionnaire with the receptionist in the Education C l i n i c . If you have any questions or concerns regarding t h i s study, we w i l l attempt to answer these in our f i r s t meeting on (DATE) in (ROOM NUMBER) at (TIME). I consent to participate in the above described study. Date:-" Signature: 163 APPENDIX B-2 SUBJECT INFORMATION FORM Name: Date of B i r t h : Address: • Age: Phone: Year in University: Sex: Faculty: Father's Occupation Mother's Occupation Please rate yourself on the following scale by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number. 1. Are you mainly an introverted or extroverted person? - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Highly Highly Introverted Extroverted 2. Do you tend to give in to other people or do you tend to i n s i s t that you are right? - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Acquiese Dogmatic 3. Do you see yourself as mainly unsatisfied or s a t i s f i e d with yourself? - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Unsatisfied ; S a t i s f i e d 4. Do you see yourself as an anxious or calm person? - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Anxious Calm 5. Do you tend to keep your own counsel or t e l l others about yourself? - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Low self High self Disclosure Disclosure 6. Do you get along poorly with other people or do you get along well with other people? 1 64 - 3 -2 -1 0 2 3 Low Inter-Personal Relat ionships High Inter-Personal Relation-ships If you are currently having any academic d i f f i c u l t y , please c i r c l e either YES or NO. 7. Do you have motivational d i f f i c u l t y ? Yes No If YES Please explain. 8. Do you have d i f f i c u l t y with study habits? Yes No If YES Please explain. 9. Do you have d i f f i c u l t y attending in class? Yes No If YES Please explain. 10. Do you become anxious during tests? Yes No If YES Please explain. 11. Are you unable to understand the material Yes No at University? If YES Please explain. 165 12. Do you have d i f f i c u l t y remembering things? Yes No If YES Please explain. 13. Are you having s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s ? Yes No If YES Please explain. 14. Are you currently having emotional Yes No di ff i c u l t y ? If YES Please explain. 15. If your current academic d i f f i c u l t y i s due to none of the above or you do not know what i s causing your current academic d i f f i c u l t y , please indicate below. 166 APPENDIX B-3 HYPNOTIC DEPTH INDEX CARD Name: 167 APPENDIX B-4 DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Code: Please respond to the following questions by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number. If you wish to comment further, please do so in the space provided. Since being hypnotized, do YOU feel you are; feel you are: 0 1 . Healthy? YOU OTHERS 02. Successful? YOU OTHERS 03. Motivated? YOU OTHERS 04. Secure? YOU OTHERS 05. Friendly? YOU OTHERS 06. Rested? YOU OTHERS 07. Confi-dent? YOU OTHERS 08. Happy? YOU OTHERS 09. Logical? YOU OTHERS Less -3 -3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 -2 -2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 •2 Same 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 or do OTHERS More 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 168 Please respond by c i r c l i n g YES or NO to the following questions. If you wish to expand on your answer, please do so in the space provided. 01. Did you fe e l you were hypnotized? Yes No 02. Did your reading performance improve? Yes No 03. Did your s e l f concept improve? Yes No 04. Did you enjoy the hypnotic induction? Yes No 05. Did you benfit in other ways than in questions one; two, three, and four from the hypnotic induction? Yes No 1 69 06. Would you l i k e to be hypnotized again? Yes No 07. It is common in experimental studies for subjects to generate hypothesis as to what the experimental treatment was and what group they were i n . Were you an: Experimental subject? Control subject? --08. What did you think the experimental treatment was? 09. Why did you think you were in th i s condition? 170 10. If you have any suggestions or comments, please feel free to use the following space to express your opinion. 171 APPENDIX C PILOT STUDY ANALYSES APPENDIX C-1 PILOT STUDY PROCEDURES AND RESULTS P i l o t Study Procedures Nine graduate students and their two professors attending Education 571 at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were administered a taped presentation of the Stanford Hypnotic Induction Procedure, the Long Stanford Scale (LSS), and Self-Esteem Suggestions V. The mean performance on the LSS was 0.50. Only four of the subjects reported depths above zero. The deepest score reported was 'two'. Subjects reported that they found i t d i f f i c u l t to relax, the induction procedure was too rapid, and the manner of reporting hypnotic depth was d i s t r a c t i n g . As a result of this feedback, the relaxation procedure suggested by Krumboltz & Thoresen (1969) was used to help relax subjects prior to the Stanford Induction Procedures. The relaxation procedure i s presented in Appendix A-2. A hypnotic deepening procedure was included with the Stanford Induction Procedure. This procedure is presented in Appendix A-4. The method of reporting hypnotic depth was altered to avoid i n t e r f e r i n g with the subjects' 'state'. The revised hypnotic procedures were re-checked on a group of six graduate students and two professors attending Education 535 at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The mean performance on the LSS was 3.00. Only two subjects reported hypnotic depths of zero. As two subjects were able to achieve hypnotic depths of between six and seven i t seemed reasonable to assume that the hypnotic procedures used in the study would result in a r e l a t i v e l y normal d i s t r i b u t i o n of hypnotic depth. Subjects indicated that they would have relaxed better i f they had been able to remove shoes, l i e down, and loosen c o n s t r i c t i v e clothing. They reported inconsistencies in the relaxation and deepening procedures and suggested changes in the pacing of the hypnotic tape. The directions subsequently were modified to allow subjects to remove shoes, loosen c o n s t r i c t i v e clothing, and to do anything else that would help them relax. The relaxation procedure and the deepening procedure were modified to better suit the needs of the subjects and the hypnotic tape was modified to suit the pacing needs reported by subjects. 172 Once the hypnotic procedures were established as being e f f e c t i v e in producing a mean hypnotic depth of approximately fiv e in the highly susceptible subjects, investigation was directed to ensure that subjects would in fact report change in behaviour as a result of the hypnotic suggestions. It i s c r i t i c a l to the design of the study that subjects report behavioural change. This i s necessary, in order to determine whether these reports r e f l e c t subject desire to please the hypnotist, or actual change in self concept. In order to determine whether the hypnotic suggestions would result in reports of behavioural change, twenty volunteer subjects were sought. These subjects were randomly divided into two groups. D i f f e r e n t i a l a t t r i t i o n resulted in the loss of five subjects from the achievement group and one subject from the self concept group. The self concept group was administered the Stanford Hypnotic Induction Procedure and one set of randomly selected set of s e l f concept suggestions. The achievement group was administered the achievement suggestions for the self concept suggestions chosen. Procedures approximated as closely as possible those used in the actual experiment. Both groups were administered the Debriefing Questionnaire one week after the experimental manipulation. Pre-study Analysis of Results Because the Debriefing Questionnaire had been constructed by the the experimenter, i t was necessary to check the r e l i a b i l i t y of this instrument. The Hoyt (1941) estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for Self questions on the Debriefing Questionnaire was 0.92. It was 0.97 for Other questions and 0.94 for the Total Rating Scale. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the Yes and No Questions was 0.50. The BMD:P2V (Analysis of Variance and Covariance) program from UCLA (1972) was used to analyze differences between groups. Hypnotic depth was used as a covariate. In the achievement group, mechanical d i f f i c u l t i e s with the tape recorder resulted in a lessening of hypnotic depth for these subjects. The analysis evidenced a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the achievement and self concept groups (F=5.46; df=1,11; p=0.04) on the Yes and No Questions. (See Table C-2.) The adjusted scores for the. self concept group (X=11.00, S.D.=1.12) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the control group (X=8.20, S.D.=1.48). 1 73 While an analysis of each Yes and No question indicated that the difference between the groups seemed to be largely due to the enjoyment of the hypnotism (F=5.40; df=1,11; p=0.04) and whether or not subjects wanted to be hypnotized again (F=5.40; df=1,11; p=0.04), the o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t for the Yes and No Question Total was s u f f i c i e n t to indicate that the Debriefing Questionnaire was sensitive to the e f f e c t s of self concept and achievement suggestions. While there was a s i g n i f i c a n t effect for enjoyment of the hypnosis and a s i g n i f i c a n t effect for wanting to be hypnotized again, only one subject from the p i l o t studies pa r t i c i p a t e d in the experiment. This subject described himself as a professional subject. His data was not used in the analysis of r e s u l t s . 174 TABLE C-2 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR THE PRE-STUDY DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE (N=14) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM HYPOTHESIS MEAN SQUARE UNIVAR-IATE F PROB. Q1 Self Others ! : ! ! 0.74745 2.54088 0.65 1 .06 0.4376 0.3244 Q2 Self Others !:!! 0.49343 3.37518 0.86 0.89 0.3735 0.3663 Q3 Self Others ! ; ! ! 0.21095 1.68175 0.18 0.29 0.6832 0.5989 Q4 Self Others ! ; ! ! 0.02628 2.12847 0.04 0.88 0.8426 0.3689 Q5 Self Others !:!! 0.01825 2.98976 0.03 0.79 0.8605 0.3941 Q6 Self Others 2.89708 0.57226 2.42 0.18 0.1484 0.6761 Q7 Self Others ! : ! ! 0.17525 3.88978 1 .32 0.71 0.2749 0.4171 Q8 Self Others ! : ! ! 0.94599 0.05912 1.71 0.01 0.2173 0.9064 Q9 Self Others ] ; ! ] 0.18686 1.41314 0.19 0.50 0.6684 0.4932 Total 1,11 209.44697 2.30 0.1575 175 TABLE C-3 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR THE PRE-STUDY DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS (N=14) DEPENDENT VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM HYPOTHESIS MEAN SQUARE UNIVAR-IATE F PROB. Q1 1,11 1.16788 2.54 0.1392 Q2 1,11 0.29197 0.49 0.4998 Q3 1,11 0.07299 0.19 0.6685 Q4 1,11 0.26350 5.40 0.0403 Q.5 1,11 0.84380 1 .68 0.2209 Q6 1,11 1.05401 5.40 0.0403 Total 1,11 6.23409 5.46 0.0394 176 APPENDIX D CLINICAL NOTES Session IV Most subjects seemed to be nervous during Session IV. Subjects were invited to l i e on the f l o o r , but with the exception of the Combined-esteem suggestion, group, subjects remained seated in chairs. The subjects seemed to enjoy the tapes. At least one person in each group f e l l asleep. One person expressed that he was unable to become hypnotized. At the end of the session subjects shared their experiences with regard to the sensations they had experienced. Session V At the beginning of Session V, subjects reported sleeping better, studying more, concentrating better, fee l i n g better, and scoring higher grades. Some subjects in the Self-esteem group seemed to be very excited with regard to the benefits of the hypnosis and four subjects in this group thanked the examiner at the end of t h i s session for allowing them the opportunity of p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the exper iment. Subjects given Other-esteem suggestions reported improvement, but seemed very self-conscious. This was the only group to not l i e down on the floor for the second session. When the experimenter invited t h i s group to l i e down, subjects asked: "What are the other groups doing?" When to l d that subjects in the groups were l y i n g down, the subjects in this group proceeded to l i e down. Subjects given Combined-esteem suggestions reported incredible improvements after one session of hypnosis. One person ,who apparently was usually quite shy, went back to a previous employer and demanded to see her personnel record. She then demanded that a l l negative comments in her f i l e be removed. Her employer complied. The same g i r l then received an employment offer from another firm. She talked with the employer and demanded a higher wage and fringe benefits which she received. One man in the Combined-esteem group" started jogging. He commented that when he was thinking about the post-hypnotic suggestions regarding success, he became aware that he r e a l l y did not want to succeed. He seemed reconciled to t h i s f a c t . Some of the subjects in the group given Achievement suggestions also seemed quite excited about the benefits of 177 the post-hypnotic suggestions. However, no subjects in t h i s group reported improvement. The sleepers in each group seemed to be consistent. At least one subject again f e l l asleep in each group. The sleepers indicated that they tended to f a l l asleep during the deepening procedure. One person who f e l l asleep reported that he remembered the post-hypnotic suggestions despite being asleep. During the f i f t h session, one subject became worried about his depth and tensed his muscles just prior to the suggestion to "remain as relaxed as you are right no u n t i l I t e l l you to wake up". This subject reported being very uncomfortable for the remainder of the procedure. He found himself unable to move and unable to relax. The same subject who reported being unable to become hypnotized during the f i r s t session, again had d i f f i c u l t y during the second session. He indicated that he became quite agitated during the session and wanted to get up and walk around. At the end of Session V, one g i r l in the Achievement group indicated that she had a headache upon waking after Session IV. She wanted to know i f t h i s was a side e f f e c t of hypnosis. The post-hypnotic suggestion to avoid side-effects had inadvertently been omitted from the post-hypnotic suggestions. Subjects were, therefore, informed of the p o s s i b i l i t y of side e f f e c t s at the start of Session VI and were requested to remain after the session i f they experienced any unusual symptoms. Session VI Subjects in the group given Self-esteem suggestions appeared to be extremely happy and s e l f s a t i s f i e d . They seemed to be continuing to enjoy the sessions.' One g i r l in the Self-esteem group reported that during this study she experienced the f i r s t real relaxation in her l i f e and slept well for the f i r s t time. At irregular intervals, throughout the sessions, there had been considerable ambient noise from other classes in the building and from a band pra c t i c i n g two floors above the room where the sessions were conducted. In Session VI, subjects in the group given Other-esteem suggestions commented that the outside noise from the band interfered with their concentration. One g i r l in the Achievement group reported that she f e l t extremely motivated and did an essay that she had been 1 78 avoiding. She also commented on completing considerable other work which she f e l t she would normally have avoided. Subjects reported that they would be sorry when the study was over because they enjoyed the relaxation so much. Several subjects made considerable e f f o r t to attend this session, which was conducted on a Friday and Saturday. One subject drove a l l the way from North Vancouver, and another drove a l l the way from Tswassen. Session VII At the start of Session VII, the atmosphere in the group given Self-esteem suggestions seemed to have changed. Apparently several members in this group had received marks for an exam and were unhappy with their r e s u l t s . At the start of this session, most of their discussion centered on how angry they were with their professor. When these subjects l e f t Session VII, many were s t i l l discussing their results and s t i l l appeared upset. At the end of Session VII, one g i r l in the group given Other-esteem suggestions displayed an anxiety reaction upon waking from the hypnotic 'trance'. She was unaware of why she was frightened, extremely upset, and unable to control her shaking. She was immediately inducted again and given the post-hypnotic suggestion that she would fe e l calm and relaxed on waking. She responded favourably to this suggestion for a short period of time and then commenced to display the symptoms of the anxiety reaction again. She indicated that the memory of her anxiety was causing her to become anxious again. She was agin inducted. This time, while under hypnosis, she was questionned regarding her anxiety. She apparently did not know the cause. She was then given the post-hypnotic suggestion that she would remember how anxious she was but that t h i s memory would ^not bother her. She would remain calm and relaxed while thinking about how anxious she was. The memory of her anxiety would gradually fade away u n t i l she no longer remembered i t and she_ would have no other side e f f e c t s . These suggestions se'emed to a l l e v i a t e her anxiety e n t i r e l y . A follow-up, approximately one week l a t e r , indicated no re-occurence of the anxiety. At the end of Session VII, with the exception of subjects in the group given Self-esteem suggestions, many subjects indicated how much they enjoyed the experiment. Several subjects indicated that they wanted to continue the treatments. Because of the desire expressed by many subjects to have an additional session, and to provide subjects with an 179 opportunity to benefit from the suggestions given other groups, a special session was arranged for subjects after they had completed the dependent measures. Approximately seventy-five percent of subjects took advantage of t h i s session. In addition approximately forty percent of subjects came for personal counselling, personal hypnotic suggestions, or help in making their own hypnotic tapes. i 180 APPENDIX E TESTS OF EQUIVALENCY TABLE E-1 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SELF CONCEPT QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT INFORMATION FORM (N=52) QUESTION SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHER- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Mean 3.077 1 .692 1 .385 2.077 S.D. 3.451 '2.496 2.256 2.326 Mean 2.077 1 .846 2.615 2.308 S.D. 2.397 1 .994 2.931 2.428 Mean 2.769 3.385 3.769 2.846 S.D. 2.421 2.468 3.032 2.911 Mean 1 .769 3.462 2.692 2.000 S.D. 2.891 3.478 3.614 2.309 Mean 2.358 1 .692 3. 154 2.615 S.D. 2.755 2.428 2.663 3.105 Mean 2. 1 54 2.846 1.615 1 .923 S.D. 3.023 3.412 3.013 2.989 i l 1-6 Mean 27.231 27.231 27.769 26.4622 S.D. 4.003 4.362 5.262 5.456 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 181 TABLE E-2 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ACHIEVEMENT QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT INFORMATION FORM (N=52) QUESTION SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN S.D. SELF-ESTEEM OTHER-ESTEEM COMBINED-ESTEEM Q7 Mean 2.307 1 .000 1 .462 2.769 S.D. 2.626 . 1.155 2.222 3. 166 Q8 Mean 0.923 1 .000 1 . 1 54 1 .077 S.D. 0.862 0.913 1.214 1 .038 Q9 Mean 2.692 1.923 3. 1 54 3.077 S.D. 1 .888 1 .977 2.544 2.139 Q10 Mean 3.385 2.923 3.692 3. 1 54 S.D. 2.631 2.629 3. 1 99 1 . 994 Q1 1 Mean 0.231 0.307 0.385 0.231 S.D. 0.599 0.751 0.599 0.768 Q12 Mean 1 .692 1 .308 1 .538 1 .462 S.D. 1 .377 1 .032 1 .266 1 . 127 Q13 Mean 3.846 4.385 3.923 2.231 S.D. 2.794 3.097 2.629 2.891 Q14 Mean 1.615 0.923. 0.846 0.231 S.D. 3.380 2.397 • 2. 154 0.599 Total 7-14 Mean 12.231 11.846 11.692 1 1.923 S.D. 1.832 1 .725 1.316 1.605 182 TABLE E-3 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE SUBJECT INFORMATION FORM (N=52) FACTOR(S) VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS UNIVARIATE MEAN F SQUARE Self - Q1 1.558 0.22 Esteem Q2 0.942 0.16 (S) Q3 0.308 0.04 Q4 3.250 0.33 Q5 0.077 0.01 Q6 3.250 0.34 Total 1-6 1.923 0.08 Q7 0.000 0.00 Q8 ' 0.000 0.00 Q9 2.327 0.50 Q10 3.250 0.46 Q11 0.173 0.37 Q12 0.692 0.47 Q13 4.327 0.53 Q14 5.558 1.00 Total 7-14 0.077 0.03 Others- Q1 14.019 1.96 Esteem Q2 0.019 0.00 (O) Q3 7.692 1.04 Q4 18.481 1.90 Q5 4.923 0.65 Q6 0.481 0.05 Total 1-6 11.077 0.48 Q7 22.231 3.83 Q8 0.077 0.07 Q9 1.558 0.34 Q10 0.019 0.00 Q11 0.019 0.04 Q12 0.308 0.21 Q13 16.173 1.98 Q14 0.019 0.00 Total 7-14 1.231 0.46 183 Q1 5.558 0.78 Q2 3.250 0.54 Q3 0.692 0.09 Q4 0.942 0.10 Q5 9.308 1 .23 Q6 6.942 0.72 Total 1 -6 1 .923 0.08 Q7 2.769 0.48 Q8 0.308 0.30 Q9 8.481 1 .83 Q10 0.942 0. 13 Q1 1 0.019 0.04 Q12 0.014 0.00 Q13 14.019 1 .72 Q14 6.942 1 .25 Total 7 -14 0.692 0.26 VARIANCE S.D. Q1 7. 1 60 2.678 Q2 6.051 2.460 Q3 7.404 2.721 Q4 9.715 3.117 Q5 7.554 2.748 Q6 9.696 3.114 Total 1 -6 23.128 4.809 Q7 5.798 2.408 Q8 1 .032 1.016 Q9 4.631 2. 1 52 Q10 7.009 2.647 QJ 1 0.468 0.684 Q12 1 .458 1 .207 Q13 8. 167 2.858 Q14 5.542 2.354 Total 7 -14 2.660 1 .631 Degrees of Freedom for Self-Esteem (S) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Others-Esteem (0) =1 Degrees of Freedom for S-0 = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 48 184 TABLE E-4 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SUB-TEST SCORES ON THE CALIFORNIA TEST OF MENTAL MATURITY (N=52) SUB-TEST SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHER- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Verbal Score Mean 29.692 27. 538 32. 1 54 28. 462 S.D. 6.343 5. 410 5. 226 6. 603 Numerical Score Mean 16.385 17. 846 17. 923 18. 385 S.D. 6.959 5. 1 94 4. 627 4. 556 Language Score Mean 43.538 40. 615 46. 923 45. 692 S.D. 11.914 8. 588 5. 979 8. 616 Non Language Score Mean 40.231 40. 615 44. 692 39. 615 S.D. 10.410 7. 1 94 7. 387 7. 217 Total Score Mean 83.846 82. 000 92. 462 - 84. 923 S.D. 20.639 12. 949 10. 689 13. 841 I 185 TABLE E-5 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE CALIFORNIA TEST OF MENTAL MATURITY (N=52) FACTOR(S) VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS MEAN SQUARE UNIVARIATE F Sel f - Verbal Score 48.077 1 .36 Esteem Numerical Score 12.019 0 .41 (S) Language Score 56.077 0 .69 Non Language Score 71.558 1 .07 Total Score 286.231 1 .27 Other- Verbal Score 40.692 1 . 1 5 Esteem Numerical Score 3.250 0 . 1 1 (0) Language Score 9.308 0 . 1 1 Non Language Score 96.942 1 .45 Total Score 105.308 0 .47 S-0 Verbal Score 94.231 2 .66 Numerical Score 14.019 0 .48 Language Score 232.692 2 .86 Non Language Score 38.942 0 .58 Total Score 432.692 1 .92 Error VARIABLE VARIANCE s .D. Verbal Score 35.436 5 .953 Numerical Score 29.391 5 .421 Language Score 81.417 9 .023 Non Language Score 66.692 8 . 1 67 Total Score 224.872 14 .996 Degrees of Freedom for Self-Esteem (S) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Others -Esteem (0) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for S-0 = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 48 186 TABLE E-6 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SUB-TEST SCORES ON THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (N=52) SUB-TEST SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHER- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Vocabulary Mean 50.615 43.077 56.000 46.538 S.D. 20.464 14.773 12.423 13.314 Comprehension Mean 35.462 39.308 42.000 35.077 S.D. 9.252 13.555 8.879 12.298 Total Mean 85.615 81.308 98.000 81.077 S.D. 27.807 24.202 17.416 18.697 Speed Mean 317.308 273.000 269.462 229.615 S.D. 125.735 99.005 119.874 59.632 1 8 7 TABLE E-7 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (N=52) FACTOR(S) VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS UNIVARIATE MEAN F SQUARE Se.lf- Vocabulary 9 3 9 . 2 5 0 3. 8 8 Esteem Comprehension 3 0 . 7 6 9 0. 2 5 ( s ) Total 1 4 6 4 . 9 2 3 2 . 91 Speed 2 3 0 1 6 . 0 8 0 2. 1 1 Others- Vocabulary 1 2 . 0 1 9 0. 0 5 Esteem Comprehension 3 7 6 . 9 2 3 3. 0 2 ( 0 ) Total 5 1 7 . 2 3 1 1 . 0 3 Speed 6 4 . 6 9 2 0. 01 S-0 Vocabulary 3 5 4 . 3 2 7 1 . 0 5 Comprehension 1 7 . 3 0 8 0. 14 Total 4 8 0 . 0 7 7 0. 9 5 Speed 2 7 0 4 9 . 9 2 0 2 . 4 9 Error VARIANCE S. D. Vocabulary 2 4 1 . 1 5 1 1 5 . 5 6 1 Comprehension 1 2 4 . 8 5 3 1 1 . 17 4 Total 5 0 2 . 9 7 4 2 2 . 4 2 7 Speed 1 0 8 8 4 . 2 7 0 1 0 4 . 3 2 8 Degrees of Freedom for Self-Esteem (S) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Others-Esteem ( 0 ) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for S-0 = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 4 8 188 TABLE E-8 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SUBTEST SCORES ON THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) SUB-TEST SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHERS- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Total Mean 327.615 340 .462 339. 692 335 .692 S.D. 42.504 28 .649 30. 769 35 .370 Row 1 - Identity Mean 117.385 121 .462 1 19. 692 120 .231 S.D. 15.053 5 .939 7. 273 1 2 .577 Row 2 - Self S a t i s f a c t i o n Mean 105.154 1 07 .615 110. 308 107 .538 S.D. 15.625 1 5 .387 14. 773 1 3 .697 Row 3 - Behaviour Mean 105.077 1 1 1 .385 1 09. 692 108 .692 S.D. 14.442 9 .700 1 1 . 793 1 1 .287 Column A - Physical Self Mean 63.692 65 .615 65. 308 63 .692 S.D. 9.031 6 .^ 526 7. 005 8 .769 Column B - Moral-Ethical Self Mean 70.923 71 .385 71 . 538 73 .846 S.D. 8.490 7 .869 8. 412 5 .970 Column C - Personal Self Mean 61.077 64 .923 64. 769 65 .462 S.D. 10.774 1 .783 6. 772 7 .241 Column D - Family Self Mean 67.846 69 .462 67. 615 62 .538 S.D. 9.634 8 .373 9. 622 14 .604 Column E - Social Self Mean 63.923 67 .538 69. 846 69 .385 S.D. 9.630 8 .666 6. 388 8 .940 189 TABLE E-9 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) FACTOR!S) VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS MEAN SQUARE UNIVARIATE F Self- Total P 254.327 0.21 Esteem Row 1 69.231 0.59 (S) Row 2 0.308 0.00 Row 3 91.558 0.64 Column A 0.308 0.00 Column B 24.923 0.41 Column C 66.942 0.97 Column D 38.942 0.33 Column E 32.327 0.45 Other- Total P 922.327 0.76 Esteem Row 1 40.692 0.34 (0) Row 2 88.923 0.40 Row 3 173.558 1 .22 Column A 40.692 0.65 Column B '11.077 0.18 Column C 32.327 0.47 Column D 145.558 1 .24 Column E 54.019 0.75 S-0 Total P 173.558 0.14 Row 1 3.769 0.03 Row 2 83.769 0.38 Row 3 12.019 0.08 Column A 0.308 0.00 Column B 30.769 0.51 Column C 58.173 0.85 Column D 166.327 1 .42 Column E 196.173 2.72 Error VARIANCE S.D. Total P 1206.288 34.7317 Row 1 118.237 10.8737 Row 2 221.683 14.8890 Row 3 142.282 11.9282 Column A 62.529 7.9075 Column B 60.103 7.7526 Column C 68.737 8.2908 Column D 117.192 10.8255 Column E 72.144 8.4838 Degrees of Freedom for Self-Esteem (S) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Others-Esteem (O) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for S-0 = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 48 190 TABLE E-10 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE HARVARD GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY (N=52) SUB-TEST SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHER- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Total HGSHS Mean 6.846 7.692 7.769 7.077 S.D. 3.532 2.250 2.555 2.431 i TABLE E-1 1 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE HARVARD GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY (N=52) FACTOR(S) MEAN DEGREES SQUARE OF FREEDOM Mean Self (S) Other (0) S-0 Error 2806.231 0.077 7.692 0.308 7.494 1 1 1 1 48 374.48 0.01 1 .03 0.04 192 TABLE E-12 GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE LONG STANFORD SCALE OF HYPNOTIC DEPTH (N=52) SUB-TEST SELF CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SELF- OTHERS- COMBINED-S.D. ESTEEM ESTEEM ESTEEM Session IV Mean 5.385 4.769. 3.923 4. 461 S.D. 2.063 3.270 2.929 2. 727 Session V Mean 4.538 5.000 4.308 3. 538 S.D. 2.847 3.317 2.394 3. 755 Session VI Mean 5.231 4.846 3.462 3. 923 S.D. 3.789 3.870 3.205 3. 707 Session VII Mean 6.308 4.615 4.846 3. 615 S.D. 3.376 3.731 3.023 3. 280 1 T o t a l Hypnotic Depth (Sessions 1-4) 21.462 . 19.231 16.538 15. 231 1The Total Hypnotic Depth score was used in correlations with the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u s c e p t i b i l i t y (HGSHS) and was used as the covariate for Hypnotic Depth in the study. 193 TABLE E-13 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE LONG STANFORD SCALE OF HYPNOTIC DEPTH (N=52) FACTOR(S) VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS UNIVARIATE MEAN F SQUARE Self- HD1 0.019 0.00 Esteem HD2 0.308 0.03 (S) HD3 0.019 0.00 HD4 27.769 2.46 HDT 40.692 0.58 Others- HD1 4.327 0.56 Esteem HD2 4.923 0.51 (0) HD3 2.327 0.17 HD4 0.692 0.06 HDT 2.769 0.04 S-0 HD 1 10.173 1.31 HD2 9.308 0.96 HD3 23.558 1 .77 HD4 19.692 1 .74 HDT 258.769 3.72 ERROR VARIANCE S.D. HD1 7.740 2.782 HD2 9.734 3. 120 HD3 13.337 3.652 HD4 11.304 3.362 HDT 69.647 8.345 HD 1 = F i r s t administration of LSS HD2 = Second administration of LSS HD3 = Third administration Of LSS HDT = Fourth administration of LSS HDT = Total score on LSS Degrees of Freedom for Self -Esteem Degrees of Freedom for Others-Esteem (O) = 1 Degrees of Freedom for S-0 =1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 48 1 94 APPENDIX F REGRESSION ANALYSES RESULTS TABLE F-1 REGRESSION ANALYSIS1 FOR THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE FOR SELF (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F 2 R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE Rating CTMM 0. 3709 0. 5141 0 .0858 0. 0074 Scale HGSHS 10. 791 2 12. 4494 0 .431 9 0. 1865 ** For Self LSS 4. 0604 4. 4045 0 .5000 0. 2500 * Quest- Sex 0. 8795 0. 9587 . 0 .5136 0. 2637 ions S-(Self) 2. 2532 2. 1814 0 .6080 0. 3697 On the 0-(Other) 5. 1808 5. 1 757 0 .5816 0. 3833 * Debrief- S-0 1 . 6796 1 . 61 1 8 0 .6268 0. 3929 ing S-HGSHS 0. 0230 0. 0208 0 .7044 0. 4962 Quest- S-LSS 0. 1 499 0. 1 320 0 .7024 0. 4934 ionnaire S-Sex 2, 8080 2. 4524 0 .6966 0. 4852 O-HGSHS 0. 0402 0. 0347 0 .7037 0. 4951 O-LSS 1 . 7955 1 . 6326 0 .6708 0. 4499 O-Sex 2. 51 64 2. 3343 0 .6530 0. 4264 S-O-HGSHS 0. 0877 0. 0834 0 .7033 0. 4946 S-O-LSS 0. 4926 0. 4377 0 .7010 0. 4915 S-O-Sex 0. 0565 0. 0556 0 .7042 0. 4959 1This represents a step-wise regression approximation of analysis of covariance. 2 T h i s i s the F-value used to calculate s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . * indicates p<.05. ** indicates p<.0l. " A l l subsequent regression tables follow a format similar to that noted above. 195 TABLE F-2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE FOR OTHERS (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE Rat ing CTMM 2 .0304 2. 7699 0. 1975 0. 0390 Scale HGSHS 1 9 .3856 19. 3466 0. 5581 0. 3114 ** For LSS 1 .5116 1 . 4915 0. 5766 0. 3325 Other Sex 0 .5042 0. 5043 0. 5827 0. 3395 Quest- S-(Self) 1 .2039 1 . 1932 0. 5970 0. 3564 ions O-(Other) 0 .7913 0. 7884 0. 6062 0. 3675 On the S-0 1 .4980 1 . 4773 0. 6232 0. 3883 Debrief- S-HGSHS 0 .0441 0. 0426 0. 71 17 0. 5065 ing S-LSS 0 .9825 0. 8878 0. 6928 0. 4662 Quest- S-Sex 1 .261 9 1. 1 293 0. 6944 0. 4821 ionnai re O-HGSHS 0 . 1428 0. 1 349 0. 71 05 • 0. 5048 ' O-LSS 0 .8162 0. 7386 0. 701 8 0. 4925 O-Sex 0 .8208 0. 7457 0. 7092 0. 5030 S-O-HGSHS 0 .0498 0. 0497 0. 71 22 0. 5072 S-O-LSS 0 .0827 0. 0781 0. 7113 0. 5059 S-O-Sex 5 . 1 466 4. 6449 0. 6736 0. 4537 * 196 TABLE F-3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE TOTAL (N=52) DEPEND- . SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE Rat ing CTMM 1 . 0395 1 .4269 0. 1427 . 0. 0204 Scale HGSHS 16. 0428 16 .8985 0. 51 1 9 0. 2620 ** Total LSS 3. 2008 3 .2244 0. 5551 0. 3081 On the Sex 0. 8042 0 .8114 0. 5655 0. 3198 Debrief- S-(Self) 2. 0089 1 .9025 0. 6245 0. 3901 ing O-(Other) 3. 1 083 3 .01 46 0. 6023 0. 3628 Quest- S-0 1 . 8388 1 .7136 0. 6438 0. 41 45 ionnaire S-HGSHS 0. 001 0 0 .0000 0. 7068 0. 4996 S-LSS 0. 1 745 0 . 1 609 0. 7050 0. 4971 S-Sex 1 . 6845 1 .51 78 0. 6784 0. 4602 O-HGSHS 0. 0688 0 .0629 0. 7067 0. 4994 O-LSS 2. 5590 2 .21 72 0. 7014 0. 491 9 O-Sex 0. 1 027 0 .0979 0. 7060 0. 4984 S-O-HGSHS 0. 01 36 0 .0140 0. 7068 0. 4996 S-O-LSS 0. 2320 0 .2028 0. 7034 0. 4948 S-O-Sex 1. 8400 . 1 .6787 0. 6622 0. 4385 ( TABLE F-4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ.. ENT VARIATION ENTER/ DEPENDENT REMOVE VARIABLE Yes and CTMM 0. 2794 0. 4755 0. 0746 0. 0056 No HGSHS 19. 1504 23. 7239 0. 5339 0. 2850 ** Quest- LSS 5. 9997 6. 7418 0. 6037 0. 3644 * ions Sex 1 . 5560 1 . 7322 0. 6203 0. 3848 On the S-(Self) 1 . 6244 1 . 7492 0. 6559 0. 4302 Debrief- 0-(Other) 1 . 9365 2. 1 1 43 0. 6400 0. 4097 ing S-0 3. 5307 3. 591 7 0. 6874 0. 4725 Quest- S-HGSHS 0. 5251 0. 4670 0. 7556 0. 571 0 ionnaire S-LSS 4. 6991 4. 1 266 0. 7520 0. 5655 * S-Sex 0. 4004 0. 3736 0. 7636 0. 5831 O-HGSHS 0. 201 6 0. 1953 0. 7651 0. 5854 O-LSS 0. 1977 0. 1953 0. 7666 0. 5877 O-Sex 3. 9463 3. 761 5 0. 7189 0. 5169 S-O-HGSHS 0. 4594 0. 4246 0. 7608 0. 5788 S-O-LSS 0. 2627 0. 2377 0. 7575 0. 5738 S-O-Sex 0. 0128 0. 01 70 0. 7667 0. 5878 198 TABLE F-5 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE NELSON-DENNY VOCABULARY SUBTEST (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ .DEPENDENT VARIABLE ' . REMOVE VARIABLE N-D1V 239. 6477 238. 4034 0. 9096 0 .8274 ** CTMM 0. 1438 0. 1 441 0. 9099 0 .8279 HGSHS 5. 0653 4. 7250 0. 9189 0 .8443 * LSS 4. 5050 3. 91 90 0. 9262 0 18579 Sex 0. 1 990 0. 1 729 0. 9266 0 .8585 S-(Self) 0. 1371 0. 1 1 53 0. 931 2 0 .8672 0-(Other) 2. 7754 2. 3630 0. 9310 0 .8668 S-0 0. 1 1 04 0. 0864 0. 931 4 0 .8675 S-HGSHS 0. 0201 0. 0288 0. 9391 0 .8819 S-LSS 0. 221 5 0. 201 7 0. 9390 0 .881 7 S-Sex 0. 0564 0. 0576 0. 9391 0 .8819 O-HGSHS 0. 5982 0. 51 86 0. 9380 0 .8798 O-LSS 0. 9026 0. 8068 0. 9329 0 .8703 O-Sex 1. 4220 1. 2390 0. 9370 0 .8780 S-O-HGSHS 1. 0879 0. 9797 0. 9347 0 .8737 S-O-LSS 0. 3782 0. 3458 0. 9386 0 .8810 S-O-Sex 0. 01 99 0. 0288 0. 9392 0 .8820 199 TABLE F-6 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE NELSON-DENNY COMPREHENSION SUBTEST (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE N-D 1 C 68 . 1 986 95 . 1 248 0 .7596 0 .5770 ** CTMM 6 .0078 7 .6166 0 .7894 0 .6232 * HGSHS 3 . 1 1 48 3 .7918 0 .8038 0 .6461 LSS 0 .8897 1 .0881 0 .8079 0 .6527 Sex 1 . 1 945 1 .4343 0 .8191 0 .671 0 S-(Self) 2 .2828 2 .6707 0 .8330 0 .6939 0-(Other) 1 . 1 945 1 .4343 0 .8191 0 .6710 S-0 2 .2828 1 .6707 0 .8330 0 .6939 S-HGSHS 1 .2878 1 .2694 0 .8797 0 .7738 S-LSS 2 .2318 2 .2751 0 .8680 0 .7535 S-Sex 1 .4434 1 .4013 0 .8845 0 .7823 O-HGSHS 2 .1211 2 .0937 0 .8753 0 .7662 O-LSS 0 .2485 0 .2473 0 .8874 0 .7874 O-Sex 4 .3942 4 .7810 0 .8502 0 .7229 * S-O-HGSHS 1 .4434 1 .401 3 0 .8845 0 .7823 S-O-LSS 2 .6470 2 .7697 0 .8601 0 .7397 S-O-Sex 0 .6000 0 .5935 0 .8865 0 .7859 200 TABLE REGRESSION FOR THE NELSON-DENNY F-7 ANALYSIS TOTAL TEST (N=52) DEPEND^ SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE N-D2 Total N-D1T 172 .2823 234.. 4609 0. 8804 0 .7751 ** CTMM 2 .5512 3. 3577 0. 8867 0 .7862 HGSHS 6 .6227 7. 8345 0. 901 2 0 .8121 * LSS 3 .01 53 3. 4181 0. 9074 0 .8234 Sex 0 . 1 329 0. 1512 0. 9077 0 .8240 S-(Self) 0 .2446 0. 2722 0. 9176 0 .841 9 0-(Other) 4 .8331 5. 1 726 0. 9171 0 .8410 * S-0 1 .0540 1 . 1 495 0. 9196 0 .8457 S-HGSHS 0 .8470 0. 8167 0. 9378 0 .8794 S-LSS 1 .8261 1 . 7242 0. 9408 0 .8851 S-Sex 0 .0525 0. 0605 0. 9421 0 .8876 O-HGSHS 0 .3300 0. 3327 0. 9420 0 .8874 O-LSS 2 . 1 574 2. 1 700 0. 9295 0 .8640 O-Sex 3 .2621 3. 3577 0. 9256 0 .8568 S-O-HGSHS 2 .8471 2. 7224 0. 9343 0 .8730 S-O-LSS 0 .3959 0. 3630 0. 951 4 0 .8864 S-O-Sex 1 .1861 1 . 1 192 0. 9364 0 .8768 201 TABLE F-8 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE NELSON-DENNY SPEED SUBTEST (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE N-D2S 1 03 .7596 90. 3987 0 .821 5 O. 6748 ** CTMM 0. 3602 0. 321 5 0 .8229 0. 6772 HGSHS 0. 081 3 0. 0804 0 .8235 0. 6781 LSS 0. 0558 0. 0536 0 .8231 0. 6776 Sex 0. 01 34 0. 01 34 0 .8235 0. 6782 S-(Self) 0. 01 29 0. 0804 0 .8318 0. 6918 O-(Other) 1 . 9765 1 . 8085 0 .8317 0. 6918 S-0 0. 6272 0. 5894 0 .8344 0. 6963 S-HGSHS 0. 0375 0. 0402 0 .8637 0. 7460 S-LSS 2. 0551 1 . 9020 0 .8429 0. 71 04 S-Sex 0. 1 597 0. 1 474 0 .8635 0. 7457 O-HGSHS 0. 21 37 0. 2009 0 .8629 0. 7446 O-LSS 0. 0242 0. 0268 0 .8638 0. 7462 O-Sex 0. 3075 0. 281 3 0 .8620 0. 7431 S-O-HGSHS 2. 0089 1. 7680 0 .8584 0. 7369 S-O-LSS 1 . 9645 1. 7680 0 .8507 0. 7237 S-O-Sex 0. 6220 0. 5493 0 .8608 0. 7410 202 TABLE F-9 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE TOTAL P SCORE OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 TSCS1 P Total CTMM P HGSHS Score LSS Sex S-(Self) 0-(Other) S-0 S-HGSHS S-LSS S-Sex O-HGSHS O-LSS O-Sex S-O-HGSHS S-O-LSS S-O-Sex 3 .4055 49 . 1 746 0 .2526 0 .2857 4 .1996 4 .5291 1 .3742 1 .4709 0 .0047 0 .0000 0 .6135 0 .6455 3 .6466 3 .7778 0 .0035 0 .0000 2 .7947 2 .6032 2 .8244 2 .751 3 0 .2853 0 .2751 0 .2555 0 .2328 1 .2941 1 . 1 958 0 .1213 0 . 1 1 64 1 .5808 1 .4392 0 .0458 0 .0433 3 .2028 3 .5293 0 .6817 0. 4647 ** 0 .6837 0. 4674 0 .71 43 0. 5103 * 0 .7240 0. 5242 0 .7241 0. 5243 0 .7523 0. 5660 0 .7483 0. 5599 0 .7523 0. 5660 0 .8046 0. 6474 0 .7891 0. 6227 0 .8229 0. 6771 0 .8213 0. 6746 0 .8116 0. 6587 0 .8236 0. 6783 0 .8200 0. 6723 0 .8238 0. 6787 0 .7725 0. 5968 203 TABLE F-10 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR ROW 1 OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS1 R1 35. 5242 34. 7444 0. 6445 0. 4154 ** CTMM 0. 9522 0. 9284 0. 6531 0. 4265 HGSHS 3. 1823 2. 9860 0. 6798 0. 4622 LSS 0. 5374 0. 51 02 0. 6843 0. 4683 Sex 0. 2175 0. 2091 0. 6861 0. 4708 S-(Self) 0. 2246 0. 2091 0. 7147 0. 51 08 O-(Other) 3. 4372 3. 1 449 0. 71 30 0. 5083 S-0 0. 1 699 0. 1589 0. 7161 0. 51 27 S-HGSHS 0. 7772 0. 7026 0. 7669 0. 5882 S-LSS 1 . 3538 1 . 21 28 0. 7560 0. 571 5 S-Sex 0. 1794 0. 1 673 0. 7962 0. 591 7 O-HGSHS 0. 1 357 0. 1 255 0. 7679 0. 5897 O-LSS 0. 7629 0. 6859 0. 761 4 0. 5798 O-Sex 0. 0252 0. 0251 0. 7704 0. 5935 S-O-HGSHS 2. 1 1 03 1. 9488 0. 7322 0. 5360 S-O-LSS 0. 1 272 0. 1 255 0. 7702 0. 5932 S-O-Sex 0. 0252 0. 0251 0. 7704 0. 5935 204 TABLE F-11 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR ROW 2 OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. VARIABLE VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS1 R1 37. 3142 43 .941 9 0 .6537 0. 4274 ** CTMM 0. 0715 0 .0822 0 .6544 0. 4282 HGSHS 6. 6431 7 .1454 0 .7055 0. 4977 * LSS 2. 6544 2 .7656 0 .7243 0. 5246 Sex 0. 0835 0 .0925 0 .7249 0. 5254 S-(Self) 0. 4586 0 . 4627 0 .7515 0. 5647 0-(Other) 3. 5579 3 .5779 0 .7485 0. 5602 S-0 0. 01 05 0 .01 03 0 .7516 0. 5684 S-HGSHS 3. 8293 3 .4339 0 .8068 0. 651 0 S-LSS 1 . 6714 1 .6039 0 .7858 0. 6175 S-Sex 0. 0631 0 .0617 0 .81 74 0. 6681 O-HGSHS 0. 0546 0 .0514 0 .8181 0. 6693 O-LSS 1 . 2044 1 .0795 0 .8133 0. 661 4 O-Sex 0. 7003 0 .6272 0 .81 70 0. 6675 S-O-HGSHS 0. 001 6 0 .0000 0 .8181 0. 6693 S-O-LSS 0. 0739 0 .0720 0 .81 78 0. 6688 S-O-Sex 3. 91 54 3 .81 43 0 .7759 0. 601 9 205 TABLE F-12 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR ROW 3 OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 R3 52 .8915 64. 3808 0 .7170 0. 5141 ** CTMM 0 .0499 0. 0501 .0 .7173 0. 51 45 HGSHS 2 .4427 2. 9429 0 .7335 0. 5380 LSS 0 .7738 0. 9392 0 .7386 0. 5455 Sex 0 .3587 0. 4383 0 .7410 0. 5490 S-(Self) 0 .6927 0. 8265 0 .7620 0. 5807 O-(Other) 2 .6494 3. 1 433 0 .7577 0. 5741 S-0 0 .0913 0. 1 1 27 0 .7626 0. 581 6 S-HGSHS 2 .2984 2. 1 540 0 .8459 0. 71 55 S-LSS 2 . 1 342 2. 0663 0 .8357 0. 6983 S-Sex 0 .8003 0. 7639 0 .8527 0. 7270 O-HGSHS 0 .7220 0. 6762 0 .8491 0. 721 0 O-LSS 4 .561 6 4. 6335 0 .8169 0. 6674 * O-Sex 0 .0112 0. 0125 0 .8535 0. 7285 S-O-HGSHS 5 .5489 6. 1112 0 .7940 0. 6304 * S-O-LSS 0 . 1 727 0. 1 628 0 .8535 0. 7284 S-O-Sex 1 .81 20 1 . 8033 0 .8257 0. 6818 2 0 6 TABLE F-13 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COLUMN A OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 Column TSCS1 CA 36. 51 73 45. 3727 0 .6497 0. 4221 ** CTMM 0. 3440 0. 4300 0 .6528 0. 4261 HGSHS 0. 8394 0. 9352 0 .7159 0. 51 25 LSS 7. 51 06 8. 341 4 0 .7098 0. 5038 ** Sex 0. 2824 0. 3225 0 .71 79 0. 51 54 S-(Self') 0. 0074 0. 7954 0 .7750 0. 6006 0-(Other) 9. 5903 9. 1 476 0 .7750 0. 6006 ** S-0 0. 0358 0. 0322 0 .7752 0. 601 0 S-HGSHS 2. 3440 2. 0854 0 .81 77 0. 6686 S-LSS 1 . 51 63 1 . 3974 0 .8057 0. 6491 S-Sex 0. 01 26 0. 01 07 0 .8269 0. 6837 O-HGSHS 0. 1699 0. 1612 0 .8258 0. 6820 O-LSS 0. 1112 0. 1 075 0 .8264 0. 6830 O-Sex 4. 0645 3. 7837 0 .7976 0. 6362 S-O-HGSHS 0. 5032 0. 4515 0 .8249 0. 6805 S-O-LSS 0. 0694 0. 0645 0 .8268 0. 6836 S-O-Sex 0. 9326 0. 8277 0 .8224 0. 6763 207 TABLE F-14 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COLUMN B OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 TSCS1 CB 30 . 1 631 30 .5497 0. 61 34 0. 3763 ** CTMM 0 .2349 0 .2436 0. 61 58 0. 3792 HGSHS 0 .4245 0 .4303 0. 6397 0. 4092 LSS 1 .9812 1 .9971 0. 6355 0. 4039 Sex 0 .0496 0 .0487 0. 6402 0. 4098 S-(Self) 0 .01 25 0 .0162 0. 6601 0. 4357 0-(Other) 2 .0518 2 .0864 0. 6600 0. 4356 S-0 0 .6570 0 .6901 0. 6665 0. 4442 S-HGSHS 2 .0816 2 . 1 270 0. 6859 0. 4705 S-LSS 3 .8792 3 .7182 0. 7185 0. 51 62 S-Sex 0 .6475 0 .6251 0. 7623 0. 581 1 O-HGSHS 0 .6990 0 .6738 0. 7504 0. 5632 O-LSS 1 .2709 1 .1934 0. 7400 0. 5475 O-Sex 1 .41 89 1 .3477 0. 7299 0. 5328 S-O-HGSHS 0 .6277 0 .6008 0. 7449 0. 5549 S-O-LSS 0 .0044 0 .0081 0. 7624 0. 5812 S-O-Sex 0 .8637 0 .8281 0. 7572 0. 5734 208 TABLE F-15 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COLUMN C OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 Column TSCS1 CC 25. 3050 45. 31 54 0 .5797 0. 3360 ** CTMM 0. 9861 1 . 7668 0 .5909 0. 3491 HGSHS 8. 1919 12. 7989 0 .6663 0. 4440 ** LSS 0. 6451 1 . 0115 0 .6720 0. 4515 Sex 4. 4003 6. 4601 0 .7067 0. 4994 * S-(Self) 2. 1118 2. 8187 0 .751 1 0. 5641 0-(Other) 4. 3071 5. 8937 0 .7370 0. 5432 * S-0 2. 4680 3. 1 964 0 .7666 0. 5877 S-HGSHS 0. 0346 0. 0270 0 .8648 0. 7479 S-LSS 1 . 0470 0. 9306 0 .8620 0. 7431 S-Sex 0. 0031 0. 0000 0 .8648 0. 7479 O-HGSHS 0. 061 6 0. 0539 0 .8647 0. 7476 O-LSS 7. 9440 7. 41 77 0 .8463 0. 7163 O-Sex 0. 3712 0. 3372 0 .8635 0. 7455 S-O-HGSHS 0. 2421 0. 2293 0 .8644 0. 7472 S-O-LSS 3. 0165 2. 6839 0 .8580 0. 7362 S-O-Sex 9. 1212 9. 9262 0 .81 32 0. 661 3 ** 209 TABLE F-16 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COLUMN D OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 TSCS1 CD 56. 4400 56. 31 25 0 .7282 0. 5303 .** CTMM 0. 5620 0. 5631 0 .7318 0. 5356 HGSHS 3. 3043 3. 1769 0 .7520 0. 5655 LSS 0. 9655 0. 9244 0 .7578 0. 5742 Sex 0. 2841 0. 2763 0 .7595 0. 5768 S-(Self) 0. 2067 0. 201 9 0 .7648 0. 5850 O-(Other) 0. 6639 0. 6588 0 .7635 0. 5830 S-0 0. 0072 0. 01 06 0 .7649 0. 5850 S-HGSHS 0. 9060 0. 8289 0 .8157 0. 6654 S-LSS 0. 4104 0. 3825 0 .81 79 0. 6690 S-Sex 0. 4577 0. 4250 0 .8204 0. 6730 O-HGSHS 0. 521 4 0. 4994 0 .8232 0. 6777 O-LSS 1 . 0608 0. 9669 0 .8109 0. 6576 O-Sex 0. 2330 0. 2231 0 .8245 0. 6798 S-O-HGSHS 3. 2110 2. 921 9 0 .8053 0. 6485 S-O-LSS 0. 0228 0. 021 3 0 .8246 0. 6800 S-O-Sex 3. 9899 3. 8250 0 .7880 0. 621 0 TABLE F-17 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COLUMN E OF THE TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT SCALE (N=52) DEPEND- SOURCE OF F-VALUE F R WITH R SQ. ENT VARIATION TO ENTER/ DEPENDENT VARIABLE REMOVE VARIABLE TSCS2 Column TSCS1 CE 58. 6081 67. 2522 0 .7346 0. 5396 ** CTMM 0. 0001 • 0. 0000 0 .7346 0. 5396 HGSHS 3. 3221 3. 7141 0 .7546 0. 5694 LSS 0. 0444 0. 0499 0 .7549 0. 5698 Sex 1 . 6377 1 . 8446 0 .7646 0. 5846 S-(Self) 2. 6754 2. 9040 0 .7797 0. 6079 O-(Other) 1 . 0950 1 . 1 840 0 .7858 0. 61 75 S-0 0. 5083 0. 5609 0 .7886 0. 621 9 S-HGSHS 1 . 0845 0. 9721 0 .8475 0. 7182 S-LSS 3. 6628 3. 7764 0 .8076 0. 6523 S-Sex 0. 0019 0. 0000 0 .8528 0. 7272 O-HGSHS 0. 0050 0. 0000 0 .8528 0. 7272 O-LSS 0. 401 1 0. 3739 0 .8522 0. 7262 O-Sex 0. 1 257 0. 1 246 0 .8527 0. 7271 S-O-HGSHS 1 . 8868 1 . 7075 0 .8428 0. 7104 S-O-LSS 0. 691 4 0. 6232 0 .8504 0. 7232 S-O-Sex 6. 0075 5. 5337 0 .8347 0. 6967 * 211 APPENDIX G DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSES TABLE G-1 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR QUESTION 2 (DID YOUR ACHIEVEMENT IMPROVE?) ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) FACTOR SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE PROB(>F) Mean 1 .0520 1 1.0520 5.0341 0.0299 Self 0. 1276 1 0. 1276 0.6108 0.4387 Other 0.0428 1 0.0428 0.2049 0.6531 S-0 0.6199 1 0.6199 2.9672 0.0920 COV. 2.6540 4 2.6540 3.1766 0.0156 ** Sex 0.4045 1 0.4045 1.9363 0.1711 CTMM 0.0481 1 0.0481 0.2305 0.6336 HGSHS 0.1072 1 0.1072 0.5130 0.4776 LSS 1.4306 1 1.4306 6.8483 1.0121 ** Error 9.1920 44 0.2089 212 TABLE G-2 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR QUESTION 3 (DID YOUR SELF CONCEPT IMPROVE?) ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES. MEAN F PROB(>F) SQUARES OF SQUARE FREEDOM Mean Self Other S-0 COV. Sex CTMM HGSHS LSS Error 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, ,801 5 ,0923 0083 4807 5570 0.3658 0.0416 0.9174 0.9217 6.9040 1 1 1 1 4 44 0.8015 0.0923 0.0083 0.4807 0.8893 0.3658 0.0416 0.9174 0.9217 0.1569 . 1654 .6324 .0531 .0633 .6674 2.3312 0.2650 5.8467 5.8740 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0280 4307 8189 0871 0004 0.1340 0.6093 0.0198 0.0195 ** ** ** 213 TABLE G-3 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR QUESTION 5 (DID YOU BENEFIT IN OTHER WAYS THAN IN QUESTIONS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR FROM THE HYPNOTIC INDUCTION?) ON THE DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE (N=52) SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES MEAN F 'PROB(>F) SQUARES OF SQUARE FREEDOM Mean Self Other S-0 COV. Sex CTMM HGSHS LSS Error 0 1, 1.6340 0.0265 6830 0237 2580 0.4802 0.0165 0.2489 0.2233 6.126 1 1 1 1 4 1 0, 44 6340 0265 0.6830 0.0237 1.2580 0.4802 0.0165 0.2489 0.2233 0.1392 11.7322 0.1840 9052 1704 2595 3.4488 0.1185 1.7939 1 .6037 4, 0, 2, 0.0013 0.6700 0.0320 0.6818 0.0650 0.0700 0.7323 0. 1873 0.2120 APPENDIX H INTERCORRELATIONS OF MEASURES TABLE H-1 INTERCORRELATIONS OF DEPENDENT MEASURES (N=52) N-D N-D N-D N-D TSCS TSCS TSCS TSCS TSCS Voc Com Tot Spd R1 R2 R3 Tot CA N-D Voc 1 .00 N-D Com .57 1 .00 N-D Tot .93 .83 1 .00 N-D Spd .41 .51 .50 1 .00 TSCS R 1 . 1 1 .18 . 1 6 .39 1 .00 TSCS R 2 .25 .08 .21 .32 .79 1 .00 TSCS R 3 .19 .08 . 1 6 .26 .78 .88 1 .00 TSCS Tot .20 . 1 0 . 1 8 .35 .91 .96 .94 1 .00 TSCS C A . 1 2 -.09 .04 .22 .69 .78 .76 .80 1 .00 TSCS C B .23 .08 .20 .20 .75 .79 .81 .83 .58 TSCS C C . 1 3 .06 . 1 1 .29 .67 .82 .79 .81 .72 TSCS C D . 1 7 . 1 7 . 1 9 .46 .86 .82 .81 .89 .60 TSCS C E . 1 9 . 1 6 .20 .24 .83 .82 .82 .87 .56 DEBQ SLF -.10 -.06 -.09 -.01 .22 .21 .15 .21 .34 DEBQ OTH -.16 -.17 -.19 .00 .20 .20 . 1 3 .19 .29 DEBQ TOT -.13 -.12 -.14 .00 .23 .22 . 1 5 .21 .34 DEBQ Y/N .06 .18 .12 i .04 . 1 1 .06 .02 .05 . 1 5 TSCS TSCS TSCS TSCS DEBQ DEBQ DEBQ DEBQ CB CC CD CE SLF OTH TOT Y/N TSCS C B 1 .00 TSCS C C .52 1 .00 TSCS C D .69 .68 1 .00 TSCS C E .75 .64 .73 1 .00 DEBQ SLF .08 .23 . 1 2 .05 1 .00 DEBQ OTH .07 .29 .08 .07 .73 1 .00 DEBQ TOT .08 .27 . 1 1 .06 .95 .91 1 .00 DEBQ Y/N -.05 . 1 4 -.05 .02 .60 .45 .58 1 .00 TABLE H-2 INTERCORRELATIONS OF INDEPENDENT MEASURES (N=52) Self Others Self 1.00 0.18 E-06 1 Others 0.18 E-06 1.00 1 0.18 E-06 refers to eighteen hundred-millionths. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054388/manifest

Comment

Related Items