Psychologicul Reportj, 1965, 16, 809-844.

@ Southern Universities Press 1965

Monograph Supplement 3-V16

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY WITH AND

WITHOUT "HYPNOTIC INDUCTION"; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES,
NORMS, AND VARIABLES INFLUENCING RESPONSE
TO THE BARBER SUGGESTIBILITY SCALE (BSS)
THEODORE X E N O P H O N BARBER
1\4ed/ield Fo~t71dution.Hnrding, Mu~~achusetis
CONTENTS

I. Critique of Previous Scales ...

11. Outline
. . of
. Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS)
111. Rel~abllrryof BSS ....... IV. Response to BSS in Children, Adolescents, and Adults
.....
V. Objective and Subjective Scores on BSS Under Three Experimental Conditions
(Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivarional Instructions, and Direct Suggestions)
....................................
VI. Psychometric Properties of BSS (Item Correlations With Total Scale, Intercorrelations of Items, and Fector Analyses)
....
.....
VII. Relative Effectiveness of Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instructions
in Facilitating Response t 3 Tesest-suggestions other Than Those Included in the
BSS
.
..
VIII. Effective Variables in Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational lnstructlons
.1X. Effects of Other Instructional-situational and Personality Variables on Response
...
to the BSS
X. Overview
References .
Appendix

St~mnzary.-The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, and other extant

instruments, designed to measure response to test-suggestions of the type rraditionally associated with the word "hypnosis,"
are not conducive to ex~erimental
.manipulation o f antecedent variables. T o isolate the instrumental factors which
affect response to rest-suggestions, a suggestibiliry scale is needed that can be
administered with prior ex?erimeotal manipulation of a11 potentially important
antecedent variables, e.g., with and withour a "hypnotic induction." The present monograph presents three sets of data related ro an instrument, the Barber
Suggestibility Scale (BSS), that was constructed to fulfill this aim. O n e set of
data pertains to the characeristics of the BSS (reliability, norms, intercorrelations oC items, factor analyses, etc.). A second set derives from an experimental program designed to delineate the critical variables which affect response to the BSS. A third set o f data indicates that findings obtainetl with the
BSS can be generalized to other types of test-suggestions.
'This research was supported by a grant (MH-07003) from the National Institute of
Mental Health, United States Public Health Service. I am indebted to: David S. Calverley
for carrying our many of the experiments described in the monograph and for invaluable
assistance in conducting the statistical analyses; to Louis B. Glass for assistance in constructing the Barber Suggestibility Scale; to Frederick J. Ryan, Kenneth Wolkon, and
David S. Calverley for making participation in an experiment a requirement of their
courses at Worcester Junior College; to John H. Gouchall, Alfred L. Jones, J. Arden
Woodall, Harry Y. Hilyard, Wa:dren P. Lojko, Wallace Johnson, John Elberfeld, James
Eteson, Doris Heusel, and A. Sirnoens for cooperation in carrying our experiments at the
Auburn and Grafton (Mass.) sckools, Worcester Junior College, Medfield State Hospital,

810

T. X. BARBER

I. CRITIQUEOF PREVIOUSSCALES
It has been traditionally assumed thac, to elicit positive responses to testsuggestions of body immobility, hallucination, amnesia, etc., it is either necessary
or very helpful to administer a preliminary hypnotic induction procedure. Working within the context of this assumption, Davis and Husband (1931), Friedlander and Sarbin ( 1938), and Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard ( 1959, 1962) have
constructed scales to measure response to test-suggestions in Ss who have received
a hypnotic induction and who are presumed to be in "hypnotic trance." Behnvioral scientists encounter three major difficulties in using these scales.
( 1 ) The scales are based on at least two tacit assumptions, each of which is
open to question (Barber, 1962, 1964a, in press). It is assumed thac variations in
the degree ("depth") of "hypnotic trance" produce variations in response to testsuggestions of limb rigidity, hallucination, amnesia, and so forth. It is also ass~unedthat the more S responds to test-suggestions, the greater his degree of
"hypnotic trance." These assumptions are not only individually questionable but
also, when taken together, ta~itological: variations in "depth" of "hypnotic trance"
are presumed to produce variations in response to test-suggestions, and variations
in response to test-suggestions are used to denote variations in "depth" of "trance."
( 2 ) Many of the test-suggestions included in these scales ate worded to
apply only to Ss who have received a hypnotic induction and who are presumed
to be in "trance," e.g., "You are very relaxed now . . . think how hard it might be
to talk while so deeply relaxed . . . perhaps as hard to talk as when asleep . . .
Why don't you try to say your name now . . . just cry to say it" (Weitzenhoffer &
Hilgard, 1959, p. 2 2 ) . Since the test-suggestions are intertwined with the administration of a hypnotic induction procedure and predicated ~ l p o nthe presumed
presence of "trance," the scales are not conducive to experimental manipulation of
independent variables prior to assessment of response. For example, it is difficult
to administer these scales with and without a hypnotic induction or with and without motivational instructions. Since it is very difficult to manipulate antecedent
variables when using these scales, it is consequently very difficult to isolate the
critical variables that influence response to the scales.
( 3 ) It is questionable whether the Davis-Husband Scale measures anything
at all. The "scale" is composed of such items as: glove ane~thesiareceives a score
of 11 and indicates a "light trance;" posthypnotic anesthesia receives a score of
15 and indicates a "medium trance." Davis and Husband do not state what suggestions are to be given to produce anesthesia. They also do not state how anesthesia is to be assessed, that is, what stimulus is to be administered, how i t is to be
administered, and what response is required for a judgment of anesthesia to be
and Rhode Island Medical Center; to Frederick J. Ryan, David S. Calverley, and to the
administration of Worcester Junior College for use of the IBM 1620 computer; and to
the American Psychological Association for permission to incorporate material from a
previous publication (Barber & Calverley, 1963a).

LMEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE SUGGESTIBILITY

81 1

made. Although criteriz for scoring overt responses to the test-suggestions are
specified in the Friedlander-Sarbin Scale and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959, 1962), these instruments do not take
subjective responses into account. For instance, these scales include suggestions
that an arm is heavy and cannot be bent. Of two Ss who pass this test, that is,
who do not bend their arms when asked to try, one may state that his arm felt
heavy and immovable and that he tried to bend it but could not, whereas the other
may state that his arm fel: normal but he did not attempt to move it. Regardless
of the differences in subjictive reports, both Ss receive the same passing score for
"arm immobilization."
In brief, there is no clear separation in these instruments between ( a ) the
independent or antecedent variables, e.g., motivational instructions, hypnotic induction procedure, etc., and ( b ) the dependent or consequent variables, namely,
objective and subjective responses to test-suggestions of arm immobilization, inability to say one's name, amnesia, and the like. Since the antecedent and consequent variables are confonnded, the scales of Davis-Husband, Friedlander-Sarbin, and Weitzenhoffer-Hilgard, and other instruments derived from these scales,"
are of little use to the b~havioralscientist who aims to isolate and to assign
weights to the critical antecedent variables that influence objective and subjective
responses to test-suggestions. Accordingly, to isolate the instrumental variables,
a scale of test-suggestions is needed ( a ) that is not intertwined with the administration of a hypnotic ind~ctionprocedure and not predicated upon the presumed
presence of "hypnotic trance," ( b ) that can be administered with prior experimental manipulation of al: potentially critical antecedent variables, and ( c ) that
measures both overt and srtbjective responses. The present monograph presents
data related to an instrument, the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS), which was
constructed to fulfill these aims.
The monograph includes three interrelated sets of data. One set (Sections
11, 111, IV, and V I ) pertains to the characteristics of the BSS (reliability, norms,
intercorrelations of items, factor analyses, etc.). Another set of data (Sections V,
VIII, and IX) derives from an experimental program that was designed to delineate the critical antecedent variables which affect response to the BSS. (This
program assessed the effects of such variables as: motivational instructions; suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep; statements that it is easy to respond
to suggestions; etc.) A third set of data (Section VII) comes from experiments
which were conducted to determine whether factors that influence response to the
BSS also influence response to test-suggestions not included in this scale. These
experiments suggest that findings obtained with the BSS are generalizable, that is,
apply to other types of test-suggestions.
-"Derived scales include those preseored by LeCron and Bordeaux (1947), London (1962),
Shor and Orne ( 1 9 6 2 ) , and Watkins (1949).

T. X. BARBER

11. OUTLINE OF BARBERSUGGESTIBILITY

SCALE(BSS)
T h e Test-szbggestions
The BSS includes eight test-suggestions that are scored both objectively and
subjectively and can be administered without special instructions (Direct Suggestions condition) or with preliminary instructions or suggestions, e.g., with preliminary motivational instructions or with a hypnotic induction procedure. T h e
eight items in the scale were selected as representative of the types of test-suggestions that have been traditionally used in experiments subsumed under the label
"hypnosis." The scale includes a hallucination item, a "post"-experimental ( o r
"posthypnotic-like" response) item, an amnesia item, several "challenge" items
(e.g., "Stuck in the chair . . . you can't stand u p . . . Try, y o ~ lcan't"), and several
items which ask S to imagine certain effects and then suggest certain objective
consequences (e.g., "Imagine chat the arm is becoming lighter . . . IC'Slighter and
lighter, moving u p and u p " ) .
Administration of the eight test-suggestions requires approximately 7 min.
A n additional period of 3 co 5 min. is required to complete [he assignment of
Objective scores and to assign Subjective scores. Thus, administration and scoring of the BSS takes from 1 0 co 12 min.
A verbatim account of the scale is presented in the Appendix ( p p . 540-842).
A brief resume of the items, in the order thac they are given, is as follows.
1. A r m Lowering: Scarcing with S's right arm extended and horizontal,
suggestions are given for 30 sec, that [he arm is becoming heavy and is moving
down. Objective score criterion: 1 point for response of 4 in. or more.
2. A r m Levitation: Starting with S's left arm extended and horizontal, suggestions are given for 30 sec. that the arm is weightless and is moving up. Objective score criterion: 1 point for response of 4 in. or more.
3. Hand Lock: S is instructed to clasp his hands togecher tightly with
fingers incerrwined and place [hem in his lap. Suggestions are given for 45 sec
thac the hands are welded together and cannot be taken apart. Objective score
criteria: M point for incomplete separation of hands after 5 sec. of effort; 1
point for incomplete separation after 15-sec. effort.
4. T h i r ~ t"HaILucina~ion": Suggestions of excreme thirst are given for 45
sec. Objeccive score criteria: l/z point if S shows noticeable swallowing, moistening of lips, or marked moutli movements; additional '/z point if S states during
the post-experimental interview chat he became thirsry during chis t e ~ t . ~
5. Verbal I?zhibition: Suggestions are given for 4 5 sec. that S's throat and
jaw muscles are rigid and he cannot say his name. Objective score criteria: 1/2
point if S does not say his name after 5 sec. of effort; 1 point if he does not say
his name after 15 sec. of effort.
"Although Objective and Subjective scores are assigned independently to the other 7 testsuggestions, these scores ace not completely independent with respect to the Thirst "Hallucination" item. In this case, part of the Objective score is determined by S's "postexperimental" statement that he became thirsty during this test.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

813

6. Body Immobiliry:

Suggestions are given for 4 5 sec. that S's body is

heavy and rigid and he cannot stand up. Objective score criteria: l/z poinc if S
is not completely standing after 5-sec. effort; 1 point if he is not completely
standing after 15-sec, efforr.
7 . "Posthypnotic-like" Response: S is cold: "When this experiment is
over . . . I'll click like this and you'll cough a~ltomatically. . . A t the moment I
click you'll cough." Objeccive score criterion: 1 poinc if S coughs or clears his
throat post-experimentally when presented with the auditory stimulus.
8. Selective Amnesia: S is told that, when the experiment is over, he will
remember all the tests except the one where he was told that his arm was moving
u p (Test-suggestion 2 ) , and that he will remember this test only when E says,
"Now you can remember." Objective score criterion: 1 point if S does not refer
~ r test-suggestions and then recalls
to Test-suggestion 2 but recalls at least f o ~ ocher
irein 2 in response to the cue words.

Criteria for Subjective S c ~ r e s

After E states thac "thc experiment is over," he describes each test-suggestion
which S has passed with an Objective score of either $5 or 1 point and asks, "Did
you feel [the suggested effect] or did you g o along with the suggestion in order to
follow instructions or to p:ease me?" ( A verbatim account of these questions,
with respect to each of the eight test-suggestions, is given in the Appendix, pp.
843-544.) S~lbjeccivescorcs are assigned as follows: 1 poinc for each rest-suggescion passed objectively which S states that he had "felt."
T h e maximum Subjective score, and also the maximum Objective score, obtainable on the scale is 8 points.
Reliability can be subsumed under two headings: stability of response over
time and internul co~zsis/e?zcy(equivalence of parts of the scale).

Stability
T h e question of stability includes two interrelated questions: Is response to
the BSS reliable when ic is administered on two occasions under ( a ) che same experimental condicion and (b) under different experimental conditions (cf. Cattell, 1964).
T w o sntdies provided data with respect to the stability of scores on the BSS
administered on two occasions under the same experimental condicion. In the
first study (Barber & Glass, 1962) 6 0 women college snldents were tested and
retested within 1 wk. on response to the BSS administered under a Direct Suggestions condicion, that is, wickout special preliminary instructions. A product-moment test-retest correlation of .88 ( p < .001) was obtained (Objeccive scores)."
In a second study (Barber & Calverley, 1963a) 29 srudent nurses were tested and
then retested after an i n t e r ~ a of
l 6 wk. on the BSS administered under a Direct
"Subjective scores were not rec~rdedi n this experiment.

8 14

T. X . BARBER

Suggestions condition. A test-retest correlation of .82 ( p < .001) was obtained

for Objective scores and a correlation of .82 was also obtained for Subjective
cores.^
Two additional studies provide data with respect to the stability of scores on
the BSS administered on two occasions under different experimental conditions.
In one study (Barber & Glass, 1962), 30 Ss were first tested under a Direct Suggestions condition and then retested after 1 wk. under a Hypnotic Induction con,001) was obtained between
dition. A rank-correlation coefficient of .85 ( p
Objective scores on the two occasions. In a second sntdy with a small sample of 8
SS (Barber & Calverley, 1964d, Group I ) the BSS was administered under a
Direct Suggestions condition and then re-administered 1 wk. later under a Task
Motivational Instructions condition, i.e., after S was told that a high level of performance was possible and expected. A test-retest correlation of .78 was obtained
for Objective scores and a correlation of .85 was obtained for Subjective scores.
Thus, the data available at present indicate that relatively high test-retest correlations are obtained, i.e., Ss tend to maintain their relative ranks, when the BSS
is administered twice under the same or under different experimental conditions."

<

Internal Consislency
In the study described in Section V of this monograph, 186 Ss were tested on
response to the BSS under one of three experimental conditions, Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and Direct Suggestions, with 62 Ss assigned
at random to each condition. Split-half reliabilities of the BSS under each of the
three experimental conditions were computed by correlating scores on the oddeven items and using the Spearman-Brown formula to estimate the reliability of
the total scale. Under Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and
Direct Suggestions conditions, respectively, the split-half reliabilities were 3 4 , .75,
and .79 for Objective scores and .88, .SO, and .84 for Subjective scores (ps <
.001). These relatively high internal consistency reliabilities strongly indicate
that the BSS is a homogeneous scale.
'Unless stated otherwise, all correlations presented in this monograph are product-moment
correlations.
T h e r e is evidence to indicate that the test-retest correlations on the BSS for normal children and schizophrenic adults are lower than those summarized above (which were obtained with college students and nursing srudents). In a recent study (Barber & Calverley,
1963a) 22 children of age 10, and 12 children of age 7, were tested and chen retested after
6 wk. o n the BSS administered under a Direct Suggestions condition. Test-retest correlations of .66 (children of age l o ) , and .62 (children of age 7 ) , were obtained (Objective
scores). I n another study (Barber, Karacan, & Calverley, 1964) 194 hospitalized chronic
schizophrenics (132 females and 62 males) were first rested on the BSS under a Direct
Suggestions condition and then retested after 2 wk. under either a Hypnotic Induction, Task
Motivational Instructions, o r Direct Suggestions condition with one-third of the patients
assigned randomly by sex to each condition. The correlations between first test (Direct
Sugges~ions) and second test (Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and
Dlrect Suggestions) were .53, .64, and .56, respectively, for Objective scores and .65, .50,
and .39, respectively, for Subjective scores ( p s <.001).

815

MEASURIKG "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

IV. RESPONSETO BSS IN CHILDREN,ADOLESCENTS,

AND ADULTS
Are females more responsive than males to the test-suggestions included i n
the BSS? Do scores on the BSS vary as a function of chronological age? Are
children or adolescents more responsive than adults? A t what ages are Ss most
responsive and least responsive? T o answer these and several related questions,
Barber and Calverley ( 1963a) carried out a s n ~ d yas follows.
Method
Sabjects.-Ss were 724 scudents ( 3 8 8 males and 336 females) of ages 6 to
22. Of these, 484 were elementary school students (ages 6 to 1 3 ) ; 119 were high
school students (ages 14 t3 17); and 1 2 1 were college students and nursing s m dents (ages 18 to 2 2 ) . T h e number of Ss in each subgroup, classified in terms of
years in school, approximate age, and sex is presented in Table 1 (columns 1 to
3 ) . All Ss were of the Caucasian race and, with very few exceptions, were of
middle class background.
TABLE 1
MEANOBJECTIVE
A N D SUBJECTIVE
SCORES,
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
A N D RESULTS
OF DUNCAN
TESTSON BSS IN 724 SS RANGING
IN AGE FROM 6 TO 22
(1)

Age

(2)

School (yr.)

(3)

N
F

(4)

Tot.

Objective Scores
A1
SD

(,5

Subiect~veScores
M
SD

9
10
11
12
13
14-15
16-17
18-22

Total Sample
Note.-Ms in the same column which do not conra~na common superscript differ from
each other at the .05 level by Duncan test.
N o n e of the Ss were vclunreers. T h e elementary school snldents participated
routinely after arrangements for the experiment were made with the school principal and with the teachers of each class. T h e high school students were selected
at random from study hall classes after arrangements were made with the high
school principal and with the study hall teachers. T h e college students participated in the experiment to fulfill the requirements of a course in elementary psychology. T h e nursing students were secured by arrangements made wirh the
nursing supervisors.

816

T. X. BARBER

Assessment of respolzse lo t h e BSS.-A11 Ss, teachers, and school administrators were told thac a test of imagination was to be administered. Ss were tested
individually by one E. During regular school hours, Ss were sent to the experimental room one at a time by the teachers. ( A n experimental room was provided at each school by the administrator.)
Preliminary instructions for children of ages 6 to 7 were: " W e are going to
play a game of imagination or make-believe. I want you to close your eyes and to
keep them closed and to think about what I say." Preliminary instructions for Ss
of ages 8 to 22 were: "I am going to test your ability to imagine. Since you can
imagine better with your eyes closed, I want you to close your eyes and to keep
them closed and to try to imagine the things I say." Immediately following these
instructions the BSS was administered as presented verbatim in the Appendix to
this m o n ~ g r a p h . ~
Analyses of data.-To attain a minimum of 5 0 Ss in each subgroup, the
scores of Ss of the following ages were combined: 6 to 7; 14 to 15; 16 to 17; and
18 to 22. Two-way analyses of variance for unequal subclass frequencies were
performed on Objective scores, and also on Subjective scores, by the Walker-Lev
(1953, pp. 381-382) approximation method. Duncan's ( 1 9 5 7 ) Range test for
unequal subclass frequencies was used to make multiple comparisons among the
group means.
Resalts
Effects of sex.-The variance analyses indicated that the main effect for Sex
was not significant for either Objective or Subjective scores. The Sex X Age
Groups interaction was nonsignificant for Objective scores but was significant
for Subjective scores. A clear pattern was not discerned in the latter interaction.
A t age 10 the boys stated thac they "felt" more of the suggested effects than the
girls, at ages 12, 14 to 15, and 1 8 to 22 the girls stated that they "felt" more of the
effects than the boys, and at the other age levels the sexes did not differ in the
number of items "felt."
Effects of age.-The analyses of variance showed highly significant differences due to Age o n both Objective and Subjective scores ( p s < ,001). These
significant main effects for Age reflected the following.
Ss between 6 and 12 yr. of age obtained significantly higher Objective scores
than Ss of 14 yr. and older; Ss of ages 8 to 10 obtained the highest Objective
scores; and the scores of Ss of 14 yr. and above did not differ significantly from
each other (see Table 1, c o l u n ~ n4 ) . T h e Objective scores thus showed an overall curvilinear pattern, rising gradually between ages 6 to 9, reaching a maximum
'The BSS was administered as described in the appendix with the exception thac, for the
elementary school students, the following substitutions were made in the Hand Lock
and Verbal Inhibition items: the word stuck was substituted for the words rueldad and
clamped; the word nzouth was substituted for the word larynx; and the phrase strrch
together was substituted or the phrase in u vise.

TABLE 2
MEAN OBJECTIVE
SCORESON EACH OF 8 TEST-SUGGESTIONS
INCLUDED IN BSS IN 7 2 4 SS OF AGES6 TO 2 2
-

N
1. Arm Lowering
2. Arm Levitation

3. Hand Lock
4. Thirst "Hallucination"
5. Verbal Inhibition
6. Body Immobiliry
7. "Posthypnotic-like" Response
8. Selective Amnesia
Total Score

55
.45
.25
.91

.64
.78
.82
.25
.44
4.5

51

54

79

.64
.39
.8S
.73
.76
.77
.40
.81
5.4

.76
.52
.86
.90
.82
.81

.48
.76
5.9

.67
.51
.87
.81
.76
.79
.55
.80
5.8

83
.78
.47
.70
.82
.55
.56
.31
.S8
4.8

87
.63
.45
.81
.66
.59
.56
.40
.52
4.6

-2

818

T. X. BARBER

at ages 9 and 10, decreasing gradually between ages 10 to 14, and then reaching a
stable plateau during ages 14 to 22.
T h e mean Objective scores on each of the eight test-suggestions are presented
in Table 2. This table shows that: ( a ) the mean scores o n Test-suggestions 1,
2, 4, 7, and 8 follow the over-all curvilinear pattern in that they tend to increase
from ages 6 to 9, are highest at 9 and 10, and then co decrease gradually from ages
10 to 14. However, Test-suggestions 3, 5, and 6 depart from the over-all curvilinear pattern in that Ss of ages 6 and 7 score as high as Ss of ages 8 to 10. ( b )
For all age levels, Test-suggestions 2 and 7 ( A r m Levitation and "Posthypnoticlike" Response) tend to be among the least often passed items, and Test-suggestions 3 and 4 ( H a n d Lock and Thirst "Hallucination") tend to be among the
most frequently passed items.
T h e Szcbjective scores closely paralleled the Objective scores. A t ages 8 to 12
Ss obtained higher Subjective scores (stating that they "felt" more of the suggested effects) than at ages 14 to 22, and Ss of ages 9 and 10 obtained the highest
Subjective scores (see Table 1, column 5 ) . T h e Subjective scores also tended to
show a n over-all curvilinear pattern, rising from ages 6 co 9, attaining a maximum
at ages 9 and 10, gradually decreasing during ages 11 to 14, and then tending to
reach a plateau at ages 14 to 22.

Conclusions
The experimental results indicate the following. ( 1 ) Irrespective of age,
males and females obtain similar scores o n t h e BSS. Objective scores for males
and females did not differ significantly at any age level. Over-all, the sexes did
not differ on Subjective scores; however, at some but not all age levels becween
12 and 22, females obtained higher Subjective scores than males. ( 2 ) Response
t o the BSS appears t o each a m a x i m u m at aror~ndages 8 t o 10. ( 3 ) It appears
that t h e "adzclt" level of response is attained at approxinzately 14 t o I5 yr, of age.
However, further studies are needed to decerrnine whether the level of response
obtained in the present study during ages 1 4 to 22 remains constant during adulthood and old age. I t appears possible that, at some point after age 22, the average
level may begin to drop and reach a low level during old age.

V. OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVESCORES ON BSS UNDER THREE

EXPERIMENTALCOND~TIONS(HYPNOTICINDUCTION, TASK
MOTIVATIONALINSTRUCTIONS, A N D DIRECT SUGGESTIONS)
I n the smdy described above, the BSS was administered under a Direct Suggestions condition, that is, without special preliminary instructions. I n a series of
experiments [Barber & Calverley, 1962 (Exp. I ) , 1963b, 1 9 6 3 ~ 1two questions
were asked: (1) Are exhortative statements that a high level of performance is
possible and is expected (Task Motivational Instructions) effective in enhancing
response co the BSS above the level found under a Direct Suggestions condition?

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

819

( 2 ) Does a standardized procedure of the type traditionally labeled as a Hypnotic

Induction produce a level of response to the BSS which is higher than that found
under a Direct Suggestiocs condition or under a Task Motivational Instructions
condition?

Method
Subjects.-Ss were 136 freshmen and sophomores (162 males and 24 females) who were required. to participate in the experiment in fulfillment of elementary psychology course requirements. Sixty-nine were tested in the Fall of
1961, 42 in the Fall of 1962, and 75 in the Spring of 1963. The 186 Ss were
assigned randomly by sex to one of three experimental conditions with 62 to each
conditi~n.~
Procedzrre.-Ss were tested individually by one E. Each S was assessed on
objective and sitbjeccive responses to the BSS (see Appendix, p. 840), under one
of three experimental conditions.
The 62 Ss assigned to the condition of Hypnotic Inductiolz were first told
that they were to be hypnotized. T o produce positive motivation in the hypnotic
situation, Ss were then given the following instructions, patterned after those used
by Friedlander and Sarbin : 1938) :
I am sure that you will Iind hypnosis a most interesting experience. Your ability to
be hypnotized depends on your willingness to cooperate. I t has nothing to do with your
intelligence or your will power. If you want to, you can pay no atrention to me and remain
awake all the time. In that wse, you might make me seem silly but you are only wasring
rime. O n the other hand, if you pay close attention to what I say and follow what I tell
you, you can easily fall into a hypnotic sleep and experience the interesting things I will
tell you to experience. In this case you will be helping this experiment and nor wasting
any time. Hypnosis is nothing fearful or mysterious. I t is merely a state of strong interest
in some particular thing. In a sense you are hypnotized whenever you see a good movie
and forget that you are part o! the audience but instead feel a part of the story. Nothing
will be done that will in any way cause you the least embarrassment. Your willingness to
cooperate and your interest are what I ask for.

Following these instructions, S was asked to fixate on a light blinking in

synchrony with the sound of a metronome, and a standardized hypnotic induction
procedure, closely patterned after the hypnotic procedures presented by Friedlander and Sarbin (1938), Marcuse ( 1959, pp. 52-53), and Weitzenhoffer and
Hilgard (1959), was administered for a period of 15 min. This procedure
was made up primarily of suggestions of eye-heaviness, eye-closure, relaxation,
drowsiness, sleep, and deep trance, and suggestions that S was entering a unique
state in which he would be able to have interesting and unusual experiences. The
characteristic features of the hypnotic induction procedure can be illustrated
briefly as follows.
T h e Fall 1961 class included more than 6 9 students, and the Fall 1962 class included more
than 42 students. The remaining students were tested under different experimental conditions than those described here !see Barber & Calverley, 1962 (Exp. I), 1963bl.

820

T. X. BARBER
Now relax and make yourself entirely comfortable.

Keep your eyes on the little light

. . . Relax completely. Relax every muscle of your body . . . Relax more and more, more
and more . . . You feel tired and sleepy, tired and sleepy, drowsy and sleepy, drowsy and
sleepy. Your breathing is slow and regular, slow and regular. The strain in your eyes is
getting greater and greater, greater and greater. You would like to close your eyes and
relax completely . . . completely relaxed . . . W a r m and comfortable . . . Tired and drowsy,
tired and sleepy. Sleepy . . . You are going to become much moredrowsy and sleepy. Soon
you will be deep asleep but you will have n o trouble hearing me. You will not wake up
until I tell you to . . . I shall now begin to count. At each count you will feel yourself
going deeper asleep. One--you are going to go deeply asleep. T w d o w n , down, into a
are sinking, sinking into a deep, deep sleep.
deep, sound sleep . . . Five--six-seven-you
Nothing will disturb you . . . You are feeling comfortable, relaxed, thinking of nothing,
nothing but what I say . . . more and more relaxed, more and more comfortable . . . comfortable and relaxed . . . in a deep sound sleep . . . deeper and deeper . . . in deepest trance
. . . you will be prepared to experience the many interesting things I will tell you to experience . . . etc.'

Immediately upon completion of the hypnotic induction, Ss were assessed on

response to the BSS.
T h e 62 Ss assigned to the condition with Task Motivational l n ~ t r u c t i o n swere
given the following preliminary instructions designed to produce positive motivncion to perform maximally i n a situation defined as a test of imagination.
In this experiment I'm going to test your ability to imagine and to visualize. How
well y o u do on the tests which 1 will give you depends entirely upon your willingness to try
to lmnglne and to visualize the things I will ask you to imagine. Everyone passed these
tests when they tried. For example, we asked people to close their eyes and to imagine that
they were at a movie theater and were watching a show. Most people were able to do this
very well; they were able to imagine very vividly that they were at a movie and they felt
as if they were actually looking at the picture. However, a few people thought that this was
an awkward or silly thing to d o and did not try to imagine and failed the test. Yet when
these people later realized that it wasn't hard to imagine, they were able to visualize the
movie picture and they felt as i f the imagined movie was as vivid and as real as an actual
movie.
W h a t I ask is your cooperation in helping this experiment by trying to imagine vividly
what I describe to you. I want you to score as high as you can because we're trying to
measure the maximum abiliry of people to imagine. If you don't try to the best of your
ability, this experiment will be worthless and I'll tend to feel silly. On the other hand, if
you try to imagine to the best of your ability, you can easily imagine and do the interesting
things I tell you and you will be helping this experiment and not wasting any rime.

lmmediacely. upon completion of these "task motivational" instructions, Ss

were assessed for response to the BSS.
The 62 Ss assigned to the condition of Direct Suggestions were told that they
were to receive a test of imagination and were then assessed immediately for response co the BSS.
-

uA verbatim account of the hypnotic induction procedure is available by writing the author
or as Document No. 8320 from the AD1 Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication
Service, Library of Congress, Washington 25, D . C. Remit $1.25 for photocopies or 35mm. microfilm.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

Objective scores.-The Objective scores obtained by the three experimental

groups on each of the eight test-suggestions and o n the total scale are presented in
Table 3. Analyses of variance showed significant rrestment effects for total
score o n the BSS and for each of the eight test-suggestions ( 9 s < .05).'(I T o
localize the treatment effects, Duncan (1955) Range tests were performed upon
the means. T h e results of these tests, summarized in Table 3, showed the following.
TABLE 3

MEANOBJECTNE ( ANIJ SUBJECTIVE)

SCORES
ON BSS UNDERHYPNOTIC
INDUCTION,
TASKMOTIVATIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS,A N D DIRECTSUGGESTIONS CONDITIONS
Test-suggcsrion

Hypnotic
Induction

Task Motivational
lnstrucrions

Direct
Suggestions

1. Arm Lowering
.72"
(.72*)
.63*
(.61")
.31t
(.26t)
2. Arm Levitation
.72"
(.56*)
.63*
(.56*)
.27t
(.24t)
3. Hand Lock
.E4':'
(.69':)
.76*
(.81*)
.58t
(.40t)
4. Thirst "Hallucination" .77':
(.74*)
.83*
(.76')
.48t
(.48t)
5. Verbal Inhibition
.85*
(.64')
.74*
(.69*)
.43t
(.27t)
6. Body Immobility
.82*
(.63")
.67"t
(.664)
.38t
(.27t)
7. "Posthypnotic-like"
Response
.6OZE (.29*t)
.56*t
(.42*)
.40t
(.14t)
8. Selecrive Amnesia
.53*
(.35")
.44*
(.39")
.21t
(.13t)
Total Scale M
5.8"
(4.6")
5.3*
(4.9")
3.lt
(2.2t)
Total Scale SD
2.1
(23)
2.1
(2.3)
2.3
(2.1)
Note.-186 college students mere randomly assigned to the three experimental conditions
with 62 Ss to each condition. Subjecr~vescores are in parentheses. Objective scores in rhe
same row conraining a common superscript do not differ from each other ( p = .05).
[Similarly, Subjective scores in the same row with a common superscript do not differ
( p = .05)].

W i t h respect to total 3bjective scores on the BSS, the Hypnotic Induction

and Task Motivational grollps did not differ significantly from each other and
both of these groups obtained significantly higher scores than the Direct Suggestions group.
W i t h respect to Objective scores on the individual test-suggestions, ( a ) the
Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instructions groups did not differ significantly on any of the tesr-suggestions, ( b ) the Hypnotic Induction group obtained significantly higher Objective scores than the Direct Suggestions group on
all eight of the test-suggesions, and the Task Motivational Instructions group
obtained significantly highcr scores than the Direct Suggestions group on six of
the eight test-suggestions.
"The .O5 level of confidence is accepted as the criterion for significance in all statistical
analyses presented in this mono&;raph.

82 2

T. X. BARBER

O n the average, Ss under the Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instructions conditions passed objectively between five and six of the eight test-suggestions whereas under the Direct Suggestions condition Ss passed an average of
three. It should be noted (Table 3 ) that, under the Hypnotic Induction and Task
Motivational Instructions conditions, the Selective Amnesia and "Posthypnoticlike" Response items were the most difficult to pass objectively and Arm Lowering and Arm Levitation were next in difficulty. Under the Direct Suggestions
condition Selective Amnesia was the most difficult item and Arm Lowering and
Arm Levitation were next in difficulty.
Subjecjive score^.-The Subjective scores obtained by the three experimental
groups o n each of the eight test-suggestions and on the total scale are presented
( i n parentheses) in Table 3. Analyses of variance showed significant treatment
effects for total score on the BSS and for each of the eight test-suggestions. D u n can Range tests, summarized in Table 3, showed the following facts.
W i t h respect to total Subjective scores o n the BSS, the Hypnotic Induction
and Task Motivational Instructions groups did not differ significantly from each
other and both of these groups obtained significantly higher scores than the Direct
Suggestions group.
W i t h respect to Subjective scores on the individual test-suggestions, ( a ) the
Hypnotic Ind~ictionand Task Motivational Instructions groups did not differ significantly on any of the eight test-suggestions, ( b ) the Task Motivational Instructions group obtained significantly higher scores than the Direct Suggestions group
o n all eight test-suggestions, and ( c ) the Hypnotic Induction group obtained significantly higher scores than the Direct Suggestions group on seven of the eight
items.
O n the average, Ss assessed under the Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instructions conditions passed subjectively about five of the eight test-suggestions whereas the Direct Suggestions group passed two. It should be noted
(Table 3 ) that under all three experimental conditions the Selective Amnesia and
"Posthypnotic-like'' Response items were subjectively the most difficult. I n general, Hand Lock and Thirst "Hallucination" were the easiest.
Norms.-Tables 4 and 5 present norms (percentage passing each item, Centiles, and T scores ) for Objective and Siibjective scores, respectively, under the
three experimental conditions. A n individual's Centile score states what percentage of the sample h e equals or surpasses. Thus, a centile score of 76 means
that S's raw score is equal to or above the score of 76% of Ss tested under the
same experimental condition. T scores are standard scores in a normalized distribution with a mean of 5 0 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus, a T score of 65
states that, i n a normalized distribution, S's raw score is 1.5 standard deviations
above the mean for his group.ll
"A previous study (Barber & Glass, 1962) presented norms for Objective scores on the
BSS obtained under a Direct Suggestions condition with 462 college students. The T

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

.s-

%
h

- c c v ~ ~ e r .n n w ~ o m m - c o r n
w
nnnnnv
w w m m

C U

$3

E
;
U

-1

2
>

8.

e:

ag -2
3~ -m. yz 5 5

L.

g y 'ZU
2 2 .z
.t S G
zu
&a

p?C\!cqyy-y

?"r\!"

rrr,m~Wmmc\v\mmmr.
m ,m

~ ~ - o c \
w w v v m m

n o r - n m - a ,
w
v

r n v r ~ C \ ~ w O
W
m m m w w n n
~

- $8

4
I+

2
.OO

20

s;; Pm 4oq -asoy 'wC i-- a h

<

r.mmo

m m " m m N o
N m w - m w
r
.
n
m ~ ~ m m m m m

?"hcq-T-

m
+

YiDiD"""

w
W
m

~
m

O ~
~ m

O n N O

cq""9

m
~ ww w + + m w

w m - 0 0

m o m m w u
w w m m m m

n m m m
mmmm

I+

25

w m-

2
w

-E 2 2
E,3 2 . g

wt;

93

.Sh

;. 6

a
zi;

m N Q - m o m
m - m m o m
m m r . n ~ m N
~ N - - +

m n n m

z"

?.:.G-NN?.:\?
N

.r

0::

&

ad

lo''

?c'!4"

iDcq-1P4NO

r . a w m r . - r n w w m o m + o m m o - m m

8 -

n o g n

:
do^

w +
~ v nr ~~; m ( \ ; ~ \ i ~

TABLE 5
NORMS
FOR SUBJECTIVE SCORES UNDERHYPNOTICINDUCTION,TASKMOTIVATIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS.AND DIRECTSUGGESTIONS
CONDITIONS
Raw Subjective
Score

Hypnotic Induction
Centile T score

% Ss

Task Motivational Instructions

% Ss
Centile T score

Direct Suggestions
% Ss
Centile T score

99
90
74
58

67
59
54
51

12.9
16.1
14.5
16.1
60

99
87
71
56

65
59
54
50

0.0
3.2
11.2
1.6
16

99
99
96
85

80
71
64
60

Total

9.6
16.1
16.1
11.2
53

4
3
2

14.5
12.9
8.0

47
32
19

47
43
40

40
24
16

46
42
39

58

66

55
51

35

11.2
6.4
20.9
3S

84
72

Total

16.1
8.0
3.2
27

1
0

6.4
4.8
11

11
5

36
30

9.6
3.2
13

I3
3

34
28

16.1
29.0
45

45
29

47
39

8
7
6
5

Toral

x
m

>

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

525

The reader should note that: ( a ) 74%, 66%, and 27% of Ss obtained relatively high Objective scores (scores of 5 or above) under the Hypnotic Induction,
Task Motivational Instruc~ions,and Direct Suggestions conditions, respectively
(Table 4 ) ; and ( b ) 5 3 % , GO%, and 16% obtained Subjective scores of 5 or
above under the Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and Direct
Suggestions conditions, respectively (Table 5 ) .
These experimental results indicate the following: ( 1) "Base-level" response
to the BSS is by no means nil. O n the average, college students pass three of the
eight test-suggestions objectively and two subjectively when the scale is administered without special preliminary instructions (Direct Suggestions condition).
Also, 27% of Ss show relatively high response under the Direct Suggestions
("base-level") condition, ?assing objectively five or more of the eight items.
( 2 ) On the average, a standardized Hypnotic Induction administered for 15 min.
is effeccive, with college stcdencs, in enhancing Objective and Subjective scores by
about 2% points above the level obtained under a Direct Suggestions condition.
( 3 ) On the average, Task Motivational Instructions are effective with college
scudents in enhancing Objective and S~~bjective
scores by about 2 and 2% points,
respectively. ( 4 ) Although there seems to be a tendency for Hypnotic Induction
to be somewhat more effeczive than Task Motivational Instructions in facilitating
Objective scores, and for Task Motivational Instructions to be somewhat more effective than Hypnotic Induztion in facilitating Subjective scores, neither Objective
nor Subjective scores differ significantly under these conditions.
In summary, these results indicate that a set of variables subsumed under the
label Hypnotic Induction and a set of variables subsumed under the label Task
Motivational Instructions are both effective, with college students, in producing
a comparable enhancement of response to the BSS.12

VI. PSYCHOMETRIC
PROPERTIES
OF BSS (ITEM CORRELATIONS
WITH

TOTALSCALE,I N T E R C ~ R R ~ ~ L AOF
T~O
ITEMS,
N S AND FACTOR ANALYSES)
Several questions can be raised concerning the psychometric characteristics
of the BSS under the three experimental conditions described above (Hypnotic
scores assigned to the raw Objective scores under the Direct Sugestions condition in the
present study (Table 4, final column) can be directly compared w ~ r hthe T scores assigned
to Objective scores in the prelious study (Barber 8: Glass, 1962, Table 2 ) . The T scores
are very similar in the two smdies, differing on the average by about 1 point. Thus, in the
present investigation an Objective score of 5.5 obtained under the Direct Suggestions
condition received a T score of 59 whereas in the previous study it received a T score of 58.
"Caution should be exercised in genetallzing these results obtained with college smdenrs
to non-student samples, for cxample, to hospitalized mental patients. A recent study
(Barber, Karacan, & Calverley, 1964) with 194 chronic patienrs diagnosed as schizophrenic showed that: ( 1 ) Task Morlvatlonal Instructions were effective in enhancing Objective and Subjective scores cn the BSS above the level obtained under a Direct Suggestions condition. However, ( 2 ) responses to the BSS under Hypnotic Induction and Direct
Suggestions conditions did not diffcr significantly.

826

T. X. BARBER

Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and Direct Suggestions). Is each of

the eight test-suggestions contributing equally to scores on the total scale? Is response to one item significantly correlated with response to each of the seven
other items? Does the scale possess factorial validicy, that is, is it measuring one
dimension (factor) of human behavior? Data pertinent to these questions are
presented below.
Item correlations with total scale.-To ascerrain whether each of the eight
items in the BSS is contributing to the total score, Objective scores obtained on
each item (under each of the three experimental conditions described above)
were correlated with total scores on the scale minus that icem. Since Items 1, 2,
7, and 8 are dichotomized and the total score is expressed on a c o n t i n ~ ~ o uscale,
s
biserial correlations were computed between each of these items and the total score
minus the icem. Since Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 are trichotomized (receiving scores of
0,0.5, and 1), product-moment correlations were computed between each of these
items and the score on the total scale minus that item. T h e correlations are preTABLE 6
ITEM CORRELATIONS
WITH TOTALSCALE
MINUSTHE ITEM (OBJECTIVE SCORES)
Item

Hypnotic
Induction

Task Motivational
Instructions

Dire~t
Suggest~ons

1. Arm Lowering
2. Arm Levitation
3. Hand Lock
4. Thirst "Hallucination"
5. Verbal Inhibition
6. Body Immobility
7. "Posthypnotic-like" Response
8. Selective Amnesia
Averaee
.57
.54
.60
"Note.-The
correlations are Pearsonian for Irems 3, 4, 5, and 6 , and biserial for Items
1, 2, 7, and 8. A Pearsonian correlation of .25 is significant at the .05 level. AIL biserial
correlations are significant with the exception of the correlations for Arm Lowering under
Hypnotic Induction and Direct Suggestions conditions.
-

--

sented in Table 6 separately for scores obtained under Hypnotic Induction, Task
Motivational Instructions, and Direct Suggestions conditions. Table 6 indicates
that, with two exceptions, all eight test-suggestions under all three experimental
conditions are significantly correlated with scores on the total scale minus that
item ( p < .05).
Intercorrelations bf items and factor analyses.-Objective scores o n each of
the eight items included in the BSS were intercorrelated (tetrachoric correlations)
for each of the three experimental groups tested in the study described in Section
V ( pp. 818-825 ) . ( T o compute tetrachoric correlations, Items 3,4, 5, and 6 were

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

827

TABLE 7
INTERCORRELATIONS
OF ITEMS (OBJECT~VE
SCORES) UNDERHYPNOTIC
INDUCTION,
I~~STRUCTIONS,
AND DIRECTSUGGESTIONS
CONDITIONS
TASKMOTIVATIONAL
2
p~

--

p~

- -

Hypnotic Induction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

.67

.64
.64

.43
.61
.73

.54
.54
.95
.81

.42
.76
.95
.61
.9l

.15
.61
.17
.39
.65
.59

-.I2
.38

.64
.73
.65
.77

.53

Task Motivational instruction^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

.74

.81
.44

.60
.60
.70

.78
.57
.82
.32

.49
.49
.78
.18
.94

.32
.32
.12
.62
.48
.04

.33
.44
.36
.46
.64
.74
.48

.78

-.20
.15

.19
.74

-.17
.09
.76
.31

.20
.55
.61
.33
.77

.04
.39
.41
.54
.72
.58

.33
.54
.15
.62
.46
.75
.79

Direct Suggestions
1
2

.ll

4
5
6
7

Note.-All

correlations are tetrachoric.

dichotomized by subsuming scores of 0.5 and 1 under the pass category and scores
of zero under the fail category.) The intercorrelation matrices are presented in
Table 7.
T h e intercorrelation matrices were factor analyzed by Thurstone's centroid
method, with unities in the main diagonal cells. Six factors were extracted. T h e
loadings o n the first three factors are presented in Table 8, and the per cent of
variance contributed by each of the six unrotated centroid factors is shown in
Table 9. Table 8 indicates that each of the eight test-suggestions included in the
BSS loads on the first factor. Table 9 shows that the first factor accounts for
63%, 5896, and 53% of the variance under the Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, and Direct Suggestions conditions, respectively, and that the
remaining factors account for very small proportions of the variance. These data
clearly indicate that the BSS possesses factorial validity (Cattell, 1964; Guilford,
1954, pp. 398-399), that is, the scale primarily measures one dimension (factor)
of human behavior. This factor, which appears when the scale is administered

828

T. X. BARBER
TABLE 8
LOADINGSON FIRST THREE
FACTORS
UNDERHYPNOTIC
INDUCTION,
TASK
CONDITIONS
MOTIVATIONALINSTRUCTIONS, AND DIRECTSUGGESTIONS
Hypnotic
Induction
I

Arm Lowering
Arm Levitation
Hand Lock
Thirst "Hallucination"
Verbal Inhibition
Body Immobility
"Posthypnotic-like"
Response
8. Selective Amnesia

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

I1

Task Motivational
Instructions
I
11
111

111

.56 -.59

.33
.40
.79 -.25
.94 -.35 -.48
.l9 -.08
.81
.ll
.98 .19
.96 -.08 -.27

Direct
Suggestions
I
I1
111

.15 -.38
.82
.71 -.I2
.I9
.86
.44 -.36
.44
.74 -.50
.96
.41
.36
.78
.43
.34

under either Hypnotic Induction, Task Motivational Instructions, or Direct Suggestions conditions, can be tentarively labeled as a type of sugge~tibilityor, more
specifically, as the type of szlggestibility that has been traditionally associated w i i h
the word "hypnosis" or, more briefly, as "hypnoiic-like" szlggestibility.
TABLE 9
PERCENT
OF VARIANCECONTRIBUTED
BY SIX FACTORSUNDERHYPNOTIC
INDUCTION,
INSTRUCTIONS,A N D DIRECTSUGGESTIONS
CONDITIONS
TASKMOTIVATIONAL

Hypnotic Induction
Task Motivational Instructions
Direct Suggestions

63%

12%

9%

589;
53%

14%

12%
9%

23%

8%
77%
7%

6%
6%
4%

2%
2%
3%

The reader should note (Table 8 ) that not one of the eight test-suggestions
loads very high or very low on the first factor consistently, that is, under each of
the three experimental conditions. Since none of the items appear to be contributing disproportionally to the scores on the total scale, it was decided not to
assign weights to the items but to keep the scoring system in which passing of the
item contributes one point to the total score.
VII. RELATIVEEFFECTIVENESS
OF HYPNOTICINDUCTION AND TASK
MOTIVATIONALINSTRUCTIONSIN FACIL~TATING
RESPONSETO TESTSUGGESTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE
INCLUDEDIN THE BSS
The investigation presented in Section V of this monograph indicated that, in
college student Ss, Task Motivarional Instructions and a procedure of the type
traditionally labeled as a Hypnotic Induction are both effective, as compared to a
"base-level" (Direct Suggestions) condition, in facilitating response to the BSS.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE SUGGESTIBILITY

829

Are these results limited to the BSS or are they generally valid? That is, are
Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instr~lctionsalso effective in facilitating response to test-suggestions other than those included in the BSS, for example,
suggestions of auditory or visual hallucination, deafness, reduced pain reactivity
("analgesia"), time distortion, and color blindness? T h e resi~ltsof a series of
experiments, summarized below, indicate that the findings obtained with the BSS
(as presented in Section V, pp. 818-825) can be generalized to ocher types of
test-suggestions.

A u d i t o ~ yand Visual Hallz!cination

Sevency-eight unselected female volunteers (Barber & Calverley, 1964f)
were randomly assigned to three experimental groups with 26 to each group.
One group (Direct Suggestions) was told co hear a phonograph playing a specified tune and to see an animal in the room. (Neither the phonograph nor the
animal was present.) A second group (Task Motivational Instr~ictions) was
given the identical suggestions to hallucinate after receiving motivational instructions (". . . I want you to really try to see and to hear the things I ask you to . . .
Don't assume that i t can't >e done. It's really quite easy . . ."). A third group
(Hypnotic Induction) was given identical hallucinatory suggestions after receiving a standardized hypnotic procedure (administered as described in Section V,
pp. 818-825). T h e Task Motivational Instructions and Hypnotic Induction
groups were more responsive to the hallucination suggestions than the Direct Suggestions group. Although there was a slight tendency for the Task Motivational
Instructions group to be more responsive than the Hypnotic Induction group, the
two groups did not differ significantly.
Deafness
A n experiment (Barber & Calverley, 1964e) wich 42 Ss indicated that: ( a )
s~~ggestions
of deafness are more effective in eliciting stlbjective reports of partial
or total deafness when given
subsequent to Task Motivational Instructions ("Try
very h a r d . . . It can be d o n e . . . d o not disappoint me") rather than subsequent to
a Hypnotic Induction. ( b ) Ss given suggestions of deafness subsequent to either
Task Motivational Instructlons or Hypnotic Induction report more partial or total
subjective deafness than a Control group nor given deafness suggcsrions. HowInstrucever, ( c ) Ss given suggestions of deafness under either Task Mot~vac~onal
tions or Hypnotic Induction conditions d o not differ from a Control group in
objective responses to auditory stimulation as indicated by the method of delayed
auditory feedback.
Reduced Pain Reactivity, "Alzalgesia"
A n experiment with 4 8 Ss (Barber & Hahn, 1962) indicated that subjective
responses and some physiological responses (respiratory irregularities and frontalis muscle tension) co a pain-producing stimulus are reduced to a comparable

530

T. X. BARBER

degree below that found under a non-suggestion Control condition either by ( a )

simply instructing Ss to try to the very best of their ability to imagine vividly that
rhe noxious stimulus is pleasant and comfortable ("task motivational instructions") or by ( b ) administering suggestions of anesthesia immediately upon cornpletion of a Hypnotic Induction (cf., Barber, 1 9 6 3 ) .

Time Distortion
Sixteen selected "good" hypnotic Ss (Barber & Calverley, 19641) were given
suggestions that time was slowing down after they had received a standardized
Hypnotic Induction. A n unselected group of 1 6 Ss was given suggestions for time
distortion together with "task motivational instructions" ("It's easy to make time
seem to slow d o w n . . . You can make every second seem like a minute and every
minute seem like an hour . . . I want you to really feel thac time is slowing
down"). Both the Hypnotic Induction and the Task Motivational Instructions
groups reported more time distortion than a Control group that was not given
there was a trend for the
suggestions thac time would slow down. Although
Hypnotic Induction group to report a greater degree of time slowing than the
Task Motivational Instruc~ionsgroup, the two groups did not differ significantly.
Findings fro111 several sntdies are relevant (Barber, 1961, 1964b; Barber &
Deeley, 1961; Bravin, 1959; Rock 6: Shipley, 1 9 6 1 ) . Some responses to the
Ishihara test which resemble those given by congenitally colorblind individuals
can be elicited from normal Ss either by ( a ) administering suggestions of red-,
green-, or total-colorblindness subsequent to a Hypnotic Induction or by ( b )
simply instructing unselected Ss to try to respond as if colorblind or to try to the
best of their ability to ignore che colors red or green ("task motivational instructions"). (Under the Control condition, i.e., when not given suggestions or instructions for colorblindness, Ss in these experiments showed normal color vision.)
In summary, the experimencs summarized above, the investigation presented
in Section V above, and a series of related experimencs (Barber & Caherley,
1964k; Barber, Chauncey, & Winer, 1964; Barber & Hahn, 1964; Parker &
Barber, 1 9 6 4 ) , which are reviewed in detail elsewhere (Barber, in press), indicate
thac ( 1 ) Task Motivational Instructions may be more effective than Hypnotic
Induction in facilitating response to some types of test-suggestions, e.g., suggestions of subjective deafness. However, Hypnotic Induction may be more effective
than Task Motivational Instructions in facilitating response to other types of testsuggestions, e.g., suggestions for time distortion. ( 2 ) Irrespective of whether
Task Motivational Instructions or Hypnotic Induction is more effective with certain types of test-suggestions, a broader statement of the results is as follows. In
general, response to a variety of test-suggestions, viz., the eight test-suggestions
included in the BSS and also other types of test-suggestions such as suggestions for
auditory and visual hallucination, analgesia, deafness, time distortion, and color-

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

83 1

blindness, can be enhanced above the level found under a Direct Suggestions condition or under a non-suggestion Control condition by two sets of variables: one
set subsumed under the label Hypnotic Induction and the other under rhe label
Task Motivational Instructions.
VIII. EFFECTIVE VARIABLES1N HYPNOTIC INDUCTION
AND TASKMOTLVATIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS
T h e general conclusion indicated by the experiments cited above-that both
Hypnotic Induction and Task Motivational Instructions typically produce heightened response to test-suggestions-raises an important question: Which of the
d
these broad labels are effective and
many independent variables s ~ ~ b s u m eunder
which extraneous to producing this effect?
e dthe above experiments were typiT h e Task Mocivational Instructions ~ ~ s in
cally made u p of at least two independent variables: ( a ) motivational instrucrions per Je (". . . H o w well yon d o on the tests which I will give you depends
entirely upon your willingness to try . . . W h a t I ask is your cooperation . . ."),
and ( b ) statements that S could easily perform well and could easily experience
the suggested effects (". . . Everyone passed these tests when they tried . . . you
can easily imagine and d o the interesting things I tell you . . .").
T h e standardized Hypnotic Induction used in the above experiments, which
was patterned closely after the hypnotic procedures of Friedlander and Sarbin
( 1 9 3 5 ) , Marcuse (1959, pp. 52-53), and Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard ( 1 9 5 9 ) ,
included at least four independent variables, as listed in Table 10. The reader
TABLE 10
VARIABLESTYPICALLYINCLUDED IN HYPNOTICINDUCTION PROCEDURES
Vuriuble 1 : The situation is defined to S as "hypnosis."
Vuriable 2: Motivational instructions are administered (e.g., "In participating here you
are contributing to scientific knowledge . . . All I ask of you is that you keep up your
attention and interest acd continue to cooperate . . . Most people find this a very
interesting experience").
Variable 3: Repeated suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep are administered.
Variable 4: S is told that he can now easily respond to further suggestions and can easily
experience the suggested effects.

should note (Table 1 0 ) that two of the four variables included in Hypnotic Induction are very similar to the two variables included in Task Motivational Intructions, namely, Variable 2 (motivational instn~ctionsper ~ e and
) Variable 4
(statements that S can easily respond to test-suggestions and can easily experience
suggested effects). T w o additional variables included in Hypnotic Induction
are: the situation is defined to S as "hypnosis" (Variable 1); and repeated suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep are administered (Variable 3 ) .
A series of investigations were conducted ( a ) to ascertain which of the four
variables subsumed under :he label Hypnotic Induction are instrumental in facili-

832

T. X . BARBER

tating response to the test-suggestions included in the BSS and ( b ) to delineate

the interactive effects of these variables in various combinations. As a by-product,
these investigations also evaluated the effects on suggestibility of the two variables
subsumed under the label Task Motivational Instructions that are practically indistinguishable from Variables 2 and 4 included in Hypnotic Induction. T o control possible experimenter bias in these investigations (Barber & Calverley, 1964j,
in press a, in press b ) , the s~iggestionsand instructions were administered to Ss
by means of a tape recording. Seven results can be briefly summarized.
( 1 ) Defining the experimental sinlation to S as "hypnosis" (Variable 1)
tends to facilitate response to the BSS. W i t h other experimental variables controlled or counterbalanced across groups, Ss told that they are to be "hypnotized"
tend to be more responsive to test-suggestions of arm levitation, thirst "hallucination," body immobility, selective amnesia, and so on, than chose told that they
have been assigned to a "control group" or told thac they are to receive a "test of
imagination" and will not be "hypnotized" (Barber & Calverley, 1964j, in
press a ) .
( 2 ) Motivational instructions (Variable 2 ) are also effective by themselves
in facilitating response to the BSS (Barber 8: Calverley, in press a, i n press b ) and
( 3) suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep (Variable 3 ) enhance response to the BSS (Barber & Calverley, in press a, in press b ) .
( 4 ) Statements thac it is easy to respond to suggestions (Variable 4 ) are
effective in enhancing Objective and Sitbjective scores on the BSS as compared to
a condition in which response to suggestions is described as difficult (Barber 8:
Calverley, 1964j) but not as compared to a condition in which nothing is said
concerning the ease or difficulty of responding to suggestions (Barber 8: Calverley, in press a ) .l"
( 5 ) W h e n the sicuacion is defined to S as "hypnosis" (Variable I ) , correspondingly high levels of response to the BSS are elicited either by administering motivational instr~lctionstogether with statements that it is easy to respond to
the tests (Variables 2 plus 4 ) , or by administering suggestions of relaxation,
drowsiness, and sleep (Variable 3 ) , or by adminiscering a treatment that includes
Variables 2, 3, and 4 (Barber & Calverley, in press b ) .
( 6 ) Although defining the situation to S as "hypnosis" tends to produce a
higher level of response to the BSS than defining it as a "concrol experiment," this
does not mean that a high level of response cannot be elicited when the sirnation
is defined as "control." W h e n motivational instructions and statements that it is
'% significant triple interaction obtained in this study (Barber & Calverley, in press a ) ,
however, indicated that describing response to suggestions as easy facilitates response to
the BSS, above the level found under a neutral condition in which nothing is said concerning the ease o r difficulty of responding to suggestions, when ( a ) the situation is defined as "control" and ( b ) motivational suggestions are also administered.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

833

easy to respond are administered (Variables 2 plus 4 ) , a high level of response to

the BSS is evoked from Ss who have been told chat they have been assigned to the
"control group" and will not be "hypnotized" (Barber & Calverley, in press a ) .
( 7 ) Correspondingly high levels of response to the BSS are elicited either
by ( a ) administering suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep in a siruation defined as "hypnosis" (Variables 1 plus 3 ) or by ( b ) administering motivational instructions together with statements that the tests are easy to pass in n
situation defined as a "control experiment involving a test of imagination" (Variables 2 plus 4 ) , or by ( c ) administering a procedure thac includes Variables 1,
2, 3, and 4 (Barber & Calverley, 1963b, in press a ) .
In summary, the resulrs of the experiments summarized in this section confirm and extend the experimental resi~ltspresented above in Section V, as follows.
( a ) Each of the variables subsumed under the labels Task Motivational Instructions (Variables 2 plus 4 ) and Hypnotic Induction (Variables 1, 2, 3, and 4 )
tends to be effective, by itself, in facilitating response to the BSS. ( b ) A n
Hypnotic Induction (which includes Variables 1, 2, 3, and 4 ) appears to be no
more effective in enhancing response to the BSS than a procedi~rewhich includes
only defining the situation as "hypnosis" and administering suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep (Variables 1 plus 3 ) or a procedure which includes
only the two variables subsumed under the label Task Motivational Instructions
(Variables 2 plus 4 ) .

IX. EFFECTS OF OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL-SITUATIONAL

AND
PERSONALITY VARIABLESON RESPONSETO T H E BSS
T h e experiments summarized above point to several variables thac exert an
important effect on response to the BSS. These are by no means the only variables that are important. T w o series of experiments are summarized next. The
first series isolated several additional variables that affect response to the BSS.
T h e second series indicates that several variables, which have been postulated ro
be important in determining response to test-suggestions, do not seem to play a
major role when tested experimentally.
Variables A f f e c t i n g R e ~ p o n s e
Additional variables thac affect response to the BSS are as follows.
T h e tone of voice i n which the test-suggestions are presented.-Forty-one
student nurses (Barber & Calverley, 1 9 6 4 ~ )given the BSS in a forceful tone of
voice were significantly nlore responsive than 4 1 Ss from the same population
given the BSS in a listless and lackadaisical tone. (Mean Objective scores were
3.9 and 2.4, respectively, 03 the 8-point BSS.)
W h e t h e r positive or r~egativeattitudinal-motivatio~zalpretest inslructions are
odminzstered.-A series of experiments discussed above indicate that positive task
motivational instructions facilitate response to the BSS. An additional experi-

834

T. X. BARBER

ment (Barber & Calverley, 1764d) indicates that instructions designed to produce
negative attitudes and motives toward the test-situation result in a marked drop
i n response. In this smdy, 8 student nurses obtained a mean Objective score of
3.9 when first tested on the BSS without special preliminary instructions (Direct
Suggestions condition). One week later the students were retested on response to
the BSS soon after they were told the following by a prestigef~llperson ( t h e
Supervisor of Srudent Nurses) : "It's being rumored by doctors and administrators, and I don't know who else, that nursing students are too easily directed and
easily l e d . . . It's kind of shocking and discouraging to hear thac the students, u p
to this time, are so easily directed and can't decide things for themselves. We've
got a job to do: to impress the administrators and doctors around here with the
fact that nursing students are not as gullible and as easily directed as they appear
to have been showing during this research study . . . ." A mean Objective score of
0.1 was now obtained on the BSS. Seven of the 8 Ss obtained 0 scores; the remaining S, who had previously obtained an Objective score of 6, now obtained a
score of 1 o n the 8-point BSS. (Appropriate control groups indicated that this
marked drop in response on second testing could be attributed to the negative
statement made by the Supervisor of Student Nurses.)
What Ss are told is the purpose of the experiment.-Seventeen student nurses
(Barber & Calverley, 1764b) were told that the purpose of the experiment was
to test imagination whereas 16 Ss from the same population were told that the
purpose was to test gullibility. All Ss were assessed in exactly the same way on
response to the BSS. ( T h e BSS was given by means of a tape recording.) Fortyone per cent of Ss in the former group and only 6% 111 the latter obtained relatively high Objective scores of 5 or above on the S-pornt BSS.
Whether it is implied that the procedure to be used is or is not effective i n
producing "hyp?zosis".-Eighty-four student nurses participated in a 2 X 2 factorial experiment (Barber & Calverley, in press b ) . T h e two levels of one independent variable were stacelnents implying thac the procedure to be employed is
or is not effective in prodi~cing"hypnosis." T h e two levels of the second independent variable were presence versus absence of suggestions of relaxation,
drowsiness, and sleep. The dependent variables were objective and subjective responses to the BSS. ( T h e BSS was administered to all Ss by means of a tape
recording.) T h e over-all results were: ( a ) statements implying that the procedure to be used is effective in producing "hypnosis" gave rise to higher levels of
objective and subjective responses to the BSS than statements implying that the
procedure to be used is not effective in inducing "hypnosis." ( b ) In harmony
with previous results, suggestions of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep were effective in elevating response to the BSS. ( c ) Statements implying that the procedure to be employed
- - is or is not effective in inducing "hypnosis" exerted a more
potent effect on response to the BSS than the presence or absence of suggestions
of relaxation, drowsiness, and sleep.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

Variables That Do Nor Seem t o Exert An Important Effect

A series of additional experiments indicated that, several variables which
have been presumed to exert an important effect on response to test-suggestions,
do not. play a major role nhen tested experimentally. These variables include:
( a ) whether S is assessed on the BSS with his eyes closed or eyes open (Barber
& Calverley, in press a ) , ( b ) whether the BSS is administered personally, thac is,
orally by E, or relatively impersonally by means of a tape recording of E's voice
(Barber & Calverley, 1964a), ( c ) the personalicy characteristics of S as measured
by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Leary Interpersonal Check List,
the Cattell-Coan Teacher's Rating Scale, the Jourard Self-Disclosure Scale, the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and the questionnaires constructed by
Aas ( 1962) and by Shor, Ome, and O'Connell ( 1962 ) for assessing the nature
and degree of S's previous imaginative-fantasy or "hypnotic-like" experiences
(Barber & Calverley, 1964g, 1964h, 19641, 196.5).
The negative findings with respect to personality characteristics merit further
comment. It may be that aspects of personality which are related to response to
the BSS were not measured by the instruments mentioned above. However, it
could also be that response to the BSS is primarily siruacionally-determined and
thac trans-siruational persocaIity traits play only a small role or play a role only in
inreraction w i t h situational variables. T h e latter hypothesis is in line with a
series of experiments, reviewed above, which indicates that variations in the experimental situation, e.g., variations in the words used to describe the purpose of
the experiment to Ss, variations in E's tone of voice when administering the tesrsuggestions, produce clear-cut variations in Ss' responsiveness to the BSS.14

X. OVERVIEW
The logic underlying the data presented in this monograph is as follows.
( 1 ) It is incumbent upon behavioral scientists to isolate and to assign
weights to the variables affecting response to test-suggestions of the type traditionally associated with the word "hypnosis." To accomplish chis, it is necessary
"An extensive series of studies, reviewed elsewhere (Barber, 1964c), used a variety of
instruments to assess response to test-suggestions (e.g., the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scales, the Friedlander-Sarbin Scale, etc.) and also used a variety of techniques to assess
personality characteristics (e.g., TAT, Rorschach, MMPI, Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Maudsley Personality Inventory, autobiographies, clinical interviews, etc.).
In line with our research with the BSS, these studies failed to find personality traits that
are reliably related to "hypnotic-like" suggestibility. (Although some positive findings
were reported, these did nor hold up when an attempt was made to cross-validate.) The
only apparent exception to ncgative results in this area is that there seems to be a relationship berween high scores on the Stanford Hypnotic Suspectibility Scales and Yes
answers to the Aas and Shor, c,t a/.questionnaires which assess previous imaginative-fantasy
or "hypnoric-like" experiences. However, the latter experimental finding is equivocal in
that questionnaires of the ryp: constructed by Aas and Shor, el dl. appear to be contaminated with Acquiescence set. Lee ( 1 9 6 3 ) presented cogent evidence that Ss who answer
"Yes" to many items concerring previous imaginative-fantasy o r "hypnotic-like" experiences are set to answer Yes indiscriminately, that is, irrespective of item content, to
tliverse questionnaire items (z.g., to the diverse items of the M M P I ) .

836

T. X. BARBER

to manipulate potentially critical variables prior to assessing response. However,

extant scales which measure response to test-suggestions, e.g., the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, are predicated upon and intertwined with the prior
adminisuation of a hypnotic induction procedure and are inappropriate to use
wich experimental manip~llation of antecedent variables, for example, wich or
without a hypnotic induction.
( 2 ) T o fulfill the need for a suggestibility scale that can be administered
wich prior manipulation of potentially critical variables, a scale of eight test-suggestions-the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS)-was constructed. T h e eight
items making u p the scale, e.g., thirst hallucination, body immobility, selective
amnesia, posthypnotic-like response, were selected as representative of the types
of test-suggestions traditionally employed in experiments subsumed under the
word "hypnosis." A series of studies showed that the BSS possessed internal consistency and test-retest reliability. A centroid analysis showed that the BSS possessed factorial validity, that is, the scale was measuring primarily one dimension
of human behavior which was tentatively labeled as a type of snggesribilziy or as
"hypnotic-like" suggestibility.
( 3 ) An experimental program was designed to isolate the critical variables
that determine objective and subjective responses to the BSS. This program included four series of experiments.
One series indicated that the following variables exert an important effect on
objective and subjective responses: ( a ) the tone of voice in which the test-suggestions are presented, ( b ) whether S is given positive or negative attimdinalmotivational instructions prior to assessment of response, ( c ) what S is told is
the purpose of the experiment, ( d ) whether i c is implied that the procedure to
be used is or is not effective in producing "hypnosis."
A second series of experiments indicated that three variables d o not exert an
important effect: ( a ) the trans-situarional personality characteristics of S as
measured by a battery of standardized inventories, ( b ) whether the BSS is administered with S's eyes closed or open, ( c ) whether the BSS is administered personally, that is, orally by E, or relatively impersonally by means of a tape-recording.
A third series of experiments indicated that, as compared with a Direct Suggestions condition ( n o special preliminary instructions or suggestions), correspondingly high Objective and Siibjective scores on the BSS can be elicited by
( a ) a set of variables subsumed under the label Task Motivational Instructions
and by ( b ) a set of variables subsumed under [he label Hypnotic Induccion.
A fourth series of experiments was conducted to determine which of the
many variables subsumed under the labels Task Motivational Instructions and
Hypnotic Induction are effective in facilitating response to the BSS. Four variables were evaluated in these experiments: ( a ) definition of the situation as
"hypnosis;" ( b ) motivational insuuctions; ( c ) suggestions of relaxation, drowsi-

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

837

ness, and sleep; and ( d ) stztements that it is easy to respond to suggestions. T h e

results indicated, in general, that each of these variables is effective by itself in
facilitating objective and subjective responses to the BSS. However, the effects
of the variables were not always additive. For instance, a major finding was that
Variables a, b, c, and d in combination were not significantly more effective in
enhancing- response
to the BSS than Variables a and c in combination or Variables
b and d in combination.
Another experimental program was started to ascertain whether the above
findings, obtained with the BSS, can be generalized to other rypes of test-suggestions. This program is still at an early stage. As of now, the experimental results
indicate that the findings noted in the third series of studies above are generalizable. That is to say, as compared with a Direct Suggestions condition o r a nonsuggestion Control condition, a set of variables subsumed under the label Task
d
the label HypMotivational Instructions 2nd a set of variables s ~ ~ b s u m eunder
notic Induction evoke correspondingly high levels of response to various types of
of auditory and visual hallucination, analtest-suggestions, e.g., test-~~~ggcsrions
gesia, deafness, colorblindness, and time distortion. Studies are now in progress
to ascertain whether the results obtained with the BSS as described in the first
two and last series of s t ~ ~ d i mentioned
es
above also apply to other types of testsuggestions which are not ixcluded in this scale.
Further investigations are needed ( a ) to isolate additional variables chat
affect objective and subjective responses to the BSS and ( b ) to ascertain whether
chese additional variables also affect response to other rypes of test-suggestions.
W h e n all of the variables :\>at determine response to test-suggestions have been
isolated, weighted, and integrated conceptually, we will have a powerful theory
that explains and predicts behavior of the type traditionally assumed to be due to
or associated with "hypnosis."
REFERENCES

AAS, A. Non-hypnotic experiences related to hypnotizability in male and female college

smdents. Scand. I. Psjchoi., 1962, 3, 112-121.
BARBER,
T. X. Physiological effects of "hypnosis." Psychol. Bttll., 1961, 58, 390-419.
BARBER,T. X. Experimentzl controls and the phenomena of "hypnosis": a critique of
hypnotic research merhodology. I . Izerv. ment. Dir., 1962, 134, 493-505.
BARBER,
T . X. The effects of "hypnosis" on pain: a critical review of experimental and
clinical findings. Psychosorn. Med., 1963, 25, 303-333.
BARBER,
T. X. "Hypnosis" as a causal variable in present-day psychology: a critical analysis. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 14, 839-842. ( a )
BARBER,T. X. Hypnotic "colorblindness," "blindness," and "deafness": a review of research find~ngs Dis. :aeru. Syst., 1964, 25, 529-537. ( b )
BARBER,
T. X. Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality: V. A critical review of
research findings. Pslchol. Re#., 1964, 14, 299-320. ( c )
BARBER,T. X. Experiment~lanalysis of "hypnotic" behavior: a review of recent empirical findings. I . abnorm. Psychol., in press.
BARBER,
T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. "Hypnotic behavior" as a function of task motivation. j . Psychol., 1962, 54, 363-389.

838

T. X. BARBER

BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,

D . S. "Hypnotic-like" suggestibility in children and
adults. I. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 66, 589-597. ( a )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. The relative effectiveness of task motivating instructions and trance induction procedure in the production of "hypnotic-like" behaviors. ]. nerv. ment. Dis., 1963, 137, 107-116. ( b )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Toward a theory of hypnotic behavior: effects on
suggestibility of task motivating instructions and attitudes toward hypnosis. I . abnorm. ~ o cPsychol.,
.
1963, 67, 557-565. ( c )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Comparative effects on "hypnotic-like" suggestibility of recorded and spoken suggestions. 1. consult. Psychol., 1964, 28, 384. ( a )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D S. The definition of the situation as a variable affecting "hypnotic-like" suggcstibility. 1. clin. Psychol., 1964, 20, 438-440. ( b )
BARBER,T . X., & CALVERLI:~,
D S. Effect of E's tone of voice on "hypnotic-like"
suggestibility. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 15, 139-144. ( c )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Empirical evidence for a theory of ,"hypnotic" behavior: effects of pretest instructions on response to primary suggestions. Psychol.
Rec., 1964, 14,457-467. ( d )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Experimental studies in "hypnotic" behaviour:
suggested deafness evaluated by delayed auditory feedback. Brii. 1. Psychol., 1964,
55,439-446. ( e )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. An experimental study of "hypnotic" (auditory
and visual) hallucinations. J . abnorm. soc. Psycho/., 1964, 68, 13-20. ( f )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality:
111. A study using teachers' ratings of children's characteristics. I . Psychol., 1964,
57, 275-280. ( g )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D . S. Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality:
IV. A study with the Leary Interpersonal Check List. Bn'r. J. soc, clin. Psychol.,
1964, 3, 149-150. ( h )
c y , personality: I.
BARBER,T . X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Hypnotizability, s ~ g ~ c s r ~ b i l iand
Two studies with the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Jourard Self-Disclosure Scale, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirab~l~cy
Scale. I . Psycho/., 1964,
58, 215-222. ( i )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Toward a theory of hypnotic behavior: effects
on suggestibility of defining the situation as hypnosis and defining response to suggestions as easy. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1964, 68, 585-592. ( j )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behaviour: enhancement of strength and endurance. Canad. /. Psychol., 1964, 18, 156-167.
(k)
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D . S. Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behavior: an experimental study of "hypnotic time distortion." Arch. gen. Plychiat., 1964, 10,
209-216. (1)
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality:
11. Assessment of previous imaginative-fantasy experiences by the Aas, BarberGlass, and Shor questionnaires. ]. clin. Psychol., 1965, 2 1 , 57-58.
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D. S. Empirical evidence for a theory of "hypnotic"
behavior: effects on suggestibility of five variables typically included in "hypnotic induction" procedures. I. consult. Psychol., i n press. ( a )
BARBER,T. X., & CALVERLEY,
D . S. Empirical evidence for a theory of "hypnotic"
behavior: the suggestibility-enhancing effects of motivational suggestions, relaxation-sleep suggestions, and suggestions that the subject will be effectively "hypnotized." 1. Pers., in press. ( b )
BARBER,T. X., CHAUNCEY,H . H., & WINER, R. A. Effect of hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestions on parotid gland response to gustatory stimuli. Psychosom. Med.,
1964,26, 374380.
BARBER,T. X., & DEELEY,D. S. Expcrimental evidence for a theory of hypnotic behavior: I. "Hypnotic color-blindness" without "hypnosis." Int. ], clin. e*. Hypnosis, 1961, 9, 79-86.

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE" SUGGESTIBILITY

839

BARBER,T. X., & GLASS,L. B. Significant factors in hypnotic behavior. J . abnorm.

soc. Psychol., 1962, 64, 222-228.
BARBER,T. X., & HAHN, K. W . , JR. Physiological and subjective responses to painproducing stimulation under hypnotically-suggcsred and waking-imagined "analgesia." ]. abnorm. soc Psychol., 1962, 65, 4 1 1.418.
BARBER, T. X., & HAHN,K. W., JR. Experimental studies in "hypnotic" behavior:
physiological and subjective effects of imagined pain. I . nerv. ment. Dis., 1964,
139, 416-425.
BARBER,T. X., KARACAN,I.. & CALVERLEY,
D. S. "Hypnotizability" and suggestibility in chronic schizophrenics Arch. gen. Pjychbt., 1964, 1 1 , 439-451.
BRAVIN,M. Role-play and di~ectsuBebrion in hypnotically induced color blindness. Unpublished doctoral disscrtat~on,Univer. of Denver, 1959.
CATTELL,R. B. Validity and reliability: a proposed more basic set of concepts. I. educ.
Psychol., 1964, 55, 1-22.
DAVIS,L. W., & HUSBAND,
R. W. A study of hypnotic susceptibility in relation to personality traits. ]. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1931, 26, 175-182.
DUNCAN,D . B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Bionretrics, 1955, 11, 1-42.
DUNCAN,D. B. Multiple rmge tests for correlated and heteroscedastic means. Biometric^, 1957, 1 3 , 164.176
FRIEDLANDER,
J. W . , & SARBIN,T. R. The depth of hypnosis. I . abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1938, 33, 453-475.
GUILFORD,J. P. P~ychometric methods. (2nd ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
LECRON,L. M., & BORDEAUX,
J. Hypnotism today. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1947.
LEE, E. M. A questionnaire measure of hypnotic characreristics and their relationships to
hypnotizability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer., 1963.
LONDON,P. T h e Children's Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Urbana, Ill.: Univer. of
Illinois, Dept. of Psychol., 1962. (Mimeo)
MARCUSE,F. L. Hypnosis: fact and ficiion. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1959.
PARKER,P. D., & BARBER,
T. X. Hypnosis, task-motivating instructions, and learning performance. ]. abnorm. soc. Psj~chol.,1964, 69, 499-504.
ROCK, N. L., & SHIPLEY,T., JR. Ability to "fake" color blindness in the waking state:
a control for suggestfd color blindness under hypnosis. Philadelphia: Temple
Univer., Dept. of Psychiat., 1961. (Mimeo)
SHOR, R. E., & ORNE, E. C. T h e I-larvard Group Scale o f Hypnotic Susceptibility,
Form A . Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
SHOR, R. E., ORNE, M. T., & O'CONNELL,D. N. Validation and cross-validation of
a scale of self-reporreA personal experiences which predicts hypnotizability. I.
Psychol., 1962, 53, 55-75.
WALKER,H. M., & LEV, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
1953.
WATKINS,J. G. Hypnotherapy o f war neuroses. New York: Ronald, 1949.
WEITZENHOFFER,A. M., 8: HILGARD,E. R. Stanford Hypnoric Susceptibility Scale:
Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.
WEITZENHOFFER,A. M., & HILGARD,E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale:
Form C. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psycholog~stsPress, 1962.
Accepted march 1, 1965

T. X. BARBER
APPENDIX
BARBERSUGGESTIBILITY
SCALE
As discussed in the text of the monograph, the BSS can be administered under a
variety of experimental conditions: with and without Hypnotic Induction, with and without
Task Motivational Instructions, by means of a tape-recording or by oral presentation, etc.
With the exception of one study (Barber & Calverley, in press a ) the scale has been administered to Ss with their eyes closed.
After one of the experimental treatments has been imposed, as discussed in the
monograph, the BSS is administered and scored as follows.
Eight Test-suggestions
1. Arm Lowering. "Hold your right arm straight out in front of you like this."
(Guide S to extend the right arm directly in front of body at shoulder height and parallel
to the floor.) "concentrate on your arm and listen to me."
(Begin timing) "Imagine chat your right arm is feeling heavier and heavier, and
that it's moving down and down. It's becoming heavier and heavier and moving down
and down. It weighs a ton! It's getting heavier and heavier. It's moving down and
down, more and more, coming down and down, more and more; it's heavier and heavier,
coming down and down, more and more, more and more." (End 30 sec.)
"You can relax your arm now." (If necessary, ask S to lower the right arm.)
Objective score criterion: 1 point for response of 4 in. or more. (Response is measured by placing a ruler neat S's hand at the beginning of the suggestions and noting degree of displacement ac the end of the 30-sec. suggestion period.)
2. Arm Leuitation.-"Keep
your eyes closed and put your left arm straight out in
front of you in the same way. Concentrate on your arm and listen to me."
(Begin timing) "lmagine thac the arm is becoming lighter and lighter, that it's moving up and up. It feels as if it doesn't have any weight at all, and it's moving up and up,
mote and more. It's as light as a feather, it's weightless and rising in the air. It's lighter
and lighter, rising and lifting more and more. It's lighter and lighter and moving up
and up. It doesn't have any weight at all and ir's moving up and up, more and more. It's
lighter and lighter, moving up and up, more and more, higher and higher." (End 30 sec.)
"You can relax your arm now." (If necessary, ask S to lower his arm.)
Objective score criterion: 1 point for response of 4 in. or more during 30-sec. suggestion period.
3. Hand Lock.-"Keep your eyes closed. Clasp your hands together tightly, and
interlace the fingers." (If necessary, E states, "Press your hands together, with palms
touching," and assists S to interlock the fingers and to bring the palms together.) "Put
them in your lap. Concentrate on your hands and hold them together as tightly as you
can."
(Begin timing) "Imagine that your hands are two pieces of steel thac are welded
together so that ir's impossible to get them apatt. They're stuck, they're welded, they're
clamped. When I ask you to pull your hands apart they'll be stuck and they won't come
apart no matter how hard you try. They're smck together; they're two pieces of steel
welded together. You feel as if your fingers were clamped in a vise. Your hands are
hard, solid, rigid! T h e harder you try to pull them apart the more they will stick togethr:r! It's impossible to pull your hands apart! The more you try the more difficult
It will become. Try, you can't." (End 45 sec.)
(5-sec. pause) "Try harder, you can't." (10-sec. pause) "You can unclasp your
hands now."

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE SUGGESTIBILITY

841

Objective score criteria: !h point for incomplete separation of the hands after 5-sec.
effort; 1 point for incomplete separation after 15-sec. effort.
4. Thirst "Hallucination".-"Keep
your eyes closed." (Begin timing) "Imagine
that you've just finished a long, long walk in the hot sun. You've been in the hot sun
for hours, and for all rhat t i n e you haven't had a drink of water. You've never been
so thirsty in your life. You feel thirstier and thirstier. Your mouth is parched, your lips
are dry, your throat is dry. You have to keep swallowing and swallowing. You need to
moisten your lips. (3-sec. pause) You feel thirstier and thirstier, drier and drier. Thirstier and thirstier, dry and thirsry. You're very, very thirsty! Dry and thirsty! Dry ancl
thirsty!" (End 45 sec.) "Now, imagine drinking a cool, refreshing glass of water." ( 5 sec. pause)
Objective score criteria: 44 point if S shows swallowing, moistening of lips, or
marked mouth movements; additional M point if h e subject indicates during the "postexperimental" questioning that he became thirsty during this test (e.g., "I felt dry," "1 was
parched," "I felt somewhat thirsty"). (See "post-experimental" questions for final scoring criteria on this test.)
5. Verbal Inhibition.-"Keep
your eyes closed." (Begin timing) "Imagine that
the muscles in your throar and jaw are solid and rigid, as if they're made of steel. They're
so solid and s o rigid, rhat you can'r speak. Every muscle in your throat and mouth is so
tight and so rigid that you can't say your name. The harder you try to say your name
the harder it becomes. You can't talk! Your larynx has tightened up; your throar and
jaw feel as if they are in a vise. Your throat is clamped so tightly that you can't talk;
you can't say your name. The harder you try the harder it will be. It's useless, the words
won't come our; you can't speak your name; it's impossible to talk! The harder you try
to say your name the harder it will become. Try, you can't!" (End 45 sec.)
(5-sec. pause) "Try harder; you can'c." (10-sec. pause) "You can say your name
now."
Objective score criteria: M point if S does not say his name after 5-sec. effort; 1
point if he does not say his name after 15-sec. effort.
6. Body Immobility.-"Keep
your eyes closed." (Begin timing) "Imagine that
for years and years you've been sitting in rhat chair just as you are now. Imagine that
you've been sitting in thac chair so long thac you're sruck to it! It's as if you're part of
the chair. Your whole body is heavy, rigid, solid and you weigh a ton. You're so heavy
rhat you can't budge yourself. It's impossible for you to stand up, you're stuck right there!
Your body has become part of the chair. W h e n I ask you to stand u p you won't be able
to d o it! You're stuck t ~ g h r . The harder you try the tighter you'll be stuck and you
won't be able to get up. You're heavy in the chair! Stuck in the chair; you can't stand
up. You're so heavy and stuck so tight. You can't stand up; you're stuck. Try, you
can'c." (End 45 sec.)
(5-sec. pause) "Try harder; you can'r." (10-sec. pause) "You can relax [or sic
down] now."
( S is considered not standing if he rises slightly from the chair without straightening
into an erect posture. In this event, E says, "Try to stand fully erect, you can't," instead
of "Try harder, you can'r.")
point i f S is not standing fully erect after 5-sec. effort;
Objective score criteria:
1 point if not standing fully erect after 15-sec. effort.
7. "Posthypnotic-Like" R~'sponse.-(The auditory stimulus consists of tapping once
on the metal back of a stop a a t c h with a fountain pen.) (Begin timing) "When this
experiment is over in a few minutes and your eyes are open, I'll click like this ( E presents
auditory stimulus) and you'll cough automatically. At the moment I click ( E presents

842

T. X. BARBER

stimulus) you'll cough. It will happen automatically. When I click like this (stimulus
is presented) you'll cough immediately; I'll click and you'll cough. When your eyes are
open, I'll click (stimulus is presented) and you'll cough. When I click you'll cough."
(End 30 sec.)
Objective score criterion: 1 point if S coughs or clears his throat "post-experimentally"
when presented with the auditory stimulus.
8. Selective Amnesia.-"Your
eyes are still closed but I'm going to ask you to open
them in a minure. When they're open I'm going to ask you to tell me about these
tests." (Begin timing) "You'll remember all the tests and be able to tell me about
them, all except for one. There's one that you'll completely forget about as if it never happened! That's the one where I said your arm was becoming lighter and moving up ant1
up. You'll forget all about that and when you try to think about it, it will slip even
further away from your mind. You will forget completely that I told you that your arm
was becoming lighter. This is the one test that you cannot remember! You will remember that I said your arm was heavy and all the other tests will be perfectly clear but the
harder you try to remember that I told you your arm was rising the more difficult it will
become. You will not remember until I give you permission by saying, 'Now you can
remember,' and then, and only then, you will remember that I said your arm was rising!"
(End 45 sec.)
Objective score criterion: 1 point if S does not refer to the Arm Levitation item (Testsuggestion 2 ) but recalls at least four other items and then recalls Test-suggestion 2 in
response to the cue words.

"Post-experimental" Objective Scoring of Test-suggestions 4, 7 , and 8

"Open your eyes, the experiment is over."
Scoring o f Test-suggestion 7.-The
"Posrhypnotic-Like" Response item (item 7 )
is scored at this point. E presents the auditory stimulus after S has opened his eyes and
before conversation commences.
Scoring o f Test-suggestion 8.-E
next asks: "How many of the tests can you remember?"
E prompts S by asking, "Were there any others?", "Can you think of any more?",
and "Is that all?", until S mentions at least four of the test-suggestions. If S verbalizes the
Arm Levitation item during his recital, he receives a score of zero on Test-suggestion 8
(Selective Amnesia). If S does not include the Arm Levitation item in his enumeration,
E finally states, "Now you can remember," and, if S still does not verbalize the Arm Levitation item, "You can remember perfectly well now!"
S receives a score of 1 point on Test-suggestion 8 (Selective Amnesia) if he mentions at least four of the test-suggestions, but does not mention the Arm Levitation item
before he is given the cue words, and verbalizes the Arm Levitation item when given the
cue words, "Now you can remember," or, "You can remember perfectly well now!"
Final Scoring o f Test-suggestion 4.-The
Objective scoring of Test-susgest~on4 is
completed when S refers to this item during his recital. At this point E asks "Did you
become thirsty during this test?" If S answers, "Yes" to this question he receives the
additional M point on Item 4. If S answers, "Yes" but adds a qualifying statement, e.g.,
"he had been thirsty to begin with," he is asked: "Did the imaginary glass of water help
quench your thirst?" If S now answers, "Yes" he receives the additional l/i point.
The maximum Objective score obtainable on the BSS is 8 points.
Subjective Scores
Immediately after the Objective scores have been assigned, E mentions each test-suggestion that S has passed with an Objective score of either M or 1 point and asks S if he

843

MEASURING "HYPNOTIC-LIKE SUGGESTIBILIW

felt the suggested effect or if he went along with the suggestion to follow instructions
or to please E. Specifically, the following questions are asked (with respect to those testsuggestions that S has passed with an Obiective score of either '/'z o r 1 point) :
1. "When I said that ycur right arm was heavy and was coming down, did your
arm feel heavy or did you just let it come down in order to follow instructions or to
please me?"
2. "When I said that yocr left arm felt light and was rising, did your arm feel light
or did you raise it deliberately in order to follow instructions or to please me?"
3. "When I said that your hands were stuck and you couldn't take them apart, did
you actually feel that you couldn't take your hands apart or did you keep your hands together in order to follow instructions or to please me?"
4. "When I said that you were becoming very thirsty, did you actually become very
thirsty or did you just act as if you were thirsty in order to follow instructions o r to
please me?"
5. "When I said that yc~u couldn't say your name, did you actually feel that you
TABLE 11
SCORINGBLANKFOR BSS
Subject's name
Age
; Date -.
Experimental procedure

; Sex
..

; Experimenter's name

....

....... ;

...

1. Arm Lowering
Arm down: inches

Objective
Score

Subjective
Score

....-......-.

..--.....--

2. Arm Levitation
----

Arm up: inches

--

3. Hand Lock
Hands opened before 5 sec. .............. ; hands opened after 5
sec. ............... ; hands not opened after 15 sec.

4. Thirst "Hallucination"
Swallowed
; r o v e d mouth
felt thirsty ....
.

....

; licked lips

-------- ---------

5. Verbal Inhibition
; said name after 5 sec.
Said name before 5 sec.
did not say name after 15 sec.

G.

Body Immobility
Got u p before 5 sec. ............ ; got u p after 5 sec.
did not stand u p after 15 sec. ..............

-- -.

- ..................... - .....

---- ------

-------.--- --

7. "Posthypnotic-like" Response
Did cough

........-...... -....--......

; didn't cough

8. Selective Amnesia
Remembered amnesic task
. .
glven permlsslon

; didn't remember until

-.----

------- ---

844

T. X. BARBER

couldn't speak your name or did you just g o along with the suggestion in order to follow
instructions o r to please me?"
6. "When I said char you were stuck in the chair, did you feel that you were stuck
and unable to stand up or did you just go along with the suggestion to follow instrucrions
or to please me?"
7. "When I clicked and you coughed, did you feel that you coughed automatically
or did you cough deliberately in order to follow instrucrions or to please me?"
8. "Did you actually forget that I had said that your arm was rising or did you just
act as if you had forgotten in order to folloa~instructions or to please me?"
A Subjective score of 1 point is assigned for each test-suggestion passed objectively
which the subject testifies that he had "felt." The maximum Subjective score obtainable
is 8 points.
T h e blank used to record Objective and Subjective scores on the BSS is shown in
Table 11.