Basic HTML Version
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HGSHS
A N D
SHSS
:
C
335
Procedure
College students from several local universities volunteered to par-
ticipate
in
a
psychological experiment; they did not know hypnosis
would be involved until they called for appointments. The HGSHS:A
was administered by a standardized tape to
102
Ss
in groups of six
or
eight. The SHSS:C was individually administered to three groups
of
20
Ss
(14
males and
6
females in each group) selected from this sample.
Twenty
Ss
who scored
8
or
more on HGSHS:A were designated the
“high group,”
20
Ss
scoring
7,
6,
or
5
on
HGSHS:A were called the
“medium group,’’ while
Ss
in the “low group” scored
4
or
less on
HGSHS :A.
Additional characteristics of the sample and other procedures in-
volved in the sessions have been reported elsewhere (Field, Evans,
&
M.
T.
Orne,
1965;
Evans
&
&I.T.
Orne,
1965;
Evans
&
Schmeidler,
1964).
It
should be noted that about half of the present sample
(28
Ss) received HGSHS:A in an altered order, which had
no
demonstra-
ble effect
on
scores (Field et al.,
1965).
Because of other research in-
terests, all relevant SHSS:C items were administered using
S’s
domi-
nant hand, while item
2:
Moving Hands, was replaced by a similar
item
2:
Arm Levitation. These changes had
no
marked effect on scores.
Results
The Pearson correlation between total scores on HGSHS :A and
SHSS:C is
.59
( p
<
.001).
The frequency distribution of scores within the high, medium, and
low subgroups for SHSS:C is presented in Table
1.
The dispersion of
each subgroup across a wide range of scores indicated that many Ss
did not maintain their initial susceptibility classification based on
HGSHS:A performance. Of the
20
Ss in each arbitrarily-defined level
of susceptibility,
14
low
Ss
maintained the same level of susceptibility
when administered SHSS:C, but only
10
Ss
in the medium group, and
9
Ss in the high group remained correctly p l a ~ e d . ~
Common Items. There are five items which are administered in the
same way in the two scales. Mean common-item scores are significantly
lower for HGSHS:A than
for
SHSS:C
(2.18
and
2.87
respectively;
t
=
4.56;
p
<
.001).
It
is
not readily apparent why this is so. Hilgard,
‘Apart from
a
significantly lower mean
on
HGSHS:A (which
is
consistent
with other findings: Bentler
Q
Hilgard,
1963;
Bentler
&
Roberts,
1963;
Coe,
lW),
meana, standard deviations, total score distributions, and item difiiculties
for the present sample agree closely with the original normative data for the two
scales (Shor
L
E. Ome,
1963;
Weitaenhoffer
&
Hilgard,
1962).
Downloaded by [University of Macedonia] at 04:28 30 March 2012