RESEARCH PAPER
Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility
1
Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
Submission date: 2015-12-10
Final revision date: 2016-05-05
Acceptance date: 2016-05-10
Online publication date: 2016-05-30
Publication date: 2016-06-30
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2016;4(2):87-96
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
Yielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression.
Participants and procedure
In sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.
Conclusions
Suggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems.
Yielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression.
Participants and procedure
In sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.
Conclusions
Suggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems.
REFERENCES (63)
1.
Abraham, H. H. L. (1962). The suggestible personality: A psychological investigation of susceptibility to persuasion. Acta Psychologica, 20, 167–184.
2.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (Version 23) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001....
3.
Baker, S. L., & Kirsch, I. (1993). Hypnotic and placebo analgesia: Order effects and the placebo label. Contemporary Hypnosis, 10, 117–126.
4.
Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. (1963). ‘Hypnotic-like’ suggestibility in children and adults. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 589–597.
5.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
6.
Benton, A. L., & Bandura, A. (1953). “Primary” and “secondary” suggestibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 336–340.
7.
Binet, A. (1900). La suggestibilité [The suggestibility]. Paris: Schleicher Frères.
8.
Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 578–587.
9.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, California: Sage.
10.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 55-115). Beverly Hills: Sage.
12.
Darragh, M., Chang, J. W.-H., Booth, R. J., & Consedine, N. S. (2015). The placebo effect in inflammatory skin reactions: The influence of verbal suggestion on itch and weal size. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78, 489–494.
13.
Duke, J. D. (1964). Intercorrelational status of suggestibility tests and hypnotizability. Psychological Record, 14, 71–80.
14.
Evans, F. J. (1967). Suggestibility in the normal waking state. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 114–129.
15.
Evans, F. J. (1989). Die Unabhängigkeit von Suggestibilität, Placeboreaktion und Hypnotisierbarkeit [The independence of suggestibility, placebo response, and hypnotizability] (Trans S. Kossak and H.-C. Kossak). Experimentelle Und Klinische Hypnose, 5, 1–17.
16.
Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
17.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Is suggestibility? In: J. F. Schumaker (ed.), Human suggestibility. Advances in theory, research, and application (pp. xx-xx). New York: Routledge.
18.
Eysenck, H. J., & Furneaux, A. D. (1945). Primary and secondary suggestibility: An experimental and statistical study. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 485–503.
19.
Eysenck, H. J., Arnold, W. J., & Meili, R. (1975). Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2). Bungay, Suffolk: Fontana.
20.
Freud, Z. (1920/1975). Psychologia zbiorowości i analiza ego Group psychology and the analysis of the Ego. In Z. Freud, Poza zasadą przyjemności Beyond the pleasure principle. Warszawa: PWN.
21.
Gheorghiu, V. A. (1971). Relations between the direct and indirect forms of the Body Sway Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 19, 134–139.
22.
Gheorghiu, V. A. (1989). The development of research on suggestibility: Critical considerations. In V. A. Gheorghiu, P. Netter, H. J. Eysenck, & R. Rosenthal (eds.), Suggestion and suggestibility. Theory and research (pp. 3–56). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
23.
Gheorghiu, V. A., Hodapp, V., & Ludwig, C. M. (1975). Attempt to construct a scale for the measurement of the effect of suggestions on perception. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 341–352.
24.
Gheorghiu, V. A., Meiu, G. H., Onofrei, A. I., & Timofte, G. (1966). Experimental investigation on suggestibility: On the effects of direct and indirect suggestions. Revue Roumaine des Sciences Sociales, 10, 163–174.
25.
Gheorghiu, V. A., Polczyk, R., & Kappeller, C. (2003). The Warmth Suggestibility Scale-A procedure for measuring the influence of suggestion on warmth sensations. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 219–231.
26.
Green, J. P., Barabasz, A. F., Barrett, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2005). Forging Ahead: The 2003 APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 259–264.
27.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Manual. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
28.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clark, N. (1986). Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behaviour, 1, 83–104.
29.
Gwynn, M. I., & Spanos, N. P. (1996). Hypnotic responsiveness, nonhypnotic suggestibility, and responsiveness to social influence. In R. G. Kunzendorf, N. P. Spanos, & B. Wallace (eds.), Hypnosis and imagination (pp. 147–175). Amityville, NY, US: Baywood Publishing Co.
30.
Hammer, A. G., Evans, F. J., & Bartlett, M. (1963). Factors in hypnosis and suggestion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 15–23.
31.
Hajek, P., & Kratochvil, S. (1973). Social influencibility and hypnotic susceptibility. Československá Psychologie, 17, 368–374.
32.
Hajek, P., & Spacek, J. (1987). Territory, hypnotic susceptibility and social influence: A pilot study. British Journal of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis, 4, 115–117.
34.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7. A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
35.
Kirsch, I. (1997). Specifying nonspecifics: Psychological mechanisms of placebo effects. In A. Harrington (ed.), The placebo effect: An interdisciplinary exploration (pp. 166–186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Kirsch, I., Council, J. R., & Wickless, C. (1990). Subjective scoring for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 38, 112–124.
37.
Linton, C. P., & Sheehan, P. W. (1994). The relationship between interrogative suggestibility and susceptibility to hypnosis. Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 22, 53–64.
38.
Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.
39.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. In S. Fein & S. Spencer (eds.), Readings in social psychology: The art and science of research (pp. 143–147). Boston, MA, US: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
40.
Lynn, S. J., Laurence, J.-R., & Kirsch, I. (2015). Hypnosis, suggestion, and suggestibility: An integrative model. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 314–329.
42.
McGlashen, T. H., Evans, F. J., & Orne, M. T. (1969). The nature of hypnotic analgesia and placebo response to experimental pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 31, 227–246.
43.
Moore, R. K. (1964). Susceptibility to hypnosis and susceptibility to social influence. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 282–294.
44.
Netter, P., Gheorghiu, V. A., Kruse, P., & Hübner, M. (1989). Einflußfaktoren der Suggestibilität [Determinants of suggestibility]. Bericht Nr. 216/5-2. Gießen: Justus-Liebig Universität.
45.
Perez, N. A. (2009). Parsing out everyday suggestibility: A test-retest study. PhD dissertation. University of Tennessee.
46.
Perez, N. A., Brown, S., Tasso, A. F., & Nash, M. R. (2004). Sensory suggestibility and hypnotic suggestibility: A confirmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Conference of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Santa Fe, NM.
47.
Polczyk, R. (2000). Wpływ społeczny a różnice indywidualne: Skale Sugestybilności Interrogatywnej Gudjonssona [Social influence and individual differences: Gudjonsson Suggestibiltiy Scales]. Kolokwia Psychologiczne nr 8: Wpływ społeczny: Badania i praktyka. Warszawa: Instytut Psychologii PAN.
48.
Polczyk, R. (2003). Doświadczanie nieistniejącego. Sugestybilność jako cecha indywidualna [Experiencing the nonexistent. Suggestibility as an individual trait] In K. Krzyżewski (ed.), Doświadczenie indywidualne. Szczególny rodzaj poznania i wyróżniona postać pamięci Polish adaptation of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility by R.E. Shore and E.C. Orne. Unpublished manuscript (pp. 69–84). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
49.
Polczyk, R. (2005). Interrogative suggestibility: Cross cultural stability of psychometric and correlational properties of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 177–186.
50.
Polczyk, R., & Pasek, T. (2006). Types of suggestibility: Relationships Among Compliance, Indirect, and Direct Suggestibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54, 392–415.
51.
Register, P. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1988). Hypnosis and interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 549–558.
52.
Scott, W. R. (1910). Personal differences in suggestibility. Psychological Review, 17, 147–154.
53.
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
55.
Siuta, J. (1978). Polska adaptacja Harwardzkiej Grupowej Skali Podatności Hipnotycznej R.E. Shora i E.C. Orne. Maszynopis niepublikowany Individual experience. A special kind of cognition and memory.
56.
Siuta, J. (1982). Badania porównawcze nad Skalą Sugestywności Barbera [Comparative research on Barber Suggestibility Scale]. Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, Prace Pedagogiczno-Psychologiczne, 34, 93–112.
57.
Spanos, N. P., Perlini, A. H., & Robertson, L. A. (1989). Hypnosis, suggestion, and placebo in the reduction of experimental pain. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 285–293.
58.
Spanos, N. P., Stenstrom, R. J., & Johnston, J. C. (1988). Hypnosis, placebo, and suggestion in the treatment of warts. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 245–260.
59.
Stukat, K. G. (1958). Suggestibility: A factorial and experimental analysis. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
60.
Van Dyck, R., & Hoogduin, K. (1990). Hypnosis: placebo or nonplacebo? Ameican Journal of Psychotherapy, 44, 396–404.
61.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Haise (ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Josssey-Bass.
62.
Woody, E. Z., Drugovic, M., & Oakman, J. M. (1997). A reexamination of the role of nonhypnotic suggestibility in hypnotic responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 399–407.
63.
Wundt, W. M. (1892). Hypnotismus und Suggestion Hypnosis and suggestion. Lepizig: Engelmann.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
