Impulsivity, self-control, and hypnotic suggestibility V.U. Ludwig a,b,c,⇑ , C. Stelzel a,b,c , H. Krutiak a,d , C.E. Prunkl a , R. Steimke a,b,c , L.M. Paschke a,b,c , N. Kathmann b,c , H. Walter a,b a Department of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, D-10117 Berlin, Germany b Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Luisenstraße 56, D-10117 Berlin, Germany c Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, D-12489 Berlin, Germany d Fortbildungszentrum OST der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hypnose und Hypnotherapie e.V., Fuggerstraße 35, D-10777 Berlin, Germany article info Article history: Received 20 September 2012 Keywords: Hypnosis Hypnotic suggestibility Hypnotisability Impulsivity Self-control Gender Frontal lobe Personality abstract Hypnotic responding might be due to attenuated frontal lobe functioning after the hyp- notic induction. Little is known about whether personality traits linked with frontal func- tioning are associated with responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. We assessed whether hypnotic suggestibility is related to the traits of self-control and impulsivity in 154 partic- ipants who completed the Brief Self-Control Scale, the Self-Regulation Scale, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS:A). BIS-11 non-planning impulsivity correlated positively with HGSHS:A (Bonfer- roni-corrected). Furthermore, in the best model emerging from a stepwise multiple regres- sion, both non-planning impulsivity and self-control positively predicted hypnotic suggestibility, and there was an interaction of BIS-11 motor impulsivity with gender. For men only, motor impulsivity tended to predict hypnotic suggestibility. Hypnotic suggest- ibility is associated with personality traits linked with frontal functioning, and hypnotic responding in men and women might differ. Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research question During hypnosis, the hypnotised individual allows his or her own body and thoughts to follow the suggestions of the hyp- notist. Upon suggestion a hypnotised person may move body parts without consciously intending to do so (Blakemore, Oak- ley, & Frith, 2003), be unable to carry out ordinary movements (Cojan et al., 2009; Halligan, Athwal, Oakley, & Frackowiak, 2000), experience amnesia (Mendelsohn, Chalamish, Solomonovich, & Dudai, 2008), or have auditory hallucinations (Szecht- man, Woody, Bowers, & Nahmias, 1998). Responses to hypnotic suggestions typically feel involuntary, as if they were hap- pening on their own or guided by an external force (Weitzenhoffer, 1980). Individuals differ in their propensity to respond to suggestions given during hypnosis, which is termed hypnotic suggestibility (see Kirsch & Braffman, 2001). From an observer’s perspective, it may seem as if hypnotic responding involves voluntarily giving up self-control and passing control to the hypnotist (although hypnotised individuals are in fact still able to control their own actions; Coe, Kobayashi, & Howard, 1973). Moreover, hypnotic responding might be described as impulsive in the sense that some of 1053-8100/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.001 ⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. Fax: +49 30 450 517906. E-mail addresses: [email protected](V.U. Ludwig), [email protected](C. Stelzel), [email protected](H. Krutiak), CarinaPrunkl@ gmail.com (C.E. Prunkl), [email protected](R. Steimke), [email protected](L.M. Paschke), [email protected](N. Kathmann), [email protected](H. Walter). Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Consciousness and Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/concog
26
Embed
Consciousness and Cognition · Neo-dissociation theory (see Hilgard, 1991) also highlights a role for altered executive functioning in hypnotic responding. It states that during hypnosis,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Impulsivity, self-control, and hypnotic suggestibility
V.U. Ludwig a,b,c,⇑, C. Stelzel a,b,c, H. Krutiak a,d, C.E. Prunkl a, R. Steimke a,b,c, L.M. Paschke a,b,c,N. Kathmann b,c, H. Walter a,b
aDepartment of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, D-10117 Berlin, GermanybBerlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Luisenstraße 56, D-10117 Berlin, GermanycDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, D-12489 Berlin, Germanyd Fortbildungszentrum OST der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hypnose und Hypnotherapie e.V., Fuggerstraße 35, D-10777 Berlin, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 September 2012
Keywords:
Hypnosis
Hypnotic suggestibility
Hypnotisability
Impulsivity
Self-control
Gender
Frontal lobe
Personality
a b s t r a c t
Hypnotic responding might be due to attenuated frontal lobe functioning after the hyp-
notic induction. Little is known about whether personality traits linked with frontal func-
tioning are associated with responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. We assessed whether
hypnotic suggestibility is related to the traits of self-control and impulsivity in 154 partic-
ipants who completed the Brief Self-Control Scale, the Self-Regulation Scale, the Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility
(HGSHS:A). BIS-11 non-planning impulsivity correlated positively with HGSHS:A (Bonfer-
roni-corrected). Furthermore, in the best model emerging from a stepwise multiple regres-
sion, both non-planning impulsivity and self-control positively predicted hypnotic
suggestibility, and there was an interaction of BIS-11 motor impulsivity with gender. For
men only, motor impulsivity tended to predict hypnotic suggestibility. Hypnotic suggest-
ibility is associated with personality traits linked with frontal functioning, and hypnotic
responding in men and women might differ.
� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Research question
During hypnosis, the hypnotised individual allows his or her own body and thoughts to follow the suggestions of the hyp-
notist. Upon suggestion a hypnotised person may move body parts without consciously intending to do so (Blakemore, Oak-
ley, & Frith, 2003), be unable to carry out ordinary movements (Cojan et al., 2009; Halligan, Athwal, Oakley, & Frackowiak,
2000), experience amnesia (Mendelsohn, Chalamish, Solomonovich, & Dudai, 2008), or have auditory hallucinations (Szecht-
man, Woody, Bowers, & Nahmias, 1998). Responses to hypnotic suggestions typically feel involuntary, as if they were hap-
pening on their own or guided by an external force (Weitzenhoffer, 1980). Individuals differ in their propensity to respond to
suggestions given during hypnosis, which is termed hypnotic suggestibility (see Kirsch & Braffman, 2001).
From an observer’s perspective, it may seem as if hypnotic responding involves voluntarily giving up self-control and
passing control to the hypnotist (although hypnotised individuals are in fact still able to control their own actions; Coe,
Kobayashi, & Howard, 1973). Moreover, hypnotic responding might be described as impulsive in the sense that some of
1053-8100/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.001
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. Fax:
Note: Values in the table are Pearson’s correlation coefficients r. p-values are given in brackets.* significant after Bonferroni-correction for all tests reported in this table (a = .003). N = 154. BSC: Brief Self-Control Scale. SR: Self-Regulation Scale. BIS-11:
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.
Table 3
Correlations between hypnotic suggestibility and measures of self-control and impulsivity.
Questionnaire BSC SR BIS-11 total BIS-11 attention BIS-11 motor BIS-11 non-planning
Note: Values in the table are Pearson’s correlation coefficients r. p-values are given in brackets.* significant after Bonferroni-correction for all tests reported in this table (a = .008). N = 154. HGSHS:A: Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility,
Form A. BSC: Brief Self-Control Scale. SR: Self-Regulation Scale. BIS-11: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.
Table 4
Final model for predicting hypnotic suggestibility emerging from the stepwise multiple regression procedure.
Independent variables B SE B ß p
Constant 6.35 0.20 �.01 <.001
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .20 .03
BIS-11 motorc 0.04 0.05 .04 .42
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.17 0.06 .28 .004
Gender 0.31 0.20 .12 .13
BIS-11 motorc x Gender �0.11 0.05 �.17 .03
Note: Bs are unstandardized, ß are standardized coefficients; SE: standard error. N = 154. Since the standardized betas calculated by SPSS for models
containing interactions are incorrect (Aiken and West, 1991, pp. 40–47), standardized coefficients were determined as recommended by Friedrich (1982, p.
824). Due to this procedure, the standardized ß for the intercept is not exactly 0. The c-subscript indicates that variables were centred. See Table A1 in the
Appendix for all steps of the stepwise regression. BSC: Brief Self-Control Scale. BIS-11: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.
V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 643
Fig. 1. Visualisation of the results of the multiple regression. Graphs show the HGSHS:A scores that are predicted by the model for men and women
separately for specific values of the different predictor variables while the other variables are held at their average level (calculated from the regression
parameters). (A) Predicted HGSHS:A scores for different values of non-planning impulsivity for participants with average scores on BSC and motor
impulsivity, (B) predicted HGSHS:A scores for different values of BSC for participants with average scores on non-planning impulsivity and motor
impulsivity and (C) predicted HGSHS:A scores for different values of motor impulsivity for participants with average scores on BSC and non-planning
impulsivity. SD: Standard deviation. HGSHS:A: Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A.
Fig. 2. Mean HGSHS:A values for groups of participants that differ in terms of their levels of non-planning impulsivity and trait self-control. Figure serves to
visualize the results only. Statistics were calculated on the continuous values of the scales as reported in the text, and not on these groups. Groups were
formed by median splits. 95% confidence intervals of the mean are shown. NPI: non-planning impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale). BSC: Brief Self-
Control Scale. HGSHS:A: Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A.
644 V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653
SE = 0.88, p = .008) with women showing higher levels of HGSHS:A scores. Note that this is significant after Bonferroni-cor-
rection for all post-hoc tests. For participants scoring very high in motor impulsivity (Mean + 2SD), gender did not predict
hypnotic suggestibility (p = .20). Thus, gender only predicted HGSHS:A scores for participants low in motor impulsivity
(see Fig. 1C).
3.5. Point-biserial correlations between non-planning impulsivity/motor impulsivity/BSC and all individual suggestions
We conducted an exploratory analysis to determine if the relations between HGSHS:A scores and the scales motor impul-
sivity, non-planning impulsivity, and BSC differed between direct motor suggestions (i.e., suggestions for movement) and
motor challenge suggestions (i.e., suggestions involving the inhibition of movement; see McConkey, Sheehan, & Law,
1980; Peters, Dhanens, Lundy, & Landy, 1974). For this purpose, we calculated point-biserial correlations between each indi-
vidual suggestion of the HGSHS:A and the three scales that were associated with the HGSHS:A. For motor impulsivity, this
was done separately for men and women due to the gender difference concerning this scale. Detailed results of this analysis
can be found in the Supplementary data (Tables S3–S5). No correlation survived Bonferroni-correction. At an uncorrected
level, motor impulsivity in men correlated with the motor challenge suggestions arm immobilization and eye catalepsy. Also
at an uncorrected level, non-planning impulsivity in all participants correlated with the motor challenge suggestions arm
immobilization, eye catalepsy, and communication inhibition.
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary of the results
This study shows that subtraits of impulsivity and trait self-control positively predict hypnotic suggestibility and it dem-
onstrates significant gender differences for predictors of hypnotic suggestibility. We carried out a backward stepwise multi-
ple regression procedure starting with a range of predictor variables measuring aspects of self-control and impulsivity, as
well as their interactions with gender. After dropping predictors that did not contribute significantly to predicting hypnotic
suggestibility, the best model contained the significant predictors non-planning impulsivity, BSC and an interaction of motor
impulsivity with gender. Post-hoc tests showed that the interaction was due to the fact that motor impulsivity did not pre-
dict hypnotic suggestibility for women, while it tended to positively predict it for men. When exploring this further, we
found that for participants with low motor impulsivity, women were predicted to have higher hypnotic suggestibility scores
than men. In contrast, for participants with average or high motor impulsivity, gender did not significantly predict hypnotic
suggestibility.
The finding that non-planning impulsivity (and, trend-wise, motor impulsivity in men) predicted hypnotic suggestibility
is in line with theories and evidence pointing to a relation of attenuated frontal lobe functioning with hypnotic responding.
That is because impulsivity has been associated with reduced frontal functioning (Chen et al., 2007; Crews & Boettiger, 2009;
Spinella, 2004). However, the picture is more complex than that because also trait self-control positively predicted hypnotic
suggestibility (when holding non-planning impulsivity constant). This is surprising because trait self-control and impulsivity
are often considered to be opposites of each other (e.g., Duckworth & Kern, 2011). Our findings support the claim that self-
control and impulsivity are neither redundant concepts nor perfect opposites, at least in the way they are currently mea-
sured (Friese & Hofmann, 2009). Exhibiting both high self-control and high non-planning impulsivity appears to be advan-
tageous for high hypnotic suggestibility (see Fig. 2). We discuss each of our findings below.
4.2. Explanations for the link between non-planning impulsivity and hypnotic suggestibility
What might explain the positive link between non-planning impulsivity and hypnotic suggestibility? Non-planning
impulsivity refers to the tendency to focus on the present rather than to plan for the future (Patton et al., 1995). For example,
individuals with high non-planning impulsivity tend to choose earlier smaller rewards as opposed to delayed bigger rewards
(de Wit, Flory, Acheson, McCloskey, & Manuck, 2007; Koff & Lucas, 2011; Mobini, Grant, Kass, & Yeomans, 2007; but see Rey-
nolds et al., 2006). The non-planning impulsivity scale also contains items concerning the degree to which one does not enjoy
complex mental tasks. Importantly, non-planning impulsivity and self-control predicted HGSHS:A simultaneously in the fi-
nal regression model. Thus, hypnotic suggestibility is associated with an aspect of non-planning impulsivity that does not
overlap with low self-control.
The aspect of impulsivity which does not overlap with self-control, and which is related to hypnotic suggestibility, might
involve the degree to which one enjoys new and diverse experiences. All subtraits of impulsivity of the BIS-11 correlate pos-
itively with the boredom susceptibility, disinhibition, and experience-seeking scales on the Zuckerman Sensation-Seeking
Council, & Meier, 2002; Radtke & Stam, 1991). Even though the evidence is mixed, it is conceivable that participants with
high non-planning impulsivity respond better to hypnotic suggestions partly because they are more curious about the
new experience.
Our findings may also be due to the fact that impulsive individuals worry less about possible harms or risks (Stanford
et al., 1996). Sensation seeking – a key correlate of impulsivity – correlates negatively with TPQ harm avoidance (Earleywine,
Finn, Peterson, & Pihl, 1992), a tendency which can entail excessive worry, fear of uncertainty, or shyness (Cloninger, Svrakic,
& Przybeck, 1993). Thus, in a hypnosis setting, impulsive participants might be more open to follow suggestions because
they worry less about potential harm (e.g., doing something embarrassing; but see Lichtenberg et al., 2004). Moreover,
impulsive individuals are more likely to be extraverted (Eysenck, Pearson, Easting, & Allsopp, 1985; Zuckerman et al.,
1972; see also Eysenck & Zuckerman, 1978; Farley & Farley, 1970). Therefore, impulsive individuals might feel more com-
fortable in certain social situations compared to less impulsive individuals. This might make it easier for them to relax in
a hypnosis group setting and to follow the hypnotist’s suggestions. Indeed, extraversion tends to correlate with hypnotic
suggestibility (Malinoski & Lynn, 1999; Nordenstrom et al., 2002).
A final possible explanation for the link between hypnotic suggestibility and non-planning impulsivity relates to
absorption, ‘‘a disposition for having episodes of ‘total’ attention that fully engage one’s representational [. . .] resources.’’
(Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974, abstract). Absorption has been reported as a correlate of hypnotic suggestibility (e.g., Dixon,
Labelle, & Laurence, 1996; Nadon, Hoyt, Register, & Kihlstrom, 1991; Zachariae, Jorgensen, & Christensen, 2000; but see
Milling, Kirsch, & Burgess, 2000). As previously discussed, non-planning impulsivity is the tendency to focus on the
present rather than to plan for the future. One could speculate that individuals who are present-focussed might be
particularly good at being completely immersed in the present moment (i.e., absorbed); and this might be useful for
responding to hypnotic suggestions. To our knowledge, the relationship between absorption and non-planning impulsiv-
ity has not yet been investigated. However, absorption correlates positively, albeit weakly, with novelty seeking and with
persistence (Cloninger, 1996; Waller, Lilienfeld, Tellegen, & Lykken, 1991). If our results are partly mediated by absorp-
tion, this could explain why we find positive associations of hypnotic suggestibility with both non-planning impulsivity
and self-control.
4.3. Explanations for the link between hypnotic suggestibility and trait self-control
We found that trait self-control positively predicted hypnotic suggestibility, but only when controlling for non-planning
impulsivity in the regression model. Thus, amongst individuals with the same level of non-planning impulsivity, those who
reported themselves to be more self-controlled responded better to hypnotic suggestions. This finding was contrary to our
predictions, but it is in line with a previous study showing a positive association of hypnotic suggestibility with self-reported
perseverance (Lichtenberg et al., 2004). As Cloninger, Zohar, Hirschmann, and Dahan (2012) point out, individuals high in
persistence (related to self-control) tend to be perfectionists and attempt to be very good at everything they do (see also
Tangney et al., 2004). Thus, a potential explanation for the positive link between self-control and hypnotic suggestibility
is that participants with high trait self-control are more motivated to ‘‘perform well’’ during the hypnotic session. They
may therefore pay more attention to the procedure (see also discussion in Lichtenberg et al., 2004). Specifically, self-control
may help individuals to stay focussed on the hypnotic induction allowing them to experience stronger subsequent effects
(e.g., see Gruzelier, 1998).
4.4. Discussion of the lack of a link between attentional impulsivity and hypnotic suggestibility
Attentional impulsivity, the third subtrait of impulsivity, did not predict hypnotic suggestibility. This partly fits with a
number of previous findings showing equal or even better attentional skills in highs compared with lows (e.g., Dienes
et al., 2009; Iani et al., 2006; Kaiser et al., 1997; Kallio et al., 2001; Rubichi et al., 2005; Varga et al., 2011). Moreover, hypnotic
suggestibility has been shown to correlate with scores on the Differential Attention Processes Inventory which includes self-
descriptions of experiences of focused attention and ignoring distractions (Crawford, Brown, & Moon, 1993; Kallio et al.,
2001; Lichtenberg et al., 2004). It makes sense that attentional impulsivity does not positively predict hypnotic suggestibil-
ity, since focused attention is arguably needed during the induction procedure (e.g., see Gruzelier, 1998). However, we also
did not find a negative link between attentional impulsivity with hypnotic suggestibility, indicating that highs do not per-
ceive themselves as being particularly good at concentrating.
4.5. Explanations for the link between motor impulsivity and hypnotic suggestibility in men
Motor impulsivity refers to the tendency to ‘‘act on the spur of the moment’’ and to live an inconsistent lifestyle
(Patton et al., 1995). We found that motor impulsivity tended to predict hypnotic suggestibility in men (with BSC and
non-planning impulsivity held constant). An explanation for this could be that men with high motor impulsivity simply
move impulsively when suggestions for movement are given. However, if this was true, one would expect that motor
646 V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653
impulsivity correlates exclusively with responses to those five suggestions of the HGSHS:A which involve active move-
ment (i.e., direct motor suggestions). Our exploratory analysis did not reveal such a pattern. Instead, the only trend-wise
correlations of impulsivity subtraits with individual suggestions were found for motor challenge/inhibition suggestions
(note, however, that no strong conclusions can be drawn here, as p-values did not survive corrections for multiple
comparisons). Moreover, despite the way it is termed, motor impulsivity is only partly about impulsive movements in
the literal sense. This subscale also includes items about consistency of lifestyle and about more complex impulsive behav-
iours (e.g., ‘‘I buy things on impulse’’, ‘‘I change jobs’’, or ‘‘I make up my mind quickly’’). As such, the link between motor
impulsivity and hypnotic suggestibility in men might also be mediated by high sensation seeking, low harm avoidance, or
high extraversion in men high on motor impulsivity, as argued above for non-planning impulsivity. Nevertheless, it would
be interesting to test for a correlation of hypnotic suggestibility with impulsivity using a scale that contains less motor
suggestions and more perceptual or cognitive suggestions, such as the Waterloo-Stanford Group C Scale of Hypnotic
Susceptibility (Bowers, 1993).
4.6. Possible reasons for the gender difference
For men, motor impulsivity tended to predict HGSHS:A scores (with BSC and non-planning impulsivity held constant),
while it did not predict them for women. Gender differences for the correlates of hypnotic suggestibility have been reported
by several authors (Barber & Calverley, 1964; Bentler, 1963; Bowers, 1971; Dienes et al., 2009; Gur & Gur, 1974). Interest-
ingly, already Lichtenberg et al. (2004) found a correlation of hypnotic suggestibility with the TPQ novelty-seeking subscale
of ‘impulsivity versus reflection’ for men only. Our analyses further showed that men with very lowmotor impulsivity exhib-
ited lower hypnotic suggestibility scores than women with the same level of motor impulsivity (with BSC and non-planning
impulsivity held constant). This may indicate that hypnotic responding partly differs between genders. There is evidence
that the mechanisms of hypnosis may differ for different subtypes of highs (e.g. high dissociative vs. low dissociative highs;
Marcusson-Clavertz et al., 2012; Terhune et al., 2011b). It is therefore also conceivable that the mechanisms of hypnotic
responding differ between men and women. Specifically, for men, hypnotic responding may partly consist of the tendency
to spontaneously and impulsively follow external suggestions. For women, such impulsive processes might not be as
relevant.
Another possibility is that there is a third variable that differentially correlates with motor impulsivity in men and wo-
men, and which correlates with hypnotic suggestibility. Indeed, Eysenck et al. (1985) reported stronger correlations of
impulsivity with extraversion in males than in females. Thus, men with low motor impulsivity might be less extraverted
than women with low motor impulsivity. As discussed above, extraversion tends to correlate with hypnotic suggestibility
(Malinoski & Lynn, 1999; Nordenstrom et al., 2002). This may then explain why men with low motor impulsivity exhibit
lower HGSHS:A scores than women with low motor impulsivity.
A final possible explanation for the discovered gender difference is that participants were influenced by the sex of the
speaker of the hypnosis tape and/or the experimenter interacting with the participants. It has, for example, been shown that
participants tend to help experimenters of the opposite sex more than experimenters of their own sex (Bickman, 1974), and
that male participants behave more competitively when an experiment is led by a woman rather than a man (Deutsch, Can-
avan, & Rubin, 1971). Such effects may also have played a role in the current study. However, it is difficult to guess how ex-
actly they may have led to gender differences in our results, because in this study the experimenters were female and the
speaker of the hypnosis tape was male. Both the sex of the experimenter and of the hypnotist might have influenced
men and women differentially.
4.7. Limitations and suggestions for future research
One limitation of our study is that our sample was restricted to right-handed participants and that the results may not
generalise to left-handed individuals. This is relevant because hypnotic suggestibility and hypnosis might interact with
handedness (e.g., Gur & Gur, 1974; Wallace & Persanyi, 1989). For example, left-handed individuals have been reported
to be more likely to score at the extreme ends of the HGSHS:A (high and low; Baran, 1970).
Regarding the results of the regression analysis, one also needs to keep in mind some limitations. The regressors that are
selected by stepwise multiple regression may sometimes depend on small variations in the data, and there is a risk of over-
fitting, as the procedure automatically selects (one of) the best possible regressor combinations to explain the sample data
(e.g., see Agresti & Finlay, 2009, Chapter 14). Even though the exact composition and the parameters of the final model
should not be over-interpreted, our conclusions are supported by the fact that our results were largely consistent with those
of Lichtenberg et al. (2004). That is, we identified self-control as a predictor of hypnotic suggestibility, while Lichtenberg
et al. identified TPQ persistence as a predictor; and we found that motor impulsivity tended to predict hypnotic suggestibility
in men only, while Lichtenberg et al. found a correlation between impulsivity (a subscale of the TPQ novelty seeking scale)
and hypnotic suggestibility in men only. Moreover, we found a zero-order correlation between non-planning impulsivity and
hypnotic suggestibility without any stepwise regression procedure, and this was significant after stringent correction for
multiple comparisons.
Concerning future research investigating the link between trait impulsivity/self-control and hypnotic suggestibility, we
suggest taking into account whether participants are high or low in dissociative tendencies. Possibly, the relation between
V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 647
impulsivity subscales and hypnotic suggestibility is more pronounced in high dissociative individuals, as it has been
proposed that altered executive functioning during hypnosis might exclusively play a role in high dissociative highs
(Terhune et al., 2011b). It should also be assessed whether non-planning impulsivity also correlates with suggestibility
outside a hypnotic context. Non-hypnotic suggestibility is highly correlated with hypnotic suggestibility (see Kirsch &
Braffman, 2001).
5. Conclusion
Our findings indicate that hypnotic suggestibility relates to personality traits linked with frontal functioning. That is, indi-
viduals with high non-planning impulsivity (i.e., those who are present-focused and who tend to dislike challenging mental
tasks) and those with high self-control (when holding non-planning impulsivity constant) respond best to hypnotic sugges-
tions. Moreover, in men only, motor impulsivity (i.e., the tendency to act on the spur of the moment and to live an incon-
sistent life style) might be positively linked with hypnotic suggestibility.
Acknowledgments
We thank Professor Walter Bongartz for providing the audio tape and the German questionnaire for the HGSHS:A. We
also thank Brian Tuohy, Andrew Wold, and Lloyd Murdoch for proof-reading and commenting on the manuscript. VUL
was funded by the VW-Foundation, the Berlin School of Mind and Brain and the German National Academic Foundation.
Appendix A.
See Table A1.
Table A1
All steps of the backward stepwise multiple regression procedure.
Independent variables B SE B ß p
Model 1 (R2 = .15, F = 2.20, p = .02)
Constant 6.36 0.20 .00 <.001
SRc �0.08 0.07 �.12 .25
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .20 .07
BIS-11 attentionc �0.13 0.10 �.13 .19
BIS-11 motorc 0.04 0.06 .03 .55
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.20 0.07 .31 .003
Gender 0.29 0.20 .11 .16
SRc � Gender 0.03 0.07 .04 .72
BSCc � Gender 0.02 0.04 .04 .69
BIS-11 attentionc � Gender 0.09 0.10 .10 .35
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.08 0.06 �.13 .18
BIS-11 non-planningc � Gender �0.05 0.07 �.08 .43
Model 2 (R2 = .14, F = 2.42, p = .01)
Constant 6.35 0.20 �.01 <.001
SRc �0.08 0.07 �.12 .27
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .20 .07
BIS-11 attentionc �0.12 0.10 �.12 .20
BIS-11 motorc 0.03 0.06 .03 .55
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.20 0.07 .31 .003
Gender 0.29 0.20 .11 .15
BSCc � Gender 0.02 0.04 .05 .58
BIS-11 attentionc � Gender 0.08 0.09 .08 .38
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.08 0.06 �.12 .19
BIS-11 non-planningc � Gender �0.05 0.07 �.08 .42
Model 3 (R2 = .14, F = 2.67, p = .007)
Constant 6.34 0.20 �.01 <.001
SRc �0.07 0.07 �.11 .29
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .19 .06
BIS-11 attentionc �0.12 0.10 �.12 .21
BIS-11 motorc 0.04 0.06 .33 .51
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.20 0.07 .11 .003
Gender 0.30 0.20 .06 .15
BIS-11 attentionc � Gender 0.06 0.08 .09 .46
648 V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653
Table A1 (continued)
Independent variables B SE B ß p
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.08 0.06 �.12 .16
BIS-11 non-planningc � Gender �0.06 0.06 �.09 .36
Model 4 (R2 = .14, F = 2.96, p = .004)
Constant 6.34 0.20 �.01 <.001
SRc �0.07 0.07 �.11 .32
BSCc 0.07 0.04 .19 .07
BIS-11 attentionc �0.12 0.10 �.12 .20
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.22 0.06 .32 <.001
Gender 0.29 0.20 .11 .15
BIS-11 attentionc � Gender 0.06 0.08 .06 .46
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.07 0.06 �.13 .18
BIS-11 non-planningc � Gender �0.07 0.06 �.10 .29
Model 5 (R2 = .14, F = 3.31, p = .003)
Constant 6.36 0.20 .00 <.001
SRc �0.06 0.07 �.10 .34
BSCc 0.07 0.04 .19 .07
BIS-11 attentionc �0.12 0.10 �.14 .19
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.22 0.06 .33 <.001
Gender 0.29 0.20 .11 .15
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.08 0.06 �.13 .16
BIS-11 non-planningc � Gender �0.05 0.06 �.07 .41
Model 6 (R2 = .13, F = 3.76, p = .002)
Constant 6.36 0.20 �.01 <.001
SRc �0.06 0.07 �.10 .36
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .19 .06
BIS-11 attentionc �0.12 0.10 �.14 .19
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.21 0.06 .33 <.001
Gender 0.30 0.20 .12 .14
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.10 0.05 �.17 .03
Model 7 (R2 = .13, F = 4.34, p = .001)
Constant 6.35 0.20 �.01 <.001
BSCc 0.06 0.04 .16 .09
BIS-11 attentionc �0.08 0.08 �.09 .32
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.21 0.06 .33 <.001
Gender 0.32 0.20 .12 .12
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.10 0.05 �.17 .03
Model 8 (R2 = .12, F = 5.19, p < .001)
Constant 6.35 0.20 �.01 <.001
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .20 .03
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.19 0.05 .30 <.001
Gender 0.30 0.20 .12 .13
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.11 0.05 �.17 .03
Model 9 (R2 = .11, F = 6.10, p < .001)
Constant 6.41 0.20 �.01 <.001
BSCc 0.07 0.04 .18 .04
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.19 0.05 .29 <.001
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.10 0.05 �.17 .03
Model 10 (R2 = .13, F = 4.27, p = .001)
Constant 6.35 0.20 �.01 <.001
BSCc 0.08 0.04 .20 .03
BIS-11 motorc 0.04 0.05 .04 .42
BIS-11 non-planningc 0.17 0.06 .28 .004
Gender 0.31 0.20 .12 .13
BIS-11 motorc � Gender �0.11 0.05 �.17 .03
Note: Bs are unstandardized, ß are standardized coefficients; R2 are unadjusted; SE: standard error. N = 154. Since the standardized betas calculated by SPSS
for models containing interactions are incorrect (Aiken and West, 1991, pp. 40–47), standardized coefficients were determined as recommended by
Friedrich (1982, p. 824). Due to this procedure, the standardized coefficients for the intercepts are not exactly 0. The c-subscript indicates that variables
V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 649
Appendix B. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.concog.2013.04.001.
References
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Aiktns, D., & Ray, W. J. (2001). Frontal lobe contributions to hypnotic susceptibility: A neuropsychological screening of executive functioning. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 49(4), 320–329.Angelini, F. J., Kumar, V. K., & Chandler, L. (1999). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and related instruments: Individual and group
administrations. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47(3), 236–250.Baran, P. (1970). Handedness and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 18(2), 99–104.Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. (1964). Hypnotizability, suggestibility, and personality: IV. A study with the Leary Interpersonal Check List. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 3(2), 149–150.Bentler, P. M. (1963). Trust and hypnosis. Santa Monica: Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association.Bentler, P. M., & Roberts, M. R. (1963). Hypnotic susceptibility assessed in large groups. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 11(2),
93–97.Bertrams, A., & Dickhäuser, O. (2009). Messung dispositioneller Selbstkontroll-Kapazität: Eine deutsche Adaptation der Kurzform der Self-Control Scale
(SCS-K-D). [Measuring dispositional self-control capacity: A German adaptation of the Brief Self-Control Scale (SCS-K-D)]. Diagnostica, 55(1), 2–10.Bickman, L. (1974). Sex and helping behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 93(1).Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.Blakemore, S. J., Oakley, D. A., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Delusions of alien control in the normal brain. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 1058–1067.Bongartz, W. (1980). Harvard Hypnosetest für Gruppen, Form A [Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A]. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Bongartz, W. (1985). German norms for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 33(2), 131–139.Bowers, K. S. (1971). Sex and susceptibility as moderator variables in the relationship of creativity and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 78(1), 93–100.Bowers, K. S. (1992). Imagination and dissociation in hypnotic responding. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40(4), 253–275.Bowers, K. S. (1993). The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) scale of hypnotic susceptibility: Normative and comparative data. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(1), 35–46.Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (2001). Reaction time as a predictor of imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Contemporary Hypnosis, 18(3), 107–119.Bryant, R. A., & Idey, A. (2001). Intrusive thoughts and hypnotizability. Contemporary Hypnosis, 18(1), 14–20.Cardeña, E., Lehmann, D., Faber, P. L., Jönsson, P., Milz, P., Pascual-Marqui, R. D., et al (2012). EEG sLORETA functional imaging during hypnotic arm levitation
and voluntary arm lifting. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 60(1).Cardeña, E., Terhune, D. B., Lööf, A., & Buratti, S. (2008). Hypnotic experience is related to emotional contagion. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 57(1), 33–46.Carlson, E. B., & Putnam, F. W. (1993). An update on the Dissociative Experiences Scale. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders, 6(1), 16–27.Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, M., et al (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years
later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(36), 14998–15003.Chan, R. C. K., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical
issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2), 201–216.Chen, A. C. H., Porjesz, B., Rangaswamy, M., Kamarajan, C., Tang, Y., Jones, K. A., et al (2007). Reduced frontal lobe activity in subjects with high impulsivity
and alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31(1), 156–165.Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Assessment of the impulsive-compulsive spectrum of behaviour by the seven-factor model of temperament and character. In J. M.
Oldham, E. Hollander, & A. E. Skodol (Eds.), Impulsivity and compulsivity. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12),
975–990.Cloninger, C. R., Zohar, A. H., Hirschmann, S., & Dahan, D. (2012). The psychological costs and benefits of being highly persistent: Personality profiles
distinguish mood disorders from anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136(3), 758–766.Coe, W. C. (1964). Further norms on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
12(3), 184–190.Coe, W. C., Kobayashi, K., & Howard, M. L. (1973). Experimental and ethical problems of evaluating the influence of hypnosis in antisocial conduct. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 82(3), 476–482.Cojan, Y., Waber, L., Schwartz, S., Rossier, L., Forster, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2009). The brain under self-control: Modulation of inhibitory and monitoring
cortical networks during hypnotic paralysis. Neuron, 62(6), 862–875.Crawford, H. J., Brown, A. M., & Moon, C. E. (1993). Sustained attentional and disattentional abilities: Differences between low and highly hypnotizable
persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 534–543.Crawford, H. J., Harrison, D. W., & Kapelis, L. (1995). Visual field asymmetry in facial affect perception: Moderating effects of hypnosis, hypnotic
susceptibility level, absorption, and sustained attentional abilities. International Journal of Neuroscience, 82(1–2), 11–23.Crews, F. T., & Boettiger, C. A. (2009). Impulsivity, frontal lobes and risk for addiction. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 93(3), 237–247.Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M. M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of
unsafe driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(2), 341–348.de Wit, H., Flory, J. D., Acheson, A., McCloskey, M., & Manuck, S. B. (2007). IQ and nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay
discounting in middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(1), 111–121.Deutsch, M., Canavan, D., & Rubin, J. (1971). The effects of size of conflict and sex of experimenter upon interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 7(2), 258–267.Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1),
95–102.Dienes, Z., & Hutton, S. (2013). Understanding hypnosis metacognitively: rTMS applied to left DLPFC increases hypnotic suggestibility. Cortex, 49(2),
386–392.Dienes, Z., Brown, E., Hutton, S., Kirsch, I., Mazzoni, G., & Wright, D. B. (2009). Hypnotic suggestibility, cognitive inhibition, and dissociation. Consciousness
and Cognition, 18(4), 837–847.Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (2007). Executive control without conscious awareness: The cold control theory of hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and
conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 293–314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
650 V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653
Dixon, M., Labelle, L., & Laurence, J.-R. (1996). A multivariate approach to the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 44(3), 250–264.
Dixon, M., & Laurence, J.-R. (1992). Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal automaticity: Automatic and strategic processing differences in the Stroop color-naming task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(2), 344–347.
Dougherty, D. M., Mathias, C. W., Marsh, D. M., & Jagar, A. A. (2005). Laboratory behavioral measures of impulsivity. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 82–90.Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268.Earleywine, M., Finn, P. R., Peterson, J. B., & Pihl, R. O. (1992). Factor structure and correlates of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 53(3), 233–238.Egner, T., Jamieson, G., & Gruzelier, J. (2005). Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe. NeuroImage, 27(4),
969–978.Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 348–361.Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6(5), 613–619.Eysenck, S. B. G., & Zuckerman, M. (1978). The relationship between sensation-seeking and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality. British Journal of Psychology,
69(4), 483–487.Farley, F. H., & Farley, S. V. (1970). Impulsiveness, sociability, and the preference for varied experience. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31(1), 47–50.Farvolden, P., & Woody, E. Z. (2004). Hypnosis, memory, and frontal executive functioning. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 52(1),
3–26.Fillmore, M. T., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1999). An alcohol model of impaired inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 7(1), 49–55.Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 797–833.Friese, M., & Hofmann, W. (2009). Control me or I will control you: Impulses, trait self-control, and the guidance of behavior. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(5), 795–805.Glisky, M. L., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1993). Hypnotizability and facets of openness. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(2),
112–123.Glisky, M. L., Tataryn, D. J., Tobias, B. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., & McConkey, K. M. (1991). Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 263–272.Gruzelier, J. (1998). A working model of the neurophysiology of hypnosis: A review of evidence. Contemporary Hypnosis, 15(1), 3–21.Gruzelier, J., & Warren, K. (1993). Neuropsychological evidence of left frontal inhibition with hypnosis. Psychological Medicine, 23, 93–101.Gullo, M. J., & Dawe, S. (2008). Impulsivity and adolescent substance use: Rashly dismissed as ‘‘all-bad’’? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(8),
1507–1518.Gur, R. C., & Gur, R. E. (1974). Handedness, sex, and eyedness as moderating variables in the relation between hypnotic susceptibility and functional brain
asymmetry. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(6), 635–643.Hair, P., & Hampson, S. E. (2006). The role of impulsivity in predicting maladaptive behaviour among female students. Personality and Individual Differences,
40(5), 943–952.Halligan, P. W., Athwal, B. S., Oakley, D. A., & Frackowiak, R. S. (2000). Imaging hypnotic paralysis: Implications for conversion hysteria. Lancet, 355(9208),
986–987.Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. E. (2012). Cautions regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with
interactions. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(1), 1–11.Hilgard, E. R. (1991). A neodissociation interpretation of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives
(pp. 83–104). New York: Guilford Press.Iani, C., Ricci, F., Baroni, G., & Rubichi, S. (2009). Attention control and susceptibility to hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(4), 856–863.Iani, C., Ricci, F., Gherri, E., & Rubichi, S. (2006). Hypnotic suggestion modulates cognitive conflict. Psychological Science, 17(8), 721–727.Johnston, T. L., & Jaremko, M. E. (1979). Correlational analysis of suggestibility, self-preoccupation, styles of loving, and sensation seeking. Psychological
Reports, 45(1), 23–26.Kaiser, J., Barker, R., Haenschel, C., Baldeweg, T., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1997). Hypnosis and event-related potential correlates of error-processing in a Stroop-
type paradigm: A test of the frontal hypothesis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27(3), 215–222.Kalenscher, T., Ohmann, T., & Güntürkün, O. (2006). The neuroscience of impulsive and self-controlled decisions. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
62(2), 203–211.Kallio, S., Revonsuo, A., Hämäläinen, H., Markela, J., & Gruzelier, J. (2001). Anterior brain functions and hypnosis: A test of the frontal hypothesis.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 49(2), 95–108.Kihlstrom, J. F., Diaz, W. A., McClellan, G. E., Ruskin, P. M., Pistole, D. D., & Shor, R. E. (1980). Personality correlates of hypnotic susceptibility: Needs for
achievement and autonomy, self-monitoring, and masculinity-femininity. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22(4), 225–230.Kirsch, I., & Braffman, W. (2001). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 57–61.Kirsch, I., Council, J. R., & Wickless, C. (1990). Subjective scoring for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 38(2), 112–124.Koff, E., & Lucas, M. (2011). Mood moderates the relationship between impulsiveness and delay discounting. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7),
1018–1022.Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & Cummings, J. (1996). Trait factors, state effects, and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
44(3), 232–249.Lau, H. C., & Passingham, R. E. (2006). Relative blindsight in normal observers and the neural correlate of visual consciousness. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(49), 18763–18768.Lhermitte, F. (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes. Part II: Patient behavior in complex and social situations: The environmental dependency
syndrome. Annals of Neurology, 19(4), 335–343.Lichtenberg, P., Bachner-Melman, R., Ebstein, R. P., & Crawford, H. J. (2004). Hypnotic susceptibility: Multidimensional relationships with Cloninger’s
Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, COMT polymorphisms, absorption, and attentional characteristics. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 52(1), 47–72.
Lyvers, M. (2000). Loss of control in alcoholism and drug addiction: A neuroscientific interpretation. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8(2),225–249.
Malinoski, P. T., & Lynn, S. J. (1999). The plasticity of early memory reports: Social pressure, hypnotizability, compliance and interrogative suggestibility.International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47(4), 320–345.
Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Terhune, D. B., & Cardeña, E. (2012). Individual differences and state effects on mind-wandering: Hypnotizability, dissociation, andsensory homogenization. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1097–1108.
McConkey, K. M., Sheehan, P. W., & Law, H. G. (1980). Structural analysis of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journalof Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 28(2), 164–175.
McGeown, W. J., Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., & Kirsch, I. (2009). Hypnotic induction decreases anterior default mode activity. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(4),848–855.
Mendelsohn, A., Chalamish, Y., Solomonovich, A., & Dudai, Y. (2008). Mesmerizing memories: Brain substrates of episodic memory suppression inposthypnotic amnesia. Neuron, 57(1), 159–170.
V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 651
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., et al (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review ofevidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56(2), 128–165.
Milling, L. S., Kirsch, I., & Burgess, C. (2000). Hypnotic suggestibility and absorption: Revisiting the context effect. Contemporary Hypnosis, 17(1), 32–41.Milling, L. S., Miller, D. S., Newsome, D. L., & Necrason, E. S. (2013). Hypnotic responding and the five factor personality model: Hypnotic analgesia and
openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 128–131.Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938.Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex frontal lobe’’tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.Mobini, S., Grant, A., Kass, A. E., & Yeomans, M. R. (2007). Relationships between functional and dysfunctional impulsivity, delay discounting and cognitive
distortions. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1517–1528.Mobini, S., Pearce, M., Grant, A., Mills, J., & Yeomans, M. R. (2006). The relationship between cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and sensation seeking in a
non-clinical population sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1153–1163.Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and
public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7), 2693–2698.Murphy, C., & MacKillop, J. (2012). Living in the here and now: Interrelationships between impulsivity, mindfulness, and alcohol misuse.
Psychopharmacology, 219(2), 527–536.Nadon, R., Hoyt, I. P., Register, P. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1991). Absorption and hypnotizability: Context effects reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60(1), 144–153.Nebioglu, M., Konuk, N., Akbaba, S., & Eroglu, Y. (2012). The investigation of validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Brief Self-Control Scale. BCP,
22(4), 340–351.Nordenstrom, B. K., Council, J. R., & Meier, B. P. (2002). The ‘‘big five’’ and hypnotic suggestibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
50(3), 276–281.Norman, D., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.).
Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768–774.Perret, E. (1974). The left frontal lobe of man and the suppression of habitual responses in verbal categorical behaviour. Neuropsychologia, 12(3), 323–330.Peters, J. E., Dhanens, T. P., Lundy, R. M., & Landy, F. J. (1974). A factor analytic investigation of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 22(4), 377–387.Peterson, J. B., Rothfleisch, J., Zelazo, P. D., & Pihl, R. O. (1990). Acute alcohol intoxication and cognitive functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51(2),
114–122.Preuss, U. W., Rujescu, D., Giegling, I., Watzke, S., Koller, G., Zetzsche, T., et al (2008). Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschsprachigen Version der Barratt-
Impulsiveness-Skala [Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale]. Der Nervenarzt, 79(3), 305–319.Putnam, F. W., Helmers, K., & Trickett, P. K. (1993). Development, reliability, and validity of a child dissociation scale. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17(6),
731–741.Quilty, L. C., & Oakman, J. M. (2004). The assessment of behavioural activation: The relationship between impulsivity and behavioural activation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 37(2), 429–442.Radtke, H. L., & Stam, H. J. (1991). The relationship between absorption, openness to experience, anhedonia, and susceptibility. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 39(1), 39–56.Raz, A., Fan, J., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Hypnotic suggestion reduces conflict in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 102(28), 9978–9983.Renner, B., Salewski, C., Strohbach, S., & Sproesser, G. (2009). German translation of the Brief Self-Control Scale. <http://www.psychologie.uni-konstanz.de/
forschung/diagnostik/home2/forschung/messinstrumente/> Retrieved 23.08.12.Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40(2), 305–315.Richter, T. (2007). Wie analysiert man Interaktionen von metrischen und kategorialen Prädiktoren? Nicht mit Median-Splits! [How to analyze interactions
of metric and categorical predictors? Not with median splits!]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 19(3), 116–125.Rosenthal, D. (2005). Consciousness and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rounis, E., Maniscalco, B., Rothwell, J., Passingham, R. E., & Lau, H. C. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs
metacognitive visual awareness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(3), 165–175.Rubichi, S., Ricci, F., Padovani, R., & Scaglietti, L. (2005). Hypnotic susceptibility, baseline attentional functioning, and the Stroop task. Consciousness and
Cognition, 14, 296–303.Schwarzer, R., Diehl, M., & Schmitz, G. S. (1999). Self-Regulation Scale. <http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen> Retrieved 01.03.11.Schweizer, T. A., Vogel-Sprott, M., Danckert, J., Roy, E. A., Skakum, A., & Broderick, C. E. (2005). Neuropsychological profile of acute alcohol intoxication
during ascending and descending blood alcohol concentrations. Neuropsychopharmacology, 31(6), 1301–1309.Semmens-Wheeler, R., & Dienes, Z. (in press). Alcohol increases hypnotic susceptibility. Consciousness and Cognition.Semmens-Wheeler, R., & Dienes, Z. (2012). The contrasting role of higher order awareness in hypnosis and meditation. The Journal of Mind-Body Regulation,
2(1), 43–57.Sheehan, P. W., & McConkey, K. M. (1979). Australian norms for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, 27(3), 294–304.Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, USA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1963). Norms on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 11(1), 39–47.Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.Spinella, M. (2004). Neurobehavioral correlates of impulsivity: Evidence of prefrontal involvement. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114(1), 95–104.Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., Mathias, C. W., & Brumbelow, J. L. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of high-school
and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(6), 1073–1075.Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update
and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 385–395.Stratton, K. J. (2006). Mindfulness-based approaches to impulsive behaviors. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 49–71.Szechtman, H., Woody, E., Bowers, K. S., & Nahmias, C. (1998). Where the imaginal appears real: A positron emission tomography study of auditory
hallucinations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(4), 1956–1960.Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 271–322.Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (‘‘absorption’’), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277.Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011a). Differential frontal-parietal phase synchrony during hypnosis as a function of hypnotic suggestibility.
Psychophysiology, 48(10), 1444–1447.Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011b). Dissociated control as a signature of typological variability in high hypnotic suggestibility. Consciousness
and Cognition, 20(3), 727–736.
652 V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653
Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011c). Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility. CognitiveNeuropsychiatry, 16(2), 113–135.
Varga, K., Németh, Z., & Szekely, A. (2011). Lack of correlation between hypnotic susceptibility and various components of attention. Consciousness andCognition, 20(4), 1872–1881.
Wagstaff, G. F., Cole, J. C., & Brunas-Wagstaff, J. (2007). Effects of hypnotic induction and hypnotic depth on phonemic fluency: A test of the frontal inhibitionaccount of hypnosis. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(1), 27–40.
Wallace, B., & Persanyi, M. W. (1989). Hypnotic susceptibility and familial handedness. Journal of General Psychology, 116(4), 345–350.Wallace, B., & Persanyi, M. W. (1993). Imaging ability, hypnotic susceptibility, and responses to imagery-laden words. Journal of Mental Imagery, 17(3–4),
195–206.Waller, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Tellegen, A., & Lykken, D. T. (1991). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: structural validity and comparison with the
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(1), 1–23.Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1980). Hypnotic susceptibility revisited. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22, 130–146.West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of
Personality, 64(1), 1–48.Wickramasekera, I. E., & Szlyk, J. P. (2003). Could empathy be a predictor of hypnotic ability? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51(4),
390–399.Will Crescioni, A., Ehrlinger, J., Alquist, J. L., Conlon, K. E., Baumeister, R. F., Schatschneider, C., et al (2011). High trait self-control predicts positive health
behaviors and success in weight loss. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(5), 750–759.Woody, E. Z., & Bowers, K. S. (1994). A frontal assault on dissociated control. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical perspectives
(pp. 52–79). New York, US: Guilford Press.Woody, E. Z., & Sadler, P. (1998). On reintegrating dissociated theories: Comment on Kirsch and Lynn. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 192–197.Woody, E. Z., & Sadler, P. (2008). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research and
practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zachariae, R., Jorgensen, M. M., & Christensen, S. (2000). Hypnotizability and absorption in a Danish sample: Testing the influence of context. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48(3), 306–314.Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Zuckerman, M., Bone, R. N., Neary, R., Mangelsdorff, D., & Brustman, B. (1972). What is the sensation seeker? Personality trait and experience correlates of
the Sensation-Seeking Scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 308–321.Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139–149.Zuckerman, M., Schultz, D. P., & Hopkins, T. R. (1967). Sensation seeking and volunteering for sensory deprivation and hypnosis experiments. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 31(4), 358–363.
V.U. Ludwig et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 22 (2013) 637–653 653