Prediction of Hypnotic Susceptibility from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: Negative Finding
Studies relating hypnotic susceptibility to aspects of personality measured by various personality inventories have generally been nonproductive ( 2 ) . Findings are either insignificant or conflicting, with subsequent studies yielding relationships which are inconsistent with those previously obtained (1) . Studies which have related the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables to hypnotic susceptibilicy seem to follow these same patterns. For college and nursing Ss, the Edwards' variable of Affiliation related to a low but significant degree with hypnotic susceptibility measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale in one study ( 6 ) . A subsequent study employing these scales failed to support this relationship but indicated that susceptibility was related to low scores on the combination of Autonomy, Dominance, and Aggression ( 7 ) . Barber and Calverley ( 3 ) found no meaningful relationships for college Ss between Edwards variables and hypnotizability as measured by the Barber Suggestibility Scale. The present study related Edwards variables to hypnotic susceptibility of college Ss as measured by Form A of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Twenty-four volunteer college Ss enrolled in an introductory psychology class were administered the Edwards and the Harvard scales. The mean scores on each of the fifteen Edwards variables were within one standard deviation of the respective means of the college standardization sample1 ( 4 ) . The mean susceptibility score was 7.46 + 2.76 which did not differ from the standardization mean of 7.41 2 3.04 ( 5 ) . Thus, the sample, although small, was re resentative of a broader population of undergraduate college students. ~ a n k o r L r correlations were computed between each Edwards variable and Harvard scores. Only Abasement ( r . = .41) was significantly related to hypnotic susceptibility ( p < .05). Since 15 correlations were run, even this significant relationship could have occurred by chance. The relationship accounts for too little of the total variance to permit meaningful prediction. Results support the negative findings of Barber and Calverley ( 3 ) and are consistent with the more general conclusion that hypnotic susceptibility cannot be meaningfully predicted from personality characteristics assessed by present-day personality inventories.