This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (5)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David Spiegel, MD
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, CA 94305 Warren W. Tryon, PhD Fordham University Bronx, NY 10458 Edward J. Frischholz, PhD Herbert Spiegel, MD Columbia University New York, NY 10029

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(8):972-974.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—There is widespread agreement that measurement of hypnotic responsivity has been a seminal contribution to the field of hypnosis. It has enabled disciplined scientific investigation to relate the trait of hypnotizability to a variety of other measures of personality, psychopathology, treatment outcome, and neurophysiologic phenomena. Dr Hilgard, whose article (see p 963) is critical of one aspect of our work, has made major contributions to the development of the field. Inevitably, there will be disagreements about measurement instruments, and it is unlikely that any one instrument will be the best measuring device in all situations. It is within this context that we examined Hilgard's critique of the hypothesis that the eye-roll sign (ER) is lawfully related to measured hypnotic responsivity on both theoretical and statistical grounds.

Hilgard stated that the apparent relationship between the ER and hypnotizability is illusory. The crux of this allegation is that we . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?