See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292966753

Creativity and Hypnotizability in Creative Individuals

Thesis · April 2013

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1568.1042

CITATIONS READS
0 214

1 author:

Scott Hoye
Chicago Psychology Services
8 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Relationship of Absorption to Outcomes in Biofeedback View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Scott Hoye on 03 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

CREATIVITY AND HYPNOTIZABELITY IN CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF

THE ADLER SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

BY

Scott Hoye, M.A., L.P.C.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

CHICAGO, IL APRIL 2013

 UMI Number: 3578549

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Di!ss0?t&iori P iiblist’Mlg

UMI 3578549
Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 ABSTRACT

Creativity and hypnosis have been considered related traits since the 1960s. A great deal

of research supports this through the study of quantitative measures of both traits. This

study was undertaken in order to replicate research correlating creativity and

hypnotizability, but among individuals considered more creative than the general

population. Thirty two subjects (n=32) involved in creative fields were administered a

battery of hypnosis and creativity measures consisting of the Harvard Group Scale of

Hypnotic Suggestibility Form A, the Tellegen Absorption Scale, the Abbreviated

Torrance Tests for Adults, and the O Index of the NEO-PI-R O Index. Six relationships

were hypothesized among the variables, and null was rejected only in one; there was a

significant correlation between the personality measure of hypnotizability, as represented

by the Tellegen Absorption Scale, and the personality measure of creativity, the NEO-PI-

R O Index. The scores on these two tests individually were both one and two standard

deviations above population norms respectively. The sample means for the Harvard

Group Scale of Hypnotic Suggestibility Form A and were below the population norms,

and the samples means for the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults were average. It

was concluded that the extremely high scores on the Tellegen Absorption Scale and the O

Index skewed the results for correlations among all the scores. A main implication of the

results was that populations that rank extremely high in aspects of creativity might

produce dissipation in the correlation to hypnotizability.

 Committee Page

Jerry Westermeyer, Ph.D. Chair, Core Faculty

Adler School of Professional Psychology

Janna Henning, Psy.D. Reader, Core Faculty

Adler School of Professional Psychology

Stephen P. Kahn, Ph.D. Reader, Director

Institute for Clinical Hypnosis & Research

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project took a number of twists and turns as it unfolded. Many

individuals have assisted me and supported and encouraged me along the way and

I am extremely indebted to them.

Many thanks to Dr. Stephen Kahn for his diligence and perseverance in

continuing to guide the project as it moved along; at times tortoise like, at other

times like a hare. Were it not for his knowledge and skill in hypnosis and

creativity research, I would not have even noticed a starting gate from which to

proceed.

I am extremely appreciative of all of the art therapists who showed

enthusiasm and interest in this study. Most especially, I must thank Kimberly

Darovec, Heather Leigh, and Stephanie Owens. Thank you kindly for you

assistance.

1 also would like to thank Eric Wilmarth for his assistance with procuring

the recording for the HGSHS: A. I thank John Kihlstrom, Edward Frischholz, and

Ron Pekala for their assistance with the information on hypnotizability measures,

and David Paul Smith for his encouragement and help along the way.

I offer my thanks to the Adler School of Professional Psychology’s Art

therapy Department: many thanks to Debra Paskind, Gail Roy, and Lariza Fenner

for allowing me to speak in your seminars in support of this project.

 To Dr. Westermeyer a strong thanks for his sage advice and for stepping

in when I needed help, and Dr. Henning for contributing her time, support, and

suggestions.

Most importantly, thanks to my lovely wife, Shabnam, without whose

insight and support I wouldn’t have started on the journey.

 Scott Hoye, M A., L.P.C.
Education

2013 (Expected) Doctoral Degree; Clinical Psychology, Psy.D.

Adler School of Professional Psychology
Dissertation: Creativity & Hypnotizability
In Creative Individuals

2008 Masters of Arts Degree; Counseling Psychology, M.A.

Adler School of Professional Psychology

1995 Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree; B.F.A.

Eastern Michigan University

Licensure: Licensed Professional Counselor, State of Illinois,

License Number: 178006865

Supervised Clinical Experience

2012-Present Gateway Foundation—West Side, Chicago, IL

Pre-Doctoral Internship

2011-2012 Gateway Foundation—West Side, Chicago, IL

Advanced Externship

2010-2011 Integrative Psyche Services, St Bernard Hospital, Chicago, IL

Therapy Externship

2009-2010 Mental Health and Deafness Resources at Maryville, Scott

Nolan Center
Diagnostic Externship

2007-2008 Haymarket Center—Chicago, IL

MA Internship

Teaching Experience

9/10—12/10 Adler School of Professional Psychology—Chicago, IL

Teaching Assistant for Cognitive & Intellectual Assessment
 V

10/10 Chicago Society of Clinical Hypnosis—Chicago, IL

Faculty for Hypnosis Training Workshop

09/08—12/09 Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL

Teaching Assistant for Basic Psychotherapy Skills

Research Experience

2013 Hoye, S., Creativity & Hypnotizability in Creative

Individuals. Dissertation at the Adler School of
Professional Psychology,
Chicago, IL.

2009—2010 Adler School of Professional Psychology—Chicago, IL

Research Assistant to Stephen Kahn, Hypnosis Department

Publications
Smith, D.P., & Hoye, S. (Eds.), (2013). Special issue on
hypnosis and indigenous healing. The International
Journal of Health Promotion and Education. (In
press).

Hoye, S. (2008). The breakout heuristic. [Review of the

book The Breakout Heuristic: The New
Neuroscience of Mirror Neurons, Consciousness
and Human Creativity in Human Relationships].
The Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 36,(1), 95-96.

Posters, Papers, Professional Presentations, & Awards

Recipient: 2012 Society of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis Award for Student Leadership in
Hypnosis.

Godot, D., Kahn, S., Hoye, S., Kirk, R. & Fairless, L.

(2010, October). Hypnosis and anger management
Poster session presented at The Society of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis 2010 Annual
Conference, Boston, MA.
 Francis, T. & Hoye, S. (2010, June). SEL: Leveling the
educational playing fields across socio-economic
systems. Poster session presented at the Institute on
Social Exclusion Conference, Chicago, IL.

Hoye, S., & Francis, T. (2007, November). Social and

emotional learning in Illinois public schools. Poster
session presented at the Illinois Psychological
Association, Schaumberg, IL.

Professional Affiliations

Psi Chi Honors Society

American Psychological Association
APA Division 30
Midwestern Psychological Association
American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
Chicago Society of Clinical Hypnosis
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE 1

ABSTRACT 2

COMMITTEE PAGE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

CURRICULUM VITAE iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER D. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14

Creativity: Definitions & Measurement 14

Hypnosis: Definitions & Measurement 24

Creativity & Hypnosis Research 30

Conclusion 45

CHAPTER m. METHODOLOGY 47

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 56

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 61

REFFERENCES 67

Appendix A Informed Consent Form 76

Appendix B Ad Copy for Subject Recruitment 78

Appendix C Speech for Subject Recruitment 79

 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Frequency Distributions of Subject Demographic Variables 80

Table 2 Study Means vs. Normed Means of Measures 81

Table 3 Reliability Coefficients 82

Table 4 Intercorrelations of All Measures 83

Table 5 Score Differences for All Measures by Gender 84

Table 6 Score Differences for All Measures by Sample 85

(
 3

Chapter 1

Introduction

The link between creativity and hypnosis has been explored since the

middle of the 20th century (Bowers, 1967; Bowers, 1978; Lynne & Sivec, 1992;

Shames & Bowers, 1992). A major similarity that has intrigued researchers is

that both processes involve a shift in consciousness. Hypnosis is a ritualized shift

from normal, waking consciousness into a more fluid state, with increased

concentration and absorption (Brown & Fromm, 1986). Creativity also has been

likened to a shift from the normal state of consciousness to one of increased

concentration, absorption, and fluidity of effort (Krippner, 1965;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Shames & Bowers, 1992).

An overview of earlier literature shows variability in the size of

correlations between the measures of hypnosis and creativity, found across a

variety of studies (Lynne & Sivec, 1992). Results point to highly hypnotizable

subjects generally scoring higher on scales of creativity (Bowers & van der

Meullen, 1970; Bowers, 1967; Shames & Bowers 1992). There is also evidence

that hypnotized subjects can perform significantly better on tasks of creativity

measures (Bowers, 1967). A number of case studies support this, and they mainly

entail the use of hypnosis to enhance products with individuals in creative fields,

such as artists, musicians, and actors, which have implications of the covariance

of these two traits; if the two are related, hypnotic procedures should be able to
 4

stimulate creativity in individuals who are hypnotizable (Mellegren, 1976; Banos

& Singer, 1981; Fowler, 1988; Perri, 2003; Council, Bromley, Zabelina,

&Waters, 2007). Creativity has long been construed in terms of a stable

personality trait, as well as the cognitive aspects initially hypothesized by

Guilford, a major contributor to intelligence and creativity research, over 60 years

ago (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Guilford, 1950).

If hypnotizability and creativity do correlate, it would follow that both trait

and cognitive measures should substantiate this. Hypnosis has been described as

a process but also has cognitive aspects to it (Yapko, 2003). For example, the

Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS) and the HGSH: A have questions

that are designed to pull for process (motoric) and cognitive (internal experiences,

such as positive hallucinations) (Yapko). It also has been seen to correlate with

stable trait aspects of personality, particularly absorption (Tellegen & Atkinson,

1974; Fromm & Kahn, 1990; Roche & McConkey, 1990). Measures of creativity

are also constructed based on cognitive (divergent thinking tests such as the

Guilford and Torrance Tests of Creativity) and personality traits, such as the O

Index of the NEO-PI-R Scale). Thus, if hypnosis and creativity were truly

related, the results of their comparative study with individuals who are presumed

higher in creativity would produce statistically significant results on all of the

measures used in this study.

 5

The significant correlations between hypnotizability and creativity have

been demonstrated by the use of cognitive, divergent thinking psychometrics and

standardized measures of hypnotizability (Lynn & Sivec, 1992; Shames &

Bowers, 1992). However, overall, there has been very little significant correlation

found between hypnotizability and personality traits, and, more specifically,

between personality measures of creativity and measures of hypnotizability

(Green, 2004), including the use of Five-factor personality model tests, such as

the NEO-PI-R. The studies using these measures will be elucidated in the

literature review.

This current study attempted to confirm the correlations between process

and trait measures of hypnosis and cognitive and trait measures of creativity in an

effort to add to the existing literature. The sample population was assumed to be

high in both areas based on the overall assumptions in the literature (Shames &

Bowers, 1992; Lynne & Sivec, 1992) and expected, therefore, to produce results

higher than the population norms for the tests used in general, as well as higher

correlations among the measures.

There is some suggestion that females score statistically significantly

higher on measures of both creativity and hypnosis (Bowers, 1978; Lynne &

Sivec, 1992; Shames & Bowers, 1992; Green, 2004). This was initially posited

due to the belief that females would be more responsive to external stimuli in the

form of hypnotic suggestions. It would follow that there is a possibility that the
 6

scores for female subjects in the current study would also follow a similar patter

compared to male subjects.

Statement of Problem

The current study was undertaken to replicate sound previous correlational

studies that compare creativity, as measured by the Abbreviated Torrance Test for

Adults (ATTA) (Goff & Torrance, 2002) and hypnotizability, as measured by the

Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility Form A (HGSHS: A) (Shor &

Ome, 1962) and the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS) (Tellegen & Atkinson,

1974). In addition, a more contemporary trait measure of creativity, the Openness

(O) Index of the Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R O Index) (Costa &

McRae, 1992) was utilized in an effort to further examine the constructs. By and

large, most studies only utilize divergent thinking measures. This study attempted

to look at the relation between personality and divergent thinking and

hypnotizability. In addition, the ATTA, and relatively new measure, has not

previously been administered in such studies, and its inclusion would add to the

literature.

This study focused on a subgroup of the general population, creative

individuals, as they are considered higher in creativity due to the nature of their

work in their fields and should yield higher scores on creativity measures.

Collecting data from this subgroup of the population was an attempt to ensure that
 7

creativity would be at a high level and that the correlation to hypnotizability

would be more likely to be robust.

With the above in mind, the following questions were formulated:

Research Question One: Will creative individuals, considered more creative

than the general population, score higher than the general population on measures

of both creativity and hypnotizability?

Research Question Two: Will the process measure of hypnotizability (HGSH:

A) correlate with the contemporary trait measure of creativity (NEO-PI-R O

Scale)?

Research Question Three: Will the trait measure of creativity (NEO-PI-R O

Index) correlate in the same manner to previous, cognitive measures of creativity

(ATTA) and hypnotizability (HGSHS: A and the TAS)?

Research Question Four: Will female subjects produce higher scores on

hypnotizability and creativity than male subjects?

Hypotheses

1. In general, individuals who score high on measures of hypnotizability will

score high on scales of creativity, and low hypnotizables will score low on

creativity measures, compared to the population norms of the measures.

2. The creative population sample we are studying will have higher scores than

average on the tests of creativity and also on the tests of hypnotizability compared

to the population norms for the tests. Female subjects in our sample will produce
 8

statistically significant higher scores on both creativity and hypnosis than male

subjects.

3. The cognitive measure of creativity (ATTA) and the process measure of

hypnotizability (HGSHS: A) will correlate significantly in a low to moderate

range.

4. The established process measure of hypnotizability (HGSHS: A) and the

established trait measure of hypnotizability (TAS) will correlate significantly in a

high range.

5. The trait measure of creativity (NEO-PI-R O Index) will also produce a low to

significant, low to moderate correlation with the process measure of

hypnotizability (HGSHS: A).

6. The trait measure of creativity (NEO-PI-R O Index) will produce a significant,

high correlation with the trait measure of hypnotizability (TAS).

Statement of Purpose

This study will focus on the correlation between hypnotizability and

creativity by utilizing psychometrically sound measures of hypnosis (i.e., high

validity and reliability), the HGSHS: A and the TAS, and an abbreviated version

of an established creativity measure, also with strong validity and reliability, the

ATTA. These will be correlated with a more recent personality assessment of

creativity, (NEO-PI-R O Index); this will help to validate this measure by

 9

utilizing it with the current population (highly creative individuals) and add to the

existing body of literature.

Earlier studies, using general populations, do not suggest a strong

correlation between the NEO-PI-R and hypnotizability (any where from .10-. 18,

across various facets of the test) (Green, 2004). The current study featured a

subsection of the population considered to be highly creative, and thus will show

a high score for them on this measure. It is hypothesized that this measure will

correlate with the TAS (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), due to similarities in their

question items. The TAS has been utilized to measure hypnotizability and

correlates modestly with statistically sound measures of hypnotizability (Yapko,

2003). In addition, due to the above mentioned conceptual similarities in its

questions, and to the fact that the TAS is also a personality trait measure it is

likely that this correlation will be higher with the O Index of the NEO-PI-R. It

has also been shown to correlate significantly with the NEO-PI in earlier studies

(Gilsky, Tartaryn, Tobias, Kihlstrohm and McConkey, 1991). This study

hypothesized that the scores obtained from creative individuals on the HGSHS: A

(HGSHS: A) (Shor & Ome, 1962) may also be higher than those of the general

population, and will correlate more with the O Index than the scores based on a

normal sample of the general population.

Studies indicate various levels of statistical correlation with facets of the O

Index and the HGSHS: A, especially for aspects of subjective involvement

 10

(Green, 2004). A study using the Waterloo Stanford Group Scale of

Hypnotizability, also a variant of the SHSS, like the HGSH: A, showed some

correlation to facets of the Openness Scale of the Big Five Inventory, and early

version of the NEO-PI-R (Green, 2004). The Waterloo Objective and Subjective

ratings of hypnotic experience correlated significantly, r= .18, and r=16,

respectively (p=.05, two-tailed) (Green). Research also yielded a significant

correlation between the TAS to the O Index (Gilsky & Kihlstrom, 1993). It was

hypothesized that the TAS and the O Index would produce a significantly stronger

correlation to each other than the O Index to the HGSHS and the ATTA, due to

the above-mentioned similarities in their questions, and the previous studies that

indicate a correlation between them (Gilsky, et.al, 1991).

The study of creativity could provide information into the nature of

hypnotizability. If the two are related, then discovering what distinguishes the

more creative person could give insight into the more hypnotizable individual.

This does not imply a causal relationship between the two. Creativity in an

individual does not cause them to also be hypnotizable, or vice versa; the two

traits appear analogous and may mutually affect one another.

A goal of this study that comparing more rigorous methods of creativity

measurement with rigorous measures of hypnotizability would yield a deeper

understanding of the properties of both. The Torrance tests and the Openness

scale of the NEO-PI-R have been well established for validity and reliability. The
 11

Torrance tests have not been used extensively in the study of creativity and

hypnotizability. The NEO-PI-R has, but not in conjunction with this battery of

tests. Both the TAS and HGSHS:A are well established in the literature. It was

assumed that combining these four assessments to study the two traits with the

chosen population would produce more variance between the measures, and

provide a better understanding of their relationship.

Various operational definitions of creativity produce different measures.

Some measures describe creativity in terms of divergent thinking, a cognitive

definition; others define it as a trait (Kerr & Gagliardi, 2003; Kaufman, Plucker &

Baer, 2008). Combined studies of hypnosis and creativity have primarily

employed cognitive measures; with some studies using trait measures, such as the

Cattell 16 Personality Factors Inventory (16pf) (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi,

1976; Lynne & Sivec, 1992; Shames and Bowers, 1992), and the NEO-PI-R

(Costa & McRae, 1992; Green, 2004).

The study of creativity and hypnotizability could contribute to the growing

interest in the positive psychology movement among those in the helping fields

(Council, et al., 2007). Positive psychology seeks to study positive subjective

states and individual traits, as opposed to pathology (Peterson and Seligman,

2004). Hypnosis can be induced and taught to individuals to help them tap into

creative states on a more voluntary basis (Council, et al., 2007; Kahn & Delaney,

2010). Studying the similar aspects of hypnosis and creativity could be applied to
 12

remedial and generative work with clients in the consulting room, and in other

areas, such as leisure and work place settings.

Assumptions and Limitations

This study is based upon the premise that psychological tests of the trait of

hypnosis, when precisely administered, are accurate measures of the construct of

hypnotizability. Another assumption that this study makes is that the use of

creativity measures, whether personality or cognitively based, accurately

measures this trait. It is an assumption that though there is a great deal of

variation in the operational definitions of creativity and hypnotizability, measures

based on varying definitions will measure each construct.

This study has several limitations. For example, the use of a lengthy

battery of tests, administered over one sitting, could have confounded the results,

due to fatigue in the subjects. In addition, the general population carries many

myths about hypnosis, and this may have created certain unrealistic expectancies

of the power of hypnosis in the subject, which could confound results of the

study. To assuage any possible fears or expectancy effects, hypnosis was

explained to subjects via a short informative presentation by the lead investigator,

the author of this paper.

There is a possibility of expectancy effects with the participants. Subjects

were gathered via online advertising and debriefing to classrooms of art therapy

students. They were well aware of the nature of the study, and more likely to be
 13

interested in, and possibly wished to present themselves as higher in both

creativity and hypnosis, which could have skewed the data in a positive manner.

Finally, this study was undertaken with creative individuals. These

included artists, musicians, actors, photographers, composers, art therapists, and

art therapy students enrolled in a graduate school program. The findings may not

generalize to populations outside of this study to other fields or courses of study,

or to other educational levels. The populations included in this study are assumed

to be more readily creative within and by the general culture, and thus may allow

us to understand a high level of creative endeavor.

 14

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

Creativity: Definitions & Measurement

Operational definitions of creativity vary between researchers, depending

on what aspect of it that they are measuring (Shames & Bowers, 1992; Weisberg,

2006). Gilchrist (1972) cited several definitions, and noted that the creative

product, from the perspective of an objective rating of creativity, is considered the

“gold standard” from which to rate creativity. Wallas proposed a four-stage

model of the creative process that consists o f preparation, incubation,

illumination, and verification (Gilchrist). Preparation is an exploratory phase

where a problem is identified. Incubation is the stage wherein a problem is

dropped, and, as it were “slept on,” in order for the unconscious to process

solutions. These come to fruition in the illumination phase, an “aha” or “eureka”

experience. Verification is the phase of the process whereby the new idea is

tested in light of sound reason. There is some evidence that process, or the time

needed in which to incubate a creative approach, is a large contributing factor in

just how creative a product will be (Getzels & Csikszentmihaly, 1976). Most

studies focus on identifying creative aspects of products only, without verifying

the process, due in large part the time consuming aspects of studying process.

A psychodynamic model that is pertinent to hypnosis and creativity

studies examines cognitive shifting in the processes of creativity (Shames &

 15

Bowers 1992). Two types of cognitive processes are elucidated in

psychodynamic theory, primary and secondary process (Gilchrist, 1972).

Primary process consists of pre-verbal mental factors, and is visual, non-logical,

and fantasy prone. Secondary process is logical, and is connected to language

use, and conscious volition and thought production (Gilchrist). Kris (as cited in

Gilchrist) suggested that regression, the process of mentally returning to an earlier

phase of psychological development, often involving primary process, could have

both pathological (defense mechanisms) and non-pathological (creative activities)

aspects. Kris considered creativity a non-pathological variety of regression, one

that serves the ego, rather than deters its healthy function. That is to say, a person

switches to primary processing during the creative process, as during a regression,

but it is not to a state of fixation where developmental milestones remain unmet

(Gilchrist).

In a more recent positive psychology definition, Peterson and Seligman

(2004) state that the creative person must be capable of generating ideas or

behaviors that are novel, surprising and unusual. Those behaviors must make a

positive contribution to their life and to the lives of others, and must include

elements of originality and adaptability. Peterson and Seligman also differentiate

between “Big C” creativity (major achievements in art and science) and “small c”

or everyday creativity, or ingenious solutions to everyday problems. This current

study will, though focusing on artistic creativity, attend to the “small c” aspects of
 16

creativity. “Big C” creativity is implicit in the study of individuals and their

products that have already been deemed as having highly creative significance for

the culture in which they are produced (Petersen & Seligman).

A review of 90 articles selected from peer-reviewed journals with

creativity themes was chosen to identify specific definitions of creativity (Plucker,

Bheggeto, & Dow, 2004, as cited in Plucker, et al. 2008). Only 38 percent gave

explicit definitions. From these, the authors derived the following definition:

“Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment, by which

an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and

useful as defined within a social context.” (p. 1)

This definition encompasses the four areas originally espoused by Rhodes

in 1961, and considered relevant in current research: product, process, person and

press (Kaufman, et al., 2008, Shames & Bowers, 1992). Product refers to the

product or outcome of the creative act. Process is the internal, subjective

experience of the creator, and is emphasized in hypnosis and creativity research

via the use of measure of hypnotic susceptibility (Shames & Bowers). This is due

to the fact that hypnosis is a subjective state, and the aspect of creativity that is

considered to be most measurable in conjunction with it is this subjective quality

of process. Person refers to the personality aspects of the creative individual,

including aspects of thinking style, motivation, personality, and knowledge. It

can be considered a relevant aspect of this study in that it utilizes a personality

 17

measure of creativity. Press refers to the environment and systemic factors that

contribute to the creative act and influence the creative person and product. This

is a more comprehensive definition; though older, it is also what most major

studies of creativity are based upon, and is, therefore, relevant to this one.

Measurements of creativity fall into the following general categories:

ability or divergent thinking, self-report, and product measures (Gilchrist, 1972;

Kaufman, et al., 2008). General principles behind these measures constitute what

they specifically measure.

Guilford first proposed the concept of divergent thinking in 1950

(Guilford; Gilchrist, 1972). These are “open-ended, creative response type of

tests” that he and other researchers have developed. Divergence refers to the

ability to produce several answers to a question, rather than a convergence of data

to produce one correct answer, as in typical intelligence tests (Gilchrist).

Four facets are generally recognized as measurable aspects of creativity:

fluidity, originality, flexibility, and elaboration (Gilchrist, 1972; Kaufman, et al.,

2008). Fluidity refers to the number of answers produced. Originality refers to

the newness or uniqueness of an answer (Gilchrist; Kaufman, et al.). Flexibility

refers to the lack of swift closure for an idea or production for a given answer

(Gilchrist). Elaboration refers to the ability to fill out ideas within a given idea or

category of ideas (Kaufman, Kaufman, et al.).

 18

The most common divergent thinking tests are Guilford batteries and the

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Guilford measures are based upon his

model of the Structure of the Intellect (SOI) (Kaufman, et al., 2008). This model

delineated 24 types of divergent thinking, “One type for each combination of four

types of content (Figural, Symbol, Semantic, Behavioral) and six types of product

(Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, Transformations, Implications)” (Kaufman,

et al., pp. 20-21). The tests in the SOI battery ask questions to evoke divergent

thinking production across the above-mentioned content and product types. For

example, the Sketches test requires subjects to produce as many drawings as they

can from a simple figure such as a circle. The content in this instance is figural,

and the number of images produced measures fluency (Kaufman, et al.). The

Associations I test requires subjects to find a word that links two words in some

fashion, such as movie and fishing (Kaufman, et al.). The content of this test is

Semantics, and the product type is Transformations, and the creative facet

measured is originality (Kaufman, et al.). The answer for this particular example

(movie and fishing) is reel.

E.P. Torrance’s Torrance Tests o f Creative Thinking (TTCT), are the most

widely used and studied tests of divergent thinking (Kaufman, et al., 2008). E.P.

Torrance initially developed this battery as the Minnesota Tests of Creative

Thinking (Gilchrist, 1972). They are typically used to distinguish gifted children

in educational programs, but also used to measure the efficacy of creativity

 19

training programs in corporate settings (Kaufman, et al.). Giftedness has not been

well defined, and there is a great amount of disagreement as to its definition, and

they vary across school districts (Kaufman, et al.). Despite this, and the oft,

unstated aspects of divergent thinking in these definitions, the TTCT have been

utilized in various batteries by school districts in the United States. The TTCT

are based heavily upon the concepts of the SOI and Guilford’s original tests,

specifically verbal and figural fluency, and can be seen as a streamlined version.

The test consists of seven verbal and three figural components, and two different

forms of the test that can be administered alternatively (Kaufman, et al.).

Reliability and validity are considered robust, especially with the voluminous

amount of research with the TTCT, though construct validity of the test has been

questioned, citing problems connected to Torrance’s scoring system (Kaufman, et

al.). The ATTA is an abbreviated version of the TTCT that was utilized in this

study.

Though they have been coined “creativity tests,” there is some controversy

regarding what divergent thinking tests actually measure (Gilchrist, 1972). The

main controversy is that there is little evidence to suggest that divergent thinking

tests can predict creative outcome because studies point to a low correlation

between creative achievement, considered an aspect of predictive validity, and

divergent thinking scores (Gilchrist; Kaufman, et al., 2008). Another major

critique cites the fact that creative individuals practice in domain specific areas
 20

(plastic and visual arts, music, dance, etc.), and divergent thinking measures

measure general domains of creativity (Kaufman, et al.). Originality is the only

facet that apparently correlates to creative productivity (Gilchrist). The timed

aspects of the tests are also considered by some to limit the facilitation of the

creative process. Some researchers, such as Wallach and Kogan have developed

untimed measures to produce a more game-like atmosphere in an effort to nurture

the creative process (Kaufman, et al.). But by and large, divergent thinking test

are timed.

There are a wide variety of self-assessment measures of creativity

(Kaufman, et al., 2008). These include self-reports of creativity style (such as the

Creative Styles Questionnaire and the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory),

creativity interests (the Occupational Creativity Scale), self-estimates (the

Creative Domains Questionnaire), and personality assessment (as seen with the

NEO-PI-R), (Kaufman, et al.). The O Index of the NEO-PI, a personality

assessment of creativity has been extensively utilized and studied, boasts a strong

reliability and validity, and pertains to this current study. It is 240-item scale,

based on the Five-Factor model of personality (Costa & McRae, 1992). The Five-

Factor model was based on factor analysis of adjectives collected in dictionaries,

“found in English and other natural languages” (Costa & McRae, p. 1). The five

factors were grouped into five domains, with various facets of the factors totaled

to produce the total domain score (Costa & McRae). The five domains are:
 21

Extraversion (outwardness or sociability), Openness to Experience (intellectual

and experiential curiosity), Conscientiousness (sense of discipline, rule oriented),

Agreeableness (friendliness and congeniality), and Neuroticism/Emotional

Stability (ones sense of emotional stability or instability) (Costa & McRae).

Openness is constituted of six separate facets. Theses are 01, openness to

fantasy (the capacity for imagination), 02, aesthetics (artistic affiliation), 03

feelings (excitability and emotionality), 04, actions (trying and being interest in

new n novel things), 05, ideas (enjoying challenges, intelligence), and 06, values

(liberalism and unconventionality) (Costa & McRae, 1992). There is variability

in the relationship between these scales and aspects creativity (Costa & McRae).

These are based on correlations with various other measurements across the six

facets, ranging from low to moderate (.39-.56). Some authors contend that some

of the concepts behind the facets are more obviously connected to creativity, such

as openness to fantasy and aesthetics, whereas others, such as actions, are less

directly connected (Kaufman, et al., 2008).

Rating creative products is another means by which to study creativity.

Examples are the Creative Semantic Product Scale, the Teachers’ Evaluation of

Student Creativity, and Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) (Kaufman, et

al., 2008). These measures tend to use outside rater judging of the creative level
t

of the products. Product measures have not been as widely used, as they are more

time consuming to administer than divergent thinking and self-report measures.

 22

An example of an early product measure was devised for a much-lauded

study of creativity (Getzels & Csikszentmihaly, 1976). The study incorporated

divergent thinking measures, personality, process measures, and a product rating

of creativity in a longitudinal study with 31 male art students. The measures of

cognitive tests included various Guilford tests of divergent thinking. Personality

was measured primarily with the Allport-Vemon-Lindzey Study of Values, and

the Cattell 16pf (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi). Creativity was operationalized

more as a cognitive function of focusing upon problem finding and problem

solving, rather than divergent thinking. Thus, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi

studied problem formulation, adoption of a method of solution, and the reaching

of a solution (p. 79).

The product measure rated drawings produced by the subjects (Getzels &

Csikszentmihalyi 1976). This rating scale focused on problem-finding behaviors

while the drawings were being produced. The authors formulated this process as

the “formulation of a problem, the adoption of a method of solution, and the

reaching of a solution” (p. 79). Each of the 31 subjects was observed while

drawing, with the observer remaining the same through the study (Getzels &

Csikszentmihalyi). Afterwards, the subjects were interviewed regarding their

activities within the three stages. A questionnaire was formulated and

administered to the subjects post hoc, regarding various aspects of their activities

during the three problems solving phases. Experts and non-experts were selected
 23

to rate the drawings. Creativity was rated within the dimensions of

craftsmanship, originality, and aesthetic value. Correlations between the time

spent within the problem finding process of the artists and the value and

originality as deemed by all raters were higher than on the scale of craftsmanship

(Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi). Originality correlated the highest at .53 (p < .005).

As an example of a more streamlined product measure, the CAT has

substantial data surrounding its reliability and construct validity (Kaufman, et al.,

2008). As in the aforementioned study of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, it relies

upon the ratings of experts in the respective field of the products; for example,

artists rate collages, poets rate poetry, and writers rate prose. A simple Likert

Scale from 1.0-5.0 is used to measure creativity of the finished products. Inter­

rater reliability is checked with each assessment to determine reliability. The

average number of judges used among studies is ten, and the lowest number

would be two, with inter-rater reliability larger for larger number of raters

(Kaufman, et al.). Results range from .70-.90. Face validity is assumed based

upon the consistent inter-rater reliability. Predictive validity is seen in that CAT

ratings are stable over time (Kaufman, et al., 2008).

A study using the CAT that included ten expert and 106 non-expert raters

found reliability inconsistent for non-expert ratings of reliability, but positive for

experts (Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008). This suggests that the use of
 24

cheaper, more readily available non-experts for use a CAT raters is not a viable

option, and that the reliability of the CAT is predicated on the use of experts.

This brief overview of product measures illustrates their usefulness for

measuring creativity outside of psychometric batteries, and that they have strong,

consistent reliability, and suggested construct validity (Kaufman, et al., 2008).

They work as a domain specific measure of product creativity, but not as a

general measure of creativity, as divergent thinking tests do, and thus why they

are considered valuable in the study of creativity (Kaufman, et al.). However,

they are not utilitarian in the sense that they take considerably more time to

administer, and procure expert raters for, and were, therefore, not selected for use

in this study.

Hypnosis: Definitions & Measurement

Definitions of hypnosis also vary depending on the author and the theory

attached to them (Shames & Bowers, 1992). There are several different models

of hypnosis (Yapko, 2003). These currently fall into two general categories:

stable, trait-based definitions with a focus on hypnosis as a distinct ability to

access a unique state of consciousness, and socio-cognitive definitions, largely

focusing on the suggestive nature of hypnotic techniques and how it enhances the

relationship between the hypnotist and the subject (Lynn & Kirsch, 2006; Sylva &

Kirsch, 1992). There was a period of dissention regarding the idea of a special

state of hypnosis (Pekala & Kumar, 2000). Sarbin and Barber initially critiqued
 25

the idea of a special state of consciousness (Pekala & Kumar). Currently,

researchers do not actually look at it as an “either or” concept, but rather as a

continuum of opinions. On one end of the spectrum there are scholars who hold

the concept of a hypnotic state as a “condition that is fundamentally different

from waking consciousness and from other altered states, such as daydreaming

and relaxation” (Kirsch and Lynn, in Pekala & Kumar, pp. 109). Some scholars

posit that hypnotic phenomena exist, but do not ascribe to it a special state or that

a special state produces such phenomena. Others still adamantly deny it (Pekala

& Kumar). The general trend, as noted above, has been to subsume the debate,

and focus on process and socio-cognitive aspects of research.

Brown and Fromm (1986) have provided a succinct definition, which

proposes that rather than being a distinct phenomenon, hypnosis encompasses a

domain of subjective experience, composed of three distinct elements: the altered

state, suggestibility and influence, and the element of the relationship. The

altered state refers to the shift from waking, or conscious response sets to a more

focused state of attenuated absorption upon internal of the mind. The domain of

suggestibility and influence refers to the use of suggestions on the part of the

operator or hypnotist to facilitate the altered state and suggestions within the

altered state. The relationship refers to the augmented relationship created by the

altered state. Transference is heightened, and the social distance between the

hypnotist and the subject is intensified due to both of them focusing on the
 26

client’s internal, mental contents. As this definition is inclusive of various aspects

of hypnosis that researchers have defined and debated, and also adds to the aspect

of the hypnotically augmented relationship, or working alliance, it can be seen as

a more encompassing definition. All three aspects are found in each hypnotic

experience; however, the measurement of hypnosis generally focuses on the

state/trait aspects, largely split as process/socio-cognitive camps, and thus the

domains of the altered state and responsiveness are of importance in the current

study.

Like creativity, psychodynamic interpretations of hypnosis frame it as an

adaptive form of regression to primary process (Gruenwald, Fromm, Oberlander,

1979; Bowers, 1979). This shift is considered a function that facilitates ego

mastery and psychic growth. During hypnosis, the ego is never fully overtaken

by the unconscious, as in a pathological regression, but it is overall still in charge,

and able to work through the unconscious contents while primary process is

evoked (Gruenwald, Fromm, and Oberlander). It is this shift in consciousness,

used as an explanation for both hypnosis and creativity, which makes them

relevant to this study. The shift can be seen in the domain of the altered state, and

has to do with the process measure chosen for this study the HGSHS: A.

There are at least 25 measures of hypnotizability (Yapko, 2003). The

three most widely used, and most studied scales of hypnotizability measurement

are the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (SHSS), the Harvard Group Scale
 27

o f Hypnotic Suggestibility (HGSHS), and the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP)

(Yapko).

Ernest Hilgard and Andre Weitzenhoffer first developed the SHSS, one of

the most extensively researched measures of hypnosis, in 1959 (Yapko, 2003).

The Scale has two forms, A and B that were developed to be used as repeated

measures without incurring practice effect or priming. The scales are made up of

twelve items based on motoric responses. A later version was released in 1962

that added cognitive aspects of hypnotizability, including perceptual changes and

memory distortions, and more explicitly delineated aspects of the highly

hypnotizable individuals (Yapko). The SHSS takes approximately one hour to

administer. Scores range from 0-12 points, with the higher score correlating with

higher hypnotizability.

Emily Ome and Martin Shor developed the HGSHS in 1962, basing it

upon the SGSHS form A. (Shor & Ome, 1962; Yapko, 2003). This measure is

extremely popular among researchers, and is utilized more than the SHSS. Its

popularity stems from the fact that it can be administered to twenty subjects at a

time. It consists of both subjective and objective reports from the subject, of both

12 and 11 items, and is normally administered with a recording to insure

standardization (Yapko).

The HIP is a measure of hypnosis created by Herbert and David Spiegel in

an effort to produce a measure of hypnotizability that was more streamlined for

 28

clinical use than the SHSS and the HGSHS: A (Yapko, 2003); that is to say, it can

be individually administered in as short as approximately five minutes. It is based

on items similar to the aforementioned measures, such as motoric and cognitive

items, but it also incorporates an eye-roll test, supposedly based on biological

markers (Yapko). The eye-roll test determines hypnotizability on a five-point

score based on the amount of whites of the eyes visible with the eyes rolled

upward as the subject closes them. The eye role test is assumed to be based on

innate hypnotic ability, and the motoric and cognitive items on responsiveness to

hypnotic commands. It is widely used because it is easy to administer in clinical

settings, though it does not bear a high correlation to the SHSS or the HGSHS: A.

A recent study correlating the Stanford to the HIP noted that the response sets

correlated significantly (.41, p= >.01), but described no significance for

correlation between the eye-role sign and a variation SHSS (Gritzalis, Oster, &

Frischholz, 2009). They concluded that the small magnitude of the significant

correlation indicates that the two tests do hold common variance, but still measure

different things (Gritzalis, Oster, & Frischholz).

The Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory-Hypnotic Assessment

Procedure (PCI-HAP) is another measure of hypnosis developed based on to

study the phenomenological aspects of hypnosis (Pekala & Kumar, 2000). The

PCI is a 54-item measure of subjective experience, with questions based on a

seven point Ukert scale (Pekala & Kumar). The HAP, a short induction, with
 29

motoric and cognitive commands, similar to the HGHS and the SHSS, is

performed first, and the PCI is administered to the subject afterwards to assess the

subject’s experience (Pekala & Kumar). The PCI-HAP is a newer measure, and

not as popular as the above-mentioned tests, which have been studied over a

longer period of time, such as the SSHS and HGSHS: A, or have the speed of

instigation of the HIP. The PCI-HAP was not used specifically because this study

attempted to utilize older measures of hypnosis in partial replication of older

studies in the literature.

The TAS, a measure of the trait of absorption, has produced significant

correlations that vary across studies with the HGSHS: A; 13-89 by some

estimations, 0-50 by others, with an estimation of a mean of roughly .20 (Roche

& McConkey, 1990; Angelini, Kumar, & Chandler, 1999). The TAS is a self-test

questionnaire consisting of 34 questions regarding subjective states of

concentration and fantasy involvement, and has been described as, “openness to

self-altering experiences” (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). It is a perhaps the only

personality trait measure that consistently correlates with hypnotizability, having

been developed by studying factors of other trait measures that were connected to

hypnotizability, such as the 16-pf and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory (Tellegen & Atkinson).

For the purposes of this study, the HGSHS: A was used. It can be

administered in a group, and is psychometrically sound, with a high validity and

 30

reliability (Shor & Ome, 1962). The TAS was chosen for this current study

because, like the HGSHS: A, it is psychometrically sound, and can also be

administered swiftly, and correlates with the HGSHS (Tellegen & Atkinson,

1974). Being a trait measure it is also likely to correlate with the O Index of the

NEO-PI-R.

Creativity & Hypnosis Research

The connection between hypnosis and creativity was bom out of the

aforementioned psychodynamic explanations of both phenomena (Shames &

Bowers, 1992). Secondary process is considered analogous to active thinking: the

effortful, strategic thinking that is goal directed and primarily ruled by language

(Shames & Bowers). Primary process thinking is considered to be more

involuntary, and is connected to die hypnotic process (Gruenwald, Fromm, &

Oberlander, 1972; Bowers, 1979). Thus hypnosis and creativity are considered

regressions to primary process in the service of the ego; the unconscious does not

subsume the ego, but rather its contents are utilized by the ego in an effort to

strengthen overall resiliency. Creativity is considered a more constructive form of

regression, because an individual remains in control of the process, but hypnosis

is considered less so in that control is given over to an external agent, the

hypnotist (Shames and Bowers).

In an effort to find a cognitive link between hypnosis and creativity,

Bowers posits the concept of effortless experiencing (Shames and Bowers, 1992).
 31

Effortless experiencing is the process whereby ideas or images seemingly arise of

their own accord for an individual engaged in hypnosis or creativity (Shames &

Bowers). It is analogous to the inspirational phase of creativity as hypothesized

by Wallas (Gilchrist, 1972), and is seen as being facilitated by shifting from a

more conscious, or secondary process state to a more stream of consciousness,

primary process (Shames & Bowers). Bowers describes two distinct modes of

consciousness, active and passive. Effortless experiencing is triggered during the

passive phase by fantasy, and which allows for an individual to experience the

contents of the mind as if they flow of their own accord, moving from verbal to

imagery cognitions (Bowers, 1979). For Bowers, this is the foundation of both

creativity and hypnosis, and thus the connecting element between them. It does

not seem altogether distant from the ideas of primary and secondary process, and

regression in the service of the ego, but is considered more of a distinct internal

process that Bowers had attempted to operationalize through numerous studies

(Bowers 1978; Bowers, 1979). It may also be reflected in other studies that show

that the ability to shift focus and flexibility in processing is what defines the

creative individual (Vartanian, 2006).

Hypnosis and creativity studies have been undertaken since the 1960s

(Shames & Bowers, 1992). A sizable number of studies provide evidence for

their moderate, and positive correlation (Lynn & Sivec, 1992; Shames and

Bowers).
 32

A study by Patricia Bowers examined the effects of hypnosis and

suggestions of reduced defensiveness on creativity test performance (1967).

Defensiveness is defined as the avoidance of thoughts and feelings that might be

unacceptable, and is connected to individuals who are less open to experience

(Bowers). Maslow and Rogers (as cited in Bowers) theorized that all individuals

are latently creative, and merely await the necessary conditions, a state of

relaxation where psychological defenses are dropped, to express them creatively.

Bowers’ study was an attempt to, “study the causative role of defensiveness by

means of hypnosis and instruction” (p.312).

Four hundred and fifty university students were administered the HGSHS:

A (Bowers, 1967). They were then distributed into either two waking relaxed

groups, receiving either Cognitive Set (WCS) instructions or Defensiveness-

reducing instructions (WDR) or two groups who received Hypnosis, again with

either Cognitive Set (HCS) or Defensiveness-reducing suggestions (HRD)

(Bowers).

The subjects were also administered a “creativity battery” based on the

four measures of divergent thinking devised by Guilford and a control battery of

the Minnesota Clerical Test (MCT), a test of clerical achievement. The MCT was

used because the scores would likely not be affected by reduced defensiveness,

and it was hypothesized to produce improved scores for hypnotic subjects

(Bowers, 1967). Results showed significantly higher scores of originality, as

 33

assessed by the Guilford measures, in task performance by the hypnotic groups

(HRD, HCS) than in the relaxed-waking groups (Bowers). Bowers stated that this

indicates, “those hypnotic conditions can increase divergent thinking above its

level under circumstances thought to be quite favorable to creativity, i.e. relaxed,

motivated subjects with instruction to be clever and creative” (p. 318-319). Thus,

results suggested that hypnosis is a distinct state or process aside from a normal

level of relaxation. The large sample size of this study is of merit, enhancing

statistical power. There is no control for expectancy effects with regards to the

hypnotizable subjects, and this may have factored into the results. Also, as is the

case with many research studies, university students were involved, so findings

may not generalize to the rest of the population.

In a 1970 study by Bowers and van der Muellen, 30 high and 30 low

hypnotizable subjects were administered three creativity tasks, the Guilford

Consequences Test, the Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and the free association

test, from which were developed nine items. Highly hypnotizable subjects

produced statistically significantly higher scores on eight of nine items (Bowers,

& van der Meullen, 1970). These include the Obvious task for the Consequences

tests (M=37.87 for high hypnotizable subjects, low hypnotizable M=31.92,

p=.05); Holtzman Inkblot Human Movement (M=4.42 hypnotizable, M=1.95 low

hypnotizable, p=.002) and Nonhuman Movement (M=6.22 high, M=3.27 low,

p=.003); Free Associations Test productiveness (M= 128.54 high, M=72.61 low,
 34

p=,02) and number of response units (M=27.80 high, M=17.60, low, p=.005).

Significance levels are for the main effect on F tests for the measures (Bowers, &

van der Meullen). Caveats for the test include the use of university students for

the sample pool, and the small sample size.

Lynn and Rhue (1986; Lynn & Sivec, 1992) administered scales of

absorption, hypnotic susceptibility, responsiveness to waking and suggestion,

childhood imagining, and creativity to 62 university students (30 males, 32

females, median age 19.1 yrs.). Theses subjects were selected from a large pool

(N=1,403) of university students. Individuals were separated into groups of

fantasizers, medium fantasy prone subjects, and nonfantasizers based on scores on

the Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings, a scale of fantasy

proneness that correlates to hypnotizability (Lynn & Rhue). Those who had

tested high for fantasy proneness displayed higher scores on absorption, hypnotic

responsiveness, response to waking suggestion, vividness of mental imagery, and

creativity than those in the other groups (Lynn & Rhue). Overall, almost 80% of

fantasizers scored in the high hypnotizable range (High=M 9.78, SD 2.04;

Medium= M 7.95, SD 2.73; Low=M 7.58,1,84; high > medium (p=<.05) high >

low (p=>.01)) (Lynn & Sivec, 1992). Fantasizers performed significantly higher

across all tests compared to low and nonfatasizers, with p values ranging from

.01-.05 (Lynn & Rhue). There was no significance for scores based on gender

(Sex= F (7,49) = .51 ns\ Group X Sex interaction F (14,100) = .36, ns) (Lynn &
 35

Rhue). Apparent caveats with the study include, again, the use of university

students, and the smaller samples size.

Another study of 32 (16 male, 16 female) university students with an

equal number of high and low hypnotizables yielded moderate results of

correlations between hypnotizability and effortless experiencing and creativity

(Bowers, 1978, p. 195). The subjects, pooled from a larger group of university

volunteers who were administered the HGHS: A, were assigned to high, and low

hypnotizable groups. They were administered composite indices of vividness of

imagery, effortless experiencing, creativity and an absorption questionnaire. The

administration was done blind to group placement, as they were previously tested

for hypnotizability by other colleagues (Bowers). The most significant

correlations were between effortless experiencing and hypnotizability, .61 (p <

.001) and creativity, .62 (p < .001). Hypnotizability and creativity correlated at .55

(p < .0001). When factoring for effortless experiencing, the correlation between

hypnotizability and creativity dropped substantially to .27. The authors state that

this substantial difference points to effortless experiencing as being a link

between hypnotizability and creativity. No significance was indicated when

controlling for vividness of imagery and absorption. An ANOVA yielded no

significant results for gender across any of the dependent variables, as was

indicated in earlier studies where female subjects rated higher on both creativity

and hypnosis.
 36

Again, the study utilized a sample of university students, chosen for being

distinctly high or low in hypnotizability, compared to the mean for the general

population. Findings may not generalize to the population at large.

Correlations of personality trait measures of creativity and hypnosis do not

yield statistically robust correlations (Kirsch & Council, 1992; Green, 2004).

Personality inventories based on the five-factor model of personality have been

studied against hypnotizability since they became available. The five-factor

model was developed to break down personality factors used in older measures,

such as the 16pf of Home and Cattell, to distill them to their most basic aspects

(Costa & McRae, 1992).

Early studies with the of the five-factor model scales with hypnotizability

used shorter versions of five-factor inventories (Green, 2004). Malinosky & Lynn

(1999) found no correlation between the HGSHS: A and the Neo-Five-Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI), a 60-item measure, in a study using 227 undergraduate

students. However, two of the sub scales correlated significantly with subjective

involvement and involuntariness in hypnosis (A, r 0.23 & 0.24, p=.01), and

another with involuntariness (E, r 0.25, p=.01) (Malinosky & Lynn).

Nordenstrom, Council and Meier (2002) looked at correlations between

the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotizability, a variant of the SHSS, and

the 44-item Big-Five Inventory, a measure based upon the five-factor model. One

hundred eighty-two undergraduate students were used as subjects. Significant

 37

findings were noted between the O Index and the WSGSH’s behavioral and

subjective involvement scores (r 0.18 and 0.16, p =.05 two-tailed). The A scale

also yielded a significant correlation of 0.16 p=.05 two tailed) with subjective

involvement during hypnosis (Nordenstrom, Council &Meier).

Gilsky, et al. (1991) found a significant correlation between the 48 items

on the O Index of The NEO-PI-R and the HGSHS: A (r =0.16, p = .001) in a

! .

study of 540 subjects. Component facets of the O Index produced significant

correlations for the Olfacet (fantasy), 0.10,02 facet (aesthetics), 0.14, and 03

facet (feelings), 0.16.

Kihlstrohm, Gilsky, and Trapnell (1992, an unpublished manuscript cited

in Green, 2004) found what they described as a significant correlation between

the absorption subscale of the O Index and the HGSHS: A. Six hundred and fifty

undergraduate students were used in the study. The subscale yielded a correlation

of 0.15 (Green). Unfortunately Green does not cite the probability level that was

set for this study, and this review of the literature did not yield a published

version.

A factor analysis run by Green yielded little variance between the NEO-

PI-R and the HGSHS: A (2004). This is the first study to utilize the entire

assessment, rather than a shorter version of a five-factor test. The study utilized

285 university students (n=109 male, n=176 female). No correlation whatsoever

was produced for the total O Index and hypnotizability. When separate facets of
 38

the index were observed, 06, “values,” yielded a correlation of 0.12 (p=.05), and

03, “feelings,” a correlation of 0.04 (p=.05). Females scored higher than males

on the HGSHS: A and on the scores for the N, O, and A indices (Green).

In sum, the literature yields several main findings. The correlation

between hypnotizability and creativity is consistently shown over a wide body of

literature, but ranges from low to moderate across studies (Lynn & Sivec, 1992;

Shames & Bowers, 1992). This variability is due in part to differences between

process and trait aspects of hypnosis, and the cognitive and trait aspects of

creativity. Findings also account for an automatic, or spontaneous, unconscious

aspect in both creative and hypnotic processes, such as in Bowers’ studies of

effortless experiencing, further supporting a relationship between the two.

Hypnosis and creativity research is not limited to the search for

correlations of standardized measures. Some researchers argue that there are no

significant findings that hypnosis can enhance creativity outside of the trance state

(Lynn & Sivec, 1992). Others indicate there are studies of hypnotic creative

enhancement that involve objective measures, such as the Torrance Tests of

Creative Thinking, but nothing that involves practical application outside of the

experimental setting (Shames & Bowers, 1992), Nonetheless, there is a small

body of literature, though not scientifically robust, that points to the use of

hypnosis for the enhancement for creative activities. It also suggests some

relationship between them.

 39

A case study involving the use of Ego State Therapy hypnosis to enhance

creativity in a 26-year-old singer produced results that helped to resolve stage

fright and assisted the subject in song writing (Perri, 2003). The client reported

that he had recently stopped using drugs, and benefited from abstinence, but had

also noticed a decrease in song writing and an increase in stage fright (Perri,

2003).

Two sessions were used. The first introduced the subject to hypnotherapy,

and the therapist suggested the client elicit the “creative part” of himself (Perri,

2003). The client was then able to create lyrics to a song, “different from any

other work he had produced” (Perri, 2003, p. 84). A second session involved the

post-hypnotic suggestions for accessing the same part during a performance to

provide relief for stage fright (Perri, 2003). The subject reported afterwards that

he, “felt the presence of this part, and was able to express himself more fully”

(Perri, 2003, p. 84). No further follow-up was reported in this study.

A 1976 study attempted to answer the question, “ is it possible to enable

an artist to paint or sketch better after having received hypnotic treatment with

post-hypnotic suggestions than without such an influence?” (Mellegren, 1976, pp.

133-134). Seventeen patients, ages 29-62, from the author’s practice, were

selected on the basis of their work as visual artists, specifically as painters or

sketchers. Most of them were experiencing anxiety that accompanied a creative

 40

block. The subjects were not tested for hypnotizability, but had been hypnotized

several times as part of therapy, and were not adverse to the process.

The procedure involved having the patient sketch an object. The patient

was then hypnotized and given the suggestions to “feel calmer, more self-

confident, and...received (sic) a certain inspiration...feel a joy in sketching”

(Mellegren, 1976, p. 134). The patients were re-oriented and engaged in casual

conversation for fifteen minutes. Three of the patients made up another

experimental group that received the same procedure, but were given negative

suggestions regarding the sketching activity. The results of the negative

suggestions were that “two of the sketchers drew a few lines, threw the pencil

away, and thereafter thoroughly abused me” (Mellegren, 1976, p. 134). The third

patient did not attempt to draw, but apparently became angry with the author.

Mellegren discontinued this aspect of the investigation, and noted that such

experiments could be dangerous and inhibiting for the patients’ ability to create,

and worried that they may attribute any creative blocks or impasses directly to the

hypnotic experience. It also points to the power of the intervention, and the need

for precautions in utilizing suggestions.

Blind ratings by three established artists indicated that there was a marked

improvement in the sketches after hypnosis in thirteen of the seventeen patients

(Mellgren, 1976). Mellegren notes that the three who did not show any marked

improvement were not in treatment for anxiety related to a creative block, but
 41

were suffering from somatic symptoms, suggesting that the subject needs to find

the intervention consistent with their needs in order for any effect to take place

(1976).

Barrios and Singer (1981) initiated a study of forty-eight volunteers who

reported creative blocks in artistic, scientific, literary and professional projects.

Subjects were randomly assigned to four conditions—waking imagery, hypnotic

dreaming, rational discussion, and a control group that just allowed the subjects to

discuss their problem. A follow-up satisfaction questionnaire delivered a week

after treatment showed waking imagery and hypnotic dreaming groups were

deemed, “most effective in promoting resolution of creative blocks” (Barrios &

Singer, p. 104). These surveys were done via telephone at one and two week

intervals. Subjects were asked to relate how satisfied they were with the status of

their project, and rate it on a 5-point Likert scale (Barrios & Singer). The

hypnotic dreaming group was given suggestions without the use of the word

hypnosis, an attempt to reduce expectancy effects. Both the waking imagery and

hypnotic dreaming groups were administered an audiotaped version of the

HGSHS a week prior to or after the treatment. Both of these precautions were

taken as to avoid contamination of the subjects during treatment (Barrios &

Singer).

The use of hypnosis as an adjunct to dramatic direction was explored in

three studies reported by Keith Fowler (1988). Fowler designed a technique

 42

combining famed actor and acting coach Michael Chekhov’s Centering technique

with hypnotic inductions (Fowler). The Centering technique involves

visualizations to “center” the actor for role development and sense training

(Fowler). In three experiments, Fowler worked with student actors to provide

them with an “effective technique for dramatic characterization” (Fowler). One

of the studies employed outside judges (university drama professors) to rate

character development (Fowler). All ten subjects were considered to have

“shown aspects of personality never seen in performance before” (Fowler, 1988,

p. 254).

According to Fowler, results “suggest that in 25 of 26 acting students

(aged 18+ years), hypnosis may have facilitated Ss' apparent adoption of new

personae” (Fowler, 1988, p. 249). Details of the study indicate that the use of

hypnosis with highly hypnotizable actors can have results, such as the incident

quoted below, that indicate precautions should be taken with these subjects.

We experimented with various techniques, including one in which

I used hypnosis to induce trance in a highly hypnotizable actor

who was working on the role of Medea. I naively instructed her to

hallucinate that the rehearsal studio was a Greek palace and that

her fellow actor was Jason. What followed was terrifying. She

shrieked with grief, then in rage tore open a door and threw a chair

at the other actor. Luckily, she missed, and I had time to signal her
 43

out of trance. This episode taught us that broad, clumsy instruction

. . . is utterly useless from an artistic point of view (p. 251).

Though Fowler’s work was promising, apparently little work was followed in this

area, perhaps due to little research funding in a nonclinical areas. An extensive

literature search specific to acting and hypnosis produced only this article.

Similar to Perri & Fowler’s work is the Raikov’s use of identification with

an imagined expert to enhance creativity (Raikov, 1992). Artists and musicians

were asked to “step into the skin” of the likes of Rembrandt, Horowitz or

Rachmaninov and others (Raikov). Raikov describes his experiments as

successful in enhancing creative behavior and performances post-hypnotically

(Raikov).

Council, et al. (2007) studied the use of hypnosis to enhance creativity in

the process of drawing in sixty-three university subjects enrolled in undergraduate >

psychology courses. They were selected randomly from a pool that had been

administered the Waterloo Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility.

Demographic data (gender, age, and previous art experience) was gathered, and

the participants were administered the TAS. They were then randomly assigned

into groups who were administered hypnosis or task-motivational instructions

(Council, et al.). The subjects created two still life drawings, one used as baseline

measure of ability without hypnosis, and one after hypnosis or the task

motivational instructions (Council, et al.). Objective judges, two university art

 44

professors and one art and psychology major, rated the drawings based on an

objective measure created by the second author, which was tested for reliability

(Council, et al.). The measure consisted of rating the drawings on a 4 point Likert

scale within the domains of Range of Contrast, Boldness, Line Quality,

Metaphorical Aspects, and Global Judgment of Creativity. The results suggest

that the hypnotic procedure was “significantly more effective” than the

nonhypnotic procedure in enhancing the global score for creativity in the

drawings based on a t-test of independent means (t (48.1) = 3.17, p <.01)

(Council, et al.). The TAS produced only two significant correlations (p< .05) pre

and post treatment with absorption and line quality in the hypnotic group, and

there was no significance for hypnosis as measured by the Waterloo. The authors

note that their experiment differed from past studies in that subjects did not

employ a standardized procedure, but were given the open ended task of creating

a drawing (Council et al.), and that their measure, compared to the CAT, was

more specific as to aspects of creativity. The authors compare their work to the

studies of Getzels and Csikzentmihalyi in that they used an elaborate objective

rating of the products (Council et al.). They had little in the way of explanation as

to why the use of hypnosis had a sizeable effect on products produced, but no

correlation with hypnotic ability, and more so with absorption.

It is noted that the above studies were all small number studies, and many

of them case studies. Council et al. utilized undergraduates, a population, and

 45

may not generalize to the general population. The use of a new measure, lacking

vigorous and lengthy study to ascertain reliability and validity, is another problem

in the design.

Conclusion

Differences on correlations of hypnotizability and creativity vary across

studies, but altogether indicate a low to moderate correlation, between 31-.55

(Lynn & Sivec, 1992; Shames & Bowers, 1992). According to some authors, this

reinforces the idea of unconscious processes involved in both, and adds support

for the aforementioned definition of regressive aspects of both (Shames &

Bowers). There is varying evidence for females scoring higher on measures of

creativity and measures of hypnosis, mostly weighing in with females scoring

higher. Lastly, weak results have been found regarding personality trait factors

and hypnotizability, between -.01-.31, across a small number of measures dealing

with imaginative capacity and dissociation, and with the scores influenced by

participants knowledge of the use of hypnosis in the studies (Kirsch & Council,

1992). Most of the research on creativity and hypnosis has been done with

cognitive/process type measurements. These studies used a sample of the general

population. Case studies with creative types produce evidence that the use of

hypnosis can enhance creative output. The fluidity in shifts in mental processing

observed in the hypnotic state may elicit similar aspects of the creative state. This
 46

suggests that indeed creative individuals would be more hypnotizable as well,

further consolidating a case for a relationship between the traits.

The current study differs from earlier quantitative studies. For example, it

uses individuals involved in creative vocations, a subgroup of the population that

is considered to be more creative than the rest of the population, due to the type of

work in their field. It was hypothesized that this population’s scores on creativity

would be higher on divergent thinking measures and trait measures. Also, if there

is indeed a relationship between the two traits, then creative individuals would

likewise score higher on both trait and process measures of hypnotizability due to

their higher, innate creative ability.

 47

Chapter 3

Methodology

Sample Employed

Subjects for this study were artists (n=17), art therapists (n=5), art therapy

students (n=9), dancers (n=2), writers (3), photographers (n=2), composers (n=l),

and musicians (n=2), based in a major, Midwestern, metropolitan area. All of the

subjects were voluntary participants. Three recruitment sources were used: art

therapy students in a free-standing, graduate school of psychology; artists and art

therapists from an on-line, artists community resource, and art therapists through

an advertisement placed in a professional art therapy organization newsletter

(Appendix B). The art therapy students were recruited via an introductory lecture

(Appendix C) within their classrooms after written permission from their program

head was granted. The author lead researcher, the author of this paper, screened

all subjects prior to inclusion of the study via phone and email. Subjects recruited

from the art therapy association and the artist’s resource website were screened

via a phone interview. Criteria for inclusion included whether Inclusion criteria

was based upon whether they could some substantiation of activity in a creative

field (i.e., visual, performing, or written arts), or that they were a university

student in those fields. Art therapists recruited from the art therapy newsletter

met criteria due to inclusion on the newsletter; art therapy students were contacted

via a private school. Subjects recruited from on-line artists’ resource forwarded
 48

email links to the primary researcher to verify the veracity of their statements

regarding their active participation in their field in some manner, such as a

website for their studio artwork.

The sample for this study was 32 (n=32). Subjects were provided an

informed consent form before participation in the study (Appendix A).

Participants were randomly assigned a number to insure anonymity and

confidentially. Administration was carried out in classrooms at the Adler School

of Professional Psychology.

Instruments Used

This study employed the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS) (Tellegen and

Atkinson, 1974). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suggestibility, Form A

(HGHS: A; Shor & Ome, 1962) was also used. The Abbreviated Torrance Tests

for Adults (ATTA; Goff & Torrance, 2002), and the Openness Index of the Neo-

Personality Inventory, Revised (NEOPI-R O) were also utilized in this study.

The Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS) (Tellegen and Atkinson, 1974) is a

34- item, dichotomous, true/false measure of absorption. It has been correlated

with hypnosis, often with hypnotizability at ranges between .13-.89, and with the

HGSHS:A in particular from .00-.50, with a mean score of .20 (Roche &

McConkey, 1990; Angelini, et al., 1999). Validity is set at .66-.75, and reliability

at .85-.95 over various studies (Tellegen & Atkinson). It was incorporated into

this study as a personality measure of hypnotizability. The TAS is composed of

 49

eight content categories: (a) Imaginative and oblivious involvement; (b. Affective

responsiveness to engaging stimuli; (c) Responsiveness to highly "inductive"

stimuli; (d) Vivid re-experiencing of the past; (e) Expansion of awareness; (f)

Powerful, "inductive," imaging; (g) Imaginal thinking; (h) Cross-modal

experiencing (Tellegen, 1981).

The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suggestibility, form A (HGSH: A),

was used to test the subjects for hypnotizability (Shor & Ome, 1962). It is a

standard test within the field of hypnosis research, with predictive validity of .74

and reliability of .80 (Shor & Ome). The HGSHS: A consists of two sets of

questions; objective and subjective ratings of performance. The objective item

responses number 12 items; the subjective number 11. Items are divided into

motoric and perceptual-cognitive types of questions (Woody & Bamier, 2008).

Motoric questions require the client to produce physical movement in the arms,

hands, and head. Perceptual-cognitive questions require the subject to imagine

such events as a fly buzzing around ones head, or to produce amnesia for the

questions (Shor & Ome). The normed sample is based on the objective items

score of hypnotizability (Shor & Ome). The highest score possible on the

HGSHS: A is 12; the lowest is 0. There is also a subjective set of questions that

can be used for reliability of the responses within subject. These range from 0-11.

The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) (Goff & Torrance,

2002) is a brief, divergent thinking measure based on the earlier Torrance Tests of
 50

Creative Thinking. The ATTA is an abbreviated version of the Brief

Demonstrator of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (BD-TTCT), which is

based upon the original Torrance Tests of creative thinking; divergent thinking

tests with strong validity and reliability (Kaufman, et al., 2008). Criterion validity

is calculated at .63, and reliability at .89-.94 (Goff & Torrance). The ATTA

consists of three tests, each taking three minutes to administer, for a total

administration time of nine minutes. The first test is verbal, which corresponds to

a similar question from the Torrance Test, the second and third are figural. The

second test is an incomplete figure test; the third is a variation the Lines and

Circles test from the full battery of Torrance tests, in this case involving sets of

triangles to create pictures (Goff & Torrance; Kaufman, et al., 2008). Scoring

consists of coding answers in the criteria of Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and

Flexibility. These Norm-Referenced scores are converted to scaled scores and

totaled. Criterion-referenced scores in the five areas of verbal responses (richness

o f imagery, emotions/feelings, future orientation, humor/conceptual incongruity,

and provocative questions) and fifteen areas of figural responses

{openness/resistance to premature closure, unusual visualization, movement

and/or sound, richness/colorfulness o f imagery, abstractness o f titles,

abstractness o f titles, combination/synthesis o f two or more figures, internal

visual perspective, expressions of feelings and emotions, fantasy). The totals for

the norm-referenced and criterion-referenced scores are totaled to produce the

 51

Creativity Index. This last score can be converted to a Creativity Level score; a

standardized 7-point sale that aids in describing where the subject falls within the

population norms for the test (Goff & Torrance).

The use of a trait and a cognitive measure allows for variability in the

creativity measures. The Torrance tests have not been used extensively in

creativity and hypnosis research, and this version of the Torrance tests has never

been so utilized. It was added to the battery due to the swiftness of

administration, rather than using the other, lengthier versions of the test, in an

effort to control for test fatigue in an already lengthy battery of measures. It was

also the version readily available to the researchers.

The O Index of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a self-report

measure, extracted from the NEO-PI-R. (Costa & McRae). The 48 items of the O

Index were separated from the entire 240-item test to reduce the amount of time

spent on administration, which could have resulted in test fatigue and confounded

results.

Convergent validity of the NEO-PI-R is .66, and reliability has been calculated at

.86-.95 (Costa & McRae). The O Index has been found to correlate with

creativity (Costa & McRae).

The O Index measures intellectual and experiential curiosity. It is

constituted of six separate facets. These are 01, openness to fantasy (the capacity

for imagination), 02, aesthetics (artistic affiliation), 03 feelings (excitability and

 52

emotionality), 04, actions (trying and being interest in new n novel things), 05,

ideas (enjoying challenges, intelligence), and 06, values (liberalism and

unconventionality) (Costa & McRae, 1992; Kaufman, et al., 2008). These

separate facet scores are combined in the domain or index score. Raw scores are

converted to T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.

Procedures

The main researcher, the author of this paper, administered and scored the

four measures. This took approximately 81 minutes per each administration.

Since the HGSH: A is a lengthy induction of hypnosis; it was necessary to create

groups as large as possible to finish the study in a timely fashion. The HGSHS: A

is designed for up to twenty subjects at a time. Due to the nature of recruiting, it

was difficult to create several large groups to gather data, and thus the collection

took approximately four months total. The smallest group of subjects to be

administered the battery was one; the largest number was ten. The data was

collected from 24 of the subject in the spring of 2012 and 8 from the fall of 2012.

Demographic data was obtained from the subjects at the time of administration.

This consisted of age, gender, and creative occupation.

Tests were administered in the following order at each administration.

The order was chosen based upon swiftness of execution, and to assure that any

lingering effects from the experience of hypnosis would not affect test taking

style: TAS, NEO-PI-R O Index, ATTA, HGSHS: A. The HGSHS: A was

 53

administered in a standardized manner with a recording from an mp3 file with an

mp3 player and a portable, high quality sound system. The same sound system

and mp3 player was used in each administration for standardization. Consent was

gathered from all participants before the tests were administered.

Safety of the subjects was given full consideration. Subjects were

informed that re-alerting from hypnosis could be a lengthy process, and were

prepared for the possibility of lingering effects, including drowsiness. Due to a

slight possibility that some of the suggestions on the HGSHS: A could induce

discomfort in some of the subjects, it was planned to halt the administration and

re-alert and introduce grounding techniques to reorient them to the present

moment, if such an event took place. The use of a re-alerting scale, such as the

second half of the Howard Alertness Scale (HAS), woiild also be used if such an

incident took place (Kluft, 2012). The HAS consists of questions regarding level

of alertness to a subject asked a priori and after hypnosis, and incorporates a 10-

point Likert scale. Only the second half of the test could be utilized in this

instance, as the a priori questions would have contaminated the test results. If

there were any adverse memories brought about by the induction, clients were to

be referred to a list of therapists to help them work through any issues. The

participants were to be allowed to leave the study in such an incident. However,

no such incident took place, and clients did not report any negative memories or

experiences during the induction.

 54

After alerting the subjects, they answered the HGSHS: A questionnaires,

and were observed, to ascertain their level of alertness. In general, subjects

became more fully reoriented during the questionnaire, and were further checked

in with to make sure they were fully alert afterwards. A brief interview was held

to help the subjects further process their experience. Then, a debriefing took

place, and the purpose of the study was discussed in further detail, and questions

regarding their experience were answered. This process took approximately 15 to

30 minutes with each group. This writer further checked in with the subjects to

verify they had attained full consciousness and there were no lingering effects of

hypnosis before they were dismissed from the room and left the building.

All data was collected, with strict confidentiality being taken into account.

Subjects were assigned a number upon entry into the study; personal information

that could identify the subjects was withheld. Hardcopies of the data were kept in

a locked file cabinet by the principal investigator at the Institute for Clinical

Hypnosis and Research. This is an institution founded by the late Dr. Erika

Fromm, and currently presided over by Stephen Kahn, PhD. All electronic data

was stored on a code-locked computer at the same office, to be held there for up

to 12 months after the study finished.

Data Analysis

Parametric (Pearson’s) and non-parametric (Kendall’s tau b & Spearman’s

rho) correlations were run for the results the four tests. Cronbach’s alpha
 55

coefficient was used to measure the reliability of each test administered. The

HGSHS:A (hypnosis) was held as the independent variable against the other three

variables as the dependent variables. A scatter plot for each measure held against

the measure with the largest correlational effect (TAS) was generated to display

outlier scores. The effects of outliers were removed from the correlational matrix

and it was again run to test for increased statistical power. No change in results

occurred. Finally, t-tests of independent means were run to observe any

difference between the scores based on gender, and to deduce any differences

between groups of subjects collected in the Spring (n=24) or Fall (n=8).

 56

Chapter 4

Results

The demographics produced for this study are presented in Table 1. Of

the 32 subjects, 22 were female, 10 were men. An a-priori sample size calculator

power analysis (http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx7idsl) yielded 76

as the minimum number for a multiple regression, with a medium effect size.

This measure would have been used to assess for a relationship between the

variables had there been significant correlations for all of them. The average age

of the subjects was 34.125, with a range of 64. Those identified as artists made

up the largest percentage of subject (n=17, 39.5%), whereas the smallest

represented vocation was one composer (2. 3%). Art therapy students (n=9,

20.9%) and art therapists (n=5,11.6%) made up the other larger representative

occupations. Eleven individuals identified two creative fields of endeavor or 34.4

percent of the total number of participants.

Means and standard deviations for all measures produced in this study, as

well as those for the sample norms for the measures are shown in Table 2. The

results show that overall the subjects did remarkably better on the TAS and NEO-

PI O Index than those of the norm samples; the subjects performed approximately

one standard deviation above the mean for the TAS, and two standard deviations

for the O Index. Subjects performed slightly lower on the HGSHS: A (M 6.62,

SD 2.57) than the sample norms for the test (M 7.39 & 7.31, SD 2.71) (Shor &
 57

Ome, 1962; Shor & Ome, 1963; Kihlstrom, & Evans, 1976), and about average

for the ATTA (M 70.9, SD 13.27) compared to the sample norms (M 69.43, SD

10.98). It was not possible to perform a t-test of independent means of the current

sample data with the population norms for the tests. However, appraising the

means and standard deviations does allow one to judge the current samples’

performance. It was hypothesized that subjects would have done exceedingly

well on both measures.

Table 3 presents the reliability coefficients for all of the measures.

Significant reliability levels were produced for each of the instruments. The TAS

produced an alpha level of .703. The ATTA alpha level for the total score,

Creativity Index was .782, whereas the Figural and Verbal scores separated were

.60. The HGSHS: A produced an alpha level of .716. Lastly, the NEOPI-R O

Index alpha level was .729.

Table 4 presents the intercorrelations and alpha coefficients for all

measures. The null hypothesis was accepted for all but one of the hypotheses.

HI, “In general, individuals who score high on measures of hypnotizability will

score high on measures of creativity, and low hypnotizables will score low on

creativity,” produced insignificant, negative results for two of the scores. The

correlation between the HGSHS: A and the ATTA was slightly inversed (-.137,

p=.228) but insignificant. The correlation between the HGSHS: A and the O

Index was insignificant as well (.068, p=.356). However, there was a significant
 58

low correlation between the O Index and the TAS (.356, p= .023). Thus, the null

can only be accepted on the grounds of the first measures, ATTA and HGSHS: A,

producing insignificant results. The personality measures of creativity and

hypnotizability did correlate with this population.

The null hypothesis was also accepted for the second hypothesis, “Female

subjects will produce higher scores on both creativity and hypnosis than male

subjects,” Table 5 illustrates the results for an independent means t-test for the

gender differences across all measures. The TAS produced insignificant t score

(.817, p=.434), but slightly higher results for males (M 31.10, SD 18.11) than

females (M 26.36, SD 4.08). The ATTA results, with females scoring slightly

higher (M 71.40, SD 10.63) than males (M 69.8, SD 18.46) with a t score of -.315

(p=.756). The HGSHS: A yielded slightly higher scores for males (M 6.9, SD

2.68) than females (M 6.50, SD 2.57) with a t score of .402 (p=.691). Lastly, the

O Index also produced slightly higher scores for males (M 74.1, SD 8.19) than

females (M 72.9, SD 6.96), with no significance in variability across the means

(t= -1.0,/?=.324). The means for the O Index and TAS were also significantly

higher compared to population norms, as discussed above, and elucidated in Table

2.

The null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis three: “The, cognitive

measure of creativity (ATTA) and the process measure of hypnotizability

 59

(HGSHS: A) will correlate slightly.” As indicated above, the ATTA and the

HGSHS: A did correlate slightly, but insignificantly but in a negative manner

(-.137, p - .228), but the results were insignificant.

The null hypothesis was also accepted for hypothesis four, “The

established, process measures of hypnotizability (HGSHS: A) and the established

trait measure of hypnotizability (TAS) will correlate highly.” The measures

produced an insignificant figure of .092 (p - .308) for the Pearson’s correlation.

Null was also accepted for hypothesis 5, ‘The trait measure of creativity

(NEO-PI-R O Index) will also correlate slightly with the process measure of

hypnotizability (HGSHS: A).” The correlation produced was non-significant at

.068 (p= .356)

Null was rejected for hypothesis 6, “The trait measure of creativity (NEO-

PI-R O Index) will correlate strongly with the trait measure of hypnotizability

(TAS).” Results produced a positive correlation of .356 (p= .023).

Table 4 displays results for all intercorrelations. The HGSH: A normed

objective ratings correlated significantly with its internal, subjective rating scale

(.876, p = .000). The ATTA results were insignificant and slightly negatively

correlated with the other measures. Due to the general lack of correlations, non-

parametric coefficients, Kendall’s Tau and Spearman’s Rho, were also executed

to take into account lack of homoscedasticty. The particularly high scores for the

TAS and O Index, one and two standard deviations above the normed sample
 60

scores, and several other outliers in the other measures called for their use; it was

assumed that non-parametric measures, which use the median, rather than a mean

score as a central tendency, would help to give a more accurate picture of any

correlations. All the TAS and NEOPI-O Index interactions were significant

across coefficients, whereas the HGHS: A and ATTA results were again

insignificant.

The results for a test of an independent means for the spring and fall data

collection groups are listed in Table 6. This was done in order to distinguish any

significant variability between the scores of two groups. The TAS produced

slightly higher results for the Spring administrations (M 26.50, SD 4.62) than the

Fall (M 25.62, SD 3.11), with an insignificant difference between them (t .496,

p=,623). The ATTA produced similar results with Spring scores again slightly

numerically higher (M 71.40, SD 10.63) than Fall (M 69.8, SD 18.46) but no

significance between the means (t -.315, p=.756). The HGSHS: A yielded

slightly higher scores for Spring (M 6.75, SD 2.64) than the Fall sample (M 6.55,

SD 2.68), which was also not statistically significant (t .47,p=.642). Lastly, the

O Index produced slightly higher scores for the Fall sample (M74.87, SD 4.67)

than the Spring (M 71.7, SD 8.44), with no statistical significance in variability

across the means (t -1.0, p=.324).

 61

Chapter 5

Discussion

It was expected that this study would have produced results similar to

those obtained in earlier studies, low to moderate correlations from .31-.55

between hypnotizability and creativity. The focus on creative individuals was

expected to produce higher results across all measures compared to the normed

sample scores for the tests, because highlighting higher creativity was assumed to

highlight higher hypnotic ability.

The general lack of correlation between high and low creativity and

hypnotizability on the HGSHS: A and ATTA was surprising, especially with the

subset of the population that was tested. The correlation between the HGSHS: A

and the O Index was insignificant as well. The scores for both the TAS and the O

Index were significantly higher than the population norms. There are several

possibilities for this. For example, this particular sample pool, though identifying

as involved in creative vocations, was not altogether homogenous as far as

creativity ability. Also, the use of individuals who identified as only art therapists

or art therapy majors, with no indication of art as a full-time vocation is

problematic; they may not have been significantly higher in creative capacity.

The high scores and correlation of the TAS and O Index may point to a

higher self-rating of creativity and hypnotizability rather than actual ability, as

indicated by the average scores on the ATTA and HGSHS: A. It may well be that
 62

this is more important as an impetus and drive for such individuals in choice of

vocation. These extremely high scores also may account for why results for

earlier studies were not replicated.

What was perhaps most striking among the findings was the lack of

correlation between the HGSHS: A and the TAS. As per the literature, these two

measures were expected to at least produce significant, low correlations, and were

predicted to be higher due to the subset of the population studied (Roche &

McConkey, 1990; Angelini, Kumar, & Chandler, 1999). However, in some

studies, they do not produce a correlation, so the results here were not altogether

unexpected. Again, the small sample population of the study may have

contributed to the lack of significant correlation between these two tests. Most

studies use larger samples, and often with undergraduate populations, with a

difference in median age (Roche & McConkey, 1991). Three statistical outliers

within the population performed exceedingly low on the HGSHS: A, while two of

them performed well over the mean for the TAS. It is possible that larger number

of participants would have made up for such anomalies.

The use of the recorded standardized induction with the HGSHS: A was

considered annoying and disruptive by some of the participants, and they felt

distracted by it, rather than able to fully experience the process. This is due to the

lengthy use of suggestions for individuals assumed to need more time to enter the

trance state. Some participants who had quickly felt relaxed became annoyed
 63

with the continued commands. Had the induction been performed by one of the

researchers, it may have produced different, perhaps more significant results.

However, the script itself is standardized, and this cannot be adjusted. The

recording too was used with the original sample norms. Thus it was felt that the

use of the recorded administration was best method to proceed with.

As discussed in the literature, the use of a domain general test of

creativity, the ATTA, may not be applicable to observations of people who work

in a domain specific area. In other words, it may have not actually been the best

choice to measure creativity with such a specific population. Though one can

argue that output of the ATTTA are creative products, a domain specific measure,

such as the Consensual Assessment Technique, may have given a more accurate

estimation for the level of creativity within this population. However, time

constraints for administration, as well as obtaining objective raters from the

creative fields would have been difficult for this study. The CAT is specific to

each domain tested; i.e., visual artists must produce a drawing or a painting, poets,

poetry, and so forth. This would have likely added more time constraints in

obtaining the sample, as the sample population would have been more specific,

rather than working with a more generalized, creative sample pool.

Another problematic aspect of the ATTA is that it is a timed test. This

puts the subject in the position of needing to perform under pressure, possibly

inducing performance anxiety, and may not actually be conducive to the creative
 64

process. If, as Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) have pointed out, creativity is

best evoked through a lengthy period of exploration, then it would follow that

timed tests may be especially ineffective of measuring the trait with creative

individuals. Nonetheless, for swiftness and ease of administration with groups,

the ATTA was deemed the best choice for this study.

The ATTA is also problematic in that it assumes validity and reliability

based upon an earlier, shortened version of the Torrance test (Goff & Torrance,

2002). One finding of this study was that the alpha levels suggest good to inter­

rater reliability for the measure.

The lack of significant correlation between the O Index and the HGSHS:

A is not supported by the literature. This sample population produced an

extremely high mean for the O Index, which was expected. The HGSHS: A

produced a slightly lower than average mean, though insignificant.

The literature indicates a number of low, but significant correlations

between both tests, with varying use of versions of the NEO-PI-R and often

parsing out coefficients with separate subscales of the O Index (Gilsky, et al.,

1991; Green, 2004). Only one study yielded a significant correlation with the

entire O Index (Gilsky, et al.; Green). However, there were several differences

between the sample of that study, including the size being much larger, and the

use undergraduates, where the median age does not reflect that of the current
 65

study (Gilsky, et al.). Sample differences with the other studies mentioned in the

literature are also applicable (Green).

The insignificance for differences in the scores for gender is reflective of

two things. First, it suggests that there may no difference for scores on

hypnotizability and creativity. However, the sample did not produce an

adequately large enough number of male subjects, (males=10, females=22, 31.3

and 68.6 percent). To have a more accurate, statistical view of this finding, a

more equal number of males would be desirable. Nonetheless, it is possible that

the sample of creative types for this geographic location itself is higher in

females, and the population was accurately represented within the opportunity

sample.

A general interpretive problem with this study is that it utilized a small

number of subjects. A larger number would have provided more statistical power,

possibly producing more statistically substantial correlations for the measures.

However, due to time constraints imposed because of slow collection speed, the

study utilized the current number. It is noted that some of the studies in the

literature utilized small number samples, but usually after collection of data from

larger sample pools, and utilizing high and low scorers for the more focused

studies (Bowers, 1978; Bowers, 1979).

The groups administered varied in size. This may have affected the results

as well. The larger groups may have influenced individuals to perform more
 66

readily on the tests due to social desirability of the traits among the population.

Subjects may have also experienced more performance anxiety in social settings.

Conversely, administrations with only one or two subjects may have may

influenced scores by the sensed individualized contact with the researcher.

Having produced three or four larger groups, rather than the smaller (sometimes

with one individual in the administration) could have, perhaps, produced more

homogenous results. Unfortunately, due to the nature of recruitment, it was

impossible to predict how many individuals would express interest in

participation at any one time. Another problem with using this opportunity pool

was consistent commitment from subjects. Several individuals were screened,

booked for participation and agreed upon a time to meet, but then cancelled or did

not show up.

Conclusion

The general trend in scores in this sample was that the TAS and O Index

were in the extremely high range, whereas the scores for the ATTA were average

and the HGSHS: A scores were insignificantly, slightly lower than average.

Thus, the extreme range for the former scores contributed to the overall lack of

correlation. The findings suggest that the personality domain of creativity and

hypnosis as represented by absorption are more so related among creative

individuals rather than divergent thinking and hypnotizability.

 67

The variance between the scores may also be seen as parallel to a general

trend in creativity and intelligence scores. Getzels and Jackson (1962) indicated

that when scores fall closer to the highest percentile ranks for intelligence, the

correlation with divergent thinking dissipates. When their entire sample was

comprised of highly intelligent individuals, it became clear that there were

differences between them on levels of creativity. Though it does not utilize

convergent or intelligence quotient tests, it may well be that a similar trend can be

gleaned within this population regarding correlations of measures of creativity

and hypnosis. Using a sample population of highly creative individuals, in

general, may dissipate the correlation between creativity and hypnotizability

across measures.

The purpose of the study was to replicate earlier studies relating hypnosis

and creativity, and combine older measures with newer ones. The hope was that

the findings could add to the body of knowledge regarding the two traits and that

this could lead to a better understanding of both. Further, this knowledge could

have provided a direction for the use of hypnosis in generative as well as clinical

uses, and be applied to creativity enhancement across many fields. Further

research in this area should look to using a larger sample size, a more

homogenous population, likely excluding the use of art therapy as a criteria, and

obtaining BD-TTCT, the earlier, brief version of the Torrance Tests, with proper

validity and reliability attributed to it (Goff & Torrance, 2002).

 68

Perhaps the use of hypnosis to elevate absorption, an aspect of the state,

could be a point of focus to consider for future research. The findings from

Council et al. (2008) suggest absorption as being the most salient factor in the

creativity of hypnotically augmented drawings. Indications from Getzels &

Csikszentmihalyi (1976) report that individuals who spent longer within the

problem finding phase of their study produced objects higher in originality and

aesthetic value. The extended period within this process may also indicate that

absorption is connected to creative output.

Further exploration could take the direction of testing hypnotic

suggestions with an emphasis on absorption and whether they affect creative

products (i.e., drawing, collage, poem). Testing these suggestions, in conjunction

with the measures within this study, and the CAT (Kaufman et al., 2008), a more

robustly studied product measure of creativity than that of the newer measures of

the Council et al. study, could provide insight into the relation between hypnosis

and creativity, as well as harnessing hypnosis as a tool for creativity enhancement.

 69

References

Angelini, F. J., Kumar, V. K., & Chandler, L. (1999) The Harvard group scale of

hypnotic susceptibility and related instruments. The International Journal

o f Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47(3), 236-250.

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual

assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research

Journal, 16( 1), 113-117.

Barrios, M. V., & Singer, J.L. (1981). The treatment of creative blocks: A

comparison study of waking imagery, hypnotic dream, and rational

discussion techniques. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, i(l), 89-

109.

Bowers, K. S., & van der Meullen, S. J. (1970). Effect of hypnotic susceptibility

on creative test performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 14(3), 247-256.

Bowers, P. G. (1967). Effect of hypnosis and suggestions of reduced

defensiveness on creativity test performance. Journal o f Personality, 35,

311-322.

Bowers, P. (1978). Hypnotizability, creativity and the role of effortless

experiencing. The International Journal o f Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis, 26(3), 184-202.

 70

Bowers, P. (1979). Hypnosis and creativity: The search for the missing link.

Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 88(8), 364-372.

Brown, D. & Fromm, E. (1986). Hypnotherapy and hypnoanalysis. New York:

Erlbaum & Associates.

Council, J. R., Bromley, K. A., Zabelina, D. L., &Waters, C.G. (2007). Hypnotic

enhancement of creative drawing. The International Journal of Clinical

and Experimental Hypnosis, 55(4), 467-485.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised neo personality inventory (NEO-

PI-R) annex Five-Factor Inventory (Neo-FFI): Professional manual

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Csikszentmihalyi, H. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New

York: Harper & Row.

Fowler, K. (1988). Hypnotic transformation-three studies of theatrical role

playing: A brief communication. The International Journal o f Clinical and

Experimental Hypnosis, 36(4), 249-255.

Fromm, E., & Kahn, S. (1990). Self-hypnosis: The Chicago paradigm. New York:

Guilford.

Getzels, J. W, & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations

with gifted students. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.

 71

Gilchrist, M. (1972). The psychology of creativity. Melbourne, AU: Melbourne

University Press.

Gilsky, M. L., Tartaryn, D. J., Tobias, B. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., & McConkey, K.

M. (1991). Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability.

Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 60(2), 263-272.

Gilsky, M. L. & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1993). Hypnotizability and facets of openness.

The International Journal o f Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(2),

112-123.

Goff, K, & Torrance, P. (2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults.

Bensenville, EL: Scholastic Testing Services.

Green, J. P. (2004). The five-factor model of personality and hypnotizability:

Little variance in common. Contemporary Hypnosis, 21(4), 161-168.

Gritzalis, N., Oster, M., & Frischholz, E. J. (2009). A concurrent validity study

between the hypnotic induction profile (HIP) and the Stanford hypnotic

clinical scale for Adults (SHCS:A) In an inpatient sample: A brief report.

American Journal o f Clinical Hypnosis, 5,2(2), 89-93.

Gruenwald, D., Fromm, E, & Oberlander, M .1. (1972). Hypnosis and adaptive

regression. In: E. Fromm & R.E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research,

Developments, and Practice. New Brunswick, N.J.: Adline Transaction.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, (5), 444-454.

 72

Kahn, S., & Delaney, M. (2010, March). Hypnosis for creativity enhancement.

Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the American Society of

Clinical Hypnosis, Nashville, Tennessee.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials o f creativity

assessment. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice.

In: S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.). Positive psychological assessment:

A handbook o f models and measures. Washington D.C.: American

Psychological Association.

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Evans, F. J. (1976). Recovery of memory after posthypnotic

amnesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 55(6), 564-569.

Kirsch, I., & Council, J. R. (1992). Situational and personality correlates of

hypnotic responsiveness. In: Fromm, E. & Nash, M. R. (Eds.),

Contemporary hypnosis research, (pp. 267-291). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Kluft, R. P. (2012). Enhancing workshop safety: learning from colleagues’

adverse experiences (part II—structure/policy). American Journal o f

Clinical Hypnosis,51(1), 104-122.

Krippner, S. (1965). Hypnosis and creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 9 (3), 149-

155.
 73

Lynn, S. J. & Kirsch, I. (2006). Contemporary theories and research. In: Lynn, S.

J., Kirsch, I. (Eds.) Essentials o f clinical hypnosis: An evidence-based

approach, (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological

Association.

Lynn, S. J., & Sivec, H. (1992). Hypnotizable subject as creative problem-solving

agent. In: Fromm, E. & Nash, M. R. (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis

research, (pp. 292-333). New York: The Guilford Press.

Mellegren, A. (1976). Hypnosis and artistic creation. Journal of the American

Society o f Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine, 23(4), 133-135.

Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (2000). Operationalizing “trance: I: Rationale and

research using the psychophenomonological approach. American Journal

o f Clinical Hypnosis, 43(2), 107-135.

Perri, F. B. (2003). An investigation into the use of ego state therapy in enhancing

creative output. The Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and

Hypnosis, 24 (2), 77-87.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press/APA. p 93.

Raikov. V. L. (1992). Hypnosis as an active creative act and posthypnotic

development of enhanced creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(3),

148-155.
 74

Roche, S. M., & McConkey, (1990). Absorption: Nature assessment and

correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(1), 91-101.

Shames, V. A., & Bowers, P. G. (1992). Hypnosis and creativity, In: Fromm, E.

& Nash, M. R. (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research, (pp. 334-363).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Shor, R. E., & Ome, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale o f Hypnotic

Susceptibility: Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Shor, R. E., & Ome, 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.

Soper, D. (2012). A-prior sample size calculatorfo r a multiple regression.

Retrieved March 23,2012, from

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=l

Sylva, C. E. & Kirsch, I. (1992). Interpretive sets, expectancy, fantasy proneness,

and dissociation as predictors of hypnotic response. Journal o f Personality

and Social Psychology, 63(5), 847-856.

Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering

experience(“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal

of Absorption, 33(3), 268-277.

 75

Tellegen, A. (1981). Practicing the two disciplines for relaxation and

enlightenment: Comment on Qualls & Sheehan. Journal o f Experimental

Psychology: General, 110 (2), 217-226.

Vartanian, O. (2006). Variable attention facilitates creative problem solving.

Psychology o f Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, (1), 57-59.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem

solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons.

Woody, E. Z., & Bamier, A. J. (2008). Hypnosis scales for the twentieth century:

what we need and how should we use them? In: Nash, M. & Bamier, A.J.

(Eds.) The Oxford handbook o f hypnosis: Theory, research and practice.

(pp.225-281).New York: Oxford University Press.

Yapko, M. (2003). Trancework. New York: Brunner-Routlledge.

 76

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A QUANTITATIVE

STUDY:

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN TRAITS AND ABILITIES OF

CREATIVITY AND HYPNOTIZABILrrY

Statement of Purpose
You are being asked to participate in a research study that is being conducted by
Scott Hoye, a doctoral student at the Adler School of Professional Psychology.
This research is being done in fulfillment of his doctoral program at the school.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between creativity and
hypnotizability.

Procedures Followed and Duration of Study

In order to gather information, you will be asked to fill out a self report of the
traits of absorption (trait that correlates with hypnotizability) and a creativity
personality self report, and to participate in a group test of creativity and group
test of hypnotizability. The total duration should take no more than 1.5 hours to
collect.

Reasonable Risks and Discomforts

Any risk or discomfort you may experience during this study is expected to be
minimal, consistent with any level of distress you may experience with sitting
through a lengthy interview questionnaire. Some of the questions may seem odd,
but likely will not bother you to answer them. There is a slight possibility that
you may feel unease with the use of hypnosis to test for hypnotic susceptibility.
There will be a short, explanatory debriefing by one of the chief investigators
prior to the procedure to answer any questions you may have regarding the
procedure. At any time during the testing, you may stop answering the questions.
However, please answer the questions to the best of your ability. Also, if at any
point you End the hypnotic procedure discomforting, you are allowed to stop the
process.

Benefits of Participation
It is hoped that the gathering of this information will provide important
information about the nature of both hypnotizability and creativity in creative
 77

individuals. As compensation for your participation, you will be paid a small

stipend of $10.00. Your participation may ultimately benefit others by the
knowledge gained from this study.

Confidentiality
All information gathered as part of this study is strictly confidential. Your name
will never be attached to the data, and a participant number will be issued instead
of a name. All raw data will be kept in a locked filing cabinet, in a locked office
of the Institute for Clinical Hypnosis and Research (ICHR) by the Principal
Investigators. All data entered into a computer for data analysis will be kept in a
code-locked computer in the same office.

Further Information
For further information regarding this project can be directed to Scott Hoye
([email protected]), or Dr. Jerry Westermeyer, chair of Scott Hoye’s
dissertation committee ([email protected]). Questions or concerns about your
rights as a research participant should be sent to Catherine McNeilly, Psy.D. at
312-662-4000 or, [email protected]. You will receive a copy of a consent
form for your records as well.

Statement of Voluntary Participation

There is no cost for your participating in this study. Your participation is entirely
voluntary and you may choose to withdraw from the study at any point.
However, if you do not finish the entire study, the researchers hold the right to
withhold the $10.00 stipend.

By signing below, you agree that you have read the above statements, you
understand and agree to the terms therein, and that you agree to participate in this
study.

Name of Participant (please print)

Signature of Participant Date

Signature of Principal Investigator Date

 78

APPENDIX B

ADVERTISMENT COPY FOR SUBJECT RECRUITMENT

Hypnosis & Creativity Study

Psychology graduate student from the Adler School of

Professional Psychology seeks creative types (artists,
musicians, writers, actors, art therapists) for research
study. Involves the administration of measures of creativity
and hypnotizability, lasting approximately one-hour and
fifteen minutes. Participants will be reimbursed with a
stipend of $10.00, after completion of the measures. Study
involves hypnotic induction/experience of hypnosis.

Date: Ongoing--weekdays and weekends.

Place: The Adler School of Professional Psychology.

Contact Information: Scott Hoye; email:

shoye@ my .adler.edu.
 79

APPENIX C

SPEECH FOR ART THERAPY STUDENT RECRUITMENT

Hoye Dissertation Speech for Adler Art Therapy Seminars

Hello. My name is Scott Hoye. I am a 3rd year Clinical Doctorate student here at
the Adler School of Professional Psychology. I am researching correlations
between the traits of creativity and hypnosis. 1 am specifically interested in
populations that are considered to be more creative by the culture at large. This,
of course, would include students in an art therapy program, such as all of you.

The study would benefit and be of interest to art therapists. How you could help
me, if you choose to consider being a part of it, would be to volunteer as a subject.
The Adler School of Professional Psychology Institutional Review Board has
approved this study. It will involve the administration of personality measures of
creativity and hypnotizability, lasting approximately an hour and fifteen minutes.
I am looking to set up small groups of participants, of somewhere from ten-20 per
group. If you participate, you will be reimbursed with a small stipend of $10.00
for your time. There will be disclosure regarding the nature the research to the
subjects after the tests have been administered. I would also like to offer
participants a chance to learn more in a small presentation and discussion
regarding the body of literature on this subject, and how my study relates to it,
and to your field.

I will be setting up times to run small groups and individual subjects in the Spring
2012 semester at the Adler School. These will take place throughout the year.
Please contact me at to let me know your interest and availability by signing up
on the sheet that I am passing around.

Thank you very much for your time.

 80

Table 1

Frequency Distributions o f Subject Demographic Variables

Variable M Range SD
AGE

34.125 63 12.72

Variable n percent
GENDER

Female 22 68.6
Male 10 31.3

CREATIVE OCCUPTION
Artist 17 39.5
Art Therapy Student 9 20.9
Art Therapist 5 11.6
Writer 3 7.0
Dancer 2 4.7
Musician 2 4.7
Photographer 2 4.7
Actor 2 4.7
Composer 1 2.3

A
 81

Table 2

Comparison of Means by Sample

CURRENT STUDY ORIGINAL POPULATION NORMS

Measure M__________ SD_______________ M__________ SD_________

Tellegen Absorption Scale

26.28 4.26 20 6

Abbreviated Torrance Test

70.9 13.27 69.43 10.98

Harvard Group Scale

6.62 2.57 7.39/7.31 2.71

NEO PI-R O Index

72.5 7.73 50 10
 82

Table 3

Reliability Coefficients (Chronbach’s Alpha)

1. Tellegen Absorption Scale .703

2. Abbreviated Torrance Test .782; .60

3. Harvard Group Scale .716

4. NEO-PI-R O Index .729

 83

Table 4

Intercorrelations o f All Measures

Measure 1 2 3 4

Pearson Correlation

1. Tellegen Absorption Scale —

2. Abbreviated Torrance Test -.026 —

3. Harvard Group Scale .092 -.137 —

4. NEO-PI-R 0 Index .356* -.064 .068

Kendall’s Tau

1. Tellegen Absorption Scale —

2. Abbreviated Torrance Test -.057 —

3. Harvard Group Scale .066 -.089 —

4. NEO-PI-R 0 Index .238* .032 .022

Spearman’s Rho

1. Tellegen Absorption Scale —

2. Abbreviated Torrance Test -.101 —

3. Harvard Group Scale .072 -.118 --

4. NEO-PI-R 0 Index .325* .032 .048 —

* Is significant at the .05 level (one-tailed)

 84

Table 5

Score Differences for All Measures by Gender

Female fN=22) Male (N=10I

Measure________M SD M_______ SD_______ t p

Tellegen Absorption Scale

26.36 4.08 31.10 18.11 .817 .434

Abbreviated Torrance Test

71.40 10.63 69.8 18.46 -.315 .756

Harvard Group Scale

6.5 2.57 6.9 2.68 .402 .691

NEO-PI-R O Index

72.9 6.96 74.1 8.19 .424 .674

 85

Table 6

Score Differences for All Measures by Sample________________________

Spring (N=24) Fall (N=&)

Measure________M SD_____ M_______ §D_______ t p

Tellegen Absorption Scale

26.50 4.62 25.62 3.11 .496 .623

Abbreviated Torrance Test

71.40 10.63 69.8 18.46 -.315 .756

Harvard Group Scale

6.75 2.64 6.55 2.68 .47 .642

NEO-PI-R Q Index

71.7 8.44 74.87 4.67 -1.0 .324

View publication stats