LAUSR

Although hypnotizability exhibits high across-time and across-test consistencies, it is not clear (a) how different preambles to a hypnotic procedure (metasuggestions) influence responsiveness to suggestions and the strength of the association between two hypnotizability scales and (b) how hypnotizability relates to absorption and empathy. In Experiment 1, nonclinical participants (N = 152 women) were administered the Modified Tellegen Absorption Scale (MODTAS), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP), and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). In Experiment 2, nonclinical participants (N = 188; 105 women and 83 men) were administered the MODTAS, IRI, and Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A). The induction scores of the HIP (HIP-IND) and the SHSS:C scores showed a significantly stronger correlation when the HIP was introduced to the participants after hypnosis metasuggestion (HIP-H-IND) than after imagination metasuggestion (HIP-I-IND). Metasuggestion was a moderator of the association between HIP-IND and SHSS:C scores. Participants with low and medium, but not with high, hypnotizability levels on the SHSS:C showed significantly higher scores on the HIP-I-IND than on the HIP-H-IND. The strong correlations between the SHSS:C, HIP-H-IND, and HIP eye-roll (HIP-ER) scores indicate that both the HIP-H-IND and HIP-ER are robust measures of hypnotizability. Absorption and empathy were not significantly associated with hypnotizability. Women were more hypnotizable than men, as assessed by the HGSHS:A. The clinical relevance of metasuggestions, intended to increase responsiveness to suggestions, is discussed as a strategy to improve treatment outcomes.