Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

Contemporary Hypnosis

Contemp. Hypnosis 23(4): 151166 (2006) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ch.320

151

A NEW WAY OF CHARACTERIZING HYPNOTIC INTERACTIONS: DYADIC INTERACTIONAL HARMONY (DIH) QUESTIONNAIRE
Katalin Varga, Emese Jzsa, va I. Bnyai and Anna C. Go si-Greguss Center for Affective Psychology, Etvs Lornd Universit, Budapest, Hungary Abstract
Aims: The validation of a new paper and pencil test (called Dyadic Interactional Harmony (DIH) questionnaire). Method: Data of two samples of standardized experimental hypnosis sessions (E1 and E2) are presented. In E1, 232 subjects (Ss) have been hypnotized using the standard protocol of SHSS:A; in E2, 110 Ss participated in group sessions of WSGC. Various well established measures of hypnosis (e.g. hypnotic susceptibility, AIM, PCI,) served as validating criteria for the 4 subscales of DIH: 1 Intimacy; 2 Communion; 3 Playfulness; 4 Tension. Conclusions: The DIH subscales measured the way participants emotionally evaluated their session and the hypnotic relationship with Intimacy having the highest explanatory value. The hypnotizability of the Ss only moderately correlated with DIH subscales. Some characteristic differences were found regarding the pattern of relationship between the DIH subscales and the state effects of hypnosis between the hypnotists (Hs) and Ss. The values of DIH are closest to that of the AIM Archaic Involvement measure (especially in cases of Hs), but seems to be independent from most of the phenomenological aspects of the hypnotic trance (especially in cases of Ss). The DIH is a promising measure with which to tap the interactional aspects of hypnotic relationship. Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key words: archaic involvement, hypnotic interaction, phenomenology, rapport

Introduction
Interactional theories of hypnosis conceptualize hypnosis as a social encounter between hypnotist and subject (see e.g. Haley, 1958; Fourie, 1983; Diamond, 1984, 1987; Bnyai, 1985, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002a; Bnyai, Gsi-Greguss, Vg, Varga and Horvth, 1990; Lynn and Rhue, 1991; Lynn et al., 1991; Nash, 1991; Sheehan, 1991). These approaches are called interactional because they emphasize the importance of rapport the special relationship between the two participants. Most of the interactional studies, however, have investigated the whole process only from the viewpoint of the hypnotized subject neglecting the subjective involvement of the hypnotists (see Perry and Sheehan, 1978; Sheehan and Dolby, 1979; Sheehan, 1980; Levitt and Baker, 1983; Nash and Lynn, 1986; Baker and Levitt, 1989; Nash, 1991. For a review see Diamond, 1984; Baker, 2000; or Bnyai, 1991). It is important to realize
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

152

Varga et al.

that the analysis of both the hypnotist and the subject is relevant to the essence of the interactional approach.

The degree of harmony as a characteristic of interactions


Using interactional modications of well-known subject-centered phenomenological measures e.g. the Parallel Experiential Analysis Technique (PEAT; Varga, Bnyai, Gsi-Greguss, 1994, based on EAT of Sheehan and McConkey, 1982), or the questionnaire of Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI) of Pekala, Steinberg and Kumar (1986) and Pekala and Nagler (1989) we have collected a large amount of data in the past twenty years about the phenomenological involvement of hypnotic interactants (our ndings have been reported elsewhere: Varga, Bnyai and Gsi-Greguss, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000). According to our observation, hypnotic interactions do differ in the level of concordance/accord between the subjective reports of the hypnotist and subject. Some hypnotic dyads show high agreement, and a similar pattern, while others do not match each other in the way they report their subjective feelings regarding the hypnosis session. In our view, this way of measuring interactional synchrony at the phenomenological level is at least as informative as the other indices analyzing the synchronous phenomena at the behavioural or electrophysiological level (e.g. joint movements and posture mirroring at the overt behavioural level, or the common breathing rhythm and parallel myographic activity at the physiological level (for details see Bnyai 1985, 1991, 1998), forming the basis of the description of hypnosis styles (e.g. paternal and maternal styles; Bnyai, 1994, 2002/b; Varga, 1999).

Dyadic Interactional Harmony questionnaire


The interactional modications of the techniques mentioned above were originally developed for special experimental aims: PCI focuses on the pattern of the phenomenological alterations in a given state; PEAT attempts to obtain an unbiased free report from the subject and the hypnotist. However, using these techniques, no systematic data can be received about the interactional partner, or about the interaction itself. In order to measure the way interactants perceive their own interaction, we have recently developed a test called the Dyadic Interactional Harmony (DIH) questionnaire (see Appendix 1. Note: the name of the questionnaire does not appear in the version given to the subjects and the hypnotists.) The main characteristic of this measure is its direct focus on the interaction itself, evaluated by the participants of the interaction themselves. The main motive for the development of DIH was to get a measure that is short and simple both for the subjects and for the experimenters; easily applicable for parallel processing of the data of the interacting partners; not specic for hypnotic interactions this way, various types of interactions can be compared; not restricted to experimental hypnosis sessions, but giving clinically meaningful data as well; suitable to characterize the degree and pattern of harmony between the interacting participants.

Standardization of DIH
The DIH questionnaire developed for this purpose lists 50 features. The Hungarian version of DIH was standardized on a sample of 256 Ss (Varga, Bnyai and GsiCopyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

153

Greguss, 1999), who were interacting in pairs in a non-hypnotic setting in a so called mutual Rorschach test situation (for the test see Engelbrecht, Arnold, Eraschky, 1987 and Loveland, Wynne and Singer 1963). The mutual Rorschach test situation is an interaction-diagnostic method, in which the interacting partners should come to an agreement regarding the meaning of the ink-blots of the classsical Rorschach test. In this situation the interacting partners communication style, dominance-relationships and affective behaviour could be examined. The situation is highly motivating for the partners, and the cooperative behaviour can be characterized on the basis of their registered interaction. On the basis of these features the Mutual Rorschach situation is an ideal and economical condition for standardization of DIH in our study. In the standardization protocol 256 Ss (128 dyads) participated (age: X = 25,6 years, SD = 3,7). The volunteers for a study on communication were randomly assigned to male-female dyads. They did not know each other; the dyads met rst in the experimental situaton. The standardization data of the Mutual Rorschach situation were factor analyzed, using iterated principle factor analysis with varimax rotation. Four factors were obtained, accounting for 72% of the common variance. On the basis of these factors, four (3 positive and 1 negative) subscales were created, each having good internal consistency: 1 Intimacy (e.g. passion, love; Cronbach alpha: 0.85); 2 Communion (e.g. understanding, harmony; Cronbach alpha: 0.86); 3 Playfulness (e.g. humour, inspiring; Cronbach alpha: 0.81); 4 Tension (e.g. anxiety, fear; Cronbach alpha: 0.78). The cumulative explanatory values of these factors are: 42, 58, 66 and 72% respectively. Appendix 2 shows the data of factor analysis of DIH. The test can be scored independently for the interacting partners, but one can compare the ratings of the participants of the same interaction. In the case of interactional analysis, the DIH scores of the participants of the same interaction are related. This way it can be seen if the participants judgements regarding their interaction are similar or not. In this case, the unit of analysis is the dyad, and the results of the participants can be compared in many ways.

The DIH in hypnosis settings


In this paper the application of DIH related to hypnosis sessions is presented and the individual scoring of DIH is followed. For this purpose data were collected on 232 Ss in standardized individual (E1) and 110 Ss in standardized group hypnotic sessions (E2), where various well established measures of hypnosis (e.g. hypnotic susceptibility, AIM, PCI, for details and references see below) were applied to validate the DIH subscales on a hypnotic sample. In E1 most of the measures were applied for the Hs as well. The H and the S completed the various questionnaires independently. In the case of the DIH this means that they characterized their interaction, scoring each item on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5.

Method Design
In two separate studies (E1 and E2) the DIH questionnaires were applied to healthy Ss and in E1 parallel to Hs among other measures and a test of hypnosis. The interactants had not known each other before; they met each other for the rst time in their lives in the experimental hypnosis sessions.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

154

Varga et al.

Procedure
The Ss for the studies were recruited by posters (placed on internet-forums, notice boards of various universities and colleges) asking for healthy volunteers for a hypnosis experiment for determining hypnotizability. In E1 the standardized protocol of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (SHSS:A; Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959), and in E2 the standardized protocol of Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (WSGC; Bowers, 1998) were applied. The WSGC is a group adaptation of the individually administered Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C; Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1962). Immediately after completing the hypnosis sessions the following tests were applied: 1. Archaic Involvement Measure, measuring the deep, transference-like feelings in hypnosis (AIM+S; Nash and Spinler, 1989), and some additional items for negative feelings (AIMS), and the parallel versions of these scales for the hypnotist (AIM+H, AIMH; Bnyai, Gsi-Greguss, Vg, Varga and Horvth, 1990); 2. The Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory, measuring the subjective alteration of consciousness on 26 dimensions (PCI; Pekala et al. 1986). In the statistical analysis we used the 5 factor-based scales of PCI (Kumar, Pekala and Cummings, 1996; Varga, Jzsa, Bnyai, Gsi-Greguss and Kumar, 2001). The ve PCI factor-based scales used in this study, and their denitions, are as follows: a Dissociative control (PCI DC). Higher factor scores reect alterations in i) trance effects associated with altered state of awareness and altered experiences (body image, time sense, perception, visual imagery, and meaning); and ii) ego-executive functioning (Fromm, Brown, Hurt, Oberlander, Boxer, Pfeifer, 1981) and reality orientation associated with decreases in memory, rationality, volitional control, and internal dialogue (i.e. the classic suggestion effect; Weitzenhoffer, 1978; Bowers, 1981, 1992). b Positive affect (PCI PA). Higher factor scores reect more joy, more sexual excitement, more love, altered meaning, altered body image, and altered perception. c Negative affect (PCI NA). Higher factor scores reect more anger, sadness, fear, and arousal, but low rationality. d Visual imagery (PCI VI). Higher factor scores reect more visual imagery (amount and vividness). e Attention to internal processes (PCI IA). Higher scores reect greater alterations in time sense and perception, greater absorption, inward directed attention, altered state of awareness, internal dialogue, and low imagery vividness. 3. DIH. The participants were asked not to discuss their feelings following the session. Immediately after the termination of the hypnosis sessions Ss lled in the tests (in E1 Hs also did this, independently of the Ss). After this, a debrieng discussion ended the experiments.

Subjects
The participants of the studies were the Ss and the Hs of individual (E1) and Ss of group hypnosis (E2) sessions. In E1, 232 healthy volunteer Ss (168 = 72.4% females; 64 = 27.5% males; average age 35.7 years) were hypnotized by one of 18 Hs. In 25% of the sessions a male hypnotist delivered the hypnosis, and in 75%, a female.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

155

In E2, 110 healthy volunteer Ss (79 = 71.8% females; 31 = 28.2 males; average age 24.5 years) were hypnotized by one of three female Hs in groups of 7 to 12 Ss.

Results
The basic psychometric data and the results of analysis by the most important variables will be presented rst. The relationship between the scores on the DIH subscales and the validating criteria, in the case of Ss and Hs, were analyzed separately. In these cases, the unit of analysis is the individual (the S or the H).

Basic data of DIH


The four subscales had good internal consistency in this hypnotic sample as well, as can be seen from their Cronbach alpha values (see Table 1). The subscales are not independent from each other (as can be seen in Table 2), as was the case in the original standardization sample.

DIH averages in the two experiments


As can be seen in Table 3 there is a signicant difference between the average DIH scores of the Ss in the two experiments. The individual sessions of SHSS:A yielded higher scores in all the subscales of DIH than the group sessions of WSGC. The most expressed difference was observed in the communion subscale.
Table 1. The Cronbach values of the DIH subscales in the experimental hypnosis sessions and in the pooled sample DIH answered by the Hs (only in E1) Pooled (E1 + E2, N = 331) 0.82 0.92 0.83 0.78

DIH answered by the Ss

DIH subscale Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension

E1 (N = 226) 0.81 0.90 0.82 0.77

E2 (N = 105) 0.85 0.90 0.83 0.79

E1 (N = 226) 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.77

Table 2. Correlations of DIH subscales (data of the Ss)


Intimacy E1 (N = 231) Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension 1.00 0.51** 0.59** 0.03 E2 (N = 106) E1 + E2 (N = 337) E1 (N = 231) Communion E2 (N = 106) E1 + E2 (N = 337) E1 (N = 231) Playfulness E2 (N = 106) E1 + E2 (N = 337)

0.69** 0.65** 0.28**

0.57** 0.62** 0.06

1.00 0.53** 0.29**

0.63** 0.41**

0.59** 0.31**

1.00 0.17**

0.43**

0.25**

Note: (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).


Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

156

Varga et al.

Table 3. Comparing the means of the DIH subscales in the two experiments (data of the Ss) DIH scores of Ss DIH subscale Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = E1 (N = 231) 2,4 0,71 4,23 0,64 3,22 0,84 2,11 0,53 E2 (N = 106) 2,19 0,68 3,56 0,79 2,8 0,83 2,04 0,50 t 2,49** 8,25** 3,83** 1,07** df 335 335 335 335

Note: (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

Relationship of DIH with the other measures of hypnosis


The correlation coefcients of the subscales of DIH and the other measures (SHSS:A, WSGC, AIM+, AIM, and the 5 factor-based scales of PCI) are presented in Tables 4 and 5. SHSS scores of Ss have a low to moderate but signicant positive correlation with their Intimacy, Communion and Playfulness DIH scales. High levels of susceptibility seem to be achieved through an intimate and playful atmosphere with better communion between H and S. Moreover, the above DIH scales of hypnotists show an even more pronounced positive correlation with the SHSS values, so the perceived quality of the interaction by the Hs seems to be more closely related to the Ss hypnotizability scores than the DIH values of Ss. On the basis of their susceptibility scores the Ss were arranged into 3 groups of susceptibility range: 04 Low susceptibility; 58 Medium susceptibility; and 912 High susceptibility1. As there was no signicant interaction of the Experiment and Susceptibility ranges we report the comparison of Lows, Mediums and Highs on DIH subscales in a pooled sample of E1+E2. In the pooled sample, a signicant difference appeared in the case of the Ss intimacy, communion and playfulness scores (see Table 6) as a function of hypnotic susceptibility of the Ss, due to those with Low hypnotic susceptibility, who gave signicantly lower intimacy communion and playfulness scores than those with Medium or High susceptibility. In E1 the Hs scores were signicantly inuenced by Ss hypnotic susceptibility in cases of the Hs intimacy, communion and playfulness scores. Hs expressed higher intimacy and playfulness with the High susceptible Ss than either with the Mediums or with the Lows. In the communion subscale Hs gave lower scores with low susceptibles than with Mediums or Highs (for details see Table 7).

1 Analysing the distribution of susceptibility in the two samples of E1 and E2 we decided to rise the cutting value of the range for High susceptibles, to get a more suitable range for statistical analysis. That is why we do not exactly follow the conventional ranges of 04 for Lows, 57 for Mediums, and 812 for Highs.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Table 4. Correlations of the DIH subscales with the other tests in E1 DIH Scores of Ss Playfulness 0.21** 0.40** 0.13* 0.40** 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.21** 0.32** 0.10 0.13* 0.21** 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.04 -0.07 0.12 0.18** 0.14* 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.50** 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.14* 0.33** 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.77** 0.06 0.74** 0.17* 0.11 0.14* 0.06 0.09 0.50** 0.82** 0.06 0.14* 0.58** 0.30** 0.20* 0.03 0.19** 0.42** 0.32** 0.37** 0.15* 0.14* 0.06 0.09 0.13* 0.29** 0.46** 0.14* 0.21** 0.34** Tension Intimacy Communion DIH Scores of Hs Playfulness 0.29** 0.13* 0.04 0.13 0.57** 0.13* 0.54** 0.16* 0.13* 0.01 0.08 0.13* 0.40** 0.62** 0.06 0.17* 0.45** Tension 0.14* 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.30** 0.43** 0.33** 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.27** 0.12 0.51** 0.01 0.24**

Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

E1 0.18** 0.34** 0.09* 0.31** 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.16* 0.19** 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.02

Intimacy

Communion

SHSS-A AIM + S AIM-S AIMtotS AIM + H AIM-H AIMtotH PCI DK S PCI PA S PCI NA S PCI VI S PCI IA S PCI DK H PCI PA H PCI NA H PCI VI H PCI IA H

231 230 230 230 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 227 227 227 227 227

0.19* 0.45** 0.07 0.44** 0.13 0.09 0.13* 0.21** 0.48** 0.02 0.19** 0.14* 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.14* 0.12

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

Note: S: scores of the subject; H: scores of the hypnotist (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01). Values in bold: indicate the correlation between DIH values of Ss as well as between those of Hs.

157

Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

158

Varga et al.

Table 5. Correlations of the DIH subscales with the other tests in E2 DIH Scores of Ss E2 WSGC AIM + S AIM-S AIMtotS PCI DK PCI PA S PCI NA S PCI VI S PCI IA S N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 Intimacy 0.29** 0.55** 0.08 0.52** 0.41** 0.65** 0.15 0.19* 0.19* Communion 0.27** 0.37** 0.23* 0.33** 0.29** 0.41** 0.27** 0.16 0.16 Playfulness 0.20* 0.34** 0.22* 0.31** 0.26** 0.50** 0.30** 0.08 0.08 Tension 0.22* 0.00 0.36** 0.03 0.09 0.22* 0.63** 0.06 0.06

Note: S: scores of the subject (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

Table 6. Comparing the means of the DIH subscales of the Low, Medium and High susceptible DIH scores of Ss Pooled (N = 337) Low (N = 111) x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = 2,08 0,65 3,7 0,84 2,7 0,84 1,39 0,58 Medium (N = 164) 2,42 0,73 4,1 0,65 3,1 0,83 1,3 0,60 High (N = 62) 2,55 0,62 4,2 0,66 3,4 0,76 1,19 0,61 Tukey Post Hoc test

DIH subscale Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension

df 2,334 2,334 2,334 2,334

F 11,52** 16,35** 13,76** 2,13 n.s.

Post Hoc L<M=H L<M=H L<M=H

Note: (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

Comparing the DIH scores of Ss and Hs


On the basis of the 227 hypnotic interactions of E1, the Hs and Ss DIH mean scores were calculated. The data of comparison of hypnotizing and being an S in a standardized hypnosis experiment on the 4 subscales of DIH are summarized in Table 8. As was seen, the difference between the average scores of the Ss and Hs is signicant in the case of all the subscales of the DIH. Although these differences were statistically signicant, they are so small that the similarity of Ss and Hs average scores in each DIH scale seems to be more important than the differences (see Figure 1). It can be seen that the general patterns of the average scores of Hs and Ss on the four subscales do harmonize with each other. These types of experimental hypnotic sessions are moderately intimate and playful interactions, with a high level of felt communion,
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

159

Table 7. Comparing the means of the DIH subscales of Hs interacting with the Low, Medium and High susceptible Ss DIH scores of Hs E1 (N = 227) Low (N = 58) x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = 1,8 0,51 3,3 0,68 2,3 0,66 1,7 0,64 Medium (N = 122) 2,1 0,74 3,6 0,70 2,5 0,76 1,5 0,53 High (N = 51) 2,4 0,77 3,8 0,67 2,9 0,85 1,4 0,49 ANOVA Post Hoc by Tukey L=M<H L<M=H L=M<H L<H

DIH subscale Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension

df 2,225 2,225 2,225 2,225

F 10,79** 7,91** 7,51** 3,11*

Note: In Tukey Post Hoc analysis < or > mark if the mean difference is signicant at the .05 level; = refers to a non-signicant difference. L: Low, M: Medium, H: High hypnotizable Ss. (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

Table 8. The DIH scores of hypnotists and subjects and their comparison by t-tests (in E1) E1 (N = 227) DIH subscale Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = x= sd = Ss (N = 227) 2,39 0,71 4,23 0,64 3,22 0,84 1,30 0,60 Hs (N = 227) 2,13 0,73 3,63 0,71 2,55 0,78 1,55 0,56 t 4,29** 10,30** 9,26** 4,67** df 226 226 226 226

Note: (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

and some tension according to the subjective judgments of both of the participants who were involved in the interaction itself.

Discussion
The DIH questionnaire shows good psychometrical features: very high internal reliabilities for the subscales in the original (non hypnotic sample), and in this sample as well. This is true if we consider the scores and Cronbach alpha values of the Ss and those of the Hs as well.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

160

Varga et al.

Average DIH scores of Ss and Hs (E1)


5 4 3 2 1 0
io n ac un ln e tim ns io n ss y

DIH score

Ss Hs

fu

In

Co

DIH subscales

Figure 1. The DIH scores of hypnotists and subjects on the four subscales. In case of all the subscales the difference is signicant at p < 0.01.

The high correlation between the factors implies that basically one thing is measured by the DIH, i.e. the intimacy subscale. This strongest factor has the highest explanatory value, but the three other smaller subscales may contain important information, occasionally showing different relationships with the other variables than the strongest factor. Ss of individual sessions give higher scores on the DIH, especially on the communion scale, reecting the fact that a dyadic situation is based more on the cooperation of the participants than the group session. The correlations between the Ss hypnotizability scores and the DIH subscales are signicant, but small or moderate, and interestingly, the hypnotists intimacy and playfulness DIH scores correlate more highly than those of the Ss. This may be related to the fact that in these standardized experimental sessions success or failure on test suggestions was evident in the procedure surely for the hypnotists, and probably for the subjects as well. In these sessions, the low susceptible Ss expressed lower intimacy, communion and playfulness scores than the medium or high ones. In the case of Hs the intimacy and playfulness scores were higher when the H was interacting with a high susceptible S (compared to the low and medium susceptibles), and according to the DIH of Hs, Hs report smaller communion with the low susceptibles than with the other Ss. At this stage of research, it remains a question whether the low hypnotizables scored low on positive DIH scales because of the general lower level of intimacy, communion and playfulness on their part, or because due to their low performance on the test suggestions, they cannot experience higher intimacy in the given context. It may even be that the Hs disappointment while interacting with low susceptibles is the cause of the low DIH scores. It may even be that the Hs disappointment while interacting with low susceptibles is the cause of the low DIH scores of low susceptible Ss. We should see that the degree (or absolute value) of differences between the DIH values of the various susceptible groups are small (in spite of the statistically signicantly difference). This seems to imply that the DIH reects a separate dimension of hypnotic interaction than simply the Ss hypnotic susceptibility itself.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Pl

ay

Te

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

161

The Ss intimacy, communion and playfulness (positive DIH) subscales proved to show the strongest correlation with the validating criteria: moderate correlations with a high degree of (positive) archaic involvement, and positive affect scale of PCI. In the case of Hs, the positive archaic involvement measure (AIM+H) showed a very high correlation with the level of intimacy and playfulness reported by the Hs. The negative part of the AIM (AIMH) showed low or moderate negative correlation with the three positive subscales of the DIH. So, concerning the relationship of the DIH scales and the archaic involvement of the participants, an interesting difference appears between the Ss and Hs: while in the case of Ss only moderate correlations were found with the DIH positive scales, in the case of Hs these measures were much more strongly connected. It raises the possibility that in the case of Hs the involvement reected in the DIH is very close to archaic feelings, whereas in the case of Ss this was not the case. By analyzing the pattern of correlations between the PCI and DIH, we can characterize the relationship between the subjective alteration in consciousness reported by the participants on the PCI, and the way they characterized their interaction on the DIH. The positive affects reported by the participants (PCI) seem to be strongly correlated with the way the interactants characterize the interaction itself (positive DIH scales). This pattern could be found both in the case of Ss and Hs. In the cases of Ss the positive subscales of DIH moderately connected to the positive affect scale of PCI, but all the other scales of PCI seem to be almost independent from the DIH scores (signicant close to zero correlation). This means that the phenomenological level of Ss (PCI) seems to be almost entirely independent of the way they evaluate the interaction itself (DIH). In the cases of Hs, their own subjective alterations reported by PCI H (dissociative control, positive affect, internal attention) are moderately to highly connected to the way they judged their interaction with the Ss (DIH). So the various subjective aspects of trance state while hypnotizing seems to be more connected to the felt quality (especially intimacy) of the interaction, than the state of being hypnotized.

Conclusion
The application of DIH in a hypnotic sample fullled the aims and requirements set at the beginning: this is an easily administered, quick method that can be applied for subjects and hypnotists, both in individual and group sessions. The results of experimental sessions promise a meaningful interpretational possibility in clinical settings as well. DIH is focusing on the felt level of intimacy and related feelings of a participant of interaction. The main requirements of a good rapport are selectivity, reciprocity and synchrony (Bernieri, Gillis, Davis and Grahe, 1996; Capella, 1997; Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal, 1990). In the case of hypnotic rapport it involves sensitivity to each other, a complex emotional relationship and a special need to be directed (to direct) (Bnyai, 1995). To get to a relationship of this kind in a strongly controlled standardized hypnosis session very special processes must be activated in both partners of the interaction. We are just at the beginning of discovering some small steps of this process; at the moment we are very far from fully understanding the hypnotic interaction. According to the free reports gathered by PEAT, an accidental physical resemblance to a relative or another important person in the persons life can evoke strong transferential feelings, which can or cannot be perceived by the partner (Varga et al., 1994, 1999). The inuence of working models seems to be also relevant. These attributes are based on early personal history described by attachment theories (e.g. Bowlby, 1980) and
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

162

Varga et al.

determine the persons feelings in his adult relationships as well as, for instance, when entering a hypnotic interaction. There is a sharp difference between individuals with, for example, secure or avoidant attachment styles (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall, 1978). Many other theories of intimacy predict that some people feel comfortable with closeness and intimacy and are willing to rely on others when needed. Others report being very uncomfortable getting close to and depending on others (see for example, Argyle, and Dean, 1965 or Patterson, 1976). The explanatory value of these aspects in the process of interactional adaptation needs much further research (Burgoon et al., 1995). The DIH questionnaire is a promising tool to understand better the way people enter into important human interactions.

Acknowledgment
This research was supported in part by grant No. 34454 from OTKA (Orszgos Tudomnyos Kutatsi Alap, Hungarian Scientic Research Support Foundation) to va I. Bnyai, and by grant No. K 62210 from OTKA to Anna C. Go si-Greguss, and postdoctorial fellowship from the Magyary Zoltn Higher Educational Public Foundation to Anna Szkely We gratefully acknowledge Ronald Pekala, PhD, for his permission to use the PCI in our researches. Thanks are due to Anna Szkely, PhD, for her generous assistance with the statistical analysis. Reprint requests should be addressed to Katalin VARGA, Etvs Lornd University, Budapest, Izabella u. 46., Hungary-1064., email: vkata@vnet.hu

References
Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S (1978) Patterns of Attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situation and at Home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Argyle M, Dean J (1965) Eye-contact, distance, and afliation. Sociometry 28: 289304. Baker EL (2000) Reections on the hypnotic relationship. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 48(1): 5669. Baker EL, Levitt EE (1989) The hypnotic relationship: an investigation of compliance and resistance. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37(2): 14553. Bnyai I (1985) A social psychological approach to the understanding of hypnosis: the interaction between hypnotist and subject. Hypnos Swedish Journal of Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine 12: 186210. Bnyai I (1991) Toward a social psychobiological model of hypnosis. In: SJ Lynn, JW Rhue (eds) Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. New York, London: The Guilford Press. Bnyai I (1994) Hypnosis styles: theoretical considerations and empirical data. Keynote address presented at the 13th International Congress of Hypnosis, Melbourne, Australia, 612 August. Bnyai I (1995) Nature of rapport in hypnosis: theoretical considerations and empirical results. Invited address presented at the 2nd European Congress of Ericksonian Hypnosis and Psychotherapy, Munich, Germany, October 37. Bnyai I (1996) Hypnosis and our changing world: a social psychobiological theory. Paper presented at the 7th European Congress of Hypnosis, Budapest, Hungary, August 1723. Bnyai I (1998) The interactive nature of hypnosis: research evidence for a socialpsychobiological model. Contemporary Hypnosis 15(1): 5263. Bnyai I (2002a) Hypnosis and mainstream psychology. In: B Peter, W Bongartz, D Revenstorf, W Butollo (eds) Munich 2000. The 15th International Congress of Hypnosis. Hypnosis international Monographs Number 6. Munich: MEG Stiftung, pp. 113.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

163

Bnyai I (2002b) Communication in different styles of hypnosis. In: CAL Hoogduin, CPDR Schaap, HAA de Berk (eds) Issues on Hypnosis. Nijmegen: Cure and Care publishers. Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC, Vg P, Varga K, Horvth R (1990) Interactional approach to the understanding of hypnosis: theoretical background and main ndings. In: R Van Dyck, P Spinhoven, AJW Van der Does, YR Van Rood, W DeMoor (eds) Hypnosis: Current Theory, Research and Practice. Amsterdam: Free University Press. Bernieri FJ, Gillis JS, Davis JM, Grahe JE (1996) Dyad rapport and accuracy of its judgment across situations: a lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 11029. Bowers KS (1981) Do the Stanford scales tap the classic suggestion effect? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 29: 4253. Bowers KS (1992) Imaginative and dissociative control in hypnotic responding. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 40: 25375. Bowers KS (1998) Waterloo-Stanforg Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C. Manual and response booklet. The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 46(3): 25068. Bowlby J (1980) Attachment and Loss: Sadness and Depression, Volume III. New York: Basic Books. Burgoon JK, Stern LA, Dillman L (1995) Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Capella JN (1997) Behavioral and judged coordination in adult informal social interactions: vocal and kinesic indicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(1): 11931. Diamond MJ (1984) It takes two to tango: some thoughts on the neglected importance of the hypnotist in an interactive hypnotherapeutic relationship. American Journal Of Clinical Hypnosis 27: 313. Diamond MJ (1987) The interactional basis of hypnotic experience: on the relational dimensions of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 35: 95115. Engelbrecht G, Arnold SA, Eraschky P (1987) The Mutual Rorschach in the interaction-diagnosis. In: M Cierpka (ed) Family Diagnosis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Fourie DP (1983) Width of the hypnotic relationship: an interactional view of hypnotic susceptibility and hypnotic depth. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 11: 114. Fromm E, Brown DP, Hurt SW, Oberlander JZ, Boxer AM, Pfeifer G (1981) The phenomena and characteristics of self-hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 29: 189246. Haley J (1958) An interactional explanation of hypnosis. American Journal Of Clinical Hypnosis 1: 4157. Kumar VK, Pekala RJ, Cummings J (1996) Trait factors, state effects and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 44: 232249. Levitt EE, Baker EL (1983) The hypnotic relationship Another look at coercion, compliance, and resistance: a brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 31: 12531. Loveland NT, Wynne L, Singer MT (1963) The family Rorschach: a new method for studying family interaction. Family Process 2: 187215. Lynn SJ, Rhue JW (eds) (1991) Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. New York, London: The Guilford Press. Lynn SJ, Weekes JR, Neufeld V, Zivney O, Brentar J, Weiss F (1991) Interpersonal climate and hypnotizability level: effects on hypnotic performance, rapport, and archaic involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(5): 73943. Nash MR (1991) Hypnosis as a special case of psychological regression. In: SJ Lynn, JW Rhue (eds) Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

164

Varga et al.

Nash MR, Lynn SJ (1986) Child abuse and hypnotic ability. Imagery, Cognition and Personality 5: 21118. Nash MR, Spinler D (1989) Hypnosis and transference: a measure of archaic involvement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37: 12943. Patterson ML (1976) An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review 83(3): 23545. Pekala RJ, Nagler R (1989) The assessment of hypnoidal states: rationale and clinical application. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 31(4): 2316. Pekala RJ, Steinberg J, Kumar, VK (1986) Measurement of phenomenological experience: Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63: 9839. Perry CW, Sheehan PW (1978) Aptitude for trance and situational effects of varying the interpersonal nature of the hypnosis setting. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 20(4): 25662. Sheehan PW (1980) Factors inuencing rapport in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 89: 26381. Sheehan PW (1991) Hypnosis, context, and commitment. In: SJ Lynn, JW Rhue (eds) Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. New York, London: The Guilford Press. Sheehan PW, Dolby RM (1979) Motivated involvement in hypnosis: the illustration of clinical rapport through hypnotic dream. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 88(5): 57383. Sheehan PW, McConkey KM (1982) Hypnosis and Experience: The Exploration of Phenomena and Process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry 1(4): 28593 and 3249. Varga K (1999) Phenomenology of hypnosis styles. In 8th European Congress on Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Amsterdam/Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, August 1419. Abstract Books, pp. 26. Varga K, Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC (1994) Parallel application of the experiential analysis technique with subject and hypnotist: a new possibility for measuring interactional synchrony. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 42(2): 1309. Varga K, Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC (1996) Harmony in phenomenology: a new way to measure interactional syncrony. Paper presented at the 7th European Congress of Hypnosis, Budapest, Hungary, August 1723. Varga K, Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC (1997) New ways of characterizing the phenomenological aspect of rapport. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of Hypnosis, San Diego, California, June 2127. Varga K, Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC (1999) Hypnotists phenomenology: toward the understanding of hypnotic interactions. Hypnos 26(4): 18193. Varga K, Jzsa E, Bnyai I, Gsi-Greguss AC, Kumar VK (2001) Phenomenological experiences associated with hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 49(1): 1929. Varga K, Jzsa E, Urbn R (2002) A Kzs Rorschach Vizsglati Helyzet alkalmazsa a didikus interakcik lmnyvilgban megmutatkoz harmnia foknak vizsglatra (The application of the Mutual Rorschach test situation for investigating the level of harmony of the subjective experiences in dyadic interactions). In: E Bagdy (eds) Prkapcsolati Dinamika. (Dynamics of Dadic Relationships). Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad (Hungarian Academic Press). Weitzenhoffer AM (1978) Hypnotism and altered states of consciousness. In: A Sugarman, RE Tarter (eds) Expanding Dimensions of Consciousness. New York: Springer. Weitzenhoffer AM, Hilgard ER (1959) Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Weitzenhoffer AM, Hilgard ER (1962) Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Dyadic interactional harmony questionnaire

165

Appendix 1
The Dyadic Interactional Harmony Questionnaire The numbers before the items indicate the subscale to which the item belongs (1. Intimacy, 2. Communion, 3. Playfulness, 4. Tension). Items without a number do not belong to any subscale, as their factor values were too small. These items can be omitted in the version given to the Ss or Hs. DYADIC INTERACTIONAL HARMONY QUESTIONNAIRE Date: Name: Please consider your recent interaction. Please indicate how much the following features characterized your recent interaction. Circle the corresponding number 1 meaning: not at all 5 meaning: completely The numbers in between indicate gradual steps between the two extremes.
2. Sympathy. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 4. Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Mutual condence. . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 4. Constrained . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Attunement . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Understanding . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Subordination . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 1. Liking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Patience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 4. Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 1. Cordial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 1. Eroticism/sensuality1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. Happiness. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 2. Mutual attention . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Sincerity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Informality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 1. Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 4. Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 3. Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 Self-disclosure 4. tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. openness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. tenderness . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. humour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clumsiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excitement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. playfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Accord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. intimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. defenselessness . . . . . . . . Shallowness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. warmth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. inspiring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. mutuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abandoned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. agitating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4 Easy-owing . . . . . . . . . 1. passion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5

Is there any other feature that is not present here, but is important to characterize your recent interaction? (You can write more than one): Note: easy-owing item scores inversely in the Tension scale. The edited English version of DIH is available (free) from the rst author.

Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

166

Varga et al.

Appendix 2
Data of Factoranalysis of DIH in the Mutual Rorschach situation:
Cumulative variance Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Variance explained 10.5645 4.0842 2.0519 1.6142 1.0997 in the data space 0.4173 0.5786 0.6596 0.7234 0.7668 in the factor 0.5442 0.7545 0.8602 0.9434 1.0000 Cronbach alfa 0.9715

Rotated, sorted factor values (Mutual Rorschach situation)


Items Passion Intimacy Intimate Warmth Eroticism/sensuality Tenderness Love Happiness Cordial Liking Accord/consonance Understanding Harmony Mutual attention Mutuality Attunement Cooperation Sympathy Mutual condence Patience Openness Humour Inspiring Playfulness Freedom Agitating Easy-owing Tension Anxiety Fear Relaxed Constrained Defenselessness Eigen Value Cronbach-alfa Factor 1 0.665 0.656 0.626 0.618 0.614 0.609 0.585 0.545 0.534 0.453 0.000 0.000 0.270 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.363 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.845 0.85 Factor 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.253 0.332 0.643 0.620 0.588 0.580 0.565 0.537 0.535 0.472 0.493 0.474 0.319 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.379 0.86 Factor 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.380 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.565 0.554 0.551 0.480 0.496 0.511 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.062 0.81 Factor 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.430 0.000 0.513 0.644 0.599 0.588 0.553 0.455 0.461 3.416 0.78

Note: Relaxed item scores inversely in the Tension scale.


Copyright 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151166 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/ch

Potrebbero piacerti anche