Fantasy styles, hypnotic dreaming and fantasy proneness

Contemporary Hypnosis (1996)Vol.13, No. 1, pp. 4–12

MAIN PAPER

FANTASY STYLES, HYPNOTIC DREAMING AND FANTASYPRONENESS

Steven Jay Lynn and Victor A. Neufeld

Ohio University

ABSTRACT

Eighty-three subjects participated in a study of the relation between fantasy stylesand hypnotic dreaming. As hypothesized, subjects who reported that their daydreamsrevolved around fearful, guilt-ridden, and achievement-based (Guilt-fear-of-failure,GFF) fantasies, were more likely to report negative emotion and anxiety in theirdreams. However, positive-constructive (PC) fantasy and poor attentional control(PAC) fantasy styles were unrelated to affect expressed in subjects’ hypnotic dreams.We also found that fantasy proneness was correlated with both the PC and GFF fan-tasy styles.

Much of our waking life is spent daydreaming (Singer, 1966). Indeed, daydreams areinterwoven with a stream of cognitive activity that ranges from planful problem-solving to uninhibited fantasy (Klinger, 1971; Gold & Reilly, 1985–86). Daydreamingserves multiple functions, not the least of which is what Sarbin (1972) has describedas ‘muted role-taking’, which facilitates behavioural rehearsal and problem solvingassociated with everyday life dilemmas and current concerns. Furthermore, day-dreaming content varies with a host of factors, including gender (Giambra,1979–1980), cultural stereotypes about sex roles (Singer, 1975), socio-cultural vari-ables (Singer, 1975), age (Giambra, 1974; Singer, 1975), and personality characteristicssuch as ‘thrill seeking’ (Segal, Huba & Singer, 1980). The relation of daydreamingactivity to depression (Giambra & Traynor, 1978), nocturnal disturbances (Starker,1978), and personality (Singer & Antrobus, 1972), suggests that daydreaming plays avital role in a diversity of experiential and behavioural domains.

This brief synopsis of the ubiquity of daydreaming in everyday life might suggestthat it is a unitary construct. This, however, is not the case. Indeed, three distinct fan-tasy styles have been identified (Huba, Singer, Aneshensel & Antrobus, 1982; Singer& Antrobus, 1972): (1) Positive constructive (PC), marked by pleasant feelings andpositive attitudes towards daydreaming; (2) Guilt-fear-of-failure (GFF), associatedwith themes of guilt, fear, sadness, fear of failure, and achievement fantasies; and (3)Poor attentional control (PAC), involving anxiety, a tendency towards easy dis-tractibility, and an inability to remain involved in a single task (Huba et al.,1982;Singer & Antrobus,1972).

Only a few studies have investigated the actual content of subjects’ fantasy pro-ductions or have examined the relation between daydreaming and fantasy behaviourin non-waking contexts. Starker (1974), for example, found that PC daydreamers

4

ConHyp 13(1) 1st proof 15/12/05 7:17 pm Page 4

reported nocturnal dreams that were less bizarre and contained less negative affectthan either GFF or PAC daydreamers. He also found that PAC daydreamersreported the most bizarre, emotional, and dysphoric dreams. Starker and Hasenfeld(1976) asked subjects to make up ‘best’ and ‘worst’ possible dreams. Based on con-tent analyses of the dreams, they found that PC daydreaming style was correlatedwith less negative affect and with the exclusion of the self in the ‘worst’ dreams,whereas the GFF daydreaming style was associated with greater negative affect andthe exclusion of the self in the ‘best’ dreams. Finally, Gold and Gold (1982) askedsubjects to record their daydreams on a daily basis. They found that content ratingsof guilt and failure moods were related to GFF daydreaming, and that the PC fantasystyle was negatively correlated with content ratings of fear and anxiety.

If fantasy styles represent distinct predispositions to respond with divergent cogni-tive activities, then subjects’ fantasy styles ought to discriminate their responsesacross disparate testing contexts and states of consciousness. There is tentative sup-port for this contention. Starker’s (1974, 1978) research has shown that fantasyprocesses are consistent within individuals across a range of states of consciousness(i.e., waking and nocturnal dreaming). Crawford (1982) found that a positive relationexists between hypnotic responsiveness, absorption, and the PC daydreaming style.

Our research was designed to bridge the literature on fantasy style and hypnosisby examining the effect of fantasy style on the content of hypnotic dreaming. Thisresearch is the first to examine the relation between a stylistic, individual differencevariable – fantasy style – and the content of hypnotic dreams. Our research ispremised on the assumption that stable individual differences in personality style mayplay a role in mediating responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. Because fantasystyles are presumed to be related to the content of daydreams, and, by extension toother fantasy-based mental activities, support for the construct of fantasy style, andfor the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI; Huha et al., 1982) as a measure offantasy style, would be garnered if subjects manifest differences in the content of hyp-notic dreams consistent with their daydreaming style. We, therefore, hypothesizedthat subjects’ daydreaming styles would be related to the affect reported in their hyp-notic dreams.

Hypnotic dreaming is a promising vehicle for examining the impact of divergentdaydreaming styles. Hypnotic dreams can be construed as projective fantasies(Walker, 1974). Hypnotic dreams have been successfully used in psychotherapy as amethod of exploring the client’s inner world of affective experience, and as a meansof examining the client’s personal feelings about the therapist. Hypnotic dreams havebeen used for purposes of psychological diagnosis, as a means of catalysing therapeu-tic effects (Fromm & Brown, 1986), and as a method for enhancing creativity andproblem solving (Barrios & Singer, 1981-1982).

Despite the clinical interest in hypnotic dreams, researchers have not addressedthe question of whether individual difference and stylistic variables play a role in hyp-notic dreaming. What sparse research exists on the topic of hypnotic dreams focuses,for the most part, on subjects’ phenomenological experience, variously conceptu-alised as ‘depth of trance’ (Tart, 1966), ‘involvement in imaginings’ (Spanos,Nightingale, Radtke & Stam, 1980), and ‘dream quality’ (Honorton, 1972; Tart,1966). Research has shown that responsiveness to hypnosis is associated with the abil-ity to experience hypnotic dreams (Barrett, 1979); that subjects given imaginationinstructions can produce dream reports that have features similar to the productionsof hypnotized subjects (Spanos et al., 1980; Tart, 1966); and that experimental vari-ables such as time spent dreaming (Mazer, 1951), number of dream suggestions

Fantasy Styles and Hypnotic Dreaming 5


(Honorton, 1972), and the number and nature of the suggestions that precede thedream suggestion (Sheehan & Dolby, 1979) affect the nature of the hypnotic dream.

Our research is thus designed to address this gap in the literature by providingdata on the relation between daydreaming style and the content of subjects’ hypnoticdreams. Additionally, our study will examine the relation between daydreaming styleand hypnotic dream content to measures of subjects’ vividness of mental imagery,absorption, and fantasy-proneness. Our design will enable us to replicate Council andHuff’s (1990) findings of an association between fantasy proneness and the three(daydreaming styles: Guilt and fear of failure (r = 0.49), positive constructive day-dreaming (r = 0.37), and poor attentional control (r = 0.20).

METHOD

SubjectsThe subjects were 49 female and 34 male undergraduates who participated inexchange for course credit.

ProcedureOne hundred and thirty-seven subjects were recruited for an experiment advertisedas a study of personality. In the first session, subjects completed the SIPI (Huba et al.,1982), the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), the BettsQMI Vividness of Imagery Scale (Sheehan, 1967), and the ICMI (Wilson & Barber,1978). No mention of hypnosis was made in this session until the subjects completedthe questionnaires, after which time, volunteers were solicited for a second sessioninvolving hypnosis a week later.

The 83 volunteer subjects who participated in the second part of the study, andthose subjects who did not volunteer to participate in the second part of the study,scored comparably on the ‘personality test’ measures. The subjects who participatedin the second part of the study received a 13 item version of the 12-suggestionHarvard Group Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A (HGSHS:A; Shor & Orne,1962) that was modified with the addition of an hypnotic dream suggestion and withposthypnotic scales for scoring (with 0–3 scales of increasing subjective response)subjective involvement and involuntariness for each of the suggestions. The hypnoticdream suggestion was adapted from the Stanford C hypnotic dream suggestion andwas inserted after the suggestion for eye catalepsy. Subjects were told that ‘. . . nei-ther you nor I know what sort of dream you are going to have, but I am going toallow you to rest for a little while and you are going to have a dream, a . . . real dream. . . just the kind you have when you are asleep at night.’ After subjects were told‘Now sleep and dream . . . deep asleep’, they were given two minutes to experiencetheir dream. After they were told that the dream was over, they were informed thatthey would be able to remember every detail of their dream. Subjects were asked towrite down their hypnotic dreams immediately after they scored their response to theamnesia suggestion after hypnosis was terminated. Subjects were told that it was‘very important that we get detailed information about your dream’ and that theyshould ‘describe in complete detail any persons, objects, scenes, activities, images,thoughts or sensations that you experienced’. Subjects were also told that if they didnot have a dream they should describe what they were thinking and feeling after theywere asked to have a dream. Subjects were told that they would have five minutes torecord their impressions. Subjects then rated their dreams on a five-point Likert scale

6 Lynn and Neufeld


with regard to their affective experience during the hypnotic dream. This scale wasanchored with the descriptors ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’. Finally, subjects self-scoredtheir objective and subjective responses to hypnosis.

Subjects’ hypnotic dreams were rated by two judges who were advanced graduatestudents in clinical psychology on the following five-point Likert scales, ranging from‘not at all’ to ‘a great deal’: (1) Positive emotion, a measure of how much positiveemotion was overtly manifested in the dream; (2) negative emotion, a measure ofhow much negative emotion was overtly displayed in the dream; and (3) anxiety, ameasure of how much anxiety could be inferred as a response to the dream descrip-tion (Breger, Hunter & Lane, 1971). Interrater reliability for the raters on thesescales was adequate, ranging from 0.79 (anxiety) to 0.89 (negative emotion). Theraters were naive with respect to subjects’ hypnotizability scores and their scores onthe personality test measures.

RESULTS

In order to examine the relation of measures of hypnotic experience, fantasy style,and imagination, correlational analyses were performed. A correlation matrix for thehypnosis, fantasy style, and imagination measures was derived for each gender.Unlike Crawford’s findings of differential patterns of correlations (1982), we testeddifferences of the magnitude of each correlation across genders and found no differ-ences in correlations as a function of gender. Hence, we collapsed the data acrossgenders and derived a single correlation matrix for the measures. The correlationscan be examined in Table 1.

Table 1. (N = 83) Correlations among measures 1–10

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 HGSHS:A Objective 0.85**0.83**0.22* 0.09 –0.08 0.27* 0.29* 0.17 0.47**2 HGSHS:A Subjective 0.92**0.19 0.05 –0.06 0.35* 0.29* 0.19 0.40**3 HGSHS:A Involuntariness 0.27* 0.10 –0.03 0.37** 0.37** 0.23* 0.43**4 PCD 0.39** 0.06 0.54** 0.54** 0.40**0.26*5 GFF 0.37** 0.28* 0.37** 0.19 0.056 PAC –0.12 0.12 0.01 0.027 Absorption 0.75** 0.38**0.208 Fantasy-Proneness 0.31* 0.129 Imagery vividness 0.08

10 Report of an hypnotic dream

note: *p <0.05 (two-tailed) **p <0.00l (two-tailed)

Separate correlational analyses were conducted using the subset of 44 subjectswho reported an hypnotic dream. Table 2 presents the correlations among measuresof hypnotic responding, fantasy style, imagination, self-reported affect, and thejudges’ rating of positive and negative emotion and anxiety expressed in the dream.

We performed a chi-square analysis that compared the frequency of reporting ahypnotic dream across three levels of hypnosis. Subjects who scored 10–12 on theHGSHS:A were categorized as ‘highs’, those who scored 4–9 as ‘mediums’, and thosewho scored zero to three as ‘lows’. A chi-square analysis comparing the frequency of



hypnotic dream reports across these three conditions was significant at P < 0.001, χ2 = 14.31. Seventeen of 24 (70.83%) high hypnotizable subjects reported an hypnoticdream, 13 of 26 (50%) medium hypnotizable subjects reported a dream, and 6 of 30(20%) low hypnotizable subjects reported a dream. Data for three subjects whoreported a dream was missing.

Table 2. Hypnotic dreamers: N 44 Correlation’s among all measures

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14

1 HGSGS:AObjective 0.79**0.80**0.08 0.03 –0.13 0.21 0.28 0.21 0.24 0.27 –0.18 –0.14

2 HGSGS:ASubjective 0.91**0.02 0.03 –0.09 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.29 –0.22 –0.16

3 HGSHS:AInvoluntariness 0.10 0.18 0.00 0.23 0.31* 0.23 0.15 0.23 –0.20 –0.13

4 PCD –0.01 –0.05 –0.58**0.49**0.42*0.28–0.12 0.14 0.095 GFF 0.37* 0.26 0.46* 0.16 –0.18 –0.19 0.31*–0.32*6 PAC –0.18 0.15 0.06 –0.19 –0.09 0.03 0.017 Absorption 0.77**0.38*0.36* 0.00 0.05 0.018 Fantasy-Proneness 0.42* 0.16 0.02 0.11 0.159 Imagery vividness 0.44* 0.20 0.07 0.04

11 Self-Reported Affect 0.36*–0.44 –0.44*12 Positive Emotion –0.34 –0.47*13 Negative Emotion 0.76**14 Anxiety

note: *p <0.05 (two-tailed) **p <0.00l (two-tailed)

DISCUSSION

Our study is the first to examine the nature of subjects’ hypnotic dream experiencewith respect to their waking fantasy style. In so doing, our research provided partialsupport for the construct of fantasy style. Consistent with the hypothesis that sub-jects’ daydreaming styles would be related to the affect reported in their hypnoticdreams, we found that subjects who reported that their daydreams frequentlyrevolved around fearful, guilt-ridden, and achievement-based fantasies, were morelikely to report negative emotion and anxiety in their hypnotic dreams. Thus, at leastwith respect to negative affect, a relation exists between subjects’ waking and hyp-notic experiences.

These results buttress the view that fantasy styles represent consistent ways ofexperiencing cognitions and affects in varying situational contexts. There are, how-ever, a number of reasons to be cautious about the conclusions that can be drawnfrom these findings. Even though GFF daydreaming style correlated with judges’ratings of negative emotion and anxiety in their dreams, the GFF scores did not cor-relate with self-reported dream affect. Furthermore, the relatively low correlationsbetween self and judges’ ratings of negative dream affect (r = -0.44), along with thefact that these variables correlated in different ways with other measures, indicatethat these variables may not be alternative indexes of the same underlying con-struct.

8 Lynn and Neufeld


Alternately, the moderate correlations between self and judges’ ratings may be afunction of the fact that the judges’ and self-rating scales had different anchors (e.g.,pleasant-unpleasant versus overt negative emotion), and that subjects’ self-ratingswere assessed after hypnosis, and might have been influenced by subjects’ generalpropensity to rate their experiences as positive after hypnosis (see Frauman, Lynn &Brentar, 1993). In one study (Lynn & Hamel, 1987), even when subjects reportedhigh degrees of anxiety during a suggestion to age regress to age 7, they generallyrated their overall experience during hypnosis as positive and expressed a willingnessto be rehypnotized. This suggests that what subjects experience during hypnosis maynot necessarily reflect what they report after hypnosis. Hence, it may be inappropri-ate to infer that a person’s general experience of hypnosis was negative based ontheir response to one or more suggestions.

Indeed, the hypnotic context may well militate against the emergence of consis-tent fantasy-related themes across test contexts. That is, the hypnotic induction andsuggestions that follow not only provide an attentional focus but they also facilitatethe experience of positive affect, such as relaxation (see Frauman, Lynn & Brentar,1993). The fact that the hypnotic proceedings may counteract or nullify the influenceof waking fantasy style may account for our failure to find evidence for a relationbetween positive-constructive fantasy and poor attentional control and the affectexpressed in subjects’ hypnotic dreams. Indeed, the PAC daydreaming style was notrelated to any consistent pattern of hypnotic responding or measure of imagination.Taken together, these results stand in contrast to research reported by Starker (1974,1984-85) that the PAC daydreaming style is related to dysphoric mood and anxiety.One of these investigations (Starker, 1974) used subscales from the IPI to assess fan-tasy style; therefore, cross-study difference may be a function of divergent measuresused to assess fantasy style. In the other study, Starker (1984-85) used the SIPI andassessed mood in a questionnaire study.

We found only limited support for the idea that fantasy styles are related to hyp-notic responding. Although we found that the positive-constructive (PC) fantasy stylewas associated with objective hypnotic responding and the experience of suggestion-related involuntariness for the entire sample, when only subjects who had a hypnoticdream were considered, the correlations between fantasy style and objective and sub-jective dimensions of hypnosis approached zero. Like several other studies(Crawford, 1982; Hoyt et al., 1989), we found that hypnotizability is related to PCdaydreaming style but not to the PAC or GFF style. However, the failure to find asignificant relation between PC fantasy style and hypnotic responding among hyp-notic dreamers suggests that this relation is not robust. Consistent with this conclu-sion, Segal and Lynn (1992–93) found that hypnotizability and PC fantasy stylecorrelated non significantly at r = 0.15. Future research ought to use larger samplesthan used in the present study to establish the nature of the relation between fantasystyle and different dimensions of hypnotizability.

Like Crawford (1982) we found that the use of a positive daydreaming style isrelated to imagery vividness and absorption. Consistent with Hoyt et al. (1989), wefound that absorption was correlated not only with PC scores but also with GFFscores. This accords with mundane experience, inasmuch as dysphoric fantasies, aswell as fantasies with a more positive emotional tone, can he absorbing and vivid.

Our work replicates the degree of association between fantasy-proneness and day-dreaming styles reported by Council and Huff (1991). Like these investigators, wefound that scores on the ICMI correlated with both the PC and GFF fantasy style.The relation between fantasy-proneness and a positively-toned fantasy style is not



surprising in that fantasy-prone individuals tend to report positive feelings abouttheir fantasy experiences. A link between fantasy-proneness and the GFF fantasystyle reflects the fact that the greater the tendency to fantasize, the more likely it isthat fantasies contain dysphoric as well as positive themes. Our research is consistentwith recent findings which indicate that a subset of fantasy-prone subjects evidencesymptoms of significant psychopathology (see Lynn & Rhue,1988). Council and Huff(1990) reported a significant association between fantasy proneness and poor atten-tional control with a much larger sample size (N = 1020) than the present research.However, the magnitude of the correlation between fantasy proneness and poorattentional control was small and relatively comparable across Council and Huff’s(r = 0.20) and our research (r = 0.12).

One reason why it is important to examine correlations across studies is that thecircumstances of testing might have a bearing on the magnitude of the correlationsobtained. Given the fact that context effects have been well documented in studies ofhypnosis and personality (see Kirsch & Council, 1992), it will be important to exam-ine the relation of fantasy style, affect in hypnotic dreaming, and hypnotizability inexperimental situations that control for context effects by divorcing the measurementof fantasy style from the assessment of hypnotizability and hypnotic dreaming.

Before closing it is worth noting that our results regarding the frequency of hyp-notic dreaming and the relation between hypnotizability and hypnotic dreaming areconsistent with previous research. Our finding that 53% of subjects reported a hyp-notic dream is comparable to previous estimates of dream frequency of 60% (Spanos,et al., 1980) and 61% (Spanos & Ham, 1975). As in previous research (Barrett, 1979;Spanos and Ham, 1975), we found that more high hypnotizable than low hypnotiz-able subjects report dreams, with nearly three-quarters of the high hypnotizable sub-jects reported a hypnotic dream, in contrast with only 20% of the low hypnotizablesubjects.

In closing, our results provide support for the hypothesis that a degree of continu-ity exists between walking fantasy style and hypnotic experience. This support mustbe viewed as tentative, however, given the lack of congruity between self-reportedand judges’ ratings of dream affect. Nevertheless, our findings do suggest the need totake into consideration pre-existing differences in fantasy or personality style inunderstanding subjects’ responses to hypnotic suggestions. Indeed, an importantquestion facing hypnosis researchers is to understand the independent and interactiveinfluence of both contextual variables (e.g., role location, demands, expectancies andinterpretative sets) and stable individual differences in personality styles.

REFERENCESBarrett, D. (1979). The hypnotic dream: Its relation to nocturnal dreams and waking fantasies.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology 88, 584–591.Barrios, M.V. & Singer, J.L. (1981–82). The treatment of creative blocks: A comparison of

waking imagery, hypnotic dream, and rational discussion techniques. Imagination,Cognition. and Personality 1, 89–109.

Breger, L., Hunter, I. & Lane, R.W. (1971). The Effect of Stress on Dreams. New York:International Universities Press.

Council, J.R. & Huff, K.D. (1990). Hypnosis, fantasy activity, and reports of paranormal expe-riences in high, medium, and low fantasizers. British Journal of Experimental and ClinicalHypnosis 7, 9–15.

Crawford, H. J. (1982). Hypnotizability, daydreaming styles, imagery vividness, and absorp-tion: A multidimensional study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 922–933.

10 Lynn and Neufeld


Frauman, D.C., Lynn, S.J. & Brentar, J.P. (1993). Prevention and therapeutic management of‘negative effects’ in hypnotherapy. In J.Rhue, S.J. Lynn & I. Kirsch (Eds), Handbook ofClinical Hypnosis. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Fromm, E. & Brown, D. (1986). The Clinical Practice of Hypnosis. New York: Guilford.Giambra, L.M. (1974). Daydreaming across the life span: Late adolescent to senior citizen.

International Journal of Ageing and Human Development 5, 115–140.Giambra, L.M. (1979–80). Sex differences in daydreaming and related mental activity from the

late teens to the early nineties. International Journal of Ageing and Human Development10, 1–34.

Giambra, L.M. & Traynor, T.D. (1978). Depression and daydreaming: An Analysis based onself-ratings. Journal of Clinical Psychology 34 14–25.

Gold, S.R. & Gold, R.G. (1982). Actual daydream content and the Imagination ProcessesInventory. Journal of Mental Imagery 6, 169–174.

Gold, S. & Reilly, J.P. (1985–86). Daydreaming, current concerns and personality. Imagination,Cognition. and Personality 5, 117–25.

Golding, J.M. & Singer, J.L. (1983). Patterns of inner experience: Daydreaming styles, depres-sive moods, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 663–675.

Honorton, C. (1972). Significant factors in hypnotically-induced clairvoyant dreams. Journal ofthe American Society for Psychical Research 66, 86–102.

Hoyt, I.R., Nadon, R., Register, P.A., Chorny, J., Fleeson, W. Grogproam. E.M., Otto, L. &Kihlstrom, J.F. (1989). Daydreaming, absorption, and hypnotizability. International Journalof Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37, 332–342.

Huba, G.L., Singer, J. L., Aneshensel, C.S. & Antrobus, J.S. (1978). Short Imaginal ProcessesInventory. Port Huron, Ml: Research Psychologists Press.

Kirsch, l. & Council, J.R. (1992). Situational and personality correlates of hypnotic responsive-ness. In E. Fromm & M.R. Nash (Eds), Contemporary Hypnosis Research. New York:Guilford.

Klinger, E. (1971). Structure and Functions of Fantasy. New York: John WileyLynn, S.J. & Hamel, J. (1987). Hypnosis, age regression, and ‘negative effects’. Unpublished

manuscript, Ohio University, Athens, OH.Lynn, S.J. & Rhue, J.W. (1988). Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents, and

psycho pathology. American Psychologist 43, 35–44.Mazer, M. (1951). An experimental study of the hypnotic dream. Psychiatry: Journal for the

Study of Interpersonal Processes 14, 265–277.Sarbin, T.R. (1972). Imagining as muted role-taking: A historical-linguistic analysis. In P.W.

Sheehan (Ed.), The Function and Nature of Imagery (pp.333–354). New York: AcademicPress.

Segal, D. & Lynn, S.J. (1992–93). Predicting dissociative experiences: Imagination, hypnotizabil-ity, psychopathology, and alcohol use. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 12, 287–300.

Sheehan, P.W. & Dolby, R.M. (1979). Motivated involvement in hypnosis: The illustration ofclinical rapport through hypnotic dreams. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 88, 573–583.

Shor, R. E. & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Singer, J.L. (1966). Daydreaming. New York: Random House.Singer, J.L. (1975). The Inner World of Daydreaming. New York: Harper.Singer, J.L. & Antrobus, J.S. (1972). Daydreaming, imaginal processes, and personality: A nor-

mative study, In P.W. Sheehan, (Ed.), The Function and Nature of Imagery (pp. 175–202).New York: Academic Press.

Spanos, N.P. & Ham, M.W. (1975). Involvement in suggestion-related imaginings and the ‘hyp-notic dream’. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 18, 43–51.

Spanos, N.P., Nightingale, M.E., Radtke, H.L. & Stam, J.J. (1980). The stuff hypnotic ‘dreams’are made of. Journal of Mental Imagery 4, 99–110.

Starker, S. (1974). Daydreaming styles and nocturnal dreaming. Journal of AbnormalPsychology 83.



Starker, S. (1978). Dreams and waking fantasy. In K.S. Pope and J.L. Singer (Eds), The Streamof Consciousness. New York: Plenum.

Starker, S. (1984–85). Daydreams, nightmares, and insomnia: The relation of waking fantasy tosleep disturbances. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 4, 237–248.

Starker,S. & Hasenfield, R. (1976). Daydream styles and sleep disturbance. Journal of Nervousand Mental Disease 163, 391–400.

Tart, C. (1966). Types of hypnotic dreams and their relation to hypnotic depth. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology 71, 377–382.

Tellegen, A. & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences(‘Absorption’): A trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology83, 268–277.

Walker, P.C. (1974). The hypnotic dream: A reconceptualization. The American Journal ofClinical Hypnosis 16, 246–255.

Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1981). Vivid fantasy and hallucinatory abilities in the life historiesof excellent hypnotic subjects. In E. Klinger (Ed.), Imagery: Vol. 2 Concepts, Results, andApplications (pp.133–152). New York: Plenum Press.

Address for correspondence:

Steven Jay Lynn, PhD,Psychology Department,Ohio University,Athens, OH 45701,USA

Received April 1994; revised version accepted April 1995.

12 Lynn and Neufeld


Documents

Fantasy styles, hypnotic dreaming and fantasy proneness