Hypnotic Susceptibility, Imaging Ability, and Anagram-Solving Activity

This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]On: 10 April 2013, At: 10:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalHypnosisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20

Hypnotic Susceptibility, Imaging Ability, andAnagram-Solving ActivityBenjamin Wallace a , Philip A. Allen a & Ruth E. Propper a ba Cleveland State University, Euclid Avenue at East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH,44115b University of Toledo,Version of record first published: 31 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Benjamin Wallace , Philip A. Allen & Ruth E. Propper (1996): Hypnotic Susceptibility, ImagingAbility, and Anagram-Solving Activity, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 44:4, 324-337

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207149608416096

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drugdoses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for anyloss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207149608416096

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY, IMAGING ABILITY, AND

ANAGRAM-SOLVING ACTIVIW BENJAMIN WALLACE, PHILIP A. ALLEN,

AND RUTH E. PROPPERZJA Cleveland State Uniwrsity

Abstract: Anagram-solving activity was examined as a function of hypnotic susceptibility level and imaging ability In Experiment 1, anagrams that were composed of sets of letters that formed actual words (word anagrams), but when unscrambled formed other words, were compared to sets of letters that formed nonwords (nonsense anagrams). Word anagrams required more time to solve than nonsense anagrams. Also, fewer word anagrams were correctly solved compared to nonsense anagrams. Those individuals judged both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability demonstrated the best performance. In Experiment 2, anagrams that when unscrambled formed high-imagery words were compand to those that formed low-imagery words. High-imagery-word anagrams were solved more quickly and correctly than low-imagery-word anagrams. Such activity was best demonstrated by individuals who werre judged to be both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability. These results are discussed in terms of strategies for solving anagrams and the individual differences that appear to be associated with using such strategies.

Many studies have provided evidence that hypnotic susceptibility and imaging ability play a role in the performance of various cognitive and perceptual tasks. For example, with respect to hypnotic susceptibility, Mitchell (1970) reported that individuals classified as high in hypnotic susceptibility (highs) were better able than those classified as low in such susceptibility (lows) to resist distractions in a tracking task. Van Nuys (1973) found highs better able to concentrate and to attend to their own breathing or to concentrate on a candle flame. Additionally a

Manuscript submitted September 6,1995; final Fevision received February 13,1996. 'A portion of these data was presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Psychonomic

'Now a doctoral candidate at the University of Toledo. %e authors would like to thank Lori Locke, Kathryn Richads, and Amanda Stazl for

participation in this pmject. 4Requests for reprints should be addressed to Banjamin Wallace, Ph.D., Department of

Psychology, Cleveland State University, Eudid Avenue at East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115.

The International Journal ofclinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Val. XW, No. 4, October 1996 324-337 0 1996 The International Journal ofClinid and Expm'mental Hypnosis

Society, St. Louis, MO.

324

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

325 ANAGRAMSOLVING

positive relationship was reported between hypnotic susceptibility level and performance in a selective listening task (Karh, 1979); in the ability to call out or write random numbers (Graham & Evans, 19T7); in reports of the perception of the Ponzo illusion (Miller, 1975); in perception of the autokinetic illusion (Wallace, Garrett, & Anstadt, 1974); in perception of afterimages (Atkinson, 1994; Atkinson & Crawford, 1992; Crawford, Brown, & Moon, 1993; Wallace, 1979); and in reports of Necker cube and Schroeder staircase apparent reversals (Crawford et al., 1993; Wallace, Knight, & Garrett, 1976). In general, these results have been discrussed in terms of the ability of high hypnotizable individuals to be better able to concentrate or to fixate their attention during the performance of a cognitive task. The better they are able to use their attentional processes, the better their performance. If highs consistently demonstrate superior performance in the described tasks, it is plausible they should also demonstrate superior performance in the solution of anagrams.

A n anagram is a string of letters that when rearranged produces a recognizable word. The typical anagram that is presented to participants is either a nonsense string (a nonword, e.g., given EROHS, produce HORSE) or a word that can produce another word (e.g., given SAUCE, produce CAUSE). Anagram solving appears to be related to being able to attend in a concentrative manner to the task (Wallace, Allen, & Propper, 1994).

Although hypnotic susceptibility level appears to be related to the ability of individuals to process information, it is possible that the imaging ability of participants or their imagery vividness may also account for some of the variance. For example, Crawford (1981) reported a positive relationship between imagery vividness and hypnotic susceptibility. Others have also reported such a positive relationship (e.g., Hilgard, 1979; Nadon, Laurence, & Perry, 1987), although the relationship has not always been linear or consistent (see Morgan & Lam, 1969; Perry, 1973), except that low hypnotizability is reported to almost always be associated with poor imaging ability (Perry, 1973; Sutcliffe, Peny, & Sheehan, 1970).

If there is a positive relationship between imaging ability and hypnotic susceptibility, then one would expect to find that participants who are judged to be vivid imagers would perform in a manner similar to that described for high hypnotizable individuals. And, in general, this appears to be the case. For example, Wallace (1991a) reported a difference in performance between vivid and poor imagers in a proofreading task. Vivid imagers were more adept at finding misspelled words compared to poor imagers. However, this appeared to be the case only for words where a substitute letter that produced a misspelling was similar in shape to the one removed. This was likely the case because misspellings created by the use of different-shaped letters draw more visual attention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

326 B E N J M WALLACE ET AL.

than misspellings produced from the replacement of one letter with mother same-shaped letter. As a result, when the misspelling draws this additional attention, it does not seem to matter whether a participant is a vivid or a poor imager. However, poor imagers exhibit a 22% greater e m r rate in f&g to find misspellings consisting of words with similar-shaped letter substitutions. When averaged over the two types of words, vivid imagers did perform more accurately in a proofreading task.

Recently, Wallace, Allen, and Weber (1994) examined the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility, imaging ability, and the detection of embedded words within letters. Two experiments were conducted where partiapants were required to find words embedded within matrices of letters. In the first experiment, partiapants searched for target words from a list; however, distractor words were also embedded in the matrices. Results indicated that participants judged both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability demonstrated the fastest search speed with a greater percentage of target words found. These individuals also made fewer false alarm errors (locating distractor words not on the target list). The poorest performance was exhibited by those judged both low in hypnotic susceptibility and poor in imaging ability. The amount of variance accounted for by hypnotic susceptibility and imaging ability was approximately equal for each dependent measure. In the second experiment, when participants searched for target

words from a list without distractor words embedded in matrices, similar rrsults to those reported for the first experiment were produced, except that the percentage of words found was equivalent across groups. This was attributed to the elimination of potential false alarm errors.

Given that participants judged both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability appear to demonstrate superior performance on a cognitive task, it was predicted that such would also be the case for a task where individuals would be asked to solve anagrams. Because the speed with which one solves anagrams requires attentive- ness (see Karlin, 1979; Wallace & Patterson, 1984), high hypnotic susceptibility should be an important variable in demonstrating this outcome (see Krippner & Binder, 1974). That is, if one is able to resist distraction, an attribute of high hypnotic susceptibility (Wallace et al., 1976), while attempting to unscramble letters to form a word, performance should be enhanced. Similarly anagram solving should be improved for individuals who are capable of manipulating letters via imagery. If participants possess both skills, then they should demonstrate the best anagramsolving abilities because they are least distracted and rely on the use of imagery in performing a cognitive task (Crawford & Allen, 1983; Wallace, l990,1991a, 1991b). This was examined in Experiment 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

ANAGRAM SOLVING 327

EXPERIMENT 1 METHOD

Purficipants Forty volunteers (18 males, 22 females; age range: 18-34 years) from

introductory psychology classes served as participants. Volunteers had previously participated in two mass-testing sessions (26 days apart), each consisting of 135 students, where the Vividness of Viual Imagery Questionnaire (WIQ Marks, 1973) was administered in one session and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A; Shor & Ome, 1962) was administered in a second session. Participants were not aware that their imagery or hypnotic susceptibility scores were connected with their participation, precluding the possibility of context playing a role in the experiment (see Council, Kirsch, & Grant, 1996; Kirsch & Council, 1992). Also, as reported in a number of previous studies (e.g., Crawford, 1979; Hilgard, 1979; Wallace, 1990), a si@cant relationship was found for the original 135 students tested between hypnotic susceptibility level and imagery vividness, r(133) = 2 1 p < .05.

Design Ten individuals participated in each condition of a Hypnotic Suscep-

tibility Level (HSL; high or low) x Imagery Vividness (IV; vivid or poor) factorial experiment. High hypnotic susceptibility required a score of 9 or better and passing the amnesia item on the HGSHSA. Low susceptibility was defined as scoring 3 or below on the HGSHSA. The average susceptibility score of the sample was 7.3 (SD = 2.0). Vivid imagery was defined as a score of 64 or greater on the VVIQ (scoring reversed from the method used by Marks, 1973). Poor imagery required a score of 42 or below. These values represent the top and bottom one third of respon- dents. The average WIQ score for the sample was 55.6 (SD = 3.4).

Stimuli Using the Olson and Schwartz (1967) tables, 12 word anagrams and

12 nonsense anagrams were constructed. The solutions to the nonsense anagrams were chosen to be similar in language frequency and familiarity. By using the letter orders of the word anagrams to construct the nonsense anagrams, the number of letter moves required to reach solution (see Dominowski, 1966) was equated for the two types of anagrams.

Procedure Participants were individually tested by an experimenter who was

blind with respect to their hypnotic susceptibility level and imaging ability. Prior to presentation of the various anagrams, the order of which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

328 BENJAMIN WALLACE ET AL.

Table 1 Time to Solve Word and Nonsense Anagrams (in seconds) as a Function of Hypnofic- Susceptibility h e 1 (HSLI and Imagery Vidness (IV) HSL Iv Word Anagrams Nonsense Anagrams

Wvid 58.0 (10.3) 43.5 (11.1) Poor 86.2 (9.5) 57.6 (10.4) Vivid 81.9 (13.5) 53.3 (6.9) LOW

LOW Poor 88.3 (12.7) 64.8 (14.2)

Note. SDs are in pamnthesg.

High High

was randomly determined for each participant, individuals were given a practice anagram to solve and to familiarize them with the task. All anagrams consisted of five letters and were presented in a hori-

zontal fashion in capital block letters on 3 x 5 cards. Participants were presented with only one anagram at a time to solve. When presented with the anagram, they were asked to unscramble the letters to form a word. When they solved the anagram, they were to announce their response orally. No specific time limit was imposed on participants to solve anagrams. However, if the individual could not solve the anagram after 5 minutes (as monitored by the experimenter on a stopwatch), the trial was terminated.

hSULTS

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the time required to solve anagrams. Only anagrams actually solved by participants were included in the analysis. Such an analysis produced a significant main effect for HSL, F(1,36) = 33.55, p < .001. Similarly there was a signifmnt main effect for W, F(1,36) = 65.61, p c .001. A sigruclcant HSL x N x Anagram Type (AT; word or nonsense) interaction was also produced, F(1,36) = 15.37, p < .W1. The mean performances for the various groups are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the fastest mean performance was exhibited when solving nonword anagrams by participants judged to be both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability. This performance was sigruficantly faster (Newman-Keuls, p < .05 or better) than that exhibited by any of the other p u p s , both for word and nonsense anagrams. Regardless of HSL or N, nonsense anagrams were solved more quickly than word anagrams, F(1,36) = 377.51,

An ANOVA was also performed on the number of correct anagram solutions. A significant main effect was produced for HSL, F(1, 36) = 230.40, p < -001, and for Iv, F(1,36) = 213.08, p < .001. A signrficant HSL x N x AT interaction was also present, F( 1,36) = 4.66, p < .04. As is depicted in Table 2, the best performance was produced for nonsense anagrams

p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

ANAGRAM SOLVING 329

Table 2 Number of Correct Solutionsfbr Word and Nonsense Anagrams as a Function of Hypnotic Susceptibility Level (HSL) and Imagery Vividness (W)

HSL Iv Word Anagrams Nonsense Anagrams

High Vivid 10.3 (2.4) 11.1 (1.8) Poor 3.9 (2.1) 5.5 (2.4) Vivid 3.6 (1.9) 5.6 (2.8) Low

LOW Poor 4.0 (1.2) 4.6 (1.9)

Note. S D s are in parentheses.

Hi&

by participants judged both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability. This performance was sigruficantly better (Newman- Keuls, p < .05) than that produced by the other groups of participants regardless of anagram type.

DISCUSSION Individuals who were classified as both high in hypnotic susceptibil-

ity and vivid in imaging ability clearly demonstrated the best performance in the solution of anagrams. This was true regardless of anagram type. It is also the case that the best performance was exhibited by participants who scored in the upper range for both the HGSHSA and the WIQ. There are reports of findings where this is not always the case (e.g., Wallace, 1990, 1991b), but clearly in the solution of anagrams, superior performance is predicated on being both a vivid imager and high in hypnotic susceptibility.

Anagram solving appears to be enhanced if a participant has sufficient skills to manipulate the letters via imagery and if this individual is sufficiently adept at attending in a concentrative manner to the task. Through self-reports, many participants indicated that while trying to solve the anagrams, they closed their eyes. This appeared to help them concentrate and to manipulate the letters in various configurations to solve the anagram. This eye closure was confirmed by the experimenter. Those individuals who seemed to exhibit such behavior the most were also those individuals classified as vivid imagers and high in hypnotic susceptibility, 2’ = 4.79, p < .05.

It is also possible that differences in anagramsolving skills were present because some participants may have more words stored in their lexicon. If this is the case, those individuals would show the best performance in solving anagrams. In addition, the imagery value of a word may play a role in anagram solving. For example, Dewing and Hetherington (1974) found that unscrambled anagrams that formed high-imagery words were easier to solve than those that formed low-imagery words. These possibilities were examined in Experiment 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

330 BENJAhflN WALLACE ET AL.

EXPERIMENT 2 METHOD

Participants Forty volunteers (21 males, 19 females; age range: 17-38 years) from

introductory psychology classes served as participants. Volunteers had previously participated in two mass-testing sessions (24 days apart), each consisting of 122 students, where the VVIQ was administered in one session and the HGSHSA was administered in a second session. None of the individuals participated in the previous experiment. Also, partiapants were not aware that their imagery or hypnotic susceptibility scores were connected with their participation. And as in Experiment 1, a sigruficant relationship was found for the original 122 students tested between hypnotic susceptibility level and imagery vividness, r(120) = .24, p c .02.

Design Ten individuals partiapated in each condition of an HSL (high or low) x

IV (vivid or poor) factorial experiment. The average HGSHS:A score of the sample was 7.5 (SD = 2.1). The average vvIQ score for the sample was 53.1 (SD = 2.8).

Stimuli The 12 stimuli were identical to those used by Dewing and

Hetherington (1974). Half of the anagrams when unscrambled formed high-imagery words (e.g., STORM, PIANO); half fomed low-imagery words (e.g., TRUTH, MERCY). Imagery value was determined by refer- ence to lists of words contained in a study by Paivio, Y d e , and Madigan (1968); all of the Dewing andHetherington words (equated for frequency and familiarity) were contained in these lists.

Procedure All participants were administered the vocabulary subtest from the

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAISR; Wechsler, 1981). Half were randomly administered the WAIS-R before experimental participation; half were administered the WAIS-R after participation in the anagram experiment.

As in Experiment 1, participants were individually tested by an experimenter who was blind with respect to hypnotic susceptibility level and imaging ability. Prior to presentation of the various anagrams, the order of which was randomly determined for each participant, individuals were given two practice anagrams to solve and to familiarize them with the task. One of the practice anagrams unscrambled to form a high-imagery word; the other formed a low-imagery word. Order of practice anagram presentation was random.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

331 ANAGRAM SOLVING

As in Experiment 1, all anagrams consisted of five letters and were presented in a horizontal fashion in capital block letters on 3 x 5 cards. Participants were presented with only one anagram at a time to solve. When presented with an anagram, they were informed that the unsaam- bled word formed a high-imagery noun, if that was the case, or a low-imagery noun (see Paivio et al., 1968). Because they had previously solved samples of each of these, they understood what constituted each type. After receiving such instructions, they proceeded to solve the anagrams. When a solution was derived, they were to announce their response orally If after 5 minutes the participants could not solve an anagram, the experimenter terminated the trial and the next anagram was presented.

RESUl-TS

An analysis of the vocabulary test scores from the WAIS-R indicated no significant differences between groups. The average raw score was 47.17 (SD = 7.44). This is equivalent to a scaled score of 10. Also, WAIS-R performance did not significantly correlate with anagram-solving performance, either overall or individually as a function of group assignment.

To determine if HSL or W had an effect on anagram-solving performance, an ANOVA was performed on the time required to solve anagrams. Only anagrams actually solved by participants were included in the analysis. This analysis produced a signhcant HSL x IV x Anagram Solution Type (AST; high- versus low-imagery words) interaction, F(l, 36) = 27.24, p < .001. The mean performances for the various groups are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, the fastest mean performance was exhibited when unscrambling anagrams that formed high-imagery words for participants judged to be both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability. This performance was sigruficantly faster (Newman-Keuls, p < .05 or better) than that exhibited by any of the other groups, both for high- and low-imagery word solutions. It should also be noted that only participants classified as superior for both hypnotic susceptibility and imaging ability showed a significant difference (Newman-Keuls, p < .01) in amount of time required to solve for anagrams that produced high-imagery words versus low-imagery words.

An ANOVA was also performed on the number of correct anagram solutions. A sigruficant HSL x N x AST interaction was present, F(1,36) = 11.45, p < .01. As is depicted in Table 4, the best performance was produced for anagrams that produced high-imagery words by participants judged both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability. This performance was sigruficantly better (Newman-Keuls, p < .05) than that produced by the other groups of participants regardless of anagram solution type.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13


Table 3 lime to Solve Anagrams (in seconds) That Produce High- or Low-lmgery Words US a Function of Hypnotic Susceptibility Level (HSL) and Imagery Vividness (IV) HSL Iv High-Imagery Words Low-Imagery Words

Vivid 39.7 (13.7) 52.1 (14.6) Poor 64.8 (25.8) 61.5 (14.9) Vivid 67.6 (17.3) 68.9 (18.2) LOW

LOW Poor 60.3 (25.4) 60.4 (16.7)

Note. SDs are in parentheses.

High High

Table 4 Number of Correct Anagram Solutions for High- and Low-Imagery Words as a Func- tion ofHypnotic Susceptibility Level (HSL) and Imagery Vividness (IV)

HSL Iv High-Imagery Words Low-Imagery Words

Vivid 5.2 (2.1) 3.4 (2.0) Poor 2.7 (2.2) 2.6 (2.1) Vivid 2.9 (2.4) 2.9 (1.8) LOW

LOW Poor 3.0 (2.0) 2.8 (2.0)

Note. SDs are in parentheses.

High High

An analysis of covariance, where vocabulary test score on the WAIS-R served as the covariate, did not change any of the main ANOVA effects or interactions between HSL, W, or AST.

DISCUSSION As in Experiment 1, participants who were classified as both high in

hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability clearly demonstrated the best performance in the solution of anagrams. This was true for anagrams that formed high-imagery words as well as for those that formed low-imagery words.

Also, anagram-solving behavior did not appear to be influenced by the verbal ability of partiapants. There was no relationship between anagramsolving behavior and how an individual scored on the verbal subtest of the WAISR. Furthermore, the verbal subtest was not related to HSL or W. Thus, presumably, participants who are more adept at solving anagrams do not have more words in their lexicon than those who are not so skilled at anagram solving. Anagram solving appears to be a skill that is little influenced by verbal fluency, at least as measured by the verbal subtest of the WAIS-R

However, as in Experiment 1, anagram solving appears to be enhanced if a participant has suffiaent skills to manipulate the letters via imagery and if this individual is suffiaently adept at attending in a concentrative manner to the task. Thus, those participants who reported or who were observed closing their eyes while trying to solve the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

333 ANAGRAM SOLVING

anagrams seemed to perform best in solving anagrams that formed high-imagery words and those that formed low-imagery words, although performance was best for the former. And as in Experiment 1, those individuals who seemed to exhibit such behavior the most were ~- - also those classified as vivid imagers and high in hypnotic susceptibility x' = 7.11, p < .01. .-

It A0 appears that anagrams that produce high-hgery words when unscrambled are solved more quickly than those that produce 10W-h- agery words.

This replicates findings reported by Dewing and Hetherington (1974). However, the effect is enhanced if one takes into account individual differences that contribute to superior performance in a cognitive task. That is, based on a number of previous studies (e.g., Wallace, 1990; Wallace, Allen, & Weber, 1994), it is clear that participants who are judged to be high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability show superior performance. Such superiority also appears to be the case for solving anagrams. Thus, not only do participants solve anagrams more quickly if the formed word is high in imagery value, but those who are high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability solve such anagrams even more quickly compared to participants who do not possess both of these attributes.

GENERAL DISCUSSION Anagram solving appears to be related to hypnotic susceptibility and

imaging ability. As has been mentioned, participants who are classified as being both high in hypnotic susceptibility and vivid in imaging ability clearly show superior performance when solving anagrams. This superiority is demonstrated both in the speed with which they are solved as well as in the number of correct solutions.

Because verbal fluency does not appear to play a sigrdkant role in the ability to solve anagrams, superior performance is best predicted by scoring both high in hypnotic susceptibility and imaging ability. In the present experiments, hypnotic susceptibility was assessed by the HGSHS:A. However, other equally valid and reliable tests (e.g., the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A, B, and C; SHSSA, :B, :C; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959,1962; the Carleton University Respon- siveness to Suggestion Scale; Spanos, Radtke, Hodgins, Bertrand, Stam, & Dubreuil, 1983) can be used to assess hypnotic Susceptibility. In fact, the SHSS is a better cognitive assessment of hypnotic susceptibility. A future study should consider replicating this study with the SHSS.

Imaging ability was assessed by performance on the VVIQ. Again, as with the test for assessing hypnotic susceptibility, other tests are avail- able to assess imaging ability (see McKelvie, 1995; Sheehan, 1967). It is likely that these tests could also predict the ability of participants to manipulate an anagram via imagery.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13


It should also be mentioned that solution-word imagery (as manipu- lated in Experiment 2) not only has a strong effect on anagram solving but also that this effect is independent of word frequency or associative verbal meaningfulness. We can make this conclusion because we used the same high- and low-imagery words as Dewing and Hetherington (1974). They chose words that were equal in frequency of appearance in print and that were also equal for associative verbal meaningfulness. Therefore, these factors could not have played a role in the outcome reported in Experiment 2. In essence, word imagery appears to exert its influence before the identification of the word. How this occurs is not clear, but there may be some unconscious processing that takes place prior to anagram solving. This should be explored in future studies.

Superior performance in the solution of anagrams appears to require the ability to sustain attention and inhibit distractions (see Crawford, 1994; Crawford et al., 1993; Wallace & Patterson, 1984). Crawford et al. have also argued that highly susceptible individuals have more efficient fronto-limbic attentional systems. In essence, highly hypnotizable persons possess stronger attentional filtering abilities than do low hypnotizable persons, and these diffmces are reflected in underlying brain dynamics. Furthermore, Crawford and Gruzelier (1992) have provided behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiological evidence that suggests that highly hypnotizable individuals can both better focus and sustain their attention and better ignore irrelevant stimuli in the environment. It is also possible that imaging ability enhances this effect. In essence, if participants can more easily manipulate stimuli via the use of imagery, sustained attention is further improved. It may also be possible to further ignore irrelevant stimuli with the use of imagery. Whether this is also a fronto-limbic attentional process is not known.

REFERENCES Atkinson, R I? (1994). Enhanced afterimage persistence in waking and hypnosis: High

hypnotizables report more enduring afterimages. hagination, Cognition, and Personal- ify, 14,3141.

Atkinson, R I?, & Crawford, H. J. (1992). Individual differences in afterimage persistence: Relationships to hypnotic susceptibility and visuospatial skills. American Journal of

Counal, J. R., Kirsch, I., & Grant, D. L. (1996). Imagination, expectancy, and hypnotic responding. In R Kunzendorf, N. I? Spanos, & B. Wallace (Eds.), Hypnosis a d imagination (pp. 41-65). Farmingdale, Ny: Baywood.

Crawford, H. J. (1979, October). Can hypnosis enhance visual imagery processing and memory? Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of The Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Denver, CO.

Crawford, H. J. (1981). Hypnotic susceptibility as related to gestalt closure tasks. Journal of Personality rmd Social Psychology, 40,376-383.

Crawford, H. J. (1994). Brain dynamics and hypnosis: Attentional and disattentional processes. International Journal of Clinical and Expetimental Hypnosis, 42,204432.

P s y c h o l ~ g ~ , 105,527-539. Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

ANAGRAM SOLVING 335

Crawford, H. J., & Allen, S. N. (1983). Enhanced visual memory during hypnmis as mediated by hypnotic responsiveness and cognitive strategies. Journal of Experimmtnl

Crawford, H. J., Brown, A. M., &Moon, C. E. (1993). Sustained attentional and disattentional abilities: Differences between low and highiy hypnotizable persons. Journal ofA-1

Crawford, H. J., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1992). Amidstream view of the neuropsychophysiology of hypnosis: Recent research and future directions. In E. Fromm & M. R Nash (Eds.), Contemponny &mods resemrh (pp. 227-266). New York Guilford.

Dewing, K, & Hetherington, P. (1974). Anagram solving as a function of word h a g q . Journal of EXpetimental Psychology, 102,764-767.

Dominowski, R L. (1%). Anagram solving as a fundion of letter moves. Journal of Vmhl Lemning und Verbul Behavior, 5,107-111.

Graham,C., &Evans,F. J. (1977). Hypnotizabilityand thedevelopmentofwakingattention. Journal ofAbnanal Psychology, 86,631-638.

Hilgard, J. R (1979). PosoMlity und hypnosis (2nd ed.). Chicap University of Chicago Press. Karlin, R. A. (1979). Hypnotizability and attention. Journal of Abnormnl Psychology, 88,92-95. Kirsch, I., & Council, J. R (1992). Situational and personality conelates of suggestibility. h

E. Fromm & M. R Nash (Eds.), Cuntmrpomy hypnosis Tesemdl (pp. 267-291). New York Guilford.

Krippner, S., & Bindler, P. R. (1974). Hypnosis and attention: A review. Amerim Journal Df Clinical Hypnosis, 16,166-177.

Marks, D. F. (1973). Viiual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of

McKelvie, S. J. (1995). The WIQ as a psychometric test of individual differences in visual imagery vividness: Acritical quantitative review and plea for direction. Journal of Mental

Miller, R. J. (1975). Response to the P o r n illusion as a reflection of hypnotic susceptibility. lnternutional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23,148-157.

Mitchell, M. B. (1970). Hypnotic susceptibility and response to distraction. Amerim Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 13,3545.

Mo~an,A. H.,&Lam,D. (1%9).7'herelutWnshipoftheBetts vividnessoflmgny Questionnuire and hypnoticsusceptibi1ify:Fuilue to replicate (Reseaxrh Memorandum No. 103). Stanford, CA: Hawthorne House.

Nadon,R, Laurence, J. -R, &Perry, C. (1987). Multiple predictors of hypnotic susceptibility. ]oumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,948-960.

Olson, R, & Schwartz, R (1967). Single and multiple solution five-letter words. P y c h o m i C Monogmph Supplements, 2,105-152.

Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1%). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness of nouns. Journal of Erperimental Psydrology Monog*aph Supplnnmt, W , Pt. 2).

Perry, C. (1973). Imagery, fantasy and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal ofPersonnlifyund Social

Sheehan, I? W. (1967). Ashortened version of the Bets Questionnaire Upon Mental h a m . 1ouml of Clinical Psychology, 23,386-389.

Shor, R E., & h e , E. C. (1%2). Hnmard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychobgists hess.

Spanos, N. p., Radtke, H. L, Hodgins, D. C., Bertrand, L. D.. Stam, H., & ~ E U & D. L. (1983). The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Stability, reliability, and relationships with expeaancies and hypnotic experiences. Psychological Reports, 53, 555-563.

Sutdiffe, J. P., Perry, C., & Sheehan, P. W. (1970). Relation of some a s p of imagery and fantasy to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal 0fAbnoml Psychology, 76,279-287.

Van Nuys, D. (1973). Mediation, attention, and hypnotic susceptibility: A condational study. ln temat iml Journal of Clinical and Expen'mental Hypnosis, 21,5949.

Psychology: Gmeml, 112,662-685.

Psychology, 102,534-w.

Psychology, 64,17-24.

rmgny, 29,1-106.

P~~chology, 26,217-221.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13


Wallace, B. (1979). Hypnotic susceptibility and the perception of afterimages and dot stimuli. Ammican Journal of Psychology, 92,681-691.

Wallace, B. (1990). Imagery vividness, hypnotic susceptibility, and the perception of frag- mented stimuli. Journal of Personnlity and Social Psychology, 58,354-359.

Wallace, B. (1991a). Imaging ability and performance in a prookading task. Journal of Mental lmagery, 15,177-188.

Wallace, 8. (1991b). Hypnotic susceptibility, imaging ability and information processing: An integrative look In R G. Kunzendorf (Ed.), Mental imagery (pp. 89-100). New York Plenum.

Wallace, B., Men, I? A., & Propper, R E. (1994, November). lndividwl di&rennces in the solution o f m p m s . Paper pxesented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic society, St. Louis, MO.

Wallace, B., Men, I? A., & Weber, T. A. (1994). Hypnotic susceptibility, imaging ability, and the detection of embedded words within letters. l n t m t i m l Journal of Clinical and Experimoltal HypnosiS, 42,2048.

Wallace, B., Garrett, J. B., & Anstadt, S. F! (1974). Hypnotic susceptibility, suggestion, and reports of autokinetic movement. AmeriCmr Journal ofPsychology, 87,117-123.

Wallace, B., Knight, T. A., & Garrett, J. B. (1976). Hypnotic susceptibility and frequency reports to illwry stimuli. Journal ofAbnonna1 Psychology, 85,558-563.

Wallace, B., &Patterson, S. L. (1984). Hypnotic susceptibility and performance on various attentionspecific cognitive tasks. JoumlofPersonulity und Social Psychology, 47,175-181.

Wechsler, D. (1981). Wedtsler Adult lntelligence Scale-Rewised. New York Psychological Corporation.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hdgard, E. R (1959). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., C Hilgard, E. R (1%2). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hypnotische Ansprechbarkeit, Imaginationsfahigkeit und Losungsaktivitit von Anagrammen

Benjamin Wallace, Philip A. Allen, und Ruth E. Propper Zusammenfassung: Die Liisungsaktivitit bei Anagrammen wurde untersucht als eine Funktion der hypnotischen Ansprechbarkeit und der Imaginations- fahigkeit. Im ersten Experiment wurden Anagramme, die eine Buchstaben- zusammensebung enthielten, die ein Wort formten (Wortanagramme), bei Durchmischung der Buchstaben aber ein anderes Wort formten, mit Buchsta- benkombinationen verglichen, die Nichtworter formten (sinnlose Ana- gramme). Fur die Wortanagramme wurde mehr Zeit fiir die Losung benotigt als fiir die sinnlosen Anagramme. AuBerdem wurden verglichen mit den sinnlosen Anagrammen weniger Wortanagramme richtig gelost. Diejenigen Probanden, die bei der hypnotischen Suggestibilitiit, wie bei Ihrer Imagina- tionsfigkeit hohe Werte aufwiesen, erzielten die besten Ergebnisse. im 2. Experiment wurden Anagramme verglichen, die bei einer Umstellung der Buchstaben m Wortem mit g d e r Symbolik fiihrten aeichter in Bilder umsetzbar) mit solchen, die eine geringe Symbolik (schlecht in Bilder umsetzbar) aufwiesen. Anagramme mit Symbolwortem wurden schneller und besser gelost als Anagramme der Worter, die keinen Symbolcharakter aufwiesen. Dies zeigte sich am besten bei den Probanden, die sowohl hoch sug- gestibel als auch lebhaft in ihrer Vorstellungsffigkeit waren. Die Ergebnisse wurden unter dem Aspekt von Losungsstrategien von Anagrammen und den

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

ANAGRAM SOLVING 337

individuellen Unterschieden, die mit dem vemenden solcher Strategien ZusammenzuhSngen scheinen, diskutiert.

SusceptibilitC l'hypnose, habiletC h imaginer et activitC de rbolution d'anagrammes

Benjamin Wallace, Philip A. Allen, et Ruth E. Propper RCsume L'activitC de &solution d'anagrammes a Ct6 examinee en fonction de la susceptibilit6 1 l'hypnose et de I'habiletC h imaginei Dam l'ExpCrience 1, des anagrammes composCs d'un ensemble de lettres qui fonnaient de vrais mots (anagrammes mots) mais qui lorsque dassemblCes formaient d'autres mots ont CtC cornpar& i d'autres ensembles de lettres qui fonnaient des mots sans sens (anagrammes sans signification). Les anagrammes mots requkraient plus de temps de &solution que les anagrammes sans signification Les individus ayant a la fois une susceptibilith h l'hypnose ClevCe et une habileM h imaginer vivide ont dhonh-6 la meilleure performance. Dans I'ExpCrience 2, des anagrammes qui lorsque r&assembl6s formaient des mots h imagerie Cleviie ont 6th cornpar& h d'autres formant des mots 1 imagerie faible. Les anagrammes mots 5 imagerie Cleviie ont 6tC r6solus plus rapidement et correc- tement que les mots anagrammes h imagerie faible. Les individus ayant h la fois une susceptibilit6 h l'hypnose ClevCe et une habileth 1 imaginer vivide se sont avCr6s meilleurs dans cette activite. Ces dsultats sont prbentCs en terme de strathgies de rkolution d'anagrammes et des diff6rences individuelles qui semblent &re assoaCes 3 l'utilisation de telles strat6gies.

Susceptibilidad hipnbtica, capacidad imaginativa J capacidad de resolver un anagrama

Benjamin Wallace, Philip k Allen, y Ruth E. Propper Resumen: Se estudi6 la capaadad de resolver un anagrama como funcibn de la sugestibilidad hipn6tica y de la capacidad imaginativa. En el Experimento 1,los anagramas comprendian p p o s de cartas que formaban palabras gas palabras del anagrama), pen, cuando se desarmaban formaban otras palabras; Cstas fueron comparadas con grupos de cartas que no formaban palabras (anagramas sin sentido). Las palabras del anagrama requirieron mis tiempo para resolverse que 10s anagramas sin sentido. Adem& se resolvieron correctamente menos palabras del anagrama comparadas con las del anagrama sin sentido. La mejor actuacih la tuvieron aquellos individuos de alta sugestibilidad y de dvida capaadad imaginativa. En el Experimento 2,los anagramas que cuando se desannaron formaban palabras de alta-imaginaci6n, fueron eomparados con aquellos que formaban palabras de baja imaginaci6n. Las palabras de 10s anagramas de alta imaginaa6n fueron resueltos d s riipido y correctamente que las palabras del anagrama de baja imaginaci6n. Esta activi- dad fue llevada a cab0 de una manera d s satisfactoria en individuos con una mayor sugestibilidad hipn6tica y capacidad imaginativa vfvida. Los resul- tados se discutieron en tCrmino de las estrategias para resolver el anagrama y de las diferencias individuales que parecfan estar asociadas con el us0 de tales estrategias.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

0:06

10

Apr

il 20

13

Documents

Hypnotic Susceptibility, Imaging Ability, and Anagram-Solving Activity