a new way of characterizing hypnotic interactions: dyadic interactional harmony (dih) questionnaire

Copyright © 2006 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Contemp. Hypnosis 23: 151–166 (2006)Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd DOI: 10.1002/ch

Contemporary Hypnosis 151Contemp. Hypnosis 23(4): 151–166 (2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ch.320

A NEW WAY OF CHARACTERIZING HYPNOTIC INTERACTIONS: DYADIC INTERACTIONAL HARMONY (DIH) QUESTIONNAIRE

Katalin Varga, Emese Józsa, Éva I. Bányai and Anna C. Gosi-Greguss

Center for Affective Psychology, Eötvös Loránd 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 (espe-cially 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; Bányai, 1985, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002a; Bányai, Gõsi-Greguss, Vágó, Varga and Horváth, 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 Bányai, 1991). It is important to realize

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 interactionsUsing interactional modifi cations of well-known ‘subject-centered’ phenomenological measures – e.g. the ‘Parallel Experiential Analysis Technique’ (PEAT; Varga, Bányai, Gõsi-Greguss, 1994, based on EAT of Sheehan and McConkey, 1982), or the question-naire 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 fi ndings have been reported elsewhere: Varga, Bányai and Gõsi-Greguss, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000).

According to our observation, hypnotic interactions do differ in the level of concor-dance/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 Bányai 1985, 1991, 1998), forming the basis of the description of ‘hypnosis styles’ (e.g. paternal and maternal styles; Bányai, 1994, 2002/b; Varga, 1999).

Dyadic Interactional Harmony questionnaireThe interactional modifi cations of the techniques mentioned above were originally devel-oped 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 specifi c 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 DIHThe DIH questionnaire developed for this purpose lists 50 features. The Hungarian version of DIH was standardized on a sample of 256 Ss (Varga, Bányai and Gõsi-

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 inter-action-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 interac-tion. On the basis of these features the Mutual Rorschach situation is an ideal and eco-nomical 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 fi 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 posi-tive 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 settingsIn 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

DesignIn 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 fi rst time in their lives in the experimental hypnosis sessions.

154 Varga et al.


ProcedureThe 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 experi-ment 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 (AIM−S), and the parallel versions of these scales for the hypnotist (AIM+H, AIM−H; Bányai, Gõsi-Greguss, Vágó, Varga and Horváth, 1990);

2. The Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory, measuring the subjective alteration of consciousness on 26 dimensions (PCI; Pekala et al. 1986). In the statistical analy-sis we used the 5 factor-based scales of PCI (Kumar, Pekala and Cummings, 1996; Varga, Józsa, Bányai, Gõsi-Greguss and Kumar, 2001). The fi ve PCI factor-based scales used in this study, and their defi nitions, are as follows:a Dissociative control (PCI DC). Higher factor scores refl ect 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-execu-tive 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 refl ect more joy, more sexual excite-ment, more love, altered meaning, altered body image, and altered perception.

c Negative affect (PCI NA). Higher factor scores refl ect more anger, sadness, fear, and arousal, but low rationality.

d Visual imagery (PCI VI). Higher factor scores refl ect more visual imagery (amount and vividness).

e Attention to internal processes (PCI IA). Higher scores refl ect 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. Immedi-ately after the termination of the hypnosis sessions Ss fi lled in the tests (in E1 Hs also did this, independently of the Ss). After this, a debriefi ng discussion ended the experiments.

SubjectsThe 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.



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 fi 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 DIHThe 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 experimentsAs can be seen in Table 3 there is a signifi cant 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 DIH answered by the Ss (only in E1)

Pooled E1 E2 (E1 + E2,DIH subscale (N = 226) (N = 105) N = 331) E1 (N = 226)

Intimacy 0.81 0.85 0.82 0.92Communion 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92Playfulness 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.89Tension 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.77

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

Intimacy Communion Playfulness

E1 E2 E1 + E2 E1 E2 E1 + E2 E1 E2 E1 + E2 (N = (N = (N = 337) (N = (N = (N = 337) (N = (N = (N = 337) 231) 106) 231) 106) 231) 106)

Intimacy 1.00Communion 0.51** 0.69** 0.57** 1.00Playfulness 0.59** 0.65** 0.62** 0.53** 0.63** 0.59** 1.00Tension 0.03 −0.28** −0.06 −0.29** −0.41** −0.31** −0.17** −0.43** −0.25**

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

156 Varga et al.


Relationship of DIH with the other measures of hypnosisThe correlation coeffi cients 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 signifi cant 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 ‘sus-ceptibility range’: 0–4 Low susceptibility; 5–8 Medium susceptibility; and 9–12 High susceptibility1. As there was no signifi cant interaction of the ‘Experiment’ and ‘Suscep-tibility 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 signifi cant difference appeared in the case of the Ss’ ‘inti-macy’, ‘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 signifi -cantly lower ‘intimacy’ ‘communion’ and ‘playfulness’ scores than those with Medium or High susceptibility.

In E1 the Hs’ scores were signifi cantly infl uenced 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 suscepti-bles than with Mediums or Highs (for details see Table 7).

Table 3. Comparing the means of the DIH subscales in the two experiments (data of the Ss)

DIH scores of Ss

DIH subscale E1 (N = 231) E2 (N = 106) t df

Intimacy x = 2,4 2,19 2,49** 335 sd = 0,71 0,68Communion x = 4,23 3,56 8,25** 335 sd = 0,64 0,79Playfulness x = 3,22 2,8 3,83** 335 sd = 0,84 0,83Tension x = 2,11 2,04 1,07** 335 sd = 0,53 0,50

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

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 0–4 for Lows, 5–7 for Mediums, and 8–12 for Highs.



Tab

le 4

. C

orre

lati

ons

of t

he D

IH s

ubsc

ales

wit

h th

e ot

her

test

s in

E1

DIH

Sco

res

of S

s D

IH S

core

s of

Hs

E1

N

Inti

mac

y C

omm

unio

n Pl

ayfu

lnes

s Te

nsio

n In

tim

acy

Com

mun

ion

Play

fuln

ess

Tens

ion

SHS

S-A

23

1 0.

19*

0.18

**

0.21

**

-0.0

7 0.

33**

0.

30**

0.

29**

−0

.14*

AIM

+ S

23

0 0.

45**

0.

34**

0.

40**

0.

12

0.08

0.

20*

0.13

* −0

.03

AIM

-S

230

0.07

−0

.09*

0.

13*

0.18

**

0.06

0.

03

0.04

−0

.05

AIM

totS

23

0 0.

44**

0.

31**

0.

40**

0.

14*

0.09

0.

19**

0.

13

−0.0

3A

IM +

H

228

0.13

0.

03

0.00

0.

06

0.77

**

0.42

**

0.57

**

0.30

**A

IM-H

22

8 0.

09

−0.0

8 0.

06

0.08

−0

.06

−0.3

2**

−0.1

3*

0.43

**A

IMto

tH

228

0.13

* 0.

02

0.01

0.

07

0.74

**

0.37

**

0.54

**

0.33

**P

CI

DK

S

228

0.21

**

0.01

0.

21**

−0

.00

0.17

* 0.

15*

0.16

* −0

.00

PC

I PA

S

228

0.48

**

0.16

* 0.

32**

0.

02

0.11

0.

14*

0.13

* 0.

01P

CI

NA

S

228

−0.0

2 −0

.19*

* −0

.10

0.50

**

0.14

* 0.

06

0.01

0.

02P

CI

VI

S 22

8 0.

19**

0.

11

0.13

* −0

.10

0.06

0.

09

0.08

0.

06P

CI

IA S

22

8 0.

14*

0.11

0.

21**

−0

.00

0.09

0.

13*

0.13

* −0

.04

PC

I D

K H

22

7 0.

13

0.00

0.

03

0.13

0.

50**

0.

29**

0.

40**

0.

27**

PC

I PA

H

227

0.11

0.

00

0.01

0.

05

0.82

**

0.46

**

0.62

**

0.12

PC

I N

A H

22

7 −0

.04

−0.0

3 −0

.08

0.01

0.

06

−0.1

4*

−0.0

6 0.

51**

PC

I V

I H

22

7 0.

14*

0.05

0.

06

0.00

0.

14*

0.21

**

0.17

* −0

.01

PC

I IA

H

227

0.12

−0

.02

0.04

0.

14*

0.58

**

0.34

**

0.45

**

0.24

**

Not

e: S

: sc

ores

of

the

subj

ect;

H:

scor

es o

f th

e hy

pnot

ist

(* p

< 0

.05;

**

p <

0.01

).V

alu

es i

n b

old

: in

dica

te t

he c

orre

lati

on b

etw

een

DIH

val

ues

of S

s as

wel

l as

bet

wee

n th

ose

of H

s.

158 Varga et al.


Comparing the DIH scores of Ss and HsOn 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 standard-ized 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 signifi cant in the case of all the subscales of the DIH. Although these differences were statistically signifi cant, 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,

Table 5. Correlations of the DIH subscales with the other tests in E2

DIH Scores of Ss

E2 N Intimacy Communion Playfulness Tension

WSGC 106 0.29** 0.27** 0.20* −0.22*AIM + S 106 0.55** 0.37** 0.34** 0.00AIM-S 106 −0.08 −0.23* 0.22* 0.36**AIMtotS 106 0.52** 0.33** 0.31** 0.03PCI DK 106 0.41** 0.29** 0.26** −0.09PCI PA S 106 0.65** 0.41** 0.50** −0.22*PCI NA S 106 −0.15 −0.27** −0.30** 0.63**PCI VI S 106 0.19* 0.16 0.08 −0.06PCI IA S 106 0.19* 0.16 0.08 −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) Tukey Post Hoc test

Low Medium HighDIH subscale (N = 111) (N = 164) (N = 62) df F Post Hoc

Intimacy x = 2,08 2,42 2,55 2,334 11,52** L < M = H sd = 0,65 0,73 0,62Communion x = 3,7 4,1 4,2 2,334 16,35** L < M = H sd = 0,84 0,65 0,66Playfulness x = 2,7 3,1 3,4 2,334 13,76** L < M = H sd = 0,84 0,83 0,76Tension x = 1,39 1,3 1,19 2,334 2,13 – sd = 0,58 0,60 0,61 n.s.

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



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) ANOVA

Low Medium High Post HocDIH subscale (N = 58) (N = 122) (N = 51) df F by Tukey

Intimacy x = 1,8 2,1 2,4 2,225 10,79** L = M < H sd = 0,51 0,74 0,77Communion x = 3,3 3,6 3,8 2,225 7,91** L < M = H sd = 0,68 0,70 0,67Playfulness x = 2,3 2,5 2,9 2,225 7,51** L = M < H sd = 0,66 0,76 0,85Tension x = 1,7 1,5 1,4 2,225 3,11* L < H sd = 0,64 0,53 0,49

Note: In Tukey Post Hoc analysis < or > mark if the mean difference is signifi cant at the .05 level; = refers to a non-signifi cant 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 Ss (N = 227) Hs (N = 227) t df

Intimacy x = 2,39 2,13 4,29** 226 sd = 0,71 0,73Communion x = 4,23 3,63 10,30** 226 sd = 0,64 0,71Playfulness x = 3,22 2,55 9,26** 226 sd = 0,84 0,78Tension x = 1,30 1,55 4,67** 226 sd = 0,60 0,56

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 reliabili-ties 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.

160 Varga et al.


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, occasion-ally 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, refl ecting 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 signifi cant, but small or moderate, and interestingly, the hypnotist’s ‘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 suscepti-bles), and according to the DIH of Hs, Hs report smaller communion with the low sus-ceptibles 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 sug-gestions, 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 signifi cantly difference). This seems to imply that the DIH refl ects a separate dimension of hypnotic interaction than simply the Ss’ hypnotic susceptibility itself.

Average DIH scores of Ss and Hs (E1)

012345

Intim

acy

Commun

ion

Playfu

lness

Tensio

n

DIH subscales

DIH

sco

re

Ss

Hs

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



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 (AIM−H) 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 con-nected. It raises the possibility that in the case of Hs the involvement refl ected 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 character-ize 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 (signifi cant 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 fulfi lled the aims and requirements set at the beginning: this is an easily administered, quick method that can be applied for sub-jects 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) (Bányai, 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 person’s life can evoke strong transfer-ential feelings, which can or cannot be perceived by the partner (Varga et al., 1994, 1999). The infl uence 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

162 Varga et al.


determine the person’s 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 (Országos Tudományos Kutatási Alap, Hungarian Scientifi c Research Support Foundation) to Éva I. Bányai, and by grant No. K 62210 from OTKA to Anna C. Gosi-Greguss, and post-doctorial fellowship from the Magyary Zoltán Higher Educational Public Foundation to Anna Székely

We gratefully acknowledge Ronald Pekala, PhD, for his permission to use the PCI in our researches. Thanks are due to Anna Székely, PhD, for her generous assistance with the statistical analysis.

Reprint requests should be addressed to Katalin VARGA, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Izabella u. 46., Hungary-1064., email: [email protected]

ReferencesAinsworth 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 affi liation. Sociometry 28: 289–304.Baker EL (2000) Refl ections on the hypnotic relationship. International Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Hypnosis 48(1): 56–69.Baker EL, Levitt EE (1989) The hypnotic relationship: an investigation of compliance and resis-

tance. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37(2): 145–53.Bányai ÉI (1985) A social psychological approach to the understanding of hypnosis: the interac-

tion between hypnotist and subject. Hypnos – Swedish Journal of Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine 12: 186–210.

Bányai ÉI (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.

Bányai ÉI (1994) Hypnosis styles: theoretical considerations and empirical data. Keynote address presented at the 13th International Congress of Hypnosis, Melbourne, Australia, 6–12 August.

Bányai ÉI (1995) Nature of rapport in hypnosis: theoretical considerations and empirical results. Invited address presented at the 2nd European Congress of Ericksonian Hypnosis and Psy-chotherapy, Munich, Germany, October 3–7.

Bányai ÉI (1996) Hypnosis and our changing world: a social psychobiological theory. Paper pre-sented at the 7th European Congress of Hypnosis, Budapest, Hungary, August 17–23.

Bányai ÉI (1998) The interactive nature of hypnosis: research evidence for a social-psychobiological model. Contemporary Hypnosis 15(1): 52–63.

Bányai ÉI (2002a) Hypnosis and mainstream psychology. In: B Peter, W Bongartz, D Revenstorf, W Butollo (eds) Munich 2000. The 15th International Congress of Hypnosis. Hypnosis inter-national Monographs Number 6. Munich: MEG Stiftung, pp. 1–13.



Bányai ÉI (2002b) Communication in different styles of hypnosis. In: CAL Hoogduin, CPDR Schaap, HAA de Berk (eds) Issues on Hypnosis. Nijmegen: Cure and Care publishers.

Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-Greguss AC, Vágó P, Varga K, Horváth R (1990) Interactional approach to the understanding of hypnosis: theoretical background and main fi 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: 110–29.

Bowers KS (1981) Do the Stanford scales tap the ‘classic suggestion effect?’ International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 29: 42–53.

Bowers KS (1992) Imaginative and dissociative control in hypnotic responding. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 40: 253–75.

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): 250–68.

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): 119–31.

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 Hyp-nosis 27: 3–13.

Diamond MJ (1987) The interactional basis of hypnotic experience: on the relational dimensions of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 35: 95–115.

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 suscepti-bility and hypnotic depth. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 11: 1–14.

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: 189–246.

Haley J (1958) An interactional explanation of hypnosis. American Journal Of Clinical Hypnosis 1: 41–57.

Kumar VK, Pekala RJ, Cummings J (1996) Trait factors, state effects and hypnotizability. Inter-national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 44: 232–249.

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: 125–31.

Loveland NT, Wynne L, Singer MT (1963) The family Rorschach: a new method for studying family interaction. Family Process 2: 187–215.

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): 739–43.

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.

164 Varga et al.


Nash MR, Lynn SJ (1986) Child abuse and hypnotic ability. Imagery, Cognition and Personality 5: 211–18.

Nash MR, Spinler D (1989) Hypnosis and transference: a measure of archaic involvement. Inter-national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37: 129–43.

Patterson ML (1976) An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review 83(3): 235–45.

Pekala RJ, Nagler R (1989) The assessment of hypnoidal states: rationale and clinical application. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 31(4): 231–6.

Pekala RJ, Steinberg J, Kumar, VK (1986) Measurement of phenomenological experience: Phe-nomenology of Consciousness Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63: 983–9.

Perry CW, Sheehan PW (1978) Aptitude for trance and situational effects of varying the inter-personal nature of the hypnosis setting. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 20(4): 256–62.

Sheehan PW (1980) Factors infl uencing rapport in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 89: 263–81.

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): 573–83.

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. Psycho-logical Inquiry 1(4): 285–93 and 324–9.

Varga K (1999) Phenomenology of hypnosis styles. In 8th European Congress on Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Amsterdam/Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, August 14–19. Abstract Books, pp. 26.

Varga K, Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-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): 130–9.

Varga K, Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-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 17–23.

Varga K, Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-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 21–27.

Varga K, Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-Greguss AC (1999) Hypnotists’ phenomenology: toward the under-standing of hypnotic interactions. Hypnos 26(4): 181–93.

Varga K, Józsa E, Bányai ÉI, Gõsi-Greguss AC, Kumar VK (2001) Phenomenological experiences associated with hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 49(1): 19–29.

Varga K, Józsa E, Urbán R (2002) A Közös Rorschach Vizsgálati Helyzet alkalmazása a diádikus interakciók élményvilágában megmutatkozó harmónia fokának vizsgálatára (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) Párkapcsolati Dinamika. (Dynamics of Dadic Relationships). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (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.



Appendix 1

The Dyadic Interactional Harmony QuestionnaireThe 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: completelyThe numbers in between indicate gradual steps between the two extremes.

2. Sympathy. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Self-disclosure 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 4. tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 54. Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. openness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Mutual confi dence. . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Dominance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 54. Constrained . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. tenderness . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Attunement . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 2. harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Understanding . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Rigour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Subordination . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. humour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 51. Liking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Patience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Clumsiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 54. Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Excitement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. playfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 2. Accord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 51. Cordial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. intimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 4. defenselessness . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 51. Eroticism/sensuality 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Shallowness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 51. Happiness. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. warmth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 52. Mutual attention . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. inspiring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Sincerity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 2. mutuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Abandoned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Informality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. agitating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 51. Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3,4 Easy-fl owing . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 54. Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 1. passion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 53. Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Closeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

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

166 Varga et al.


Appendix 2

Data of Factoranalysis of DIH in the Mutual Rorschach situation:

Cumulative variance

Factor Variance explained in the data space in the factor Cronbach alfa

1 10.5645 0.4173 0.5442 0.97152 4.0842 0.5786 0.75453 2.0519 0.6596 0.86024 1.6142 0.7234 0.94345 1.0997 0.7668 1.0000

Rotated, sorted factor values (Mutual Rorschach situation)

Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

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

Note: ‘Relaxed’ item scores inversely in the ‘Tension’ scale.

a new way of characterizing hypnotic interactions: dyadic interactional harmony (dih) questionnaire

Documents