This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow] On: 06 January 2015, At: 21:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis a
Sheryl C. Wilson Ph.D. & Dr. Theodore X. Barber Ph.D. a
b
Medfield Foundation , Medfield, Massachusetts, USA
b
Medfield State Hospital , Medfield, Massachusetts, USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Sheryl C. Wilson Ph.D. & Dr. Theodore X. Barber Ph.D. (1978) The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 20:4, 235-249, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1978.10403940 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1978.10403940
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OFCLINICAL HYPNOSIS Volume 20, Number 4, April 1978 Printed in U . S A .
The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
SHERYL C. WILSON, Ph.D. Medfeld Foundation Medfeld, Massachusetts
THEODORE X. BARBER, Ph.D.Z Medfeld State Hospital Medfield, Massachusetts
and
Existing scales that measure responses to suggestions are too ‘authoritarian, imply to subjects that they are under the control of the experimenter or hypnotist, usually require a preceding trance induction, and were not constructed to be administered as easily in both a group and in an individual setting. To meet the need for a nonauthoritarian scale which (a) informs subjects that they are to produce the phenomena themselves, (b) can be given with or without a trance induction, and (c) can be administered as easily to an individual or to a group, a permissive scale measuring responsiveness to suggestions was constructed and was named the Creative Imagination Scale. The new scale includes 10 items (test-suggestions) that ask subjects to think and imagine, for example, that an arm is heavy, a finger is becoming numb, they are eating a delicious orange, they feel that time is slowing down, and they are reexperiencing themselves back in childhood. In a series of investigations, norms for the scale were developed and .the scale was shown to have satisfactory test-retest reliability, split-half reliability, and factorial validity. The Creative Imagination Scale has been found to be a useful measure in four recent experimental studies and it should also prove useful in clinical settings.
Existing scales that are designed to measure hypnotic responsiveness, such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, are too authoritarian. These scales contain test-
’
This paper is based, in part, on a doctoral dissertation completed at Heed University by the first author (Wilson, 1976). The research was supported, in part, by grants to the second author from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 21294 and MH 28432). We are indebted to the following for critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript: Lucy T. Ulman, Ed.D., Ph.D.: Berthold C. Friedl, Ph.D.; James N. Pepper, Ed.D.; David M. Rafky, Ed.D.; Richard F. Q. Johnson, Ph.D.; and Donald S. Scott, Ph.D.
suggestions which clearly imply that the subject is under the control of the experimenter or hypnotist, e.g., the subject is told “. . . your throat and jaw are solid, and rigid . . . They’re so solid and so rigid, that you can’t speak . . . you can’t say your name. . . You can’t talk! Try; you can’t. . . Try harder; you can’t” (Barber, 1969, p. 245). Suggestions were at times given in this way in the 1800’s and early 1900’s when there was a more authoritarian society, the doctor was an unquestioned auReprint requests should be mailed to Dr. T. X. Barber, Medfield Foundation, P.O. Box 312, Medfield. Massachusetts 02052.
235
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
236
thority, and the patients accepted all of the doctor’s assertions. Now there is a more democratic, nonauthoritarian culture, more people are educated, and very few individuals like to be told implicitly, “You are under my control and you will behave as I tell you. ” When sqgestions are used today in clinical practice they are almost always presented more permissively and nonauthoritatively and in terms of the clients using their imagination and producing the phenomena themselves. Hence the scales that are commonly used to measure hypnotic responsiveness, e.g., the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959, 1962, 1963), the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962), and the Barber Suggestibility Scale (Barber, 1969), tend to be out of tune with today’s culture. A new scale is needed containing nonauthoritatively worded test-suggestions which emphasize to subjects that they are to produce the suggested experiences by their own thinking and creative imagining rather than as a result of being under the control of the experimenter, physician, or hypnotist. There is also a need for a new scale that can be administered as easily to an individual as to a group and as easily with or without a prior trance induction procedure. The Barber Suggestibility Scale is the only existing scale that was originally designed to be administered with or without a prior trance induction procedure. However, the Barber Suggestibility Scale was designed to be administered to one person at a time and, consequently, cannot be as easily administered to a group. The Harvard Group Scale, on the other hand, was worded for group administration but this scale requires a preceding trance induction procedure. None of the available scales were designed to be given as easily to individuals or to groups and as easily with or without a trance indue-tion.
CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE
THE CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE To fulfill the needs mentioned above, we constructed an instrument which we termed the Creative Imagination Scale. It includes ten items (testkuggestions) which are worded nonauthoritatively and phrased to guide subjects in thinking and imagining along with the effects that are described. The Creative Imagination Scale can be administered to a group or individually either (a) without special preliminaries, e.g., after the subject is told simply that he is to receive a test of creative imagination, (b) after a traditional trance induction procedure, and (c) after special preliminary instructions such as Task Motivational Instructions (Barber, 1969, p. 46), Human Potential Instructions (Barber, Spanos, & Chaves, 1974, pp. 1 19ff.), or Think With Instructions (Barber & Wilson, 1977). Administration of the 10 test-suggestions requires 18 minutes. Subjects are asked to close their eyes and to keep them closed during administration of the scale. The Creative Imagination Scale is presented verbatim in Appendix A. The ten test-suggestions, in the order they are presented, can be briefly summarized as follows : 1) Arm Heaviness: Starting with the subjects’ left arm extended and horizontal with the palm facing up, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that three heavy dictionaries are being placed in the outstretched hand causing the arm to feel heavy. 2) Hand Levitation: Starting with the subjects ’ right arm extended and horizontal with the palm facing down, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that a strong stream of water from a garden hose is pushing against the palm of the hand, pushing the hand up. 3) Finger Anesthesia: Starting with the subjects ’ left hand placed in the lap with the palm facing up, suggestions are given to
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
WILSON AND BARBER
237
guide them in imagining that Novocain has been injected into the side of the hand next to the little finger, causing two fingers to feel numb. 4) Water “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that they are drinking a cup bf cool mountain water. 5) Olfactory-Gustatory “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining smelling and tasting an orange. 6) Music “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in thinking back to a time when they heard some wonderful music and to reexperience “hearing” it. 7) Temperature “Hallucination:” Starting with the subjects’ hands resting in their lap with the palms facing down, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that the sun is shining on the top of the right hand, causing it to feel hot. 8) Time Distortion: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that time is slowing down. 9) Age Regression: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in recreating the feel0
0% Not at all the same
ings that they had experienced as a child in elementary school. 10) Mind-Body Relaxation: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that they are lying under the sun on a beach and becoming very relaxed. Immediately following the administration of the Creatike Imagination Scale, the subjects report what they experienced on a written questionnaire - the Self-scoring Form of the Creative Imagination Scale.3 A verbatim presentation of the Self-scoring Form is presented in Appendix B. On the Self-scoring Form, each subject is asked to rate his experience of each of the ten test-suggestions on a scale ranging from 0 %, “Not at all the same” as the real thing (score of 0), to 90+%, “Almost exactly the same” as the real thing (score of 4). For example, the scoring of Item 2, Hand Levitation, reads as follows: In the second test you were asked to think of a strong stream of water from a garden hose pushing up against the palm of your hand. Compared to what you would have experienced if a strong stream of water were actually pushing up against your palm, what you experienced was:
1
2
3
25% A little the same
50% Between a little and much the same
75 % Much the same
Presenting questions in written form instead of orally controls for possible “tone-of-voice” bias during an oral presentation (Barber, 1976; Barber & Calverley, 1964). There are at least two reasons why subjects’ ratings of their own experiences (subjective scores) appear to be as reliable as observers’ ratings of the subjects’ observable responses (objective scores): (a) previous studies (e.g., Barber, 1969) indicate that subjective and objective scores on suggestibility scales are highly correlated and these correlations are as high as test-retest correlations of objective scores on the same scale; and (b) if subjects exaggerate their subjective experiences, they can just
4
90+ % Almost exactly the same
Since the Creative Imagination Scale can be used to measure responses to testsuggestions in either a hypnotic or a nonhypnotic situation, it could have been labeled as a suggestibility scale or a hypnotizability scale. There are three reasons, as easily exaggerate their objective responses, e.g., if subjects barely experience the. arm becoming heavy when heaviness is suggested, they can just as easily lower the arm slowly as they can say that the arm felt heavy.
WILSON AND BARBER
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
238
however, why we preferred to call it the Creative Imagination Scale: 1. Each of the 10 items on the scale instructs the subjects to create a specific effect by means of their own thinking and imagining, e.g., “By letting your thoughts go along with these instructions you can make your hand and arm feel heavy . . . Now imagine that a very heavy dictionary is being placed on the palm of your hand . . . You create the feeling of heaviness in your hand . . .” 2. There appears to be a growing consensus among workers in this area that, when subjects are responsive to test-suggestions, they carry out a kind of goal-directed imagining or fantasy in which they imaginatively “create” the suggested experience (Spanos & Barber, 1974). Consequently, from a theoretical perspective, it is appropriate to label the instrument as a GoalDirected Imagining or Creative Imagination Scale even though it is also appropriate to label it as a Suggestibility or Hypnotizability Scale. 3. As stated earlier, the scale was constructed to meet a need for an instrument that can be administered as easily in ordinary situations as in hypnotic situations. If the scale had been labeled as a Suggestibility or Hypnotizability Scale, researchers may not receive permission to administer it to some subjects in nonhypnotic situations,
for example, to elementary school children (Barber & Calverley, 1963) or to Christian Scientists (who are strongly opposed to hypnotism). However, by labeling it as the Creative Imagination Scale, permission can be obtained to test most people in a wide variety of situations. To obtain standardization and normative information, the Creative Imagination Scale was administered without special instructions (control condition) to 217 students who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course in the College of Basic Studies at Boston Uni~ersity.~ The means and standard deviations of each item on the scale and the mean and standard deviation of scores on the total scale are presented in Table 1. The norms presented in Table 2 include the percent of the subjects obtaining a given score, percentile scores, and T scores. Percentile scores state what percentage of the sample a subject equals or excels. For instance, a percentile score of 85 means that the subject’s raw score is equal to or above the score of 85% of the subjects in the sample. T scores are We are indebted to Kimberly P. Kiddoo for testing the 217 subjects on the Creative Imagination Scale as a supplementary part of her doctoral dissertation (Kiddoo, 1977). The subjects were tested in eight groups (with approximately 25 subjects per group). The scale was administered by a tape recording of the first author’s (S.C.W.) voice.
Table I . Means and Standard Deviations of Items on the Creative lmanination Scale
Test-Suggestion 1 . Arm Heaviness 2. Hand Levitation 3 . Finger Anesthesia 4. Water “Hallucination” 5 . Olfactory-Gustatory “Hallucination” 6. Music “Hallucination” 7 . Temperature ‘‘Hallucination” 8. Time Distortion 9. Age Regression 10. Mind-Body Relaxation Total Scale
Mean Score 2.2 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.7 20.8
4
Standard Deviation 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 8.6
CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE
239
Table 2 . Norms for Creative Imagination Scale
General Level High . . . . . . . . . .
Medium High . .
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
Medium Low . .
Low . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Subjects
Raw Score 39-40 37-38 35-36 33-34 3 1-32 29-30 27-28 25-26 23-24 21-22 19-20 17-18 15-16 13-14 11-12 9-10 7- 8 5- 6 3- 4 0- 2
Percent of Subjects
Percentile Score 100
22
;;
173
19
‘if
3 129
N = 217 10.
* Mean of 50, standard deviation of
standard scores in a normalized distribution with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus, a T score of 60 states that, in a normalized distribution, the subject’s raw score is one standard deviation above the mean for the group. Reliability and Validity
Reliability was assessed in two ways: test-retest .reliability and split-half reliability. Test-Retest Reliability. Test-retest reliability refers to the stability of an individual’s score over time. The question at issue is, To what extent do the subject’s responses remain the same when he is tested twice on the same test? To evaluate test-retest reliability, we tested 22 subjects twice on the Creative Imagination Scale without special instructions (control condition). Scores obtained by subjects in Session 1 (test session) were correlated with scores obtained by the same subjects later the same day in Session 2 (retest session) using the Pearson product-moment
34
99 98 95 90 85 82 72 66 57 48 40 30 24 18 13 8 5 2 1
T Score* 83 13 70 66 63 60 59 56 54 52 49 48 45 43 41 39 36 34 30 27
100
correlation. The test-retest correlation that was obtained - r = .82 (p
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis a
Sheryl C. Wilson Ph.D. & Dr. Theodore X. Barber Ph.D. a
b
Medfield Foundation , Medfield, Massachusetts, USA
b
Medfield State Hospital , Medfield, Massachusetts, USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Sheryl C. Wilson Ph.D. & Dr. Theodore X. Barber Ph.D. (1978) The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 20:4, 235-249, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1978.10403940 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1978.10403940
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OFCLINICAL HYPNOSIS Volume 20, Number 4, April 1978 Printed in U . S A .
The Creative Imagination Scale as a Measure of Hypnotic Responsiveness: Applications to Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
SHERYL C. WILSON, Ph.D. Medfeld Foundation Medfeld, Massachusetts
THEODORE X. BARBER, Ph.D.Z Medfeld State Hospital Medfield, Massachusetts
and
Existing scales that measure responses to suggestions are too ‘authoritarian, imply to subjects that they are under the control of the experimenter or hypnotist, usually require a preceding trance induction, and were not constructed to be administered as easily in both a group and in an individual setting. To meet the need for a nonauthoritarian scale which (a) informs subjects that they are to produce the phenomena themselves, (b) can be given with or without a trance induction, and (c) can be administered as easily to an individual or to a group, a permissive scale measuring responsiveness to suggestions was constructed and was named the Creative Imagination Scale. The new scale includes 10 items (test-suggestions) that ask subjects to think and imagine, for example, that an arm is heavy, a finger is becoming numb, they are eating a delicious orange, they feel that time is slowing down, and they are reexperiencing themselves back in childhood. In a series of investigations, norms for the scale were developed and .the scale was shown to have satisfactory test-retest reliability, split-half reliability, and factorial validity. The Creative Imagination Scale has been found to be a useful measure in four recent experimental studies and it should also prove useful in clinical settings.
Existing scales that are designed to measure hypnotic responsiveness, such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, are too authoritarian. These scales contain test-
’
This paper is based, in part, on a doctoral dissertation completed at Heed University by the first author (Wilson, 1976). The research was supported, in part, by grants to the second author from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 21294 and MH 28432). We are indebted to the following for critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript: Lucy T. Ulman, Ed.D., Ph.D.: Berthold C. Friedl, Ph.D.; James N. Pepper, Ed.D.; David M. Rafky, Ed.D.; Richard F. Q. Johnson, Ph.D.; and Donald S. Scott, Ph.D.
suggestions which clearly imply that the subject is under the control of the experimenter or hypnotist, e.g., the subject is told “. . . your throat and jaw are solid, and rigid . . . They’re so solid and so rigid, that you can’t speak . . . you can’t say your name. . . You can’t talk! Try; you can’t. . . Try harder; you can’t” (Barber, 1969, p. 245). Suggestions were at times given in this way in the 1800’s and early 1900’s when there was a more authoritarian society, the doctor was an unquestioned auReprint requests should be mailed to Dr. T. X. Barber, Medfield Foundation, P.O. Box 312, Medfield. Massachusetts 02052.
235
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
236
thority, and the patients accepted all of the doctor’s assertions. Now there is a more democratic, nonauthoritarian culture, more people are educated, and very few individuals like to be told implicitly, “You are under my control and you will behave as I tell you. ” When sqgestions are used today in clinical practice they are almost always presented more permissively and nonauthoritatively and in terms of the clients using their imagination and producing the phenomena themselves. Hence the scales that are commonly used to measure hypnotic responsiveness, e.g., the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959, 1962, 1963), the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962), and the Barber Suggestibility Scale (Barber, 1969), tend to be out of tune with today’s culture. A new scale is needed containing nonauthoritatively worded test-suggestions which emphasize to subjects that they are to produce the suggested experiences by their own thinking and creative imagining rather than as a result of being under the control of the experimenter, physician, or hypnotist. There is also a need for a new scale that can be administered as easily to an individual as to a group and as easily with or without a prior trance induction procedure. The Barber Suggestibility Scale is the only existing scale that was originally designed to be administered with or without a prior trance induction procedure. However, the Barber Suggestibility Scale was designed to be administered to one person at a time and, consequently, cannot be as easily administered to a group. The Harvard Group Scale, on the other hand, was worded for group administration but this scale requires a preceding trance induction procedure. None of the available scales were designed to be given as easily to individuals or to groups and as easily with or without a trance indue-tion.
CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE
THE CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE To fulfill the needs mentioned above, we constructed an instrument which we termed the Creative Imagination Scale. It includes ten items (testkuggestions) which are worded nonauthoritatively and phrased to guide subjects in thinking and imagining along with the effects that are described. The Creative Imagination Scale can be administered to a group or individually either (a) without special preliminaries, e.g., after the subject is told simply that he is to receive a test of creative imagination, (b) after a traditional trance induction procedure, and (c) after special preliminary instructions such as Task Motivational Instructions (Barber, 1969, p. 46), Human Potential Instructions (Barber, Spanos, & Chaves, 1974, pp. 1 19ff.), or Think With Instructions (Barber & Wilson, 1977). Administration of the 10 test-suggestions requires 18 minutes. Subjects are asked to close their eyes and to keep them closed during administration of the scale. The Creative Imagination Scale is presented verbatim in Appendix A. The ten test-suggestions, in the order they are presented, can be briefly summarized as follows : 1) Arm Heaviness: Starting with the subjects’ left arm extended and horizontal with the palm facing up, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that three heavy dictionaries are being placed in the outstretched hand causing the arm to feel heavy. 2) Hand Levitation: Starting with the subjects ’ right arm extended and horizontal with the palm facing down, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that a strong stream of water from a garden hose is pushing against the palm of the hand, pushing the hand up. 3) Finger Anesthesia: Starting with the subjects ’ left hand placed in the lap with the palm facing up, suggestions are given to
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
WILSON AND BARBER
237
guide them in imagining that Novocain has been injected into the side of the hand next to the little finger, causing two fingers to feel numb. 4) Water “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that they are drinking a cup bf cool mountain water. 5) Olfactory-Gustatory “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining smelling and tasting an orange. 6) Music “Hallucination:” Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in thinking back to a time when they heard some wonderful music and to reexperience “hearing” it. 7) Temperature “Hallucination:” Starting with the subjects’ hands resting in their lap with the palms facing down, suggestions are given to guide them in imagining that the sun is shining on the top of the right hand, causing it to feel hot. 8) Time Distortion: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that time is slowing down. 9) Age Regression: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in recreating the feel0
0% Not at all the same
ings that they had experienced as a child in elementary school. 10) Mind-Body Relaxation: Suggestions are given to guide the subjects in imagining that they are lying under the sun on a beach and becoming very relaxed. Immediately following the administration of the Creatike Imagination Scale, the subjects report what they experienced on a written questionnaire - the Self-scoring Form of the Creative Imagination Scale.3 A verbatim presentation of the Self-scoring Form is presented in Appendix B. On the Self-scoring Form, each subject is asked to rate his experience of each of the ten test-suggestions on a scale ranging from 0 %, “Not at all the same” as the real thing (score of 0), to 90+%, “Almost exactly the same” as the real thing (score of 4). For example, the scoring of Item 2, Hand Levitation, reads as follows: In the second test you were asked to think of a strong stream of water from a garden hose pushing up against the palm of your hand. Compared to what you would have experienced if a strong stream of water were actually pushing up against your palm, what you experienced was:
1
2
3
25% A little the same
50% Between a little and much the same
75 % Much the same
Presenting questions in written form instead of orally controls for possible “tone-of-voice” bias during an oral presentation (Barber, 1976; Barber & Calverley, 1964). There are at least two reasons why subjects’ ratings of their own experiences (subjective scores) appear to be as reliable as observers’ ratings of the subjects’ observable responses (objective scores): (a) previous studies (e.g., Barber, 1969) indicate that subjective and objective scores on suggestibility scales are highly correlated and these correlations are as high as test-retest correlations of objective scores on the same scale; and (b) if subjects exaggerate their subjective experiences, they can just
4
90+ % Almost exactly the same
Since the Creative Imagination Scale can be used to measure responses to testsuggestions in either a hypnotic or a nonhypnotic situation, it could have been labeled as a suggestibility scale or a hypnotizability scale. There are three reasons, as easily exaggerate their objective responses, e.g., if subjects barely experience the. arm becoming heavy when heaviness is suggested, they can just as easily lower the arm slowly as they can say that the arm felt heavy.
WILSON AND BARBER
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
238
however, why we preferred to call it the Creative Imagination Scale: 1. Each of the 10 items on the scale instructs the subjects to create a specific effect by means of their own thinking and imagining, e.g., “By letting your thoughts go along with these instructions you can make your hand and arm feel heavy . . . Now imagine that a very heavy dictionary is being placed on the palm of your hand . . . You create the feeling of heaviness in your hand . . .” 2. There appears to be a growing consensus among workers in this area that, when subjects are responsive to test-suggestions, they carry out a kind of goal-directed imagining or fantasy in which they imaginatively “create” the suggested experience (Spanos & Barber, 1974). Consequently, from a theoretical perspective, it is appropriate to label the instrument as a GoalDirected Imagining or Creative Imagination Scale even though it is also appropriate to label it as a Suggestibility or Hypnotizability Scale. 3. As stated earlier, the scale was constructed to meet a need for an instrument that can be administered as easily in ordinary situations as in hypnotic situations. If the scale had been labeled as a Suggestibility or Hypnotizability Scale, researchers may not receive permission to administer it to some subjects in nonhypnotic situations,
for example, to elementary school children (Barber & Calverley, 1963) or to Christian Scientists (who are strongly opposed to hypnotism). However, by labeling it as the Creative Imagination Scale, permission can be obtained to test most people in a wide variety of situations. To obtain standardization and normative information, the Creative Imagination Scale was administered without special instructions (control condition) to 217 students who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course in the College of Basic Studies at Boston Uni~ersity.~ The means and standard deviations of each item on the scale and the mean and standard deviation of scores on the total scale are presented in Table 1. The norms presented in Table 2 include the percent of the subjects obtaining a given score, percentile scores, and T scores. Percentile scores state what percentage of the sample a subject equals or excels. For instance, a percentile score of 85 means that the subject’s raw score is equal to or above the score of 85% of the subjects in the sample. T scores are We are indebted to Kimberly P. Kiddoo for testing the 217 subjects on the Creative Imagination Scale as a supplementary part of her doctoral dissertation (Kiddoo, 1977). The subjects were tested in eight groups (with approximately 25 subjects per group). The scale was administered by a tape recording of the first author’s (S.C.W.) voice.
Table I . Means and Standard Deviations of Items on the Creative lmanination Scale
Test-Suggestion 1 . Arm Heaviness 2. Hand Levitation 3 . Finger Anesthesia 4. Water “Hallucination” 5 . Olfactory-Gustatory “Hallucination” 6. Music “Hallucination” 7 . Temperature ‘‘Hallucination” 8. Time Distortion 9. Age Regression 10. Mind-Body Relaxation Total Scale
Mean Score 2.2 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.7 20.8
4
Standard Deviation 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 8.6
CREATIVE IMAGINATION SCALE
239
Table 2 . Norms for Creative Imagination Scale
General Level High . . . . . . . . . .
Medium High . .
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 21:53 06 January 2015
Medium Low . .
Low . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Subjects
Raw Score 39-40 37-38 35-36 33-34 3 1-32 29-30 27-28 25-26 23-24 21-22 19-20 17-18 15-16 13-14 11-12 9-10 7- 8 5- 6 3- 4 0- 2
Percent of Subjects
Percentile Score 100
22
;;
173
19
‘if
3 129
N = 217 10.
* Mean of 50, standard deviation of
standard scores in a normalized distribution with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus, a T score of 60 states that, in a normalized distribution, the subject’s raw score is one standard deviation above the mean for the group. Reliability and Validity
Reliability was assessed in two ways: test-retest .reliability and split-half reliability. Test-Retest Reliability. Test-retest reliability refers to the stability of an individual’s score over time. The question at issue is, To what extent do the subject’s responses remain the same when he is tested twice on the same test? To evaluate test-retest reliability, we tested 22 subjects twice on the Creative Imagination Scale without special instructions (control condition). Scores obtained by subjects in Session 1 (test session) were correlated with scores obtained by the same subjects later the same day in Session 2 (retest session) using the Pearson product-moment
34
99 98 95 90 85 82 72 66 57 48 40 30 24 18 13 8 5 2 1
T Score* 83 13 70 66 63 60 59 56 54 52 49 48 45 43 41 39 36 34 30 27
100
correlation. The test-retest correlation that was obtained - r = .82 (p
