Biomedical subjects

G L Isenberg

Publications and source records attributed to G L Isenberg.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1995

Hypnosis with signing deaf and hearing subjects.

Historically hypnosis with deaf people has been an underutilized intervention as the deaf were assumed not to be responsive to hypnotic suggestion. Recent research has begun to challenge these assumptions. Matthews and Isenberg (in press) compared the hypnotic responsiveness of deaf and hearing subjects on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, form C (SHSS:C) all of whom received the hypnotic suggestions via sign language. Those results supported the notion that deaf subjects are capable of responding to hypnotic suggestion and may be as hypnotically responsive as hearing subjects. The purpose of the present article is to examine the similarities and differences of responses between deaf and hearing subjects to the individual items of the SHSS:C and compare those responses to the SHSS:C norms.

Deafness↗

PubMed1995

A comparison of the hypnotic experience between signing deaf and hearing participants.

This study compared the hypnotic responsiveness of 17 hearing and 34 deaf individuals, all of whom received visual induction and hypnotic suggestions via some form of signing. The comparison between deaf and hearing participants was analyzed on five dependent measures: (a) the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C); (b) participants' individual item performance; (c) overall trance depth; (d) a rapport scale; and (e) a resistance scale measuring attitudes of participants toward the hypnotist. Although all participants showed at least a moderate level of hypnotic responsiveness, the data did not indicate a significant main effect between deaf and hearing participants on any of the dependent measures. However, there was a tendency (p < .08) for hearing participants to show a greater hypnotic responsiveness than deaf participants. Additionally, there was a significant difference between all the signing participants combined when compared to the norming population on three items of the SHSS:C. Clinical and theoretical implications of these data are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Hypnotic inductions with deaf and hearing subjects--an initial comparison: a brief communication.

17 volunteer deaf Ss were compared with 18 volunteer hearing Ss on the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale (SHCS) of Morgan and J. R. Hilgard (1975), and the Indirect Suggestion Scale (ISS) of Matthews and Mosher (1985) in a 2 x 2 ANOVA design. 5 dependent measures: (a) objective scale score; (b) self-report scale score; (c) S rapport with the hypnotist; (d) S resistance to the hypnotist; and (e) overall subjective rating of trance experience were employed to measure any differences between the 2 groups. For SHCS behavioral items, the two-way ANOVA failed to reveal any significant main effect or interaction differences between either group (deaf/hearing) or method of induction (direct/indirect). There was a significant main effect for deaf/hearing groups in level of resistance to the hypnotist. Deaf Ss reported feeling more resistant to the hypnotist than did hearing Ss. This may be due to the mode of communication or the fact that the hypnotist was hearing. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

Deafness↗

PubMed1991

Working hypnotically with deaf people.

Little attention has been given to the utilization of hypnosis with deaf people. In a recent study, we compared objective and subjective responses to two different hypnotic induction techniques by deaf and hearing undergraduate women. We presented hypnosis techniques orally to hearing subjects and visually, using sign-language, to deaf subjects. Results from this study failed to reveal any significant differences on objective or self-report levels of trance depth between the two populations. Our purpose in this article is to examine the similarities and differences of the induction process and hypnotic responses, including trance indicators, between deaf and hearing subjects.

Analysis of Variance↗