Can You Get Better at Self-Hypnosis? What Research Says About Hypnotic Ability and Skill

“I tried hypnosis once. Nothing happened. I must not be hypnotisable.”

I hear variations of this remarkably often. Sometimes the conclusion is reached after a single appointment. Sometimes it follows ten distracted minutes listening to a recording while waiting to be rendered unconscious, transported into a mystical trance or mentally reprogrammed like a misbehaving laptop.

When none of that occurs, hypnosis is declared a failure.

Yet the scientific position is considerably more interesting than either “everyone can be hypnotised” or “hypnotisability is fixed for life”.

Researchers have found that people differ in their responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions and that these individual differences can remain relatively stable over time. Skill-based approaches, meanwhile, emphasise the contribution of attention, imagination, interpretation, expectation, motivation and practice.

These two positions are sometimes treated as though accepting one requires rejecting the other. I do not think that is necessary.

A capacity can display meaningful stability while its expression remains affected by learning, context and strategy. More importantly, a person’s score on a standardised hypnotic suggestibility scale is not identical to their ability to use self-hypnosis effectively, respond to every individual suggestion or benefit from a psychological or therapeutic intervention.

So, can you get better at self-hypnosis?

The most defensible answer is: yes, people can develop several of the psychological skills involved in self-hypnosis, but this does not mean that every person can train themselves to produce every hypnotic phenomenon or become highly responsive on every standardised measure.

Here today then, I’m going to examine what that actually means.

What Are We Measuring When We Measure “Hypnotisability”?

One reason this debate becomes confused is that several related but distinct ideas are bundled together.

Hypnotic suggestibility

Hypnotic suggestibility usually refers to the extent to which someone responds to suggestions presented within a hypnotic context.

Standardised scales may include suggestions for experiences such as:

An arm becoming lighter and rising.
The hands being drawn together.
Temporary difficulty bending an arm.
A suggested sensation.
An alteration in perception.
Temporary amnesia for particular information.

Researchers record how many suggestions produce the specified behavioural response. Some measures also assess the person’s subjective experience, including how automatic or involuntary the response seemed.

This is useful for research, but the resulting score is not a comprehensive assessment of someone’s entire hypnotic potential.

Hypnotisability

Hypnotisability is often used to describe a person’s general capacity to experience suggested changes in perception, cognition, emotion or behaviour in a hypnotic context.

The terms hypnotisability, hypnotic susceptibility and hypnotic suggestibility are sometimes used interchangeably. Researchers do not always agree about the best terminology or whether existing scales measure a single underlying ability.

That disagreement matters. Someone might respond well to motor suggestions but not cognitive or perceptual suggestions. Another person might experience vivid subjective changes without displaying the exact behavioural response required to “pass” an item on a scale.

Adding those items together produces a useful summary score, but it can conceal meaningful differences in how people respond.

Responsiveness to a particular suggestion

A general suggestibility score does not tell us with certainty how someone will respond to every individual suggestion.

A person may find it relatively easy to produce sensations of warmth, comfort or lightness but struggle with suggested amnesia. They may respond to suggestions involving movement more readily than suggestions requiring vivid visual imagery.

The content, wording and perceived plausibility of a suggestion can all matter. So can the mental strategy the participant uses.

Subjective hypnotic experience

Behaviour and experience are not identical.

Someone might lift an arm because they believe the hypnotist expects it while experiencing the action as entirely deliberate. Another person may show only a small movement but experience a striking sense of automaticity, as though the hand were beginning to move by itself.

This distinction is central to hypnosis research. The characteristic experience of hypnotic responding is often not merely that something happens, but that it feels less deliberate than an ordinary voluntary action (so we often aim to measure a sense of involuntariness and effortlessness when responding to suggestions).

Self-hypnosis skill

Self-hypnosis involves the person intentionally applying hypnotic suggestions and the mental processes that help bring those suggestions to life.

That may include learning how to:

Direct and sustain attention.
Form useful expectations.
Interpret suggestions productively.
Become absorbed in an imagined experience.
Select imagery or other cognitive strategies.
Allow a response without continually interfering with it.
Notice subtle changes.
Practise suggestions systematically.
Apply suggestions to behaviour outside the hypnosis exercise.

These processes overlap with those involved in standardised hypnotic responding, but they are not necessarily captured by one overall score.

Therapeutic or personal-development outcomes

The ability to pass classic hypnotic suggestions is not the same thing as obtaining a worthwhile outcome.

A person does not necessarily need to experience dramatic arm levitation, hallucination or amnesia to use hypnotic methods to support pain management, emotional regulation, stress reduction, sleep, confidence or behavioural change.

Hypnotic responsiveness can sometimes predict outcomes, particularly where the intervention depends heavily upon producing a specific suggested experience. However, the relationship is neither universal nor sufficient to determine whether treatment will succeed.

Clinical results are affected by many other factors, including:

The quality and suitability of the intervention.
The person’s goals and motivation.
The therapeutic relationship.
Practice and adherence.
The relevance of the suggestions.
The severity and nature of the problem.
Other psychological and medical treatment.
Changes made outside the hypnosis session.

A laboratory scale, a subjective hypnotic experience and a meaningful therapeutic outcome are related questions. They are not the same question.

Is Hypnotic Ability a Stable Trait?

There is good evidence that individual differences in hypnotic responsiveness possess trait-like stability.

The best-known evidence comes from a longitudinal study by Piccione, Hilgard and Zimbardo (1989). Fifty participants were reassessed using the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale over intervals extending to 25 years.

The researchers reported stability coefficients of .64 across ten years, .82 across fifteen years and .71 across twenty-five years. In plain English, people’s relative positions tended to remain surprisingly consistent: those who scored higher initially were generally more likely to score higher years later.

That is a substantial and important finding. Advocates of skill-based approaches should not wave it away because it complicates an optimistic message.

People genuinely differ in hypnotic responsiveness. Some individuals produce a wide range of hypnotic phenomena readily. Others respond to fewer suggestions or require considerably more support. There is no credible basis for claiming that everyone is secretly a superb hypnotic virtuoso who merely needs the correct induction, the right hypnotist or a sufficiently authoritative voice.

There are also limits to what the stability study establishes, however.

A strong correlation across time demonstrates relative stability among people. It does not demonstrate that every individual’s performance remains completely unchanged. Nor does it prove that hypnotic responding is unaffected by context, learning or the strategies used during an assessment.

Imagine a group of runners tested at 20 and again at 40. Those who were naturally faster at 20 might still tend to be faster than their peers two decades later. That would not mean training, coaching, injury, motivation, footwear and practice had no effect upon anybody’s performance.

The athletic comparison is an analogy, not scientific proof about hypnosis. It simply illustrates why trait stability and trainable performance are not logically incompatible.

Musical aptitude offers another example. People differ in auditory discrimination, timing and ease of learning. Those differences may be relatively enduring, but practising an instrument is not therefore pointless. Training may improve performance substantially without making everyone equally accomplished.

Hypnotic responsiveness may operate in a similarly constrained but adaptable way: individual differences can be real and relatively stable while specific responses, strategies and applications remain open to development.

What Trait Stability Does Not Mean

Describing hypnotisability as relatively stable does not establish that:

A person’s performance can never change.
The situation and instructions are irrelevant.
Expectations exert no influence.
Motivation makes no difference.
Mental strategies cannot be improved.
Responses to individual suggestions cannot be learned.
Self-hypnosis cannot become easier or more effective.
Clinical outcomes are predetermined.
A single unsuccessful attempt reveals a permanent limitation.
One total score describes everything important about the person.

This distinction between stability and immutability is essential.

Personality traits are regarded as relatively stable, yet people can learn to behave differently in specific situations. Intelligence demonstrates rank-order stability, yet education changes what people know and what they can do. Physical aptitude differs among individuals, yet practice alters performance.

Similarly, a hypnotic scale may identify meaningful individual differences without functioning as a life sentence.

The Skill-Based Perspective on Hypnosis

Skill-oriented and sociocognitive approaches propose that hypnotic responding involves ordinary psychological processes operating in a distinctive social and imaginative context.

“Ordinary” does not mean trivial. Attention, expectation and imagination can produce powerful experiences. Pain, anxiety, confidence and perceived effort are all influenced by how we attend to, interpret and anticipate events.

A hypnotic response may draw upon several interacting processes.

Attentional control

Suggestions become more influential when attention is directed towards them and sustained long enough for the experience to develop.

That does not require a perfectly empty mind. Minds wander. The useful skill is noticing that attention has wandered and returning it to the relevant idea, image or sensation.

Imaginative involvement

Imagination is not limited to seeing vivid internal pictures.

Some people respond better through physical sensations. Others use memories, words, sounds, spatial movement, emotional associations or conceptual thought. Someone imagining a hand becoming lighter might picture balloons, remember floating in water, sense an upward pull or simply engage with the meaning of lightness.

Insisting that everyone must visualise in the same way is rather like issuing every musician with a tuba and then blaming those who were hoping to play the violin.

Expectancy

Expectancy concerns what a person anticipates will happen.

Response-expectancy approaches have long proposed that expecting a suggested experience can contribute to its occurrence. Research has found relationships between hypnotic responsiveness and variables including expectancy, motivation and non-hypnotic imaginative suggestibility (Braffman & Kirsch, 1999).

Expectancy is not the same as gullibility or unquestioning belief. You do not need to convince yourself that a response is guaranteed. A realistic stance is often enough:

“This may happen. I am willing to engage fully and discover what occurs.”

That is quite different from thinking:

“This is absurd, but I shall glare at my hand for 30 seconds and demand that hypnosis prove itself.”

Motivation

People are more likely to engage with a suggestion when the goal seems relevant and desirable.

This does not mean someone fails because they “didn’t want it enough”. That is an unhelpful and potentially blaming interpretation. Motivation is one influence among many, not a magical force that overrides all limitations.

Interpretation

Suggestions are instructions that must be understood and translated into a psychological strategy.

“Your arm is becoming lighter” does not tell everyone precisely what to think or do internally. One participant may become absorbed in sensations of buoyancy. Another may wait passively for an external force to seize the limb.

Those people have heard the same words but undertaken very different mental activities.

Goal-directed cognition

Several contemporary accounts view hypnotic responses as purposeful cognitive acts. The participant forms an intention to experience the suggested outcome while the response may nevertheless feel unusually automatic or involuntary.

This helps explain why participation and involuntariness are not opposites. You can intentionally establish the conditions for an experience without consciously manufacturing every component of it.

Reduced counter-responding

People frequently interfere with suggestions by monitoring them too closely.

They ask:

Is it happening yet?
Am I doing it correctly?
Did that movement count?
Am I really hypnotised?
Was that me or was it hypnosis?

Some reflection is useful, especially after practice. Continually checking during the exercise divides attention and may prevent absorption from developing.

Trying hard can become counterproductive too. There is a difference between engaging purposefully and forcing the desired response through muscular or mental strain.

Practice

Practice helps people discover which strategies suit them, become familiar with suggested experiences and reduce unhelpful self-monitoring.

Practice may also improve the application of self-hypnosis to real-world goals. Someone learning self-hypnosis for pain, for example, is not merely practising a “hypnotic state”. They may be learning attentional redirection, sensory reinterpretation, relaxation, cognitive distancing and self-efficacy.

These are useful skills even if their overall hypnotisability score does not transform dramatically.

Can Training Change Scores on Hypnotic Scales?

Researchers have attempted to modify hypnotic responsiveness directly.

The best-known example is the Carleton Skills Training Programme developed by Gorassini and Spanos (1986). The programme sought to correct misconceptions, increase motivation and teach participants cognitive strategies for responding to hypnotic suggestions.

Some studies reported substantial improvements in behavioural and subjective measures of responsiveness. Later research found that gains could transfer to different scales and remain evident at follow-up (Bertrand et al., 1993).

That sounds like decisive evidence that hypnotisability is trainable. Unfortunately, the scientific picture is not quite that tidy.

Critics have questioned whether all observed improvements reflected a genuine change in hypnotic ability. Training may alter demand characteristics, compliance, interpretation of test requirements and willingness to enact suggested behaviours. If someone learns what counts as passing a test, an improved score does not automatically prove that their underlying capacity has been transformed.

Researchers have also debated whether behavioural improvement is accompanied by the subjective automaticity generally associated with hypnotic responding.

The reasonable conclusion is therefore not that skills training unquestionably converts anyone from “low” to “high”, nor that training is worthless. It is that some aspects of hypnotic performance can be modified, while the extent, mechanism and meaning of those changes remain scientifically contested.

That is less dramatic than the internet tends to prefer, but considerably more honest.

Our Research on the Role of the Self

My own research with Ben Parris sits within this broader scientific discussion.

In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, we examined 22 studies of the clinical applications of self-hypnosis. Across the eligible studies, self-hypnosis produced a medium-to-large overall effect, although the studies differed considerably in their methods and quality (Eason & Parris, 2018).

One of our most interesting observations was that self-hypnosis appeared more likely to be effective when it was taught as an independent, self-directed skill and when participants engaged in repeated practice. Studies reporting no effect had often defined self-hypnosis primarily as listening to recordings of therapist-delivered hypnosis.

This does not prove that recordings are ineffective. I produce hypnosis audio programmes myself and believe they can be extremely useful. The point is that pressing play is not the entire psychological intervention.

In our later paper, we argued that hypnosis and hypnotherapy have often placed too much emphasis upon the hypnotist and insufficient emphasis upon the phenomenological control exercised by the participant (Eason & Parris, 2024).

We proposed that highlighting the role of the self may strengthen agency and self-efficacy. Self-hypnosis need not be understood as waiting to enter a mysterious special state. It can be approached as intentional engagement with suggestions and the psychological processes through which those suggestions influence experience.

These publications do not prove that hypnotisability is infinitely malleable. They do not establish one final theory of hypnosis. They contribute to an ongoing discussion about how hypnosis should be defined, taught and applied.

My position is that an active, skills-based model is usually more useful than telling people to wait for hypnosis to be done to them.

Why People Conclude Too Quickly That They “Cannot Do Hypnosis”

One unsuccessful experience proves very little, especially when the person has misunderstood the task.

Here are some common reasons self-hypnosis attempts fall flat.

1. Expecting unconsciousness

Most hypnotised people remain aware of the hypnotist’s words and their surroundings. They can think, move and choose whether to respond.

Remaining conscious is not evidence that hypnosis has failed. It is what we should usually expect.

2. Testing rather than participating

Some people treat a suggestion as a contest:

“Go on then, make my arm move.”

Self-hypnosis requires the participant to help create the suggested response. It is an experiment in using your own cognition, not a supernatural power being performed upon you.

3. Forcing the response

Deliberately hoisting your arm into the air is not the same as allowing an ideomotor movement to develop. Equally, straining desperately not to move will inhibit the response.

Engagement requires effort, but it may be a subtle form of effort: attending, imagining, expecting and allowing.

4. Using unsuitable imagery

If balloons do nothing for you, stop using balloons.

Try an upward magnetic pull, the memory of lifting something light, a sensation of buoyancy, repeated inner speech or the idea that the hand is being drawn upwards.

The useful strategy is the one that facilitates the response, not the one that sounded most hypnotic in somebody’s script.

5. Choosing implausible suggestions

A suggestion should feel sufficiently credible to engage with.

Telling yourself that severe pain will vanish completely in ten seconds may provoke disbelief and resistance. Suggesting a modest reduction in discomfort, increased coping or a shift in attention may be more workable.

6. Beginning with an advanced phenomenon

Suggested hallucination or complete anaesthesia may be demanding. Begin with focused attention, comfort, warmth, heaviness, lightness or a small ideomotor movement.

Skills are usually developed progressively.

7. Dismissing subtle responses

A tiny change in muscle tone, an urge to move, an altered sensation or a moment of increased absorption may be an early response.

You do not need to pretend that something dramatic happened. You should also avoid classifying every non-dramatic response as nothing.

8. Giving up after one attempt

Familiarity matters. The first attempt may be largely occupied by wondering what is supposed to happen.

Repetition gives you an opportunity to refine your method.

9. Practising in an unsuitable environment

Notifications, noise, interruptions, physical discomfort and fear of being disturbed can all divide attention.

Self-hypnosis does not always require silence or deep relaxation, but beginners often benefit from a setting in which they can engage without repeatedly being pulled away.

10. Expecting hypnosis to replace behaviour

Suggestions for confidence do not remove the need to undertake challenging activities. Suggestions for motivation do not write the report, complete the workout or prepare the healthy meal.

Hypnosis should support relevant behaviour, not become an elaborate substitute for it.

A Five-Step Deliberate-Practice Framework

Here is a practical way to explore and develop self-hypnosis without turning every exercise into an examination.

Step 1: Choose one modest response

Select something observable but realistic, such as:

Increased physical comfort.
Five minutes of focused attention.
A mild sensation of warmth or heaviness.
A small ideomotor movement.
Reduced perceived effort during appropriate exercise.
Greater calm before a specific event.

Avoid trying to transform your entire personality before lunch.

Step 2: Select a mental strategy

Choose one primary route:

Imagery: Picture the desired response or a metaphor for it.
Sensation: Attend to and amplify an existing physical sensation.
Memory: Recall a time when a similar response occurred naturally.
Inner speech: Repeat a concise, believable suggestion.
Acting “as if”: Adopt the posture, attention and thinking style associated with the desired experience.

You can combine strategies later. Initially, using one clear method makes evaluation easier.

Step 3: Practise without repeatedly checking

Set a defined period—perhaps three to five minutes.

During that time, remain involved in the exercise. If evaluative thoughts appear, acknowledge them and redirect attention towards the suggestion. Believe in the reality you are creating for yourself, expect it to happen and be gently assured of it and appropriately motivated and positive towards the suggestion.

Do not measure progress every five seconds. That is the psychological equivalent of digging up a seed repeatedly to check whether it has developed roots.

Step 4: Evaluate afterwards

When the exercise has ended, record what occurred.

Ask:

Did the target response change at all?
What sensations or thoughts appeared?
Which parts felt natural?
When did attention wander?
Did I force, resist or overanalyse?
Was any part of the response automatic?
What would count as a modest improvement next time?

Use a simple zero-to-ten rating if helpful. The aim is accurate observation, not awarding yourself a hypnotic gold star.

Step 5: Modify one element

Change one variable before repeating the exercise:

The wording of the suggestion.
The mental imagery.
Your posture.
The duration.
The environment.
The time of day.
The expected size of the response.
Whether your eyes are open or closed.

Changing one element at a time helps you learn what actually affects your response.

What Self-Hypnosis Practice Cannot Promise

Practising self-hypnosis does not guarantee:

A high score on every hypnotic suggestibility measure.
The ability to produce every classic hypnotic phenomenon.
Equal progress for every individual.
An immediate therapeutic result.
Complete control over involuntary physical or psychological symptoms.
A substitute for relevant behavioural change.
A replacement for appropriate medical or psychological care.

Hypnosis is not a treatment for everything. A person experiencing significant pain, persistent symptoms or mental health difficulties should seek appropriately qualified professional advice. Self-hypnosis may sometimes complement healthcare; it should not be used to delay necessary assessment or treatment.

This caution is not a weakness in the case for self-hypnosis. It is what distinguishes an evidence-based approach from marketing theatre.

Why Hypnotherapists Need More Than Scripts

This discussion also has implications for professional practice.

A hypnotist can deliver a beautifully written script and still fail to help the person discover how to respond to it. Different clients use different cognitive strategies. They hold different expectations, interpret language differently and find different kinds of suggestions credible.

This is why hypnotherapists need more than scripts. They need to understand how to help people identify and develop strategies that suit them.

That principle is central to the way we teach on the Hypnotherapy Practitioner Diploma at the Anglo European College of Therapeutic Hypnosis. Effective hypnotherapy should be responsive and collaborative, not the mechanical recitation of hypnotic prose.

Using Hypnosis Recordings as Active Practice

When you use a hypnosis recording, do not merely judge the speaker’s voice or wait to be placed into a state.

Treat the recording as an opportunity to practise:

Directing attention.
Becoming absorbed.
Using imagination flexibly.
Forming realistic expectations.
Responding to suggestions.
Noticing what works.
Applying the suggestions afterwards.

A well-constructed recording provides structure, language and guidance. You supply the psychological participation.

This is not an attempt to excuse badly designed recordings. Quality matters. Yet even an excellent recording is not something that simply happens to a passive listener.

The voice does not climb into your mind with a toolbox and begin renovating your subconscious while you have a nap! (Btw, you can take a look at the full list of Hypnosis Audios I offer here)

Trait or Skill? The More Useful Answer Is “Both—and More”

The scientific evidence does not support simplistic extremes.

Hypnotic responsiveness displays substantial individual differences and meaningful long-term stability. We should take that seriously.

At the same time, stability is not immutability. Expectations, interpretation, motivation, imaginative strategies, attentional engagement and practice can affect performance. Skills-training research suggests that hypnotic scores can sometimes increase, although questions remain about the extent to which such changes represent altered capacity, improved strategy, increased compliance or better understanding of the task.

Most importantly, becoming better at self-hypnosis does not have to mean transforming yourself into a “highly hypnotisable” person on every laboratory measure.

It can mean becoming better at:

Selecting useful suggestions.
Directing your attention.
Identifying effective imaginative strategies.
Allowing responses to develop.
Recognising subtle changes.
Adapting your approach.
Practising consistently.
Connecting suggestions to constructive action.

Individual differences are real, but they should not be turned into fatalism. Self-hypnosis gives people several trainable processes to explore, even when their underlying responsiveness is not infinitely malleable.

One disappointing hypnosis session does not define you. One unresponsive hand does not reveal your permanent psychological constitution. One recording that failed to transport you into oblivion has not settled a century of scientific debate.

Approach self-hypnosis as a process of disciplined curiosity.

Participate. Observe. Adjust. Practise.

Then judge it by what you learn and what changes—not by whether you disappeared into a mythical trance.

Explore Self-Hypnosis More Deeply

My book, The Science of Self-Hypnosis: The Evidence-Based Way to Hypnotise Yourself, examines the principles and practical application of self-hypnosis in much greater depth.

You can also explore my published research with Ben Parris:

For structured practical teaching, you can also explore my Science of Self-Hypnosis educational programme and my hypnosis audio programmes. Use the programmes actively: engage with the ideas, experiment with the suggestions and develop the attentional, imaginative and cognitive skills involved.

… and by the way… if you want to learn my official, structured approach to self-hypnosis and have hypnotic experiences that feel convolutional and automatic, visit this page of my college website and download the self-hypnosis roadmap that gives instructions on how to do that: Learn Self-Hypnosis Here.

References

Bates, B. L., Miller, R. J., Cross, H. J., & Brigham, T. A. (1988). Modifying hypnotic suggestibility with the Carleton Skills Training Program. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.120

Bertrand, L. D., Stam, H. J., & Radtke, H. L. (1993). The Carleton Skills Training Package for modifying hypnotic susceptibility: A replication and extension. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207149308414534

Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.578

Cangas, A. J., & Pérez, M. (1998). The effect of two procedures on hypnotic susceptibility modification. Contemporary Hypnosis, 15(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/ch.135

Eason, A. (2013). The science of self-hypnosis: The evidence-based way to hypnotise yourself. Awake Media Productions.

Eason, A. D., & Parris, B. A. (2019). Clinical applications of self-hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000173

Eason, A. D., & Parris, B. A. (2024). The importance of highlighting the role of the self in hypnotherapy and hypnosis. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 54, 101810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2023.101810

Gorassini, D. R., & Spanos, N. P. (1986). A social-cognitive skills approach to the successful modification of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.1004

Kirsch, I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psychologist, 40(11), 1189–1202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.11.1189

Lynn, S. J., Laurence, J.-R., & Kirsch, I. (2015). Hypnosis, suggestion, and suggestibility: An integrative model. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2014.976783

Piccione, C., Hilgard, E. R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1989). On the degree of stability of measured hypnotizability over a 25-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.289

Silva, C. E., Kirsch, I., & Council, J. R. (1992). Interpretive sets, expectancy, fantasy proneness, and dissociation as predictors of hypnotic response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.847