Transcultural Factors in Hypnotizability Scales: Limits and Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnotic suggestibility--loosely termed hypnotizability--is difficult to assess across cultures. Investigators often use translated research instruments to guide their inquiry in disparate geographic locations. Present-day hypnosis researchers rely heavily on two primary scales that are more than half a century old: the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form C (SHSS:C) (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) and the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A (HGSHS:A) (Shor & Orne, 1962). Scholars typically translate these scales to measure hypnotizability transculturally. This approach, however, operates under the specious assumption that the concept of hypnotizability is largely monolithic or universal across cultures. Whereas translations likely conserve the linguistic content, they may arguably imply different cultural meanings and historical subtexts. Whereas social scientists acknowledge the importance of qualitative and phenomenological accounts in the study of altered consciousness, including suggestibility, researchers interested in hypnotizability consider the impact of findings from anthropology and ethnography too little. Clinicians and scholars of hypnosis would stand to benefit from incorporating the insights afforded by transcultural research in the overarching investigation of a concept as nuanced as hypnotizability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".