Hypnotizability, Creative Capacity, Creativity Styles, Absorption, and Phenomenological Experience During Hypnosis

Abstract

The study investigated relationships between self-report measures of creative capacity, styles of creativity, hypnotizability, and absorption. Participants were 429 students enrolled in Introduction to Psychology classes. Students first completed questionnaires pertaining to creative capacity, creativity styles, and absorption. They were subsequently hypnotized using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A (Shor & Orne, 1962) and completed the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (Pekala, 1982/1991a). The pattern of results suggest that creative capacity is more closely related to absorption than hypnotizability. The support for the assertion that effortless experiencing while engaged in creative tasks and hypnotic tasks is a process that is common to both high creative and high hypnotizable subjects was weak Hypnotizability was more strongly and negatively correlated with Volitional Control (feelings of effortless experiencing) for suggestions experienced during hypnosis than both absorption and creative capacity. Creativity styles of Belief in Unconscious Processes, Use of Techniques, Final Product Orientation (extrinsic motivation), Environmental Control and Behavioral Self-Regulation, and Superstition were negatively correlated with Volitional Control during hypnosis, but the correlations were small in magnitude.

Full text

Hypnotizability, Creative Capacity, Creativity Styles, Absorption,
and Phenomenological Experience During Hypnosis
Jessica L. Manmiller and V. K. Kumar
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Ronald J. Pekala
Coatesville VA Medical Center
ABSTRACT: The study investigated relationships be-
tween self-report measures of creative capacity, styles
of creativity, hypnotizability, and absorption. Partici-
pants were 429 students enrolled in Introduction to
Psychology classes. Students first completed question-
naires pertaining to creative capacity, creativity styles,
and absorption. They were subsequently hypnotized
using the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscepti-
bility: Form A (Shor & Orne, 1962) and completed the
Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (Pekala,
1982/1991a). The pattern of results suggest that cre-
ative capacity is more closely related to absorption
than hypnotizability. The support for the assertion that
effortless experiencing while engaged in creative tasks
and hypnotic tasks is a process that is common to both
high creative and high hypnotizable subjects was
weak. Hypnotizability was more strongly and nega-
tively correlated with Volitional Control (feelings of ef-
fortless experiencing) for suggestions experienced
during hypnosis than both absorption and creative ca-
pacity. Creativity styles of Belief in Unconscious Pro-
cesses, Use of Techniques, Final Product Orientation
(extrinsic motivation), Environmental Control and Be-
havioral Self-Regulation, and Superstition were nega-
tively correlated with Volitional Control during hypno-
sis, but the correlations were small in magnitude.
Hypnosis and Creativity: Common Processes
Rhodes (1978) speculated that each individual has
an objective area of the mind utilized in controlling the
senses and a subjective part that controls memory. The
objective mind is responsible for inductive and deduc-
tive reasoning, whereas the subjective mind is capable
of deductive reasoning only. Both are present in a bal-
anced state on a continuous basis. During hypnosis, in-
dividuals relax their objective mind, and, in doing so,
the subjective mind becomes more active. Some indi-
viduals have greater ease in the degree to which they
are able to relax their objective mind thus becoming
highly hypnotizable.
Without the prominence of the objective mind dur-
ing a hypnotic induction, logical observations are sus-
pended allowing ideas of fantasy and imagination to
arise. The subjective mind willingly accepts sugges-
tions in this state. The suggestions are designed to re-
lax the subject physically and mentally, to focus atten-
tion from the environment to the hypnotist, and to
allow free rein of fantasy and imagination with the
hypnotist’s suggested experience (Lynn & Rhue,
1987). Fromm (1992) theorized that during the waking
state thinking tends to be reality oriented proceeding
along secondary process lines. In contrast, during a
hypnotic state thinking becomes more primary process
oriented by way of relaxing of vigilance and defenses,
thus facilitating greater ego receptivity and the conse-
Creativity Research Journal
2005, Vol. 17, No. 1, 9–24
Copyright © 2005 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Creativity Research Journal 9
The article is based on the first author’s unpublished Master’s thesis,
2001. An earlier version of the article was awarded the APA Division
30’s (Hypnosis) Best Student Paper Award at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois in Au-
gust 2002. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on
an earlier version of the article.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to V. K.
Kumar, Department of Psychology, West Chester University, West
Chester, PA 19383. E-mail: VKUMAR@wcupa.edu
Do Not Copy

quent drifting of internal (unconscious) material into
awareness.
Hypnosis investigators and theoreticians have often
implicated the importance of the processes and capaci-
ties of imagination (Hilgard, 1970, 1974), fantasy
(Barber, 2000; Wilson & Barber, 1983a), and absorp-
tion (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974) in hypnosis. The
same processes and capacities are often implicated in
creativity.
Lynn and Sivac (1992) characterized a typical hyp-
notic procedure as conducive to the stimulation of im-
agery, fantasy, imaginative, and creative involvement:
The hypnotic proceedings invite subjects to close their eyes
and to tune out stimuli that compete for their attention. Sub-
jects are encouraged to focus directly on the hypnotist’s com-
munications; to suspend their current concerns and their crit-
ical/analytical faculties or to let them recede into the
background of awareness; and most important engage in fan-
tasy and give free rein to the imagination in line with sug-
gested experiences. (p. 297)
Lynn and Sivac (1992) noted that there is support for
the view that hypnotizable subjects are creative prob-
lem-solvers, although the subjects may not be aware or
conscious of their responses to hypnosis:
The available research indicates that whether research is
couched in terms of the construct of imaginative involve-
ment, absorption, fantasy proneness, or daydreaming style,
many hypnotizable subjects are able to fantasize and imagine
in response to nonhypnotic activities that require a temporary
diminution of rational, reality bound, analytical thinking. (p.
306)
Likewise, Shames and Bowers (1992) noted that it
is not uncommon to observe creative phenomena oc-
curring during hypnosis, that is, subjects often report
using creative strategies to enact suggestions made by
the hypnotist. Bernstein (1956) observed that subjects
use extraordinary imagination and creativity to com-
municate while under a hypnotic trance. As an exam-
ple, he describes a woman who relayed information
about a past life under hypnosis. In other words, the
woman created the sophisticated and yet original story
unconsciously while under hypnosis. Shames and
Bowers argued that these types of confabulations dur-
ing past life regressions are creative in the sense that
they are original material and that a hypnotic subject
may become absorbed in a fantasy world of his or her
own creation.
A common definition of creativity is that it involves
mental processes that lead to unique and novel theo-
ries, ideas, solutions, or products (Reber, 1995).
Hilgard (1970) defined creativity as “imagination that
serves novelty in inventive or pleasing ways” (p. 101).
Torrance (1967) suggested that creativity involves (a)
connectedness: the use of existing elements not created
by the individual to apply them to new ideas; (b) origi-
nality: the uniqueness, novelty, and unpredictability in
an idea; (c) nonrationality: the unconscious processes
that are responsible of joining images into creation; (d)
self-actualization: motivation as a source of energy for
change and psychological growth; and (e) openness:
the characteristics of spontaneity and sensitivity, which
enables the shaping of new ideas.
Inasmuch as creativity and hypnosis are both a
function of imagination, suspended logical thinking
and rationality, relaxation, and possibly diffused
attentional processes (Thurstone, 1950/1966), one
might expect that hypnotic and creative abilities would
be related and that it would be possible to promote cre-
ativity via hypnosis and vice versa.
Hypnotizability and Performance on
Creative Tests
Lynn and Rhue (1987) and Lynn and Sivec (1992)
cited studies (Ashton & McDonald, 1985; K. S.
Bowers, & van der Meulen, 1970; K. S. Bowers; 1971,
P. G. Bowers, 1978; Jackson & Gorassini, 1989; Perry,
Wilder, & Appignanesi, 1973) suggesting high
hypnotizable subjects tend to perform better on tests of
creativity than less hypnotizable subjects. However,
conclusions were not clear cut because of the mixed
nature of results, complicated by the use of variety of
different measures of creativity and definitions of cre-
ativity, leading Lynn and Sivec (1992) to conclude that
“hypnotized individuals and nonhypnotized individu-
als cannot be reliably differentiated from one another
on measures of creativity” (p. 328). More specifically,
the correlations between hypnotizability and creativity
tests (such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking,
Torrance, 1966) tend to be small to moderate but not
impressive (Lynn & Sivac, 1992). Additionally, some
studies show that hypnosis and creativity are related in
females but not in males, and other studies show that
the relationship exists in both sexes (see P. G. Bowers,
1978; Lynn & Sivac, 1992).
10 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy

Does Hypnosis Enhance Creativity?
Krippner (1964) mentioned that Rachmaninoff
wrote one of his acclaimed piano concertos while un-
der a hypnotic experience. Krippner (1965) theorized
that hypnosis, as an altered state of consciousness, pro-
motes creativity because of the unconscious nature of
the creative act. Krippner stated that hypnosis involves
so highly an attentive state that subthreshold stimuli
tend to be recognized: “Hypnosis, therefore, may aid
the breakthrough into the preverbal realm where the
creative inspiration has its origin” (p. 94).
Surprisingly very little empirical work appears to
have been done examining if hypnosis can promote
creativity. Many of these studies (e.g., P.G. Bowers,
1967; K. S. Bowers, 1968; K. S. Bowers & van der
Meulen, 1970; Davè, 1979) have been reviewed by
Lynn and Sivac (1992). They concluded despite some
encouraging results in some of the studies, there is a
lack of clear evidence that hypnosis can enhance cre-
ativity.
Creativity and Hypnosis: Absorption,
Unconscious Processes,
and Effortless Experiencing
There are many accounts by highly creative people
(artists, scientists, mathematicians) that suggest cre-
ative thoughts may simply arise from unconscious pro-
cesses, or in other words, “out of the blue,” either by
way of dreams or when they are engaged in another ac-
tivity (Barrett, 2001; P. G. Bowers, 1979; Kumar,
Holman, & Kemmler, 1997). Davis (1992) describes
the activity of the unconscious as “mysterious mental
happenings” (p. 50). Sladeczek and Domino (1985)
noted that 28 out of their 30 creative subjects indicated
that they have solved their problems or other chal-
lenges through their dreams. They also noted signifi-
cantly more regressive content, dream distortions, and
visual mentation in the dream protocols of creative
subjects (see also Domino, 1976, 1982). Furthermore,
creative people tend to believe in a wide range of para-
normal phenomena (Davis, Peterson, & Farley, 1973).
Paranormal practitioners, such as mediums, have been
known to produce artistic works of quality through
their ability to communicate with unconscious sources
(Grosso, 1997).
The ability to tap into unconscious process may be
related to the ability for openness to inner experiences,
a characteristic related to the capacity for absorption
(Kumar, Pekala, & Cummings, 1996; Tellegen &
Atkinson, 1974). Openness to inner experiences may
facilitate the ease with which the individual can move
from the more conscious and active states to more un-
conscious and passive states to tap their inner experi-
ences to facilitate their creativity (MacKinnon, 1971,
p. 227, cf. P. G. Bowers, 1979). Thus, creative individ-
uals are likely to be those who “experience ideas effort-
lessly than those who exert much effort to come up
with ideas, perhaps due to restrictive effects of aware-
ness” (P. G. Bowers, 1978, pp. 187–188). Drawing a
parallel with hypnosis, she noted that a hypnotized in-
dividual feels that “suggestions happen to him, rather
than as if he were making his responses occur” (p. 187,
italics in original). Thus a common characteristic to
both highly creative and highly hypnotizable subjects
may be this capacity to experience ideas, fantasy, and
imagery effortlessly.
P. G. Bowers (1979) found that regardless of gender,
high, compared to low, hypnotizable subjects, as mea-
sured by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscep-
tibility: Form A (HGSHS:A; Shor & Orne, 1962), re-
ceived higher scores on a composite measure of
creativity tasks (creative activities and the Conse-
quences test of Christensen, Merrifield, & Guilford,
1958) and also on ratings of effortless experiencing
while performing the creative tasks and a four-item
measure of absorption. She reported the following re-
sults: (a) hypnotizability (high and low) correlated
(point-biserial) with creativity and effortless experi-
encing .55 and .61 (p< .001), respectively; (b)
hypnotizability correlated with absorption and vivid-
ness of imagery .41 (p< .01) and .32 (p< .05), respec-
tively; (c) creativity correlated with effortless experi-
encing .62 (p. < .001); and (d) creativity correlated .39
(p< .05) with both imagery vividness and absorption.
In a second study, P. G. Bowers (1979) replicated
the above findings with a smaller sample. However, in
a third study using somewhat modified procedures, the
correlation between creativity and effortless experi-
encing was .29 (p< .05), somewhat weaker than found
in the previous studies. Furthermore, the correlation
between effortless experiencing and hypnotizability
was not significant for the total sample, but when the
correlations were computed separately for subjects
high and low on effortless experiencing, the correlation
Creativity Research Journal 11
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

was significant for the highs but not for the lows. Ab-
sorption, however, was correlated with both
hypnotizability and creativity (r= .38 and .43, p< .05,
respectively).
Hot and Cold Styles of Creativity
Taft (1971) hypothesized two styles of creativity,
one that utilizes a “measured problem solving ap-
proach to the development of new knowledge; and the
other, an emotional, and comparatively uncontrolled,
free expression” (p. 345), referring to them as “cold”
and “hot” creativity, respectively. He identified cold
creativity with “secondary process thinking [that] ad-
heres closely to conventional and familiar material
[and] is based on the reality of the environment and is
marked by controlled logic” (p. 346). In contrast, he at-
tributed hot creativity to the
preconscious rather than the unconscious, because it is par-
tially in contact and accessible to the conscious activity of the
ego. The primary processes involve the entertainment of un-
usual ideas, the neglect of logical principles, and the expres-
sion of material which is usually kept under control because
of its association with repressed impulses, such as aggression
and sex, or even just strong emotions. (pp. 345–346)
Consistent with the thinking of Blatt, Allison, and
Feirstein (1969), Taft (1971) recognized the impor-
tance of both styles of creativity—having the capacity
to generate novel ideas, and having the capacity to situ-
ate them in an appropriate realistic context—whether
one engages in artistic-literary or scientific pursuits.
However, Taft believed that the hot style may be more
relevant for artistic-literary pursuits, where creativity
advances primarily through “individualistic self-ex-
pression” (p.359). In contrast, the cold style may be
more appropriate in scientific pursuits, where creativ-
ity advances primarily through “carefully controlled
cold research” (p. 359).
In line with his thinking, Taft (1971) correlated a
measure of ego-permissiveness (Taft, 1967) with
five-point self-ratings of “how creative, in general,
they [i.e., subjects] considered themselves to be, rela-
tive to others of the same age and sex” (p. 349). He de-
fined ego-permissiveness as a personality characteris-
tic which allows an individual to more readily
relinquish control by the ego so as to diminish second-
ary process thinking and facilitate primary process
thinking for the “actualization of preconscious and un-
conscious levels” (p. 348). He found that the self-rat-
ings of creativity correlated significantly with the fol-
lowing subscales of Ego-permissiveness: Peak
Experiences, Dissociated Experiences, Openness to
Inner Experience, Intrinsic Arousal, and Intellectual
Control.
Diamond and Taft (1975) found that the Ego-per-
missiveness total scale score and its subscale scores
(with the exception of Openness to Inner Experi-
ences) were significantly correlated with
hypnotizability HGSHS:A scores. Thus Taft’s stud-
ies, noted above, suggest highly creative and highly
hypnotizable subjects may share the characteristic of
ego-permissiveness. Kumar, Pekala, and Cummings
(1996) found that the Taft’s Ego-permissiveness
subscales were significantly correlated with the
Tellegan’s Absorption Scale (TAS; Tellegan &
Atkinson, 1974) making it difficult to separate the
two concepts of ego-permissiveness and absorption.
They instead preferred the term Absorption Permis-
siveness and defined it in terms of “readiness to adopt
an experiential set” (Tellegen, 1981, p. 222; see
Kumar et al., 1996, p. 239). Kumar et al. (1996, p.
239) noted that the notion of “permissiveness” capac-
ity “allows the added dimension of being able to con-
trol one’s own inner experiences in the sense of “con-
trol processes in memory as defined by Atkinson and
Shiffrin (1968).” Kumar et al. (1996) also found that
Absorption Permissiveness was significantly corre-
lated with the HGSHS:A scores.
The relationship between hypnotizability and the
TAS has been studied extensively. Individuals who are
highly attentive and easily absorbed also appear to be
highly hypnotizable. Nadon (1997) noted a wide range
of correlations between hypnotizability and the TAS,
ranging between close to 0 and .50, averaging about
.20.
In summary, the aforementioned review suggests
that high hypnotizable subjects tend to display the
characteristics of imaginative involvement (Hilgard,
1970), fantasy-proneness (see Barber, 2000, Wilson &
Barber, 1983a), absorption (Ashton & McDonald,
1985; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), and effortless expe-
riencing (P. G. Bowers, 1978). These same characteris-
tics are often implicated in creativity. It is also sug-
gested that these characteristics of creative individuals
12 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy

may allow greater susceptibility to hypnotic experi-
ences (P.G. Bowers, 1978; Lynn & Sivac, 1992).
Styles of Creativity
The term styles has been used variously by re-
searchers. Gough and Woodworth (1960) used the
term styles both in terms of work habits and tempera-
ment. Taft (1971), as noted before, used the term style
in the sense of a preference for artistic or emotional
(hot creativity) or scientifically oriented problem solv-
ing (cold creativity). Kumar, Holman, and Rudegeair
(1991; also Kumar, Kemmler, & Holman, 1997) used
the term styles in the sense of beliefs and approaches to
being creative in everyday life (see also Verma, 1993).
They described seven styles of creativity: (a) Belief in
Unconscious Processes (e.g., “I have had insights, the
sources of which I am unable to explain or under-
stand”), (b) Use of Techniques (e.g., “I typically create
new ideas by combining existing ideas”), (c) Use of
Other People (e.g., “When I get stuck, I consult or talk
with people about how to proceed”), (d) Final Product
Orientation (e.g., “I enjoy the process of creating new
ideas whether they lead to a final product or not), (e)
Superstition (e.g., “I have a favorite amulet or clothing
that I wear when I am engaged in creative work”), (f)
Environmental Control and Behavioral Self-Regula-
tion (e.g., “I have set aside a particular place [or places]
for creative work”), and (g) Use of Senses (e.g., “I tend
to use my visual sense a lot in my creative work”). In an
effort to empirically study what people do to be cre-
ative, Kumar and Holman (1989) developed the
self-report Creativity Styles Questionnaire, which was
subsequently revised and entitled the Creativity Styles
Questionnaire-Revised (CSQ-R; Kumar & Holman,
1997). The questionnaire includes subscales on the
aforementioned seven styles and additionally a two
item measure of self-perceived creative capacity
(SPCC), referred to as the global measure of creative
capacity (GMCC) in prior studies. The two items are
(a) “Do you consider yourself a creative person?” and
(b) “Are you engaged in creative work on a regular ba-
sis?” Students were informed that the term creative is
used in the sense of doing everyday things in new ways
or solving the problems of daily living as well as those
of the world of work, and/or engaging in creative type
of work (generating ideas for research, writing, paint-
ing, musical compositions, etc.).
In studies with undergraduate students and a sample
of managers, Kumar and colleagues (Kumar et al.,
1991, 1997; Pollick & Kumar, 1997) have found that
the participants scoring high on the SPCC (formerly
the GMCC), relative to those scoring low, reported (a)
a greater belief in unconscious processes, (b) used a
greater number of techniques to a greater degree, and
(c) were more motivated by pursuit of ideas, as op-
posed to developing a final product.
Relating hypnotizability to creativity, P. G. Bowers
(1979) suggested that the “creativity style of an indi-
vidual, rather than the degree of creativity that the indi-
vidual displays may be related to hypnotizability” (as
cited in Shames & Bowers, 1992, p. 351). However,
Shames and Bowers noted that “various creativity
styles need to be first identified, and then instruments
need to be developed to differentiate creativity styles”
(p. 353). They further suggested that “there would be
observable similarities in the subjective experiences
described by hypnotized subjects and by individuals
engaged in the creative process” (p. 336). The avail-
ability of Kumar and Holman’s (1997) CSQ-R made it
possible to address, in this study, the suggestion by P.
G. Bowers (1979) that styles of creativity, rather than
creative capacity, may be related to hypnotizability.
Furthermore, the availability of the Phenomenology of
Consciousness Inventory (PCI; Pekala, 1982/1991a)
allowed us to test the notion that during hypnosis the
high creative subjects will report subjective experi-
ences similar to those of the high hypnotizable sub-
jects, assuming that hypnotic suggestions require cre-
ative effort for implementation.
This Study
This study was designed to investigate not only the
relationship between styles of creativity and
hypnotizability (using the HGSHS:A), but also the re-
lationships among self-reported measures of the capac-
ities of creativity, absorption, and hypnotizability. The
study afforded the opportunity to examine the relation-
ship between the capacity for absorption and styles of
creativity, and furthermore, to examine if subjective
experiences during hypnosis were correlated with
styles of creativity. The subjective experiences during
Creativity Research Journal 13
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

hypnosis were measured by using the PCI (Pekala,
1982/1991a).
P. G. Bowers (1979) noted that there is general sup-
port for the importance of relaxing ego controls and the
use of both rational and imaginative thought in both
hypnosis and creativity. She observed that fantasy
should not be suppressed prematurely for problems re-
quiring creative solutions so as to allow the “effortless
associative processes to occur … while bypassing tem-
porarily the ordinary ego-controlling, intentional pro-
cesses. It is in this context that hypnotizability be-
comes relevant” (p. 566).
Summarizing the results of her studies, P. G.
Bowers (1979) concluded:
Less creative students in samples from two populations and
low hypnotizable students from one of these populations tend
to exert effort and volition in giving imaginative responses,
but high creatives and high hypnotizables respond more ef-
fortlessly. The low hypnotizables are less creative than the
highs. (p. 570)
The notion of effortless experiencing (loss of voli-
tional control) of hypnotic suggestions is regarded as
the hallmark feature of the classic suggestion effect
(Wietzenhoffer, 1978), and reminiscent of
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) notion of the “flow.” P. G.
Bowers (1979) suggested that this notion of effortless
experiencing may provide the link between creativity
and hypnotizability.
Given earlier work (P. G. Bowers, 1978, 1979;
Lynn & Sivac, 1992) noting similarities between cre-
ativity and hypnotizability, and between creative pro-
cesses and hypnotic processes, significant correla-
tions were expected between the self-report measures
of creative capacity (SPCC), hypnotizability
(HGSHS:A), and absorption (TAS). However, of
greater interest to this study was the relationship be-
tween the subscales styles of creativity and
hypnotizability, TAS, and phenomenological experi-
ences observed during hypnosis.
Inasmuch as high creative and high hypnotizable
subjects share similar capacities of imagination, ab-
sorption, and fantasy proneness, and to the extent en-
acting hypnotic suggestions (such as those of the
HGSHS:A) requires creative effort, we expected that
the SPCC scores would be correlated with
phenomenological experiences (as assessed by the
PCI) in a manner similar to those of the high
hypnotizable subjects. That is, given earlier work by
Kumar and colleagues (Angelini, Kumar, & Chandler,
1999; Kumar et al., 1996; Varga, Jósza, Bànyai,
Gösi-Greuss, & Kumar, 2001), significant correlations
were expected between the SPCC and the PCI state ef-
fects factors of Dissociative Control (trance effects as-
sociated with greater altered awareness combined with
decreases in memory, rationality, and volitional con-
trol), Positive Affect, Attention to Internal (ongoing
mental) Processes, possibly Visual Imagery (see the
Method section for definitions), and Hypnoidal scores
(a measure of subjective trance depth experienced dur-
ing hypnosis; Pekala & Nagler, 1989).
P. G. Bowers’s (1979) work suggested that creative
individuals have the capacity for effortless experienc-
ing while engaged in a creative task. Inasmuch as im-
plementing hypnotic suggestions involves the use of
creative strategies, one might expect that high, relative
to low, creative (and also absorption) subjects will
show greater loss of volitional control as measured by
the PCI subscale of Volitional Control during hypno-
sis. Thus, negative correlations were expected between
the SPCC scores, the TAS scores, and the PCI subscale
of Volitional Control.
Of particular interest to this study were the correla-
tions between the self-report measures of styles of cre-
ativity and hypnotizability, absorption, and
phenomenological experiences observed during hyp-
nosis. It is likely that individuals who report higher lev-
els of belief in unconscious processes (a CSQ-R style
subscale), as facilitative of their creative efforts, are
more likely to “relinquish control over their train of
thought when stuck and trusting subconscious pro-
cesses to exert a good influence on their work” (P. G.
Bowers, 1978, p. 565). Thus, we expected that higher
belief in unconscious processes will be associated with
greater hypnotizability, greater absorption, and greater
feelings of dissociative control and subjective trance
depth while experiencing a hypnotic procedure.
Earlier work (Angelini et al., 1999, Kumar et al.,
1996) showed a positive correlation between the
HGSHS:A and Attention to Internal (ongoing mental)
Processes factor scores. If belief in unconscious pro-
cesses may be assumed to reflect sensitivity or open-
ness to inner experiences, that is “trusting subcon-
scious processes to exert good influence” (as P.G.
Bowers put it, see previous paragraph), we expected a
positive correlation between the belief in unconscious
processes and attention to internal processes measures.
If a hypnotic suggestion can be regarded as a situation
14 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy

that may stimulate the use of creative processes, then
one would expect students who express less final prod-
uct orientation (less concerned about producing the
suggested response, but simply playing along) are
likely to score higher on measures of hypnotizability,
absorption, dissociative control, positive affect, and
subjective trance depth experienced during hypnosis.
Furthermore, if one assumes that the high, relative to
the low, creative subjects use a variety of senses to a
greater degree and that greater use of their senses
should facilitate not only their creative performance
but also hypnotic performance, then a measure of the
use of senses would be expected to correlate with mea-
sures of hypnotizability, absorption, dissociative con-
trol, attention to internal processes, possibly visual im-
agery, positive affect, and subjective trance depth. It is
difficult to speculate whether or not the CSQ-R style
subscales of Use of Other People, Use of Techniques,
Environmental Control and Behavioral Self-Regula-
tion, and Superstition will correlate with the
HGSHS:A, TAS, and the various measures of
phenomenological experiences. The aforementioned
expectations are to be regarded as tentative given that
the nature of this study was exploratory.
Two other objectives were investigated in this study:
To examine (a) if the pattern of correlations between the
styles of creativity and SPCC found in the previous
study (Kumar et al., 1997) was replicated and (b) if the
pattern of correlations between hypnotizability and the
PCI-based phenomenological factors, found earlier
(Kumar et al., 1996), was replicated.
Method
Participants
Students (n= 429, Mage = 19.12, Age Range =
17–45, and Modal age = 18) from West Chester Uni-
versity’s Introduction to Psychology classes partici-
pated in the study. Students were recruited through the
departmental research bulletin board to sign up for the
study. Students participated to complete a departmen-
tal research requirement. However, participation was
voluntary inasmuch as they had the option of partici-
pating in other ongoing studies or completing an alter-
nate assignment. Participants were also notified that
they could terminate participation from the study at
any time with impunity.
Instruments
The CSQ-R (Kumar, & Holman, 1997) contains 76
items that measure beliefs and strategies for going
about being creative in everyday life using self-report
items. The questionnaire contains two additional items
that measure SPCC, referred to as the GMCC in prior
studies.
1. Belief in Unconscious Processes. Items measure
the extent to which a person believes in the creative
process as insightful and inspirational. Higher scores
indicate greater belief in the role of unconscious pro-
cesses as significant to creative work.
2. Use of Techniques. Items measure the extent to
which the person employs specific strategies or tech-
niques (e.g., brainstorming, long walks, working on
multiple ideas simultaneously) to facilitate his/her cre-
ative work. Higher scores reflect greater use of differ-
ent techniques.
3. Use of Other People. Items measure the extent to
which a person consults other people, works with other
people, or shares ideas or creative products with other
people.Higherscoresreflecthigheruseofotherpeople.
4. Final Product Orientation. Higher scores reflect
extrinsic motivation for engaging in creative work, that
is, to develop a final product.
5. Environmental Control and Behavioral
Self-Regulation. Higher scores indicate greater effort
in setting up discriminative stimuli (e.g., choice of
time, place, music, use of mind altering substances) to
self-regulate creative efforts.
6. Superstition. Higher scores reflect more super-
stitious behavior to facilitate creative processes.
7. Use of Senses. Higher scores indicate greater use
of all five senses for creative work.
The reliability of the SPCC and the seven style
subscales range between .45 and .81 (Median = .74).
There is some evidence of convergent validity for the
SPCC; it correlated with a longer self-report measure
of creative characteristics (Holman & Kumar, 1990), r
= .32, p< .001, and the Creative Personality subscale
of the ACL (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980), r= .28, p<
.001 (see Kumar et al., 1997), and the Inventory of
Childhood Memories and Imaginings (Wilson & Bar-
ber, 1983b), r= .36, p< .001 (see Lack, Kumar, &
Arevalo, 2003).
Creativity Research Journal 15
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

The HGSHS:A (Shor &Orne, 1962) is a standard
and a widely used group measure of hypnotic suscepti-
bility with many studies demonstrating its reliability
and validity. The HGSHS:A contains a trance induc-
tion and suggestions for 12 tasks (i.e., postural alter-
ation, eye closure, hand lowering, arm immobilization,
finger lock, arm rigidity, hands moving, verbal inhibi-
tion, hallucination, eye catalepsy, posthypnotic sug-
gestion, and amnesia). Hypnotic ability (scores rang-
ing between 0 and 12) is indicated by the number of
tasks performed, scored as pass–fail, by an individual
(Brown & Fromm, 1986).
The PCI (Pekala, 1982/1991a) is a 53-item self-re-
port instrument measuring subjective experiences on
12 major subdimensions (and 14 minor
subdimensions): State of Awareness, Altered Experi-
ence (Body Image, Time Sense, Perception, Unusual
Meaning), Volitional Control, Self-Awareness, Ratio-
nality, Internal Dialogue, Positive Affect (joy, sexual
excitement, love), Negative Affect (Anger, Sadness,
Fear), Imagery (Amount and Vividness), Attention
(Direction and Absorption), Memory, and Arousal.
The items consist of two dipole statements, separated
by a 7-point scale (e.g., “I felt very tranquil”01234
5 6 “I felt very anxious”). However, for this study, the
items were separated by a 5-point scale ranging be-
tween 1 and 5 so as to allow the use of optical scan-
ning answer sheets. There are many studies demon-
strating the reliability and validity of the PCI in
measuring phenomenological experience and hyp-
notic susceptibility (e.g., Pekala, 1991b, 1995; Pekala
& Kumar, 1984, 1987; Pekala & Nagler, 1989;
Pekala, Steinberg, & Kumar, 1986). There were six
PCI-based scores of interest to this study. The first
five scores were a result of factor analysis of the
PCI’s 21 nonoverlapping dimensions and were re-
ferred to by Kumar et al. (1996) as state effects fac-
tors inasmuch as they were a product of hypnosis.
The scores are computed by using the factor weights
obtained in the Kumar et al. (1996) study. The defini-
tions of the PCI-based scores are as follows:
1. Dissociative Control. Higher factor scores on
this factor reflect alterations in (a) trance effects asso-
ciated with altered state of awareness and altered expe-
riences (body image, time sense, perception, visual im-
agery, and meaning) and (b) ego-executive functioning
(Fromm et al., 1981) and reality orientation associated
with decreases in memory, rationality, volitional con-
trol, and internal dialogue (i.e., the classic suggestion
effect; Weitzenhoffer, 1978; K. S. Bowers, 1981,
1992). In an earlier study, Spinhoven, Vanderlinden,
Ter Kuile, and Linssen (1993) had found two factors,
trance and reality orientation, associated with a short-
ened version of the PCI administered within the con-
text of the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale (Morgan
& Hilgard, 1975). Kumar et al. (1996) suggested that
the dissociated control factor appears to combine the
Spinhoven et al.’s trance and reality factors.
2. Positive Affect. Higher factor scores reflect more
joy, more sexual excitement, more love, altered mean-
ing, altered body image, and altered perception.
3. Negative Affect. Higher factor scores reflect
more anger, sadness, fear, and arousal (or decreased re-
laxation), but low rationality.
4. Visual Imagery. Higher factor scores reflect
more visual imagery (amount and vividness).
5. Attention to Internal (ongoing mental) Pro-
cesses. Higher scores reflect greater alterations in time
sense and perception, greater absorption, inward di-
rected attention, altered state of awareness, internal di-
alogue, and low imagery vividness.
6. Hypnoidal Scores. Higher scores reflect higher
subjective feelings of being in a trance that correspond
to highly hypnotizable subjects during hypnosis (see
Pekala & Nagler, 1989). Specifically, the Hypnoidal
Scores are predicted HGSHS:A scores using the
weights obtained in Pekala and Kumar’s (1987) regres-
sion equation in which the PCI dimensions were re-
gressed on the HGSHS:A scores.
The TAS (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974) contains 34
items assessing ability for absorption. It has been found
in numerous studies as a predictor of hypnotic respon-
siveness, although the correlations varywidely between
0 and .50, averaging about .20 (see Nadon, 1997).
Design and Procedure
Students participated in one of six sessions. On av-
erage, 71 students participated in the session at one
time. At the beginning of the session, participants com-
pleted the CSQ-R and TAS scales. Following their
completion, subjects received the HGSHS:A, which
was shortened by removing some of the redundant
phrases to accommodate the time constraints of the
study. Prior research suggests no contraindications to
shortening the induction (Kumar & Pekala, 1988). The
16 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy

participants completed the PCI in reference to the 2
min. sitting quietly interval embedded in hypnosis (af-
ter the eye catalepsy item but before the posthypnotic
suggestions and amnesia instructions) during which
they were told:
For the next several minutes I am going to stop
talking and I want you to continue to experience
the state you are in right now. After several min-
utes I will start talking again. For the next several
minutes just continue to experience whatever
you are experiencing right now.
At the end of 2 min, the subjects were asked to take
a moment and reflect on their experiences:
Now take a moment to make a mental note of
thought, images, and feelings you experienced
during this time because I will ask you to com-
plete a questionnaire in reference to these
thoughts at a later time.
Following the completion of the amnesia item, partici-
pants completed the 53 items of the PCI, and then the
remaining 11 response items of the HGSHS:A.
Results and Discussion
Preliminary Analysis
The analyses are based on 361–369 subjects be-
cause of missing data (due to participants not re-
sponding to certain items). Because the PCI ratings
obtained in this study used a 5-point scale, the initial
ratings were linearly transformed to a 7-point scale in
order to facilitate interpretations consistent with other
studies. Given that some studies had noted a differ-
ence due to gender in the correlation between creativ-
ity scales and hypnotizability (see Shames & Bowers,
1992), a preliminary analysis was done to see if men
(n= 97) and women (n= 271) responded differently
on the different variables included in the study to de-
termine if gender needed to be included in the main
analysis.
Three sets of analysis were conducted. The first set
of analysis was on the 8 CSQ-R variables. A
multivariate analysis of variance showed a significant
effect due to gender, F(8, 359) = 2.15, p= .031. How-
ever, further univariate Ftests, using Bonferroni p=
006 (to keep the overall αat about .05 for 8 tests), indi-
cated that the differences were not significant for any
of the 8 variables. (For 7 of the 8 variables, the pvalues
exceeded .066, and for the use of people scale, the p
value was .011, showing a very small effect size [par-
tial η2= .018], with women showing a slightly higher
mean score than men.) The second set of analysis
scores showed lack of significance differences due to
gender on the TAS and HGSHS:A scores, F(2, 365) =
2.39, p> .05. The third set of analysis showed lack of
significant differences due to gender on the 6 PCI de-
rived scores, F(6, 350) = 1.42, p> .05. Given the afore-
mentioned results, gender was not included in any sub-
sequent analysis.
Main Analysis
Creative capacity, hypnotizability, and absorp-
tion. The SPCC scores were significantly correlated
with the HGSHS:A scores (r= .144, p< .006). Al-
though small, the magnitude of correlation is consis-
tent with those found in other studies (Ashton & Mac-
Donald, 1985; K. S. Bowers, 1971; Shames & Bowers,
1992; Sutcliffe, Perry & Sheehan, 1970). As expected,
the SPCC scores were significantly correlated with the
TAS scores (r= .322, p< .001) suggesting further sup-
port for the convergent validity of the SPCC inasmuch
as they both measure similar constructs. The SPCC
was more strongly correlated with the TAS than with
the HGSHS:A (t= 3.33, p< .001), suggesting a closer
relationship of absorption with creativity than with
hypnotizability. (Although not of interest to this study,
the HGSHS:A correlated .203, p< .001 with the TAS, a
value generally consistent with other studies, see
Nadon, 1997.)
Creativity styles, creativity, hypnotizability, and
absorption. The correlations between the CSQ-R
style subscales, and the SPCC, HGSHS:A and TAS
scales are reported in Table 1. Given 21 correlations in
Table 1, Bonferroni p= .002 (to keep the overall αat
about .05 for 21 tests of significance) was used to eval-
uate the significance of each correlation. As expected,
the Belief in Unconscious Processes scores were sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with the SPCC,
HGSHS:A, and TAS scores, supporting the notion that
the more creative, more hypnotizable, and more
readily absorbed subjects are likely to express greater
Creativity Research Journal 17
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

belief in unconscious processes as an element to their
creative act (see Fromm, 1977; Krippner, 1965; May,
1975).
The Use of Techniques subscale was significantly
and positively correlated with the SPCC, HGSHS:A,
and TAS, suggesting another possible common ele-
ment to hypnosis, absorption, and creativity: the use of
an active (strategy-based) problem solving approach to
enhance their experiences of creativity, hypnosis, and
absorption. The Use of Other People (talking/consult-
ing with other people when stuck and sharing ideas)
was marginally correlated with the TAS but not with
the HGSHS:A or SPCC scales.
It was expected that people who were more inclined
to be less final-product oriented in creative efforts
would respond to hypnosis more intrinsically; that is,
they would play along with the suggestions given.
However, this expectation was not borne out. The Final
Product 0rientation subscale was not correlated with
the HGSHS:A, but was significantly (and negatively)
correlated with both the SPCC and TAS.
The Environmental Control and Behavioral
Self-Regulation style subscale was significantly and
positively correlated with the HGSHS:A and TAS but
not with the SPCC scale. The correlation in regard to the
SPCC is inconsistent with previous work (Kumar et al.,
1997), which had found a small but significant correla-
tion (r= .17, p< .01) with the Environmental and Behav-
ioral Self-Regulation subscale. The correlations of the
Environmental Control and BehavioralSelf-Regulation
subscale with the HGSHS:A and TAS are interesting but
difficult to explain. It is possible that the HGSHS:A and
TAS tap more of the imagination skills than the SPCC,
and people with high imagination skills may need to use
environmental and behavioral self-regulation strategies
to pursue creative efforts. This interpretation is similar
to that of Lack et al. (2003), who found a significant cor-
relation between a measure of fantasy proneness (Wil-
son & Barbers’s [1983b] Inventory of Childhood Imag-
inings and Memory), and the Environmental Control
and Behavioral Self-Regulation style subscale. The
SPCC and TAS were significantly and positively corre-
18 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Table 1. Correlation of CSQ-R Style Subscales With SPCC, HGSHS:A, and TAS (N = 361–369)
Comparison
SPCC(1) HGSHS:A(2) TAS(3) t/p 1,2 1,3 2,3
Unconsious processes
r.276* .232* .435* ta0.63 2.72 3.12*
p.001 .001 .001 p.539 .006 .002
Use of techniques
r.374* .260* .385* t2.08 0.19 1.95
p.001 .001 .001 p.038 .849 .051
Use of people
r–.016 –.074 –.153 t0.86 2.37 1.24
p.761 .156 .003 p.390 .018 .215
Final product orientation
r–.270* –.003 –.203* t4.25* 1.21 3.00
p.001 .961 .001 p.000 .226 .003
Environmental control
r.035 .183* .231* t2.17 3.22* 0.68
p.506 .001 .001 p.030 .001 .497
Superstition
r.207* .156 .159* t0.72 0.78 0.05
p.001 .003 .002 p.472 .435 .960
Use of senses
r.320* .047 .284* t4.15* 0.60 3.56*
p.000 .367 .001 p.000 .549 .000
Note. SPCC = self-perceived creative capacity; HGSHS:A = Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A; TAS = Tellegan’s Ab-
sorption Scale.
atvalues for differences between pairs of correlations (2-tailed).
*Significant at Bonferroni p= 0.002 (2-tailed).
Do Not Copy

lated with the Superstition subscale, but the correlation
of the HGSHS:A with the Superstition subscale was
marginally significant.
Also unexpected was the lack of a significant corre-
lation between the Use of Senses subscale and the
HGSHS:A, but as expected, the Use of Senses subscale
correlated significantly with the SPCC and the TAS.
Even individual items pertaining to different senses
were uncorrelated (p> .05 for all correlations) with the
HGSHS:A, but four of the sense items were signifi-
cantly correlated (Bonferroni p= .003) with the TAS:
visual (r= .178), hearing (r= .241), touch (r= 0.236),
and smell (r=.153), but not taste (r= .121). For the
SPCC scale, three correlations were significant (p<
.003): visual (r= .192), hearing (r= .437), touch (r=
.266), but not taste (r= .037), or smell (r= .072).
The Use of Senses subscale was more correlated with
the TAS and SPCC than with the HGSHS:A (t= 3.56,
and 4.15, p< .002, respectively). The significant corre-
lations between the individual sense items and the TAS
are not surprising in view of the items included on the
TAS. Many of the items on the TAS involve use of senses
(i.e., “When I listen to music I can get so caught up in it
that I don’t notice anything else”; “Textures such as
wool, sand, or wood sometimes remind me of colors or
music”).
The correlations of the SPCC with the style
subscales, in large part, replicate those obtained by
Kumar et al. (1997). An examination of the pattern of
correlations in Table 1 suggests further support for the
notionthat the construct of absorption may be somewhat
closer to creativity than to hypnotizability inasmuch as
the correlations for the SPCC and TAS with the style
subscales did not differ significantly (Bonferroni p=
.002) on six out of the seven style subscales. Also, the
TAS correlated higher than the HGSHS:A with the Be-
lief in Unconscious Processes and Use of Senses
subscales, and additionally achieved marginal signifi-
cance on the Final Product Orientation subscale.
Creative capacity, hypnotizabiltiy, absorption,
and phenomenological experience. Table 2 re-
ports the correlations between PCI-based scores and
the SPCC, HGSHS:A, and TAS scores. Contrary to ex-
pectations, there was little similarity between the pat-
tern of correlations obtained for the SPCC and those
for the HGSHS:A. The correlations reported in Table 2
were evaluated at Bonferroni p= .003 (to keep the
overall αat about .05 for 18 tests of significance).
The HGSHS:A showed the expected pattern of cor-
relations (as observed in prior studies; see Angelini et
al., 1999; Kumar et al., 1996; Kumar, Pekala, &
McClosky, 1999; Pekala, 1995; Pekala & Kumar,
1984, 1987) with the Hypnoidal, Dissociated Control,
Positive Affect, and Attention to Internal Processes.
(Although the correlations were smaller in magnitude,
the same pattern of correlations was obtained for the
TAS.) One exception here is that of the Visual Imagery
factor; prior studies showed nonsignificant correla-
tions between the HGSHS:A and the Visual Imagery
factor scores, but in this study they correlated signifi-
cantly. Surprisingly, the Visual Imagery factor scores
were not significantly correlated with the TAS. The
SPCC was uncorrelated with any of the PCI-based
scores. There was a marginal tendency for high cre-
ative subjects to be more attentive to their internal
(mental) processes (r= .145, p< .005).
Styles of creativity and phenomenological expe-
riences. Given 42 correlations in Table 3,
Bonferroni p= .001 (to keep the overall αat about
.05 level for 42 tests of significance) was used to
evaluate the significance of each correlation. As ex-
Creativity Research Journal 19
Hypnosis and Creativity
Table 2. Correlations of the SPCC, HGSHS:A, and TAS
With the PCI-Based Scores (N = 361–369)
SPCC HGSHS:A TAS
Hypnoidal
r.127 .484* .204*
p.016 .001 .001
Dissociative control
r.082 .466* .164*
p.122 .001 .002
Positive affect
r.057 .263* .213*
p.257 .001 .001
Negative affect
r–.044 .106 .013
p.404 .045 .807
Visual imagery
r.069 .206* .110
p.190 .001 .035
Attention to internal processes
r.145 .482* .239*
p.005 .001 .001
Note. SPCC = self-perceived creative capacity; HGSHS:A = Har-
vard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A; TAS =
Tellegan’s Absorption Scale.
*Correlation significant at Bonferroni p= 0.003 level (2-tailed).
Do Not Copy

pected, individuals reporting greater belief in uncon-
scious processes were more likely to show greater
subjective trance depth as measured by Hypnoidal
Scores; they were also marginally more likely to at-
tain dissociatve control and more likely to attend to
internal processes.
The Use Techniques subscale was significantly
correlated with five of the six PCI-based scores, pos-
sibly suggesting that individuals who make greater
use of techniques in everyday life to be creative are
more likely to use a strategy-based approach to
achieving desired effects in hypnosis. It might be re-
called that the Use of Techniques subscale also corre-
lated significantly with the HGSHS: A scores (see
Table 1).
The marginally significant negative correlation be-
tween the Final Product Orientation and Hypnoidal
scores is suggestive of a tendency of the more intrinsi-
cally motivated subjects to achieve greater subjective
trance depth. Neither the subscales of Superstition and
Use of Senses were significantly correlated with any of
the PCI-based scores. Furthermore, none of the sense
items were correlated with the PCI-based scores.
Effortless experiencing (loss of volitional con-
trol), hypnotizability, creative capacity, creativity
styles, and absorption. A hypothesis of major in-
terest to this study was to test if the high, relative to the
low, creative students are likely to report feeling a
greater loss of volition control during hypnosis—a hy-
pothesis derived from P. G. Bowers’s (1978) finding
that more creative individuals may have the capacity
for effortless experiencing while engaged in creative
tasks. The PCI measure of Volitional Control was used
as the measure of effortless experiencing.
The SPCC (r= –.107, p< .04) and the HGSHS:A (r
= –.378, p< .001) scores were significantly and nega-
tively correlated with the Volitional Control scores.
The results were similar for the TAS, r= –.142, p<
.006. These results are consistent with the expectation
that higher creative capacity, higher hypnotizability,
and higher absorption scores are associated with more
effortless experiencing (P. G. Bowers, 1979) of hypno-
sis. However, the relationship is much stronger for
hypnotizability than for either creative capacity or ab-
sorption with the former characteristic accounting for
about 14% of the variance, and the latter two about 1%
20 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Table 3. Correlations Between Creativity Style Subscales and PCI–Based Scores (N = 361–369)
Hypnoidal
Score DC PA NA VI AIP
Unconscious processes
r.178* .153 .120 .084 .057 .224*
p.001 .004 .022 .109 .273 .001
Use of techniques
r.288* .314* .186* .182* .056 .193*
p.001 .001 .001 .001 .286 .001
Use of people
r –.091 –.079 .015 –.026 –.062 –.070
p.084 .134 .772 .616 .239 .181
Final product orientation
r–.147 –.137 –.089 –.004 –.051 –.091
p.005 .009 .090 .943 .330 .084
Environmental control
r.132 .144 .137 .067 .078 .157
p.012 .006 .009 .205 .135 .003
Superstition
r.127 .130 .101 .074 –.002 .100
p.016 .013 .054 .160 .967 .056
Use of senses
r.029 .020 .032 .008 .117 .075
p.587 .701 .543 .873 .025 .154
Note. DC = Dissociative Control; PA = Positive Affect;NA = Negative Affect; VI = Visual imagery; and AIP = Attention to Internal Processes.
*Correlation significant at Bonferroni p= 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Do Not Copy

and 2% in volitional scores. Pairwise differences be-
tween the correlations showed that the correlation of
the Volitional Control scores with the HGSHS:A was
significantly higher than with the SPCC scores (t=
6.40, p<.001) and the TAS (t= 6.48, p< .001). The
correlations of the Volitional Control scores with the
SPCC scores and TAS did not differ significantly (t=
1.01, p> .10).
In regard to the correlations of Volitional Control
with the subscales of creativity styles, the results
were as follows: Belief in Unconscious Processes: r=
–.129, p< .013; Use of Techniques: r= –.270, p<
.001; Use of People: r= .083, p< .110; Final Product
Orientation: r= .174, p< .001; Environmental Con-
trol and Behavioral Self-Regulation: r= –.118, p<
.01; Superstition: r= –.134, p< 01; and Use of
Senses: r= –.032, p< .534. These results do support
the notion of an association between creativity styles
and effortless experiencing.
Conclusions
This study examined the relationships between the
self-report measures of creative capacity, creative
styles, hypnotizability, absorption, and phenomeno-
logical experiences during hypnosis. Many investiga-
tors, intrigued by the seemingly common nature of
creativity and hypnosis, have suggested that the two
phenomena are linked in many ways. Capacities for
imaginative involvement (Hilgard, 1970), absorption
(Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), fantasy proneness (Bar-
ber, 2000; Lynn & Sivac, 1992; Wilson & Barber,
1983a), effortless experiencing, and subconscious in-
fluencing conscious processes (P. G. Bowers, 1978)
have been identified as relevant to both creativity and
hypnosis.
The correlations between creative capacity as mea-
sured by currently available tests do seem to correlate
with hypnotizability, but the correlations tend to be
small to moderate, despite the claims that hypnotic
processes and creative processes and the characteris-
tics of highly hypnotizable and creative individuals are
similar (see Lynn & Sivac, 1992). Some studies show
that the correlation between creative capacity and
hypnotizability was significant for females but not for
males; others show no gender differences (P. G.
Bowers, 1979). There is evidence that suggests that
high hypnotizable subjects indeed use creative prob-
lem strategies to become hypnotized, but it appears
that hypnosis does not seem to necessarily enhance
creativity (see Lynn & Sivac, 1992).
Shames and Bowers (1992) suggested that styles
of creativity may be better correlated with
hypnotizability than creative capacity and that subjec-
tive experiences described by hypnotized subjects and
by individuals engaged in creative processes would
be similar. In this study, an effort was made to test
both of these ideas, although not as directly stated by
Shames and Bowers. If one can assume that enacting
hypnotic suggestions involves creative effort and
strategies (see Lynn & Sivac, 1992; Shames &
Bowers, 1992), then one would expect that (a)
self-perceived creative capacity (SPCC) would be
significantly correlated with hypnotizability
(HGSHS:A); (b) the high creative subjects, as op-
posed to low, would report similar subjective experi-
ences to those reported by high hypnotizable sub-
jects, thus, employing Pekala’s (1982/1991a) PCI, it
was predicted that the pattern of significant correla-
tions of the PCI-based scores with the SPCC and
HGSHS:A scores would be highly similar; and (c) the
creativity style subscales would be correlated with the
HGSHS:A scores and phenomenological experiences
(as measured with the PCI-based scores) during hyp-
nosis. The study also employed the Tellegen’s Ab-
sorption Scale (TAS) as an additional measure be-
cause the capacity for absorption is regarded as
important to both creativity and hypnosis. It was ex-
pected that the TAS would be significantly correlated
with the SPCC, creativity style subscales, and
HGSHS:A scores.
The results provide support for a small but signifi-
cant (r= .144, p< .006) relationship between self-per-
ceived creative capacity (SPCC) and hypnotizability
(HGSHS:A). The SPCC was more strongly correlated
with the TAS (r= .322, p< .001) than with the
HGSHS:A. The SPCC, HGSHS:A, and TAS were sig-
nificantly correlated with the creativity style subscales
of Belief in Unconscious Processes and Use of Tech-
niques (see Table 1). The TAS was significantly corre-
lated with all creativity style subscales. The hypothe-
sis, derived from P. G. Bowers’s (1978, 1979) work
that suggests effortless experiencing ability might be
common to both creativity and hypnotizability, was
only marginally supported—the correlation between
the SPCC and Volitional Control subscale scores dur-
ing hypnosis (r= .107, p< .04) was much smaller than
Creativity Research Journal 21
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

between the HGSHS:A and Volitional Control scores
(r= .378, p< .001).
Some of the subscales of creativity styles were
significantly correlated with some of the
phenomenological experiences during hypnosis. Spe-
cifically, Belief in Unconscious Processes was signif-
icantly correlated with the Hypnoidal Scores, a gen-
eral measure of subjective trance depth, and with the
Attention to Internal Processes factor scores. The Use
of Techniques subscale correlated significantly with
the PCI-based scores of Dissociative Control, Posi-
tive Affect, Negative Affect, and Attention to Internal
Processes, but not with Visual Imagery, possibly sug-
gesting support for the notion that hypnosis is a strat-
egy-based experience. The correlations between other
styles and the PCI-based scores were not significant.
The results provided a very modest support of P.
G. Bowers’s (1979) assertion that effortless experi-
encing may be a process common to the high cre-
ative, hypnotizable, and absorption individuals. Our
results extend earlier findings to suggest that effort-
less experiencing is associated with a variety of styles
of creativity: individuals who express greater belief in
the unconscious processes, report greater use of tech-
niques, less final product orientation, greater environ-
mental control, and more superstition are more likely
to report effortless experiencing of suggestions dur-
ing hypnosis.
The pattern of observed relationships suggests that
the capacity for creativity appears to be more closely
related to the capacity of absorption than
hypnotizability. Although there was support for a link
between creative capacity, creativity styles,
hypnotizability, and various subjective experiences
during hypnosis, these relationships were small. In
evaluating the results of this study, one needs to con-
sider that we did not examine individuals engaged in a
creative task of any personal significance, rather it was
assumed that hypnotic responding itself may invoke
creative processes. In reality, a personally relevant cre-
ative situation may be quite different from a hypnotic
situation in the sense that the latter involves enacting
suggested responses, perhaps with the use of creative
strategies, but the former usually involves self-initiated
goals of achieving novel products or processes that are
of great personal significance. Thus, the nature of in-
volvement for personally relevant tasks may be quite
different and not easily captured by laboratory studies
often found in the experimental literature.
Nevertheless, clinicians who employ hypnosis may
have an interest in using hypnotic techniques in pro-
moting creativity. The results of this study suggest that
it may be helpful to use hypnosis with creative people
who believe in unconscious processes and make
greater use of techniques to enhance their creativity.
Considering P.G. Bowers’s work (1978, 1979), sugges-
tions to make experiencing effortless might be given
hypnotically and subjects may be asked to use innova-
tive ways to allow effortless experiencing while being
engaged in creative or hypnotic tasks. This may be es-
pecially useful for high hypnotizables or high
creatives, given the significant association between ef-
fortless experiencing and the aforementioned charac-
teristics.
Although there has been an interest in determining
whether hypnosis enhances creativity, there has been
little interest in determining if instructions to “be cre-
ative” enhance hypnotic responsiveness, even though
many investigators (see Lynn & Sivac, 1992) view
good hypnotic subjects as creative problem solvers.
Although the effects on the modifiability of
hypnotizability, using methods such as reinforced
practice, modeling, poetry, personal growth training,
and imagination, tend to be small (Kirsch & Council,
1992), working with high creatives (who may not be
that hypnotizable) to increase their hypnotic respon-
siveness via utilization of absorption capacity and ef-
fortless experiencing may be an approach worth con-
sidering.
References
Angelini, F. J., Kumar, V. K., & Chandler, L. (1999). The Harvard
Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and related instru-
ments: Individual and group administration. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, 236–250.
Ashton, M. A. & McDonald, R. D. (1985). Effects of hypnosis on
verbal and non-verbal creativity. International Journal of Clini-
cal and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 15–26.
Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A pro-
posed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T.
Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Ad-
vances in research and theory (pp. 89–195). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Barber, T. X. (2000). A deeper understanding of hypnosis: Secrets,
nature, essence. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
42(3–4), 208–272.
Barrett, D. (2001). The committee of sleep: How artists, scientists,
and athletes use dreams for creative problem solving and how
you can too. New York: Crown Publishers.
22 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy

Bernstein, M. (1956). The search for Bridey Murphy. New York:
Doubleday.
Blatt, S. J., Allison, J., & Feirstein, A. (1969). The capacity to cope
with negative cognitive complexity. Journal of Personality, 37,
269–288.
Bowers, K. S. (1968). Hypnosis and creativity: A preliminary inves-
tigation. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 16, 38–52.
Bowers, K. S. (1971). Sex and susceptibility as moderator variables
in the relationship of creativity and hypnotic susceptibility.
Journal of Abnormal of Psychology, 78(1), 93–100.
Bowers, K. S. (1981). Do the Stanford scales tap the “classic sugges-
tion effect”? International Journal of Clinical and Experimen-
tal Hypnosis, 29, 42–53.
Bowers, K. S. (1992). Imaginative and dissociative control in hyp-
notic responding. International Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 40, 253–275.
Bowers, K. S. & van der Meulen, S. (1970). Effect of hypnotic sus-
ceptibility on creativity test performances. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 14, 247–256.
Bowers, P. G. (1967). Effect of hypnosis and suggestions of reduced
defensiveness on creativity test performance. Journal of Per-
sonality, 35, 311–322.
Bowers, P. G. (1978). Hypnotizability, creativity, and the role of ef-
fortless experiencing. International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 26, 184–202.
Bowers, P. G. (1979). Hypnosis and creativity. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 88, 564–572.
Brown, D. P, & Fromm, E. (1986). Hypnotherapy and
hypnoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1958). Conse-
quences: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpreta-
tion. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row.
Davè, R. (1979). Effects of hypnotically induced dreams on creative
problem solving. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,
293–302.
Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever. Dubuque: IA: Kend-
all/Hunt.
Davis, G. A., Peterson, J. M., & Farley, F. H. (1973). Attitudes, moti-
vation, sensation seeking, and belief in ESP as predictors of cre-
ative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 31–39.
Diamond, M. J., & Taft, R. (1975). The role played by ego-permis-
siveness and imagery in hypnotic responsivity. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23, 130–138.
Domino, G. (1976). Primary process thinking in dream reports as re-
lated to creative achievement. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 44, 929–932.
Domino, G. (1982). Attitude toward dreams, sex differences in cre-
ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 112–122.
Fromm, E. (1977). An ego-psychological theory of altered states of
consciousness. International Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 25, 372–387.
Fromm, E. (1992). An ego-psychological theory of hypnosis. In E.
Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research
(pp. 131–148). New York: Guilford Press.
Fromm, E., Brown, D. P., Hunt, S. W., Oberalnder, J. Z., Boxer, A.
M., & Pfiefer, G. (1981). The phenomena and characteristics of
self-hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 29, 189–246.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). The Adjective Check List
manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Gough, H. G., & Woodworth, D. G. (1960). Stylistic variations
among professional research scientists. Journal of Personality,
49, 87–98.
Grosso, M. (1997). Inspiration, mediumship, surrealism: The concept
of creative dissociation. In S. Krippner & S. Powers (Eds.), Bro-
ken images and brokenselves: Dissociative narratives in clinical
practice (pp. 181–198). Washington, DC: Bruner/Mazel.
Hilgard, J. R. (1970). Personality and hypnosis. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Hilgard, J. R. (1974). Imaginative involvement: Some characteristics
of the highly hypnotizable and the nonhypnotizable. Interna-
tional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,22,
138–156.
Holman, R., & Kumar, V. K. (1990). Creativity characteristics mea-
sure. Unpublished psychological test. West Chester University
of Pennsylvania.
Jackson, L. M., & Gorassini, D. R. (1989). Artifact in the hypnosis
creativity relationship. Journal of General Psychology,116,
333–343.
Kirsch, I., & Council, J. (1992). Situational and personality corre-
lates if hypnotic responsiveness. In E. Fromm & M. R. Nash
(Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research (pp. 267–291). New
York: Guilford.
Krippner, S. (1964). The hypnotic trance, the psychedelic experi-
ence, and the creative act. American Journal of Clinical Hypno-
sis, 7, 140–147.
Krippner, S. (1965). Hypnosis and creativity. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 8, 94–99.
Kumar, V. K., & Holman, E. R. (1989). Creativity Styles Question-
naire—Revised. Unpublished psychological test. West Chester
University of Pennsylvania.
Kumar, V. K., & Holman, E. R. (1997). Creativity Styles Question-
naire—Revised. Unpublished psychological test. West Chester
University of Pennsylvania.
Kumar, V. K., Holman, E. R., & Rudegeair, P. (1991). Creativity
styles of freshman students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25,
320–323.
Kumar, V. K., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The Creativity
Styles Questionnaire–Revised. Creativity Research Journal,
10, 51–58.
Kumar, V. K., & Pekala, R. J. (1988). Hypnotizability, absorption,
and individual differences in phenomenological experience. In-
ternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36,
80–88.
Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & Cummings, J. (1996). Trait factors,
state effects, and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clin-
ical and Experimental Hypnosis, 44, 232–249.
Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & McCloskey, M. M. (1999).
Phenomenological state effects during hypnosis: A cross-vali-
dation of findings. Contemporary Hypnosis, 16, 9–21.
Lack, S. A., Kumar, V. K., & Arevalo, S. (2003). Fantasy proneness,
creative capacity, and styles of creativity. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 96, 19–24.
Creativity Research Journal 23
Hypnosis and Creativity
Do Not Copy

Lynn, S. J.,& Rhue, J. W. (1987). Hypnosis, imagination, and fan-
tasy. Journal of Mental Imagery, 11, 101–112.
Lynn, S. J., & Sivec, H. (1992). The hypnotizable subject as creative
problem-solving agent. In E. Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.), Con-
temporary hypnosis research (pp. 292–333). New York:
Guilford.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1971). Creativity and transliminal experience.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, 227–241.
May, R. (1975). Courage to create. New York: Norton.
Morgan, A. H., & Hilgard, J. R. (1975). Stanford Hypnotic Clinical
Scale. In E. R. Hilgard & J. R. Hilgard (Eds.), Hypnosis in the
relief of pain (Appendix A, pp. 209–221). Los Altos, CA:
Kaufmann.
Nadon, R. (1997). What this field needs is a good nomological net-
work. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis, 45, 314–323.
Pekala, R. J. (1991a). The phenomenology of consciousness inven-
tory (PCI). West Chester, PA: Mid-Atlantic Educational Insti-
tute. (Original work published 1982)
Pekala, R. J. (1991b). Quantifying consciousness: An empirical ap-
proach. New York: Plenum.
Pekala, R. J. (1995). A short, unobtrusive hypnotic-assessment pro-
cedure for assessing hypnotizability level : I. Development and
research. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 37, 271–283.
Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (1984). Predicting hypnotic suscepti-
bility by a self-report phenomenological state instrument.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27, 114–121.
Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (1987). Predicting hypnotic suscepti-
bility by a self-report phenomenological state instrument.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 30, 57–65.
Pekala, R. J., & Nagler, R. (1989). The assessment of hypnoidal
states: Rationale and clinical application. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 31, 231–236.
Pekala, R. J., Steinberg, J., & Kumar, V. K. (1986). Measurement of
phenomenological experience: Phenomonology of Conscious-
ness Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 983–989.
Perry, C., Wilder, S., & Appignanesi, A. (1973). Hypnotic suscepti-
bility and performance on a battery of creativity measures.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 15, 170–180.
Pollick, M. F. & Kumar, V. K. (1997). Creativity styles of supervis-
ing managers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 260–270.
Reber, A. S. (1995). Dictionary of psychology. NY: Penguin.
Rhodes, R. H. (1978). Hypnosis: Theory, practice, and application.
Secaucus, NJ: Citadel.
Shames, V. A., & Bowers, P. G. (1992) Hypnosis and creativity. In E.
Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research
(pp. 334–363). New York: Guilford.
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). The Harvard Group Scale of Hyp-
notic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Sladeczek, I., & Domino, G. (1985). Creativity,sleep & primary pro -
cess thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 112–122.
Spinhoven, P., Vanderlinden, J., Ter Kuile, M. M., & Linssen, C. G.
(1993). Assessment of hypnotic processes and responsiveness
in a clinical context. International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 41, 210–223.
Sutcliffe, P., Perry, C. W., & Sheehan, P. W. (1970). Relation of some
aspects of imagery and fantasy to hypnotic susceptibility. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 275–287.
Taft, R. (1967). Predicting school examination results by tests of in-
telligence and creativity. Australian Journal of Education, 2,
126–133.
Taft, R. (1971). Hot and cold creativity. Journal of Personality, 39,
345–361.
Tellegen, A. (1981). Practicing the two disciplines for relaxation and
enlightenment: Comment on “role of the feedback signal in
electromyography biofeedback: The relevance of attention” by
Qualls and Sheehan. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 110, 217–226.
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self
altering experiences, a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,83, 268–277.
Thurstone, L. L. (1966). Creative talent. In A. Anastasi (Ed.), Testing
problems in perspective: Twenty-fifth anniversary volume of
topical readings from the invitational conference on testing
problems (pp. 414–428). Washington DC: American Council of
Education. (Original work published 1950)
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Creativity: Its educational implications.New
York: Wiley.
Varga, K., Jósza, E., Bànyai, E. I., Gösi-Greuss, A. C., & Kumar, V.
K. (2001). Phenomenological experiences associated with hyp-
notic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical & Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 49, 19–29.
Verma, B. P. (1993). Creativity styles of university women students.
Psycho-Lingua,23, 105–113.
Weitzehnhoffer, A. M. (1978). Hypnotism and altered states of con-
sciousness, In A. Sugarman & R. E. Tartar (Eds.), Expanding
dimensions of consciousness (pp. 183–225). New York:
Springer.
Wilson, S. C. & Barber, T. X. (1983a). The fantasy-prone personal-
ity: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and
parapsychological phenomenon. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imag-
ery, current theory and application (pp.340–387). New York:
Wiley.
Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1983b). Inventory of childhood mem-
ories and imaginings. Framingham, MA: The Medfield Foun-
dation.
24 Creativity Research Journal
J. L. Manmiller, V. K. Kumar, and R. J. Pekala
Do Not Copy