Relationships Between Hypnotic Susceptibility With Attentional, Dissociative Characteristics, Suggestibility, Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, COMT Polymorphisms And EEG Concomitants

Objective: 1 To develop Chinese versions of the Stanford Group HypnoticSusceptibility Scale, Form C (SGHSS:C) , Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS), Differential Attentional Processes Inventory (DAPI) ;To work out Movement Suggestibility Scale (MSS);To evaluate the validity and reliability of MSS and Chinese versions of SGHSS:C, TAS, DAPI, Dissociative Experiences Scale II (DES-II) . 2 To explore the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility, attention, dissociation, suggestibility and personality and explore the predictors of SGHSS:C. 3 To explore the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and attentional performance tests; 4 To explore the EEG index of hypnotic susceptibility; 5 To explore the association between the polymorphism of COMT (vall58met) and hypnotic susceptibility.Methods: 169 undergraduates were administered with MSS, TPQ andChinese versions of SGHSS:C,TAS, DAPI and DES-II. 2 The correlation between SGHSS:C and TAS, DAPI, DES-II, MSS, TPQ was analyzedrespectively, and the differences of the scales' scores between high, moderate and low hypnotizable groups were compared as well. 3 The differences of 59 high and low-hypnotizable subjects on five attention performance tests were compared, including Digital Symbol Test, Digital Span Test, Trail Making Test, Stroop Test and Cancel Test.4 EEG of 50 high and low hypnotizable subjects in waking relaxation state and hypnotized state were compared. 5 Polymorphisms of catechol-O-methytransferase (COMT) were analyzed in 120 subjects, and association analysis between the polymorphisms of COMT(vall58met) and hypnotic susceptibility was completed among high, moderate and low hypnotizable subjects.Results: Cronbach a of SGHSS:C was 0.63 and Spearman-Brownsplit-half coefficient was0.70. Factor analysis showed there were four factors and they explained 52.38% of the total Variance. Item pass percent and differentiation rate of the 9th item (anosmia to ammonia) was very low. Cronbach a of TAS was 0.78 and Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient was0.79. The test-retest correlation of TAS was 0.73 and the partial correlation with SGHSS:C was 0.33 (PO.05) when sex factor was controlled; Cronbach a of DAPI was 0.87 and Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient was0.78. The test-retest correlation of DAPI was 0.81 and the partial correlation with SGHSS:C was 0.36 (P<0.05) when sex factor was controlled. Cronbach a of DES-II was 0.93 and Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient was0.88. The test-retest correlation of DES-II was 0.84 and the partial correlation with SGHSS:C was 0.25 (P<0.05) when sex factor was controlled. The first three factors of confirmatory factor analyses explained 32.16% of total variance, which supported its 3-facotor model. Cronbach a of MSSwas 0.79 and Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient was 0.77. The test-retest correlation of MSS was 0.81 and the partial correlation with SGHSS:C was 0.41(P<0.05) when sex factor was controlled. 2 In men and total groups, hypnotic susceptibility had significantly negative- correlation with TPQ shyness with strangers scale, while in women group hypnotic susceptibility had significantly negative-correlation with TPQ dependence scale and positive-correlated with TPQ sentimentality scale. 3 In men group there was no significant relation between hypnotic susceptibility and suggestibility, dissociation, TPQ sentimentality scale and dependence scale respectively, and there was significant relation between hypnotic susceptibility and TPQ shyness with strangers scale. But in women group, the case was reverse. 4 High hypnotizable subjects had significantly higher scores in TAS, Extremely Focused Attention scale, Dual Attention Cognitive-Cognitive Scale, DAPI, DES-II and MSS (PO.05) than the lows. The highs had significantly higher scores in Extremely Focused Attention scale, Dual Attention Cognitive-Cognitive Scale, DAPI, DES-II and MSS (PO.05) than moderates (PO.05) .5 Step-wise multiple regression analyses showed that suggestibility was the first predictor of hypnotic susceptibility in total and women groups, which explained 17.1% and 24.9% of the total variance respectively. For the men, only TAS was a significant predictor, explaining 26.8% of the total variance. 6 In waking state, the highs had significantly better performance at some indices of Digital Symbol Test and Stroop test, and there was a better performance tendency at Cancel Test. 7 There was no significant association between hypnotic susceptibility had COMT polymorphisms (P=0.762) . 8 EEG differences between high and lowhypnotizable groups involved all frequency patterns of EEG (including delta, theta, alpha and beta) in both hemispheres. Compared to the lows, slow waves and alpha activities of the highs showed greater left hemisphere dominant, and amplitudes of theta, alpha and beta showed greater left hemisphere dominant in waking rest state, while slow waves of the lows showed no significant hemisphere dominance. In hypnotic state, the highs had also greater left hemisphere dominant in slow wave activities and greater right hemisphere dominant in alpha and beta amplitudes. Conclusion: 1 MSS and Chinese versions of SGHSS:^ TAS> DAPI and DES-II have good reliability and validity. The 9th item of SGHSS:C probably need amended or omitted.2 Hypnotic susceptibility was significantly positive-correlated with absorption, dissociation, suggestibility and TPQ sentimentality scale (in women group), and was significantly positive-correlated with TPQ shyness with strangers scale (in men and total groups) and TPQ dependence scale (in women group). High hypnotizable subjects had significantly higher suggestibility and ability of absorption and dissociation; Suggestibility was the first predictor of hypnotic susceptibility in total and women groups. For the men, TAS was the only significant predictor. 3 There were significant gender differences of relation coefficient between hypnotic susceptibility and suggestibility, dissociation and some personality traits respectively, and the same case was about the predictors of hypnotic susceptibility. It indicated that gender might be an intermix factor, and it could be important in the further study of hypnotic susceptibility. 4 In waking state, the highs did significantly better performance at some attention performance tests.5 There was no significant association between hypnoticsusceptibility had COMT polymorphisms. 6 EEG differences between high and low hypnotizable subjects involved all frequency patterns of EEG in both hemispheres and there were certain patterns of the differences. The highs demonstrated greater EEG hemispheric specificity in hypnotic state and waking state.