We used a One-way ANOVA to find out whether establishing the hypnotic context before or after TAS testing influenced the size of the TAS hypnotizability correlation. Tables 7a and 7b show these results. There were no significant differences among those effect sizes in the No Context category and those that established the hypnotic context either before or after hypnosis for most of the hypnotic susceptibility scales that used objective response formats, (i.e., HGSHS, SHSS: C, HIP and Other Categories).

Insert Table 7a Here
Insert Table 7b Here

However, very different results were found with the CURSS. For the CURSS: O, there were significant differences among the three context categories (No Context, Context Established Before Hypnosis, and Context Established After Hypnosis), F (2,19) = 6.24, p < .01. Those studies that established the hypnotic context before the TAS testing had a significantly higher sample weighted correlation than those studies that kept the context separate from the Absorption testing, t (17) = 3.53, p < .01.  Similar results were found with the subjective response subscale of the CURSS, F (2,19) = 8.06, p < .01. Studies used the CURSS and kept the TAS testing separate from the hypnotic context had a significantly lower mean sample weighted correlation than those that established the hypnotic context before the Absorption testing, t (17) = 3.99, p < .01. Moreover, establishing the hypnotic context after the Absorption testing resulted in a higher mean sample weighted correlation than the No Context condition. However this difference only approached significance, t (14) = 2.02, p = .063.

In contrast to the results with the CURSS, for the subjective version of the HGSHS there was no significant differences among studies with no context established between hypnosis and Absorption testing, and those that established the hypnotic context either before or after hypnosis, F (1,7) = 0.15, ns.