Individuals differ in their responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. \n
However, defining and measuring hypnotizability is contentious because\n
standardized scales, such as the Harvard group scale (HGSHS:A), measure\n
a mixture of general suggestibility and its alteration due to hypnotic\n
induction (hypnotizability). Exploratory factor analyses (FA) of \n
standardized scales indicated their multidimensionality; however, \n
the number and nature of latent factors are debated. We applied \n
Confirmatory FA to the HGSHS:A scores of 477 volunteers and tested\n
several theory-driven models. Scores were best explained by a bifactor\n
model consisting of a G-factor and three correlated minor factors.\n
The presented bifactor model shows that two sources of variability\n
affect HGSHS:A simultaneously. Structural equation modeling revealed\n
that the challenge-ideomotor factor predicts the other two minor factors,\n
implying these suggestions might require more fundamental processes than\n
other types. These results demonstrate the multifaceted and bifactorial\n
structure of hypnotic suggestibility and underscore the desideratum for \n
developing more differentiated scales.