To test the hypothesis that a metaphorical technique would be more effective than a direct technique to induce hypnosis, 60 volunteers from students at North Texas State University were divided into high- and low-susceptible subjects by the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. They were randomly assigned to direct and metaphorical induction groups and to a control group, with 10 high- and 10 low-susceptible subjects in each group. After hypnosis they completed the Field Inventory of Hypnotic Depth, and their mean scores were subjected to an analysis of variance and a Newman-Keuls test. Neither method of hypnotic induction was found more effective than the other, although both were effective when compared to a control group. It was also found that subjects who expected to be able to experience hypnosis were no more likely to be hypnotized than those who expected not to be able to experience hypnosis. Finally, it was found that low-susceptible subjects were as likely to respond to a post-hypnotic suggestion as high-susceptible subjects.