Methodological and interpretative issues regarding the Phenomenology of consciousness inventory - hypnotic assessment procedure: a comment on Pekala et al. (2010a, b).
Terhune, Devin LU and Cardeña, Etzel LU
(2010)
In American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
53(2).
p.105-113
- Abstract
- In two papers, Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b) reviewed and empirically assessed the relationships among response expectancies, hypnotic suggestibility, spontaneous alterations in consciousness following a hypnotic induction, and hypnotic depth. We appreciate their attempt to integrate diverse facets of hypnotic responding and reconcile seemingly competing accounts of hypnosis. In addition, we applaud their complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures. However, in their attempt to develop a clinically-viable measure of hypnotic responsiveness, we believe that they have sacrificed too much, resulting in a measure with a number of important shortcomings whose empirical utility is questionable. Furthermore, their... (More)
- In two papers, Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b) reviewed and empirically assessed the relationships among response expectancies, hypnotic suggestibility, spontaneous alterations in consciousness following a hypnotic induction, and hypnotic depth. We appreciate their attempt to integrate diverse facets of hypnotic responding and reconcile seemingly competing accounts of hypnosis. In addition, we applaud their complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures. However, in their attempt to develop a clinically-viable measure of hypnotic responsiveness, we believe that they have sacrificed too much, resulting in a measure with a number of important shortcomings whose empirical utility is questionable. Furthermore, their review and study gloss over a number of important distinctions. Finally, we believe that they over-interpret the relationships between their selected measures and ones previously used in the extant literature. A closer examination of variability among highly suggestible individuals, from the purview of the approach that Pekala et al. have adopted, but with a greater diversity of methods, is likely to yield a number of insights into the characteristics and determinants of hypnotic suggestibility and self-perceived hypnotic depth. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1732335
- author
- Terhune, Devin
LU
and Cardeña, Etzel
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2010
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
- volume
- 53
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 105 - 113
- publisher
- American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
- ISSN
- 0002-9157
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 8a1fd01f-2e41-4dd8-8056-dd75410cb14e (old id 1732335)
- alternative location
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21049744?dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 14:20:38
- date last changed
- 2022-01-28 00:07:35
@article{8a1fd01f-2e41-4dd8-8056-dd75410cb14e,
abstract = {{In two papers, Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b) reviewed and empirically assessed the relationships among response expectancies, hypnotic suggestibility, spontaneous alterations in consciousness following a hypnotic induction, and hypnotic depth. We appreciate their attempt to integrate diverse facets of hypnotic responding and reconcile seemingly competing accounts of hypnosis. In addition, we applaud their complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures. However, in their attempt to develop a clinically-viable measure of hypnotic responsiveness, we believe that they have sacrificed too much, resulting in a measure with a number of important shortcomings whose empirical utility is questionable. Furthermore, their review and study gloss over a number of important distinctions. Finally, we believe that they over-interpret the relationships between their selected measures and ones previously used in the extant literature. A closer examination of variability among highly suggestible individuals, from the purview of the approach that Pekala et al. have adopted, but with a greater diversity of methods, is likely to yield a number of insights into the characteristics and determinants of hypnotic suggestibility and self-perceived hypnotic depth.}},
author = {{Terhune, Devin and Cardeña, Etzel}},
issn = {{0002-9157}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{105--113}},
publisher = {{American Society of Clinical Hypnosis}},
series = {{American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis}},
title = {{Methodological and interpretative issues regarding the Phenomenology of consciousness inventory - hypnotic assessment procedure: a comment on Pekala et al. (2010a, b).}},
url = {{http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21049744?dopt=Abstract}},
volume = {{53}},
year = {{2010}},
}