Advanced

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:
author
organization
publishing date
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
2010-12-20 14:16:07
date last changed
2018-05-29 09:35:01
@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).},
  volume       = {53},
  year         = {2010},
}