Abstract
This commentary reflects on the varieties of high hypnotizable subjects suggested in the works by Barber, Barrett, Pekala and colleagues, and Terhune and Cardeña (2010). These different studies point to the existence of different types of low, medium, and high hypnotizable subjects. However, types of high hypnotizables have received the most attention. Two main concerns are raised in this commentary: (a) drawing parallels between the suggested typologies is not without problems given methodological differences among different studies, and (b) the low base rates of these special types is likely not to appeal to a typical clinician, already resistant to testing for hypnotizability, to conduct initial assessments so as to tailor suggestion to fit specific typologies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
