Abstract
Terhune and Cardeña review and comment on two recent papers by Pekala et al. (2010a,b). These papers “attempt to integrate diverse facets of hypnotic responding and reconcile seemingly competing accounts of hypnosis” (Terhune & Cardeña, 2010, p. 105) by the “complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures” (p. 105) in an attempt to develop a measure of hypnotic responsivity which, I believe, is clinically viable. Although Terhune and Cardeña “applaud their [Pekala et al.'s] complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures” (p. 105), they suggest that Pekala et al. “have sacrificed too much, resulting in a measure with a number of important shortcomings whose empirical utility is questionable” (p. 105). Although many of their comments are justified, the PCI-HAP was developed to be used in a clinical private practice setting which often restricts the use of other tools due to time constraints. Furthermore, the phenomenological “richness” of this approach allows clinicians and researchers to better understand hypnotism from their clients' and participants' points-of-view and in a manner that can augment and complement traditional assessment approaches to hypnotism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.