Reply to “Methodological and Interpretative Issues regarding the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory — Hypnotic Assessment Procedure: A Comment on Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b)”

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.