Hypnotic Assessment Procedure Research Articles

Intimate relationships and hypnosis: insecure adult attachment affects emotions and absorption during hypnosis.

Hypnosis research indicates that subjects are not equally hypnotizable. Most studies on hypnotizability focused on the relationships with personality or cognitive variables. At the same time, only a few proposed the contribution of the attachment style, defined as the result of the childhood relationship with the caregivers and influencing the adult relations. In the present investigation, two studies were carried out to test the possible association between adult attachment and hypnotic responsivity. The adult attachment was assessed using the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire, while hypnosis was assessed through the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS:A; Study 1) and the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP; Study 2) in order to adopt a behavioral and a phenomenological approach, respectively. Analyses showed that attachment factors (anxiety and avoidance) were not associated with the level of hypnotizability, whereas it was associated with variations of consciousness during hypnosis, mainly internal dialogue, absorption and negative emotions. Overall, the insecure attachment styles yielded increased mind wandering and restlessness during hypnosis when compared to the secure style. The reason probably lies in the feeling of anxiety or danger of insecurely attached individuals when involved in intimate or confidential relationships. These findings clarify a still poorly investigated aspect concerning the influence of attachment style on hypnotic experience and further highlight the need to consider inter-individual differences and the phenomenological perspective when assessing hypnosis and hypnotizability.

Hypnotism as a Function of Trance State Effects, Expectancy, and Suggestibility: An Italian Replication

Previous research using stepwise regression analyses found self-reported hypnotic depth (srHD) to be a function of suggestibility, trance state effects, and expectancy. This study sought to replicate and expand that research using a general state measure of hypnotic responsivity, the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP). Ninety-five participants completed an Italian translation of the PCI-HAP, with srHD scores predicted from the PCI-HAP assessment items. The regression analysis replicated the previous research results. Additionally, stepwise regression analyses were able to predict the srHD score equally well using only the PCI dimension scores. These results not only replicated prior research but suggest how this methodology to assess hypnotic responsivity, when combined with more traditional neurophysiological and cognitive-behavioral methodologies, may allow for a more comprehensive understanding of that enigma called hypnosis.

Expectancies and Hypnotic Responsiveness: An Experimental-Design Flaw Revealed

Recent research suggests that expectancies about being hypnotized have a determinant role in the hypnotic experience. The authors analyzed the relationship between expectancies and the phenomenology of hypnosis using the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory and Hypnotic Assessment Procedure. Participants (115) were assigned either to the imagination (hypnosis labeled as imagination) or the hypnosis conditions. Results revealed only a minor influence of expectancies and none on the label “hypnosis” across all variables. These findings indicate that the methodology commonly used to study the influence of expectancies on hypnotic responsiveness and phenomenology might represent a flaw in favor of a causal relationship between expectancies and hypnotic experience.

Imagery Vividness Before and During the PCI–HAP: A Partial Replication

This study sought to replicate an earlier study wherein imagery vividness before and during a phenomenological hypnotic assessment procedure was assessed, while also measuring trance (hypnoidal) state effects and several other variables. Correlational and regression analyses for that study suggested that imagery vividness during hypnotism was predicted by combined imagery vividness before hypnotism and trance (altered) state effects during hypnotism. The present study procured a larger sample employing a similar design and a similar subject pool. With the current study, although trance state effects and imagery vividness before hypnotism still significantly predicted hypnotic imagoic suggestibility (imagery during hypnotism), the variance accounted for was appreciably less. The meaning of these results as a function of the methodology used is discussed.

A Cross-Validation of Two Differing Measures of Hypnotic Depth1

Several sets of regression analyses were completed, attempting to predict 2 measures of hypnotic depth: the self-reported hypnotic depth score and hypnoidal state score from variables of the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI–HAP). When attempting to predict self-reported hypnotic depth, an R of .78 with Study 1 participants shrank to an r of .72 with Study 2 participants, suggesting mild shrinkage for this more attributional measure of hypnotic depth. Attempting to predict hypnoidal state (an estimate of trance) using the same procedure, yielded an R of .56, that upon cross-validation shrank to an r of .48. These and other results suggest that, although there is some variance in common, the self-reported hypnotic depth score appears to be tapping a different construct from the hypnoidal state score.

Reply to Wagstaff: “Hypnosis and the Relationship between Trance, Suggestion, Expectancy, and Depth: Some Semantic and Conceptual Issues”

Wagstaff (2010) reviews and comments on two recent papers by Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b), concluding that “many of the problems relating to the definition and conceptualization of terms associated with hypnosis … may stem from insufficient attention to the role of suggestion and expectancies in producing hypnotic phenomena, and an over-reliance on the role of the procedures and mechanics of the induction process” (p. 47). Although I agree with his semantic and conceptual focus, I believe that a number of these problems are due to not operationally defining terms such as hypnosis, hypnotic state, or trance in a comprehensive phenomenological manner. By using the PCI (Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory) via retrospective phenomenological assessment, and using a phenomenological state instrument like the PCI-HAP (Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory - Hypnotic Assessment Procedure) to obtain a state measure of hypnotic responsiveness, a means is available to define and empirically address some of these issues in a way that can significantly further our understanding of the nature of hypnotism. Such an approach might also address Kallio and Revonsuo's (2005) admonition concerning the need to develop “an internally coherent and widely shared theoretical vocabulary” (p. 51) to better understand consciousness, altered states of consciousness, and related phenomena, such as hypnosis/hypnotism.

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

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.

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

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.

Trance State Effects and Imagery Vividness Before and During a Hypnotic Assessment: A Preliminary Study

This preliminary study explored the relationship between imagery vividness before and during a hypnotic phenomenological assessment procedure, the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory–Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI–HAP), while also assessing trance (hypnoidal) state effects and several other variables. The PCI–HAP allows the assessment of trance state effects associated with hypnotism to be quantified and statistically assessed. The 102 subjects completed the PCI–HAP along with several other questionnaire items. Correlational and regression analyses suggested that imagery vividness during hypnotism (hypnotic imagoic suggestibility) was predicted by combined imagery vividness before hypnotism and trance (altered) state effects during hypnotism. When measuring several additional variables, imagery vividness during hypnotism was found to be a function of self-reported hypnotic depth and additional other variables. The usefulness of these results for better understanding imagery vividness before and during hypnotism is discussed.

Suggestibility, Expectancy, Trance State Effects, and Hypnotic Depth: II. Assessment via the PCI-HAP

This study sought to determine if self-reported hypnotic depth (srHD) could be predicted from the variables of the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory - Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP) (Pekala, 1995a, 1995b; Pekala & Kumar, 2007; Pekala et al., 2010), assessing several of the processes theorized by researchers to be associated with hypnotism: trance (altered state effects), suggestibility, and expectancy. One hundred and eighty participants completed the PCI-HAP. Using regression analyses, srHD scores were predicted from the PCI-HAP pre-hypnotic and post-hypnotic assessment items, and several other variables. The results suggested that the srHD scores were found to be a function of imagoic suggestibility, expectancy (both estimated hypnotic depth and expected therapeutic efficacy), and trance state and eye catalepsy effects; effects that appear to be additive and not (statistically) interactive. The results support the theorizing of many investigators concerning the involvement of the aforementioned component processes with this particular aspect of hypnotism, the self-reported hypnotic depth score.

Suggestibility, Expectancy, Trance State Effects, and Hypnotic Depth: I. Implications for Understanding Hypnotism

This paper reviews the relationships between trance or altered state effects, suggestibility, and expectancy as these concepts are defined in the theorizing of Weitzenhoffer (2002), Holroyd (2003), Kirsch (1991), and others, for the purpose of demonstrating how these concepts can be assessed with the PCI-HAP (Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure; Pekala, 1995a, b). In addition, how the aforementioned variables may relate to the nature of hypnosis/hypnotism as a function of self-reported hypnotic depth are discussed, along with how the PCI-HAP may be used as a means to measure hypnotic responsivity from a more phenomenological state perspective, in contrast to more traditional behavioral trait assessment instruments like the Harvard, the Stanford C, or the HIP. A follow-up paper (Pekala, Kumar, Maurer, Elliott-Carter, Moon, & Mullen, 2010) will present research data on the PCI-HAP model and how this model can be useful for better understanding hypnotism.

Positive Affect, Negative Affect, and Negative Effects During a Phenomenological Hypnotic Assessment Within a Substance Abuse Population

Positive and negative affect generated while using the Phenomenology of Consciousness - Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP) on a sample of drug and alcohol users were predicted using several variables. The results were then cross-validated on a second, smaller sample. The results suggest that, although some negative affect was reported, the PCI-HAP was more likely to generate positive, rather than negative, affect. Positive affect was related to the vividness of a suggested hypnotic dream during hypnosis and also hypnotic depth; these findings were replicated upon cross-validation. Although negative affect correlated with the Dissociative Experiences Scale scores and falling asleep, these results did not replicate upon cross-validation. Mild transient negative effects (e.g., headache) were reported by about 10% of the participants in a smaller, second sample. Implications of the results are discussed.