Assessing the Phenomenological Effects of Several Stress Management Strategies

Abstract

The present study compared the reported phenomenological effects associated with several stress management techniques (hypnosis, progressive relaxation, deep abdominal breathing) and a baseline condition (eyes-closed) as a function of hypnotic susceptibility. Three hundred nursing students experienced the aforementioned conditions and retrospectively completed a self-report questionnaire, the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI), in reference to each condition. The PCI allows for reliable and valid quantification of various (sub)dimensions of phenomenological experience. The results indicated that stress management techniques like hypnosis or progressive relaxation are not phenomenologically equivalent, and their effects are further moderated by a subject's hypnotic susceptibility.

Types of Hypnotically (Un)Susceptible Individuals as a Function of Phenomenological Experience: Towards a Typology of Hypnotic Types

“…It has been shown to be of appropriate predictive (Pekala & Kumar, 1984, 1987Forbes & Pekala, 1993;Hand, Pekala, & Kumar, 1995), and discriminant (Pekala & Kumar, 1986, 1989Pekala, Forbes, & Contrisciani, 1989) validity (Pekala, 1991b).2…”

Hypnosis as a “State of Consciousness”: How Quantifying the Mind Can Help Us Better Understand Hypnosis

“…The methodology to do this has been previously described by myself (Pekala, 1980(Pekala, , 1991b and researched by myself and colleagues (Forbes & Pekala, 1993;, 1989Pekala, 1985aPekala, , 1995aPekala, , 1995bPekala, , 2010Pekala, , 2011Pekala & Forbes, 1988Pekala & Kumar, 1984, 1987, 2007Pekala & Nagler, 1989;Pekala, Kumar, Maurer, Elliott-Carter, Moon, & Mullen, 2010a, 2010bPekala & Wickramasekera, 2007). The methodology involves: an empirical-phenomenological approach for mapping the structures and patterns of consciousness.…”

“…These instruments respectively quantify consciousness, in general, and attention, in particular. The PCI has been especially useful in mapping the subjective experience of hypnosis and has been shown to have adequate construct, discriminant (Kumar & Pekala, 1988, 1989Kumar, Pekala, & Marcano, 1996;Kumar, Pekala, & McCloskey, 1999;Pekala, 1991b;Pekala & Forbes, 1988;, 1989Pekala, Kumar, Maurer, ElliottCarter, & Moon, 2006;Pekala & Nagler, 1989;Pekala, Steinberg, & Kumar, 1986), and predictive validity (Barnes, Lynn, & Pekala, 2009;Forbes & Pekala, 1993, 1996Hand, Pekala, & Kumar, 1995;Pekala & Kumar, 1984, 1987 for measuring phenomenological experiences associated with hypnosis.…”

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

“…To more easily illustrate how phenomenologically quantifying such effects may be useful, Figure 1 (taken from Pekala & Forbes, 1988) shows the hypnoidal state scores associated with several relaxation strategies (hypnosis, 7 progressive relaxation and deep abdominal breathing) and a baseline eyes closed condition, as defined as a function of four hypnotizability groups (low, low-medium, high-medium, and high -as measured by the Harvard). What is interesting here is that the hypnoidal effects for progressive relaxation versus hypnosis are not significantly different for low-medium, high-medium, and high susceptibles.…”

“…[Taken with permission from: Pekala, R. J.,& Forbes, E. (1988). Hypnoidal effects associated with several stress management strategies.…”