Predicting Hypnotic Susceptibility by a Self-Report Phenomenological State Instrument

Pekala, Ronald J.; Kumar, V. K.

doi:10.1080/00029157.1984.10402867

Cited by 65 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research found correlations of about .60 between the Harvard total score and the HS score (Pekala & Kumar, 1984;Pekala & Kumar, 1987). Pearson correlation coefficients of .62, .52, and .45, p < .001, were found for the objective scores for the HGSHS: A, the GSHA, and the CURSS, respectively.…”

Section: Hypnotic Depthmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The HS score operationalizes hypnotic depth in terms of a linear combination of ratings on 10 PCI dimensions, and ranges between 1 and 9 (see, Pekala, 1991a;Pekala & Kumar, 2000;Pekala & Kumar, 2007;Pekala, Kumar, Maurer, Elliott, & Moon, 2006;Pekala & Nagler, 1989). HS scores correlate at about .60 with HGSHS: A objective scores (Forbes & Pekala, 1993;Pekala & Kumar, 1984;Pekala & Kumar, 1987).…”

Section: Post-suggestion Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

Barnes

Lynn

Pekala

2009

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hypnotic Depthmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Post-suggestion Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

Barnes

Lynn

Pekala

2009

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although there may be different types of trance (possibly based on individual differences factors and dependent on the qualitative nature of that trance), there may at the same time be some commonality across these different types of trance, analogous to Spearman's (1904Spearman's ( , 1923 "g" factor for general mental ability, vis-à-vis different types of intelligence, a la Gardner (1983). (Pekala & Kumar, 2000, p. 111) Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 12:36 10 July 2014 Pekala Based on regression analyses using the PCI (sub)dimensions to predict the total scale score from the Harvard, we generated a predicted Harvard Group Scale (pHGS) score (Forbes & Pekala, 1993;Pekala & Kumar, 19841987) which correlated about .60 with the actual total Harvard Group Scale scores. As we wrote 20 years ago (Pekala & Nagler, 1989), we thought it premature to label the state associated with a high pHGS score a "hypnotic" state, because we did not know if experiencing all the phenomenological parameters that would generate a high pHGS score would be associated with hypnotic effects.…”

Section: The Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A methodology has been developed and presented in the literature (Forbes & Pekala, 1993;Pekala, 1991bPekala, , 2002Pekala & Kumar, 1984, 1987, 2007 that allows for concepts like hypnosis or trance to be defined and estimated. 3 To estimate "hypnotic trance" or what Weitzenhoffer (2002) has called "hypnosis," a phenomenological measure called the hypnoidal state score, also known as the predicted Harvard Group Scale (pHGS) score, was defined and developed:…”

Section: The Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hypnoidal state score and the HGSHS total score are not "essentially attempting to tap the same thing." The hypnoidal state score is tapping a phenomenological process (during a sitting quietly period embedded in a hypnotic induction) associated with, and predicted from, the cognitive-behavioral items associated with the Harvard total score (Forbes & Pekala, 1993;Pekala & Kumar, 1984, 1987. Although the hypnoidal state score was nomothetically derived from the Harvard; idiographically, the phenomenological (as measured by the PCI) versus the cognitive-behavioral level of analysis (as measured by the Harvard total score), may be quite different when looking at the individual participant (as I will illustrate below).…”

Section: Levels Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Pekala

2011

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Phenomenological state effects during hypnosis: a cross‐validation of findings

Kumar

Pekala

McCloskey

1999

Contemporary Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a factor analysis of Pekala's (1982, 1991b) Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory completed retrospectively in reference to the Harvard scale induction, Kumar et al. (1996) obtained the following five correlated state effects factors: dissociated control state, positive affect, negative affect, visual imagery and attention to internal processes. They found that the factor‐based scores of dissociated control state, positive affect and attention to internal processes were significantly correlated with the Harvard scores. The present study found evidence for the cross‐validity of the factor weights (obtained in the previous study) in computing factor‐based scores in data from two separate studies. The same factors (as in the previous study) of dissociated control state, positive affect, and attention to internal processes were significantly correlated with hypnotizability not only as assessed by the Harvard, but also the Stanford scale. These findings fit well with the traditional conceptions of hypnosis and observations by clinicians and experimentalists that certain phenomenological states are reliably observed to occur under a hypnotic induction. Copyright © 1999 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis

show abstract

Predicting Hypnotic Susceptibility by a Self-Report Phenomenological State Instrument

Cited by 65 publications

References 15 publications

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

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

Phenomenological state effects during hypnosis: a cross‐validation of findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About