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

Abstract

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.

Discrete response patterns in the upper range of hypnotic suggestibility: A latent profile analysis

“…The failure of the DR profile to distinguish between different HS classes indicates that this measure is poorly suited to the task of measuring individual differences in the upper range of hypnotic responding. This result is notable because it is at odds with the recent proposal that the inclusion of a single hypnotic dream suggestion is sufficient for a clinical assessment of hypnotic suggestibility (Pekala et al, 2010) (for a critique, see Terhune & Cardeña, 2010b). In contrast, hallucination and posthypnotic suggestions were particularly robust at discriminating virtuosos from other HS individuals, which is consistent with another study showing that the positive and negative hallucination suggestion profiles were the best at discriminating between low and high dissociative HS individuals (Terhune, et al, 2011b).…”

Differential patterns of spontaneous experiential response to a hypnotic induction: A latent profile analysis

“…More broadly, this may suggest a greater proneness to psychopathology in this profile (Pekala et al, 2009), as has been argued elsewhere (e.g., Lynn, Lilienfeld, & Rhue, 1999). One explanation for this finding is that the distortions in awareness produced by the hypnotic induction induced state-dependent memory intrusions in dissociative participants corresponding to negative events to which the participants had previously responded with experiential detachment (e.g., Spiegel & Cardeña, 1990).…”

“…Although previous cluster analyses of PCI dimension scores during hypnosis did not observe greater negative affect in the dissociative subtype of HS participants (Pekala & Kumar, 2007), dissociative tendencies have been found to predict negative affect during hypnosis (Kumar, Pekala, and Marcano, 1996;Pekala et al, 2009). More broadly, this may suggest a greater proneness to psychopathology in this profile (Pekala et al, 2009), as has been argued elsewhere (e.g., Lynn, Lilienfeld, & Rhue, 1999).…”

Unconscious Agendas in the Etiology of Refractory Obesity and the Role of Hypnosis in Their Identification and Resolution:A New Paradigm for Weight-Management Programs or a Paradigm Revisited?

“…Firstly, via sociocognitive mechanisms, collusion between the subject and the authoritarian personality of the hypnotist during trance can be used to facilitate the delivery of repeated and deep-seated hypnotic instructions (Kirsch & Lynn, 1998;Pekela et al, 2010). Through cognitive mechanisms such as suggestion, visualisation, ego-enhancement and similar, such instructions about leading a healthy lifestyle, eating sensibly and exercising regularly, can become a powerful and constant reminder, an inner voice or "pseudo conscience", prompting individuals each time they feel an inappropriate desire to eat too much, or of the wrong sort of food.…”

“…Lynn and Shindler (2002) however suggest that hypnotisability screening, despite its methodological limitations, can still provide clinicians with a wealth of valuable information, and they counsel for some degree of hypnotisability screening to become routine. Part of the problem may be that hypnotisability remains an elusive concept, within the clinical arena as much as in the laboratory, being variously associated with (but not always correlated with) absorption (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974;Kirsch & Braffman, 1999), suggestibility both non-hypnotic and hypnotic (Kirsch & Braffman, 1999, 2001Raz et al, 2006;Dienes, et al, 2009;Milling et al, 2010; Santarpia et al, 2012;Wagstaff, 2012;Kirsch et al, 2011: Meyer & Lynn, 2011Raz, 2011;Schweiger Gallo, Pfau & Gollwitzer (2012), expectancy (Kirsch & Braffman, 1999;Lynn & Shindler, 2002;Pekela et al, 2010;Meyer & Lynn, 2011;Schweiger Gallo, Pfau & Gollwitzer 2012;Koep, 2012), depth of hypnotic trance (Pekela et al, 2010;Wagstaff, 2012) and dissociation (Cardeña & Weiner, 2004;Bell et al, 2011;Fassler, Knox & Lynn, 2006).Additionally the depth of the hypnotic state can vary from occasion to occasion within the same individual as induct-ability tends to move in and out of ease for quite long periods of time over a prolonged series of sessions, for reasons relating to changes in subjects' life circumstances, health or emotional state. There is often a time and a tide for subconscious change to take place which cannot always be influenced by the subject's or the therapist's conscious minds, nor even by the therapist's use of the magic word "hypnosis" (Gandhi & Oakley, 2005).…”