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

Abstract

Subjects were 194 nursing students who experienced the HGSHS A (Shor & Orne, 1962) in which was embedded a 2-minute sitting quietly interval subsequent to the eye catalepsy item, but prior to the "counting out" sequence. After the HGSHS:A, subjects completed the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI) (Pekala, 1982, 1991c) in reference to the sitting quietly interval embedded in the hypnotic induction ceremony. Subjects were divided into low and high susceptible groups. K-means cluster analysis of the subjects' responses to the PCI revealed nine different cluster groups. These groups had different patterns of phenomenological experiences that cut across individual subjects' actual HGSHS:A scores. Implications of the above for (a) working with clients who may not score that high on standard behavioral measures of hypnotizability (such as the HGSHS:A), or (b) understanding how hypnosis "works," are discussed.

An investigation of the factor structure of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A)

“…After a variety of examinations that analysed factors, distributions, profiles and clusters (e.g. Balthazard and Woody, 1992;Balthazard, 1993;Pekala and Forbes, 1997) there is still no consent on the number of components that are measured by the different scales. Peter (2001, p.44ff) has organized the different hypnotic phenomena into motoric/ kinaesthetic, sensory/affective, and cognitive, according to the phenomenological aspects.…”

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

“…In the first study, Pekala (1991b) derived two types of HS participants, labelled fantasy and classic types, both of which were subsequently replicated by Pekala and Forbes (1997). The principal features of the fantasy type's experiential response were vivid imagery, positive affect, and mild reductions in awareness and memory, whereas the classic type experienced less vivid imagery, reduced control and memory, and greater alterations in awareness.…”

“…(For critical reviews of these models, see Barber (1999b) and accompanying commentaries.) Support for the experiential predictions of the typological models has been provided by cluster analysis studies (Forbes & Pekala, 1996;Pekala, 1991b;Pekala & Forbes, 1997;Pekala, Kumar, & Marcano, 1995; for a review see Pekala & Kumar, 2007). In these studies, participants experienced a short resting epoch embedded within a standardized behavioral measure of hypnotic suggestibility.…”

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

“…Table 2 shows different typologies of subjective experience, based on cluster and discriminant analyses (Forbes & Pekala, 1996;Pekala, 1991a;Pekala & Forbes, 1997;Pekala, Kumar, & Marcano, 1995b) for low to high hypnotizables, rank ordered according to the hypnoidal state score.…”