Activity

This project aimed to assess the consistency of hypnotizability over repeated assessments when measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale Form C (SHSSC), and the Elkins Hypnotizability Scale (EHS) and to contrast score distribution and pleasantness of these scales. University students were administered either the SHSSC or the EHS twice with a one-week delay by separate experimenters. Test-retest reliability of the EHS and the SHSSC was rs =.82 (.71-.92) and rs =.66, 95% (.47-.86), respectively (Spearman’s correlation). Hypnotizability was comparable at test and retest in the EHS group, SHSSC scores decreased by the retest. We found that the SHSSC produced higher scores than the EHS, and the pleasantness of the 2 scales was comparable. Overall, our results supported the reliability of the EHS, while SHSSC scores were more inconsistent between the 2 assessments. More research is warranted.Standard hypnotizability scales require physical contact or direct observation by tester and participant. The authors addressed this limitation by developing and testing the remote Hypnotic Induction Profile (rHIP), a hypnotizability test derived from the Hypnotic Induction Profile that is completed by telephone. To assess the validity of the rHIP, 56 volunteers naïve to hypnotizability testing completed both the HIP and the rHIP, with order of testing randomized. Results indicate a strong correlation between HIP and rHIP scores, rs =.71(0.53-0.84), p less then .0001, and good concordance, difference =.03(-0.53, 0.59), p =.91, independent of testing order. The rHIP had few complications. Possible advantages of using the rHIP include improving patient expectancy prior to scheduling a hypnosis session, increasing access to hypnotizability testing for remote interventions, and obviating resource-intensive in-person hypnotizability screening for trials that exclude subjects with certain scores.Hypnotizability refers to “An individual’s ability to experience suggested alterations in physiology, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or behavior during hypnosis” (Elkins, Barabasz, Council, & Spiegel, 2015). Research has demonstrated that most people are hypnotizable and that individual differences in hypnotizability exist. In recent years, there have been important advances on perspectives and new, well-validated scales for measurement that seek to improve on older measurement instruments. Emerging research has sought to address questions such as Is hypnotizability a natural human ability independent from formal hypnotic inductions?; Are multi-component theories most accurate to account for differences in hypnotizability?; What can we learn from a critical review of older measures of hypnotic susceptibility?; Can hypnotizability assessment be accomplished by phone?; What is being found from current study of the Hypnotic Induction Profile?; Can assessment of hypnotizability have therapeutic benefits?; Does comparison of older and newer measures of hypnotizability such as the Elkins Hypnotizability Scale point to a new “gold standard” based on contemporary research? This special issue of the IJCEH provides insights into these important questions.This review addresses multicomponent theories of hypnotizability by focusing on 3 important exemplars from the history of hypnosis research E. R. Hilgard’s (1965) Hypnotic susceptibility; R. E. Shor’s (1962) Three dimensions of hypnotic depth; and T.X. Barber’s (1999) A comprehensive three-dimensional theory of hypnosis. Taken together, they illustrate the variety of hypnotic phenomena examined in research – overt responses, subjective experiences, and underlying processes – and the ways in which evidence about each has implied the existence of multiple underlying components. Particularly highlighted are the different ways in which the theories conceptualize the joint contribution of multiple individual differences. Also covered is relevant later work by other researchers as well as important issues remaining to be resolved.There seems to be a natural, human ability to alter one’s experience that already exists – prior to and apart from any hypnotic induction. Individual differences in this ability range from low to high and are largely commensurate with the person’s assessed hypnotizability. More importantly, these preexisting, individual differences in the ability to alter experience seem to be the “substrate” that enables each individual’s response to hypnotic suggestions. It is proposed that, with some notable exceptions, the hypnosis field’s understanding of hypnotizability has been hindered by theorists’ (and clinicians’) tendency to consider the instruments that reveal hypnotic phenomena (i.e., hypnosis and suggestions) to be explanatory concepts.Hypnotizability assessment can inform hypnotic interventions, and studies on brief hypnotic inductions suggest that it may also confer therapeutic benefits. However, hypnotizability is rarely assessed in clinical practice due to limitations of current measures. The Elkins Hypnotizability Scale (EHS) improved upon such limitations and has been shown to be a very reliable and valid hypnotizability measure. This is the first study to examine the feasibility of the EHS as a therapeutic measure. PKM2 inhibitor Fifty-five participants were administered the EHS and randomized to two weeks of self-hypnosis with or without a recording. Results indicated that relaxation increased immediately after EHS administration, and relaxation and psychological distress improved after two weeks of self-hypnosis with the EHS induction. These results suggest that the EHS may be considered as a therapeutic measure and an avenue to introduce self-hypnosis in clinical practice with or without audio recordings.The most well-established finding gleaned from decades of experimental hypnosis research is that individuals display marked variability in responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. Insofar as this variability impacts both treatment outcome in therapeutic applications of hypnosis as well as responsiveness to suggestions in experimental contexts, it is imperative that clinicians and researchers use robust measures of hypnotic suggestibility. The current paper critically evaluates contemporary measures of hypnotic suggestibility. After reviewing the most widely used measures, we identify multiple properties of these instruments that result in the loss of valuable information, including binary scoring and single-trial sampling, and hinder their utility, such as the inclusion of suboptimal suggestion content. The scales are not well-suited for contemporary research questions and have outlived their usefulness. We conclude by outlining ways in which the measurement of hypnotic suggestibility can be advanced.