Direct and indirect scales of hypnotic susceptibility: Resistance to therapy and psychometric comparability

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 135-147

  Robin, Betsey R ^a   Kumar, V K ^a   Pekala, Ronald J ^b  

^a WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Coatesville Virginia Medical Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALMAN WEXLER INDIRECT HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCALE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FANTASY; HARVARD GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY FORM A; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; IMAGINATION; MEMORY; PHENOMENOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM;

ATTITUDE; HUMANS; HYPNOSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SUGGESTION;

EID: 17744378194     PISSN: 00207144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207140590927617     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
2. Alman, B. M., & Carney, R. E. (1980). Consequences of direct and indirect suggestions on success of posthypnotic behavior. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23, 112-118.
3. Alman, B. M., & Wexler, D. (1988). Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (AWIHSS), In G. J. Pratt, D. P. Wood, & B. M. Alman (Eds.), Clinical hypnosis primer. Expanded and updated (pp. 379-388). New York: John Wiley.
4. Angelini, F. J., Kumar, V. K., & Chandler, L. (1999). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and related instruments: Individual and group administrations. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, 236-250.
5. Dowd, T. E., Hughes, S. L., Brockbank, L., Halpain, D., Seibel, C., & Seibel, P. (1988). Compliance-based and defiance-based intervention strategies and psychological reactance in the treatment of free and unfree behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 35, 370-376.
6. Dowd, T. E., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 541-545.
7. Fricton, J. T., & Roth, P. (1985). The effects of direct and indirect hypnotic suggestions for analgesia in high and low subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27, 226-231.
8. Groth-Marnat, G., & Mitchell, K. (1998). Responsiveness to direct versus indirect hypnotic procedures: The role of resistance as a predictor variable. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46, 324-333.
9. Kirsch, I., Council, J. R., & Wickless, C. (1990). Subjective scoring for the Harvard Group scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 38, 112-124.
10. Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & Cummings, J. (1996). Trait factors, state effects, and hypnotizability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 44, 232-249.
11. Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R., & McCloskey, M. M. (1999). Phenomenological state effects during hypnosis: A cross validation of findings. Contemporary Hypnosis, 16, 9-22.
12. Lynn, S. J., Neufeld, V., & Maré, C. (1993). Direct versus indirect suggestions: A conceptual and methodological review. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 124-152.
13. Lynn, S. J., Neufeld, V., & Matyi, C. L. (1987). Hypnotic induction versus suggestions: The effects of direct and indirect wording. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 76-80.
14. Lynn, S. J., Pintar, J., & Rhue, J. W. (1997). Fantasy proneness, dissociation, and narrative construction. In S. Krippner & S. M. Powers (Eds.), Broken images, broken selves: Dissociation narratives in clinical practice (pp. 274-304). Washington, DC: Bruner/Mazel.
15. Lynn, S. J., Weekes, J. R., Matyi. C. L., & Neufeld, V. (1988). Direct versus indirect suggestions, archaic involvement, and hypnotic experience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 296-301.
16. Matthews, W. J., Bennett, H., Bean, W., & Gallagher, M. (1985). Indirect versus direct hypnotic suggestion - an initial investigation: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 219-223.
17. Matthews, W. J., & Mosher, D. L. (1988). Direct and indirect hypnotic suggestion in a laboratory setting. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 5, 63-71.
18. Maurer, C., Santangelo, M., & Claiborn, C. D. (1993). The effects of direct versus indirect hypnotic suggestion on pain in a cold presser task. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 305-316.
19. Nash, M. R., & Spinler, D. (1989). Hypnosis and transference: A measure of archaic involvement with the hypnotist. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 129-144.
20. Orne, M. T. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277-299.
21. Pekala, R. J. (1991a). The Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory. West Chester, PA: Psychophenomenological Concepts, Mid-Atlantic Educational Institute. (Original work published in 1982)
22. Pekala, R. J. (1991b). Quantifying consciousness: An empirical approach. New York: Plenum.
23. Pekala, R. J. & Kumar, V. K. (1984). Predicting hypnotic susceptibility by a self-report instrument. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27, 114-121.
24. Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (1987). Predicting hypnotic susceptibility via a self-report instrument: A replication. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 30, 57-65.
25. Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (2000a). Individual differences in patterns of hypnotic experience across low and high susceptible individuals. In R. G. Kunzendorf & B. Wallace (Eds.), Individual differences in conscious experience (pp. 310-335). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
26. Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (2000b). Operationalizing "trance" I: Rationale and research using a psychophenomenological approach. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 43, 107-135.
27. Pekala, R. J., & Nagler, R. (1989). Assessment of hypnoidal states: Rationale and clinical application. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 31, 231-236.
28. Pekala, R. J., Steinberg, J., & Kumar, V. K. (1986). Measurement of phenomenological experience: Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 983-989.
29. Register, P. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1986). Finding the hypnotic virtuoso. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 84-97.
30. Rhue, J. W., & Lynn, S. J. (1989). Fantasy proneness, absorption, and hypnosis: A reexamination. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 100-106.
31. Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
32. Spinhoven, P., Baak, D., Van Dyck, R., & Vermeulen, P. (1988). The effectiveness of an authoritative versus permissive style of hypnotic communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 182-191.
33. Varga, K., Jósza, E., Bányai, É. I., Gösi-Greguss, A. C., & Kumar, V. K. (2001). Phenomenological experiences associated with hypnotizability. International Journal of Clincal & Experimental Hypnosis, 49, 19-29.
34. Weekes, J. R., & Lynn, S. J. (1990). Hypnosis, subjective experience, and suggestion type: The order-effects hypotheses revisited. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 38, 95-100.
35. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
36. Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1983a). The fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomenon. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery, current theory, research and applications (pp. 340-387). New York: Wiley.
37. Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1983b). Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings. Farmigham, MA: The Medfield Foundation.
38. Yapko, M. D. (1990). Trancework: An introduction to the practice of clinical hypnosis (2nd ed.). New York: Bruner/Mazel.
39. Younger, J., & Nash, M. R. (2002, November). Surrounding participant activity, distance from hypnotist and feelings of being observed as potential suggestibility confounds in group hypnotic sessions. Paper presented at the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis meeting, Boston, MA.