Hypnotic Susceptibility Revisited

TLDR

Hypnotic susceptibility is re‑examined in relation to hypnotizability, hypnotic depth, and suggestibility, noting that existing measures are largely ineffective but some warrant further study. The study proposes future research directions on hypnotic susceptibility. The authors find that standard scales overlook key aspects of hypnosis, that training claims conflate core hypnotizability with ancillary processes, and that distinctions between clinical and laboratory hypnotizability are premature.

Abstract

Abstract The concept and measurement of hypnotic susceptibility are re-examined in their relation to hypnotizability, hypnotic depth and suggestibility. The Stanford Scales and similar instruments are found to have failed to take into account essential features defining traditional hypnosis and suggestibility and to have created confusion in the scientific inquiry into hypnotism. Other available measures have not been particularly successful, but some bear further attention. Recent claims that hypnotizability can be trained have failed to distinguish between hypnotizability proper and accessory processes, leaving some question about what is actually being trained. Possible future directions of work on susceptibility are considered. Attempts to distinquish between "clinical" and "laboratory" hypnotizability are examined and found to have been premature and loosely based on facts.