A non-statistical dissertation about hypnotizability scales and clinical goals: Comparison with individualized induction and deepening procedures

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Researchers and theoreticians in the field of hypnosis have insisted for some time that reports of clinical applications of hypnosis should include the patients' classification based on their responses to standardized hypnotizability scales. Accordingly, clinical scales (Barber & Wilson, 1978/79; Cooper & London, 1979; J.R. Hilgard & E.R. Hilgard, 1979; Morgan & J.R. Hilgard, 1979; Wilson & Barber, 1978) have been developed or adapted from pre-existing standardized scales. For the same purpose, the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) of Spiegel (1978). which claims reliability in classifying patients according to hypnotizability and psychopathology, has been developed and utilized. Additionally, tailored scales which include specific qualitative items have been proposed (E.R. Hilgard, Crawford, P. Bowers, & Kihlstrom, 1979). According to a few clinical investigators (Frankel, Apfel, Kelly, Benson, Quinn, Newmark, & Malmaud, 1979) no disadvantage does ensue from routinely subjecting patients to hypnotizability scales. The positive results are: accumulation of reliable information about the validity of hypnotic intervention in various clinical conditions; differentiation between results of hypnosis and results of psychotherapy; and also a determination of whether hypnotizability is a fixed talent or whether it can be improved with training. With the individual patient the use of hypnotizability scales would rapidly indicate if his score will be high enough for certain specific applications and in general to determine whether therapy with hypnosis should even be attempted. The present author recognizes the rationale for the use of scales in the therapeutic realm, especially if the results are to be reported. The present author notes, however, that the generally accepted hypnotizability scales give disproportionate weight to some categories of hypnotic responses, but they are not comprehensive enough to tap all the possible capabilities of individual patients. Standardized scales of hypnotizability rely almost entirely upon written or spoken instructions and therefore miss the opportunities of nonverbal communication. Also, most hypnotizability scales implicitly seem only to recognize hypnosis obtained by progressive relaxation as “the typical hypnosis.” Some examples are presented to clarify how the use of standardized scales or of HIP (Spiegel, 1978) would wrongly classify a considerable minority of patients as nonhyp-notizablc or poorly hypnotizable, thus depriving them of potential therapeutic benefits.