introduction -...

High Hypnotizables’ Subjective Experience 1

Introduction

Experience is never limited, and it is never complete; it is an immense sensibility, a

kind of huge spider-web of the finest silken threads suspended in the chamber of

consciousness, and catches ever air-borne particle in its tissue.

~ Henry James, Partial Portraits: The art of Fiction, 1888

1.1 Definition

The field of hypnosis dates back to over 200 years and still remains as a strong

area for researchers to unravel the mysteries of the hypnotic phenomena. Though

hypnosis is practised from time immemorial, as an area of scientific inquiry, the field

fails to establish an agreed definition on what hypnosis is. American Psychological

Association, Division 30 (Psychological Hypnosis) defined Hypnosis as a procedure:

Hypnosis typically involves an introduction to the procedure during which the

subject is told that suggestions for imaginative experiences will be presented.

The hypnotic induction is an extended initial suggestion for using one's

imagination, and may contain further elaborations of the introduction. A

hypnotic procedure is used to encourage and evaluate responses to

suggestions. When using hypnosis, one person (the subject) is guided by

another (the hypnotist) to respond to suggestions for changes in subjective

experience, alterations in perception, sensation, emotion, thought or behaviour.

(Barnier and Nash, 2008, p. 7).


1.2 Historical Significance

The art and science of hypnosis is both from the past and present. It was

earlier practised by healers, shamans, witchdoctors, Hindu fakirs and now by

psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctors, dentists, and others. Healing practices

similar to hypnotic phenomena existed even before the term hypnosis was coined.

The experience of the state was described as trance state or sleep-like state. Trance

state was achieved through drumming, chanting, repetition of prayers and use of

hallucinogenic drugs to deepen trance state.

An evident treatment in Egyptian medicine was recorded on Ebers Papyrus

dating back to 1500 BC. Healing practices adopted by the physicians while working

with distressed individuals included placing their hands on patient’s head or body

while chanting which resulted in cure of the illness. Later, various temples were built

by the Egyptians called as Sleep temples, where priests performed these rituals to heal

the sick.

In India, right from the days of Vedas, the yogis/sages were interested in

understanding and controlling mental processes. The vedic thinkers were more

focused on the order of the inner world rather than with the order of the outer world.

They recognized the connection between rhythmic breathing and mental imagery

(Copelan, 2003). Way back in 200 B.C the Yogasutras of Patanjali prescribed eight

steps called ‘Astangas’ of yoga. In sequentical order, the first five steps are Yama

(self- restraint), Niyama (observances), Asanas (bodily posture) and Pranayama

(control of vital force through breathing) and Pratyahara (withdrawal of control over

sensory organs) and also comprises of three higher steps of Astangas that is Dharana


(focussing the attention on a single object), Dhyana (meditation) and Samadhi (the

highest state of transcendental meditation, that is becoming one with the supreme

cosmic force/energy). The state akin to Samadhi is Yoga nidra. Yoga nidra is a sleep

like condition, but the individual will be fully conscious and with total awareness. In

this state of conscious deep sleep, one experiences relaxation of both the mind and the

body. Ontani (2003) pointed out that the aspects common between eastern meditation

and hypnosis is the role of absorption in both and that the practitioners of these

techniques require mental concentration and receptivity.

In the modern era, the ancestor of the field can be traced back to Franz Anton

Mesmer (1734-1815) with his theory of animal magnetism, grounded in physiology.

He proposed the existence of a universal fluid similar with properties to mineral

magnetism. This magnetic fluid mediated by a network of magnetic poles interacted

with the human nervous system, removed any blockages in the body which resulted in

curing the illness and many of the patients experienced convulsion. Mesmer

borrowed from Dr. Maxwell’s ideas of the influence of imagination and suggestions

in animal magnetism. He was aware of the role of suggestions, when describing

Gassner’s exorcism procedures, but denied the role of verbal and non-verbal

suggestions in animal magnetism. He identified individual differences in

responsivity to the effects of magnetic fluid, but ignored it as it could limit the

benefits of animal magnetism to all patients.

It was Mesmer’s student Marquis de Puységur (1751- 1825) who stressed on

the individual difference when magnetized. He was amazed by the abilities of

somnabules such as those who experienced sleep-like state, responded to instructions,


demonstrated unusual experiences, woke up with amnesia. They were able to travel

into the past and even predict the future. He termed this phenomenon as Artificial

Somnambulism. He noticed that 8 out of 61 cases demonstrated somnambulistic

behaviour. In 1784 Benjamin Franklin Commission of Inquiry into Animal

Magnetism disowned Mesmer’s theory but ‘suggested that imagination-based

expectations, reflexive imitative tendency and the effects of the physical passes were

responsible for the reported improvement in patients’ health’ (Laurence, Beaulieu-

Prévost and du Chénée, 2008).

Abbé de Faria (1756 - 1819) was a catholic priest from Goa, India. In Paris,

he demonstrated animal magnetism and stated that one in five or six display

somnabule behaviour and experience of more than 5,000 individuals he subjected to

‘magnetic sleep’. He described that individual’s response to ‘lucid or magnetic sleep’

as their ability to concentrate on the suggestion sleep, irrespective of whether or not

they were magnetized. He emphasized on the role of belief and will and that cures

were due to expectancy and co-operation of the patient and due to not magnetism

(Kroger, 1963; Pintar and Lynn, 2008). He also recognized that some people were

better in achieving lucid sleep and called them ‘natural epoptes’ (Pintar and Lynn,

2008). He explained that individuals were born with abilities such as ‘the ability to

relegate to the periphery of attention internal and external sensory information, the

ability to set aside critical thinking to let the suggestion travel its course and a

tendency to misattribute the effects elicited by suggestions to the magnetizer’

(Laurence, Beaulieu-Prévost and du Chénée, 2008). He was the first to depart from

magnetism and demonstrated the existence of autosuggestion. This was further


expanded by Emile Coué (1857-1926) who recognized the role of autosuggestion,

which foreshadowed the developed self hypnosis as a therapeutic technique.

John Elliotson (1791- 1868) a student of phrenology and mesmerism was a

professor at London University and a practising physician at the University College

Hospital (Pintar and Lynn, 2008). Influenced by the work of Dupotet in 1837,

Elliotson advocated mesmerism as serious science. He was criticized by editorials in

Lancet and was called a quack and imposter. He eventually resigned but continued

experimenting the use of mesmerism and published his work of ‘painless operations

and mesmeric phenomena’ in his journal Zoist.

Dr. James Esdaile (1808–1859), a Scottish surgeon set up practice in Calcutta,

India, where he remained most of his life. He was a man of extreme medical

intelligence and probably performed many surgical operations with the use of

hypnosis as anaesthesia. His greatest contribution was in promoting the value of

hypnosis in creating anaesthesia and analgesia. Hypnosis was widely used in medical

practices for conducting painless surgery. In the 1890’s it played a vital role in child

birth and pain relief treatment and continues till date.

James Braid (1795 – 1860) coined the term ‘hypnotism’ after the Greek word

‘Hypnos’, meaning ‘sleep’. He later realised that hypnotism was not a form of sleep

and his efforts to rename hypnosis were in vain. He explained hypnosis as psycho-

physiological process ‘characterized by a fixed stare, complete body relaxation,

suppressed breathing and fixed attention on the words of the hypnotist’ (Heap, Brown

and Oakley, 2004). This was later explained as ‘involving monoideism- the


concentration of attention on single object’ (Kihlstorm, 2008). He argued that ‘the

degree of expectation increased the subject’s susceptibility to suggestion’ (Kroger,

1963).

In the late 19th

century hypnotism was practiced extensively. There emerged

two schools of thought. One was headed by Jean Martin Charcot, at La Salpetriere

Hospital in Paris. He favoured Mersermist’s theory and argued that hypnotism was a

state of abnormal functioning of nervous system found in certain hysterical women.

Hypnosis was a form of hysteria and that it was dangerous (Kroger, 1963), whereas,

Bernheim and Lièbeault of University of Nancy explained hypnotism as involving

psychological functions and that anybody can be hypnotised, the resulting effects are

because of the suggestions. They introduced ‘the concept of suggestion and

suggestibility and also believed that symptom removal was effective and harmless’

(Kroger, 1963).

Pierre Janet (1859-1947), French psychologist and also a student of Charcot

focused on pathological expressions of hysterical subjects. He developed hypnotic

psychotherapy on the basis of the concept ‘disassociation’ (Pintar & Lynn, 2008).

Dissociation theory was disregarded because ‘there was more hyper-acuity and a

better co-ordination of all the senses instead of amnesia or dissociation during

hypnosis’ (Kroger, 1963).

This was followed by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who popularised regression

in hypnotherapy along with emphasis on catharsis as a therapeutic method. He was

influenced by Characot’s view that hypnosis was an indication of weakness and


pathological state of nervous disposition. He eventually abandoned hypnosis because

he was embarrassed by the lack of his ability to hypnotize patients to attain a deep

state of hypnosis and the cures were temporary, since post-hypnotic suggestions could

not be maintained.

In 1955, the British Medical Association gave its unqualified approval of

hypnosis, following that with the instructions to the Council on Medical Health to

investigate the value of hypnosis in medicine. On April 23, 1955, the British Medical

Association (BMA) approved the use of hypnosis in the areas of psychoneuroses and

hypnoanesthesia in pain management in childbirth and surgery. At this time, the

BMA also advised all physicians and medical students to receive fundamental training

in hypnosis. At the June 1958 meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA),

hypnosis was approved as a medical tool by a considerable majority.

In the 20th

century, interest in hypnosis was revived by Clark Hull (1933) from

behaviouristic school. His work was preceded by Pavlov, who argued that hypnotic

phenomena result from the symbolic or experiential conditioning of words. Pavlov

suggested that ‘words can become conditioned stimuli, which may in turn produce

physiological reactions. These in turn are copies of built-in or organic reflexes

already present in the organism’(Kroger, 1963).

Hull found that hypnotic and non-hypnotic responsiveness to suggestions were

highly correlated. He also showed that reduction in pain and inhibition of memory

recall can be achieved due to the effect of suggestion and motivation without

considering hypnosis as a unique state. He published and encouraged experimental

research of hypnosis and suggestion. He published his first influential book


‘Hypnosis and Suggestibility’. This lead to the growth of several scientific studies of

hypnosis, as it could be explained rationally, and thus hypnosis began to gain

acceptance.

During World War II, a small group of clinicians used hypnosis to provide

pain relief and later went on to form Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

(SCEH) and some followed Milton Erickson, who formed American Society of

Clinical Hypnosis in 1957 (Perry, 2009). Milton Erickson (1960s) a member of

AMA, popularized the use of indirect suggestion by making use of metaphors, double

binds and adapting confusion techniques. He emphasised on behavioural markers

such as literalness, spontaneous catalepsy and amnesia in defining hypnotic trance

state. He also stressed on the uniqueness of individuals experience in hypnosis. His

approach is commonly known as the Ericksonian Hypnotherapy.

Between 1960s and 1990s three hypnosis research laboratories developed

namely Stanford University headed by Ernest and Josephine Hilgard, University of

Pennsylvania under the guidance of Martion. T. Orne, Emily Carota Orne and David

F. Dinges and lastly Medfield Hospital in Massachusetts under Theodore. C. Barber.

(Perry, 2009)

Throughout the history it was seen that a selected few individuals responded

differently to hypnosis remained stable, but theoretical explanation of this varied in

line with the development of psychology field. Some theorists argued that everyone

could be hypnotized, or their ability to be hypnotized could be modified with training

and emphasized the role of suggestions.


1.3 Theories of Hypnosis

Theories of hypnosis have generally been divided into psychological and

physiological theories. Three classifications of psychological theories which explain

hypnotic mechanisms are:

1. Neodissociation theories of hypnosis

2. Sociocognitive theories of hypnosis

3. Phenomenological theories of hypnosis.

1.3.1 Neodissociation theories of hypnosis (Hilgard, 1986)

Ernest Hilgard (1904-2001) developed his theory based on earlier work of the

French Psychiatrist Pierre Janet (1856-1947). This theory suggests that the subject is

in a state of divided consciousness, in which different layers of awareness are

separated from one another.

Neo disassociation theory proposes a hierarchy of cognitive systems, each dissociated

from each other, but under the control of an 'executive ego'. He further explains the

existence of amnesia barrier, which is ‘prevented from representing itself in

consciousness’ and the 'hidden observer effect' referring to the awareness of the

behavior and experience in the dissociated state. ‘According to neo dissociation

theory, hypnotizability is a stable cognitive trait related to individual’s ability to

experience dissociative phenomena’ (Heap, Brown and Oakley, 2004). The

facilitation of a 'hypnotic trance state' can influence and change the executive

functions (via suggestions) and alter the hierarchical arrangements of the

substructures. Hilgard believes that this is what takes place when motor controls,

perceptions and memory are changed. Under hypnotic influence, the hypnotist can

repress normally available conscious experience and make normally repressed


processes more accessible. He also states that dissociation is not unique to hypnosis,

but also describes a variety of mundane experiences as well (e.g., unintentionally

driving home, when one was intending to drive to a less usual destination).

Bowers proposed Dissociated Control Theory in defense of neodissociation

position, based on Norman and Shallice (1986) model of action control. This theory

states that involuntariness is the result of hypnotic induction which leads to inhibition

of high-level executive or Supervisory attentional systems (SAS) or central processing

resources responsible for control of volition (will). The suggested phenomena are the

result of activation of low-level cognitive control structures or schemata triggered by

hypnotist words and not by subject’s awareness or will (Woody and Sadler, 2008;

Brown and Oakley, 2004).

This theory contrasts socio-cognitive approaches which explain hypnotic

behaviour of involuntariness as attribution of involuntariness, but executed

voluntarily. One limitation of this theory is that hypnotic phenomena can be

suggested without hypnotic induction; therefore the explanatory power of dissociated

control theory is reduced. (Brown and Oakley, 2004).

Another person who has extended neo dissociation theory recently is

Kihlstrom, who addressed types of dissociation that may occur in the context of

hypnosis between ‘experience and memory, pain and the experience of pain’. He also

suggested ‘incorporating new models of cognitive psychology into hypnosis theory

and research’ especially memory models (Pintar & Lynn, 2008).


1.3.2 Socio-cognitive theories of hypnosis (Coe and Sarbin, Spanos, Wagstaff)

Sociocognitive theories do not regard hypnosis as an altered state or single

state, but explain hypnotic experience and response from social, cognitive and

psychological perspective. They accept dissociation as descriptive, but not

explanatory phenomenon. Three fundamental ideas are commonly presented by the

socio-cognitive theorist: Firstly, hypnotized individuals experience change in

consciousness in response to the role they are playing. Secondly, subjects are

actively responding to the demands of the situation presented by the hypnotist.

Thirdly, it is the result of certain psychological processes such as conformity,

imagination, belief, attitudes, expectations, attention, concentration etc.

According to Theodore. R. Sarbin’s (1911-2005) role theory individuals take

up hypnotic roles and demonstrate hypnotic response behaviorally when they have

experienced those suggestions subjectively. He used the term ‘role taking’ not ‘role

playing’ because subjects were not pretending to experience hypnosis and might be

unaware of the role they are taking on. Differences exist in hypnotic response

because individuals differ in their ability to involve in hypnotic role. Sarbin (1950s)

with colleague Coe identified variables influencing the subject’s hypnotic response

such as knowledge, expectations and imagination. He coined the term ‘believed-in-

imaginings’ to describe the spontaneous distortion of reality that can occur both in

hypnotic and non-hypnotic context (Pintar & Lynn, 2008).

Another prominent socio-cognitive theorist Theodore X. Barber conducted a

series of studies in 1960s and 1970s and concluded that ‘hypnotic responses were

strongly correlated with attitudes, expectancies, the wordings and tone of suggestions,


motivations, the definition of the situation as ‘hypnosis’, suggestions for relaxation,

the wordings of the inquiry with which the response is assessed, and the behavior

adopted by the experimenter’ (Pintar & Lynn, 2008, p127).

Nicholas P. Spanos (1942-1994) combines the above two theories and

explains the manifestations of hidden observer phenomenon as a result of ‘sensitivity

to beliefs and expectations, both pre-existing and those arising from situational

demands, explicitness of instructional cues and not spontaneously occurring

dissociated aspects of the personality’ (Pintar & Lynn, 2008). In his multi factorial

model he contends that the ‘behavior is directed by personal goals, perceptions,

attribution's of the social task and private experience’ (Pekala, 2009a). He coined the

term ‘special process’ as an alternative label for altered state of consciousness. He

conceived of hypnotic responding as involving a process of ‘strategic enactment’ that

is, adopting a cognitive strategy to create the responses and experiences suggested by

the hypnotist.

Wagstaff maintains that different hypnotic behaviors displayed by subjects

will require different explanations (Pekala, 2009a). He was influenced by the work of

Barber, Sarbin and Orne. He mentioned about the three stages involved in enactment

of hypnotic role, that is expectation, strategy and compliance that is ‘overtly

responding to suggestions in the required manner while privately experiencing the

opposite’ (Wagstaff, 2004).


Irving Krisch in his ‘response expectancy theory’ again emphasizes on the role

of expectancy of the subject. He explains that hypnotic induction acts as placebo

drugs and that subject’s expectation of their hypnotic response produce hypnotic

experiences that produce alteration result in both their subjective state (in pain,

anxiety, etc) and objective physiological conditions. Steven Lynn’s ‘integrative

model’ emphasizes on unconscious determinant of hypnotic response and examines

the situational, personal, and interpersonal factors that subjects integrate during a

hypnotic induction.

Kirsch and Lynn (1997) in their ‘response set theory’ mainly emphasize on

subjective experiences of non-volition in hypnotic subjects. They propose that

subjects enter hypnosis with generalized response expectancy, engaging in

experiencing the suggestion given by hypnotist leading to alteration in their

experience, which depends on the response sets (relationship between individual

action and events in environment) placed before execution of behaviour. Therefore,

the subjects experience involuntariness of hypnotic behaviour by attributing it to

external cause. The role of expectancies and intentions do not require much attention,

therefore response is automatic or quasi-automatic operation and this interferes in

‘initiating, interrupting, continuing and terminating action’. Motor movements may

require less or no attention, but motor challenge entail ‘intentionality and attentional

resources to produce and maintain suggested response’ (Lynn, Kirsch and Hallquist,

2008). Therefore, it is suggestions and altered experience that trigger response sets

operating in an automatic manner.


1.3.3 Interactive Phenomenological theories of hypnosis (McConkey; Sheehan)

Interactive Phenomenological theories focused on explaining subjective

experience with regard to interaction between multiple variables such as attitudes,

beliefs, expectations and demand characteristic. They also emphasized the individual

differences in hypnotic experience as the result of their personality trait and/or

abilities.

Orne began his investigation of the subjective experiences of hypnotic subjects

in the 1950s and developed phenomenological or interactive model of hypnosis.

Nadon, Laurence and Perry’s synergistic model highlights the combination of

variables such as cognitive, affective, personality and context effects to explain

hypnotic performance. They argued that hypnotic response is not a result of

personality or situational factors alone, but it is important to consider the

interrelationship between the two to understand the ‘multidimensional nature of

hypnosis’ (Lynn and Rhue, 1991).

Sheehan’s contextual model is mainly based on the subject’s ‘motivated

cognitive commitment’ or active effort taken by individual to solve problems, along

with interaction between factors such as rapport with the hypnotist and the context in

which suggestions are framed (Lynn and Rhue, 1991). This theory also looked into

the ‘fine-grained variation’ in responsiveness to suggestions among very highly

suggestible participants.


McConkey emphasized the individual and the intra individual difference in

responding to suggestions, which reflects the interplay of the subject’s cognitive skills

(e.g., attention) and personal trait (e.g., absorption) especially among high

hypnotizable. He examined the meaning the subjects place on the hypnotist’s

communications and idiosyncratic ways in which they cognitively process

suggestions. Therefore it is about how the individuals interpret the given suggestions

that is important than the hypnotist. (McConkey 2008; Pintar and Lynn, 2008; Lynn

and Rhue, 1991).

These theories place importance on the interaction of multiple variables during

hypnosis, which are dependent upon the understandings of the subject’s experience

(Lynn and Rhue, pg. 11). Parallels exist between this and the Socio-

cognitive perspective on the importance of the multitude of interactive cognitive and

situational determinants (attitudes, beliefs, expectancies etc.). In addition, the

subject’s personality traits have a prominent role in shaping the hypnotic experience.

Banyai’s socio-psychobiological model is a multidimensional approach giving

‘equal importance to behavioral, experiential, relational, physiological dimensions of

hypnosis’ (Lynn and Rhue, 1991).

There are many theories proposed to explain the complex phenomenon of

hypnosis, but no one theory is successful in achieving this. The above mentioned

theories were presented to provide an idea of hypnosis theories.


1.4 Need for Study

Research in hypnosis is broadly classified as either intrinsic and/or

instrumental as claimed by Reyher in 1962 (Cox & Bryant, 2008). Whereas intrinsic

research attempts to understand the phenomena of hypnosis itself and aims to identify

the factors that underpin hypnotic responding on the other hand instrumental research

uses hypnosis as a tool to investigate other phenomena, the present study is an

intrinsic research. Intrinsic research focuses on major theories of hypnosis (e.g.,

dissociated-control, socio-cognitive and interactive phenomenological theories) and

attempts to identify the cognitive, social or phenomenological antecedents to hypnotic

responding (Cox and Bryant, 2008). The basic questions that have been asked in the

field of hypnosis are ‘about the impact of hypnosis on behavioural control versus

monitoring, about hypnosis as an altered state, about the correlates of hypnotizability,

about the impact of hypnotic suggestions and about the best explanation for hypnotic

effects’ (Barnier and Nash, 2008).

One of the interesting domains of hypnosis that fascinates most of the

researchers is the highly hypnotizable group and their behavioural responses and

subjective experiences. They comprise of a very small portion of the general

population of 2 to 4 percent as estimated by Wilson and Barber (Lynn, Meyer and

Shindler, 2004, p 188). According to Hilgard (1965) individuals who score high on

standard hypnotizability scales comprise of 10% to 15 % of the population. These

individuals who have the ability to be hypnotized or who are susceptible to hypnosis

have been widely studied based on their behavioural performance and less attention is

given to their phenomenological experience, whereas, individuals who have similar


hypnotizablity score, who demonstrate same behavioural response to hypnotic

suggestions, may have different phenomenological experiences (Cox and Bryant,

2008). Therefore, the main focus of this study is to examine the subjective experience

of a few selected individuals who respond in intriguing manner under hypnosis.

The following are the specific objectives:

1. To examine specific profile of highly hypnotizable individuals.

Individuals differ in their behavioural and experiential responses to hypnosis.

High hypnotizables do not show uniform pattern of response to hypnotic suggestions

(McConkey and Barnier, 2004) or hypnotic induction (Terhun and Cardeña 2010).

Therefore, it is important to examine specific profile of high hypnotizables.

A variation in individuals’ experience of a particular state exists at two levels.

Firstly, highly hypnotizbles may differ in terms of the dimensions that they

experience. Secondly the intensity of their experience of these dimensions may also

vary. The aim of the second objective is to identify the dimensions of subjective

experience and the level at which a particular dimension was experienced by highly

hypnotizables during hypnosis.

2. To examine the structure and pattern of subjective experiences among

highly hypnotizable individuals. To further examine the dimensions of

experience common and unique to highly hypnotizable individuals.


The term ‘Structure’ is referred to the dimensions of phenomenological

experience and the term ‘Pattern’ is referred to the intensity of the various dimensions

experienced. Structure involves ‘the foreground (ideas referring to present moment-

attention, memory etc.,) background (general persistent awareness of time, place,

personal identity etc.,) and aerial awareness (one’s self awareness) of the field’

(Pekala, 1991, p.36). Mc Conkey and Barnier (2004) pointed out that studying the

structure of phenomenological experience of hypnosis assists in establishing the

pattern abilities that exist among highly hypnotizable individuals.

Investigating the above will contribute in better understanding of the

complexities of hypnotic response of highly hypnotizable individuals, in theoretical

understanding of hypnotizability and in effective clinical application of hypnosis. The

present study is about examining subjective experience during hypnosis by highly

hypnotizable individuals through psychophenomenological approach. It is called

Psychophenomenology to distinguish it from philosophical phenomenology.

‘Psychophenomenology was designed not only to describe but empirically quantify

and statistically assess the phenomena of consciousness in a reliable and valid

manner’ (Pekala, 1991, p3). This was achieved by using Phenomenology

Consciousness Inventory- Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP), which looks

into:

1. Dimensions of the subjective experience such as : Positive affect (love,

sexual excitement, joy) ; Negative affect (anger, sadness, fear) ; Altered

experiences (time sense, perception, body image and meaning) ; Imagery

(amount, vividness) ; Attention (absorption, direction; Self awareness) ;

Altered state of awareness ; Internal dialogue ; Rationality ; Volitional


Control ; Memory ; Arousal. Highly hypnotizables will be assessed on

these 26 dimensions to examine their experience during hypnosis.

2. Factors that influence phenomenological experience such as altered state

effects, hypnotic depth, expectancy, imagoic suggestibility, classic

suggestion effect were also studied.

Using PCI- HAP has an advantage of not just studying one dimension which

correlates with hypnotizability such as absorption, but also identifies various other

dimensions at the same time such as imagery, attention, memory etc,. The present

study was taken up noticing the limited investigations carried out to study the subject

experience of high hypnotizable individuals under hypnosis using Phenomenology

Consciousness Inventory.

This study of the subjective experience of individuals under hypnosis is an

attempt to explore the subjective experience of highly hypnotizable individuals to

understand how these individuals experience the given suggestion that influence their

hypnotic response. The study emerges from the noticeable lack of detail in the

literature with regard to the experience of high hypnotizable individuals under

hypnosis.


Literature Review

The argument of whether hypnotic phenomena and hypnotic responsiveness is

due to the result of altered state or due to cognitive and social behavior or due to the

ability of the subject continues from 1950s. Pintar and Lynn (2008) state that some

theorists support the view of altered state and do not consider hypnotizability as a

stable trait factor and others support non-state aspect and argue that hypnotic ability

can be modified. Even though the terms ‘state’ and ‘non-state’ were gradually

replaced by the more descriptive terms ‘special process’ and ‘socio-cognitive’ in the

1980s the debate still continues.

2.1 State effect

It is important to define Consciousness, before going to explain hypnosis as

Altered State of Consciousness (ASC). According to Pekala (2009) Consciousness is

defined as ‘one's awareness of one's subjective experience, including both the

processes of being aware and the various contents of that awareness’. This includes

what Husserl (1913/72) would define as:

The noeses (the subjective intentional acts of consciousness, i.e., perceiving,

willing, imaging, etc.) and noema (the objects of consciousness, i.e., thoughts,

feelings, visualizations, etc.) of that experience, including whatever

awareness/attention is capable of being aware of, and also encompasses states

and altered state of consciousness. (Pekala,1991, p. 34)


In the Indian philosophical systems, the word ‘CHAITANYA’ had been used

widely to denote consciousness. The vedic thinkers were preoccupied with the

problem of consciousness, the relation of body, sense organs, and mind, to

consciousness and the states of consciousness, viz., waking, dreaming, sleep and

turiya. The whole of Mandukyopanishath is devoted to explain the altered state of

consciousness. The most important method followed was the analysis of experience,

the anubhava, and producing the experience in order to test the validity of assumption

by ‘Sakshatkara’ - direct realisation, this lead to insightful reflections regarding dream

state and deep sleep state.

The first condition is ‘Jagratha’ or waking state knowledge is produced by the

contact of the sense-organs with the sense-objects. In this state there is actual contact

with external objects. One’s decision/choice is influenced by bodily needs, their own

upbringing, previous experience and other social factors. In the second condition,

‘Svapna’ or the dream state, consciousness is inward; it is simulated from internal

factors. The experiences are conditioned through samskaras or past impressions,

memories, desires and imagination. The third state is the ‘Sushupthi’ or the deep-

sleep state. This state is characterised by no mental images and presence of

awareness. Here, all experiences become undifferentiated and unified. According to

Mandukya Upanishad, the highest state is turiya or transcendent state of

consciousness, where one is aware of the first three conditions without being a

participant.


Ashby in 1963 defined state as ‘any well-defined condition or property that

can be recognized if it occurs again’ (as cited by Pekala, 1991). In the state and non-

state debate in hypnosis one end of the continuum represents the belief in the

traditional concept that hypnotic state is different from waking state. This view is

supported by Tart (1972) and defines altered state of consciousness (ASC) as "a

qualitative alteration in the overall pattern of mental functioning such that the

experiencer feels his [or her] consciousness is radically different from the 'normal'

way it functions" (Pekala, 1991). Barber (1969) defined altered state of consciousness

as ‘the output resulting from a particular input’ (Kihlstorm, 2008).

Erickson identified particular behaviour markers as a characteristic of trance

state that is ‘literalness, spontaneous catalepsy and amnesia’. He also stressed that the

experience of hypnosis is unique to each individual. Nash, an ego- psychological

theorist influenced by psychoanalytic theory proposed that ‘hypnosis engenders a

special state of psychological regression with specific properties that include an

increase in primary process material (imagination, fantasy, etc), more spontaneous

and intense emotion, unusual body sensations, the experience of non-volition and the

tendency to develop a special rapport with the hypnotist’ (Pintar and Lynn, 2008).

Bowers and Woody (1937-1996) proposed dissociated control theory and explain

hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness in which ‘the frontal lobes are inhibited;

as a result the hypnotic subject loses executive control over his/her behavior’

(Wagstaff, 2004). Recently, supporting state aspect of hypnosis neurophysiological

research have been conducted, this can be seen in the works of Barabasz, William

Ray, Vilfrado De Pascalis, Amir Raz, David Oakley, Pierre Rainville, Stephen

Kosslynn.


The other end of the continuum represents the views of theorists who use the

state construct to describe the hypnotic phenomena (e.g., Kilhstrom) and others who

reject state theory (e.g., Kirsch, Lynn and Wagstaff). At the center of the continuum

is Hilgard’s view that hypnosis as an altered state is similar to ‘daydreaming or

listening to music’, because the process involved in these phenomena is dissociation.

Hilgard (1975) and Shor (1959, 1962) stated that ‘the trance controversy in hypnosis

concerns the extent to which trait, situational, and state variables account for more of

the variance of hypnotic response’ (cited in Pekala, 1991). Tellegen (1979)

suggested focusing on interacting variables (trait, state and situation) to explain

hypnotic response. Similarly, David Spiegel, argued that ‘the ability to be absorbed in

experiences and focus attention, along with suggestibility and dissociation, can

account for responsiveness to hypnosis’ (Pintar & Lynn, 2008).

Studying the pattern (that is the relationship of sub dimensions) and structures

of consciousness as a function of hypnotic susceptibility, which contribute to

determine a particular state of consciousness is suggested by Tart (Pekala, 1991).

Pekala investigated the structure of consciousness to determine the

phenomenological effects of hypnosis as a function of individual difference. He

observed that high susceptible reported a different pattern of phenomenological

subsystems of consciousness to hypnosis as against baseline condition and low

susceptible.


Pekala presented a methodology to statistically assess states of consciousness.

He proposed that if high susceptible reported significant pattern difference in

phenomenological experience and a subjective sense of altered state (SSAS)

compared to the other state then they can be assessed as experiencing ASC. Results

supported this hypothesis, revealing that for hypnotic condition, all reported altered

state of awareness against eye closed sitting quiet period. Although, high susceptible

reported increase SSAS, they showed less variation in structure (pattern of subsystem)

during hypnotic condition which is different of medium and low susceptible. Pattern

analysis was done using Jennrich chisquare test and graphically represented through

Psygrams. The same study was conducted by Pekala and Kumar (1989) with different

subject pool and results supported the previous study. This proves the replicability of

the methodology in assessing pattern structures across stimulus condition and subject

groups. Sample for these studies were participants of introductory psychology course.

Sample size ranged between 6 to 4oo plus in the above mentioned studies conducted

by Pekala.

In the present study the focus is on examining the structure and pattern of

subjective experience of only one group (high susceptible) in one stimulus condition

(hypnosis). Therefore, ‘within group analysis’ will be carried out, to find out if all

high susceptible experience altered self awareness and various other dimensions.

Pattern of their experience will be studied by examining their intensity score on

dimensions of PCI through Phenomenological Intensity Score (PIPS). Since the

sample size is 10, Psygram cannot be computed, as it requires minimum of 50- 60

samples.


2.2 Subjective experience:

Hilgard (1975) stated that ‘hypnotic responsiveness is more a matter of the

characteristics of the subject than of the state produced by the hypnotic induction’.

Studying dimensions of subjective experience in relation to trait aspect will help in

determining why some individuals easily enter altered state of consciousness

(Pekala,1991). Therefore, it is important to distinguish trait and state aspects.

According to Orne, the ‘essence’ of hypnosis lies in the subjective experience

of the hypnotized individual. The internal, private experiences of a hypnotized

individual are also crucial along with examining their behavioural responses to

hypnotic suggestions for developing a comprehensive understanding of hypnotic

abilities (McConkey, 2008).

Rainville and Price (2003) described a model of conscious phenomenology

that demonstrates the experiential characteristics of hypnosis. Consistent with

Barabasz et al. (1999) who showed that ERPs markers ‘… reflect alterations in

consciousness that correspond to participants’ subjective experiences of perceptual

alteration’, Rainville and Price’s model of consciousness shows that the experiential

dimensions of relaxation, absorption (focused attention), orientation and self-

monitoring reflect basic phenomenal properties of consciousness’ (Barabasz &

Barabasz). In other words, the study points out that these changes in experiential

dimensions of individuals are associated with changes in their brain activity produced

by hypnosis. ‘There is currently an agreement that, in addition to the changes in

external behaviour, suggestions presented in a hypnotic context may give rise to

changes in subjective experience. Yet, there is no general agreement about the


theoretical framework within which these changes in experience should be explained’

(Kallio and Revonsuo 2003).

Woody and McConkey (2003, 2005) argued for a need of componential

approach to assess ‘emergent properties of hypnosis and that there may be changes in

consciousness during hypnosis’ (McConkey, 2008). Through factor analysis they

yielded four subscales of hypnotic response, viz., direct motor, motor challenge,

perceptual-cognitive and post-hypnotic amnesia responding. This was drawn based

on factor analysis of Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A and

Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. These subscales form the building

blocks of hypnotic response. They analyzed data from four experiments to examine

different building blocks of hypnotic response. ‘These were experiments on (a)

suggested color blindness (Mallard & Bryant, 2001), (b) posthypnotic amnesia for

autobiographical memory (Barnier et al., 2004), (c) verbal posthypnotic suggestion

(Barnier & McConkey, 1996, Experiment 2), and (d) motor posthypnotic suggestions

(Barnier & McConkey, 1999b)’. Woody and Szechtman (2000) emphasized that

‘feelings of knowing or subjective convictions’ is the underlying subjective factor of

hypnotic response. They consist of different subjective experiences triggering

specific property that is required to respond to different subscales. For example, a

motor challenge suggestion involves experience of involuntariness; that is, trying to

do something but failing, whereas for Perceptual-cognitive subscales involve ‘feeling

of external reality in the face of an inconsistent actual reality’ (Woody, Barnier and

McConkey, 2005). Hallucination is an example for this kind of experience.


Figure 2.2: Hierarchical factor model of hypnotizability.

Results from ‘Multiple hypnotizablities: differentiating the building blocks of

hypnotic performance’, by E.Z. Woody, A.J. Barnier and K.M. McConkey (2005),

Psychological Assessment, 17: 200-211.

Woody and McConkey (2008) suggested that future research may focus on

examining subjective experience and state changes of individuals during hypnosis to

predict hypnotic response. In this study PCI-HAP records the dimensions of

subjective experiences for perceptual-cognitive suggestion (two minute sitting quite

period, to continue the experience of vacation, that is, hypnotic dream suggestion). In

post-assessment the subjective experiences are assessed both quantitatively and

qualitatively. Assessment of direct motor (finger rising) item is only quantitative and

that of motor challenge (eye catalepsy) item is both quantitative and qualitative. The

purpose is not to predict hypnotic response using PCI but to assess subjective

experience underlying highly hypnotizable individual’s hypnotic response.


In summary, although hypnotic suggestions can produce measurable changes

in overt behaviour these alone do not define the essence of hypnosis. Instead, certain

subjective experiences are the crux of hypnosis. Therefore, tracking experience of

hypnosis is as important as measuring behavioural response for understanding the

hypnotic phenomena.

2.3 Hypnotizability

2.3.1 Introduction

Hypnotizability, hypnotic suggestibility, hypnotic susceptibility, hypnotic

responsiveness - these terms are used interchangeably in this paper. Kirsch and

Braffman (1999) defined “non-hypnotic suggestibility "to denote responsiveness to

suggestions administered without the prior induction of hypnosis" and "hypnotic

suggestibility is responsiveness to suggestions given after hypnosis has been induced"

(Pekala, 2009). Hypnotizability is “the capacity to produce those effects generally

considered to be ‘hypnotic’” (Weitzenhoffer, 1997). Holroyd (2003) suggests that

classically, “suggestion is defined as a communication that is accepted uncritically, in

a process that is non-rational” (p. 121). In hull’s (1933) studies it was found

that hypnotic suggestibility and non-hypnotic suggestibility is highly correlated

emphasizing the role of individual’s ability than on the altered state of consciousness

(Lynn, Krisch and Hallquist, 2008).

Since ‘Hypnotic susceptibility relates specifically to the subject’s ability to

respond to various hypnotic phenomena of which suggestibility is but one’ (Raz, Fan,

& Posner, 2005). The ability of the subject to respond to suggestion in hypnotic and

non-hypnotic context may also be important. Therefore, ‘this ability infuses many


aspects of life, ranging from a tendency towards absorption defined as total

engagement in self-altering experiences, to having hypnotic-like interactions with

others irrationally or experience interactions with others as occasions for uncritical

response in advertent suggestions.’ (Spiegel, 2008, p. 183).

Hypnotic suggestibility holds different meanings to different theorists. It is

important to note that hypnotizability here is defined from traditional view that is

defined operationally as ‘the number of suggestions that an individual responds to on

standard scales’ (McConkey and Barnier, 2004). Thus, a ‘hypnotizability measure’

typically involves administering a standard induction procedure, suggesting a number

of hypnotic experiences, and scoring responses according to predetermined pass/fail

criteria. Hilgard (1981) used “hypnotic susceptibility” and “hypnotizability”

interchangeably.

Hilgard largely agreed with Hull that hypnosis was a plane of heightened

suggestibility. In the present study no assessment is done with regard to suggestibility

and non-hypnotic suggestibility, since the focus is on studying the phenomenological

experience among highly hypnotizable during hypnosis.

Piccione, Hilgard and Zimbarbo (1989) observed that after a testing period of

25 years, the hypnotizability of individuals remained a stable trait. Others have

argued that it is an ability that can be modified with increasing knowledge about

hypnosis, providing training in responsiveness and simulation of contextual effects.


Vaitl et.al ., (2005 ) in the article Psychobiology of Altered States of

Consciousness stated that ‘The effectiveness of hypnotic suggestion in producing

corresponding changes in experience (i.e., hypnotic susceptibility) varies greatly from

individual to individual and is a highly stable attribute of the person’.

Fassler, Lynn and Knox’s (2008) conducted a test-retest study design to

answer the question ‘Is hypnotic suggestibility a stable trait?’. They found that

hypnotic responsiveness is stable overtime and can be shaped by variables that affect

non hypnotic behaviour such as expectancies and boredom. They stated that

correlation between attitude and hypnotic susceptibility range from 0.20 to 0.30 and

that positive attitude is important but not a sufficient factor in hypnotic responding.

They also found that expectancies are significant predictors of hypnotic experience

and their subjective experience changed from first session to second session and

considered ‘subjective experience as an important determinant in hypnotic

responsiveness has to be further researched and included in theories to explain

variation in subjective experience for hypnotic suggestions’.

Since enhancing of hypnotizability has proved to achieve only a small degree

of modification (Gorassini, 2004), in this study hypnotizability is considered as a

stable trait. This study initially assesses trait using HGSHS:A and assesses

phenomenological experience of state effects using PCI-HAP.


2.3.2 Measuring hypnotizability

Hypnotizability can be measured based on the individuals’ performance on a

standardized scale. Barnier and McConkey (2004) reviewed use of hypnotizability

scale between 1992 to 2003 published in International Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Hypnosis. They found that Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic

Susceptibility: Form A was the most widely used hypnotizability scale among the

thirteen available scales, that is, 74 laboratory researches used HGSHS: Form A, out

of the 137 empirical articles published. (p 33- 35).

The existing hypnotizability scale (Harvard Group Scale & Standford Scale

for Hypnotic Susceptibility) allows categorizing people into high, medium and low

hypnotizables based on their behavioural response and provide space for response

regarding one’s experience. Higher the score on these scales, higher the ability to be

hypnotized. Since these scales do not score subjective experience as a measure for

hypnotzability, separate experiential scales are development in the attempt to measure

and track the individual’s experience of hypnosis (Sheehan and McConkey, 1982;

McConkey, 1991).

Many early measures of hypnotizability scale investigated the depth of

hypnotic experience of individuals (for example: Harvard Continuous Scale, Cheek,

1959; Orne and Evans, 1966; Field inventory of Hypnotic depth, field, 1965; Hilgard

and Tart, 1966) although majority of the scales measure behavioural response. The

effects of hypnosis can be analyzed not just by measuring behavioural response but

also by examining the subjective experience of the individuals.


Barneir and McConkey (2004) after reviewing a number of studies noted that

high hypnotizable persons measured across scales (HGSHS:A, SHSS:C, Carleton

University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale, Hypnotic Induction Profile) time

(1974 to 2004) and cultures (European, Australian, African-American, who speak

Spanish, German, English or sign language) remain same.

2.3.3 Profile Differences

Woody and Barnier (2008) point out that the study of individual differences

has lead to the development of the field in terms of measuring and understanding

hypnotisability. Clinical anecdotes, theories of hypnosis, experimental findings

suggest that there exist individual differences in behaviour and experience

demonstrated by high hypnotizables. These differences may be due to differences in

latent typological accounts and dimensions (experiential), but this area of research is

dormant (Terhune and Cardeña, 2010). McConkey and Barnier (2004) also suggested

that hypnotizability and/or hypnotic responding may involve both dimensional and

typological accounts, which need to be examined conceptually and empirically.

Therefore, identifying the individual differences on phenomenological experience

becomes important.

Barber (1999) proposed ‘three dimensional theory of high hypnotic

suggestibility’. He initially emphasized differences in imaginative ability among

individuals regardless of their hypnotic ability and dissociated experience as

determinants of hypnotic responsiveness. He later suggested that individuals

responded according to their own personal style and argued that there exist three types

of highly responsive participants and proposed a ‘three dimensional theory of high

hypnotic suggestibility’. They are: the fantasy prone participants, the amnesia prone


participants and the positively set participants. The fantasy-prone individuals were

identified after in-depth interviews. These participants reported to have engaged

themselves in ‘pretension plays’ enacted during their childhood period showing that

they were capable of imaginative ability. They also experienced vivid, realistic

fantasies. Only one percent of college students are amnesia-prone and fantasy prone,

majority of the HS are positively set participants. They present positive attitudes

towards the idea of hypnosis, positive motivation to perform and experience as

suggested, positive expectation to experience suggested effects, positive set to

visualize suggestions. (Lynn, Meyer and Shindler, 2004)

According to Barnier and McConkey (2004) high susceptibles (HS)

demonstrate characteristics different from low susceptibles (LS) which are typically

associated with absorption, use of vivid imagery and they process information

automatically and they show distinct patterns of brain activity. Highly hypnotizable

individuals actively process the suggestion in order to present the hypnotic behaviour.

Some high suggestible individuals may place a strong belief to the phenomenal reality

of their subjective experience during hypnosis. The attribution they place to their

subjective experience also contributes to diversity in their phenomenological

experience. Therefore, it is important to consider cognitive and social factors as both

contribute in belief and attribution placed by highly hypnotized persons.

To examine individual difference and obtain specific profiles for assessment

with regard to hypnotic performance two scales were developed such as Stanford

Profile Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form I and Form II (Weitzenhoffer and

Hilgard, 1963, 1967) and Diagnostic Rating Scale (DRS: Orne and O’Connell, 1967).


This showed that high hypnotizables did not show uniform pattern in response. These

scales were for assessing hypnotic performance and not for phenomenological

experience assessment. Other phenomenology approach and measures developed to

assess subjective experience of hypnotic phenomena are mentioned in detail under

phenomenology approach of this paper.

‘Theory and research on intelligence serve as interesting parallel to theory and

research of hypnotisability’ (Woody & McConkey, 2005). Gardner’s (1983) concept

of multiple intelligences considered intelligence as something that is varied among

individuals, and therefore, there is not one kind of intelligence but there exist multiple

intelligences. Similarly, hypnotizability also exists in variation among individuals,

resulting in multiple hypnotizabilities. In the present study, pre-selection of

hypnotizability based on HGSHS (trait assessment) is carried out and variation in

state experience is assessed using PCI. Therefore, it is a study focusing on trait-state

effects.

McConkey (2008) suggested that it is essential to integrate individual

differences with general psychological principles for comprehensive understanding of

hypnosis. Woody and McConkey proposed a componential approach claiming that

specific abilities are required for performance of suggestions during hypnosis. It is

quite clear that individuals differ in their ability to respond to suggestions under

hypnosis and hypnotic response is an influence of specific skills plus general

hypnotizability of the individual. Therefore, it is important to find out the specific

ability of the individuals along with general hypnotizability to examine their hypnotic

response for different suggestions. This cannot be found when assessing individuals


based on their behavioural response alone. Hypnotic response is defined as ‘the act of

positing something imagined as real that characterizes a response as hypnotic rather

than the content of the imagined event’ (Tellegen, 1979). Examining individuals’

subjective experience with reference to their response to particular suggestions can

prove beneficial to identify abilities that an individual demonstrate to perform the

suggestions.

Studying the similarities and dissimilarities of phenomenological experience

of hypnosis, assists in establishing the pattern abilities that exist among highly

hypnotizable individual (McConkey and Barnier 2004).

2.3.4 Correlates of Hypnotizability

2.3.4.1 Attitude and Aptitude

Attitude and aptitude are the two elements that ensure hypnosis has or will

occur (Barnier and Nash 2008). The correlation between hypnotizability and attitude

range from 0.20 to 0.30 and attitude refers to motivation, expectations and willingness

of the individuals, which plays an important role for individuals to experience

hypnosis. Socio-cognitive theorists (Spanos, 1991) claim that these variables can be

modified and hence, hypnotizability can be enhanced. Empirical evidence supports

response set theory demonstrated in Dual-task methodology showed that interference

in challenging tasks increased for high susceptible under hypnosis. Response set

theory assumes that ‘generating the subjective experience is necessary for activation

of expected response resulting in increased interference’ (Brown and Oakley, 2004).

Aptitude refers to the ability of the individual and in the absence of

hypnotizability, hypnosis as a product cannot be achieved. "Aptitude-centered


theories posit that the highly consistent individual differences in hypnotic

performance reflect the direct and substantial operation of a latent cognitive ability"

(Benham et al., cited by Pekala, 2009)

Sheehan and McConkey (1982; McConkey 1991; Sheehan, 1991) focused on

the interaction between cognitions and attributions that hypnotized individuals make

about their experiences during hypnosis. They identified different cognitive styles

that emerged among highly hypnotizable, which varied within individuals depending

on the complexity of the hypnotic experience suggested. These cognitive styles are

concentrative (listen to suggestion and wait for it to happen), constructive (actively

working on the suggestions received) and independent (change the suggestion to suit

their preference) styles. (McConkey and Barnier, 2004)

2.3.4.2 Absorption

Hypnosis is an altered state and is naturally experienced by many individuals

while engaged in certain activities such as driving a car, reading a book, watching a

movie, daydreaming etc. The factor that is responsible for this experience is the so

called trait ‘absorption’ mentioned by Tellegan and Atkinson (1974) as ‘almost total

immersion in the (imaginal) activity, with indifference to distracting stimuli in the

environment’. This trait absorption was found as the correlate to hypnotic

susceptibility (Kirsch, Lynn, Hallquist, 2008)

Tellegen and Atkinson, 1974 defined Absorption as “the openness to

absorbing and self-altering experiences”. A disposition for situations in which one’s

total attention fully engages one’s representational (perceptual, enactive, imaginative,


and ideational) resources (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). That is, this personality

characteristic reflects an individual’s cognitive capacity for involvement in sensory

and imaginative experiences in ways that alter an individual’s perception, memory,

and mood with behavioral and biological consequences (cited in Menzies, 2008;

Gohm, 2000; Turner, 1997). This personality trait has correlated (r=.38)

with hypnotic susceptibility (Pekala, 1991). This was supported by Pekala and

colleagues (1988,1989) suggesting that absportion is not necessarily a characteristic

of all individuals, because low susceptible reported less absorption during hypnosis

against baseline condition such as eyes open/closed.

2.3.4.3 Imagination

Hypnosis Susceptibility scales involve two parts, viz., hypnotic induction, and

testing of suggestions. Hypnotic inductions are often procedures involving

instructions for mental and muscular relaxation. Suggestions are imaginative in

nature (e.g., "imagine a force acting on your hands to push them apart," Weitzenhoffer

& Hilgard, 1962, p. 18) imagine your arms getting heavier and heavier and lowering),

that can be given in or out of hypnosis. Kirsch and Braffman (2001) emphasized on

the role of imaginative suggestions defined as requests to experience an imaginary

state of affairs as if it were real. Imaginative suggestibility is the degree to which the

person succeeds in having the suggested experiences. They defined hypnotizability as

the effect of hypnosis on response to suggestions.

Braffman and Kirsch (1999) studied the important correlate of imaginative

suggestibility as determinants of hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestibility. Through

regression analysis they found that hypnotic suggestibility and non-hypnotic


suggestibility were correlated with variables such as response expectancy, attitude

towards hypnosis, fantasy proneness and absorption. Hypnotic suggestibility

correlated with non hypnotic imaginative suggestibility on variables response

expectancy, motivation and fantasy proneness, except absorption, showing that

absorption is exclusive during hypnotic experience. Hypnotizability was significantly

associated only with individual differences in expectancy and motivation to respond

to suggestion. They stated that ‘Imaginative suggestibility is the ability or trait

underlying the automatic movements, partial paralyses, selective amnesias, pain

reduction, and hallucinations that are most commonly observed in the context of

hypnosis’ and ‘highly suggestible hypnotized subjects display and report these

experiences’ (Krisch and Braffman, 2010).

2.3.4.4 Involuntariness / Automaticity

There is consensus that involuntariness is the core phenomenological feature

of hypnotic responses (Kihlstrom, 2008; Kirsch & Lynn, 1998; Weitzenhoffer, 1980).

They indicate that the relationship between involuntariness and hypnotic

suggestibility is modulated by (typological) experiential response to a hypnotic

induction (Nash and Barnier, 2008). According to Barnier, Dienes and Mitchell

(2008) the experience of involuntariness, a characteristic feature of hypnotic response

was explained by Weitzenhoffer (1974) as classic suggestion effect, ‘the

transformation of the essential, manifest ideational content of a communication’ into

behaviour that is experienced as involuntary.

The above mentioned are only a few variables recognized as correlates of

hypnotic susceptibility.


2.4 Phenomenology Approach and hypnotic experience

2.4.1 Introduction

Hypnosis researchers continuing struggle for scientific recognition have

always been concerned about methodological techniques. Sutcliffe (1958, 1960)

argued that the fundamental difficulty in convincing people about the genuineness of

hypnotic effects is that hypnosis is essentially a private experience. Thus, ‘hypnosis

has always been faced with challenge of scientifically quantifying internal, subjective

experiences’ (Nash and Barnier, 2008).

It important to understand what is phenomenology before looking into various

phenomenological approach suggested by various researchers. Smith defines the

discipline of phenomenology initially as the study of structures of experience, or

consciousness. ‘Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances

of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience

things, thus the meaning things have in our experience’ (Smith, 2008). A

phenomenon is “any object perceived by the senses or consciousness” (Flew, 1979, p.

248).

Woodard (2003) has given a comprehensive historical overview of the

development of theory and research on hypnotic experience, which is presented as

follows. Research approaches to study hypnotic experience can be broadly classified

into two categories. Firstly, Pure-Phenomenological approach includes Arrigo’s

Hermeneutical-Phenomenological Research, Beshai’s Phenomenology of Hypnosis,

Cowles Existential-Phenomenological Model, Woodard’s phenomenological and

perceptual methodology and Sundararajan’s Heideggerian Approach. Secondly, a


Quasi-Phenomenological approach to research is labelled as phenomenology but

maintain quantitative emphasis. This approach includes Shor’s Method, Sheehan and

McConkey’s Experiential Analysis Technique and Pekala’s Phenomenology of

Consciousness Inventory (PCI).

2.4.2 Pure Phenomenology

Phenomenological research methods to study hypnotic experience based on

philosophical phenomenology are :

Sundararajan’s Heideggerian Approach (1993) utilized a Heideggerian

interpretation of partial hypnotic inductions of Milton Erickson to demonstrate the

autonomy of language as a self-referential system. She explained that the hypnotist’s

skill is in listening as the language or words bring “authentic appearance”, i.e., “calls

things into being, it brings things near, it grants presence and it is silence” in a unique

way for each individual.

Arrigo’s Hermeneutical-Phenomenological Research (1998) with

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) to investigate changing belief with NLP

technique called reimprinting (changing limiting belief about the self), she

investigated two therapist-client interactions during hypnosis session and meaning

was drawn from bridging her internal experience of an external viewpoint through

observing videotapes.

Beshai’s Phenomenology of Hypnosis (1974), he stated “Phenomenology

views hypnosis as a social, interactional phenomenon involving dialectic between


perception and imagination, between the subject and the hypnotist, or between the self

and other” (p.220). He investigated internal experiencing of two graduate students.

Woodard (2004) presented phenomenological and perceptual methodology for

understanding hypnotic experience. He investigated the internal experience of

psychologist and clients’ regarding their hypnotic experience. He argued for an

affective theoretical approach for better understanding hypnosis, hypnotic phenomena

and factors affecting the therapist-client relationship.

Another theoretical approach is Cowles Existential-Phenomenological Model.

Cowles (1998) suggested that “perception prefigures embodiment: our bodies will

react according to what we perceive to be real and true. Ergo, the power of

suggestion is created through an alteration of perception” Cowles explained that this

alteration of perception through suggestion occurs as a result of the hypnotic

experience with its relaxation of physical and mental activity that “… allows the

prefigurement of embodiment by perception to stand out more clearly”.

2.4.3 Quasi Phenomenology

In Shor’s Phenomenological Method (1979), a skilled examiner other than the

hypnotist and participant made interpretative judgment retrospectively to subject’s

descriptions of experience to hypnotic suggestions. The investigator applied

diagnostic evaluations using eight dimensional variables (trance, non-conscious

involvement, archaic involvement, drowsiness, relaxation, vividness of imagery,

absorption, and access to the unconscious) and a five-category rating scale (none, less


than slightly, slight, intermediate and moderate, and don’t know) to the descriptions

of the conscious hypnotic experience of the participant. (McConkey and Barnier,

2004; Woodard, 2004)

Sheehan and McConkey’s (1982) recognized the significance of

phenomenological features of hypnosis and the fundamental role of cognitive

strategies in responding to hypnotic suggestions, they developed the Experiential

Analysis Technique (EAT). The EAT was motivated by an inter-actionist perspective

of hypnosis, were the hypnotic subject is considered to be a dynamic individual who

brings certain skills, abilities and expectancies into hypnotic context. In the EAT, the

hypnosis session is videotaped as the researcher could not question the participant

during hypnosis session. Later on, the participant and a second, independent

experimenter watched the videotape. The cues afforded in the videotape of the

hypnosis session reminded participants about their responses and their associated

subjective experiences. The EAT is a useful technique for exploring participants’

interpretation of suggestions, strategies that they employed and their experience of the

suggested effects. Additionally, the EAT provides information on affect, imagery,

intensity and levels of control associated with hypnotic responding (Barnier and

McConkey, 2004).

One of the first studies using the EAT illustrates the different subjective

experiences of a number of hypnotic participants whose behaviour response was

similar (Laurence and Perry, 1981). The findings of the EAT in general, suggested

that there is diversity in how highly hypnotizable individuals approach, experience

and respond to hypnotic suggestions. These differences, revealed by EAT; suggest


that in-depth analysis of subjective experience can help to reveal component

processes in hypnotic responding. The EAT has been evaluated and extended by

many researchers to explore several hypnotic phenomena, for example Sheehan et al.,

1978; Laurence and Perry, 1981; Bryant and McConkey, 1989; Banyai, 1991; West

and Fellows, 1996; Barnier and McConkey, 1999, 2004; Bryant and Mallard, 2002.

Field (1965) developed a finger signalling method and asked subjects to move

their hand when hypnotic depth increased. Evans and Orne (1965) asked subjects to

move the hands of the clock with the numbers 1 (normal and alert) to 10 (‘as deeply

hypnotized as any person to become’). Both these studies focused on assessing the

subjective experience through depth ratings and examine the concordance of

experience with behaviour.

In 1999 McConkey used a ‘dial’ method to track the strength of the ongoing

hypnotic experience across types of items (direct motor, motor challenge, perceptual-

cognitive) and the time course of items (i.e. suggestions or onset phase, test phase and

offset or cancellation phase). Subjects (high, medium, and low hypnotizable) were

asked to turn a dial to indicate a change in the strength of their subjective experience.

The dial was connected to a computer that recorded the position of the pointer (i.e.

rating of experience) every second across the three phases of each item. This study

revealed that highly hypnotizable individuals showed enhanced positive experience

during test phase and increased intensity of their subjective involvement.

Pekala’s (1995) Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI) was

“… developed to assess and quantify states of consciousness and altered states of


consciousness (Tart, 1975) and it has been used extensively in the assessment of the

phenomenology of the hypnotic experience”. It is a 53-item self-report scale that has

been used to assess subjective reports of hypnosis retrospectively. Retrospective

Phenomenological assessment is used to “combine the strengths of behaviourism’s

overt variables with introspection’s covert events: Map consciousness in reference to

specific short well- defined stimulus conditions, retrospectively assess that subjective

experience, across groups of randomly selected individuals and use standardized self-

report questionnaires”. (Pekala, 2009 in Keynote address at SCEH). The author

called it psychophenomenology (Pekala, 1980; Pekala & Wenger, 1983) to distinguish

it from philosophical phenomenology (Husserl, 1913/72; Kockelmans, 1967) and the

phenomenological psychologists (Valle & King, 1978). Psychophenomenology was

designed not only to describe but also ‘to empirically quantify and statistically assess

the phenomena of ‘consciousness in a reliable and valid manner’ (Pekala, 1991). This

psychophenomenological approach to consciousness assumes the principle of

stimulus-state specificity (principle of specificity) which states that

Across groups of randomly selected individuals the same behaviours in the

same stimulus setting (the same stimulus conditions) will be associated with

the same intensities and patterns of phenomenological experience (the same

phenomenological state) while different stimulus conditions will be associated

with different intensities and/or patterns of phenomenological experience

(Pekala, 1991 p. 85-86)


The EAT and dial method highlights the value of supplementing the

behavioural indicators of hypnotizability scales with subjective indicators. However,

the EAT is best suited for a detailed investigation of selected subjects as it would

require more time and personnel. In the present study experience of highly

hypnotizable individuals is examined using Pekala’s Phenomenology Consciousness

Inventory.

2.4.4 Empirical study using PCI

Pekala’s PCI has been used broadly in the study of states of consciousness or

to study various stimulus conditions including: Hypnotism (Pekala, 1991b, 2002;

Pekala & Kumar, 2000, 2007), Breathing (Pekala, Forbes, Contrisciani, 1988/89a),

Trance drumming (Maurer, Kumar, Woodside, & Pekala, 1997; Woodside, Kumar, &

Pekala,1997), Fire-walking (Pekala & Ersek,1992/93; partially replicated by Hillig &

Holroyd, 1997/98), an OBE within an NDE (Maitz & Pekala, 1991). Other

researchers have used it to look at Schizophrenia (Roussel & Bachelor, 2000/01),

Meditation (Hageman, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 1997), Mediumship and shamanism

(Rock & Beischel, 2008; Rock et al, 2008), Self regulation of eating behavior

(Hutchinson-Phillips et al., 2006) and Agoraphobia and virtual reality (Huang et al.,

2000) (Pekala, 2009 b, slide 31).

Pekala (1991) noted the PCI Gender effects, stating that there is ‘Differences

in phenomenological experience at the .05 level of significance, females reported

significantly more imagery, more vivid imagery, and more inward attention than

males.’(p134, QC).


2.4.5 Application of PCI

In this section, some of the studies that have used PCI to investigate trait-state

aspects of hypnosis and differential organisation of the structures of Consciousness

during hypnosis are reviewed.

Pekala and Kumar 1988 conducted a study to determine if high susceptible

individuals report greater degree of phenomenological experience in comparison with

low susceptible on hypnotic induction and eye closed baseline condition. HGSHS: A

was used to determine hypnotic susceptibility and PCI to map phenomenological

experience. The results supported the hypothesis that high susceptible showed

phenomenological difference in eye close baseline condition and enhanced

phenomenological experience during hypnosis against low susceptible.

In the following year (1989) Pekala and Kumar replicated the previous study

to examine the phenomenological effects for high and low susceptible such as the

dimensions of phenomenological experience and intensity difference in experience

during hypnotic induction against baseline eyes open/closed condition. It was

suggested that if high susceptible reported decreased volitional control, self

awareness, increased absorption, positive and negative affect, rationality and memory;

and a greater alteration in state of awareness and altered experience (body image, time

sense, perception and unusual meaning) during baseline condition (eyes open/closed)

they may have an increased experience of the same without an induction.


They found that there was significant intensity differences comparing different

states (eyes closed versus hypnotic induction) especially for high susceptible

compared to lows. During hypnosis high susceptible compared to low susceptible,

reported increased altered experiences (altered body image, altered time sense, altered

perception and altered meaning), absorption, altered state of awareness and decreased

internal dialogue, rationality, volitional control, memory, self-awareness, and arousal.

They also found that the interactions between stimulus conditions and

susceptibility groups resulted in 10 out of 26 dimensions to be significant (p< .01

level). Hypnosis intensified the following experiences especially for high

susceptibles on the dimensions of altered experiences, self-awareness, altered state of

awareness, internal dialogue, rationality, volitional control and memory.

The results of this study replicated the findings of the previous study that

highlight the importance of hypnotic ability along with state/situational variables

contributing to phenomenological effects. (Pekala, 1991). It was interpreted by

supporting Tellegen perspective that hypnotic susceptibility is the result of interacting

variables, emphasizing the role of hypnotic ability along with state/situational

variables contributing to phenomenological effects (Pekala, 1991).

Pekala and colleagues have consistently studied the phenomenological effects

due to hypnotic induction and found it is strongly related to hypnotizability. Three

studies (Pekala et al., 1986; Kumar and Pekala, 1989; Pekala et al., 1989) comparing

hypnotic induction with eyes closed baseline condition was ‘consistently associated

with decreased positive affect (joy, love, sexual excitement), sadness, self awareness,


internal dialogue, rationality, volitional control and memory and increased altered

experience involving time sense, perception and state of awareness’. There were no

particular suggestions given relevant to enhancing an individual’s responsiveness to

the PCI dimensions.

Kumar and Pekala, 1989 found that the hypnotic induction (Harvard Scale

protocol) when compared with baseline sitting quietly period for the high susceptible

showed that they experienced altered body image, altered time sense, altered

perception, self-awareness, altered state of awareness, internal dialogue, rationality,

volitional control and memory and less distracted during hypnotic induction. The

authors compared the pattern of inter-correlations for 12 major dimensions, and found

less association of dimensions for high susceptible compared to low susceptible.

These results were interpreted by the authors through Hilgard’s neodissociation theory

to suggest that: ‘... hypnosis appears to maintain a very low level of association

among the subsystems of consciousness for very highs (as mentioned by Kumar,

Pekala, McCloskey, 1999).

Kumar, Pekala, McCloskey (1999) in their study on the cross validation of

findings regarding the phenomenological state effects during hypnosis, found that

dissociated control state (trance effects- alterations in state of awareness and altered

experiences), positive affect, and attention to internal process were significantly

correlated with hypnotisability. They examined the five state effects factors (Factor –

based scales) which correlated with hypnotisability in two samples of participants.

One sample was from the previous study (Pekala et al, 1993) consisting of 150

participants and they examined 53 participants (53/60) for their cross validity study,


who were classified as high, medium and low based on Harvard scores. The other

two state effects were negative affect and visual imagery. They reported that the

factor based state effects scores across three different studies (their cross validation

study, 1999, Kumar et al, 1996 and Pekala et al., 1993) using different assessment

instruments (Harvard and Stanford) provides a ‘strong support to the robust nature of

state effects associated with hypnotisability’. The higher the hypnotizability the

stronger the state effects of positive affect, inward absorbed attention to mental

process, and dissociated control both in trance and reality orientations. This was

traditionally described by Farthing (1993) that ‘hypnosis is an altered state of

consciousness characterized by both alterations of subjective experience and

alterations of mental process of perception, thinking, memory and control of

behaviour.’

‘Dixon and Laurence (1992), the highly hypnotizable typically report

experiencing a different state of awareness during a hypnotic induction. There

subjective experiences are related to the notions of imaginative involvement,

absorption, loss of volitional control and dissociation.’ (As cited by Kumar, Pekala,

McCloskey, 1999)

In 1989, Pekala et al., conducted a study to compare the phenomenological

effects across four stimulus condition: deep abdominal breathing, progressive

relaxation, hypnotic induction procedure and eyes closed baseline condition. The first

three stress management conditions were compared with baseline condition. Subjects

consisted of 300 nursing students divided into ten groups. Their hypnotic

susceptibility was assessed using HGSHS and PCI to map phenomenological


experience. Two sessions were scheduled with a gap of approximately one week in

each case. The results showed that across conditions, differences were seen in

phenomenological effects among the hypnotic susceptible individuals. Hypnosis

compared against baseline condition showed that high susceptible reported increased

altered experiences and state of awareness and decreased self-awareness, rationality,

volitional control and memory than lows. Comparing progressive relaxation and

hypnosis, it was noticed that high susceptible reported experiences of progressive

relaxation condition as increased positive affect (love, joy), altered experience and

altered state of awareness, inward and absorbed attention and decreased self-

awareness, rationality, volitional control, memory and arousal. This was found to be

similar even during hypnosis, except self-awareness. They stated that irrespective of

the stimulus condition ‘be it hypnosis or progressive relaxation, it will result in

facilitating alteration in subjective experience’. The clarity of the role of context

effects and expectancy in generating alteration in subjective experience during

hypnosis, were not clear, but when expected to be hypnotized it facilitated alteration

in subjective experience for Highs than for Lows and increased absorption during

hypnosis is not necessarily a trait of all subjects (i.e., lows experienced absorption

during baseline condition than hypnosis). They interpreted the results as an

interaction of trait and situational variables (Pekala, 1991, p 279-286).

The study of individual difference has lead to the development of the field in

terms of measuring and understanding hypnotizability (Woody and Barnier, 2008).

Hypnotizability and/or hypnotic responding may involve both dimensional and

typological accounts, which need to be, examined conceptually and empirically


(McConkey and Barnier 2004). Therefore, identifying the individual differences on

phenomenological experience becomes important.

2.5 Significance of the present study

‘When investigating non hypnotic patterns of response in highly hypnotizable

subjects, it is necessary to identify patterns of hypnotic performances among highs

which may help us investigate non-hypnotic ones’ (Nash and Barnier, 2008). Thus,

underlying the pattern of experience and performance of hypnotizable individuals

under hypnosis will help us in comparing and understanding their response to

suggestion in a non hypnotic context.

Heap, Brown and Oakley (2004) stated that ‘Individuals differ in the degree to

which they respond to hypnotic suggestions. Hence, measuring the levels of

differences in the individual becomes important in understanding hypnotic

responsivity. This study will contribute considerably towards developing measures to

assess the specific response profiles of individuals to particular hypnotic suggestions.

Therefore, analyzing the subjective experiences of highly hypnotizable

individuals will serve as subjective response indicators together with behavioural

response indicators in measuring hypnotizability. Understanding the subjective

experience of hypnotizable individuals will also add to the theoretical knowledge of

hypnotic response and hypnotizability.


Figure 2.5 : Conceptual Map

The above chart explains the conceptual map of the present study. The major

domains in Hypnosis involve study in general of Hypnotic phenomena,

Hypnotizability and hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness. The highlighted

portion indicates scope of the present study and the variables that have been studied.

Hypnotizability or Hypnotic Susceptibility is identified by assessing the subjects on

their behavioral responses. Selected highly hypnotizable individuals’ subjective

experiences are studied.

HY

PN

OS

IS

Hypnotic

Phenomena

Hypnotizability

Altered State of

Consciousness

Behavioural

Response

Subjective

Experience

Primary Stakeholders

Theoretical implications:

• Hypnotic experience

• Subtypes of Hypnotizability

• Correlates of

Secondary Stakeholders

Clinical implications:

• Framing suggestions

• Identifying latent trance

typology

High hypnotic

susceptibility


The primary and secondary stakeholders are theoreticians and clinicians in

the field of hypnosis. At the primary level this adds to the theoretical knowledge of

hypnotic experience, hypnotizability, to explore its correlates and existing subtypes.

The secondary stakeholders are clinicians, to whom this work will benefit in framing

of suggestions relevant to the conditions of their clients. This will help to increase the

effectiveness of hypnotherapy.

The main focus of the present study is to examine the subjective experience of

highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis.

To answer the following questions:

1. What are the subjective experiences of high hypnotizable individuals

during hypnosis?

2. What is the pattern of dimensions experienced by highly hypnotizable

individuals?

3. What are the dimensions that are commonly experienced by highly

hypnotizable individuals?

4. What are dimensions that are uniquely experienced by highly

hypnotizable individuals?


Methodology

3.1 Aim

The aim of the investigation was to explore the subjective experiences of

highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis.

The objectives of the study were:




experience, that is, common and unique to highly hypnotizable

individuals.

3.2 Operational definition of Variables

3.2.1 Hypnotic Response

Hypnotic response, which is ‘the act of positing something imagined as real

that characterizes a response as hypnotic rather than the content of the imagined

event’ (Tellegen, 1979).

3.2.2 Hypnotizability / Hypnotic suggestibility / Hypnotic susceptibility

‘Hypnotic suggestibility is responsiveness to suggestions given after hypnosis

has been induced’ (Kirsch and Braffman, 1999 p. 226).

Hypnotizability is defined operationally as ‘the number of suggestions that an

individual responds to on standard scales’. Thus, a ‘hypnotizability measure’

typically involves administering a standard induction procedure, suggesting a number

of hypnotic experiences, and scoring responses according to predetermined pass/fail


criteria. High hypnotizability is defined as a high score on such a measure. (Barnier

and McConkey, 2004)

3.2.3 Hypnotic phenomena

‘Phenomena produced by suggestion following a hypnotic induction procedure

are hypnotic phenomena’ (Oakley, 2008).

3.3 Method

It is difficult to find a universal research design or methodology which can be

replicated in the phenomenological study, although in this study, the methodology

followed matches that of Pekala and colleagues investigation on trait- state aspects of

hypnosis.

The approach is psychophenomenology or empirical phenomenology as called

by Pekala, who developed the inventory (PCI) to distinguish from philosophical

phenomenology. Psychophenomenology goes beyond descriptive phenomenology,

allowing for a methodology to quantify, statistically assess and map the structures and

pattern of consciousness across the stimulus conditions that is being assessed.

Retrospective Phenomenological Assessment (RPA) is a method followed

where subjective experience is assessed retrospectively in reference to specific

stimulus condition, by using standardized self-report questionnaires, across randomly

selected individuals. The various structures of phenomenological experience such as

imagery, cognition, affect, and so on are evaluated, quantified, and statistically

assessed. (Pekala, 1991). Rationale for the use of RPA is that it combines the

strengths of behaviorism’s overt variables with introspection’s covert events, although


validity of covert subjective experience will probably be difficult to assess as

compared to overt behavioural response. According to the principle of stimulus-state

specificity (or principle of specificity) termed coined by Pekala, this principle states

that:

Across groups of randomly selected individuals, the same behaviors enacted in

the same stimulus settings (the same stimulus conditions) will be associated

with the same intensities and patterns of phenomenological experience (the

same phenomenological state), while differing stimulus conditions will be

associated with different intensity and/or pattern parameters. (Pekala, 1991, p.

211)

As suggested by Pekala, use of RPA in combination with Principle of

specificity allows for a methodology to assess and evaluate phenomenological

experience across varying conditions and compare each other. Here, stimulus

condition studied is hypnosis and phenomenological experiences of highly

hypnotizable individuals are compared across various dimensions.

The purpose of the present study is to gather data regarding the subjective

experiences of highly hypnotizable individuals under hypnosis in relation to their

hypnotic response to better understand the hypnotic phenomena from their

perspective. This is assessed through retrospective phenomenological assessment

using the Phenomenology Consciousness Inventory to obtain the structure and pattern

of subjective experience of highly hypnotizable individuals under hypnosis on the

various dimensions and measure them statistically.


3.4 Sample

The sample consisted of 50 college students in phase I. A sample of ten

highly hypnotizable individuals, who did not show any symptoms of distress were

selected from this group of volunteers for phase II of the study. The selection of the

sample was based on scores of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and Harvard

Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A).

3.4.1 Inclusion Criteria

1. Age ranging between 17 to 45 years.

a. Longitudinal Studies indicate that hypnotizability assessed in college

students remains about as stable as other cognitive skills such as IQ

over a period of 25 years with the statistically significant

coefficient of .71 (Piccione, Hilgard and Zimbardo, 1989; Morgan et

al., 1974).

b. Increase in age has shown to decrease hypnotic suggestibility.

Individuals beyond 45 years were excluded since research data

suggests that as the age progresses hypnotizability of the individual

decreases (Lecron, 1971).

c. Individuals above 16 years were included, since cognitive functions

such as attention, concentration, vocabulary stabilize by 16 years of

age (Kamat, 1969)

2. Gender – male and female. As there is no appreciable gender difference in

hypnotizability (Weitzenhoffer & Weitzenhoffer, 1958).

3. College students who are highly hypnotizables, that is, who score high on

standard hypnotizability scale.


3.4.2 Exclusion Criteria

1. Individuals with Psychiatric disorder and/or psychological distress.

2. Individuals with subnormal Intelligence.

3. Individuals with history of regular or infrequent intake of any drugs.

The above exclusion criteria were followed as the study is on non-clinical

population and to eliminate the factors that affect hypnotic suggestibility.

3.5 Tools used

3.5.1 General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)

The 12- item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is a widely used

screening tool to detect psychiatric disorder in both general population and clinical

setting. The questionnaire developed by Goldberg in the 1970s initially contained 60

items, later versions such as GHQ-30, GHQ-28, GHQ-12 contained lesser items.

GHQ-12 is short, easy to administer and complete. It measures the current mental

health based on the response given by the participant to each item on a four-point

Likert scale ( 0-less than usual, 1- no more than usual, 2- rather more than usual, 3-

much more than usual). Scores about 11-12 is typical, scores above 15 is evidence of

distress and scores above 20 suggests severe problems and psychological distress.

The higher the scores greater is the psychological distress. It is a highly reliable and

valid questionnaire with test - retest reliability of 0.70 - 0.95 and concurrent validity

of 0.35 – 0.79.


3.5.2 Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS: A)

The most commonly used group hypnotizability scale is adapted for this study:

Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A) was developed

by Ronald E. Shore and Emily Carota Orne (1962). This scale is an adaptation for

group administration with self report scoring of the original, individually administered

and objectively scored Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A

(Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). It consists of 12 items of increasing difficulty,

including motor tasks and cognitive tasks, which takes about 45 minutes to complete

and can be administered to groups of unlimited size. Self report scoring and raters

scoring reliability shows a high correlation of .82 for 7 of the 11 behavioral items.

Scores ranging from 0 to 5 are considered low hypnotizable, 6 to 8 as medium

hypnotizable, 9 to 12 highly hypnotizable (Pekala, 1991, p.262).

3.5.3 The Phenomenology Consciousness Inventory – Hypnotic Assessment

Procedure (PCI-HAP)

The Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI; Pekala 1982, 1991)

was used to map phenomenological experiences. It is a self-report instrument

completed retrospectively in reference to a preceding stimulus condition. PCI-HAP

broadly consists of Pre-assessment, Hypnotic Induction and Post-assessment.

Procedure: In the pre-assessment form participants will be asked whether they

were hypnotized before, how deeply hypnotized participants feel they will be

(estimated hypnotic depth) and to estimate the vividness of one’s visual and

kinesthetic imagery.


Hypnotic Induction includes instructions for relaxation called a “body scan”

(progressive relaxation but without the tensing) and hypnotic deepening procedure

called a “mind calm” (counting from 10 to 1 while letting the mind become calm and

empty). This was followed by a suggestion to have a vivid dream while being on

vacation (imagoic suggestibility), finger raising item to measure the possibility of

having fallen asleep), Eye catalepsy item and two minute sitting quietly period.

Post-assessment form includes whether participants opened their eyes during

eye catalepsy suggestion, finger response item: if they raised their finger when asked

to do, and their self report as to whether they fell asleep and their experience

regarding hypnotic dream vivid. Along with this there were open-ended questions to

describe their experience during and after hypnosis. Questions referring to

Therapeutic expectancy score that is item 5 in pre assessment form and item 9 in post

assessment was eliminated for two reasons. Firstly, none of the participant was given

self-hypnosis training. In fact, they underwent hypnosis for the first time. Secondly,

participants were selected among non-clinical populations and scored below 12 on

GHQ-12.

The administration of PCI-HAP took about 40-45 minutes. Since it was an

individual session, the therapist assisted pre assessment and debriefing form was used.

PCI-HAP assesses Trance (altered) state effects, Suggestibility (“imagoic”),

Expectancy, “Motor challenge:” eye catalepsy effects, and 12 major dimensions and

14 minor sub dimensions of subjective experience which are: Positive affect - love,

sexual excitement, joy; Negative affect - anger, sadness, fear; Altered experiences -

time sense, perception, body image and meaning; Imagery - amount, vividness;


Attention - absorption, direction; Self awareness; Altered state of awareness; Internal

dialogue; Rationality; Volitional Control; Memory and Arousal.

PCI was retrospectively answered in reference to ‘the 2 minute sitting quiet

period. It contains 53 items, with bi-polar statements to be answered on 7 point rating

scale. PCI will visually depict the patterns and intensities of consciousness

graphically such as "Pips (phenomenological intensity profiles), which generates a

graph of the various (sub) dimensions intensity scores of an individual and group.

The validity coefficient of .61 (Harvard scale Scores) and concurrent validity

of r = .84 with Harvard's standard behavioral score (Kumar VK, Marcano G, Pekala

RJ; 1996). “The PCI has been shown to have adequate construct and discriminant

validity”. (Kumar, Pekala and McCloskey, 1999, p. 13).

3.6 Procedure

3.6.1 Pilot study

Pilot study was conducted during the first week of June on six college students

studying at undergraduate and postgraduate level, who volunteered for the research.

All participants were provided with comfortable cushion chairs. It was done in a

quiet room which was in fourth floor. This room was chosen as there was no

disturbance or noises and was absolutely free from any external/outside disturbances.

The session was conducted in the morning at 10:30 a.m. All participants were

introduced to Hypnosis, misconception regarding hypnosis and its procedures were

clarified. They were given brief explanation about the procedure, purpose and what

exactly would be done in the phase I, phase II of the study.


Only after their consent was phase I of pilot study initiated. Participants had

the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point in time. Followed by which,

they were asked to provide their demographic details, such as name, age, sex, and

education level, also used to obtain information about their interests, leisure activities

or hobbies. They were asked to mention regarding any history of medical illness due

to which or otherwise they are taking any medication/drugs, and also highlight the

frequency, purpose and from how long they are taking the medication/drugs.

Participants then answered the General Health Questionnaire-12. This was

carried out to segregate and exclude participants who suffered from any psychological

distress as the purpose was to study phenomenological experience of highly

hypnotizable individuals of non-clinical population.

Followed by administration of Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic

Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A), a standardized hypnotic suggestibility test was

conducted to screen participants on hypnotizability. One highly hypnotizable

individual who scored 10 on HGSHS: Form A, was subjected to hypnosis proper

session on the same day afternoon, using Phenomenology Consciousness Inventory-

Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP). PCI here was used to study the

pattern of phenomenological experience by analyzing scores of various major and

minor dimensions and identify trance typology profile of highly hypnotizable

individuals.


There were no-drop outs in the pilot study. None of them was under any

psychological distress. The objective of pilot study was:

1. To test if prior hypnosis sessions are required before investigating

hypnotic experience.

2. To be familiar with the procedures of the study.

3. To record the time required to conduct the group and individual

session.

3.6.2 Main study

Volunteers for the main study consisted of post graduate students of Clinical

psychology and psychological counseling studying at Christ and Jain University. The

assessment was carried out in groups of eight to ten participants in the college

premises in four rounds.

Firstly, the nature of the project was informed to all volunteers, followed by

clarification regarding misconceptions of hypnosis and its procedures. The order of

scale administration followed in the main study was the same as in pilot study.

Students who gave their consent were taken for the study. After this, demographic

details were obtained which include questions relating to their hobbies, medical

illness and intake of drugs (frequency, purpose and duration) followed by

administration of GHQ-12 to rule out psychological distress.

Secondly, all volunteers were administered Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic

Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A). From this group, ten highly hypnoztiables were


selected based on their hypnotizability scores. The group session lasted

approximately for about fifty minutes.

Thirdly, selected ten participants were subjected to an individual hypnotic

session (with the researcher) on a particular day, date and time convenient to the

participant. The researcher adapted the PCI-HAP hypnotic induction procedure. No

prior hypnosis session was given before the administration of PCI-HAP, as it was

seen in the pilot study that the participant had no problem experiencing hypnosis and

answering PCI questionnaire. The individual hypnosis session was approximately for

duration of 40 minutes. All sessions were conducted after college hours in the

evening at 4 p.m and at 5 p.m.

Administering procedures were live and not audiotape for both group and

individual hypnosis sessions, for the reasons that participants were more engaged in

the hypnosis procedure when done in small groups and in live session (O. Fassler

2008, p240-253). Participants were not subjected to prior hypnosis sessions or self-

hypnosis training and the hypnotic experience was investigated after the HAP –

Hypnotic Induction.

3.7 Data Analysis

The completed PCI-HAP was scored using excel scoring program embedded

in PCI-HAP. Values of all variables were automatically computed, resulting in a

four-page profile report for each participant. The derived profiles were interpreted

with the help of PCI-HAP interpretation manual and were further discussed to fulfil

the first objective of studying specific profile of highly hypnotizable individuals.


Generally, average total expectancy score is the averaged of two pre- and post

hypnotic expectancy score that is the pre-hypnotic estimated hypnotic depth score and

the pre-therapeutic expectancy score plus the post-hypnotic depth score. Here, the

modified average total expectancy score is the pre-hypnotic estimated depth score.

Therefore, modified Hypnotic responsivity index (HRI) is calculated by taking the

average of 4 scores adjusted hypnoidal state score, imagoic suggestibility score,

modified average total expectancy score and self report hypnotic depth score (aHSS +

iSS + modified ATES + srHDS)/4, eliminating the therapeutic expectancy score (R.J.

Pekala, personal communication, July 10, 2010).

Phenomenological Intensity Percentile Scores were computed to compare and

analyze individual profiles of the group and their subjective experiences, along the

major and minor dimensions. Psygrams graphs of the psychophenomenological state

of consciousness of a group of individuals (which) allow for the state of

consciousness of a group of individuals to be depicted in terms of pattern (and

intensity) parameters" (Pekala, 1991, p. 86). Due to low ratio of subjects, Psygram

was not carried forward, as the computer program that opertionalizes the Jennrich test

(necessary for psygram), requires five to ten times as many subjects as dimensions (p

134). Therefore, instead of Psygram, PIPS (Phenomenological intensity profile) was

used to analyze various dimensions and subdimensions of PCI for all ten participants

for collective profile analysis to derive the pattern of phenomenological experience

(R.J Pekala, personal communication, July 10, 2010).

Phenomenological intensity profile or pip is a graphic representation of ‘the

(sub) dimensions intensity variations across an individual or group of individuals’


(Pekala,1991 p 186). The x axis or horizontal axis represent PCI

dimensions and y axis or vertical axis represent percentile scores. There are two

forms of pips, form A depicts 12 major dimensions and form B depicts the intensity

scores for 14 minor dimensions respectively. These score are presented in terms of

either raw scores or percentile scores, that is, unscaled or scaled pips respectively.

The author of PCI, Pekala (1991) used ‘percentile scores for scaled pips instead of z

or t scores, due to the possible non-normality for various intensity distributions in

various stimulus conditions’. He also stated that ‘scaled pips may be especially

important to use when one wants to compare or graph the (sub) dimension intensity

scores of an individual or group of individuals in a particular altered state of induction

procedure, such as hypnosis’. Therefore, ten highly hypnotizable individuals pips are

represented in terms of their percentile scores obtained on PCI.

Collective analysis was done using descriptive analysis such as mean, standard

deviation, frequency and percentage to examine the structure and pattern of subjective

experiences among highly hypnotizable individuals. This was done to achieve the

second objective.

Descriptive responses given by participants regarding their subjective

experience during and after hypnosis, recorded in the post-assessment forms, were

analyzed qualitatively to support the second objective of the study. Woodard (2003)

states that ‘the general structure is a cumulating of common meaning shared by many

individuals’ descriptions of a phenomenon as we are all fundamentally the same in

essence, when we tap our core being”. In this study a general structure of the

hypnotic experience of highly hypnotizable individuals will be drawn to identify the


commonalities and differences during specific aspects of The Phenomenology

Consciousness Inventory –Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP).

The most frequently used qualitative analysis approach called the Constant

Comparative Analysis created by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is followed. Constant

comparison analysis has been used to examine data collected in one round. The

procedure of analysis involves taking one portion of the data (i.e., one participant’s

response) and compares it with others. Then chunks of smaller meaningful parts are

coded with descriptive titles and similar chunks are grouped together with similar

code. After coding the entire data set, a theme is identified based on each category.

‘Thematic Analysis is a process commonly found in qualitative research in which the

researcher identifies the pattern found in data and categorizes the data by themes’

(Aronson, 1994; Gibson, 2006; Tere, 2006).

The items that were qualitatively recorded are participants’ experience during

hypnotic dream, ideo-motor challenge (eye catalepsy), PCI Imagery experience, that

is the two minute sitting quiet period, Post hypnosis state- feeling after hypnosis,

description of any negative effect during and after hypnosis and hypnotic depth

experience. The predetermined questions embedded in the PCI-HAP form the

boarder themes. Further sub themes are identified and discussed under each of the

main themes.


3.8 Ethical issues

Informed consent agreement will be given to all participants of the research.

(Kavle, 1996). Based on Bailey’s recommended items, the present study will take in

a specific informed consent’ agreement’, which includes: ‘That they are participating

in research, the purpose of the research; the procedures of the research; the voluntary

nature of research participation; the subject’s (informant’s) right to stop the research

at any time; The procedures used to protect confidentiality’ (Groenewald, 2004).

1. Participants will be given written information about the study and asked to

sign a consent form before the study begins.

2. Queries regarding the hypnotic phenomenon will be clarified. Misconception

such as the hypnotist is in control or any other fears will be clearly addressed.

3. Normally in practice, post hypnotic suggestion is given for therapeutic

purpose. This is intentionally removed or in other words no post-hypnotic

suggestions will be given for participants of this study.

4. Confidentiality of participants’ identity will be maintained by assuring the

participants that personal information would not be released.


Results

The results obtained from this study are represented in the order of how they

were examined. Initially, the results of phase I (screening stage) are discussed as

preliminary analysis, followed by phase II results, individual profile analysis and

collective profile analysis. The data obtained from pilot study is combined with phase

I of the main study; therefore the results presented below include pilot study results as

well.

The results are divided into three parts:

4.1 Phase I: Screening stage

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics: Socio-demographic details

4.1.2 Scale scores: GHQ and HGSHS scores

4.2 Phase II: Main study

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics: Socio-demographic details

4.2.2 Individual Profile Analysis

4.2.3 Table: Major dimensions percentile scores of ten individuals during

hypnosis having HGSHS score of 9 – 12.

Figure 4.2.3: Individual Pips for 12 major dimensions of ten

participants

4.2.4 Table: Minor dimensions percentile scores of ten individuals during

hypnosis having HGSHS score of 9 – 12

Figure 4.2.4: Individual Pips for 14 minor dimensions of ten

participants

4.2.4 Table: Trance Typology score of ten highly hypnotizable individuals

Figure 4.2.5: Group’s Trance Typology Profile.


4.3 Collective Analysis: Structure and pattern analysis

4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics for 12 major dimensions

Figure 4.3.1 Pips for 12 major dimensions

4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics for 14 minor dimensions

Figure 4.3.2 Pips for 14 minor dimensions


4.1 Phase I: Screening stage

Table 4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics: Socio demographic details

Age distribution

Age in years Number of subjects Percentage

17-20 6 12.0

21-25 42 84.0

26-30 2 4.0

Total 50 100.0

Mean ± SD: 21.66±1.75

Gender distribution

Gender Number of subjects Percentage

Male 9 18.0

Female 41 82.0

Total 50 100.0

Education level

Education level Number of subjects Percentage

II PUC 1 2.0

UG 3 6.0

PG 46 92.0

Total 50 100.0

Nationality

Nationality Number of subjects Percentage

Indian 49 98.0

Srilankan 1 2.0

Total 50 100.0

Religion

Religion Number of subjects Percentage

Hindu 39 78.0

Christian 6 12.0

Islam 3 6.0

Others 2 4.0

Total 50 100.0

Medical problems

Medical problems Number of subjects Percentage

No 45 90.0

Yes 5 10.0

Total 50 100.0


Table 4.1.2 Scale scores: GHQ and HGSHS scores

Table 4.1.2 (a): GHQ score

GHQ score Number of subjects Percentage

Non-Distressed 41 82

Distressed 4 8

Severely Distressed 4 8

Incomplete 1 2

Total 50 100

Table 4.1.2 (b): Hypnotizable subtypes as assessed by Harvard Group Scale of

Hypnotic Suggestibility: Form A (HGSHS:A)

Hypnotizable status Number of subjects Percentage

Low 16 32.0

Medium 19 38.0

High 10 20.0

Withdrew/Drop outs 5 10.0

Total 50 100.0


Age Distribution Age in years

Number of

subjects Percentage

17-20 3 30.0

21-25 7 70.0

26-30 0 0.0

Total 10 100.0

Mean ± SD: 21.60±1.35

Gender

distribution Gender

Number of

subjects Percentage

Male 1 10.0

Female 9 90.0

Total 10 100.0

Education level Education level

Number of

subjects Percentage

II PUC 0 0.0

UG 0 0.0

PG 10 100.0

Total 10 100.0

Nationality Nationality

Number of

subjects Percentage

Indian 10 100.0

Srilanka 0 0.0

Total 10 100.0

Religion Religion

Number of

subjects Percentage

Hindu 6 60.0

Christian 2 20.0

Islam 2 20.0

Total 10 100.0

4.2 Phase II: Main study

Table 4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics: Socio demographic details


Table 4.2.2: Individual profile score of all 10 highly hypnotizable participants depicted separately

Table 4.2.2 (a): Participant 1 profile scores

Reliability Index (RI) Score 0.2

Hypnoidal State Score 5.89

Imagoic Suggestibility Score (ISS) 10

Modified ATES (prehypnotic estimated depth score-

eHDS)

9

Self-reported Hypnotic Depth Score (SrHDS) 9

Modified Hypnotic Responsivity Index 10.1

Pre-Post Hypnotic Depth Difference Score (HDDS) 0

Imagery Vividness Difference Score (IVDS) 0.5

Classic Suggestion Effect Total Score (CSETS) 9.5

Wakefulness Total Score (WTS) 1.67

Directed/Undirected Imagery Vividness Ratio (IVR) 1.09


Table 4.2.2 (b): Participant 2 profile scores




Modified ATES (prehypnotic estimated depth score- eHDS) 7




Imagery Vividness Difference Score (IVDS) 1





Table 4.2.2 (c): Participant 3 profile scores











Directed/Undirected Imagery Vividness Ratio (IVR) 1


Table 4.2.2 (d): Participant 4 profile scores



Imagoic Suggestibility Score (ISS) 7.5

Modified ATES (prehypnotic estimated depth score- eHDS) 6.5

Self-reported Hypnotic Depth Score (SrHDS) 8.5



Imagery Vividness Difference Score (IVDS) -1.5


Wakefulness Total Score (WTS) 2



Table 4.2.2 (e): Participant 5 profile scores




Modified ATES (prehypnotic estimated depth score-

eHDS)

7









Table 4.2.2 (f): Participant 6 profile scores








Imagery Vividness Difference Score (IVDS) -1





Table 4.2.2 (g): Participant 7 profile scores

Reliability Index (RI) Score 1









Wakefulness Total Score (WTS) 2



Table 4.2.2 (h): Participant 8 profile scores



Imagoic Suggestibility Score (ISS) 8.5





Imagery Vividness Difference Score (IVDS) 1.5





Table 4.2.2 (i): Participant 9 profile scores






Modified Hypnotic Responsivity Index 11



Classic Suggestion Effect Total Score (CSETS) 12


Directed/Undirected Imagery Vividness Ratio (IVR) 1


Table 4.2.2 (j): Participant 10 profile scores













Table 4.2.3: Major dimensions percentile scores of ten individuals during


Participants Percentile Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Volitional Control 41 34 77 50 60 94 60 9 5 34

Rationality 72 72 92 70 49 70 61 40 10 70

Memory 67 59 86 100 53 100 35 53 28 67

Self-Awareness 74 68 87 12 33 68 68 68 10 63

Altered State 52 80 59 80 59 85 43 43 65 72

Internal Dialogue 100 83 37 26 26 100 83 37 26 72

Arousal 82 93 34 69 76 76 49 89 34 76

Positive affect 68 53 82 34 36 14 62 53 47 59

Negative affect 50 82 40 72 80 80 58 72 40 72

Altered experience 39 89 92 89 32 99 32 63 96 83

Imagery 88 87 89 26 26 87 42.5 69 88 78

Attention 97 69 33 80 80 88 69 23 93.5 80

Figure 4.2.3: Phenomenological intensity percentile scores for ten individuals

during hypnosis having HGSHS score of 9 – 12.

12 major dimensions


Table 4.2.4: Minor dimensions percentile scores of ten individuals during


Minor Dimensions Participants Percentile Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Joy 100 71 91 58 36 27 85 71 95 98

Sexual excitement 59 59 94 59 76 59 67 76 59 74

Love 71.66 71.66 87.66 40 40 24 87.66 47.33 30 47.33

Anger 68 74 68 85 68 68 74 68 68 80

Sadness 59 90 59 81 95 75 67 59 59 75

Fear 69 79 61 61 69 91 69 95 61 79

Body image 51 77 75 88 62 100 37 83 77 83

Time sense 44 81 66 81 44 81 77 44 91 73

Perception 53 92 99 58 25 97 25 53 92 53

Meaning 47 77 86 86 55 97 41 67 91 89

Imagery amount 87 85 87 13 13 81.66 46 59.33 85 76.66

Imagery vividness 84 82.66 89 53.66 53.66 84 50 78 89 74

Absorption 100 94 11 100 98 100 94 79 99 98

Direction of attention 90 76 76 61 76 76 76 21 90 76

Figure 4.2.4 : Phenomenological intensity percentile scores for ten individuals

during hypnosis having HGSHS score of 9 – 12.

14 minor dimensions


Table 4.2.5: Trance Typology score of ten highly hypnotizable individuals

Figure 4.2.5: Group’s Trance Typology Profile

Trance

Typology

Profile

Participants

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Classic lows 63.09 60.43 48.2 26.44 16.05 81.53 26.66 44.74 -17.27 21.02

Relaxed lows 61.84 57.69 56.66 35.25 25.44 75.03 34.18 48.47 -1.66 25.12

Non-dialoging

mediums 55.05 57.16 52.24 47.42 38.88 71.22 36.38 50.49 19.25 32.8

Dialoguing

mediums 72.00 71.91 55.03 43.73 34 87.4 41.92 49.1 13.15 34.74

Visualizers 74.42 77.25 62.44 42.65 29.4 90.69 36.09 62.04 16.29 35.13

Rational high-

mediums 61.14 67.5 57.45 49.73 38.55 77.06 38.93 57.5 19.39 35.31

Dialoging

high-mediums 68.45 70.73 47.71 41.37 33.34 77.65 41.72 58.47 24.37 34.67

Fantasy highs 60.41 65 56.77 42.86 33.12 70.36 34.94 55.47 30.33 35.61

Classic highs 47.15 53.35 40.48 41.77 34.66 57.54 32.69 47.65 28.25 29.27


4.3 Collective Analysis

Descriptive Statistics for 12 major dimensions: Structure and pattern

analysis

Table 4.3.1 shows the descriptive scores of ten highly hypnotizable individuals

on the 12 major dimensions

Figure 4.3.1 depicts the average phenomenological intensity percentile scores of

ten highly hypnotizable individuals on the 12 major dimensions

Items Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Volitional Control (VC) 5 94 46.40 27.96

Rationality (RA) 10 92 60.60 22.68

Memory (ME) 28 100 64.80 24.70

Self-Awareness (SA) 10 87 55.10 26.84

Altered State (AS) 43 85 63.80 15.25

Internal Dialogue(ID) 26 100 59.00 31.48

Arousal (AR) 34 93 67.80 21.42

Positive affect (PA) 14 82 50.80 19.27

Negative affect (NA) 40 82 64.60 16.36

Altered experience (AE) 32 99 71.40 27.43

Imagery (VI) 26 89 68.05 26.34

Attention (IAA) 23 97 71.25 24.65


Table 4.3.2 Shows the descriptive scores of ten highly hypnotizable individuals

on the 14 minor dimensions

Items Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Joy (JY) 27 100 73.20 25.87

Sexual excitement(SE) 59 94 68.20 11.76

Love (LO) 24 87.66 54.73 23.19

Anger (AN) 68 85 72.10 6.12

Sadness (SD) 59 95 71.90 13.55

Fear (FR) 61 95 73.40 12.29

Body image (ABI) 37 100 73.30 18.53

Time sense (ATS) 44 91 68.20 17.87

Perception(AP) 25 99 64.70 28.52

Meaning (AM) 41 97 73.60 19.91

Imagery amount (IA) 13 87 63.37 29.73

Imagery vividness (IV) 50 89 73.80 15.43

Absorption (AB) 11 100 87.30 27.55

Direction of attention (AD) 21 90 71.80 19.62

Figure 4.3.2 depicts the average phenomenological intensity percentile scores of

ten highly hypnotizable individuals on the 14 minor dimensions


Discussion

In this section, the results of the study are discussed in detail in accordance

with the objectives of the study. The following are the specific objectives:




experience which are common and unique to highly hypnotizable

individuals.

Initially, the results of phase I (screening stage) are discussed as preliminary

analysis, followed by phase II results, individual profile analysis and collective profile

analysis. The obtained data from pilot study is combined with main study; therefore

the results discussed below include pilot study data as well. The discussions were

carried out under two headings:

1. Phase I: Screening stage

2. Phase II:

a. Individual Profile Analysis

b. Collective Analysis

5.1 Nature of Results: Phase I (screening stage)

The initial subject pool consisted of 50 college students. Most of them were

between the age ranges of 21 to 25 years with mean age of 21.66 years and the range

was 19 – 23 years (Table 4.1.1: Age distribution). Out of them 82 % of the sample

were female population and 18 % male population (Table 4.1.1: Gender distribution).


92% of the population were post graduate students, 6% were under-graduate students

and one person was a PUC student (Table 4.1.1: Education level). Out of the 50

students, 49 of them were Indians expect for one person, who was from Sri Lanka

(Table 4.1.1: Nationality). Table 4.1.1: Religion shows that 78% of the subjects were

belonging to Hindu religion, 12% to Christianity, 6% to Islam and 4% to other

religion. Table 4.1.1 shows 90% of the sample reported no medical problems and

10% reported having medical problems. Table 4.1.2 (a) shows the subjects scores on

General Health Questionnaire, indicating that 82% of the sample experienced no

psychological distress, 8% of them reported psychological distress and 8% of them

reported severe psychological distress, 2% of the forms were returned without

completing.

Table 4.1.2 (b) shows the hypnotizability of the sample assessed on Harvard

Group Scale of Hypnotic Suggestibility (HGSHS). This table indicates that 32% of

the samples were low hypnotizables, 38% of them were medium hypnotizables, 20%

of them were high hypnotizables and 10% of them withdrew during the session.

5.2 Preliminary analyses of Phase II (Main study)

The sample of the present study consisted of ten subjects, who were highly

hypnotizable. From the initial subject pool of 50 students, completed data (on

HGSHS) were available for 45 students. Out of this, ten subjects who fulfilled the

inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Table 4.2.1 shows socio-demographic

detail of participants of the main study. The mean age of the group was 21.60 years,

range between 20 to 23 years. The sample consisted of nine females, who were post-


graduate students of clinical and psychological counselling course and one male, who

was a post-graduate student of English literature. All ten participants were Indians, of

which 60% of them were Hindus, 20% Christians and 20% were Muslims. None of

the participants was suffering from any medical problems. PCI-HAP was conducted

to these participants with a gap not more than 6 days between phase I and phase II and

for some of them it was on the same day. All sessions of phase II were conducted in

the evening after college hours (except for participant 1) between 4:30 p.m

and 7:30 p.m in a quiet room.

All participants attended regular post-graduate programme except for

participant 1 who was pursuing his Masters Degree through distance education. The

scores obtained from PCI-HAP are discussed in terms of their percentile scores.

Percentile scores above 80 is discussed as high scores and percentile scores below 20

as low scores and between 20 to 80 percentile scores as moderate score (Pekala,

2009). Higher the percentile score shows higher intensity of the experience.

5.3 Individual Profile Analysis

The profiles of ten highly hypnotizable individuals will be discussed by

reviewing the participant’s socio-demographic detail and the data obtained through

PCI-HAP excel program in the following order for each individual:

1. PCI Data sheet: Intra individual reliability score, Trance typology profile.

2. PCI (Sub) Dimensions Scores: Major and minor dimensions experienced

is discussed.

3. Summary Page containing the major PCI-HAP domains.


a. The Hypnoidal State Score,

b. The Imagoic Suggestibility Score

c. The Modified Average Total Expectancy Score: Pre-hypnotic

estimated depth score.

d. The Self-reported Hypnotic Depth (srHD) score

e. The Modified Hypnotic Responsivity Index (HRI)

The above summary scores are discussed along with pre-post assessment data

containing the quantitative and qualitative descriptions of participants experience

during and after hypnosis. All the ten participants were undergoing hypnosis for the

first time and had not received any prior hypnosis sessions. Table 4.2.2 show

individual profile scores of all 10 highly hypnotizable participants.

Participant 1

Participant 1, is a 24 year old male, post graduate student of arts (M.A). A

highly hypnotizable individual with score of 10 on HGSHS: A. His score of 9 on

GHQ suggests no psychological distress. He did not report any medical illness or

intake of drugs. His phenomenological experience during hypnosis is discussed by

referring to Table 4.2.2 (a): Participant 1 profile scores.

Firstly, the intra-individual reliability scores of 0.20 shows that the scores

obtained on PCI are reliable and can be further discussed on dimensions and other

scores.


Secondly, the trance typology profile represents that he has the characteristics

of a visualizer, suggesting that he has high level of ability for visual imagery, self-

awareness and intact memory and characteristics of a dialoguing medium meaning

that he was engaged in internal dialogue during hypnosis. Even though participant is

a mix of both visualizer and dialoguing medium type, he demonstrates more of visual

ability and usually for visualizers, internal dialoguing has no negative effect on level

of trance (Pekala, 2009b).

Comparing his scores on PCI imagery and Imagoic suggestibility score reveals

that he has experienced more vivid imagery during hypnotic dream, hence suggesting

that he can generate vivid imagery with cues or when directions are given than when

uncued/undirected. He also reported to have maintained a strong sense of self

awareness throughout and had extremely clear and vivid memory of the events he

experienced. His experience of visual imagery was greater when compared to self-

awareness and memory during hypnosis.

Thirdly, investigating the structure of his hypnotic experience on the major

and minor dimensions reveal that he has experienced high level of internal dialogue,

attention and imagery, moderate level of arousal, self-awareness, rationality, positive

affect, memory, altered state, negative affect, volitional control and altered

experience.

The above suggests that the participant was engaged in a great deal of silent

talking during hypnosis along with other experiences. Imagery sub-dimensions

consist of two minor dimensions, imagery amount and imagery vividness.


Participant’s experience was made up almost completely of images with vivid three

dimensional images as objects in the real world. Attention consists of two minor

dimensions direction of attention and absorption, suggesting that he was able to

continually concentrate on what he was experiencing without distractions. His

attention during hypnosis was more outer-directed towards the world around him and

less towards internal subjective experience.

Participant’s moderate level of arousal suggests he experienced slight muscle

tension. He maintained a strong sense of self-awareness the whole time. He also

reported that his thought process was clear and easy to comprehend. He was able to

remember and recall everything that he experienced. During hypnosis he felt

extremely joyful, experiencing love and sexual excitement and he also felt negative

affects of anger, fear and sadness.

While he experienced an extremely different, unusual, and non-ordinary state

of awareness, he did not report any distinct alteration in experience involving altered

body image, altered time sense, altered perception and altered meaning. Although he

did experience mild change in his perception of the world around him in terms of size,

shape or perspective, experienced awe and reverence toward the world, but no drastic

changes in body- image or flow of time. His moderate scores on volitional control

indicate that he was receptive and passive to what he was experiencing.

Fourthly, review of participant’s summary sheet along with pre-post

assessment indicates the following:


The validity index, that is, the wakefulness total score of 1.67 shows that the

participant was responsive during the assessment protocol both for behavioural item

where he raised his finger when asked to and he did not believe he fell asleep for

phenomenological item, that is, during the two minute silent period. Therefore, the

scores obtained through PCI-HAP are valid.

He reported to have experienced a moderate hypnoidal state (5.89). This state

score is the overall measure of ‘trance-depth’ one of the major aspects that

respondent’s use to evaluate if and how much they were hypnotized. According to

Pekala (2009b) this score represents ‘Weitzenhoffer’s definition of hypnosis, the

subjective state the client feels himself to be in due to the hypnotic intervention’.

Along with this score the other measures that are used are imagoic suggestibility,

expectancy and self-reported hypnotic depth score.

Imagoic suggestibility score suggests that the participant has high ability for

imagery vividness and imagery amount. The imagery vividness difference score

indicates that his hypnotic dream imagery was more vivid than pre hypnotic visual

and kinaesthetic imagery. He described his hypnotic dream experience as ‘I felt very

happy. Whatever I thought would happen in my life happened. I feel proud of my

achievement. I enjoyed the things I loved, like the nature, riverside, birds, trees,

communication with my neighbours’.

The modified average total expectancy score (mATES) is 9 i.e. the Pre-

hypnotic estimated Depth score (eHDS) because pre-post therapeutic expectancy is

eliminated. The self reported hypnotic depth score (srHDS) of 9 is a result of


participant’s experience of imagery vividness, expected hypnotic depth, moderate

hypnoidal state and eye catalepsy.

The hypnotic depth score or adjusted hynoidal state discrepancy score indicate

that the participant has overestimated his hypnotic depth experience. The experience

of hypnotic depth state was reported as ‘It is a wonderful experience for me to think in

sleepy mood. And in this state, to actually experience and bring up imagery, to go to

that state and come back gives relaxation’. Typically, a visualizer underestimates

his/her hypnotic depth. Here, the participant achieved the estimated or expected

hypnotic depth. This could be because of his experience of vivid visual imagery

during hypnosis, which was beyond his expectations.

Classic suggestion effect total score suggests that the participant experienced

almost total loss of behavioural and phenomenological control (with score of 9.50 out

of 12). He passed the eye catalepsy item and reported the experience as ‘It was fully

closed, wouldn't open, my eyelids were not able to open. Like rubber getting stuck on

the wall/door’.

His score for phenomenological volitional control is comparatively less, were

he has reported no control over images and thoughts, but wilfully controlling and

paying attention to his experience. He reported his experience during ‘sitting quiet’

period as ‘I felt relaxed, my mind was calm, cool, not worrying about anything, like a

child's mind. Like how a small child wakes from sleep, wonders about things, I felt

like that’.


This suggests that participant felt being more in control during the

phenomenological assessment than for behavioural item, where he responded

according to the suggestion and experienced involuntariness during motor-challenge

item. This supports Woody and McConkey (2005) that, ‘the crucial subjective

experience in hypnotic responses of the motor challenge type appears to be a feeling

of involuntariness or ineffectiveness of one’s will (Woody & Sadler, 1998)—trying to

do something but failing is the prototype of this kind of experience’.

He described his feelings after hypnosis as ‘I feel relaxed. It was a nice

experience for me. I feel I can get rid of all my worries, feeling low. I now feel

confident and fresh’ and he also stated that he did not experience any negative

feelings during hypnosis.

Overall, the participant was highly responsive to hypnosis intervention, as his

modified hypnotic responsivity score is 10.10. This suggests that individual’s ability

for visual imagery and response expectancy had contributed to his hypnotic

experience. Thus, participant 1’s PCI-HAP result supports the socio-cognitive theory

emphasizing the role of imagination and response expectancy in contributing to

hypnotic experience of high hypnotizable individuals.

Participant is among the 10% of the population, who can best be benefitted by

hypnosis (Pekala, 2009b). He will benefit from hypnotherapy, if given directed

imagery suggestions and incorporate suggestions 'to let the chatter move into the

background of consciousness’. (Pekala, 2009b). To shift focus from constant internal


dialogue the use of breathing strategies or other distraction techniques can also be

useful.

Participant 2

Participant 2, is a 23 year old female, post graduate (M.Sc) student of clinical

psychology. A highly hypnotizable individual with a score of 11 on HGSHS: A. Her

score of 8 on GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also, she did not report any

medical illness, intake of any drugs, but smokes cigarettes occasionally. She engages

herself in hobbies such as reading books, playing tennis and playing on guitar. Her

phenomenological experience during hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3

(b): Participant 2 profile scores.

Intra-individual reliability scores of 0.40 shows that the scores obtained on

PCI are reliable and can be further discussed on dimensions and other scores.

Her trance typology profile represents that she has characteristics of a

visualizer. High scores as a visualizer reveals that she has high level of ability for

visual imagery, self-awareness and intact memory. Comparing her scores on PCI

imagery and Imagoic suggestibility score reveals that she has experienced more vivid

imagery during hypnotic dream, meaning that she can generate more vivid imagery

when cues for imagination are given than when uncued/undirected. In hypnotic

dream the participant was asked to go on a ‘vacation and have a wonderful and

relaxing time’ and during PCI imagery the participant was asked to sit quietly for two

minutes and continue to experience the state they were in.


She reported to have experienced an extremely different, unusual and non-

ordinary state of consciousness, made up almost completely of clear visual imagery as

objects in the real world, with attention completely directed towards her internal

subjective experience, without being distracted. Her scores support Pekala (2009b)

opinion that high susceptible report high altered state of awareness. This may also

suggest that experience of altered state is an important feature of hypnotic response of

highly hypnotizable individuals.

She reported of being aware of herself, continually conscious of herself and

maintained a strong sense of self-awareness for most of the time. She also reported to

remember fairly about everything that she experienced, could recall everything that

happened to her and that memories of the events were not hazy and blurred but it was

clear and vivid. Her experience of visual imagery was greater when compared to self-

awareness and memory during hypnosis.

Participant has scored high on arousal, a measure of subjective muscle tension.

This indicates that she was unable to completely relax the muscles of her body, but at

the same time she did not report experiencing her muscles being tense and tight. Her

scores on rationality suggest that her thought process was clear and easy to

comprehend. She was talking silently to herself a great deal during hypnosis.

She also reported high altered experience involving altered time sense, altered

perception, altered meaning and altered body image. Perception of the world around

her changed in terms of colour or form. Her perception of the flow of time changed


drastically, feeling that time stood still; and there was no movement of time at all.

She reported some of her experiences as very religious, spiritual or transcendental,

with profound and enlightening insights of certain ideas. She felt her body greatly

expanding beyond the boundaries of her skin and experienced unity with the universe,

dissolving the boundaries between her and the environment. This suggests that the

participant will be benefitted by hypnosis to change her perception of her body image,

to alter the meaning of events, decrease the meaning of negative affect associated with

traumatic events and existential meaning for the participant (Pekala, 2009).

She experienced more of negative affect feeling sad, afraid and angry than

positive affect of love, joy and sexual excitement. When asked to describe of any

negative effect during or after the session, she mentioned about ‘experiencing slight

headache initially during relaxation procedure, which subsided later on’. Her lowest

score on volitional control suggests that she was being passive and receptive to the

experience and felt no control over the images and thoughts that popped into her

mind.

Review of participant’s summary sheet along with pre-post assessment

indicates the following:



where she raised her index finger when asked to and she did not believe she fell

asleep for phenomenological item during 2 minute silent period. Therefore, the scores

obtained through PCI-HAP are valid.


The hypnoidal state score of the participant shows that she has experienced a

high hypnoidal state (7.20). Along with this score the other measures that are used to

measure hypnotic depth are imagoic suggestibility, expectancy and self-reported

hypnotic depth score.

Imagoic suggestibility score suggests that the participant has high ability for

imagery vividness and imagery amount. The imagery vividness difference score

indicates that her hypnotic dream imagery was more vivid than pre-hypnotic visual

and kinaesthetic imagery. She described her hypnotic dream experience as ‘I was in

my favourite place, where we went early, remembered what we ate, taking pictures, it

was drizzling lightly, could see rocks and greenery’.

The modified average total expectancy score (ATES) is 7. The self reported

hypnotic depth score (srHDS) is 7. This could be the result of participant’s

experience of imagery vividness that has influenced her expected hypnotic depth and

high hypnoidal state score.

The hypnotic depth score or adjusted hynoidal state discrepancy score of

0.88 indicates that the participant has slightly underestimated her experience of

hypnotic depth. This is in accordance with Pekala’s (2009b) opinion that a visualizer

underestimates his/her hypnotic depth. She described the experience of hypnotic

depth state as ‘I could hear your voice clearly and could think of all that you

suggested to me. I felt like I was dreaming or sleeping’.

Participant’s total score of 8.83 (out of 12) on classic suggestion effect shows

that she has experienced loss of behavioural and phenomenological control. Although


she was unable to open her eyes, she felt she could open it but failed. She described

her experience as ‘Felt very heavy, putting a lot of effort, but it was stuck. I stopped

trying because I started getting headache’. She has also experienced

phenomenological loss of control as measured by PCI i.e. during the two minute

‘sitting quiet’ period and reported the experience as ‘I felt I was going into a deep

state where I was alone and felt a tingling sensation in my body. I felt like I was in a

dream and was enjoying the solitude’.

This again, points out that the experience of involuntariness is an important

feature in hypnotic response. This supports Woody, Barnier and McConkey (2005)

claim that involuntariness is the building block for motor challenge item and Kirsch

and Lynn’s (1997) generalized response expectancy, that experience of volition

depends on the response set placed for the execution of action. This can also be

explained through dissociation control theory viz., automatic activation of low level

cognitive structure, where no attention is required.

Overall, the participant is highly responsive to hypnosis intervention, as her

modified hypnotic responsivity score is 9.55. The participant would be benefitted by

hypnotherapy if direct and imagination based suggestions are given.


Participant 3

Participant 3 is a 22 year old female, a postgraduate student of psychology

(M.Sc). A highly hypnotizable individual with a score of 10 on HGSHS: A. Her score

of 9 on GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also, she did not report any medical

illness or intake of drugs. She spends her leisure time chatting with her friends. Her

phenomenological experience during hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3

(c): Participant 3 profile scores.

Firstly, the intra-individual reliability scores of 0.20 shows that the scores

obtained on PCI are reliable and can be further discussed on dimensions and other

scores. The validity index, that is, the wakefulness total score of 1.33 shows that the


where she raised her finger when asked to and for phenomenological item during the

two minute silent period she believed that she probably fell asleep. The scores

obtained through PCI-HAP are valid because score of 2 suggests being completely

awake and a score of zero suggest that participant was unresponsive/asleep.

Participant’s score suggests that she was responsive almost throughout the assessment

protocol.

Secondly, the trance typology profile represents that she has the characteristics

of a visualizer. This type of individuals represents high level of ability for visual

imagery, self-awareness and intact memory. Further analyses of the major

dimensions experienced by her reveals that she has scored high on imagery, self

awareness and memory. Her high scores on imagery suggest that she has the ability

to spontaneously generate images. Her experience during hypnosis was completely


made up with clear and vivid imagery as objects in the real world. Comparing her

scores on PCI imagery and Imagoic suggestibility score, reveals that she has

experienced more vivid imagery during hypnotic dream, hence demonstrating that she

can generate vivid imagery more easily with cues or when directions are given than

when uncued/undirected. Thus, she will be benefitted both by self hypnosis and

hetero-hypnosis.

She reported to have maintained a strong sense of self awareness the whole

time. The percentile score of above 80 suggests that the participant may have

experienced difficulty to let go as falling off to sleep can be deeply relaxing (Pekala,

2009b). She also reported to remember about everything that she experienced and

that the memory of events was extremely clear. Her experience of visual imagery was

greater when compared to self awareness and memory during hypnosis.

Thirdly, she experienced a high intensity of other major dimensions apart from

the ones mentioned above. They are rationality, positive affect and altered

experience. This suggests that she experienced clear thinking during hypnosis. A

high score on positive affect is due to experienced feeling of loving-kindness, joy and

reported becoming aware of strong sexual feeling. Her altered state of experience was

mainly due to her perception of the world around her which changed drastically in

colour, shape, size or perspective and also she experienced altered meaning, altered

body image and time sense.


She also experienced moderate levels of volitional Control, altered state,

negative affect, attention, internal dialogue and arousal. Her responses on volitional

control indicate that though she experienced no control over images and thoughts that

popped into her mind she was wilfully controlling what she was paying attention

to/experiencing. While she experienced an extraordinary, unusual state of awareness,

she also experienced negative affect of anger, sadness and fear. Her attention was

directed completing towards her internal subjective experience, but she was not

engaged in a great deal of silent talking with self and she experienced mild muscular

tension during hypnosis.

Fourthly, review of participant’s summary sheet along with pre-post

assessment indicates the following:

She is reported to have experienced a moderate hypnoidal state (5.79). This

state score is the overall measure of ‘trance depth’ that is, one of the major aspects

that the respondents used to evaluate if and how much they were hypnotized. Along

with this score the other measures that are used are imagoic suggestibility, expectancy

and self-reported hypnotic depth score.

Imagoic suggestibility score of 10 suggests that the participant demonstrate

high ability for imagery vividness and amount. The imagery vividness difference

score indicate that her hypnotic dream imagery was more vivid than pre-hypnotic

visual and kinaesthetic imagery vividness. She described her hypnotic dream

experience as ‘I went with one of my close friends to a mountain and we spent some

time there. After that, we came to a valley and a place full of greenery. I was


wearing a white frock and she was wearing a green churidhar. After that we went to a

beach where we both lied down and talked a lot’.

The modified average total expectancy score (ATES) is 6. The srHDS of 7 is a

result of participant’s experience of imagery vividness, expected hypnotic depth,

moderate hypnoidal state and eye catalepsy.

The hypnotic depth score or adjusted hynoidal state discrepancy score of

1.09 indicate that the participant has slightly overestimated her hypnotic depth

experience. The experience of hypnotic depth state was reported as ‘I felt that I am

guided by the instructions. I could not do whatever I wanted. I was thinking properly

about vacation when she told me to do so, which means that I am hypnotized to

follow the suggestions’. Typically, a visualizer underestimates his/her hypnotic

depth, but here, the participant has overestimated hypnotic depth. This could be

because of her experience of high vivid visual imagery during hypnotic dream, which

was beyond her expectation.

Classic suggestion effect total score of the participant is 7.33 (out of 12): It

was observed that she was unable to open her eyes indicating complete behavioural

loss of control. She felt that she could have opened her eyes if given more time,

suggesting some control over her experience for motor challenge item. She reported

that ‘When you told me to open my eyes, I felt I could not open it. Some muscles

seemed to bind my eyelids together so that I felt difficult to open my eyes. My

eyelids were moving a little and I could feel the movement clearly’. This shows the

discrepancy between the behavioural and subjective experience of control for motor

challenge item.


She experienced least loss for phenomenological volitional control on PCI.

She reported her experience during sitting quiet period as ‘I felt quite relaxed. I felt I

am seeing a dream as if we usually see in our sleep. I dreamt about the place I went

yesterday with my friend. Then I was thinking and reflecting on the instructions you

gave before. I thought and reflected about the trip during vacation. I could feel the

thoughts that came during hypnosis/ I could feel the experiences in my thoughts. I

shared my happiness with my friends in dream. I felt happy and a sense of

achievement’.

She reported no negative feeling during hypnosis and feelings after hypnosis

as ‘After hypnosis, I am feeling much relaxed, quiet, calm, and happy. I feel that all

my worries and tensions have faded away as if I submitted them to the Lord and I am

looking forward with hope’.


modified hypnotic responsivity score is 8.10. This suggests that the individual’s

ability for visual imagery and response expectancy (for eye catalepsy) has contributed

to her hypnotic experience. Thus participant’s PCI-HAP results support the socio-

cognitive theory emphasizing the role of imagination and response expectancy in

contributing to the hypnotic experience of high hypnotizable individuals.


Participant 4

Participant 4 is a 22 year old female, a post graduate student of psychology. A

highly hypnotizable individual with a score of 9 on HGSHS:A. Her score of 8 on

GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also, she did not report any medical illness

or in-take of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in writing, reading,

painting, listening to music, cooking and travelling. Her phenomenological

experience during hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (d): Participant 4

profile scores.

Participant’s reliability score on PCI is 0.40 suggests that the data obtained on

PCI is reliable. Her trance typology profile indicates that she has the characteristics

of rational high-medium and non-dialoging medium suggesting that during hypnosis

her thought process was clear and distinct and that she did not engage in internal

dialogue during the ‘two minute quiet’ period. She also reported feeling more

hypnotized than what she estimated. People with these trance typology profile are

particular about the nature of the suggestions. They appear to have a strong need to

have things coherent and internally consistent.

Participant’s PCI percentile score on major dimensions reveals that she had

high score on memory, altered state, altered experience and attention. High score on

memory indicates that she could clearly remember her experience of events during

hypnosis. This is in accordance to Pekala’s interpretation (2009) that rational high-

mediums do not experience a drop in memory unlike fantasy and/or classic highs.

Her score on altered state suggests that she experienced an extraordinarily unusual

and non ordinary state of awareness. Analysis of minor dimensions of altered


experience suggests that to some extent she experienced her bodily feeling expand

into the world around her and that her perception of flow of time changed drastically,

seeming to have stood still. Her attention during hypnosis was completely directed

towards her internal subjective experience and she was not distracted, and was able to

concentrate quite well.

During the two minute quiet period, she did not engage in a great deal of silent

talking to self. She experienced a moderate level of rationality, meaning that her

thought process was fairly clear and easy to comprehend. Scores on volitional control

suggest that she had some control over what she was paying attention to.

She experienced more negative affect including intense feeling of anger,

sadness and fear than positive affect like feeling moderate level of sexual excitement,

joy and love. She also experienced moderate level of muscular tension. Percentile

score on imagery suggest she was able to generate less amount of spontaneous visual

imagery and the visual images were vague and diffuse, thus predicting that she might

not respond very well to imagery based suggestions during hypnosis. Her lowest

score on self-awareness indicates that she did not maintain a very strong sense of self-

awareness at all.

The validity index score or wakefulness total score of 2 indicates that the

participant was awake and responsive both to behavioural and phenomenological

items during assessment protocol.

Participant has experienced a high hypnoidal state 8.08. This could be due to

her experience of altered state of awareness and altered experiences. Her imagoic


suggestibility score of 7.5, shows that she experienced clear visual imagery during

hypnotic dream. Her pre hypnotic visual and kinestic imagery vividness was higher

than imagery vividness experience during hypnotic dream. This suggests that she had

the ability for imagination, which was decreased during the hypnosis session. She

described her hypnotic dream experience as ‘It was beach side, it was airy, sunset or

sunrise can't make out. Sitting there with a book in my hand, very calm, it was nice.’

The modified average total expectancy score (ATES) is 6. 50. The srHDS of

8.50 is a result of participant’s experience of altered state of awareness, hypnotic

depth, high hypnoidal state and eye catalepsy.

The hypnotic depth score or adjusted hynoidal state discrepancy score of 0.95

indicates that the participant has slightly (0.50) underestimated her hypnotic depth

experience. The experience of hypnotic depth state was reported as ‘It was a free

floating experience, guided except for some of the images which I was asked to

imagine. No sound, noises of rain or other nosies.’

Classic suggestion effect total score of the participant is 9.27 (out of 12). It

was observed that she was unable to open her eyes indicating complete behavioural

loss of control and she experienced difficulty trying to open her eyes. She reported

that ‘I could not open my eyes. There was a control of its own. I tried, it was kind of

stuck.’ Although she experienced complete loss of control for behavioural item, that

is, for motor challenge instructions (eye catalepsy), she felt she had control over her

phenomenological experience during sitting quiet period. She reported the experience

as ‘It was very quiet, no sound around me, no external stimuli, no time-limit. Like a


baby not affected by anything around, it was on its own. I was totally blank, it doesn't

happen to me often’.

She reported no negative feelings during hypnosis and feelings after hypnosis

as ‘Fresh and light’. Overall, the participant is highly responsive to hypnosis

intervention, as her modified hypnotic responsivity score is 9.88. Her profile analysis

reveals that she experienced complete absorption, intact memory, altered experience

during hypnosis. Participant’s high hypnoidal state score indicates that she

experienced altered state of consciousness and can benefit from self-hypnosis

training. Thus participant’s PCI-HAP results support the Pekala and Wenger (1985)

findings that ‘individuals of high absorption ability, compared to lows, experienced a

different state of consciousness during ordinary, waking consciousness that became

an altered state with eye closure and an hypnotic like induction’. In addition, it also

supports the socio-cognitive theory emphasizing the role of absorption contributing to

hypnotic experience of high hypnotizable individuals.

Participant 5

Participant 5 is a 21year old female, a post graduate student of psychology. A

highly hypnotizable individual with score of 10 on HGSHS:A. Her score of 6 on

GHQ suggests no psychological distress and also she did not report any medical

illness or in-take of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in reading

books, listening to music and dancing. Her phenomenological experience during

hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (e): Participant 5 profile scores.

Participant 5’s reliability score on PCI is .40, suggesting that the data obtained

on PCI was reliable. Her trance typology profile shows that she had characteristics of


non-dialoguing mediums (38.88), rational high mediums (38.55) and classic highs

(34.60). These types are discussed since the differences between the scores are within

5%. This means that she must have experienced the following during the two minute

sitting quiet period: less internal dialogue, more rationality and Pekala (2009) suspect

that has most of the classic highs ‘probably fall asleep during all or part of the 2

minute period’.

Analyses of the subjective experience of the participant on the 12 major

dimensions (discussed along with minor dimensions) shows that she has high scores

on attention, negative affect and arousal, a moderate level of intensity scores on

altered state, volitional control, memory, rationality, positive affect, altered

experience, self awareness, imagery and internal dialogue.

This means that she was completely absorbed and was paying attention

towards her inner subjective experience; she felt sadness more than anger and fear and

she was unable to completely relax. She felt experiencing an unusual different state

of awareness, with moderate control over her phenomenological experience. Her

thought process was rational and easy to comprehend and she was able to remember

clearly the events that she experienced during hypnosis. Her scores on positive affect

show that she experienced more feelings of sexual excitement than love and joy. Her

scores on altered experience suggest that her perception of her body image was

slightly altered in the sense she experienced that the boundaries between her and the

environment dissolved away, but with less intensity. Her perception of time-sense

changed drastically, the flow of time stood still, but her perception of the world did

not change in terms of colour, size or form or meaning. She experienced low self-


awareness meaning that she was not aware of being aware of herself. She did not

engage in a great deal of silent talking. Finally, she experienced a few visual imagery

during the 2 minute quiet period, although she has imagery abilities, which can be

seen from her imagoic suggestibility score (pre hypnotic visual-kinestic and hypnotic

dream imagery vividness).

Her wakefulness score (1.67) shows that she was awake for behavioural item,

meaning that she responded to the suggestion when asked to raise her index finger and

she did not believe that she fell asleep and therefore the scores obtained on PCI is

considered valid. She reported her experience during the 2 minute period as ‘I could

feel my breathing, my hands were a little heavy, feeling relaxed, calm, no thought as

such in my mind’. Suggesting that her experience was focused more on bodily

feeling and she did not report seeing any images. This explains her scores on the PCI-

HAP altered body image experience and imagery.

She also reported loss of control behaviourally and experientially for eye

catalepsy item, describing the experience as ‘They were heavy, I couldn't open them.

I was trying to, but I failed to open them.’ She reported having moderate level of

phenomenological volitional control (during PCI). In other words, she experienced

having control over her phenomenological experience. Pekala (2009) refers to this

dimension as a measure of ‘classic suggestion effect’ of Weitzenhoffer (1974), stating

that ‘many individuals consider loss of control is important for a person to be

hypnotized’, but statistically there is less correlation between eye catalepsy, a

behavioural item and phenomenological loss of control measured by PCI volitional

control dimension.


Her imagery vividness difference scores show that there was no difference in

the pre hypnotic imagery vividness of relaxing in a hot tub and hypnotic dream of

being on a vacation for the participant. She described her experience of the hypnotic

dream as ‘I went to the airport, went on flight, went to a beach. There were lot of

seashells. I felt the wave touching my feet. I was wearing white t-shirt and shorts.

There was sun, nice weather, see palm trees far away from the sea.’ This response

highlights the different and many images that the participant generated, resulting in

high vivid imagery experience during hypnotic dream.

She expressed no negative affect during or after hypnosis and reported feeling

great, refreshed and calm after the session. Her experience of the hypnotic state was

described as ‘I think I was pretty deep into it, my mind was alert and attuned to what

you were saying. My body was relaxed, no disturbance’.

Overall, she reported to have reached a moderate hypnoidal state and her

estimated pre-hypnotic depth (modified ATES) and self report post hypnotic depth

(srHDS) were similar and her imagoic suggestibility is also high. The average of all

these scores resulted in high hypnotic responsivity (modified Hypnotic Responsivity),

suggesting that the participant is responsive to hypnotic intervention.


Participant 6

Participant 6 is a 22year old female, and a post graduate student of

psychology. A highly hypnotizable individual with score of 9 on HGSHS:A. Her

score of 9 on GHQ suggests no psychological distress and also she did not report any

medical illness or in-take of drugs. She spends her leisure time by engaging herself in

playing badminton, listening to music, dancing and chatting. Her phenomenological

experience during hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (f): Participant 6

profile scores.

The scores obtained on the PCI is considered reliable for participant 6, as the

intra-individual reliability score is 1.20 and therefore the data obtained can be further

discussed.

Participant 6’s trance typology profile shows that the individual has scored

high on the hypnotic types as a visualizers and dialoguing medium thus, suggesting

that she has the ability to experience high visual imagery, high level of self-

awareness, intact memory and engage in internal dialogue with self. Comparing her

scores on PCI imagery and her imagoic suggestibility score (i.e. imagery during

hypnotic dream), reveals that she has the ability to generate vivid visual imagery with

and/or without cues.

During PCI-HAP 2 minute ‘sitting quiet’ period she has experienced a high

intensity of memory, internal dialoguing, altered experience and volitional control;

moderate levels of imagery, attention, altered state, negative affect, arousal,

rationality, self awareness and low positive affect.


Participant reported having clear memory of the events and what she

experienced during hypnosis. This is usually low for highly hypnotizable types, but

visualizers and rational high do not show a drop in these scores (Pekala, 2009). A

high score on internal dialogue suggests that the participant was engaged in a great

deal of silent talking with self. Pekala (2009) suggests that such participants could be

benefitted by ‘certain relaxation training such as breathing exercise, progressive

relaxation, meditation, that will help them physically relax, become aware of their

thoughts & move them into the background resulting in less distraction’.

Altered experience involves experience of altered body image, altered time

sense, altered perception and altered meaning. She reported having felt her body

greatly expanded beyond the boundaries of her skin, experienced unity with the

world, dissolving the boundaries between her and the environment. Her perception of

time changed drastically, feeling that the time stood still; there was no movement of

time at all. Her perception of the world around her changed in size, shape or

perspective. Therefore, this suggests that the participant will be benefitted by

hypnosis to change her perception of her body image, to alter the meaning of events,

decrease the meaning of negative affect associated with traumatic events and

augmenting spiritual or existential meaning for the participant.

Participant has also scored high on volitional control, a measure of ‘classic

suggestion effect’ indicating that she experienced having control over her

phenomenological experience. According to Pekala (2009) individuals scoring high

on volitional control, may have fears of losing control and due to situational factors


they were unable to let go in the present session. Such individuals will be benefitted

with more suggestions of safety and security.

Participant’s high score on experiential dimension of imagery suggests that

she was able to generate high amount of spontaneous vivid visual imagery and thus

will respond to imagery based suggestions during hypnosis. High score on attention

indicate that she was completely absorbed in the suggested experience during

hypnosis and her attention was directed towards her internal subjective experience.

Here the genuineness of certain response given by the participant can be questioned

because it can be noticed that she has reported engaging in silent talking with self and

at the same time being not distracted and able to concentrate quite well (when internal

dialogue is negatively or lowly correlated with other major dimensions on PCI,

Pekala, 2009). Her scores on rationality and self awareness suggest that her thought-

process was clear and easy to comprehend and that she was aware of herself for most

of the time during hypnosis.

Her high score on altered state suggests that she experienced an

extraordinarily unusual and non-ordinary state of awareness. In general, individuals

scoring high on hypnotic susceptibility tests report altered state of awareness.

She has experienced more negative affect than positive affect during hypnosis.

The negative affect dimension involves experience of anger, sadness and fear.

Analysing the sub dimensions of negative affect shows that she experienced high

intensity of fear and moderate intensity of sadness and anger, whereas, positive affect

is the least experienced dimension. Further analysing the sub dimensions shows that

she experienced high intensity of sexual excitement and low intensity of joy and love.






where she raised her index finger when asked to and she did not believe that she fell

asleep for phenomenological item during 2 minute silent period. Therefore, the scores

obtained through PCI-HAP are valid.

PCI also maps the four major domains of hypnosis, leading to the perception

of being hypnotized. One such score is the adjusted hypnoidal state score, a measure

of ‘trance depth’. The participant has reported experiencing moderate hypnoidal state

with a score of 6.92.

The imagoic suggestibility score gives a measure of suggestibility. Participant

shows moderate ability for imagery vividness and amount. The imagery vividness

difference score is negative indicating that her pre-hypnotic visual imagery was more

vivid than hypnotic dream. She described her hypnotic dream experience as ‘Fire,

yellow colour, looked like hell. Starting was fine and I saw myself in a dragon's

mouth, surrounding the dragon was fire. Only the head of the dragon was there’.

The modified average total expectancy score (mATES) is a measure of the

client’s expectancy concerning her estimated hypnotic depth score. The self-reported

hypnotic depth score (srHDS) is a measure of how deeply hypnotized the participant

felt himself/herself to be. Participants’ mATES score is 6 and srHDS score is 7. She

described the experience of hypnotic depth state as ‘I was listening to you I was

thinking I could do it and I could if I willed. Drilling noise was less, could hear your


voice clearly. Was hearing birds sound, I could feel my eyes tensing and relaxing,

could feel movement of my eye muscles’. This explains her score on internal

dialogue, arousal and self awareness scores.

For the eye catalepsy instructions the participant experienced loss of

behavioural control with score of 4 indicating the effort of trying to open her eyes as

barely able to open. She described her experience as ‘It was hard, like something is

stuck, like glue, like glue, like someone is holding tightly, can't open’.

She reported no negative affect, but experienced feeling ‘Some power from

within. Imagining myself that I will go to hell. Lot of worries, trying to come out of it,

in the two minute period’. This explains her moderate score on negative experiential

dimension on PCI.

She described her experience after hypnosis as ‘When you feel chilled, the

nerves shiver inside you, I felt that way soon after the session. Relaxed, something

has gone from my head; feel free, like waking up from a good sleep’.


modified hypnotic responsivity score is 8.28. Participant will be benefitted by

hypnotherapy if more imagination based suggestions are given. Practice of relaxation

techniques will help her to focus better, reducing her internal dialogue.


Participant 7

Participant 7 is a 22year old female, a postgraduate student of psychology. A

highly hypnotizable individual with score of 10 on HGSHS:A. Her score of 9 on

GHQ suggests no psychological distress. She did not report any medical illness or in-

take of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in dancing, swimming,

collecting coins and playing golf. Her phenomenological experience during hypnosis

is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (g): Participant 7 profile scores.

The intraindividual reliability score of 1.00 shows that the scores obtained on

PCI are reliable and can be further discussed on dimensions and other scores.

Participant 7’s trance typology profile shows that the individual has

characteristics of dialoguing high mediums and rational high-mediums. She is a mix

of these types with scores ranging within 5 % of each other, thus, suggesting that she

has the experienced high internal dialogue and more rationality during hypnosis.

During PCI-HAP 2 minute sitting quiet period she has experienced a high

intensity of internal dialoguing and moderate level of attention, self awareness,

positive affect, rationality, volitional control, negative affect, arousal, altered state,

imagery, memory and lowest score on altered experience. This suggests that a highly

hypnotizable rational, dialoguing individual may have less altered experience.

A high score on internal dialogue suggests that the participant was engaged in

a great deal of silent talking with self. Constant internal chatter may have affected her

focus of attention to the suggested experience. Although, her scores on attention

dimension suggest that she experienced less distraction and was able to concentrate


well, directing her attention towards her internal subjective experience. She

experienced mild awareness of herself for most of the time during hypnosis.

Participant has scored moderate level of positive affect, experiencing strong

feelings of love and loving kindness and also feelings of joy and happiness and no

feeling of sexual excitement. She experienced moderate intensity of negative affect

of feeling sad, angry and afraid during hypnosis, but reported no negative feeling after

hypnosis. Her score on arousal dimension indicate that she experienced feeling more

relaxed and no stiffness in the muscles.

Her scores on rationality suggest that her thought-process was rational and

easy to comprehend. She experienced loss of control over the images and thoughts

that occurred during hypnosis but had control over what she was paying attention to,

suggesting that she experienced moderate control over her phenomenological

experience during hypnosis. She did report experiencing an extraordinarily unusual

and non-ordinary state of awareness while the intensity of experience was mild.

Participants’ score on experiential dimension of imagery suggests that she was

able to generate less amount of spontaneous visual imagery and the visual images

were vague and diffuse, thus predicting that she may not respond very well to imagery

based suggestions during hypnosis.

Participant reported not having clear memory of the events and what she

experienced during hypnosis. This dimension is generally low for highly

hypnotizable types, but visualizers and rational high do not show a drop in these

scores (Pekala, 2009). Here, the participant has scored low on memory, may be

because of her focused attention on her subjective experience such as love and joy.



sense, altered perception and altered meaning. Her perception of time changed

drastically, feeling that time stood still; there was no movement of time at all, but she

did not experience any major alteration in perception of her body image and the

meaning of events.



The validity index (wakefulness) score of 2 shows that the participant was

responsive during the assessment protocol both for behavioural item where she raised

her index finger when asked to and she did not believe she fell asleep for

phenomenological item during 2 minute silent period. Therefore, the

scores obtained through PCI-HAP are valid.


of being hypnotized. One such score is the adjusted hypnoidal state score; a measure

of ‘trance-depth’ participant has reported experiencing moderate hypnoidal state with

a score of 5.92.

The imagoic suggestibility score gives a measure of suggestibility. Participant

shows moderate ability for imagery vividness and amount. There was no difference

in her pre-hypnotic visual imagery vividness score and hypnotic dream imagery

vividness (imagoic suggestibility). She described her hypnotic dream experience as

‘Was at seaside. It was nice. There was a house; we (me and my finance) were

staying there. There was moonlight. We prepared barbeque’.


Participants’ mATES score is 8 and srHDS score is 8. She described the

experience of hypnotic depth state as ‘I heard from 5 to 1. I was feeling weightless,

free and floating, very relaxed, I don't think I heard anything else. It was blank and

calm’. This explains her low scores on arousal dimension that is, feeling completely

relaxed without any feeling of tension in the muscles.

For eye catalepsy (motor challenge item) the participant experienced loss of

behavioural control with score of 7 indicating the effort of trying to open her eyes as

futile. She described her experience as ‘It refused to open. I was trying my best, it

just wouldn't’.

She expressed her experience during the 2-minute sitting quiet period as ‘I had

thoughts of my education coming in, conversation between me and my mother,

conversation we had before hypnosis. Felt like completely free, floating and

weightless’. She described her experience after hypnosis as ‘Relaxed and normal’.

Overall, participant’s modified hypnotic responsivity index (mHRI) of 8.62

indicates that she is highly responsive to hypnosis intervention. Her experience

during hypnotic dream may have affected her phenomenological experience during

the two-minute quiet period. The events or situations and conversations before the

session could have also influenced her subjective experience during hypnosis. This

supports interactive phenomenological theories, emphasizing on the interactions

between various variables such as experiential, relational, personality ability,

situations etc, contributing to the hypnotic response of an individual.


Participant 8

Participant 8 is a 20 year old female, a post graduate student of psychology. A


GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also, a she did not report any medical

illness or intake of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in dancing,

swimming, collecting coins and playing golf. Her phenomenological experience

during hypnosis is discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (h): Participant 8 profile

scores.

The intra-individual reliability scores of 1.80 shows that the scores obtained

on PCI are reliable and can be further discussed on dimensions and other scores.


characteristics of Fantasy highs, rational high-mediums, visualizers and dialoguing

high-mediums type. These types are mentioned because of her high scores, that are

within 5% of each other and the participant is a mix of all these types, thus suggesting

that she has the experienced high alteration in state of awareness and experience,

visual imagery, internal dialogue and more rationality during hypnosis.

Pekala (2009) suggests that for the above mentioned hypnotic types hypnosis

intervention will be helpful, provided that certain measures are taken into

consideration. As a fantasy-high, she has scored high on imaogic suggestibility.

Since, she demonstrates the hypnotic ability of experiencing vivid visual imagery.

Self hypnosis can be beneficial to her, of course, with a little motivation and practice.

As rational high, she is particular about the nature of suggestions and appears to have

stronger need for things to be coherent and internally consistent.



intensity of arousal and moderate level of negative affect, imagery, self awareness,

altered experience, memory, positive affect, altered state, rationality internal

dialoguing, attention and lowest score on volitional control.

Participant has scored high on arousal, a measure of subjective muscle tension.

This indicates that the she was unable to completely relax the muscles of her body,

but at the same time she did not report experiencing her muscles being tense and tight.

She experienced moderate level of negative affect, reporting intense fear and

less sadness and anger. She expressed no negative feeling during or after hypnosis,

except that her eyes were paining. This could be the result of the effort taken to open

her eyes for eye catalepsy item. The experience of fear could be the result of this

being her first hypnosis session or certain misconceptions of hypnosis. This could

have affected her conviction influencing her phenomenological experience.

Participant’s score on experiential dimension of imagery suggests that she was

able to generate moderate amount of spontaneous, vivid three dimensional visual

images, thus predicting that she may respond well to imagery based suggestions

during hypnosis. She reported to have maintained a very strong sense of self-

awareness for most of the time during hypnosis.


sense, altered perception and altered meaning. She reported having experienced her

body greatly expanded beyond the boundaries of her skin, experienced unity with the

world, dissolving the boundaries between her and the environment. Her perception of

time sense changed slightly, experiencing change in the rate of passage of time. She


experienced mild changes in her perception of the world around her in terms of

changes in colour or form. She also reported experiencing mild insights of certain

ideas or issues. Therefore, this suggests that the participant will be benefitted by



existential meaning for the participant (Pekala, 2009).

Participant reported having fairly clear memory of the events and what she

experienced during hypnosis. This dimension is generally low for highly

hypnotizable types, but visualizers and rational high do not show a drop in these

scores (Pekala, 2009). Here, participant has shown a drop in memory mainly because

she has shown mix characteristics of fantasy highs, visualizers, dialoguing high-

mediums and rational high-mediums.

Participant has scored moderate level of positive affect, experiencing moderate

feelings of sexual excitement, joy and happiness and love. She reported experiencing

an extraordinarily, unusual and non ordinary state of awareness, but the intensity of

the experience was moderate. Her scores on rationality suggest that her thought

process was clear, easy to comprehend and she experienced slight conceptual

confusion, did not engage in a great deal of silent talking with self. Her scores on

attention dimension suggest that she was completely absorbed in what she was

experiencing. In other words, she was less distracted and was able to concentrate well

directing her attention towards the environment around her.


Her score on volitional control is extremely low, suggesting she was being

passive and receptive to the experience and had no control over the images and

thoughts that popped into her mind. Her perception of having less control over

phenomenological experience could be because she demonstrates the characteristics

of fantasy highs. (Of being absorbed in the visual imagery generated).



The validity index (wakefulness) score of 1.33 shows that the participant was


her index finger when asked to and she was unsure if she fell asleep for

phenomenological item during 2 minute silent period. Therefore, the scores obtained

through PCI-HAP are valid.


of being hypnotized. One such score is the hypnoidal state score, a measure of

‘trance-depth’. The participant has reported experiencing moderate hypnoidal state

with a score of 6.29.

The imagoic suggestibility score of 8.50 gives a measure of suggestibility.

Participant showed higher ability for visual imagery during hypnotic dream more than

for pre hypnotic visual imagery. She described her hypnotic dream experience as ‘I

don't know, there was a mountain, greenary, rivers, bushes. It was just me, nobody

else, pleasant weather, saw a door, a flash, and image of a castle with stone wall. Saw

myself looking at these images’.



experience of hypnotic depth state as ‘I could just hear your voice. Aware of few

things, not always; I felt that with this chair I was travelling, was on top of clouds,

saw jungle below, floating of my hands’.

For the eye catalepsy item participant experienced loss of behavioural control

with score of 7, indicating the effort of trying to open her eyes as impossible. She

described her experience as ‘I just couldn't. I don't think I opened. Just didn't work out

for me, but was aware and heard your instructions’.

She expressed her experience during the 2-minute sitting quiet period as

‘There were flashes of the images I saw during vacation. I also saw a house, like I

visited so many times; Images of people with uniform, (Black & white images) like in

the world war’. She described her experience after hypnosis as ‘Relaxed and normal’.

Overall, she is responsive to hypnosis intervention with modified Hypnotic

responsivity index (mHRI) of 8.69. Therefore, the participant will be benefitted by

hypnosis intervention, if more imagery based suggestions are incorporated.

Participant 9

Participant 9 is a 20 year old female, post graduate student of psychology. A


GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also she did not report any medical illness

or intake of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in reading, writing

articles and listening to music. Her phenomenological experience during hypnosis is

discussed by referring to Table 4.2.3 (i): Participant 9 profile scores.


The intraindividual reliability scores of 0.60 shows that the scores obtained on

PCI are reliable and can be further discussed.


characteristics of fantasy highs and classic highs type. These types are mentioned

because of her high scores, that are within 5% of each other and the participant is a

mix of all these types, thus suggesting that she has experienced high altered state of

awareness and altered experience during hypnosis. As a classic high, she would have

experienced lowest level of memory, internal dialogue, imagery and self-awareness.


participant was responsive during the assessment protocol, for behavioural item where

she raised her index finger when asked to and for phenomenological item she felt she

probably fell asleep during 2 minute silent period. If a classic high’s wakefulness

total score is less than 2, the participant may have been drifting in and out of sleep

during PCI-HAP assessment. Therefore, the scores obtained through PCI-HAP are

valid, but has to be examined with caution.


intensity of altered experience, attention, and imagery. A moderate level of intensity

scores on altered state, positive affect, negative affect, arousal, memory and internal

dialogue. The lowest intensity scores on rationality, self-awareness and the least was

on volitional control.


She has reported high altered experience involving altered time sense, altered

perception, altered meaning and altered body image. Her perception of time sense

changed drastically, feeling that time stood still; there was no movement of time at all.

Her perception of the world around her changed in terms of colour or form. She also

reported some of her experiences as very religious, spiritual or transcendental. She

reported having experienced her body greatly expanding beyond the boundaries of her

skin and experienced unity with the world, dissolving the boundaries between her and

the environment. Therefore, this suggests that participant will be benefitted by



existential meaning for the participant (Pekala, 2009).

The next highly experienced dimension is attention, suggesting that she was

completely absorbed in what she was experiencing. She experienced less distraction

and was able to concentrate well directing her attention towards her internal

subjective experience. Also, she was able to generate high amount of spontaneous

vivid visual imagery and thus would respond to imagery based suggestions during

hypnosis. Usually, fantasy highs score high on imagery experiential dimension and

the same is low for classic highs. Even though the participant is a mix of both types

(fantasy highs and classic highs) she has demonstrated high percentile score on visual

imagery.

Participant reported experiencing an extraordinary, unusual and non ordinary

state of awareness, but the intensity of the experience was moderate. She has

experienced moderate level of positive affect, involving intense feelings of joy and


happiness, moderate feeling of sexual excitement, and mild feeling of love and

loving-kindness.

She experienced a mild level of negative affect, involving moderate feeling of

anger, fear and sadness. She expressed no negative feeling during or after hypnosis,

except for a little discomfort in bodily sensation. She described the feeling as ‘I felt a

little stiff around my face which lasted for a second or two. My mouth was dry.

Stiffness was a little uncomfortable but was not a negative effect’. This explains her

experience of very mild arousal, reporting feeling more relaxed and experiencing very

less muscle tightness. Participant reported not being able to remember everything that

she experienced and the memory of the events was blurred and hazy. She expressed

not engaging in any silent talk with self.

Participant’s perception of her thought process during hypnosis was unclear,

non-rational, and was hard to comprehend and she also experienced conceptual

confusion. She experienced not being aware of herself and reported very low sense of

self-awareness for most of the time during hypnosis. As a classic high, she has

experienced a low intensity of the above mentioned dimension, therefore suiting the

trance typology profile of classic highs.

Her score on volitional control is extremely low, suggesting that she was being

passive and receptive to the experience and had no control over the images and

thoughts that popped into her mind. Her perception of having no control over

phenomenological experience could be because she demonstrated the characteristics

of fantasy highs and classic highs.





of being hypnotized. One such score is the adjusted hypnoidal state score, a measure

of ‘trance depth’ participant has reported experiencing high hypnoidal state with a

score of 8.54.

The imagoic suggestibility score, a measure of suggestibility, the participant

score is 10.00. Participant showed the highest vivid visual imagery during hypnotic

dream more than during pre-hypnotic visual imagery. She described her hypnotic

dream experience as ‘I was in this place, where it was snowy, might be Switzerland. I

stayed in a wooden lodge and slept in a cosy white blanket. Checked out, went

skiing, made a snowman, took cable car and ate in a restaurant. My brother was there.

Wanted to feel how cold the snow was, it was really cold’.

Participant’s mATES score is 8 and srHDS score is 8. She described the

experience of hypnotic depth state as ‘I felt that I had no control only on my body. I

did not have the energy or inclination to control my body. I liked being there, very

safe & secure as per the instructions. Time passed very quickly, saw very vivid

images of vacation I can remember in detail about the process. My legs, my arms

were slightly falling apart and I felt slight tingling in my fingers’.

For the eye catalepsy item participant experienced loss of behavioural control

with score of 7, indicating the effort of trying to open her eyes as impossible. She

described her experience as ‘I tried really hard, it seemed like it wouldn't listen’.


She expressed her experience during the 2-minute sitting quiet period as ‘It

felt really comfortable. I had random images in my mind. Flash of images of me

picking up something, talking to someone and random images that really did not

connect each other. I was hoping that I could stay there for some more time, no

worries, relaxed, no tension, very comfortable and nice feeling. Similar to and deeper

than yoga-nidra’.

She described her experience after hypnosis as ‘I felt a little stiff around my

face, lasted for a second or two. My mouth was dry. Stiffness was a little

uncomfortable but no negative effect’.

Overall, she is highly responsive to hypnosis intervention with modified

Hypnotic responsivity index (mHRI) of 11.00. She demonstrates high ability of

imaginative suggestibility. Therefore she will definitely be benefitted if more

imagery suggestions are given during hypnosis. Since she demonstrates

characteristics of classic highs, time interval for phenomenological experience

(absence of hypnotist voice) can be reduced to ensure she doesn’t drift off to sleep.

Participant 10

Participant 10 is a 20 year old female, a post graduate student of psychology.

A highly hypnotizable individual with score of 9 on HGSHS:A. Her score of 4 on

GHQ suggests no psychological distress. Also, she did not report any medical illness

or intake of drugs. She spends her leisure by engaging herself in reading and listening

to music. Her phenomenological experience during hypnosis is discussed by referring

to Table 4.2.3 (j): Participant 10 profile scores.


The intraindividual reliability scores of 1.80 shows that the scores obtained on

PCI are reliable and can be further discussed. Participant 10’s trance typology profile

shows that the individual has characteristics of visualizers, dialoguing mediums and

rational high-mediums type. These types are mentioned because of her high scores,

that are within 5% of each other and the participant is a mix of all these types, thus,

suggesting that she has experienced high level of visual imagery, internal dialogue

and rationality during hypnosis.


intensity of altered experience, attention and imagery. A moderate level of intensity

scores on arousal, altered state, internal dialogue, negative affect, rationality, memory,

self awareness, positive affect and volitional control.

She has reported high altered experience involving experience of altered body

image altered time sense, altered meaning and perception. She reported having

experienced her body greatly expanding beyond the boundaries of her skin and

experienced unity with the world, dissolving the boundaries between her and the

environment. Her perception of time sense changed drastically, feeling that time

stood still; there was no movement of time at all. She did not experience any intense

change in her perception of the world in terms of colour, size, shape or perspectives of

the objects in the world around her. She reported some of her experiences as very

religious, spiritual or transcendental and an experience of awe and reverence towards

the world, but experienced no profound insights besides her usual cognitive

understanding of things. Therefore, this suggests that the participant will be

benefitted by hypnosis to change her perception of her body image, to alter the


meaning of events, decrease the meaning of negative affect associated with traumatic

events and existential meaning for the participant (Pekala, 2009).

The next highly experienced dimension attention suggests that that participant

was completely absorbed in what she was experiencing. She experienced less

distraction and was able to concentrate well directing her attention towards her

internal subjective experience.

She also experienced high level of visual imagery suggesting that she was able

to generate high amount of spontaneous vivid visual imagery and thus would respond

to imagery based suggestions during hypnosis. Usually, visualizers score high on

imagery experiential dimension and the participant has demonstrated the

characteristics of a visualizer with high percentile score on visual imagery.

Comparing her scores on PCI imagery and Imagoic suggestibility score, reveals that

she has experienced more vivid imagery during hypnotic dream. She experienced the

same intensity of vividness during pre-hypnotic visual imagery vividness and

hypnotic dream imagery vividness, meaning that she is able to generate more vivid

imagery when cues for imagination are given than when uncued/undirected.

She reported to have experienced slight muscle tension and tightness, thus was

unable to completely relax the muscles of her body. Moderate score on alerted state

of awareness indicates that she felt experiencing an unusual, extraordinary and

different state of awareness. Although she experienced engaging in a great deal of

silent talking with self, it doesn’t seem to have interfered in her ability to pay

attention, because her percentile score for attention is higher than for internal

dialogue.


She experienced negative affect, involving moderate feeling of anger, fear and

sadness. She expressed no negative feelings during or after hypnosis, except for a

slight discomfort. She described the feeling as ‘Little tension in forehead, it was too

much before the session, it has reduced now, and very little tension is present’. This

could have affected her response during the PCI-HAP resulting in moderate level of

negative affect score.

Participant’s score on rationality, memory and self-awareness suggests that her

thought process was rational and easy to comprehend; reported fairly clear and intact

memory of the events she experienced and being aware of herself for most of the time

during hypnosis. She has experienced moderate level of positive affect, involving

intense feelings of joy and happiness, moderate feeling of love and loving-kindness

and mild feeling of sexual excitement.

Her lowest score on volitional control suggests that she was being passive and

receptive to the experience and had no control over the images and thoughts that

popped into her mind.

Review of participant’s summary sheet along with the pre-post assessment


The validity index (wakefulness) score of 1.80 shows that the participant was


her index finger when asked to and she believes that she did not fall asleep during 2

minute silent period. Therefore, the scores obtained through PCI-HAP are valid.



of being hypnotized. One such score is the hypnoidal state score, a measure of

‘trance-depth’ and the participant has reported experiencing high hypnoidal state with

a score of 7.06.

The imagoic suggestibility score of 7.00 gives a measure of suggestibility.

Participant showed no difference in the vividness of visual imagery during pre-

hypnotic and hypnotic dream imagery vividness. She described her hypnotic dream

experience as ‘It was like forest, just walking, a river in zig zag way. I was walking

along the bank of river, couldn't see my face. There was breeze. I am wearing a

frock’.


experience of hypnotic depth state as ‘Initially I wasn't relaxed, later I would hear

your voice my whole body was relaxed, except my forehead. I felt really good,

relaxed and comfortable’.

For eye catalepsy item participant experienced loss of behavioural control with

score of 7 and she found it was difficult trying to open her eyes. She described her

experience as ‘It's like I am trying. It's glued. I can't just open it. I was trying hard,

couldn't open it’.

She expressed her experience during the 2-minute sitting quiet period as ‘I felt

like something moving between my legs till my knees, my hands moving in zig zag

way. I was really relaxed’.


She described her experience after hypnosis as ‘Now I feel really relaxed. I

had headache, was tensed. Now I feel fresh and relaxed’.

Overall, she is highly hypnotic responsive to hypnosis intervention with

modified Hypnotic responsivity index (mHRI) of 9.47. Since she demonstrates the

characteristics of visualizers, rational high-mediums and dialoging high-mediums, she

will be benefitted by hypnosis if suggestions are more coherent and are based on

imagery and relaxation.

5.4 Comparison of ten Highly Hypnotizable Individuals on PCI Major and

Minor Dimensions

Table 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 shows that all ten participants have experienced all the

26 dimensions. However figure 4.2.3 (a) and 4.2.4 (a) pips on major and minor

dimensions show that these dimensions are not uniformly experienced by all ten

highly hypnotizables. It also shows that their intensity of subjective experience

differed in certain dimensions (such as fear, direction of attention, positive affect) and

intensity of experience was overlapping in certain dimensions (absorption, joy,

rationality, imagery, negative affect).

According to Pekala various structure of phenomenological experiences have

(sub) dimensions i.e. imagery, cognition, attention, affect. These (sub) dimensions

are observed to be consistent and stable structures of consciousness in several

different stimulus conditions. They are dimensions of subjective experience observed

and may not be statistically independent.


Figure 4.2.3 (a) and figure 4.2.4 (a) was constructed to compare the structure

and pattern of ten highly hypnotizable individuals’ subjective experience during

hypnosis with each other. Phenomenological intensity profiles (pips) show the

individual variation in the intensity of experience for 12 major and 14 minor

dimensions respectively.

In general, the result of these differences in the experience during hypnosis

among highly hypnotizable individuals could be due to individual differences in

‘perception, cognition, and/or personality’ contributing to phenomenological

experience (response bias Pekala, 1991). These differences exist not only between

low, medium and high hypnotizables, but also within these groups.

In particular, the understanding from the graphical representation is that

although all the ten participants were highly hypnotizable scoring 9 to 11 on

HGSHS:A, they showed no uniform phenomenological pattern on PCI. In other

words, the structure of phenomenological experience was not experienced in a similar

manner by all the ten highly hypnotizables resulting in no uniform pattern of

subjective experience during hypnosis for high hypnotizables.

Pekala (1991), mentions that individuals having similar score on HGSHS may

not have the same phenomenological pattern because passing an item on hypnotic

susceptibility scale involves specific phenomenological experience. Scores on

hypnotic susceptibility scale are obtained after passing various items. Therefore,

there is no uniform phenomenological pattern for individuals who have same scores

on hypnotisability (p 191-192). Individuals experienced different hypnotic states

based on their own personality along with the given suggestion (Pekala, 1989, in


1991). Pekala interprets the differences in the phenomenological pattern of high

susceptible because of the subjects are using different modes of information

processing during hypnosis.

This shows that though highly hypnotizable individuals easily enter altered

state of consciousness, not all of them experience the state in a similar manner. This

would be because of the ability of the individual along with the state effects due to

hypnotic induction, influencing the subjects own conviction to experience the

suggested affects (here, the participants were asked ‘to continue to experience the

state you are in right now’).

Table 4.2.5 and figure 4. 2.5 (a) show the differences in the distinct pattern of

experiential response among high hypnotizables are explained by proposing the

existence of latent typology in this population. PCI generated trance typology profile

for each individual proposed by Pekala and colleagues (Forbes & Pekala, 1996;

Pekala, 1991; Pekala & Forbes, 1997; Pekala, Kumar, & Marcano, 1995) based on

individual’s experiential response during hypnosis.

One theory that explains latent typology of this population is Barber’s (1999)

Three dimensional theory of high hypnotic suggestibility and they are the fantasy

prone, the amnesia prone and the positively set participants. In the present study, two

participants turned out to be fantasy highs, who displayed having low volitional

control. In other words, they experienced less control over the phenomenological

events that took place during hypnosis, where images and thoughts popped into their

mind without their conscious control. Both of them reported flashes of images that

they could not make sense of. They reported high vivid visual imagery during


hypnotic dream, supporting Barber’s theory that fantasy prone experience vivid,

realistic fantasy based experience.

Half of the participants in the present study were visualizers, indicating that

they experienced high amount of visual imagery. The group as a whole have

experienced moderate level of vivid imagery. This shows that imagination plays a

predominant role in phenomenological experience during hypnosis and high

hypnotizables demonstrate the ability of imagination. Thus, supporting Braffman and

Kirsch (2010) that imaginative suggestibility is the ability present among high

suggestible individuals both in hypnotic and non hypnotic situations; Lynn & Rhue

(1991) suggests that ‘imaginative abilities are important to the extent that imagery is

accessible, spontaneous and promotes the flow of uninhibited action and experience’

(p 430). Therefore, imaginative involvement is an essential characteristic of

hypnotizable individuals.

Phenomenological experiential differences can also be a result of variation in

expectation and motivation of each individual. Kirsch and Lynn’s (1997) generalized

response expectancy that experience of volition depends on the response set placed

for the execution of action. Here, participants have experienced and responded

according to the suggestion ( ‘The muscle around your eyes are so relaxed and at ease

that they feel like they are glued together, tightly glued shut, impossible to open’ PCI-

HAP, Pekala, Kumar and Maurer, 2005) given for eye catalepsy.


5.5 Collective Analysis

Collective analysis is carried out to examine the structure and pattern of the

subjective experiences among highly hypnotizable individuals. This is discussed by

referring to the results presented in table 4.3.1& 4.3.2 and figure 4.3.1 & 4.3.2.

5.5.1 Major dimension analysis

Table 4.3.1 shows the descriptive statistics of minimum, maximum, mean and

standard deviation scores of the 12 major dimensions. The mean scores obtained

from ten highly hypnotizable individuals for 12 major dimensions are depicted

graphically in figure 4.3.1. The scores are presented in terms of percentiles,

suggesting that the higher the percentile scores, the higher is the intensity of

experience.

The results show that all ten participants have reported to have experienced all

the 12 major dimensions. In other words, these ten highly hypnotizable individuals

have reported experiencing altered experience, attention, imagery, arousal, memory,

negative affect, altered state, rationality, internal dialogue, self-awareness, positive

affect, and volitional control. These dimensions are mentioned in the descending

order of the experienced intensity with mean scores ranging from 40 to 72.

The dimensions which showed the highest mean score are altered experience

and attention. The mean score of 71.40 for altered experience suggests that

participants reported high altered experience involving altered body image, altered

time sense, altered perception and altered meaning with maximum score of 99 and

minimum score of 32. The next highest mean score is attention, suggesting that all


participants experienced a high intensity of inward absorbed attention, with maximum

and minimum score of 97 and 23 respectively.

The mean percentile score of 68.05 for imagery indicates that high

hypnotizable individuals demonstrate the ability to generate spontaneous vivid visual

imagery. The maximum score for this dimension is 89 and the minimum score is 26.

Participants also reported subjective experience of muscle tension, that is, they

experienced moderate level of arousal, with mean score of 67.80 with maximum score

of 93 and minimum score of 34.

The mean score of 64.80 for memory indicates that participants were able to

clearly recall most of the experiences they had, where some participants had

extremely vivid memory of the events they experienced with a score 100 and some of

them reported having less memory of the events they experienced with minimums

score of 28. Participants’ rationality mean score of 60.60 suggests that their thinking

was fairly clear, distinct and easy to comprehend. The minimum score is 10 and

maximum score is 92.

The scores on negative affect is 64.60 suggesting that they have experienced

fear, anger and sadness, with minimum score of 40 and maximum score of 82.

Participants also experienced altered state of awareness with a mean score of 63.80,

suggesting that they felt being in an ‘extraordinarily unusual and non-ordinary state of

awareness’, with scores minimum of 43 and maximum of 85. Participants’ mean

score of 59 on internal dialogue, indicates that they reported experiencing dialoguing

with self. Some individuals reported to have experienced a high degree of internal


dialoguing with maximum percentile score of 100, whereas some individuals

experienced less internal dialogue with minimum of 26.

Scores of 55.10 on self awareness suggests that participants were conscious of

being aware of themselves, with some participants reporting less self awareness

(minimum score is 10) and some reporting greater self awareness (maximum score of

87).

The positive affect score of 50.80 suggests that individuals experienced some

degree of joy, sexual excitement and love, with minimum score of 14 and maximum

score of 82. This result is in support of Pekala’s statement that ‘most clients

experience some positive affect during the administration of PCI-HAP’. On the other

side, in the present study the experience of negative affect is more than the positive

affect. This is in contrast with what Pekala (2009) states that positive affect is usually

greater than any negative affect.

The lowest mean score for the group was obtained for volitional control, ‘a

measure of classic suggestion effect which assesses the extent to which the participant

feels that there was loss of control over his/her experiences’ (Pekala, 2009). The

mean score of 46.40 on this dimension suggests that participants experienced having

less control over their phenomenological experience during the two minute sitting

quiet period.

The intensity of the subjective experienced for the above mentioned

dimensions ranged from 50 to 70 percentiles, except for altered experience and

attention, which is more than 70 and volitional control, which is less than 50, thus,

indicating that most of the dimensions were experienced with almost the same

intensity with slight variation.


5.5.2 Minor Dimensions

Table 4. 3.2 shows the descriptive statistics of minimum, maximum, mean and

standard deviation scores of the 14 minor dimensions. The mean scores obtained

from ten highly hypnotizable individuals for 14 minor dimensions are depicted

graphically in figure 4.3.2. Further analysis of the group’s subjective experience on

the minor dimensions is carried out by referring to the group’s average scores on 14

minor dimensions discussed in line with their major dimensions.

The group’s highest average percentile score on the minor dimensions is 87.30

for absorption indicating that the participants were more absorbed in their suggested

experience and less distracted by extraneous impressions. This shows that absorption

has played a prominent role in the phenomenological experience of hypnosis for

highly hypnotizable individuals in the present study. This supports various theories

and research that highlight the significance of absorption as an important

characteristic of hypnotic suggestibility and their phenomenological experience.

There are controversies about considering absorption as a personality trait or state

effect. PCI is a state measure and the group of highly hypnotizables have experienced

high intensity of absorption during hypnosis. Thus, absorption can be considered both

as an individual’s ability and the context effect, in the present study, therefore

supporting various theorist (Tellegen and Aktinson, 1974; Hilgard, 1977; Orne 1977;

Kihlstrom, 1985) and research (Pekala, 1988, 1989). This highlights the significance

of absorption as an important correlate of hypnotic suggestibility and their

phenomenological experience of hypnosis.


The average score of 71.80 for direction of attention suggests that their

attention was directed toward an internal subjective experience and less towards the

environment around them.

Joy, sexual excitement and love are the sub dimensions of positive affect with

average score of 73.20, 68.20 and 54.73 respectively. The group has experienced

more feeling of ecstasy and extreme happiness and least feeling of love and loving

kindness, and moderate sexual feelings.

The score on sub dimensions of imagery, that is 73.80 for imagery vividness

and 63.37 for imagery amount, suggests that the group has demonstrated experiencing

clear, three-dimensional visual imagery along with other experiences, thus supporting

Braffman and Krisch (2010) study that high hypnotizables demonstrate imaginative

suggestibility influencing their phenomenological experience underlying certain

behavioural response.


sense, altered perception and altered meaning. The group has experienced high

altered body image with an average score of 73.80. They felt their body greatly

expanding beyond the boundaries of their skin, unity with the world, dissolving the

boundaries between them and the environment. The group’s average score on altered

meaning was 73.60. They reported experiencing the state as religious, spiritual or

transcendental and some of them also experienced mild insights of certain ideas or

issues. Their perception of time sense changed moderately, with an average score of

68.20. Most of them experienced a change in the rate of passage of time as slow

movement of time. They experienced moderate change in their perception of the


world around them in terms of changes in colour, shape, size or perspective, with

average score of 64.70 for the sub dimension altered perception. Therefore, this

suggests that the participants will be benefitted by hypnosis to change their perception

of their body image, to alter the meaning of events, decrease the meaning of negative

affect associated with traumatic events and existential meaning for the participants

(Pekala, 2009).

The group’s average score on sub dimensions of negative affect viz., anger,

sadness and fear is 72.10, 71.90 and 73.40 respectively, indicating that the group has

experienced more fear. This could be due to situational factors that took place before

the session influencing their phenomenological experience during hypnosis.

5.6 Thematic Analysis of the Descriptive Responses

The naive descriptions of the participants’ responses to open-ended questions

were embedded in the Phenomenological Consciousness Inventory along with the

quantitative analysis of the subjective experiential response of PCI. Responses given

by participants to these questions referring to particular experiences during the

hypnosis session are discussed as major themes and sub themes.

The common themes that emerged in descriptive of subjective experiences at

various stages during hypnosis are discussed as follows.


5.6.1 Hypnotic Induction: Dream imagery

Here, hypnotic dream imagery is discussed, that is part of the hypnotic

induction procedure involving a fantasy journey to a vacation place after a ‘body

scan’ progressive relaxation procedure (without tensing) and “mind calm’ hypnotic

induction procedure (counting from ’10 to 1’ with instructions that the participant’s

mind is becoming calm, more and more serene). A measure of the imagery vividness

was recorded under imagoic suggestibility score. Predicted to be the combined

experience of imagery vividness before hypnosis and trance (altered) state effects

during hypnosis. The description of the imagery experience was recorded under

hypnotic dream imagery and PCI (two minute quiet period) imagery. PCI imagery

experience records the imagery vividness during hypnosis. This was found to be a

function of self reported hypnotic depth (Pekala, Maurer, Kumar, Elliott-Carter &

Mullen, 2010).

In Pekala et al., 2009, it was observed that the perception of being hypnotized

is associated with the vividness of imagery of hypnotic dream. Vividness of images

was also reported in the present study during hypnotic dream. Certain similarities in

the content of the images are mentioned.

5.6.1 (a) Vivid imagery

Vivid imagery implies getting very clear images of anything (objects and/or

happenings) effortless, and in quick succession. The imagery experienced during

hypnotic dreams (on vacation) was: Vivid images of the surrounding physical

environment like greenery around, palm trees, brushes, dense forest and rivers and

brooks, beaches, mountains and valleys.


This also includes imagery of interaction with people around such as close

relatives, neighbours, friends and kiths and kins. A few participants reported seeing

images of houses, castles and seeing themselves wearing clothings of various colours.

There were a few cases where the participants could not make out and were not

having clarity of images.

5.6.1 (b) Environment and Settings

Participants also had clear images of nature scenes around in a larger

perspective such as sunrise, sunset, drizzling, moonlight and snow. They perceived

images of being involved in activities like conversing; relaxing, taking a stroll, skiing

and reading were also reported.

5.6.1 (c) Feelings

Abstract feelings of various emotions were experienced by individual

participants. Such feelings included happiness, tranquillity, pride of achievement. A

few sensory experiences included feelings like waves touching the feet and feeling the

coldness of snow around.

Although the phenomenological experience discussed here is not to validate

prior hypotheses it was noticed that a similar experience of hypnosis was reported by

client-participants in Woodard’s (2005) preliminary phenomenological study of being

hypnotized and hypnotizing. The general structure of individual’s experience of

hypnosis were perceived images of interacting with significant person, involved in

activities such as walking into the woods, watching TV, playing etc., and imagine

achieving the goals or accomplishments.


5.6.2 Hypnotic Assessment: Ideo-motor Challenge Experiences

An Ideo-motor suggestion involves ideosensory experiences of alteration in

perceptual experience such as lightness or heaviness, numbness, warmth or coldness

in any part of the body. Ideo-motor suggestions refers to direct suggestions involving

simple bodily movements such as of finger raising or eye closure and challenge

suggestions refers to inhibition of movement such as arm immobility, eye catalepsy

etc,. Here, the ideo-motor challenge item was eye catalepsy- unable to open their

eyes even when challenged to do so.

The important factor of the subjective experience of the group was with

respect to their behavioural response of involuntariness to motor challenge item of eye

catalepsy. Participants reported their experience of trying to open their eyes as ‘It was

stuck; it would not open; I tried really hard but couldn’t open my eyes’. This points

out that the participants experienced not being in control or involuntariness in their

attempt to eye catalepsy item. This supports Woody, Barnier and McConkey (2005)

claim that involuntariness is the building block for motor challenge item.

5.6.2 (a) Feelings

Participants reported physical feelings such as heaviness in eyelids, eyelids

getting stuck and as if glued or being held tightly by someone, making it difficult to

easily open the eyelids. These feelings were perhaps due to the suggestions given like

‘The muscles around your eyes are so relaxed and at ease that they feel like they are

glued together, tightly shut, impossible to open’. Cases of getting headaches during

this experience were also felt.


5.6.2 (b) Tried in Vain

The effects of the above physical feelings were like trying hard even with lot

of efforts, but in vain to open the eyelids. Participants described the effort to open the

eyelids as ‘hard, really hard, even with a lot of efforts’.

In general, the experience was failure to open the eyelids. The eyelids were as

if independent of external control and did not obey the commands. During the ideo-

motor challenge experiences the participants were aware of the instructions given to

them as well as the bodily sensations that they underwent.

5.6.3 Two-minute Quiet Period:

During the two minute quiet period the experiences felt and PCI imagery were

noted and the participants were asked to continue quietly in the existing state. In this

period no suggestions were given. Their experiences were more linked with relaxed

feelings. Most often involves having felt a state very different from normal waking

state.

5.6.3 (a) Feelings

Feelings expressed comprised of relaxation, being calm, cool and happy.

Feelings of levity and floating in the atmosphere were also reported. In general,

during this period of two minutes the participants were totally free from worries,

tensions and bodily sensations.

5.6.3 (b) Other expressions

There were certain expressions which were comparable with other similar

experiences. A few significant once under this category were feelings of being

innocent like a child, not getting affected and influenced by surrounding environment.


It also included participants going into dream state, almost into a trance deeper than

yoga-nidra. A feeling of supreme bliss.

5.6.3 (c) Images

Participants also got into ‘not long lasting (transient)’ images of various

objects and personalities, for illustrating images of their own selves, of friends and

relations. In some cases images of people in army uniform were also witnessed.

Images of residential buildings flashed in front of them.

5.6.3 (c) Context and surroundings

Reports of very simple, quiet and peaceful atmosphere without any disturbing

noises and sounds. This state was felt as if it was not bound by time and very tranquil

without anxieties and worries.

In a rare case some disjointed images of fire, yellow colour, hell, dragon were

mentioned. It may be presumed that these were the effects of earlier religious

influence. Such things are unique in case of certain religious faiths.

Many a time participants tended to continue the dream images of vacation

during the two minute quiet period. In comparison with the feelings experienced as

described during hypnotic dream imagery (which comprised of colourful sky,

moonlight etc.,), in the present case, feelings of soundless, peaceful and calm

surroundings prevailed.

5.6.4 Post-hypnosis State

When participants were asked how they felt immediately after coming out of

hypnosis and their various responses were recorded. In general, the experience of


participants was that the hypnotic state was pleasant, rejuvenating and revitalizing. It

was pacifying and left the participants in a calm and composed state. The session was

highly relaxing, refreshing and restored confidence and energy in them. The

participants felt happy and great. The course filled them with positive thoughts of

hope and helped them to get rid of all worries and tensions. Without exception

everyone felt light after the session.

5.6.5 Negative Effects and Opinions

In response to specific enquires, negative effects of hypnotic state and

opinions about it were varied. In fact, fifty percent of the participants did not respond,

as they felt no negative effects. Of the remaining fifty percent the responses could be

classified into two groups.

The first group complained about physical discomfort only for few fleeting

seconds due to headache, pain in the eyes and stiffness and tension in the forehead.

However, they reported that these negative feelings subsided quickly and did not last

long.

In the second category only one participant had negative effects of a little

more serious nature. The person felt fear from within and she even imagined as if she

would go to hell. This might have been due to some tensions and anxieties which

were already existing at the time of the session.

It may be noted that the positive effects far outnumbered the negative ones

according to the participants’ reports, but a review of PCI collective profile analysis

indicates the other way.


5.6.6 Hypnotic Depth Experience

PCI-HAP also assess how deeply hypnotized the participant felt themselves to

be. The hypnotic depth experience is the extent to which the individual is capable of

responding profoundly to hypnotic suggestions. The pre-requisite for this is that the

individuals must enter deeper level of hypnotic state. The contemporary view of

hypnotisability is ‘the depth of trance up to which any individual is capable of

entering’ (Heap, Brown, Oakley, 2004).

5.6.6 (a) Awareness

Even in considerably deep hypnotic state, the participants were still aware of

the external environment like hearing the hypnotist’s voice, mind being alert to the

suggestions given, experiencing actually the bringing up imagery. They also heard

the twittering of birds around and felt reduction in the drilling sound which existed

before and during the session.

5.6.6 (b) Feelings

The hypnotic depth experiences reported by participants were good,

comfortable and relaxed with no mental or physical efforts. They felt weightlessness

and felt as if floating freely. They felt sleepy, dreamy, and almost lost sensations and

controlled over their limbs, eyes and fingers.

5.6.6 (c) Thoughts

The hypnotic depth experiences also comprised of thoughts about vacation

during hypnotic dream imagery and imbibing anything desired. Feelings of entering

into a deep hypnotic state and the mind becoming blank without any thoughts were

also common.


The possibility of attainting a thoughtless state of mind but still being aware

was noticed (Sunnen, n.d). In the present study cases of achieving absence of

thoughts, but being very alert and aware were encountered.

5.7 Observations and Reflections

i. Good rapport that was established with all the participants. This enabled the

participants to freely to express their interest in hypnosis and their reasons for

volunteering for the present study.

ii. Participants showed keen interest in the study. They were open to experiences

and got any misconceptions clarified, such as, if they would be asked any

questions regarding their past, if any information would be extracted from

them, etc. This emphasizes the willingness, motivation, and attitudes they

presented before the session, which affects their phenomenological

experience.

iii. Their experience of other altered/extra ordinary/ unusual sate of awareness e.g.

meditation, relaxation exercises may have influenced their expectation,

belief/convictions about hypnosis, influencing their subjective experience

during hypnosis. Some participants expressed experiencing similar feeling as

during meditation and yoga-nidra.

iv. One of the participant shared the childhood experience of dissociated

behaviour/experience, which actually the participant may have no memory of,

but shares this information based on family members’ reports/observations.


Therefore, studying the aspects of client’s early life childhood experiences

memory can be beneficial in understanding their hypnotic

suggestibility/responsivity.

v. No participants reported any negative effect during or after hypnosis, but they

did experience some physical discomfort like neck pain, headache, heaviness,

etc no negative feeling. One reason for this experience could be due to

frequent suggestion of heaviness in body in the scripts.

vi. High intensity of altered experience could be the result of their expectations,

of experiencing some unusual state of awareness influencing their

phenomenological experience. This may affect their self report hypnotic

depth, affecting their perception of trance state. This correlation can be

studied in future using large sample size, between self report depth and

hypnoidal/trance state.

vii. High scores on negative affect could be because of the following: Since it was

the first session participants initially focussed on what hypnosis is rather than

totally experiencing the phenomenon.

a. According to Pekala some who report negative affect during PCI-HAP may be

because of ‘situational factors, such as an earlier argument that was re-

remembered during the assessment, or the “bubbling up” of negative affect

due to trauma or abuse from childhood or later’.


b. On anger dimension Pekala suggests ‘A score greater than zero is related to

situational variable contiguous to PCI-HAP administration. Sometimes clients

can miscomplete an item or two and yet still be reliable.’ Here, certain

situational circumstances such as stress experienced by participants during the

day could have contributed to their experience of negative affect, since all

sessions were conducted at the end of the day in the evening.

c. Fear- misconceptions of hypnosis, believing to get stuck in a particular state

and also conversations with their friends and family about hypnosis could have

affected their expectation/conviction influencing their phenomenological

experience.

d. A feeling of insecurity might be the reason for high-intensity score on fear

dimension, because no suggestions were given during two-minute quiet

period, but were asked to ‘continue to experience the state they are in right

now’.

e. Anger and irritation might have been caused by experience of any actual

physical pain. In some cases, after eye catalepsy (motor challenge item), the

participants complained of slight headache, causing subsequent negative

affect.

f. Sebastiani, et al., (2007) in the study on ‘Role of relaxation and specific

suggestions in hypnotic emotional numbing’ stated that under hypnosis, Highs

receiving cognitive, fear-like stimulation exhibit the cardiovascular changes

typical of fear/stress, but at the same time show an EEG pattern indicating a


balance between fear-induced arousal and hypnotic relaxation. Even in the

present study, the unique characteristics of highly hypnotizable subjects

enabled them to experience the effects of both hypnotic relaxation and natural

feelings of fear simultaneously.

viii. The positive affect, vivid imagery experience may be explained by analysing

the experiences of hypnotic dream affecting the two minute sitting quiet

period experience, which is usually the continuation of that experience of

hypnotic dream. The hypnotic dream experience is the affect of the

suggestion ‘enjoy your vacation having a wonderful and relaxing time’.

ix Some participants have reported engaging in silent talking and at the same

time not being distracted, but being able to concentrate quite well (When

internal dialogue is negatively or lowly correlated with other major dimensions

on PCI, Pekala, 2009). The absence of suggestions to experience the

phenomenon of two-minute quiet period in a certain manner might have also

resulted in internal dialogue for some participants. This can be explained by

referring to neo dissociation theory that different executive controls

(mechanisms) work at the same time that enable individuals to process

different information resulting in different phenomenological experiential

patterns. For individuals scoring high on internal dialogue, Pekala (2009)

suggests that such participants could be benefitted by certain relaxation

training such as breathing exercises, progressive relaxation, meditation, which

will help them to physically relax and become aware of their thoughts and

move them into the background resulting in less distraction.


The factors contributing to the phenomenological experience of hypnosis are

many and hence, stating the importance of interactive theories emphasizing the role of

experiential, situational, personality variables. These theories focus on explaining

subjective experience with regard to interaction between multiple variables such as

attitudes, beliefs, expectations and demand characteristics. They also emphasized on

the individual differences in hypnotic experience as a result of their personality trait

and/or abilities.

In short, analysis of data obtained show that the subjective experiences of

highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis involved distinct patterns of

phenomenological experiences. Regarding the dimensions of subjective experience

(PCI recorded 12 major and 14 minor dimensions) the highest intensity noticed was

absorption, along with experiencing other dimensions. This was observed during

quantitative analyses.

The general structure of the subjective experiences during hypnosis observed

in qualitative analysis included- - vivid images, change in environment and settings

and most frequently, feelings of relaxation, happiness, weightlessness, heaviness, a

change in bodily sensations. Awareness of the existing surroundings and environment

both mentally and physically were also observed, though infrequently.


Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of the study was mainly to explore and understand the subjective

experiences of highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis. Specific focus was

on the following objectives:




experience, that is, common and unique to highly hypnotizable

individuals.

The sample consisted of 50 college students in phase I. A sample of ten

highly hypnotizable individuals, who did not show any symptoms of distress were

selected from this group of volunteers for phase II of the study. The selection of the

sample was based on scores of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and Harvard

Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS: A).

The study was conducted at two phases: pilot and main phase. In the pilot

study, the tools were administered on six college students (stage 1) and one highly

hypnotizable individual. The pilot study was carried out to familiarize the

investigator with the tools and the procedures of the study, to record the time required

to conduct the group and individual session and to investigate if prior hypnosis

sessions are required before investigating hypnotic experience. In the main study, data

was collected from 50 college students at stage 1. They were informed about the

study, following which their written consent was obtained.


The following scales were administered to the participants in groups ranging

from six to twelve after completely personal information data sheet.

1. General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12)

2. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS: A)

The Phenomenology Consciousness Inventory – Hypnotic Assessment

Procedure (PCI-HAP) was administered on ten highly hypnotizable individuals who

were selected based on their responses to the above scales and who fulfilled the

inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Data obtained was analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard

deviation, frequency and percentage, to analyze the personal data of respondents and

dimensions of subjective experience. Profile analysis was done using PCI-HAP

interpretative manual. Collective analysis of profiles was executed through scaled

phenomenological intensity profiles.

6.1 Conclusions

1. Analysing specific profiles of highly hypnotizable individuals showed that

they differed in their phenomenological experience during hypnosis, showing

distinct pattern of phenomenological response. The general structure of the

individuals’ experience of hypnosis can be well identified in the emerging

themes of their descriptive responses.

2. It was found that highly hypnotizable individuals differed in their trance

typology profile, suggesting the existence of various subtypes among this

population.


3. Examining participants’ classic suggestion effect scores showed that they all

experienced eye catalepsy, a motor challenge item and reported having

experienced involuntariness or of trying hard but seemed impossible to open

their eyes.

4. They experienced high intensity of absorption during hypnosis indicating that

the participants were totally immersed in the self-altering experiences, thus

highlighting absorption as an important correlate of hypnotizability.

5. The least experienced dimension was volitional control suggesting that the

group experienced reduced control over the phenomenological experience

during the PCI-HAP, i.e., the two-minute sitting-quiet period, where they were

asked to ‘continue to experience the state they are in right now’.

6.2 Merits of the study

1. A structured and organised approach was adopted to study the subjective

experiences of highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis using PCI-

HAP. This allowed in collecting considerable information in limited time

period.

2. The study is the first of its kind in India to investigate the subjective

experience of highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis using

Phenomenological Consciousness Inventory.

3. Examining subjective experience on PCI-HAP, allowed assessing the 26

dimensions of states of consciousness altogether.

4. The techniques used for analysis were appropriate.


6.3 Implications of the study

In general, studying the subjective experience of highly hypnotizables will

contribute in better understanding the phenomenon of hypnosis.

‘Individuals differ in the degree to which they respond to hypnotic suggestions

and because of this the measurement of individual differences in hypnotic

responsivity is central to the field’ (Heap, Brown and Oakley, 2004).

Therefore, analyzing the subjective experiences of highly hypnotizable

participants from the present study can be beneficial in the following ways:

1. Clinical implications of studying highly hypnotizable individuals will help in

understanding their vulnerability to psychological or psychophysiological

disorders through profile analysis.

2. In psychotherapeutic assessment that is hypnotherapy assessment, whether the

individuals would benefit from hypnosis treatment can be determined through

their profile analysis.

3. In reference to the characteristics of highly hypnotizable individuals,

psychological treatment can be planned with or without hypnosis.

4. For therapeutic purpose, examining the experiences of the highly hypnotizable

individuals will help the therapist to design appropriate treatment plan with

hypnosis, that is, by incorporating suggestions (example: relaxation, imagery

etc.,) which are most beneficial to the client, based on the obtained profiles of

the individual. The therapeutic techniques can match the subject

characteristics.


5. Understanding the positive affect experienced by highly hypnotizable,

which influences their subjective well being, can be widely applied in

treatment for clinical patient. In non-clinical population one can

recognize characteristics of highly hypnotizable individual’s well-

being.

In this present study, the phenomenological experiences of highly

hypnotizable individuals are looked at in-depth for the patterns in their experience.

The findings suggest that that there exist subtypes among HH, when looked into

phenomenological experience unlike the similarity of their behavioural response,

which is in support of what is mentioned by Kumar, 2010.

6.4 Limitations of the research

1. The sample size of ten is too less to arrive at any conclusions. Therefore, this

preliminary study needs to be carried out with a larger sample in future

research to come to any conclusions.

2. The pre-selection of HGSHS as the screening procedure, which is suited to

assess hypnotisability based on behavioural response. Only HGSHS was used

is due to limited time factor.

3. Examining the participants’ subjective experience on PCI-HAP, resulted in

assessing only the 26 dimensions mentioned in the inventory and in the loss of

possible other dimensions that they might have experienced.


6.5 Suggestions for future research

1. Different hypnotizability group such as low, medium and high can be

compared on their subjective experiences during hypnosis.

2. Comparison of subjective experiences of highly hypnotizable during hypnosis

and non hypnotic or other baseline conditions can be carried out.

3. To find out if subjective experience differed due to trait or state condition,

highly hypnotizable individuals’ phenomenological experience of different

states of consciousness can be compared.

4. Subjective experience can be studied in relation to their behavioural response,

to recognize the specific experiential ability required to respond to any

particular behavioural item.

5. There could be a correlation between dimensions that can be statistically

studied with large population in future studies.


REFERENCES

Aronson, J. (1994). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The qualitative report,

vol 2. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edn/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-

1/aronson.html

Barabasz, A. F., & Barabasz, M. (2008). Hypnosis and the brain. In Nash & Barnier

(Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice.

(pp. 341).

Barnier, A. J., & McConkey, K.M. (2004). Defining and identifying the highly

hypnotizable person. In Heap, M. Brown, R. J and Oakley, D.A. (2004) The

highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, Experimental, and Clinical issues.

Barnier, A.J., & Nash M.R. (2008). Introduction: a roadpmap for explanation, a

working definition. In Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford

handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford University

Press

Brief History of Hypnosis. Available from:

http://www.123andsleep.com/info/history.htm. Hypnosis. (n.d). Retrieved

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis.

Brown, R.J., & Oakley, D.A. (2004). An integrative cognitive theory of hypnosis and

high hypnotizability. In Heap, M., Brown, R. J., & Oakley, D. A. (2004).

The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, Experimental, and Clinical

issues. Psychology Press.

Copelan, R., (2003). Healing Power of Hypnotism. Pustak Mahal, Delhi, India.


Cox, R. E., & Bryant, R. A. (2008). Advance in hypnosis research: methods, designs

and contributions of intrinsic and instrumental hypnosis. In Nash & Barnier

(Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice:

pp 312-313.

Fassler, O., & Lynn, S.J., Knox, J. (2008). Is hypnotic suggestibility a stable trait?.

Consciousness and Cognition, 17, p 240–253. Available from:

www.elsevier.com/locate/concog.

Gibson, (2006). Thematic Analysis. Retrieved from:

www.ilit.org/air/files/thematic_analysis.doc

Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2000). Individual differences in emotional experience:

Mapping available scales to processes. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26 (6): 679-697.Retrieved from:

http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/articles/GohmC2000a.pdf;

Goldberg, D. P., & Hiller. (1978) Manual of the General Health Questionnaire (NFER

Publishing, Windsor, England).

http://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/health_and_psychology/resources/

general_health_questionnaire/faqs.asp?css=1.

Gorassini, D.R. (2004). Enhancing Hypnotizability. In Heap, M., Brown, R. J., &

Oakley, D. A. (2004). The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical,

Experimental, and Clinical issues. Psychology Press.

Groenewald, T. A. (2004). Phenomenological research design illustrated.

International Journal of qualitative Methods, 3 (1). Article 4. Retrieved

from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf.


Gudjonsson, G. H., (1983). Suggestibility, intelligence, memory recall and

personality: an experimental study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 35-37.

Heap, M., Brown, R. J., & Oakley, D. A. (2004). The highly hypnotizable person:

Theoretical, Experimental, and Clinical issues. Psychology Press.

Kamath, V. V. (1967). Measuring Intelligence of Indian Children. John Brown

University Press. Oxford.

Kallio, S., & Revonsuo, A. (2003). Hypnotic phenomena and altered states of

consciousness: A multilevel framework of description and explanation.

Contemporary Hypnosis, vol 20 (3): 111.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). Domain of hypnosis. In Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008).

The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford

University Press.

Kirsch, I., & Braffman, W. (1999). Correlates of hypnotizability: The first empirical

study. Contemporary Hypnosis, 16, 224-230.

Kirsch, I., & Braffman, W. (2001). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10. pp, 57-61.

Kroger, W. S. (1963). Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis In Medicine, densitry and

Psychology. J.B. Lippincott Company.

Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J. & Marcano, G. (1996). Hypnotizability, dissociativity,

and phenomenological experience (Abstract). Dissociation, 9, 143-153.

Avaiable from: http://en.scientificcommons.org/11369324.


Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & McCloskey, M. M. (1999). Phenomenological state

effects during hypnosis: A cross-validation of findings. Contemporary

Hypnosis, vol 16 (1), 9-22.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Groenewald, T. (2004) A phenomenological

research design illustrated. International Journal of qualitative Methods, vol

3 (1).

Laurence, J. –R., Beaulieu – Prévost, D. & Du Chéné, T. (2008). Measuring and

understanding indiviudal differences in hypnotizability. Nash, M.R., &

Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research

and Practice. Oxford University Press

Lecron, L. M. (1971). The complete guide to Hypnosis. Harper and Row Publishers.

London.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An Array of Qualitative data Analysis

Tools: A Call for Data Analysis Triangulation. School Psychology

Quarterly, vol 22 (4), 557-584. doi : 10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557

Ludwig, A. M, & Levine, J. (1965). Alterations in Consciousness Produced by

Hypnosis. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, vol 140 (2), 146-153.

Retrieved from

http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/1965/02000/Alterations_in_Conscio

usness_Produced_By_Hypnosis.4.aspx.

Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1991a). An integrative model of hypnosis in S. J. Lynn &

J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives.

pp. 397-438. New York: Guilford Press. Available from:


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez7Nq80QMtoC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11

&dq=Phenomenological+theories+of+hypnosis.&source=bl&ots=2PpTuc8f

AE&sig=VxMD2m6PwBQ5jsyirE98_pNLqTw&hl=en&ei=jTtITLqmOMLI

ca-

fjNkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA

A#v=onepage&q=Phenomenological%20theories%20of%20hypnosis.&f=fa

lse

Lynn, S. J., Krisch, I., & Hallquist, M. N. (2008). Social cognitive theories of

hypnosis. In Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of

Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Lynn, S. J, Meyer, E., & Shindler, K. (2004). Clinical correlates of high

hypnotizability. In: Heap M, Brown RJ and Oakley DA. The highly

hypnotizable person: theoretical, experimental, and clinical issues.

Psychology press, pp 188.

Mallard, D. & Bryant, R. A. (2001). Hypnotic colour blindness and performance on

the Stroop test (Abstract). International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis, vol 49, 330-8. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11596828

Menzies, V., Taylor, A.G., & Bourguignon, A. (2008). Absorption: An individual

difference to consider in Mind-Body Interventions. Journal of Holistic

Nursing, vol 26 (4), 297-302. Available from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810559/


McConkey, K. M. (1991). The construction and resolution of experience and behavior

in hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.). Theories of hypnosis:

Current models and perspectives (pp. 542-563). New York: Guilford Press.

McConkey, K. M, Wende, V., & Barnier, A. J. (1999). Measuring change in the

subjective experience of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical

Experimental Hypnosis, vol 47 (4), 23-39. Retrieved from:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a790216471~t

ab=content.

McConkey, K. M. & Barnier, A. J. (2004). High hypnotizability: Unity and diversity

in behavior and experience. In Heap, M., Brown, R. J., & Oakley, D. A.

(2004). The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, Experimental, and

Clinical issues. Psychology Press.

McConkey, K. M. (2008). Generations and landscapes of hypnosis: questions we’ve

asked, questions we should ask. In Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The

Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford

University Press.

Morgan, A. H., Johnson, D. L., & Hilgard, E. R. (1974). The stability of

hypnotic susceptibility: A longitudinal study. International Journal of

Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 22, 249-257.

Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory,

Research and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Oakley, D. A. (2008). Hypnosis, trance and suggestion: evidence from neuroimaging.

In Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis:

Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford University Press.


Ontani, A. (2003). Eastern Meditative Techniques and Hypnosis: A new Synthesis.

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, vol 46 (2). Retrieved from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6481480/Eastern-Meditative-Techniques-and-

Hypnosis-A-New-Synthesis.

Pekala, R. J. (1991) Quantifying consciousness: An empirical approach. New York:

Plenum Press.

Pekala, R. J., Wenger, C. F., & Levine, R. L. (1985). Individual differences in

phenomenological experience: States of consciousness as a function of

absorption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 125-132.

Pekala, R. J, Kumar, V. K, & Maurer, R. (2005). The Phenomenology of

Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP):

Administrator’s Manual.

Pekala, R. J., Kumar, V. K., & Maurer, R. (2008). Cross-Validation of Hypnotic

Depth Scales from the PCI-HAP. Society for Clinical & Experimental

Hypnosis, Annual Conference in King of Prussia, PA.

Pekala, R. J. (2009a). Therapist’s Manual: Interpretation of the Phenomenology of

Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP).

Pekala, R. J. (2009b). The Puzzles and Perplexities of Hypnotism: How

Phenomenology Can Help (PowerPoint slides, PDF document). Retrieved

from: http://www.sceh.us/downloads/SCEH_bro_2009.pdf.

Pekala, R. J., Kumar, V. K., Maurer, R., Elliott-Carter, N., & Mullen, K. (2010).

Trance State Effects and Imagery Vividness before and during a Hypnotic

Assessment: A Preliminary Study (abstract). The International Journal of

Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, vol 58 (4). Retrieved from:


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a926273767~db=all~j

umptype=rss.

Pekala, R. J., Kumar, V. K., Maurer, R., Elliott-Carter, N., Edward, M., & Karen, M.

(2010) (Unpublished draft of manuscript). Self-Reported Hypnotic Depth as

a Function of Suggestibility, Expectancy and Trance State Effects:

Implications for Understanding Hypnotism. This was published as

Suggestibility, expectancy, trance state effects, and hypnotic depth: I.

Implications for understanding hypnotism. The American journal of clinical

hypnosis. vol 52 (4), 275-90.

Perry, C. (2009). Key concepts in hypnosis. Retrieved from http://www.

fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.htm.

Piccione, C., Hilgard, E.R., & Zimbardo, P.G., (1989). On the degree of stability of

measured hypnotizability over a 25 year period. Journal of Personality and

social psychology, vol 56 (2), 289-295. Retrieved from:

http://psycontent.metapress.com/content/5m868l3644106033/

Pintar, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2008). Hypnosis: A Brief History. Wiley-Blackwell, a John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.

Raz, A., (2007). Suggestibility and hypnotizability: Mind the Gap. American Journal

of Clinical Hypnosis, vol. 49 (3), 205-210.

Rainville, P., and Price (2003). Hypnosis phenomenology and neurobiology of

consciousness (Abstract). International Journal of Clinical Experimental

Hypnosis, vol 51(2), 105- 129. Available from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12908747.


Roberts, R.., and Groome, D. (2001). Parapsychology: The science of unusual

experience. London. Pp. xiii 186.

Sebastiani, L., D’ Alessandro. L., Menicucci, Danilo (2007). Role of relaxation and

specific suggestions in hypnotic emotional numbing. International Journal

of psychophysiology, 63, 125-132.

Smith, D.W. (2008). Phenomenology; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;

Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/.

Spanos, N. P. (1991). A sociocognitive approach to hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W.

Rhue (Eds.). Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp.

324-361). New York: Guilford Press.

Spiegel, D. (2008). Intelligent design or designed intelligence? Hypnotizability as

neurobiological adaption. Nash, M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford

handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Practice. Oxford University

Press.

Sunnen, G. (n.d). What is hypnosis? Retrieved from:

http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/hypnosis.htm

Swami Harshananda (2008). A concise encyclopedia of Hinduism. Ramakrishna

Math, Bangalore: vol. 1, p 387.

Tere, R. (2006). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved from: http://e-

articles.info/e/a/title/QUALITATIVE-DATA-ANALYSIS/.

Terhune, D.B., & Cardeña, E. (2010). Differential patterns of spontaneous

experiential response to a hypnotic induction: A latent profile analysis.

Consciousness and Cognition. Available from:

www.elsevier.com/locate/concog.


Turner, D.L. (1997) Cognitive Set, Absorption, and Achievement as Moderators of

the Perceptual Closure Effect in Picture Priming. Thesis Retrieved from:

http://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/2332/cognitivesetabso00t

urnuoft.pdf?sequence=1.

Vatil, D., Birbaumer, N., Gruzelier, J., and Jamieson, G.A., Kotchoubey B, and

Ku¨bler A, Lehmann D, Miltner WHR, Ott, U, Pu¨tz, P, Sammer G, Strauch

I, Strehl U, Wackermann J, Weiss T. (2005). Psychobiology of Altered

States of Consciousness. American Psychological Association.

Psychological Bulletin; vol. 131 (1), 98–127.

Wagstaff, G. (2004) High hypnotizability in a sociocognitive framework. In: Heap,

M. Brown, R. J. and Oakley, D.A. The highly hypnotizable person:

Theoretical, Experimental, and Clinical issues. Psychology press.

Weitzenhoffer, A.M., and Weitzenhoffer, G. B. (1958). Sex, transference, and

susceptibility to hypnosis. Amercian Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, vol 1, 15

– 24.

Woodard, F.J., (2003) Phenomenological contributions to understandings hypnosis:

Review of the literature. Psychological Reports; vol. 93, 829-847.

Woodard, F.J. (2004). A phenomenological and perceptual research methodology for

understanding hypnotic experiencing. Psychological reports; 2004;

95 (1), 887-904. Retrieved from

http://woodardhypnosisandpsychotherapy.org

Woodard, F.J. (2005). A preliminary phenomenological study of being hypnotized

and hypnotizing. Psychological reports; vol 97, 423 – 466.


Woody, E. Z., and Sadler, P. (2008). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. In Nash,

M.R., & Barnier, A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory,

Research and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Woody, E. Z., & Barnier, A. J. (2008). Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century:

what do we need and how should we use them?. In Nash, M.R., & Barnier,

A.J. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research and

Practice. Oxford University Press.

Woody, E.Z., Barnier, A.J & McConkey, K.M (2005). Multiple Hypnotizabilities:

Differentiating the Building Blocks of Hypnotic Response. Psychological

Assessment; vol 17 (2), 200-211.

Yoga nidra (n.d) http://www.yogawonders.com/


Appendix A

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of the Study

Subjective experience of highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis

Information to the Participants

The aim of the study is to understand the subjective experience of highly

hypnotizable individuals. It will have implications in understanding the personality of

highly hypnotizable individuals and developing experiential indicators to

hypnotizability scale. General Health questionnaire will be administered to measure

current mental health based on your response. It will be administered in group and the

assessment will take approximately 10 minutes. After which, Harvard group scale of

hypnotic susceptibility to select highly hypnotizable individuals will be administered

in group session. The assessment will take approximately one hour. The results

obtained will be kept confidential. Selected individuals will undergo hypnosis session

followed by completion of the phenomenology consciousness inventory, which will

approximately take one and half hour. Hypnosis session will be scheduled according

to your convenient time and date.

Undertaking By the Investigator

Your consent to participate in the above study is sought. You have the right to

refuse or withdraw the same during any part of the study without giving any reason. If

you have any doubts about the study, please feel to clarify the same. Even during the

study, you are free to contact the investigators for clarification if you so desire. Ms.

Apurva, Telephone: 9902577033 and Mr. Jinik Gopinath, Telephone: 4012 9100. All

the information collected from you will be kept in strict confidence.

There are no tangible benefits for participating in this study. You are free to

choose whether or not to participate in this study. There will be no penalty or loss of

benefits to which you are otherwise entitled if you choose not to participate.

Consent

I have been informed about the procedures of the study. The possible risks too

have been explained to me as stated in the information, I have understood that I have

the right to refuse my consent or withdraw it any time during the study. I have

understood that the obtained data will be used strictly for research purpose.

I………………………………………………. the undersigned, give my

consent to be a participant of this investigation/ study program/ clinical trial.

Signature of the participant Signature of the investigators

Date:

Place:


Appendix B

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The following questions deal with some general information about you. Please

tick the appropriate response or write the response beside the question.

Name (initials):

Age:

Sex:

Educational Level:

Undergraduate / Postgraduate / Doctorate / other (specify)

Subject specialization:

Arts / Science / Commerce / Management

Religion:

Nationality:

Hobbies / other interest:

Have you undergone Hypnosis before? YES NO

If yes, please state when and for what reason:

Do you have any medical problems? YES NO

If yes, please list them:

Do you take of any drugs/medications? YES NO

If yes, please mention the name, purpose and frequency of intake:


Appendix - C

GENERAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE

Name………………………………………………….

We want to know how your health has been in general over the last few weeks. Please

read the questions below and each of the four possible answers. Circle the response

that best applies to you. Thank you for answering all the questions.

Have you recently:

1. been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?

better than usual same as usual less than usual much less than usual

(0) (1) (2) (3)

2. lost much sleep over worry?

Not at all no more than usual rather more than usual much more

than usual

3. felt that you are playing a useful part in things?

more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than

usual

4. felt capable of making decisions about things?

more so than usual same as usual less than usual much less than

usual

5. felt constantly under strain?

not at all no more than usual rather more than usual much more than

usual


6. felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?

not at all no more than usual rather more than usual much more

than usual

7. been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities?


usual

8. been able to face up to your problems?


usual

9. been feeling unhappy or depressed?


usual

10. been losing confidence in yourself?


usual

11. been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?


usual

12. been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered?


usual


Appendix - D

HARVARD GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY

FORM A

RESPONSE BOOKLET

GROUP SCALE OF HYPNOTIC ABILITY

Name

Date

Age

Sex

Have you ever been hypnotised? Circle YES / NO

If so, please cite the circumstances and describe your experience.

Please be brief.

SCORE (to be calculated after completion of the scale)


Please write down now briefly in your own words a list of all the things that happened

since you began looking at the target. DO NOT go into detail. Spend three minutes,

no longer, in writing your reply.

#:

DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO

DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO


SECTION ON OBJECTIVE, OUTWARD RESPONSES

Please circle either A or B according to which response you think AN ONLOOKER

would have observed. If you are not sure, please answer according to your best

estimate. DO NOT LEAVE ANY BLANK PLEASE.

1. HEAD FALLING

You were first told to sit up straight in your chair and then to think of your

head falling forward. Would you estimate that an onlooker would have

observed that your head fell forward at least two inches during the time you

were thinking about it happening?

A. My head fell forward at least two inches.

B. My head fell forward less than two inches.

2. EYE CLOSURE

You were told to concentrate on a spot, then that your eyelids were becoming

tired and heavy. Did your eyes close before you were specifically told to close

them?

A. My eyelids had closed by then.

B. My eyelids had NOT closed by then.

3. HAND LOWERING (LEFT HAND)

You were next told to extend your left arm straight out and feel it becoming

heavy as though a weight were pulling it down. Had your hand lowered at

least six inches before you were told to let it go down deliberately?

A. My hand had lowered at least 6 inches by then.


B. My hand had lowered less than 6 inches by them.

4. ARM IMMOBILIZATION

You were next told your right hand would be too heavy to lift. Did you lift it at

least one inch before you were told to stop trying?

A. I did NOT lift my hand one inch.

B. I did lift my hand an inch or more.

5. FINGER LOCK

Then you were told to interlock your fingers, and try to take them apart. Were

your fingers incompletely separated before you were told to stop trying?

A. My fingers were still incompletely separated.

B. My fingers had completely separated.

6. ARM RIGIDITY

Next you were told to extend your left arm straight out and make a fist, then to

try and bend it. Did you bend your arm less than two inches before you were

told to stop trying?

A. My arm bent less than two inches.

B. My arm bent two or more inches.

7. MOVING HANDS TOGETHER

You were next told to hold your hands out in front of you, and that they would

move together. Were your hands less than six inches apart when you were told

to return them to resting position?

A. My hands were NOT more than 6 inches apart.

B. My hands were still more than 6 inches apart.


8. COMMUNICATION INHIBITION

You were asked to try to shake your head “no”. were you unable to shake your

head “no” the first time, before you were told to stop trying?

A. I did NOT recognisably shake my head “no”.

B. I did recognisably shake my head “no”.

9. FLY

Then you were told to become aware of a fly which was annoying you. Did

you make any grimace, movement, or other observable acknowledgement of

the presence of a fly?

A. I did make some observable movement.

B. I did NOT make any observable movement.

10. EYE CATALEPSY

You were next told that your eyelids were so tightly closed that you could not

open them. Were you unable to open your eyes?

A. My eyes remained closed.

B. My eyes did open.

11. POST-HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION (TOUCHING LEFT ANKLE)

Finally, you were told that you would touch your left ankle at the sound of

tapping. Did you make any observable movement toward touching your left

ankle, even a partial one?

A. I made at least an observable partial movement.

B. I did NOT make even a partial movement.


Appendix - E

Therapist-Assisted PCI-HAP (Hypnotic Assessment Procedure) Pre-Assessment (To be completed by the therapist immediately prior to completing the PCI-HAP)

Client's Name:____________________________ SSN (last four):__________ Date:______________

Please ask the client the following items:

1. Have you ever tried to be hypnotized before?

a. Yes________ (go to item #1c and #1d) b. No________ (go to item #2):

1c. If yes, when, what year were you last hypnotized? _________

1d. On a "1" to "10" intensity scale, how deeply hypnotized do you feel that you became at

that time? Let "1" = "not hypnotized at all," and let "10" = "the most hypnotized that you can imagine:"

__________ (go on to item #2)

2. I would like to know how deeply hypnotized you expect to be when we try to hypnotize you today.

Let "1" = "not hypnotized at all," and let "10" = "the most hypnotized that you can imagine." (If this is

the first time you are being hypnotized, even though you may have no idea as to what it is like to be

hypnotized, individuals can still be fairly good at estimating how hypnotized they may be.)

Please rate yourself on a scale of "1," "not hypnotized at all," to "10," the most deeply hypnotized that

you can imagine," how hypnotized you feel you will be today: __________

3. Now I would like for you to estimate how vivid your visual and your bodily or kinesthetic imagery

is. Imagery usually consists of the internal visual pictures or kinesthetic and bodily impressions which

pass before your mind, no matter how vague or dim they may be. Whereas visual imagery is usually

made up of visual images and pictures; bodily or kinesthetic imagery usually consists of imaginary

sensations, such as imaginary warmth, coldness, tension, touch, etc. as you would imagine such

sensations within your body. Visual and bodily or kinesthetic imagery originate within you instead of

coming from the environment.

Please close your eyes imagine yourself relaxing in a hot tub. On a "1" to "10" scale, how vivid is your

visual imagery of imagining yourself in the hot tub; how clearly and distinctly can you see or visualize

yourself relaxing in the hot tub? Let "1" = "just a thought, no image at all;" and let "10" = "so real and

vivid that you can actually see yourself in the hot tub."

__________

4. Now, how vivid is your bodily or kinesthetic imagery of relaxing in that hot tub? In other words,

close your eyes again and imagine how relaxed and warm your body feels, and imagine feeling those

jets of warm water, gently massaging your body, bubbling away the tension and the tightness within

your body. On a "1" to "10" scale, how vivid is your bodily or kinesthetic imagery? Let "1" = "no

feeling or bodily sensations at all;" and let "10" = "you can actually feel yourself being gently

massaged by the water jets in the hot tub."

__________

5. Finally, how helpful do you think self-hypnosis training is going to be to help you with your

problems, issues, or concerns? Please rate on a "1" to "10" intensity scale, how helpful you feel self-

hypnosis training is going to be. Let "1" equal "not at all helpful," and let "10" equal "extremely

helpful."

__________


Appendix - F

PHENOMENOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS INVENTORY (PCI), FORM 1

by Ronald J. Pekala, Ph.D.

INSTRUCTIONS With the following questionnaire, you are to rate your experience of yourself and the time

period in question by means of statements like the one shown below. You are to evaluate your

subjective experience according to the statements listed.

1. I felt very tranquil. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt very anxious.

You are to do this by circling the number on this inventory that best corresponds to your

subjective experience during the time period in question for each of the following items. (If you are

using an optical scanning sheet, then darken the number on the answer sheet that best corresponds to

your subjective experience during the time period in question.) As an example, if during the time

period in question, you would rate your mood as “very calm and tranquil” and not at all “very anxious”,

you would circle the “0” on this questionnaire (or darken the number “0” on the answer sheet if you are

using an optical scanning form) that corresponds to statement number one.

If, on the other hand, you were neither “very tranquil” nor “very anxious,” that is, you were

midway between the two statements, you would circle the “3” on the answer sheet. Circling the “0”

means your experience is very much like the statement on the left, while circling the “6” means your

experience is very much like the statement on the right. Circling the numbers between “0” and “6”

means your experience was somewhere between the statement on the left and that on the right. Please

feel free to choose any one of the numbers between “0” and “6.”

Thus, you are to circle the number (or darken in the number on the answer sheet if you are

using an optical scanning form) for each statement that best corresponds to your subjective state at the

time mentioned. Please do this for each of the following statements (found on the following pages)

trying to be as accurate as you can.

In order to best determine your subjective experience, definitions have been provided for some

of the key words used on the following pages.

1. SENSATIONS: are internal bodily impressions that you become aware of. Itches,

pressure, pain, warmth, and coldness are examples of such sensations.

2. PERCEPTIONS: are impressions that you feel you receive from the external world.

Perceptions come from the environment through sights, sounds, smells, etc.

3. FEELINGS OR EMOTIONS: are those internal impressions or moods such as

happiness, joy, anger, excitement, etc.

4. THOUGHTS: are internal words, statements, and verbalizations that you are saying

to yourself.

5. IMAGES OR IMAGERY: are internal visual (sights), auditory (sounds), kinesthetic

(bodily), olfactory (smells), tactual (touch), or gustatory (tastes) impressions or

pictures which pass before your mind, no matter how vague or dim they may be.

They originate within you instead of coming from the environment.

6. IMPRESSIONS OR EVENTS: are any of the above, i.e., sensations, perceptions,

thoughts, or images.

Copyright 1982, 1991 by Ronald J. Pekala, Ph.D. This inventory may not be reproduced in any form of printing or by any other

means, electronic or mechanical, including, but not limited to, photocopying, audiovisual recording and transmission, and

portrayal or duplication in any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher, the

Mid-Atlantic Educational Institute, Inc., 309 North Franklin Street, West Chester, PA 19380-2765. Printed in the United States

of America.


If an optical scanning sheet is available, please complete the demographic information section of the optical

scanning sheet and darken in the digits that correspond to that information. Then put your responses on the

scanning sheet, darkening in the digit that best corresponds to your subjective experience for the time in question

for each item.

If you will be putting your responses on this inventory, then complete the following information:

Your Name: ______________________________________ Your Sex:___________

Your Age:_______ Highest grade completed in school:_______ Your Social Security

Number:_____________

Today’s Date: __________________________ Today’s Code or Condition:____________________

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS INVENTORY

YOU ARE NOW READY TO PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ITSELF. PLEASE READ EACH

STATEMENT SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY AND ANSWER AS ACCURATELY AS YOU CAN BY

CIRCLING THE NUMBER BETWEEN “0” AND “6” (OR DARKENING IN THE APROPRIATE NUMBER ON

THE OPTICAL SCANNING SHEET) THAT BEST CORRESPONDS TO YOUR SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

DURING THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTION. DO THIS FOR EACH STATEMENT.

1. I was forever distracted and unable to

concentrate on anything.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I was able to concentrate quite well and was

not distracted.

2. My thinking was clear and understandable.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

My thinking was unclear and not easy to

understand.

3. The thoughts and images I had were under my

control; I decided what I thought or imagined.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Images and thoughts popped into my mind

without my control.

4. I had an experience which I would label as very

religious, spiritual, or transcendental.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I did not have any experience which I would

label as religious, spiritual, or transcendental.

5. I became aware of very intense sexual feelings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I experienced no sexual feelings.

6. I was silently talking to myself a great deal.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I did not engage in any silent talking to myself.

7. I felt very, very sad.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I felt no feelings of sadness whatsoever.

8. My attention was completely directed toward

my own internal subjective experience.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

My attention was completely directed toward

the world around me.

9. I felt ecstatic and joyful.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I felt no feelings of being ecstatic or joyful.

10. I cannot remember what I experienced.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I can remember just about everything that I

experienced.

11. My body ended at the boundary between my

skin and the world.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I felt my body greatly expanded beyond the

boundaries of my skin.

PHENOMENOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS INVENTORY,

FORM 1


12. I experienced a great deal of visual imagery.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I experienced no visual imagery at all.

13. I was not aware of being aware of myself at

all; I had no self-awareness.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I was very aware of being aware of myself; my

self-awareness was intense.

14. I felt no emotions of rage whatsoever.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I felt enraged.

15. My perception of the flow of time changed

drastically.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I noticed no changes in my perception of the

flow of time.

16. I felt very frightened.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I felt no emotions of being frightened.

17. My perception of the world changed

drastically.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I noticed no changes in my perception of the

world.

18. My visual imagery was so vivid and three-

dimensional, it seemed real.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

My visual imagery was so vague and diffuse, it

was hard to get an image of anything.

19. The muscles of my body felt very tense and

tight.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 The muscles of my body felt very loose and

relaxed.

20. I experienced no feelings of love.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I experienced very strong feelings of love.

21. My state of consciousness was not any

different or unusual from what it ordinarily is.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt in an extremely different and unusual

state of consciousness.

22. I can recall nothing that happened to me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I can recall everything that happened to me.

23. I had an experience of awe and reverence

toward the world.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I had no experience of awe and reverence

toward the world.

24. Conceptually, my thinking was clear and

distinct.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conceptually, my thinking was confused and

muddled.

25. I had complete control over what I was paying

attention to.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I had no control over what I was paying

attention to.

26. My bodily feelings seemed to expand into the

world around me.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My bodily feelings were confined to the area

within my skin.

27. I was continually conscious and well aware of

myself.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I lost consciousness of myself.

28. My attention was totally directed toward the

environment around me.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My attention was totally directed toward my

own internal, subjective experience.

29. The world around me became extremely

different in color or form.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I noticed no changes in the color or form of the

world around me.

30. Time seemed to greatly speed up or slow down.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time was experienced with no changes in its

rate of passage.

31. I felt no feelings of unhappiness or dejection. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt unhappy and dejected.

32. I experienced no profound insights besides my

usual cognitive understanding of things.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I experienced very profound and enlightening

insights of certain ideas or issues.

33. I felt very angry and upset. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt no feelings of being angry or upset.


34. I was not distracted, but was able to be

completely absorbed in what I was experiencing.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I was continually distracted by extraneous

impressions or events.

35. I was not aware of any sexual feelings. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I experienced very strong sexual feelings.

36. My thought processes were nonrational and

very hard to comprehend.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My thought processes were rational and easy

to comprehend.

37. I felt no feelings of tension or tightness at all.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt tense and tight.

38. My memory of the events I experienced is

extremely clear and vivid.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

My memory of the events I experienced is

extremely blurred and hazy.

39. I noticed no changes in the size, shape, or

perspective of the objects in the world around me.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Objects in the world around me changed in

size, shape, or perspective.

40. My state of awareness was very different from

what I usually experience.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

My state of awareness was no different than

usual.

41. I relinquished control and became receptive

and passive to what I was experiencing.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I was willfully controlling what I was

experiencing.

42. I felt no feelings of being scared or afraid. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt very scared and afraid.

43. I felt no sense of timelessness; time flowed as I

usually experienced it.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time stood still; there was no movement of

time at all.

44. I experienced no or very few images. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My experience was made up almost completely

of images.

45. I did not engage in any silent talking to myself. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I was silently talking to myself a great deal.

46. I experienced no feelings of ecstasy or extreme

happiness beyond my usual feelings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt feelings of ecstasy and extreme happiness.

47. I experienced no sense of sacredness or deep

meaning in existence beyond my usual feelings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Existence became deeply sacred or meaningful.

48. My imagery was very vague and dim. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My imagery was as clear and vivid as objects

in the real world.

49. I felt intense feelings of loving-kindness. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt no feelings of loving-kindness.

50. I maintained a very strong sense of self-

awareness the whole time.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I did not maintain a very strong sense of self-

awareness at all.

51. I continually maintained a very strong sense of

separation between myself and the environment.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I experienced intense unity with the world; the

boundaries between me and the environment

dissolved away.

52. My attention was completely inner-directed. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 My attention was completely outer-directed.

53. My state of awareness was not unusual or

different from what it ordinarily is.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I felt in an extraordinarily unusual and

nonordinary state of awareness.


Appendix - G

Therapist-Assisted PCI-HAP Post-Assessment Debriefing Form (To be completed by the therapist immediately after completing the PCI-HAP, but before completing the PCI)

Your Name:_________________________ SSN (Last Four):__________Today's Date:___________

1. During the hypnosis, you were asked to go on vacation and have a wonderful time on a beautiful

day. Please rate on a "1" to "10" scale how vivid your vacation was. Let "1" = just a thought, no image

at all; and let "10" = as real and vivid as actually being there. What number between "1" and "10" best

represents how vivid your imagery was:

_________

Please describe what happened on your vacation:

2. After the vacation, you were asked to briefly raise your left index finger. Did you raise your left

index finger?

1. Yes_______ 2. No_______

3. Near the end of the hypnosis, you were told that your eye lids were very heavy, heavy like lead, and

extremely difficult to open. But you were asked to try to open your eyes anyway.

Did you open your eyes during that time? 1. Yes________ 2. No________

Please describe what the experience of trying to open your eyes was like:

4. Near the very end of the hypnosis, you were told to sit quietly for two minutes and continue to

experience the state you were in at the time. Do you believe you fell asleep, not a hypnotic sleep but

actual or real sleep, during that time? Which of the following best apply (read all 4 and then ask the

client to choose):

1. _____ Yes, I fell asleep (real, not hypnotic, sleep) during the 2 minute sitting quietly period.

2. _____ I probably fell asleep, but I'm not sure.

3. _____ I don't believe that I fell asleep.

4. _____ No, I did not fall asleep.

5. Please describe here what you were experiencing at the time, when I stopped talking for about 2

minutes near the end of the hypnosis:

(TURN OVER)


6. Please describe how you now feel after the hypnosis:

7. Did you experience any negative effects during or after the hypnosis? If yes, please describe:

8. On a "1" to "10" scale, how hypnotized do you feel that you became. Let "1" = not hypnotized at all,

and let "10" = the most hypnotized that you can imagine:

________

If you want to comment about how hypnotized you feel you became, please describe that for me now:

9. How helpful do you think self-hypnosis training is going to be to help you with your problems,

issues, and concerns? Please rate on a "1" to "10" intensity scale, how helpful you feel self-hypnosis

training is going to be. Let "1" equal "not at all helpful," and let "10" equal "extremely helpful."

___

______

If you want to comment about how helpful you believe self-hypnosis training is going to be, please

describe that for me now:

10. Finally, I would like you to return to the question about opening your eyes near the end of the

hypnosis. (You were told that your eyelids were very heavy, heavy like lead, and extremely difficult to

open. But you were asked to try to open your eyes anyway.)

Which of the following best describes how easy or difficult it was for you to open (or not open) your

eyes?

1. ______ I immediately and very easily opened my eyes.

2. ______ I was able to open my eyes with just a little effort.

3. ______ It was somewhat difficult to open my eyes, but I was able to open them.

4. ______ I barely was able to open my eyes; I opened them just a little.

5. ______ I could have opened my eyes if I wanted to; but I didn't, it was too much

effort to even try.

6. _____ It was difficult to open my eyes; I did not open them but I probably could

have if I had more time.

7. ______ It was impossible to open my eyes; as hard as I tried, I could not open them.

introduction -...

Documents