Department of Psychology, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA 19383, United States.
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Dec;19(4):1151-3; discussion 1154-5. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.04.006. Epub 2010 Apr 28.
This commentary reflects on the varieties of high hypnotizable subjects suggested in the works by Barber, Barrett, Pekala and colleagues, and Terhune and Cardeña (2010). These different studies point to the existence of different types of low, medium, and high hypnotizable subjects. However, types of high hypnotizables have received the most attention. Two main concerns are raised in this commentary: (a) drawing parallels between the suggested typologies is not without problems given methodological differences among different studies, and (b) the low base rates of these special types is likely not to appeal to a typical clinician, already resistant to testing for hypnotizability, to conduct initial assessments so as to tailor suggestion to fit specific typologies.
这篇评论反思了 Barber、Barrett、Pekala 和同事们,以及 Terhune 和 Cardeña(2010)的作品中所提出的各种高催眠易感性个体。这些不同的研究表明存在不同类型的低、中、高催眠易感性个体。然而,高催眠易感性个体类型受到了最多的关注。本篇评论提出了两个主要关注点:(a) 鉴于不同研究之间的方法学差异,对所提出的类型学进行类比并非没有问题;(b) 这些特殊类型的低基础率可能不会吸引已经对催眠易感性测试持抵制态度的典型临床医生进行初始评估,以便根据特定的类型学来调整建议。