Balthazard C G, Woody E Z
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1989 Jan;37(1):70-89. doi: 10.1080/00207148908410534.
The notion of hypnotic types--of qualitative differences in the mechanisms by which people respond to hypnotic suggestions--is examined with respect to the kind of evidence that has traditionally been seen to support it. Bimodality in the distribution of hypnosis scores has been taken as evidence for two "types" of hypnotizability. It is argued that little can be said about the nature of underlying processes from the distribution of raw scores. The relationship of factor analytic results to possible underlying typologies is examined. It is concluded that the present evidence simply does not allow an evaluation of the merits of current typological formulations.
关于催眠类型的概念——即人们对催眠暗示的反应机制存在质的差异——本文根据传统上被视为支持该概念的证据类型进行了审视。催眠分数分布的双峰性被视为两种“类型”催眠易感性的证据。有人认为，从原始分数的分布中几乎无法推断出潜在过程的性质。本文考察了因素分析结果与可能的潜在类型学之间的关系。得出的结论是，目前的证据根本无法对当前类型学表述的优点进行评估。
