1980•American Journal of Clinical HypnosisRequires access

Hypnotic Susceptibility Revisited

André M. Weitzenhoffer

Open publisher page 214 citations

Abstract

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

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 214 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Key concepts: Suggestibility, Hypnosis, Hypnotic susceptibility, Confusion, Psychology, Hypnotic, Developmental psychology, Cognitive psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Hypnotic Susceptibility Revisited — Research Paper | ScholarLens