________

Clarifying the Relationship between Hypnosis and Mindfulness

Albert Wong, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2013 by Albert Wong, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.

[Author note:  This is a paper I wrote when I was a graduate student at the University of Tennessee.  Hypnosis and mindfulness are side interests of mine — love the deep work that is present in the field. -AJW]

Title:
Clarifying the Relationship between Hypnosis and Mindfulness: Correlational Findings utilizing the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Toronto Mindfulness Scale

Authors:
Albert J. Wong, M.A.*
Scott Swan, M.A.**
Mike Finn, B.A.**
Erin Volpe, M.A.**
Michael R. Nash, Ph.D.**

Affiliation:
*Private Practice, 1 H St, #203, San Rafael, CA 94901
**Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

Correspondence:
Address correspondence to Albert J. Wong, Somatopia Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Both mindfulness and hypnosis have demonstrated promise in the treatment of a variety of medical and psychological disorders. Additionally, there appear to be strong similarities between these two processes. However, as a number of researchers have indicated, the precise relationship between these two processes remains to be articulated. In this paper, we present findings that help to illuminate the relationship between these two constructs. We administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, along with the two-factor state measure Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS), to a random sample of college students. Analysis of the data reveals that whereas there was no significant correlation between the TMS-mindfulness factor of Curiosity and Hypnotizability, there was in fact a significant correlation between the TMS-mindfulness factor of Decentering and Hypnotizability. The Decentering factor of the TMS describes the capacity of an individual to shift from personally identifying with feelings and thoughts to being able to relate to experience from within a broader field of awareness. The ability of an individual to undergo hypnosis then appears to correlate with his or her ability to mindfully decenter themselves from the personalized subjectivity of their experience. The implications of these correlational findings for ongoing research programs seeking to link mindfulness and hypnosis are discussed.

Brief Abstract:
Both mindfulness and hypnosis have demonstrated promise in the treatment of a variety of disorders. However, the precise relationship between these two processes remains to be articulated. In this presentation, we describe findings that illuminate the relationship between these two constructs. We administered the Harvard Group Scale along with the two-factor Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) to a random sample of college students, and found that there was, in fact, a significant positive correlation between the TMS-mindfulness factor of Decentering and Hypnotizability. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness. Both of these processes have demonstrated promise in the treatment of a variety of medical and psychological disorders.   Additionally, there appear to be strong similarities between these two phenomena (Tart, 2001).  However, as a number of researchers have indicated, the precise relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness remains to be articulated (Lynn et al, 2007; Yapko, 2011). In this paper, we present findings that help to illuminate the relationship between these two constructs.  Following Barnier and Nash (2008), we will first compare and contrast hypnosis and mindfulness both as procedure and as product, i.e., both as ways of working with self/others and as states of consciousness resulting from such work. We will then make three hypotheses regarding the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness. We will next describe a set of experiments that designed to test these hypotheses. Finally, we will review the results of these experiments and discuss their import and meaning.

Why is understanding the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness important?

In spite of the significant overlap in therapeutic domain between hypnosis and mindfulness, the exact nature of the relationship between these two processes remains unclear. Though many researchers agree that these two processes are, roughly, in the same whereabouts (), exactly how they intersect with one another is unknown. The need to ascertain the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness is congruent with recent calls to connect these two heretofore largely independent psychological domains (). In particular, clarifying the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness is important for the following reasons: (1) Given that hypnosis and mindfulness appear to be effective across many of the same kinds of psychopathology, it is possible that we may find new therapeutic use cases for both hypnosis and mindfulness by examining where each of them has heretofore uniquely been successful. (2) As we come to understand how hypnosis and mindfulness are both similar and different, we may gain clarity regarding under what circumstances each therapeutic methodology might best utilized. (3) Clarifying the relationship between mindfulness and hypnosis may help us better understand the therapeutic mechanism of each of these processes, thereby allowing us, potentially, to improve their respective therapeutic efficacies.

Conceptual Framework for Hypnosis and Mindfulness: Procedure and Product

Hypnosis has aptly been conceptually framed as being both a procedure and a product (Barnier and Nash, 2008). This differentiation may also be fruitfully applied to the practice of mindfulness. That is, mindfulness, on the one hand, may be construed as a practice that an individual may follow (mindfulness-as-procedure), and on the other hand as a state of consciousness that is evoked within the practitioner (mindfulness-as-product). We might say, for example, that mindfulness-as-product is the result of mindfulness-as-procedure, just as hypnosis-as-product is the result of hypnosis-as-procedure. This paper will compare and contrast hypnosis and mindfulness both (1) in the manner in which each of these procedures are typically enacted in a therapeutic setting and (2) in the respective states of mind that each of these procedures generates.

There are, of course, a number of different procedural manners of enacting both mindfulness (e.g., insight meditation, concentration meditation, guided meditation, tonglen practice, etc.) as well as hypnosis (e.g., Ericksonian hypnosis, group hypnosis, self-hypnosis, etc.). Furthermore, these various procedural differences may create differences in ensuing states of consciousness. That is, procedural variance may result in product variance. When we discuss hypnosis and mindfulness, however, we will focus only on the primary therapeutic usages that appear dominant in the current literature. This is not to negate the value of alternate procedural implementations of hypnosis and mindfulness, but simply because these two fields may be otherwise too vast to cover within the scope of this paper.

Common Ground between Hypnosis and Mindfulness

Similarities in Domains of Therapeutic Application

Both hypnosis and mindfulness appear to be valuable treatment methodologies for a wide variety of psychological disorders. Indeed, their therapeutic footprints appear to mirror one another very closely. Surprisingly parallel therapeutic treatments invoking hypnosis and mindfulness have been developed across a broad range of psychological disorders including anxiety (Kabat-Zinn, 2005; Bryant, 2008), depression (Teasdale et al., 2000; Yapko, 2008), eating disorders (Kristeller & Hallett, 1999; Elkins & Perfect, 2008), pain management (Kabat-Zinn, 2005; Jensen & Patterson, 2008), smoking cessation (Brewer, et al 2011; Elkins & Rajab, 2003), and numerous other psychological conditions. [Footnote: There are certainly some instances in which a mindfulness-based therapeutic methodology appears to be effective in the treatment of a psychological condition for which no hypnosis-based therapeutic methodology currently appears to exist, e.g., Borderline Personality Disorder and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy for mindfulness (Linehan, ). There is no comparable articulated empirically-validated hypnosis-based therapy for BPD, though there are a number of case study reports. Due to the significant overlap between the treatment domains of hypnosis and mindfulness, it is unclear whether there is no manualized hypnosis-centered treatment for BPD, because a hypnosis-centered therapeutic treatment would not be effective, or perhaps, rather, because it has not yet been developed, as yet. If there are particular psychological conditions which might better be suited to hypnosis as opposed to mindfulness, or vice versa, the differential treatment efficacies would help elucidate the different therapeutic mechanisms of action of each. ]]

Similarities in Historical Primacy

The common ground between hypnosis and meditation, interestingly enough, also, appears to be reflected in their parallel histories. Meditation is commonly considered to be the oldest form of “psychotherapy” in the East. Hypnosis is widely recognized as the oldest form of psychotherapy in the West. Some clinicians have even conjectured that hypnosis may “have its roots in Buddhist meditation” (Otani, 2003). [Footnote:] It remains unclear whether hypnosis and meditation arose as analogous processes or homologous ones. That is, it is ambiguous as to whether these processes represent forked processes that arose from the same lineage of practice (Otani, 2003) or if these processes emerged from independent procedural lineages to fulfill a similar adaptive function in consciousness (Nash, 2008). In either case, both hypnosis and mindfulness appear to have adopted characteristics of their parent culture. Hypnosis appears to emphasize doing, action, and control, whereas mindfulness emphasizes being, non-doing, and letting go.

Similarities in State of Consciousness

The state of consciousness that emerges during hypnosis appears to be quite similar to the state of consciousness that emerges during mindfulness meditation. Both of these states are characterized by mental concentration and receptivity (Brown & Fromm, 1986; Carrington, 1986) and absorption (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974; Smith, 1987). Additionally, similar brainwave patterns and brain regions (ACC) appear to be activated (Spiegel, White, & Waelde, 2010; Holroyd, 2003).

Differences between Hypnosis and Mindfulness

Although hypnosis and mindfulness share many similarities, as enumerated above, they also differ in significant respects. Summarizing some of these differences we find the following differences as listed in Table 1.

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

Differences as a Procedure

Relational vs. Individual Process: Hypnosis is typically considered to be a relational process and rapport between the hypnotic subject and the individual who is conducting hypnosis is of primary importance. Even when hypnosis is utilized as an individual practice, e.g., self-hypnosis, the procedure is typically still at least implicitly relational: on the one hand there is the autonomous intentionality that motivates the hypnotic suggestion and on the other hand there is the receptive subject that attends to the suggestion. Mindfulness, however, conjures up images of the solo practitioner doing mindfulness as a solitary exercise. Though there are certainly variants of general mindfulness practice which are relationally-oriented and dyadic, the vast majority of its therapeutic usage in the literature is as an individual process.

Object of Absorption: Though both mindfulness and hypnosis both involve a subjective experience of absorption, i.e., “ (Tellegen, ), the object of absorption typically differs when comparing these two processes. In hypnosis, the hypnotic subject is usually absorbed with the voice and intentionality of the individual who is conducting the hypnosis. In mindfulness practice, however, typically the mindfulness practitioner is absorbed with their own breathing pattern, their internal kinesthetic sensation, or the quality of their own “unfolding experience” (). The object of absorption in mindfulness practice usually prioritizes some aspect of the interior experience rather than (as in the case of hypnosis) an external voice of suggestion.

Goal-directedness: Hypnosis often is implemented in instances where the hypnotic subject has a particular agenda for personal change, e.g., smoking cessation, weight loss, etc. Hypnotic procedures are often explicitly goal-directed and frequently appear to tackle change head-on, i.e., through suggesting that change is taking place. For example, “Your craving for cigarettes begins to diminish” or “You realize that you no longer desire to eat fatty foods” (). Mindfulness procedures on the other hand typically emphasize change through acceptance of what is, rather than through direct suggestion towards the goal. Mindfulness practices typically achieve their goal, paradoxically, not by suggesting their way towards the goal itself, but by creating a spaciousness within the self through an overarching acceptance of what is, such that change ultimately becomes possible. ()

Determination of Sensory Input and Processing: In hypnosis, the sensory input and processing of the hypnotic subject is significantly determined and shaped by the hypnotist. A hypnotist can, through direct and indirect suggestion, mold the sensate awareness of the hypnotic subject. In meditation, however, the awareness of the meditator is generally not shaped by an external agency, but by the meditator’s own “unbidden self.” () In mindfulness practice, sensory awareness and processing is typically shaped by the self.

Differences as a State

Differences in Qualitative State: Significant differences emerge between hypnosis-as-a-state and mindfulness-as-a-state when we look at how hypnosis and mindfulness are characterized in the literature. Mindfulness has been defined as “paying attention… nonjudgementally to the unfolding of experience moment to moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003) or “a willingness to let things be just as they are the moment we become aware of them” (Germer, 2005). Descriptions of general mindfulness practice appear to champion an open acceptance to what is without a sense of a particular programmatic agenda for change. Hypnosis on the other hand has been variously defined as “attention, concentration, and controlled imagination” (Barabasz, 2011) or “alterations in consciousness that take place in the context of a social interaction” (Kilstrom, 2008). Hypnosis often endorses a particular “change agenda” and typically takes place in a social interaction, i.e., between a hypnotist and a hypnotic subject.

Differences in Brainwave Activity: Although the field of brainwave research is still in its infancy, important distinctions between individuals in a hypnotic state and a meditative state have already been revealed. Individuals in a hypnotic state typically have high amplitude alpha bands in central and temporal locations, whereas individuals in a meditative state typically have high amplitude alpha bands in the frontal location. [Interpret this?]

Differences in sense of perceived agency: Although individuals with sophistication regarding hypnotic processes universally recognize that the hypnotic subject cannot truly be made to do anything to which he or she does not (at least implicitly) agree, the subjective experience of the hypnotic subject is often one in which they feel as they are acceding to the agency of the hypnotist. They often feel that their actions have been driven by the agency of the hypnotist, rather than themselves, and experience a temporary (albeit voluntary) sense of diminished self-agency. Indeed, one of the most evident markers of the hypnotic state is the hypnotic subject’s felt loss of self-agency, i.e., the experience that the self is not the origin of the hypnotic response (Woody and Sadler, 2008). The hypnotic subject’s sense of agency often shifts its etiological origin to a locus external to the self. Individuals who practice mindfulness, however, often perceive themselves as having an increased sense of self-agency. They perceive themselves as having more autonomy and a greater sense of volitional “choicefulness.” ()

Conceptual Framework for Mindfulness

It is generally thought that the practice of mindfulness meditation makes it more likely that a person experience not just an instantaneous increase in mindful awareness (state mindfulness), but also that this instantaneous increase in mindful awareness will become increasingly persistent over time (trait mindfulness). That is, research suggests that a devoted meditator’s state of mindfulness may begin to generalize across time into the development of a full-blown trait. It is not, however, generally thought that the practice of hypnosis makes it more likely that a person experience a persistent state of hypnotic trance in their life. Of course, when hypnosis is used therapeutically, we certainly hope that hypnosis will create symptomatic change, but we typically do not consider that one of those desired changes to be the experience of persistent hypnotic state. Summarizing, in contra-distinction to hypnosis, there are typically two separate products of procedural mindfulness: state mindfulness and trait mindfulness, whereas in hypnosis, the product is hypnotic state and symptomatic change.

We have already described a distinction between mindfulness-as-procedure and mindfulness-as-product.

The aforementioned dialogue summarizes a number of similarities and differences between hypnosis and mindfulness, both as procedure and as product. Notably absent, however, in the extensive aforementioned list is any study that compares hypnosis and mindfulness utilizing commonly accepted psychometric measures of each. One possible manner of further articulating the relationship between hypnosis and mindfulness is by creating an experimental design in which individuals are hypnotized and their state of mindfulness is consequently measured. In so doing, we should be able to ascertain more precisely how mindfulness and hypnosis actually intersect with one another. This specific study along with our attendant hypotheses is what we will describe below. First, however, we will describe the conceptual framework and psychometric measures that we will use to describe mindful and hypnotic states for the ensuing experimental design.

Conceptual Framework for Mindfulness as a State

The first thing to mention is that the experimental design that we are proposing focuses on both hypnosis and mindfulness as states. We induce a hypnotic state and then we measure the individual’s ensuing state of mindfulness. Though there are many measures of mindfulness, currently, there is only a single psychometric measure that is designed to specifically measure mindfulness as a state, namely the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Lau et al, 2006). This measure conceptualizes the state of mindfulness as being a two-factor construct comprised of curiosity and decentering. Curiosity refers to one’s feelings of general openness to and interest in the content of one’s present-centered experience. It refers to one’s capacity to notice, take interest in, and be openly aware of one’s experience as it shifts and changes, moment to moment. Decentering refers to feeling aware of what one is experiencing while at the same time not feeling overwhelmed by or swept up in the experience. It refers to a person’s capacity to simultaneously experience one’s thoughts and feelings, but at the same time experience some distance from them (Lau et al, 2006; Teasdale et al, 2002). There appears to be strong support regarding the value of a two-factor model for describing mindfulness. Though there are certainly alternative conceptualizations of mindfulness, the curiosity-decentering factor model for mindfulness is the only current operationalization of mindfulness that examines mindfulness as a state rather than as a trait. Since we are comparing states of mindfulness with states of hypnosis, this is our preferred conceptualization. For this study we will be using the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) , a widely accepted state-measure of mindfulness, along with its two-factor conceptual framework for mindfulness.

Conceptual Framework for Hypnosis as a State

[[The discourse regarding how to conceptualize hypnosis as a state is both controversial and voluminous. For the purposes of this paper, we will use Tellegen’s elegant definition (1978/1979) of the hypnotic state as one in which an individual is able “to represent suggested events and states imaginatively and enactively in such a manner that they are experienced as real” (p. 220). Whereas hypnosis is about the capacity to fully experience suggestion as if it were real, mindfulness is about the capacity to fully experience reality. In contrast to this, mindfulness typically emphasizes the quality of really experiencing. As an individual who is deeply hypnotized receives suggestions, the texture of their inner reality concomitantly shifts. There is wide agreement that the hypnotic state is typically characterized by absorption (), attentional focus (), and loss of self-agency (Woody and Sadler, 2008).]]

Although no clear, direct measures of the depth of an individual’s hypnotic state currently exist, there are numerous measures for hypnotizability, e.g., the Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, etc. An individual’s hypnotizability score on these measures is often used in the literature as a proxy for depth of hypnotic state (). This research practice is, in itself, somewhat controversial (Barnier and Nash, 2008) but may be a necessary evil, at least until hypnotic states can be more definitively and directly otherwise measured. For this study, we will, as consistent with much of the hypnosis research conducted in the laboratory setting, utilize the HGSHS as a measure of hypnotizability – and as an admittedly imperfect proxy for depth of hypnotic state.

Hypotheses regarding hypnosis-as-a-state and mindfulness-as-a-state

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive correlation between hypnosis and mindfulness.

Given the extensive aforementioned list of apparent similarities between states of mindfulness and hypnosis, it would stand to reason that there would be a positive correlation between a person’s depth of hypnotic state (as measured by the HGSH) and their state of mindfulness (as measured by the TMS). That is, it would seem plausible that after subjects undergo hypnosis via the HGSH, their measured level of hypnotizability will correlate positively with their measured state of mindfulness.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive correlation between hypnosis and decentering (a subfactor of mindfulness).

As previously mentioned, decentering refers to “awareness of one’s experience with some distance and disidentification.” When individuals experience a state of mindfulness, they appear to experience decentering – they are not completely swept up in their feelings, but are able to disidentify from them in some way. However, this also seems to describe the experience of individuals who enter into states of hypnosis, as well: hypnotized individuals often appear decentered from their experience. That is, they too often also feel a degree of “distance and disidentification” from their internal reality. Their loss of their subjective sense of self-agency is one striking example of this felt sense of disidentification. Indeed, the constellation of dissociation-based theories of hypnosis seem founded upon the hypnotic subject’s sense of distance from their own experience. It would seem to follow that there would be a positive correlation between hypnosis and the mindfulness subfactor of decentering.

Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between hypnosis and curiosity (a subfactor of mindfulness).

Generally speaking, when undergoing hypnosis, the hypnotic subject does not allow their awareness to roam wherever their curiosity takes them. Rather, the hypnotic subject’s attention is specifically focused and guided by the hypnotist. During hypnosis, individuals typically suspend their overall curiosity, and allow that curiosity to be temporarily bracketed in the service of the hypnotic experience. Although specific, circumscribed curiosity may be present, as per the hypnotist’s instruction, e.g., to pay attention to a particular something in a particular way, the hypnotist invariably attempts to limit the scope of the individual’s overall curiosity – and in some instances may directly inhibit the patient’s curiosity through their prescriptive suggestions. Hypnosis is about “controlled imagination” (Barabaz, 2011). It is a form of “highly focused attention with a relative constriction of peripheral awareness” (H. Spiegel & Spiegel, 2004). Allowing a hypnotic subject’s unbridled curiosity to determine the shape of their awareness would appear to be in conflict with the hypnotist’s efforts to exert control over that awareness. It seems plausible that whereas mindfulness would foster a state of open curiosity in its practitioners, hypnosis might not do so. We therefore posit that there will be no correlation between hypnosis and curiosity (a subfactor of mindfulness).

Method

In order to test the above hypotheses, we constructed the following experimental design. Parti                              cipants for both the pilot phase of the study and the full study were students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at the University of Tennessee, a large southeastern university (                              N_pilot = 31; N_full = 115). The pilot sample participants ranged in age from 18-39 years old (M = 22.8, SD = 4.41), was 61.3% female, and 80% white. The full study sample ranged in age from 18-21 years old (M = 18.5, SD = 0.69), was 55.6% female, and 87.7% white. Some participants were removed from the data due to incomplete responding, resulting in revised sample sizes for data analysis (N_pilot = 28; N_full = 108).

The study’s protocol was approved by an Institutional Review Board of the University of Tennessee. Participants were given the option to participate in the study during one hour of course time as an educational experience of hypnosis. At the beginning of the hour, each participant received a packet of questionnaires with a cover sheet that asked for demographic information. The standardized administration of the Harvard Group Scale was conducted in a dim amphitheater, by one of the authors with training in hypnosis (S. Swan). After the hypnosis experience, the participants were asked to open and complete the packet of questionnaires which contained a self-report of the group hypnosis experience (HGSHS:A) and the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS).

Group Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility

The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (SHSS:A and SHSS:C) are considered the “gold standard” of hypnosis research on individual subjects, and have been widely utilized as a common metric to assess individual hypnotizability (Woody & Barnier, 2008). Borrowing from these individually-administered scales of hypnotic susceptibility, two primary group scales were developed—the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A [HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne, 1962)] and the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C [WSGC (Bowers, 1993, 1998)]. The HGSHS:A is an adaptation of the SHSS:A and the WSGC is an adaptation of the SHSS:C. In both of these group adaptations, the psychometric properties of the Stanford Scales are generally very well preserved (Woody & Barnier, 2008).

The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility

Whereas the WSGC is a more suitable scale for smaller groups (up to a dozen), the HGSHS:A can be used with very large groups of more than 100 subjects. For this reason, the HGSHS:A is a commonly used and well-accepted metric for hypnotizability in a large group (Woody & Barnier, 2008). Administration of the HGSHS:A is conducted in a group setting and takes approximately one hour to complete. This measure includes 12 items of progressive difficulty, including motor activity suggestions and cognitive-perceptual suggestions. Scoring is completed by the subjects immediately following the group induction. It has been noted that self-report ratings have some flaws when compared to observer ratings of responding (such as inability to recall some suggestions), the overall validity of the measure is not compromised by these imperfections (Younger, Kemmerer, Winkel, & Nash, 2005).

Because it is best understood as a measure of general hypnotizability, the HGSHS:A is not a particularly useful tool for assessing very highly hypnotizable people, as it correlates 0.60 with the more difficult scales (Laurence, Beaulier-Prevost, & Chene, 2008). However, it is recommended as a screening tool to identify high and low scorers on general hypnotizability prior to administration of scales with a greater level of difficulty (Woody & Barnier, 2008). Sophisticated research strategies have identified the fact that hypnotic scales measure both a general factor of hypnotizability and secondary factors, such as specific abilities that may be linked to specific items of varied difficulty (Woody, Barnier, & McConkey, 2005; Woody & Barnier, 2008). Overall, the HGSHS:A is considered a very good measure of hypnotizability as a general factor (Woody & Barnier, 2008).

Toronto Mindfulness Scale. The TMS is a 15-item, two-factor scale designed to measure mindfulness as a state (Lau et al. 2006). It is composed of curiosity (7 items) and decentering (8 items). The curiosity factor assesses an individual’s openness to and interest in their experience (e.g., ‘‘I remained curious about the nature of each experience as it arose.’’). The decentering factor measures an individual’s ability to accept their experience, while also being able to maintain some distance from it (e.g., “I was aware of my thoughts and feelings without over-identifying with them.”) The ratings given by a respondent are typically based on an immediately preceding meditation session. However, in this instance, the ratings given by the respondent were based on the immediately preceding HGSHS hypnotic induction. Thus, participants were first administered the HGSHS and subsequently, they were asked to complete the TMS in reference to their experience during that time period by rating the statements on a 4-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Both factor scores for curiosity and decentering as well as a total mindfulness score were obtained, with higher scores indicating higher decentering, curiosity, and mindfulness.

Except for the most extreme escapists, no one would typically wish to go through life in a persistent hypnotic state. However, going through life in whilst in a persistent state of mindful awareness does not seem so bad.

Curiosity creates awareness. Decentering creates acceptance.

Woody and McConkey (2003) have argued that the state of hypnosis may be an emergent property of consciousness that arises out of a synergistic combination of a variety of component factors. If this is the case, the hypnotic state may not inhere in any specific subfactor, but in patterns of relationship between different hypnotic subcomponents.

comprised of multiple components we posit that an individual’s score on a hypnotizability scale is correlated with the probability that they have entered into a hypnotic state.

Figure 1. Pilot study (left) and Full study scatterplots of Hypnotizability with Decentering.

               Bibliography

Bowers, K. S. (1993). The Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) scale of hypnotic susceptibility: Normative and comparative data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41, 35-46.

               Bowers, K. S. (1998). Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C: Manual and response booklet. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46, 250-268.

               Laurence, J., Beaulier-Prevost, D., & Chene, T. d. (2008). Measuring and understanding individual differences in hypnotizability. In M. R. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

               Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

               Woody, E. Z., Barnier, A., & McConkey, K. M. (2005). Multiple hypnotizabilities: Differentiating the building blocks of hypnotic response. Psychological Assessment, 17, 200-211.

               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 M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Younger, J., Kemmerer, D. D., Winkel, J. D., & Nash, M. R. (2005). The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Accuracy of self-report and the memory for items. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 306-320.