Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Variations in the sense of agency during hypnotic responding: Insights from latent profile analysis

Profile image of vince politovince polito

2016, Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice

https://doi.org/10.1037/CNS0000107
visibility

…

description

19 pages

link

1 file

descriptionSee full PDF

Abstract

The primary phenomenological feature of a response to hypnotic suggestion is the perception that a person is not the author of their actions and experiences. This distortion in volition during hypnotic responding, known as the classic suggestion effect, has the potential to illuminate the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying hypnosis and inform broader models of agency. Here we sought to clarify inter-individual differences in the patterns of agency that participants experience during hypnosis. We applied latent profile analysis, a finite mixture modeling method for partitioning participants into homogeneous classes, to participants' responses to a standardized behavioral measure of hypnotic suggestibility and an experiential measure of sense of agency during hypnotic responding. The best fitting model suggested that there were four discrete response patterns: a low suggestible class, two medium suggestible classes, and one highly suggestible class. The two medium suggestible classes displayed nearly equivalent patterns of behavioural hypnotic responding but diverged in their experience of agency during hypnotic responding: one class experienced greater involuntariness during responding whereas the other experienced greater effortlessness during responding. These results reinforce previous research highlighting differential patterns of hypnotic responding and complement work suggesting that there may be two or more phenomenologically distinct modes of hypnotic responding. They also have a number of implications for the measurement of hypnotic responding and for the use of low and medium suggestible individuals in experimental hypnosis research designs.

Related papers

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice Variations in the Sense of Agency During Hypnotic Responding: Insights From Latent Profile Analysis
Vince Polito

The primary phenomenological feature of a response to hypnotic suggestion is the perception that a person is not the author of their actions and experiences. This distortion in volition during hypnotic responding, known as the classic suggestion effect, has the potential to illuminate the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying hypnosis and inform broader models of agency. Here, we sought to clarify interindividual differences in the patterns of agency that participants experience during hypnosis. We applied latent profile analysis, a finite mixture modeling method for partitioning participants into homogeneous classes, to participants' responses to a standardized behavioral measure of hypnotic suggestibility and an experiential measure of sense of agency during hypnotic responding. The best fitting model suggested that there were 4 discrete response patterns: a low suggestible class, 2 medium suggestible classes, and 1 highly suggestible class. The 2 medium suggestible classes displayed nearly equivalent patterns of behavioral hypnotic responding but diverged in their experience of agency during hypnotic responding: 1 class experienced greater involuntariness during responding, whereas the other experienced greater effortlessness during responding. These results reinforce previous research highlighting differential patterns of hypnotic responding and complement work suggesting that there may be 2 or more phenomenologically distinct modes of hypnotic responding. They also have a number of implications for the measurement of hypnotic responding and for the use of low and medium suggestible individuals in experimental hypnosis research designs.

View PDFchevron_right
Differential patterns of spontaneous experiential response to a hypnotic induction: A latent profile analysis
etzel cardena

Consciousness and Cognition, 2010

A hypnotic induction produces different patterns of spontaneous experiences across individuals. The magnitude and characteristics of these responses covary moderately with hypnotic suggestibility, but also differ within levels of hypnotic suggestibility. This study sought to identify discrete phenomenological profiles in response to a hypnotic induction and assess whether experiential variability among highly suggestible individuals matches the phenomenological profiles predicted by dissociative typological models of high hypnotic suggestibility. Phenomenological state scores indexed in reference to a resting epoch during hypnosis were submitted to a latent profile analysis. The profiles in the derived four-class solution differed in multiple experiential dimensions and hypnotic suggestibility. Highly suggestible individuals were distributed across two classes that exhibited response patterns suggesting an inward attention subtype and a dissociative subtype. These results provide support for dissociative typological models of high hypnotic suggestibility and indicate that highly suggestible individuals do not display a uniform response to a hypnotic induction.

View PDFchevron_right
Measuring Agency Change Across the Domain of Hypnosis
Vince Polito

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2014

Building on Hilgard’s (1965) classic work, the domain of hypnosis has been conceptualized by Barnier, Dienes, and Mitchell (2008) as comprising 3 levels that represent distinct aspects of hypnotic phenomena: a) responses to different types of hypnotic suggestions, b) varying patterns of response over the phases of a suggestion, and c) the impact of state and trait influences. The current experiment investigates sense of agency across each of these three levels. Forty-six high hypnotizable participants completed an ideomotor (arm levitation), a challenge (arm rigidity), and a cognitive (anosmia) item, with or without a hypnotic induction. In a postexperimental inquiry, participants rated their feelings of control at three time points for each item: during the suggestion, test, and cancellation phases. They also completed the Sense of Agency Rating Scale (Polito, Barnier, & Woody, 2013) for each item. Pass rates and control ratings fluctuated across the different types of items and the three phases of each item; control ratings and agency scores also differed between participants who passed and failed each item. In addition, whereas a hypnotic induction influenced the likelihood of passing items, it had no direct effect on agentive experiences. These results suggest that altered sense of agency is not a unidimensional or static quality “switched on” by hypnotic induction, but a dynamic multidimensional construct that varies across items, over time, and according to whether individuals pass or fail suggestions.

View PDFchevron_right
A spectral analysis of cognitive and personality variables in hypnosis: Empirical disconfirmation of the two-factor model of hypnotic responding
Gail Comey

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995

The two-factor model of hypnotic responding posits that ability or trait variables are more important than contextual variables in producing responses to difficult hypnotic suggestions, whereas contextual variables such as attitudes and expectancies are more important than trait variables in predicting responses to easier suggestions. In three separate data sets, responses to suggestions of varying difficulty were correlated with absorption, fantasy proneness, dissociation, attitudes toward hypnosis, and hypnotic response expectancy. Although the results of these analyses were not consistent across data sets, all significant findings were in the opposite direction of that predicted by twofactor theorists. In general, expectancy was the strongest correlate of hypnotic response, especially for highly responsive participants and for difficult suggestions. It is concluded that despite the attractiveness of the two-factor model, repeated attempts to replicate its empirical base have been unsuccessful.

View PDFchevron_right
Hypnotic involuntariness: A social cognitive analysis
John Weekes

Psychological Review, 1990

The experience of involuntariness is a hallmark of hypnosis. A framework for understanding involuntary experiences that draws from social psychological and cognitive perspectives on hypnotic responding is presented. There are at least 5 reasons to reject the hypothesis that hypnotic responding is automatic and involuntary: (a) Hypnotic responses have all of the properties of behavior that is typically defined as voluntary. That is, they are purposeful, directed toward goals, regulated in terms of subjects' intentions, and can be progressively changed to better achieve subjects' goals. (b) Hypnotizable subjects can resist suggestions when resistance is defined as consistent with the role of a good hypnotized subject. (c) Hypnotic behaviors are neither reflexes nor manifestations of innate stimulus-response connections. (d) Hypnotic performances consume attentional resources in a manner comparable with nonhypnotic performances. (e) Hypnotic subjects' cognitive activities clearly demonstrate their active attempts to fulfill the requirements of hypnotic suggestions, which include experiencing suggestion-related effects as involuntary.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Consciousness (Psychology)
  • Hypnotic Susceptibility

    • Cited by

    Occupational Health and Safety Receptivity towards Clinical Innovations That Can Benefit Workplace Mental Health Programs: Anxiety and Hypnotherapy Trends
    Petrina Coventry

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    Anxiety is one of the most common mental health conditions experienced by people in Australia during their working years according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and employers recognising that mental health impacts their organisation’s bottom line are increasingly interested in programs to promote better mental health, well-being, and productivity. Beyond management concern for productivity, statutory protection is necessary to safeguard mental health, under the Australian Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, organisations have a duty to eliminate or minimise risks to psychological (mental) health by designing effective workplace systems and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) practitioners are central to the design and responsibility in managing these systems. Despite literature indicating the benefits of OHS workplace mental health initiatives, such as improved overall health, reduced absenteeism, increased job satisfaction and morale, there remains a lack of e...

    View PDFchevron_right

    Related papers

    Impulsivity, self-control, and hypnotic suggestibility
    Vera Ludwig

    Consciousness and Cognition, 2013

    View PDFchevron_right
    Hypnosis, Suggestion, and Suggestibility: An Integrative Model
    Steven Lynn

    American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 2015

    This article elucidates an integrative model of hypnosis that integrates social, cultural, cognitive, and neurophysiological variables at play both in and out of hypnosis and considers their dynamic interaction as determinants of the multifaceted experience of hypnosis. The roles of these variables are examined in the induction and suggestion stages of hypnosis, including how they are related to the experience of involuntariness, one of the hallmarks of hypnosis. It is suggested that studies of the modification of hypnotic suggestibility; cognitive flexibility; response sets and expectancies; the default-mode network; and the search for the neurophysiological correlates of hypnosis, more broadly, in conjunction with research on social psychological variables, hold much promise to further understanding of hypnosis.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Hypnotic Responsiveness and Nonhypnotic Suggestibility: Disparate, Similar, or the Same?
    Nicole Pérez

    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2020

    This study examined if participants respond to different types of suggestions, including hypnosis, uniquely or similarly. This study used 9 suggestibility measures and hypothesized a 3-factor model. It was hypothesized that hypnosis, Chevreul's pendulum, and bodysway would load on the first factor; the odor test, progressive weights, and placebo on the second factor; and conformity, persuasibility, and interrogative suggestibility would load on the third factor. The study comprised 110 college students. Factor analyses failed to result in three factors. Additional attempts at two and three-factor models were also rejected. Hypnosis had no strong relationship with the various suggestibility measures. Thus, no clearly delineated factor structure of suggestibility emerged, indicating that the domain of suggestibility seems to be neither a single attribute, trait, or group of related abilities. Implications are discussed.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Suggestibility, Expectancy, Trance State Effects, and Hypnotic Depth: I. Implications for Understanding Hypnotism
    V. K . Kumar

    2010

    This study sought to determine if self-reported hypnotic depth (srHD) could be predicted from the variables of the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory-Hypnotic Assessment Procedure (PCI-HAP) (Pekala, 1995a, 1995b; Pekala & Kumar, 2007; Pekala et al., 2010), assessing several of the processes theorized by researchers to be associated with hypnotism: trance (altered state effects), suggestibility, and expectancy. One hundred and eighty participants completed the PCI-HAP. Using regression analyses, srHD scores were predicted from the PCI-HAP pre-hypnotic and post-hypnotic assessment items, and several other variables. The results suggested that the srHD scores were found to be a function of imagoic suggestibility, expectancy (both estimated hypnotic depth and expected therapeutic efficacy), and trance state and eye catalepsy effects; effects that appear to be additive and not (statistically) interactive. The results support the theorizing of many investigators concerning the involvement of the aforementioned component processes with this particular aspect of hypnotism, the self-reported hypnotic depth score.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Involuntary Experiencing and the Performance of Hypnotic Test Suggestions
    Paul Cunningham

    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2012

    This experimental study examined 2 questions: (a) Does the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) tap the "classic suggestion effect" and (b) does the wording of postexperimental questions bias subjective reports of hypnotic subjects? Results indicated that a significant minority of individuals who "passed" test suggestions by objective behavioral criteria reported performance as occurring voluntarily, and participants who "failed" test suggestions reported performance of behaviors as occurring involuntarily. Participants' reports of the involuntariness of their experience during performance of hypnotic test suggestions were not significantly influenced by the wording of questions. Implications of these findings for experimental research and clinical practice are discussed.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Developing the Sense of Agency Rating Scale (SOARS): An empirical measure of agency disruption in hypnosis
    Vince Polito

    Consciousness and Cognition, 2013

    Two experiments report on the construction of the Sense of Agency Rating Scale (SOARS), a new measure for quantifying alterations to agency. In Experiment 1, 370 participants completed a preliminary version of the scale following hypnosis. Factor analysis revealed two underlying factors: Involuntariness and Effortlessness. In Experiment 2, this two factor structure was confirmed in a sample of 113 low, medium and high hypnotisable participants. The two factors, Involuntariness and Effortlessness, correlated significantly with hypnotisability and pass rates for ideomotor, challenge and cognitive items. Twelve week test–retest correlations showed that Involuntariness was highly stable, but Effortlessness only moderately stable. Analysis of the combined datasets from Experiments 1 and 2 showed both SOARS scores were significantly related to the derived factors of Woody, Barnier, and McConkey’s (2005) 4-factor model of hypnotisability. This scale clarifies conceptual confusion around agentive action and provides empirical support for a multifactorial account of sense of agency.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Response expectancies and interpretations as determinants of hypnotic responding
    caroline burnley

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993

    Ss rated the extent to which they expected to respond to each of the suggestions on a hypnotizability scale both before and after the administration of the preliminary hypnotic induction procedure. After the induction, Ss also rated the extent to which they planned to respond actively and passively to each suggestion. Contrary to strong versions of response-expectancy theory, the extent to which Ss planned to adopt an active interpretation predicted behavioral and subjective indexes of hypnotizability even after controlling for the effects of postinduction expectations. In addition, an active interpretation significantly predicted response to suggestion for which Ss held weak and uncertain expectations. The relationship between expectation and hypnotizability was found to be fan-shaped rather than linear. Implications are discussed.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Hypnotic suggestibility, cognitive inhibition, and dissociation
    Giuliana Mazzoni, Zoltan Dienes

    Consciousness and Cognition, 2009

    We examined two potential correlates of hypnotic suggestibility: dissociation and cognitive inhibition. Dissociation is the foundation of two of the major theories of hypnosis and other theories commonly postulate that hypnotic responding is a result of attentional abilities (including inhibition). Participants were administered the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C. Under the guise of an unrelated study, 180 of these participants also completed: a version of the Dissociative Experiences Scale that is normally distributed in non-clinical populations; a latent inhibition task, a spatial negative priming task, and a memory task designed to measure negative priming. The data ruled out even moderate correlations between hypnotic suggestibility and all the measures of dissociation and cognitive inhibition overall, though they also indicated gender differences. The results are a challenge for existing theories of hypnosis.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Dissociated control as a signature of typological variability in high hypnotic suggestibility
    etzel cardena, Magnus Lindgren

    Consciousness and Cognition, 2011

    This study tested the prediction that dissociative tendencies modulate the impact of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in different subtypes of highly suggestible individuals. Low suggestible (LS), low dissociative highly suggestible (LDHS), and high dissociative highly suggestible (HDHS) participants completed the Stroop color-naming task in control and hypnosis conditions. The magnitude of conflict adaptation (faster response times on incongruent trials preceded by an incongruent trial than those preceded by a congruent trial) was used as a measure of cognitive control. LS and LDHS participants displayed marginally superior up-regulation of cognitive control following a hypnotic induction, whereas HDHS participants' performance declined. These findings indicate that dissociative tendencies modulate the influence of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in high hypnotic suggestibility and suggest that HS individuals are comprised of distinct subtypes with dissimilar cognitive profiles.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Methodological and interpretative issues regarding the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory - Hypnotic Assessment Procedure: A comment on Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b)
    etzel cardena

    2010

    In two papers, reviewed and empirically assessed the relationships among response expectancies, hypnotic suggestibility, spontaneous alterations in consciousness following a hypnotic induction, and hypnotic depth. We appreciate their attempt to integrate diverse facets of hypnotic responding and reconcile seemingly competing accounts of hypnosis. In addition, we applaud their complementary use of phenomenological and hypnotic suggestibility measures. However, in their attempt to develop a clinically-viable measure of hypnotic responsiveness, we believe that they have sacrificed too much, resulting in a measure with a number of important shortcomings whose empirical utility is questionable. Furthermore, their review and study gloss over a number of important distinctions. Finally, we believe that they over-interpret the relationships between their selected measures and ones previously used in the extant literature. A closer examination of variability among highly suggestible individuals, from the purview of the approach that Pekala et al. have adopted, but with a greater diversity of methods, is likely to yield a number of insights into the characteristics and determinants of hypnotic suggestibility and self-perceived hypnotic depth.

    View PDFchevron_right

    References (52)

    1. Barnier, A. J., Cox, R. E., & McConkey, K. M. (2014). The province of "highs": The high hypnotizable person in the science of hypnosis and in psychological science. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 168-183.
    2. Barnier, A. J., & McConkey, K. M. (2003). Hypnosis, human nature, and complexity: Integrating neuroscience approaches into hypnosis research. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 282-308.
    3. Barnier, A. J., & McConkey, K. M. (2004). Defining and identifying the highly hypnotizable person. In M. Heap, R. J. Brown & D. A. Oakley (Eds.), The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, experimental and clinical issues (pp. 30-60). London, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
    4. Bowers, K. S. (1981). Do the Stanford Scales tap the "classic suggestion effect"? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29(1), 42-53. doi: 10.1080/00207148108409142
    5. Bowers, P. (1982). The classic suggestion effect: Relationships with scales of hypnotizability, effortless experiencing, and imagery vividness. Int J Clin Exp Hypn, 30(3), 270-279.
    6. Bowers, P., Laurence, J. R., & Hart, D. (1988). The experience of hypnotic suggestions. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36(4), 336-349. doi: 10.1080/00207148808410523
    7. Brown, R. J., Antonova, E., Langley, A., & Oakley, D. A. (2001). The effects of absorption and reduced critical though on suggestibility in an hypnotic context. Contemporary hypnosis, 18, 62-72.
    8. Brown, R. J., & Oakley, D. A. (1998). Hypnotic susceptibility and holistic/emotional styles of thinking. Contemporary hypnosis, 15, 76-83.
    9. Burgess, C. A., Kirsch, I., Shane, H., Niederauer, K. L., Graham, S. M., & Bacon, A. (1998). Facilitated communication as an ideomotor response. Psychological Science, 9(1), 71-74. doi: Doi 10.1111/1467-9280.00013
    10. Cardeña, E., & Terhune, D. B. (2014). Hypnotizability, personality traits and the propensity to experience alterations of consciousness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 292- 307.
    11. Dienes, Z., & Hutton, S. (2013). Understanding hypnosis metacognitively: rTMS applied to left DLPFC increases hypnotic suggestibility. Cortex, 49(2), 386-392. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.07.009
    12. Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 171-185.
    13. Galea, V., Woody, E. Z., Szechtman, H., & Pierrynowski, M. R. (2010). Motion in response to the hypnotic suggestion of arm rigidity: A window on underlying mechanisms. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 58(3), 251-268. doi: 10.1080/00207141003760561
    14. Gorassini, D. R. (2004). Enhancing hypnotizability The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, experimental and clinical issues (pp. 213-239). New York, NY: Routledge.
    15. Haggard, P., Cartledge, P., Dafydd, M., & Oakley, D. A. (2004). Anomalous control: When 'free-will' is not conscious. Conscious Cogn, 13(3), 646-654.
    16. Jamieson, G. A., & Sheehan, P. W. (2004). An empirical test of Woody and Bowers's dissociated-control theory of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 52(3), 232-249.
    17. Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). The domain of hypnosis, revisited. In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 21-52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    18. King, B. J., & Council, J. R. (1998). Intentionality during hypnosis: An ironic process analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46(3), 295-313.
    19. Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., & Hallquist, M. (2008). Social cognitive theories of hypnosis. In M. R. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research and practice (pp. 111-140). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    20. Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., Knox, J., Fassler, O., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Hypnosis and neuroscience: Implications for the altered state debate. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 145-165). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    21. McConkey, K. M., & Barnier, A. J. (2004). High hypnotizability: Unity and diversity in behavior and experience. In M. Heap, R. J. Brown & D. A. Oakley (Eds.), The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, experimental and clinical issues (pp. 61-84). New York, NY: Routledge.
    22. McConkey, K. M., Glisky, M. L., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1989). Individual differences among hypnotic virtuosos: A case comparison. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 17, 131- 140.
    23. McCutcheon, A. C. (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    24. McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.
    25. Metcalfe, J., Van Snellenberg, J. X., DeRosse, P., Balsam, P., & Malhotra, A. K. (2012). Judgements of agency in schizophrenia: An impairment in autonoetic metacognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1391-1400. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0006
    26. Montgomery, G. H., Schnur, J. B., & David, D. (2011). The impact of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical care settings. Int J Clin Exp Hypn, 59(3), 294-309. doi: 10.1080/00207144.2011.570656
    27. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
    28. Newberg, A. B., Wintering, N. A., Morgan, D., & Waldman, M. R. (2006). The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study. Psychiatry Research, 148(1), 67-71. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.07.001
    29. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535-569.
    30. Pekala, R. J., & Kumar, V. K. (2007). An empirical-phenomenological approach to quantifying consciousness and states of consciousness: With particular reference to understanding the nature of hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 167-194). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    31. Polito, V., Barnier, A. J., & Woody, E. Z. (2013). Developing the Sense of Agency Rating Scale (SOARS): An empirical measure of agency disruption in hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 684- 696. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.003
    32. Polito, V., Barnier, A. J., Woody, E. Z., & Connors, M. H. (2014). Measuring agency change across the domain of hypnosis. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(1), 3-19.
    33. Polito, V., Langdon, R., & Barnier, A. J. (2015). Sense of agency across contexts: Insights from schizophrenia and hypnosis. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 301-314.
    34. Ramaswamy, V., Desarbo, W. S., Reibstein, D. J., & Robinson, W. T. (1993). An empirical pooling approach for estimating marketing mix elasticities with PIMS data Marketing Science, 12, 103-124.
    35. Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
    36. Sheehan, P. W., & McConkey, K. M. (1982). Hypnosis and experience: The exploration of phenomena and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    37. Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    38. Spiegel, D., Lewis-Fernandez, R., Lanius, R., Vermetten, E., Simeon, D., & Friedman, M. (2013). Dissociative disorders in DSM-5. Annual review of clinical psychology, 9, 299-326. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185531
    39. Terhune, D. B. (2015). Discrete response patterns in the upper range of hypnotic suggestibility: A latent profile analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 334-341. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.018
    40. Terhune, D. B., & Cardeña, E. (2010). Differential patterns of spontaneous experiential response to a hypnotic induction: A latent profile analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(4), 1140-1150. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.006
    41. Terhune, D. B., & Cardeña, E. (2015). Dissociative subtypes in posttraumatic stress disorders and hypnosis: Neurocognitive parallels and clinical implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 452-457.
    42. Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011a). Dissociated control as a signature of typological variability in high hypnotic suggestibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 727-736. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.11.005
    43. Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011b). Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility. Cogn Neuropsychiatry, 16(2), 113-135. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2010.503048
    44. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    45. Wegner, D. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    46. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1974). When is an "instruction" an "instruction"? Int J Clin Exp Hypn, 22(3), 258- 269. doi: 10.1080/00207147408413005
    47. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1980). Hypnotic susceptibility revisited. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22(3), 130-146.
    48. Whalley, M. G., & Brooks, G. B. (2009). Enhancement of suggestibility and imaginative ability with nitrous oxide. Psychopharmacology, 203(4), 745-752.
    49. Winkel, J. D., Younger, J. W., Tomcik, N., Borckardt, J. J., & Nash, M. R. (2006). Anatomy of a hypnotic response: Self-report estimates, actual behavior, and physiological response to the hypnotic suggestion of arm rigidity. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54, 186- 205.
    50. Woody, E., & Szechtman, H. (2007). To see feelingly: Emotion, motivation and hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 241-255 ). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    51. Woody, E. Z., & Barnier, A. J. (2008). Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: What do we know and how should we use them? In M. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research and practice (pp. 255-281). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    52. Woody, E. Z., & Szechtman, H. (2003). How can brain activity and hypnosis inform each other? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 232-255.
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved