Assessing hypnotic responsiveness in clinical and research settings.

The assessment of hypnotizability has been of longstanding interest to the hypnosis community. Since 1978, three special issues of hypnosis journals have been devoted to the topic of the assessment of hypnotic responsivity (Cohen, 1978-79; Orne, 1979, 1982). Not surprisingly, two of these issues have focused on assessment in the clinical context. Previous editors and guest editors of these special issues have included such luminaries as Sheldon Cohen, Ruben Gur, Martin Orne, and Erica Fromm. A past Editor of this journal, Edward J. Frischholz, an ardent proponent of the routine assessment of hypnotic suggestibility, deserves credit for inspiring the current issue and inviting us to assume the challenging role of guest editors. A sampling of the content of past special issues betokens the diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions surrounding the assessment of hypnotic suggestibility. However, one unfortunate fact transcends these disparate views: clinicians do not generally assess their patients’ hypnotizability (Cohen, 1989). If hypnotizability scales were psychometrically flawed or clinically irrelevant, it would be understandable why clinicians would spurn them. However, as the reader will glean from this issue, it is by now well established that hypnotic suggestibility scores are reliable, stable, and related to both psychopathology and treatment outcome. The special issue follows in the path of distinguished contributors to the literature who have been vocal proponents of the clinical application of hypnosis scales (e.g., Hilgard &Hilgard, 1975; Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978; Wickramasekera, 1988). This special issue presents a reasonably comprehensive picture of recent developments in the art and science of the assessment of hypnotic suggestibility. In the leadoff article, Lynn and Shindler contend that these developments render untenable the arguments that the assessment of hypnotic suggestibility is irrelevant to effective treatment. The authors’ discussion of the rationale for assessing hypnotic responsiveness, the relation between hypnotic suggestibility and treatment outcomes, and practical considerations in the assessment of hypnotizability pave the way for Council’s article, which traces the historical lineage of current scales of hypnotic suggestibility, many of which have their roots in early conceptualizations of hypnosis that date as far back as the time of Mesmer. Council’s review is a primer for the clinician faced with the challenging task of choosing an appropriate assessment American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 44:3/4 January/April 2002 Copyright 2002 by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis