Testing Hypnotizability by Phone: Development and Validation of the Remote Hypnotic Induction Profile (rHIP)

Does ASMR propensity reflect a mentally flexible mindset? Exploring the relationship between ASMR propensity, transliminality, emotional contagion, schizotypal traits, roleplaying ability, and creativity

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) is an alternative state of consciousness characterised by changes in affect, feelings of relaxation, and tingling sensations on the body. Online videos designed to stimulate ASMR in viewers have become increasingly popular. Although there is evidence that ASMR may improve sleep, emotion regulation, and relaxation, the current understanding of ASMR propensity remains limited. This study examined whether a mentally flexible cognitive style may underlie the ability to experience ASMR. Undergraduate students (N = 376) completed an online survey involving a series of self-report questionnaires and two performance-based creative ability tasks. Findings did not provide support for an overall mentally flexible mindset, however, transliminality, emotional contagion susceptibility, positive schizotypal traits, and roleplaying ability all significantly positively predicted ASMR propensity. These findings suggest that ASMR propensity represents several possible underlying cognitive styles relating to enhanced imagination and perceptual ability, and cannot be simply characterised by mental flexibility.

Point-of-Care Testing of Enzyme Polymorphisms for Predicting Hypnotizability and Postoperative Pain

Hypnotizability is a stable trait that moderates the benefit of hypnosis for treating pain, but limited availability of hypnotizability testing deters widespread use of hypnosis. Inexpensive genotyping of four single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT) gene was performed using giant magnetoresistive biosensors to determine if hypnotizable individuals can be identified for targeted hypnosis referrals. For individuals with the proposed optimal COMT diplotypes, 89.5% score highly on the Hypnotic Induction Profile (odds ratio, 6.12; 95% CI, 1.26-28.75), which identified 40.5% of the treatable population. Mean hypnotizability scores of the optimal group were significantly higher than the total population (P = 0.015; effect size = 0.60), an effect that was present in women (P = 0.0015; effect size = 0.83), but not in men (P = 0.28). In an exploratory cohort, optimal individuals also reported significantly higher postoperative pain scores (P = 0.00030; effect size = 1.93), indicating a greater need for treatment.

Hypnotizability Norms may not be Representative of the General Population: Potential Sample and Self-Selection Bias Considerations

The analysis of the methods sections of 66 normalization tests of hypnotizability scales reveals that out of 33,338 subjects, 58.57% were college and university students, and the majority of these were students of psychology. Of all subjects, 7.45% were younger school children, 27.63% were patients treated with hypnosis, and out of these, 85.26% were patients of 1 single therapist. Only 0.51% were trainees of dental or nursing schools, 0.13% were prisoners, and 5.71% were other adults. These figures suggest a sample-selection bias. As 83.08% of these subjects were told beforehand that they were to undergo a hypnosis study, a self-selection bias is also implied in the data. It can be presumed that those interested in hypnosis participated, whereas others who had no interest in hypnosis may have refrained. It is concluded that some of the published norms of hypnotizability tests may not be adequately representative of the general population. Many hypnosis studies, whether clinical or experimental, which are based on hypnotizability, may be afflicted by these biases.

Hypnotizability: Emerging Perspectives and Research

Hypnotizability refers to "An individual's ability to experience suggested alterations in physiology, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or behavior during hypnosis" (Elkins, Barabasz, Council, & Spiegel, 2015). Research has demonstrated that most people are hypnotizable and that individual differences in hypnotizability exist. In recent years, there have been important advances on perspectives and new, well-validated scales for measurement that seek to improve on older measurement instruments. Emerging research has sought to address questions such as: Is hypnotizability a natural human ability independent from formal hypnotic inductions?; Are multi-component theories most accurate to account for differences in hypnotizability?; What can we learn from a critical review of older measures of hypnotic susceptibility?; Can hypnotizability assessment be accomplished by phone?; What is being found from current study of the Hypnotic Induction Profile?; Can assessment of hypnotizability have therapeutic benefits?; Does comparison of older and newer measures of hypnotizability such as the Elkins Hypnotizability Scale point to a new "gold standard" based on contemporary research? This special issue of the IJCEH provides insights into these important questions.

The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) in Clinical Practice and Research

The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) was developed as a brief, yet thorough, assessment of a person's level of trait hypnotizability and their potential to experience a hypnotic state. The HIP quantitatively and qualitatively measures hynotizability by evaluating biological and sensorimotor experiences designed to assess 3 fundamental observable and measurable components of hypnosis: absorption, dissociation, and suggestibility through a guided assessment that takes 5 to 10 minutes. From conception, the HIP has been utilized in clinical settings to assess appropriateness for the use of hypnosis in treatment planning and research protocols to stratify research participants. The brevity, accessibility, and reliability of the HIP have allowed it to adapt, not only across settings but through media platforms as technology and remote delivery become increasingly incorporated in the field of hypnosis.