Myths and misconceptions about hypnosis and suggestion: Separating fact and fiction

We present 21 prominent myths and misconceptions about hypnosis in order to promulgate accurate information and to highlight questions for future research. We argue that these myths and misconceptions have (a) fostered a skewed and stereotyped view of hypnosis among the lay public, (b) discouraged participant involvement in potentially helpful hypnotic interventions, and (c) impeded the exploration and application of hypnosis in scientific and practitioner communities. Myths reviewed span the view that hypnosis produces a trance or special state of consciousness and allied myths on topics related to hypnotic interventions; hypnotic responsiveness and the modification of hypnotic suggestibility; inducing hypnosis; and hypnosis and memory, awareness, and the experience of nonvolition. By demarcating myth from mystery and fact from fiction, and by highlighting what is known as well as what remains to be discovered, the science and practice of hypnosis can be advanced and grounded on a firmer empirical footing.     

The insanity defense: Legal standards and clinical assessment

Although the insanity defense is used infrequently, it has received significant attention from legal and mental health professionals. In this article, we review the historical development of insanity defense standards and describe the standards currently employed in the United States. We present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental nonresponsibility, and we briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity acquittees for release. Throughout the article, we discuss some scientific, ethical, and jurisprudential issues associated with the insanity defense and nonresponsibility evaluations.     

Assessment of parents' interactions with their developmentally delayed infants

An instrument is described that is used to assess interaction style in parent-infant dyads in which the infant is handicapped or developmentally delayed. The rating scales were designed to be easy to use by professionals and trained nonprofessionals, to be applicable to children who are functioning between birth and 18 months developmental age, and to involve a minimal time commitment so that they could be used in the context of early intervention programs. The rating scales cover intrusive, responsive, and general social behavior by the parent and social and avoidant behavior by the child. Successful implementation of these scales is described.     

Murder most foul: Predictors of an affirmative response to an outrageous question

Male and female students (N = 761) attending university in Canada and the U.S. were asked if they would personally kill someone they knew and thoroughly hated under conditions of anonymity. Among Canadian subjects, males, those who were not religious, foreign students and those scoring high on irritation or assaultive tendencies were most likely to endorse the “murder” item. Among U.S. subjects, only irritability was a significant predictor of the criterion item. The results were discussed in terms of their methodological implications. © Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

The Personal Acquaintance Measure: a tool for appraising one's acquaintance with any person

The authors developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of the 18-item Personal Acquaintance Measure (PAM) and investigated how the PAM relates to self- other agreement in personality ratings. Results support that 6 factors represent the PAM (Duration, Frequency of Interaction, Knowledge of Goals, Physical Intimacy, Self-Disclosure, Social Network Familiarity), which showed evidence of internal consistency, test-retest reliability over 3 weeks, sensitivity to known group differences, discriminant validity from socially desirable responding, and convergent validity with other relationship inventories. Results also show that the PAM positively predicted self-other agreement. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the PAM and research in person perception, although this measure may also be used in other research areas.     

Who distinguishes between sinners and sins at the implicit level of awareness?

Several researchers have investigated the possibility that people indeed can love individuals who are engaged in behaviors that are considered unacceptable. In the present research, the authors evaluated the possibility that people distinguish between presumably sinful persons and presumably sinful behaviors at a cognitive level that does not involve conscious intent and awareness: the implicit (nonconscious) level of awareness. Participants performed a speeded-response task, the Implicit Association Test. Results indicated that participants were able to make such a (person vs. behavior) distinction and that in doing so, they manifested positive implicit evaluations of sinful people relative to sinful actions.