Search

Accumulating evidence suggests that individuals with greater executive resources spend less time mind wandering. Independent strands of research further suggest that this association depends on concentration and a guilty-dysphoric daydreaming style. However, it remains unclear whether this association is specific to particular features of executive functioning or certain operationalizations of mind wandering, including task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs, comprising external distractions and mind wandering) and stimulus-independent and task-unrelated thoughts (SITUTs, comprising mind wandering only). This study sought to clarify these associations by using confirmatory factor analysis to compute latent scores for distinct executive functions based on nine cognitive tasks and relating them to experience sampling reports of mind wandering. We expected that individuals with greater executive control (specifically updating) would show a stronger reduction in SITUTs as momentary concentration and guilty-dysphoric style increase. A bifactor model of the cognitive battery indicated a general factor (common executive functioning) and ancillary factors (updating and shifting). A significant interaction between updating and concentration on mind wandering was observed with mind wandering defined as TUTs, but not as SITUTs (N = 187). A post hoc analysis clarified this discrepancy by showing that as concentration increases, both external distractions and mind wandering decrease more strongly among people with greater updating. Moreover, common executive functioning predicted a more negative slope of guilty-dysphoric style on SITUTs, whereas updating and shifting predicted more positive slopes. The opposite slopes of these executive functions on daily life mind wandering may reflect a stability-flexibility trade-off between goal maintenance and goal replacement abilities.

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.

There is an abundance of outcomes research for clinical hypnosis showing promising results. Nonetheless, hypnosis is still underutilized in clinical care. For a behavioral intervention to enter mainstream clinical care, efficacy needs to be demonstrated with exceptionally high quality of evidence, and its reporting needs to be complete and sufficiently clear to enable replication and clinical use. The present article provides best practice guidelines formulated by the Task Force for Establishing Efficacy Standards for Clinical Hypnosis for conducting and reporting clinical hypnosis research.The recommendations are presented in two tiers. Tier I recommendations include essential best practices, such as a call for the use of detailed research and intervention manuals, plans for and reporting of participant-education about hypnosis, the use of hypnotizability scales with good psychometric properties, and clear reporting of the hypnotizability measurement. Tier I also includes the sharing of intervention manuals, the reporting of the induction procedure, the labeling of the intervention for participants, and the definition of hypnosis used. Tier II includes preferred recommendations, calling for measurement of adherence to home practice, measurement of hypnotizability using scales with both subjective and behavioral measures of responsiveness, and the involvement of participants from the full hypnotizability spectrum. Tier II also includes the assessment of variables related to proposed mechanisms of action, the reporting of participants prior hypnosis experiences, and the relationship of expectancies and treatment outcomes.This list of recommendations will be useful for researchers, reviewers, and journal editors alike when conducting, reporting, or evaluating studies involving clinical hypnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]