The stage hypnotist differs very much in his presentation of his skills to that of a clinical hypnotherapist. Although both induce a trance state, one is strictly for entertainment and the other for therapy.

Read more

The responses of a subject to induction suggestions are what we collectively refer to as a trance. These responses are a function of what suggestions are made and the subject’s own preconceptions of what a hypnotic state is like. Read more

Self-hypnosis or autohypnosis is a procedure in which the subject both induces the hypnotic state and makes suggestions to himself. When self-hypnosis is to be employed as part of a therapeutic regimen, it is necessary for the therapist to train the patient in its use. Often training is done under heterohypnosis, and the initial self-inductions are aided by a posthypnotic signal to into the hypnotic state. There is some experiemental evidence that inexperienced subjects can hypnotize themselves about as well as they can by hypnotized by another person. Read more

Kleinhauz and Beran (1981, 1984) present six cases of severe and/or chronic reactions to hypnosis, five Involving either Inadequate dehypnotlzlng of the subject by a lay or stage hypnotist and one Involving a dentist ex ceeding his area of competence by treating a patient for smoking without consideration of the dynamic value of the symptom to the patient. One of the patients was reported to be a member of the audience at a stage dem onstration, and another claimed to have stolen a pistol as a result of the misinterpretation of a remark by a stage hypnotist that he should act like a cowboy and crack shot. The present author is skeptical of this latter case since the claim was raised as a defense in a criminal prosecution. The authors con clude that all therapists should inquire about prior hypnotic experiences to discover such influence in the genesis of the patient’s condition so that they can provide adequate treatment. They also advocate the outlawing of stage hypnosis and criticize the “contamination” of the relationship with the subject by the hypnotist by using it not for the benefit of the patient but to make him an instrument for the purpose of entertaining an audience. Read more

Minor problems with result from carelessness on the part of the hypnotist and can usually be prevented by the use of proper technique. They include delayed effects of posthypnotic or uncancelled hypnotic suggestions, misunderstanding by the subject of the suggestions made, and the rare difficulties encoun tered in the termination of hypnosis. Read more

Posthypnotic amnesia is a condition that occurs when, with or without
explicit or implicit suggestions to do so, a subject is unable to remember some
or all of the events that occurred in the hypnotic state when he is subsequently
awakened. Typically these unavailable memories can be restored suddenly
and without any intervening opportunity for relearning by means of a prear-
ranged release signal. These memories are also freely retrievable in a sub-
sequent hypnotic session. It is this property of reversibility or retrievability that
differentiates true posthypnotic amnesia from some types of pseudo-amnesia,
which may be caused by simple forgetting or by the failure to attend to or
learn material while in the hypnotic state. The material lost as a result of this
kind of pseudo-amnesia is not recoverable posthypnotically; the loss is per-
manent. The phenomenon of reversibility also demonstrates that posthyp-
notic amnesia is not caused by a failure to record material in the hypnotic
state but by an interference with the normal retrieval or playback mechanism
for gaining access to material in memory (Kihistrom, 1977; Kihisrrom and
Evans, 1976; Nace, Orne, and Hammer, 1974; Orne, 1966b; Spanos and
Bodorik, 1977). This conflicts with Hilgard’s hypothesis that posthypnotic
amnesia occurs because subjects under hypnosis suffer from a reduced ability
to retain memories just as sleeping subjects do. This is particularly so in view
of the findings of Nace, Orne, and Hammer (1974) that there were no sig-
nificant differences between high- and low-susceptibility subjects in total recall
of events experienced under hypnosis. Furthermore, Orne (1966b) dem-
onstrated that the suggestion made to subjects in stage 1 sleep that their noses
would itch when a cue word was spoken elicited scratching behavior in sub-
sequent stage 1 sleep. This suggestion was also effective on the following
night, even though the subjects were amnesic for the suggestion during the
waking interval between the two laboratory sessions. This suggests that even
sleeping subjects may have more capacity to retain memories than is gen-
erally indicated (by studies showing that nocturnal dreams are usually for-
gotten if a subject is not awakened within 10 minutes of the REM period
during which the dream occurred). Perhaps it was the active response of the
subject to the suggestion that enabled the memory trace to be recorded.
Read more

The limited supply of blood in the body is normally differentially routed to the various viscera and skeletal muscles as needed by the action of the AND on the sphincter muscles of the arterioles. The vascularization of the skin is under the exclusive control of the sympathetic division of the ANS. To the extent that both divisions of the ANS are represented in the other regions of the body, they function as antagonists. The effect of the sympathetic system is to put blood into skeletal muscle, while the action of the parasympathetic system is to route it into the viscera. Read more

A number of common effects of hypnotic induction were described under the rubric of signs of hypnosis. If conventional methods of Induction, utilizing suggestions of relaxation and sleep are used, these effects commonly include slight to profound muscular relaxation, with consequent alterations in facial expression and posture, eye closure, and lack of spon­taneous movement or speech. Other usual concomitants of the hypnotic state Include a literalness and specificity in the understanding of suggestions (mak ing it imperative that the operator carefully phrase suggestions) and in some cases the development of rapport, a condition in which the subject ignores all suggestions except those made by the operator. It is tempting to describe reactions that result from the induction of the hypnotic state per se, or so-called neutral hypnosis, as general responses to distinguish them from those made only in response to specific instructions. This, however, would be mis leading; these reactions, like any other obtained under hypnosis, are most likely made in response to suggestions. In the case of these general responses, the suggestions are being made explicitly or implicitly in the sug gestions used for trance induction. If an individual subject interprets the hypnotist’s exhortation to “respond only to the sound of my voice” as meaning the institution of a state of rapport, he will develop one; if not, he will not. Read more

Misconception 4: Hypnosis is an unusual, abnormal, or artificial condition.

With a little thought, readers will be able to think of dozens of examples of spontaneously induced mental states that are highly similar or identical to a hypnotic trance. The common experience of daydreaming while commut ing to work or becoming completely absorbed in a book to the exclusion of everything else going on around you are common examples. There is a con dition called highway hypnosis, which is produced by a driver staring straight ahead on a monotonously straight road, possibly with the added influence of windshield wipers in steady operation. Read more

Misconception 1: Hypnosis is a condition induced in the subject by the hypnotist.

This erroneous idea is the natural result of our use of English. We collo quially refer to hypnotizing subjects, and books are written and courses are given to train therapists and others “to hypnotize” subjects. Actually all hyp nosis is self-hypnosis in the sense that any effect produced, including the trance state itself, is produced by the concentration and imagination of the subject, not the operator. The real role of the hypnotist is to guide and teach the subject how to think and what to do to produce the desired result. The operator no more imposes this state on a subject than a teacher learns the content of a course for a student. Both teacher and hypnotist can only fa cilitate the efforts of the student or subject. Read more