Christmas Research Snippet: Hypnotism & Babies

Christmas Research Snippet: Hypnotism & Babies

Donald Robertson, NCH Research Director

For personal reasons, I’ve been delving into the research relating to hypnotism and childbirth recently, an area that, I confess, I’ve largely overlooked before.  Throughout its entire history, hypnotherapy has been used in relation to childbirth.  Even James Braid, the founder of hypnotherapy, reports a case where hypnotic suggestion was used to induce childbirth early for medical reasons.  However, the largest and most systematic use of hypnosis for issues relating to childbirth occurred in the Soviet Union at the start of the 20th century, based on the Pavlovian approach to hypnosis and psychotherapy.  Tens of thousands of women received hypnosis and a surprising amount of data was collected on its use.  In order to make it accessible to  a wider audience, by being conducted in a group setting, the hypnotic method was replaced by a psycho-educational method termed “psychoprophylaxis”, meaning “psychological prevention” of pain and anxiety during childbirth.  The French obstetrician Dr. Fernand Lamaze visited Moscow in the 1940s to study the Pavlovian psychoprophylactic method from which he developed the well-known Lamaze method of natural childbirth that continues in popularity today.  The Pavlovian hypnotic approach, psychoprophylaxis and the Lamaze methods competed with Dr. Grantly Dick-Read’s “Childbirth without Fear” approach, and all of these co-existed alongside numerous other uses of hypnosis in obstetrics, e.g., in the work of William S. Kroger, one of the best-known authors in clinical hypnosis, who wrote Psychosomatic Gynecology (1951) and the self-help book Childbirth with Hypnosis (1961).

Perhaps the most important recent review in this area was published by Donald C. Brown and D. Corydon Hammond in 2007 in a Special Issue of The International Journal for Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis dedicated to reviewing evidence-based practice in clinical hypnosis.  Professor Hammond is a clinical psychologist at the University of Utah School of Medicine and former president of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis.  He’s well-known in the field of hypnosis for his many publications and as the editor of The Handbook of Hypnotic Suggestions & Metaphors (1990), a resource most experienced hypnotherapists possess and will be familiar with.

Brown & Hammond reviewed the evidence concerning the benefits of hypnosis in obstetrics, labor, and delivery, in relation to a range of issues, including,

  1. Reduction in use of analgesics and anaesthetics, i.e., reducing pain in labor
  2. Increasing enjoyment of labor
  3. Reducing the duration of labor
  4. Preventing preterm labor (PTL)

The review is quite wide-ranging and takes in many other benefits and applications of hypnosis, with reference to studies of varying age and quality.

The authors begin by reporting a previous review by Hoffman & Kipenhaur (1969) that found studies reported that hypnosis eliminated or substantially reduced the pain of childbirth for 50% (median) of women, with individual studies reporting success rates ranging from 35% to 90% of cases.  That suggests that the chances of having a painless childbirth with hypnosis varies enormously, depending upon the specific characteristics of the study, i.e., the way hypnotherapy is conducted and the characteristics of the women participating, including their level of motivation, expectations, etc.  Roughly half the women typically experienced substantial freedom from pain in these old studies.  There’s no mention of control comparisons, so it’s impossible to tell what percentage of these women would have reported painless childbirth without the use of hypnosis, i.e., their attitude and motivation to give birth naturally may explain their success to some extent. 

This ambiguity is addressed to some extent by a recent meta-analysis, identified by Brown and Hammond as the most comprehensive study to date on hypnosis for analgesia in childbirth.  The meta-analysis identified three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where hypnotised and non-hypnotised women were compared (Cyana et al., 2004).  Across three studies, involving 142 women in total, they found that the hypnotised group were about half as likely to require pharmaceutical pain relief (analgesia) during childbirth compared to women giving birth without hypnosis.  More specifically, 62% of hypnotised women (mean) did not require analgesia compared to only 26% of non-hypnotised women (see chart).  This suggests, again, that more than half the women having hypnosis had relatively painless childbirths, although a large part of their success must be attributed to non-hypnotic factors.  (This is not a surprising finding and broadly consistent with research on other uses of hypnotherapy, and indeed psychological therapies in general.)

Although use of chemical analgesics, etc., is a more objective measurement, it does not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the amount of subjective pain reported.  This has seldom been adequately reported in the literature, however, Brown and Hammond report a study by Mairs (1995) in which 28 hypnotised women subjectively rated their pain and anxiety levels, before (expected level) and after childbirth (actual level) , which were compared to ratings from 27 women in a non-hypnotised (control) group.  No differences were found between the hypnotised and non-hypnotised women in their anticipated levels of pain or anxiety before childbirth, however, after the birth the hypnotised women rated their pain as 5.41 on average compared to 7.58 in the non-hypnotised group, excluding those (n=7) who required caesarean sections.  By my calculations, that suggests that the women giving birth without hypnosis reported their feelings of pain as being about 40% higher during labour, on average, than the hypnotised group did.

In addition to these data, Brown & Hammond focus at length on the limited evidence regarding the potential of hypnosis in the prevention of preterm labour.  I’d suggest that anyone interested in the whole area of evidence-based practice in relation to hypnosis for obstetrics and childbirth, etc., consult this article for the wealth of information and useful references it contains.  Indeed, over fifty books and articles specifically relating to the use of hypnosis in childbirth were referenced by the authors.

Graph of Childbirth without Chemical Analgesia

Graph of Childbirth without Chemical Analgesia

 

Reference

Brown, DC; Hammond, DC    (2007).  ‘Evidence-based clinical hypnosis for obstetrics, labor and delivery, and preterm labour’, IJCEH, 55(3), pp. 355-371

Cyna, A.M.;McAuliffe, G.L.;Andrew, M.I.  (2004).  ‘Hypnosis for pain relief in labour and childbirth’, British Journal of Anaesthesia, 93(4), 505-511.

Hypnotherapy versus CBT: October Research Snippet

Hypnotherapy versus CBT: October Research Snippet

Donald Robertson, NCH Research Director

This month’s research snippet is about a very important treatment outcome study on public-speaking anxiety, a clinical trial comparing an established (evidence-based) CBT protocol for social phobia (social anxiety disorder) against the same protocol augmented by hypnosis, and a third (waiting list) control group.  The study was published in 1997 and has been frequently-cited since as providing evidence of the “additive” value of hypnosis as an adjunct to CBT and potentially other evidence-based treatments.  I’ve decided to summarise it this month because it’s probably one of the most important treatment outcome studies available in relation to hypnotherapy, and so NCH members should be familiar with its findings, and because the study was based on the doctoral dissertation of Nancy Schoenberger, the main author, who was supervised by Prof. Irving Kirsch, one of the speakers at this year’s NCH Extravaganza.  So if you’re lucky you may have the opportunity to ask Prof. Kirsch about this study yourselves!  In a nutshell, the authors conclude: “the addition of hypnosis to cognitive behavioural treatment enhanced the effects of treatment.”

The study involved 62 participants with severe public-speaking anxiety.  They were divided into three groups,

  1. Standard CBT (based on Heimberg’s protocol for social phobia)
  2. CBT+Hypnosis (Cognitive-behavioural hypnotherapy, CBH)
  3. Waiting list control, i.e., a group who received no treatment to control for the effect of spontaneous remission, etc.

The researchers emphasise the established finding that relaxation is not a necessary component of hypnosis (hypnosis is not a “state of relaxation”), although it featured as a treatment component in this study.  (This key misconception is virtually extinct among modern researchers but is still fairly widespread among hypnotherapists.) 

In sum, the hypnotic treatment included all components of the cognitive behavioural treatment.  It differed from the nonhypnotic treatment only in the following ways: (a) relaxation training was termed “hypnosis” and contained reference to entering hypnosis, (b) relaxation practice at home was termed “self-hypnosis”, (c) automatic thoughts were termed self-suggestions, and (d) suggestions for improvement were given following the hypnotic induction.

Participants in both treatment groups received five sessions, two-hours long, of CBT or CBH, based on Heimberg’s established protocol for the generalised subtype of social phobia.  This has already been applied to public-speaking, the most common fear among social phobics, and the authors adapted it to include relaxation skills training and tailored it for application to a specific fear (public speaking).

42 of the 62 participants completed the whole programme of treatment and assessment (= 68% completers).  Essentially, the study found that CBH subjects improved to a greater extent, because of the apparent additive value of hypnosis, across a battery of outcome measures, although the initial credibility rating of both treatments was virtually identical.  The mean effect size across all measures, calculated using a standard formula called Cohen’s d, was 0.80 for CBT, which increased to 1.25 in the group where hypnosis as incorporated.  This shows a substantial increase on average, apparently due to the inclusion of hypnosis in the standard CBT protocol.

The researchers also attempted to identify “moderators” of treatment, i.e., other factors which determined the response to therapy.  They measured hypnotic susceptibility and attitudes toward hypnosis for this purpose.  Suggestibility did not seem to correlate well with outcome measures except for pulse rate (which may have been problematic in this study anyway).  Positive attitudes to hypnosis appear to have moderated the benefits of hypnosis, and correlated with greater reduction in anxious behaviours.

Kirsch’s cognitive “response set” theory holds that the effects of hypnosis are largely mediated by changes in the client’s expectations of improvement.  (It’s generally been found by researchers that treatment expectations correlate with outcome, across the board.)  Although some hypnotists seem to dispute this, it was also central to Braid’s definition of hypnotism that it worked partly by means of expectation.  Statistical analysis in this study showed that hypnosis generated greated expectation for improvement in symptoms of public speaking anxiety than did CBT alone.

In sum, the addition of hypnosis to a cognitive behavioural treatment of anxiety enhances clients’ therapeutic outcome expectancies.  It also appears to promote greater improvement in both expected and experienced anxiety.  Behavioural improvement in hypnotic treatment is associated with positive initial attitudes toward hypnosis, and change in anxiety expectancy appears to be the central unifying characteristic among otherwise uncorrelated measures of change.  These data are consistent with [Kirsch’s] hypothesis that the benefits of adding hypnosis to treatment are mediated by expectancy.

This study followed on from an important meta-analysis by Kirsch and his colleagues which pooled data from different studies comparing different forms of CBT for different problems to the same treatment plus hypnosis and found that for between 70-90% of subjects, on average, hypnosis added to the effects of CBT.  This type of evidence is of particular importance to hypnotherapists as the future of hypnosis and hypnotherapy are likely to be bound up with the integration of hypnosis as a method with other empirically-supported treatments (ESTs).  Dr. Assen Alladin’s recent book Cognitive Hypnotherapy contains numerous integrative protocols which are carefully designed to enhance the effects of established evidence-based treatments for a range of conditions by the incorporation of hypnosis and we should hope that developments like this will continue to add to our understanding of how hypnosis interacts with other nonhypnotic treatments, as this will surely continue to define its role in the future. 

Reference

Schoenberger, N. E., Kirsch, I., Gearan, P., Montgomery, G., & Pastyrnak, S. L. (1997). Hypnotic Enhancement of a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety. Behavior Therapy (28), 127-140.

Mindfulness, Metacognition and Hypnosis: August Research Snippet

Mindfulness, Metacognition and Hypnosis

August Research Snippet

Donald Robertson, NCH Research Director

Apologies for the absence of a July Snippet but here’s August’s a bit early as compensation.  Following our previous snippets on meta-analyses, finding research online, and treatment outcome studies, etc., we’ve recently looked at attempts to combine mindfulness research and hypnosis in the treatment of depression.  This is a popular area so I thought I’d continue in the same theme by looking at, arguably, the most important recent article on this subject.  In 2006, Steven Jay Lynn collaborated with the Buddhist teacher Lama Surya Das, and two other researchers, in an attempt to explore the possibility of combining elements of Buddhist mindfulness meditation practice, cognitive therapy, and hypnosis, drawing on recent research in cognitive psychology.

Mindfulness versus Thought Suppression

Over the past couple of decades, enthusiasm for mindfulness meditation techniques derived from Buddhism has flourished among cognitive-behavioural therapists, inspired by the early success of Jon Kabat-Zinn’s meditation programme for stress management.  Meditation and acceptance strategies have been used to counteract the tendency of many clients to try to suppress, control, or “fight” distressing thoughts.  Lynn et al. refer to the recent study by Wegner and his colleagues, which found that when people tried to deliberately suppress a thought there was evidence of a “rebound effect” in which they subsequently experienced more intrusions of the thought than a control group who were simply asked to think freely about the same thing.  Other studies have found evidence that emotional suppression can inhibit memory and problem-solving and increase physiological signs of nervous arousal.  Lynn and his colleagues report that of nearly a hundred subjects who were asked to keep their minds blank while listening to hypnotic suggestions, only one reported any success. 

Where thought-control strategies backfire, mindfulness and acceptance have been seen as offering an alternative way of responding to distressing experiences.  Lynn et al. follow other contemporary cognitive-behavioural therapists in contrasting non-judgemental mindfulness and acceptance with the unhealthy suppression of thoughts and feelings.  (However, they fail to mention that experimental studies on this “rebound” effect in thought suppression have produced some mixed results – q.v. Clark & Beck, 2010, for a more detailed review.)  Lynn et al. also cite a 2003 meta-analysis of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and stress reduction approaches by Baer, which found a mean effect size of 0.59 (a medium-sized treatment effect) for this approach across various emotional problems and medical conditions.  In other words, it probably works, but the effects are comparable to those of other therapies and not dramatically superior to them.

Mindfulness & Metacognition

Lynn et al. appeal to a cognitive model combining elements of Adrian Wells’ influential metacognitive theory and Lynn and Kirsch’s own “response set” theory to explain the mechanism underlying mindfulness meditation and its relationship with hypnosis.  Contrary to Beck’s earlier cognitive therapy model, Wells introduced a focus on the notion of “metacognition”, thinking about thinking, or beliefs about beliefs.  According to this model, negative automatic thoughts aren’t particularly unhealthy in themselves, but rather they become so because of our attitude toward them.  In plain English, whereas Beck’s original cognitive therapy assumed that negative thoughts play a central role in the development of emotional disturbance, Wells points to the fact that many people experience lots of negative thoughts without becoming upset by them, whereas patients with severe emotional disorders appear to be unusually disturbed by individual negative thoughts and worries.  Mindfulness meditation, likewise, can be seen as an attempt to adopt a more detached attitude toward our stream of consciousness, and thereby to modify our thinking about thinking, i.e., to see automatic (spontaneous) thoughts as relatively transient and harmless, rather than important and dangerous.  Indeed, Beck has recently assimilated many aspects of Wells’ metacognitive approach into his revised cognitive therapy for anxiety (Clark & Beck, 2010).

Curiously, Lynn et al. don’t mention the fact that Wells’ metacognitive model raises serious problems for hypnotherapy because it suggests that the assumptions often made by hypnotherapists about the “power of thought” risk reinforcing maladaptive (metacognitive) assumptions held by many clients, i.e., the assumption that thoughts (including suggestions) are inherently powerful, whereas Wells teaches his clients that ideas are only as powerful as we believe them to be and we can learn to dismiss them as “mere thoughts”, lacking any real power or significance.  Likewise, Lynn et al. cite the recent research by Twohig (2004), which found that by repeating a negative thought to oneself one hundred times, like a mantra or autosuggestion, subjects made it seem less believable rather than more so, as some hypnotists might assume.  To borrow Wells’ terminology, hypnotism itself can be seen as a set of metacognitive beliefs rather than an altered state of consciousness or “hypnotic trance”.  The belief that autosuggestions are powerful when phrased in certain ways and the strategy of attending to their meaning for a prolonged period, to the exclusion of distractions, are ways of “thinking about thinking” (metacognition), which it’s the aim of most “hypnotic inductions” to instantiate.  In a sense, mindfulness meditation can be seen as a kind of “de-hypnosis” or “counter-hypnosis”, which aims to develop a metacognitive mind-set that weakens the hold of certain thoughts or suggestions, e.g., “Imagine that you are transparent, and disturbing thoughts and emotions cannot penetrate you or have any power to control your actions” (Lynn et al.), which contrasts sharply with typical preliminary hypnotic suggestions to experience certain ideas (suggestions) as powerful, controlling, and deeply penetrating into the mind, etc. 

Combining Hypnosis & Meditation

Lynn et al. summarise the relevance of hypnosis to mindfulness training as follows,

  1. Suggestions can be used to motivate clients to persevere with meditation practice on a regular basis.
  2. Suggestions can be used to generate a patient mind-set, so that when the attention naturally wanders this is seen as normal and accepted.
  3. Suggestions can be given about acceptance of things that cannot be changed.
  4. Hypnosis can be used to help people avoid identification with thoughts and feelings.
  5. Hypnosis can help clients to become more tolerant of unpleasant feelings.
  6. Clients can be hypnotised to perceive negative thoughts as transient and unimportant.

They specifically recommend the use of the following hypnotherapy techniques in conjunction with mindfulness meditation, which generally involves exposure to aversive feelings and events in CBT,

  1. Mental (“covert behavioural”) rehearsal of previously avoided situations.
  2. Cue-controlled relaxation to help facilitate exposure to feared situations.
  3. The use of hypnotic desensitisation to facilitate mental (“imaginal”) exposure .
  4. The use of hypnotic regression or reliving as a form of imaginal exposure to traumatic memories (as in PTSD treatment).
  5. The use of suggestion to help clients tolerate the discomfort and repetition of exposure therapy.

They add that the most basic use of hypnosis in combination with mindfulness-based CBT would be in the use of suggestion to directly develop an ongoing state of mindfulness.  As Lynn et al. emphasise, virtually all modern researchers now take it for granted (following several well-known studies) that hypnosis does not necessarily entail any form of relaxation, although it is frequently accompanied by it.  The same applies to meditation and Lynn et al. refer to a recent EEG brain imaging study in which subjects trained in relaxation showed markedly different brain activity from those trained in mindfulness meditation.

Negative Reactions

As an aside, Lynn et al. also note that a considerable body of research demonstrates the existence of transient, relatively superficial, negative reactions following standard hypnosis, i.e., things like headaches, feelings of nausea, anxiety, etc., in up to 29% of subjects.  This is comparable to the rates of negative responses reported by control groups who are simply asked to sit with their eyes shut, without being hypnotised, for the same amount of time.  However, similar negative reactions are also reported following meditation training, and may even be more frequent, being reported in up to 63% of subjects.  Hence, we might say that although negative reactions can occur following hypnosis it may be as harmless (generally speaking) as common meditation or relaxation techniques.

 

References

Lynn, Steven Jay; Das, Lama Surya; Hallquist, Michael N.; Williams John C.             (2006).  Mindfulness, acceptance and hypnosis: cognitive and clinical perspectives.  IJCEH, 54(2), 143-166.

Clark, David A.; Beck, Aaron T.    (2010).  Cognitive Therapy of Anxiety Disorders: Science and Practice.

Hypnosis, Meditation, Problem-Solving, Depression (June Research Snippet)

June’s Enhanced Research Snippet

Hypnosis, Meditation, Problem-Solving, & Depression

Donald Robertson, NCH Research Director

For a bit of a change, this snippet is about a proposed protocol for treatment of clinical depression, based on existing evidence-based interventions.  I reckoned the subject needed a bit of background explanation so apologies if it’s a bit longer than usual!  It’s difficult to avoid jargon when talking about state-of-the-art stuff but I’ve tried to explain briefly what some of it means.  Email me with any questions, though.

research@hypnotherapists.org.uk

There’s been growing interest recently in the relationship between cutting-edge, “third wave”, approaches to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and hypnotism.  Some of these new approaches place particular emphasis on cultivating particular states or attitudes of mind, such as acceptance or mindfulness, rather than the disputation emphasised in early cognitive therapy.  There’s also increasing emphasis on the role of attention in psychopathology and psychotherapy.  These are both, obviously, factors which can be related to hypnotherapy, which specialises in inducing particular states of mind and shifting the allocation of attention.

A June 2010 special edition of the International Journal for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (IJCEH) was dedicated to the subject of clinical depression, edited by Michael Yapko, who is well-known as a specialist in this particular area.  This follows on the success of Assen Alladin’s recent randomised controlled trial (RCT), which provided evidence that cognitive hypnotherapy could compete with standard cognitive therapy in the treatment of depression, and may be superior on some measures.  (The treatment of clinical depression by ordinary hypnotherapists is considered inappropriate by many experts but this research can probably be applied, to some extent, to the treatment of subclinical symptoms of depression of the sort more commonly encountered in hypnotherapy.)  The article by Lynn et al. (see below) was of particular interest because it outlined proposals for a third-wave cognitive-behavioural approach to hypnotherapy for depression, with scripted examples. 

Lynn et al. focus in particular on the central role now ascribed to morbid “rumination” in the maintenance of depressive symptoms.  They provide proposals for combining thee specialised treatments with modern hypnotherapy.

  1. Rumination-Focused Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (RFCBT)
  2. Cognitive Control Training (CCT)
  3. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT)

Full details of the hybrid protocol can be found in the article referenced below.  However, to illustrate their approach, I’d like to elaborate briefly on one small aspect of this multi-component treatment approach.

Lynn et al. refer briefly to the use of problem-solving methods which are near-universal in CBT.  However, they could have also mentioned the fact that Problem-Solving Therapy (PST), an approach originating in the 1970s, has received growing support recently from treatment outcome studies as a stand-alone intervention for clinical depression.  (This is an area of special interest to me at present.)  Now, as far back as the 1940s, Lewis Wolberg had discussed the use of problem-solving methods within hypnotherapy, from a cognitive-behavioural perspective.  Wolberg, an eclectic psychotherapist, combined elements of behavioural psychology with rational persuasion psychotherapy, an early precursor of cognitive therapy, in his Medical Hypnotism, one of the best-known clinical hypnosis textbooks of the period. 

Problem-Solving Therapy (PST), in its modern form, has the merit of being a very brief and simple approach, with a well-rounded evidence-base.  It’s simple enough to combine well with hypnotherapy to form a brief hybrid treatment.  Lynn et al. go for a more complex mixture, as mentioned above, but their modified problem-solving plus hypnosis, might be viable as another stand-alone intervention.  I’d strongly recommend that you check out the third edition of the core text, Problem-Solving Therapy: A Positive Approach to Clinical Intervention, by D’Zurilla and Nezu, for a thorough description of PST methodology.  Problem-Solving methodology is derived from experimental studies on problem-solving, decision-making, and related skills, and focuses on helping clients to become more skilled and confident at identifying and solving their own problems of living, of whatever kind.  It’s based on the observation that clients, especially depressed clients, tend to complain of feeling overwhelmed by various problems of living and helpeless to start tackling them.  Essentially, the method is divided into five basic components,

  1. Problem Orientation.  The client is trained to adopt and maintain a positive attitude toward solving their problems, and the key components of this mind-set are explored with them.
  2. Problem Definition.  The client is trained to identify relevant problems and define them objectively with reference to appropriate goals and key obstacles.
  3. Brainstorming Alternatives.  Osborn’s principles of brainstorming are employed to systematically develop a wide variety of alternative solutions.
  4. Decision Making.  Cost-benefit analysis and other methods are used to evaluate proposed solutions and rank them in order of suitability.
  5. Solution Implementation.  An action plan is developed and tested out in practice, followed by systematic reflection on the observed consequences, and possibly re-iteration of the process above.

That’s it in a nutshell, but read the manual above for a proper description.  PST seems to benefit a wide range of clients but it’s been especially linked to the treatment of clinical depression where there is clear evidence of a correlation between depression and problem-solving deficits, in the first place, and evidence from treatment outcome studies that PST can be broadly equivalent to standard cognitive therapy or antidepressants, although delivered in a very brief format, over about six 30-minute sessions. 

Anyway, Lynn et al., propose the following ways in which problem-solving can be facilitated by hypnosis, and I would suggest that these can be integrated with standard problem-solving methodology to form brief hypno-PST for depression, or related issues,

  1. Age regression is used to regress subjects to times in the past when problem-solving was done better and prevented morbid rumination happening.
  2. Suggestions can be given for increased perception of the key features of problems to be solved.
  3. Imaginal rehearsal in hypnosis can be used to test out different proposed solutions and evaluate their consequences.
  4. Imaginal rehearsal can also be used to develop skill and confidence in implementing the chosen solution.
  5. Self-talk (autosuggestions such as “I can do this!”) can be rehearsed during hypnosis, to enhance coping skills in relation to solution implementation.
  6. Hypnotic age progression can be used to have clients envision a future time when they have already solved their problems and to retrospectively identify steps they might have taken to do so.

They also mention that brooding can be overcome by use of direct suggestions (which could be recorded on a CD) to develop a positive problem-orientation or problem-solving mind-set.  I would observe that there’s some reason to believe that problem-orientation is the most important part of the whole methodology and that hypnotic suggestion could serve well as a simple way of helping clients to feel more positive and confident about tackling their problems of living, and to see them more objectively, from a realistic perspective, rather than being threatened or overwhelmed by problems.

Lynn et al., as I have done, are merely commenting on existing evidence-based methods and speculating about protocols which could combine them within a hypnotherapy framework but we can probably look forward to other treatment outcome studies, like Assen Alladin’s, which attempt to provide direct evidence for the efficacy of such multi-component hypnotic approaches. 

Reference

Lynn, S., Barnes, S., Deming, A. & Accardi, M. (2010). Hypnosis, Rumination, and Depression: Catalyzing Attention and Mindfulness-Based Treatments. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 58(2), 202-221.

Gil Boyne, 1924-2010

Gil Boyne, 1924-2010

Gil Boyne, 1924-2010

Gil Boyne died on 5th May 2010 at his home in London, after a brief illness. Having been admitted to hospital and been given a diagnosis a week previously, he told his wife Ann that he was very ready to go, that he wanted to pass away at home and he didn’t want to linger. He left hospital on 4th May, arrived home and passed away around 8.45 on Wednesday morning. His wife, his daughter and his grandchildren were with him. He was 85 years old.

Gil Boyne was an honorary member of the National Council of Hypnotherapy and will be dearly missed. He will live on through his contribution to our profession and all those who have learned from him. Our sympathy and thoughts are with his family and loved ones.

Dr John Butler, a long time friend and colleague, has written an obituary and a book of condolence has been created if you wish to share your thoughts.

We have nearly 1,000 followers on Facebook and Twitter!

NCH have a very popular Facebook page which already has nearly 1,000 followers.  There’s a huge archive of video clips, articles, news, and other resources already online and the site is updated regularly with new material, including news feeds from NCH.

NCH Page on Facebook

You can also follow us on Twitter, where we have over 1,000 followers…

NCH on Twitter

Review of Evidence-Based Hypnotherapy: May 2010 Mega-Research-Snippet

Which Forms of Hypnotherapy are Evidence-Based?

Hypnotherapy as Empirically-Supported Treatment (EST)

Ratings using Chambless & Hollon (1998) criteria reviewed by David M. Wark (2008)

Copyright © Donald Robertson, 2009  Reprinted from The Hypnotherapy Journal Spring 2009

I beg farther to remark, if my theory and pretensions, as to the nature, cause, and extent of the phenomena of [hypnotism] have none of the fascinations of the transcendental to captivate the lovers of the marvellous, the credulous and enthusiastic, which the pretensions and alleged occult agency of the mesmerists have, still I hope my views will not be the less acceptable to honest and sober-minded men, because they are all level to our comprehension, and reconcilable with well-known physiological and psychological principles.  – James Braid, Hypnotic Therapeutics, 1853

One of the most useful articles to be published recently was arguably Wark’s review of those studies on hypnotherapy that were rated as meeting the Chambless & Hollon (1998) criteria for “empirically-supported treatments” in the field of psychology, known as ESTs for short.  It may not surprise many NCH members to know that when the research literature on psychotherapy was previously reviewed by a task force of nineteen psychologists led by Prof. Dianne Chambless most of the psychological therapies identified as “empirically-supported” (formerly termed “empirically-validated”) tended to be specific forms of cognitive and/or behaviour therapy (CBT).  Most forms of psychotherapy, ranging from the more controversial and pseudoscientific ones to some of the more “respectable” and mainstream approaches, do not meet these strict criteria for empirical support.  However, one study was identified which demonstrated that cognitive-behavioural hypnotherapy (CBH) was “probably efficacious” for weight loss in obese clients.  In this respect, hypnotherapy might (tentatively) be said to have garnered more compelling evidence for its efficacy than many other modalities of psychological therapy, apart from the cognitive and/or behavioural treatments and some brief psychodynamic approaches. 

            However, over the past decade, many additional studies of a high quality have been published which provide support for the efficacy of hypnotherapy, including meta-analyses and systematic reviews which collate data from multiple studies to form a more general picture of the research findings in this area.  David Wark’s review entitled ‘What we can do with hypnosis: a brief note’ identifies  over thirty additional studies on hypnotherapy which he rates using the revised Chambless & Hollon (1998) criteria for either “possible”, “probable”, or “specific” empirically-supported treatments, depending upon the nature of the evidence available (see the explanations below).  I have compiled this information into a new table which you will find underneath.  Of course, these are not all the possible applications of hypnotherapy, simply the ones which currently have the strongest empirical support, based on Wark’s rating using established criteria for research quality.  More studies are published every year which potentially meet these criteria and might be included on a future list.

            I think it might be observed that certain hypnotherapy treatments for certain types of pain, anxiety, and weight loss are supported by the strongest evidence at present, by this standard.  In total, three studies (anxiety due to asthma, public speaking, and taking a test) provide good evidence for the efficacy of hypnotherapy as a treatment for anxiety.  Assen Alladin’s recent study which provides support for the use of hypnosis in the treatment of depression is rated as meeting the “possibly” efficacious criteria.  Most of the other studies provide evidence relating to the treatment of acute or chronic pain, and certain stress-related or psychosomatic medical conditions such as insomnia, migraine and IBS.  Wark even finds one study on hypnotherapy for smoking cessation which meets the criteria for “possibly efficacious”, an area where well-designed research has previously been lacking. 

            This overview is consistent with a general trend in the literature, since the Victorian era, which tends to point toward hypnotherapy showing most promise in the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, pain management, and several stress-related medical conditions, with mixed findings in relation to its use for the treatment of habits and addictions such as over-eating, smoking, and alcohol abuse.  For example, a committee of experts commissioned by the British Medical Association concluded in 1892 that,

The Committee are of opinion that as a therapeutic agent hypnotism is frequently effective in relieving pain, procuring sleep, and alleviating many functional [i.e., psycho-somatic] ailments.

However, we can now go beyond those early clinical observations and primitive experiments and provide an overview of the therapeutic usefulness of hypnotherapy based on modern research design meeting the highest standards of quality. 

 “Specific” empirically supported treatments
1. Anxiety about asthma attack   Brown, 2007
2. Headaches and migraine Relaxation + image modification > wait list control Hammond, 2007
 
“Effective” empirically-supported treatments
3. Cancer pain   Syrjala et al., 1992
4. Distress during surgery Hypnosis reduces distress and pain > controls Lang et al., 2006
5. Surgery pain (adult) Self-hypnosis reduces drug use > attention control Lang et al., 1996
6. Surgery pain (child) Hypnosis reduces pain + hospital time > control Lambert, 1996
7. Weight reduction Hypnosis + CBT > CBT, differences increase over time Kirsch, 1996
 
“Possible” empirically-supported treatments
8. Acute pain (adult)   Patterson & Jensen, 2003
9. Acute pain (children) Hypnosis > distraction for bone marrow aspiration Zeltzer & LaBaron, 1982
10. Anorexia Staged treatment with hypnosis > same without hypnosis Baker & Nash, 1987
11. Anxiety about public speaking Hypnosis > CBT Schoenberger et al., 1997
12. Anxiety about taking a test Self-hypnosis>discussion control Stanton, 1994
13. Asthma Hypnosis>attention control Ewer & Stewart, 1986
14. Bed wetting Suggestion with or without hypnosis > wait list control Edwards & Van der Spuy, 1986
15. Bulimia Hypnosis = CBT > wait list Griffiths et al., 1996
16. Chemotherapy distress Hypnosis>conversation + antiemetic medication Jacknow et al., 1994
17. Cystic fibrosis Self-hypnosis>wait list control Belsky & Khanna, 1994
18. Depression Hypnosis enhances CBT Alladin & Alibhai, 2007
19. Duodenal ulcer relapse Hypnosis + medication > medication only Colgan et al., 1988
20. Fibromyalgia Hypnosis > physical therapy for subjective symptoms Haanen et al., 1991
21. Haemorrhage Preoperative suggestion reduces blood flow Enqvist et al., 1995
22. High blood-pressure Hypnosis > wait list in reducing BP long-term Gay, 2007
23. Hip or knee osteoarthritis pain Hypnosis = relaxation > wait list control Gay et al., 2002
24. Insomnia (primary) Hypnosis + CBT > medication long-term Graci & Hardie, 2007
25. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) Hypnosis > psychotherapy Whorwell et al., 1984
26. Nausea & hyperemesis Hypnotic-like relaxation > control Lyles et al., 1982
27. Obstetrics Apgar score Hypnosis associated with higher Apgar score Harmon et al., 1990
28. Obstetrics pain Hypnosis shortens labour and reduces analgesic use Jenkins & Prichard, 1983
29. Smoking cessation Hypnosis or relaxation > wait list controls for good subjects Schubert, 1983
30. Trauma recovery Desensitisation = hypnosis = psychodynamic therapy > control Brom et al., 1989
31. Wart removal Suggestion with or without hypnosis > control or medication Spanos et al., 1990

These ratings are derived from the review published by Wark (2008), in which the references and criteria are given in full.  In brief, the main criteria for the ratings are those set by Chambless & Hollon (1998), which they define roughly as follows but see their article for a more specific and detailed account of the criteria.

Possible

A treatment is “possibly” empirically-supported if peer-reviewed studies meet the following minimum criteria.  Studies should normally contain samples of at least 25 subjects who are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, i.e., the study is a randomised control trial (RCT).  There is a treatment manual or equivalent (such as a hypnosis script) so that the treatment can be replicated in other studies.  Treatment must be conducted upon a specific condition which has been adequately assessed, and adequate outcome measures must be used which are subject to suitable statistical analysis.  The outcome must essentially show the treatment to be significantly more effective than a placebo or no-treatment control group, or equivalent to another empirically-supported treatment.

Effective

A treatment is termed empirically-supported as being “effective” if statistically significant superiority to control group measures have been replicated with completely independent samples or by independent research teams, and data supporting the treatment in question must be shown to predominate if there are conflicting data from other studies.

Specific

A treatment can be considered empirically-supported as “specific” (i.e., better than “non-specific” treatment) if it has shown statistically significant superiority to a placebo (“sham”) therapy or another psychological therapy in at least two independent studies.

References

Bolocofsky, D.N., Spinler, D., & Coulthard-Morris, L. (1985).  ‘Effectiveness of hypnosis as an adjunct to behavioral weight management’,  Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41.

Chambless, D.L., & Hollon, S.  ‘Defining empirically supported therapies’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66.

Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. ‘Training in and dissemination of empirically validated psychologist treatments: report and recommendations.’ Clin Psychol 1995;48:3–23.

Chambless DL, Sanderson WC, Shoham V, Bennett Johnson S, Pope KS, Crits-Christoph P, et al. ‘An update on empirically validated therapies.’ Clin Psychol 1996;49:5–18.

Chambless DL, Baker MJ, Baucom DH, Beutler LE, Calhoun KS, Crits-Christoph P, et al. ‘Update on empirically validated therapies, II.’ Clin Psychol 1998;51:3–16.

Wark, David M.  (2008). ‘What we can do with hypnosis: a brief note’, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, July 2008

Proposed HPD Version 2 Revisions

Proposals for HPD Revision & Improvement

Reproduced from The Hypnotherapy Journal, Issue 3 Vol. 9, Autumn 2009

Donald Robertson & John Harrington

[Addendum: I understand the Open University have now confirmed that the proposed changes would not affect the OU credits assigned to the HPD. – DR]

In accord with NCFE’s guidance, now that it’s been in use for several years, NCH have been reviewing the existing Hypnotherapy Practitioner Diploma (HPD) award in an attempt to make necessary updates and improvements.  We have already developed a draft document which clearly shows how the existing HPD learning outcomes might be merged into a smaller set of more generic outcomes.  NCFE have changed their standard format for the specification of learning outcomes since the original HPD was designed and they have advised us that a qualification of this kind would typically be comprised of 20-30 outcomes, whereas the existing HPD has about 86 individual outcomes.  Some of the Version 1 HPD outcomes were quite “high-level” and generic, whereas others become much more concrete and specific.  This created some inconsistency in the award which seemed to complicate the assessment process, e.g., one learning outcome seems to be trying to cover the whole history of hypnosis theory, and could be evidenced by a long essay-type answer. 

3.3 How the models and concepts in your area of practice have evolved and developed, how these tend to change with time and the similarities and differences between different versions.

Whereas others focus down upon very specific areas of practical concern which require a small amount of very specific evidence, e.g., 

15.4      When to touch the client and when not

For the sake of consistency, we’ve tried to subsume more specific issues under a simpler set of broader headings and set the learning outcomes at similar levels of abstraction.  We’ve also tried to minimise jargon, and to substitute theoretically-biased terminology with more generic language.  The “range” (explanation) of each outcome can then be used to provide further specification where needed.  Organising the HPD in a more structured way makes it much easier to read the document and work with the outcomes.  We can now outline the learning outcomes more simply in a single-page document, which provides a clear outline of what must be covered on an HPD training.

            There were also some typographical errors and minor corrections made, and some proposals for additional outcomes which seem to have been missing from the original HPD.  Version 2 of the HPD will be quality-assured by NCFE as meeting the same standard of competence, but easier to read and implement and hopefully as generic and “streamlined” as possible, to make it easier for different training schools to implement.  (To be clear, the number of outcomes has no bearing on the volume or level of work required for the award, which will remain the same.)  Below is the current draft, which is very much under discussion, and has been developed with advice from NCFE on the wording, etc.  The whole award pack provided for students and trainers will be much more comprehensive, hopefully, this is just the list of learning outcomes. 

            We are publishing these proposals at an early stage for the sake of transparency and to encourage NCH members to consider them and comment, especially trainers, who may have to implement them in relation to their existing courses.  We promise to acknowledge any feedback received and will be happy to discuss any comments or suggestions.  This is not a “final draft” until we’re satisfied everyone has had a reasonable and bona fide chance to comment.  According to NCFE, the original HPD was not formally mapped against the National Occupational Standards for Hypnotherapy published by Skills for Health, although it was very closely based upon them.  However, the Version 2 will be systematically mapped against the NOS, we hope, in a manner approved by NCFE.  There is some indication that the National Occupational Standards for Hypnotherapy will be revised themselves next year, in accord with recent revisions which have made other CAM NOS more generic.  The plus sign (+) Indicates an outcome which was previously absent from the HPD, or not clearly stated, but has been proposed for inclusion in version 2. 

UNIT 1: ASSESS & PREPARE CLIENT (INITIAL CONSULTATION)

1.         Assess the suitability of clients for treatment.  (Contra-indications, motivation, circumstances, nature of problem, etc.)

2.         Interview the client to assess their needs.

3.         Build rapport and a sound working alliance.

4.         Assess hypnotic susceptibility.

5.         Provide a rationale and explanation for hypnotherapy treatment.

 

UNIT 2: PLAN & DELIVER HYPNOTHERAPY TREATMENT

6.         Design a treatment plan and agree it with the client.

7.         Employ hypnotic inductions and related techniques.  (Deepeners, tests, emerging, etc.)

8.         Deliver hypnotherapy treatment.

9.         Teach and assign homework techniques.  (Self-hypnosis, CDs, etc.)

 

UNIT 3: EXPLAIN HYPNOTHERAPY THEORY

10.       Explain the main therapeutic approaches used in modern hypnotherapy.

11.       Evaluate the elements of psychopathology relevant to the practice of hypnotherapy.

12.       Evaluate the factors which might help or hinder the working alliance.

13.       + Explain and evaluate the nature of hypnosis.

14.       + Explain and evaluate the principles of effective hypnotic suggestion.

 

UNIT 4: EXPLAIN ETHICAL & PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

15.       Evaluate the key elements of the NCH or UKCHO codes of ethics and practice.

16.       Explain the scope and limits of your sphere of competence as a hypnotherapist.

17.       Explain the role of CPD and reflective practice in maintaining professional standards.

18.       + Evaluate the benefits of different forms of clinical supervision.

19.       Evaluate the role of confidentiality in hypnotherapy

20.       Evaluate the legal issues relating the practice of hypnotherapy.  (Criminal and civil law.)

21.       Evaluate the risks attached to hypnotherapy treatment in general and specific interventions.

22.       Evaluate common ethical dilemmas in the practice of hypnotherapy.

August Research Snippet: Hypnosis, Pain, Expectation & Placebo

The Role of Expectation in Hypnosis:
Hypnosis, Imagination & Placebo Pain Relief

James Braid defined hypnotism as focused attention upon an “expectant dominant idea”, to the temporary exclusion (“abstraction”) of other thoughts.  Since that time, researchers have pondered the role of expectation in hypnotic responses.  Most therapists, and even more so stage hypnotists, probably share the common impression that the expectations of clients/subjects are an important factor, shaping how they respond to hypnotic suggestions.  However, human beings have a notable tendency toward “reductionism” and so debates like this tend to involve back-and-forth between all-or-nothing viewpoints, e.g., “hypnotism is all just expectation” versus “expectation doesn’t matter.”  An alternative, middle-way, would be the position that hypnotism is partially determined (“mediated”) by expectation, but not 100% so.  As one of the most prolific researchers in our field Professor Irving Kirsch has famously pointed out in his “response expectancy” theory of hypnosis, this would suggest that hypnotism is fundamentally related to the mechanism underlying the placebo effect, i.e., that hypnosis is a “non-deceptive mega-placebo”.  Again, that is very different from the notion that hypnotism is “just” a placebo, or the naive view that placebo effects are somehow “not real”.  People experience measurable physiological change and symptom remission after being given placebos and the process can be compared to the (anachronistic) concept of “waking suggestion” in the field of hypnotherapy.  Indeed, Braid introduced the concept of “hypnotism” (as opposed to Mesmerism) precisely on the basis of his observations of Victorian quack (“nostrum”) remedies, which modern researchers would consider examples of deceptive placebo remedies.  In other words, Braid saw people physically responding to treatments, such as animal magnetism or wearing “galvanic rings”, whose effects he and other sceptics attributed to expectation and suggestion, and subsequently developed hypnotism as a means of more honestly employing suggestion as an explicit technique in medicine.

In an important new experimental study ‘Response Expectancies: A Psychological Mechanism of Suggested and Placebo Analgesia”, Leonard S. Milling has carried out a very thorough and careful statistical analysis of the extent to which expectation appears to mediate the effect of hypnosis, imagination, and placebo, in the reduction of experimentally-induced pain among a sample of 172 college students (Contemporary Hypnosis, 26(2): 93-110, 2009).  All three interventions reduced pain substantially.  Traditional hypnotism and instructions to “imagine” were nearly equivalent, and both were almost twice as effective as the placebo.  This, and Milling’s other findings, lend additional support to the view that instructions to imagine may often be substituted for a traditional hypnotic induction, a central premise of Barber’s nonstate (“cognitive-behavioural”) theory of hypnosis.

Milling also found strong evidence supporting the role of expectation in mediating pain reduction.  However, the importance of expectation varied depending upon the techniques employed, calculated as follows,

  • Traditional hypnotic induction plus suggestion.  25%
  • Instructions to “imagine” plus suggestion.  29%
  • Placebo (an inert topical lotion).  41%

As Milling concludes, this appears to show that about 25% of the effectiveness of traditional pain-reduction hypnotherapy is due to expectation.  Expectation is an important factor but there may be one or two other factors involved which contribute more to the response, e.g., attention, motivation, imagination, or a trait of hypnotisability, etc.  By comparison, expectation contributed more substantially to the placebo effect, but still less than fifty percent, supporting the view that a cluster of factors contribute to the placebo response and it is not simply reducible to expectation alone, although this may turn out to be the single most important manageable factor involved.  Motivation, role-perception, attention, and other factors may be involved in the placebo response as well and Milling also points to the Pavlovian theory of classical conditioning which has been cited as providing another mechanism by which placebos (and hypnotism) may function.  For instance, a person who has previously received a real medication and experienced its effects may be more likely to respond to a similar-looking placebo because it acts as a reminder (conditioned stimulus) for the associated sense of pain relief (a conditioned response) – independently of the effect of expectation.  So previous experience of a real drug combined with high levels of expectation would probably produce a strong placebo response.  Likewise, tapping into remembered sensations (“sensory recall”) may combine well with expectation in eliciting certain hypnotic responses.

As expectation is a “cognitive” factor, these findings can be interpreted as supporting the view that the effect of hypnotherapy for pain reduction is “cognitively-mediated” in a manner overlapping with CBT interventions, which also stress the role of cognition in shaping the perception of pain.  In other words, although superficially different, hypnotherapy and CBT probably work, to some extent, in a similar manner, at least to some extent. 

As Milling points out, the usual cautions apply insofar as this was experimental pain induced with college students, etc., and therefore only provides an analogy (indirect evidence) for the mechanisms underlying pain relief among genuine therapy clients with genuine medical problems.  (Although, I think most researchers would consider it likely similar factors operate in the clinical setting as well.)

“In sum, this study substantiates that response expectancies are an important mechanism of hypnotic, imaginative and placebo analgesia.  The findings corroborated the view that the effect of hypnosis on pain is partially mediated by response expectancies.  The results also showed that the effect of a placebo on pain was largely, but not completely, mediated by response expectancies.  […] Thus, although the results of this study do not suggest that response expectancies are the final common pathway [as Kirsch has suggested] to pain relief, they do indicate that response expectancies are one of the major psychological mechanisms of suggested and placebo analgesia.”

So, as other studies have shown, the traditional hypnotic induction is probably not essential to hypnotic pain reduction, and client expectation is probably one of the most important factors which we should make use of.  Moreover, Barber, Spanos, Kirsch, and other cognitive-behavioural researchers have already discussed in some detail the possible means by which factors such as expectation may be systematically enhanced in hypnotherapy through methods tested in experimental settings such as role-modelling, manipulation of activating sensations, task-motivational instructions, etc.

July Research Snippet: Competing Theories of Hypnosis

The Conditioning & Inhibition Theory of Hypnosis

In previous snippets, we’ve looked at factors in the typology of suggestion, some clinical outcome studies, etc., this month I’d like to draw attention to some research attempting to support a comprehensive theory of hypnosis.  As the psychologist Kurt Lewin famously remarked: “Nothing is as practical as a good theory.”  That phrase came to mind when reading Alfred Barrios’ recent series of articles which concisely and systematically outline a relatively simple “conditioning and inhibition” theory of hypnosis (Barrios, 2001), which recently led to an exchange with Steven Jay Lynn relating to the similarities and differences between Barrios’ theory and the influential “socio-cognitive” theory of hypnosis. 

            Barrios’ theory ultimately derives, I think, from the “cortical inhibition” theory of hypnosis which crowned Pavlov’s physiological research on animals at the turn of last century – a theory further developed by Platonov and other Soviet hypnotherapists.  Anyway, Barrios does an admirable job of carefully spelling out his modern variation, with intermittent references to supporting research data.  In a nutshell, Barrios draws on a revised form of conditioning theory to describe hypnosis as a method for reinforcing the subject’s tendency to progressively fade out (“inhibit”) intrusive thoughts and sensations in a way that heightens their sensitivity to learned associations between words, such as hypnotic suggestions, and physiological responses such as emotions.  From this point of view, words, such as verbal suggestions, function as stimuli which in turn evoke “cognitive stimuli” (ideas and images) in a way that triggers hypnotic responses.  Barrios’ use of behavioural learning theory obviously has the potential to highlight certain overlaps between the theory and practice of hypnosis and behaviour therapy. 

Barrios’ theory consists of the following seven hypotheses, divided into three groups,

A. Hypnotic induction

1. “Hypnotic induction is a conditioning process.”

2. “The response conditioned during hypnotic induction is an inhibitory set, a set which tends to inhibit stimuli incompatible with the response suggested by the hypnotist.”

3. “A positive response to a suggestion will induce within the responding person a more or less generalised increase in the normally existent tendency to respond to succeeding suggestions.”

B. Explanation of hypnotic phenomena

4. “A suggestion produces the desired response by first evoking a cognitive stimulus which is associated with that process.”

5. “The inhibitory set facilitates the suggested response by inhibiting stimuli competing with the cognitive stimulus.”

C. Post-hypnotic suggestion

6. “Suggestion leads to behaviour change by a form of higher-order conditioning called C-C [cognitive-cognitive] conditioning.”

7. “Hypnosis facilitates the C-C conditioning produced by suggestion.”

Barrios published two subsequent articles, the first of which explores the relationship between his “conditioning and inhibition” theory and four other modern theories of hypnosis: sociocognitive theory (Spanos/Lynn), Neo-dissociation (Hilgard), response expectancy (Kirsch), and Milton Erickson’s approach (Barrios, 2007).  The second reviews the possible benefits and applications of the theory to understanding phenomena such as the placebo effect, improving the effectiveness of hypnotic induction, improving post-hypnotic suggestions, and the development of Barrios’ therapeutic technique called Self-Programmed Control (Barrios, 2007b).

Comparison Between Theories

In the current edition of Contemporary Hypnosis, Steven Jay Lynn and Sean O’Hagen have responded in some detail to Barrios’ comparison between the conditioning and inhibition and sociocognitive theories of hypnosis.  

Sociocognitive theories reject the traditional view that hypnotic experiences require the presence of an altered state of consciousness.  Rather, the same social and cognitive variables that determine mundane complex social behaviours are said to determine hypnotic responses and experiences. (Lynn & O’Hagan, 2009)

They praise Barrios for providing a systematic and comprehensive account of his theory and its practical implications.  Indeed, contrary to Barrios’, they conclude that his theory is itself one of several falling under the broad “sociocognitive” umbrella term.  However, while endorsing some of his points, they disagree with others, citing several research studies in support of their own position.  In particular,

  1. Barrios emphasises the power of hypnotist prestige but sociocognitive researchers have generally found the qualities of the hypnotist to be of less importance than the qualities of the subject, e.g., their level of motivation, expectations, and imaginative capacity.
  2. Following Spanos, Barrios emphasises the power of “goal directed fantasies”, or mental imagery, in evoking hypnotic responses but, according to Lynn, research has failed to show that imagery alone can account for hypnotic responses without the aid of factors such as motivation and expectation.
  3. Barrios, like many hypnotherapists, naturally assumes that hypnotic suggestions are more effective when presented in order of difficulty, giving the subject an increasing confidence in their ability to respond. However, Lynn cites evidence from experimental studies showing that this is not the case and subjects respond just as well when suggestions are given in descending order of difficulty.
  4. They do, however, find support for Barrios’ contention that subjects increase in responsiveness to genuine suggestion tests after first being duped into believing they are hypnotised, e.g., by surreptitiously playing quiet music in the background while suggesting that they will hallucinate the sound of music, etc.
  5. They raise doubts over Barrios’ claim that some induction techniques induce hypnosis more “deeply” than others. Research has consistently failed to demonstrate much difference between different induction techniques.
  6. Moreover, the increase in suggestibility following hypnotic induction techniques is around 20% on average, which seems to show that the presence of a hypnotic state (“trance”), even if such a thing did exist, would be far less important to hypnotism than other factors such as the personality of the subject, their attitudes, and the type of suggestions given.

It’s truly fascinating to observe these debates between researchers from different theoretical traditions because they highlight the pros and cons of their respective points of view.  This is research in action; the competition between contrasting hypotheses, appealing to their respective supporting evidence.  It’s through this kind of dialogue that genuine progress is achieved in hypnotic research and we work our way gradually closer to an accurate and comprehensive theory of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. 

Bibliography

Barrios, A. A. (2001). A Theory of Hypnosis based on Principles of Conditioning & Inhibition. Contemporary Hypnosis , 18 (4), 163-203.

Barrios, A. A. (2007). Commentary on a Theory of Hypnosis based on Principles of Conditioning & Inhibition, Part I: Contrasts with Other Perspectives & Supporting Evidence. Contemporary Hypnosis , 24 (3), 109-122.

Barrios, A. A. (2007b). Commentary on a Theory of Hypnosis based on Principles of Conditioning & Inhibition, Part II: Benefits of the Theory. Contemporary Hypnosis , 24 (3), 123-138.

Lynn, S. J., & O’Hagan, S. (2009). The Sociocognitive and Conditioning and Inhibition Theories of Hypnosis. Contemporary Hypnosis , 26 (2), 121-125.