Hypnosis, Suggestion, and Suggestibility: An Integrative Model

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 314-329

  Lynn, Steven Jay ^a   Laurence, Jean Roch ^b   Kirsch, Irving ^c  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

attention; cognitive; core and process variables in hypnosis; expectancy; hypnosis; hypnotic suggestibility; induction; response set theory; socio cognitive models; suggestion

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONSCIOUSNESS; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; SUGGESTION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONSCIOUSNESS; HUMANS; HYPNOSIS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SUGGESTION;

EID: 84921309109     PISSN: 00029157     EISSN: 21600562     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.976783     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Barabasz, A. F., & Barabasz, M. (2009). Hypnosis and the brain. In M. R. Nash & A. J. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 337–364). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Barabasz, A. F., Barabasz, M., Jensen, S. M., Calvin, S., Trevisan, M., & Warner, D. (1999). Cortical event-related potentials show the structure of hypnotic suggestions is crucial. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,47, 5–22. doi:10.1080/00207149908410019
3. Baribeau, J., Le Beau, M., Roth, R. M., & Laurence, J. R. (1994, September–October) Hypnotizability and perceptual automaticity: An “out of context” event related potential investigation. Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress of Psychophysiology (I.O.P.), Thessaloniki, Greece.
4. Bloom, P. (2004). Advances in neuroscience relevant to the clinical practice of hypnosis: A clinician’s perspective. Keynote address to the 16th International Congress of Hypnosis and Hynotherapy, Singapore.
5. Blum, G. S., & Graef, J. R. (1971). The detection over time of subjects simulating hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,19, 211–224. doi:10.1080/00207147108407168
6. Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: An empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 578–587. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.578
7. Cangas, A. J., & Pérez, M. (1998). The effect of two procedures on hypnotic susceptibility modification. Contemporary Hypnosis,15, 212–218. doi:10.1002/ch.137
8. Cardeña, E., & Terhune, D. (2014). Hypnotizability, personality traits, and the propensity to experience alterations of consciousness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(3), 292–307.
9. Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science,329, 47–50. doi:10.1126/science.1188595
10. Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1977). The role of attention in meditation and hypnosis: A psychobiological perspective on transformations of consciousness. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,25, 291–308. doi:10.1080/00207147708415986
11. De Pascalis, V., Magurano, M. R., & Bellusci, A. (1999). Pain perception, somatosensory event-related-potentials and skin conductance responses to painful stimuli in high, mid, and low hypnotizable subjects: Effects of differential pain reduction strategies. Pain,96, 393–402.
12. Dixon, M., Brunet, A., & Laurence, J. R. (1990). Hypnotizability and automaticity: Toward a parallel distributed processing model of hypnotic responding. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99(4), 336.
13. Dixon, M., & Laurence, J. (1992). Two hundred years of hypnosis research: Questions resolved? Questions unanswered!. In I. E. Fromm & M. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research (pp. 34–66). New York, NY: Guilford.
14. Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. (1976). Hypnotic realities: The induction of clinical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. Oxford, UK: Irvington.
15. Fellows, B., & Ragg, L. (1992). The Carleton Skill Training Program: A preliminary British trial. Contemporary Hypnosis,9, 169–174.
16. Fingelkurts, A. A., Fingelkurts, A. A., Kallio, S., & Revonsuo, A. (2007). Cortex functional connectivity as a neurophysiological correlate of hypnosis: An EEG case study. Neuropsychologia,45, 1452–1462. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.018
17. Gorassini, D. R., & Spanos, N. P. (1986). A social-cognitive skills approach to the successful modification of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 1004–1012. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.1004
18. Gorassini, D. R., & Spanos, N. P. (1999). The Carleton Skill Training Program. In I. Kirsch, A. Capafons, E. Cardeña, & S. Amigó (Eds.), Clinical hypnosis and self-regulation: Cognitive-behavioral perspectives (pp. 141–177). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Gruzelier, J., Gray, M., & Horn, P. (2002). The involvement of frontally modulated attention in hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility: cortical evoked potential evidence. Contemporary Hypnosis,19, 179–189. doi:10.1002/ch.256
20. Hilgard, E. R., & Tart, C. T. (1966). Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,71, 196–208. doi:10.1037/h0023323
21. Hofbauer, R. K., Rainville, P., Duncan, G. H., & Bushnell, M. C. (2001). Cortical representation of the sensory dimension of pain. Journal of Neurophysiology,86, 402–411.
22. Horton, J. E., & Crawford, H. J. (2004). Neurophysiological and genetic determinants of high hypnotizability. In M. Heap, R. J. Brown, & D. A. Oakley (Eds.), The highly hypnotizable person: Theoretical, experimental and clinical issues (pp. 133–151). London, UK: Routledge.
23. Hoyt, I. F., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987, October). Posthypnotic suggestion and waking instruction: Allocation of attentional resource in simultaneous tasks. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Los Angeles, CA.
24. Kihlstrom, J. F. (2003). The fox, the hedgehog, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,51, 166–189. doi:10.1076/iceh.51.2.166.14611
25. Kirsch, I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psychologist,40, 1189–1202. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.11.1189
26. Kirsch, I. (1991). The social learning theory of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 439–466). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27. Kirsch, I. (1994). Clinical hypnosis as a nondeceptive placebo: Empirically derived techniques. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,37, 95–106. doi:10.1080/00029157.1994.10403122
28. Kirsch, I., & Braffman, W. (2001). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Current Directions in Psychological Science,10, 57–61. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00115
29. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1995). The altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape. American Psychologist,50, 846–858. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.10.846
30. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1997). Hypnotic involuntariness and the automaticity of everyday life. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,40, 329–348. doi:10.1080/00029157.1997.10403402
31. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1998). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. Psychological Bulletin,123, 100–115. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.100
32. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1999). Automaticity in clinical psychology. American Psychologist,54, 504–515. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.504
33. Kirsch, I., Mazzoni, G., & Montgomery, G. H. (2007). Hypnotic history: A reply to critics. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 49(4), 249–254.
34. Kirsch, I., Mobayed, C. P., Council, J. R., & Kenny, D. A. (1992). Expert judgments of hypnosis from subjective state reports. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(4), 657.
35. Laurence, J.-R., Beaulieu-Prevost, D., & Duchene, T. (2008). Measuring and understanding individual differences in hypnotizability. In M. R. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 225–254). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
36. Laurence, J.-R., Slako, F., & Le Beau, M. (1998). Automaticity, hypnotisability, and the creation of anomalous experiences: Neuro-physiological indicators. 5th Internet World Congress on Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
37. Lynn, S. J. (1997). Automaticity and hypnosis: A sociocognitive account. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,45, 239–250. doi:10.1080/00207149708416126
38. Lynn, S. J., & Green, J. P. (2011). The sociocognitive and dissociation theories of hypnosis: Toward a rapprochement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,59, 277–293. doi:10.1080/00207144.2011.570652
39. Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Elinoff, V., Baltman, J., & Maxwell, R. (in press). When worlds combine: Hypnosis, mindfulness, and acceptance in psychotherapy and smoking cessation. In A. Raz & M. Lifshitz (Eds.), Hypnosis and meditation: Toward an integrative science of conscious planes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40. Lynn, S. J., & Hallquist, M. (2004). Toward a scientifically based understanding of Milton H. Erickson’s strategies and tactics: Hypnosis, response sets and common factors in psychotherapy. Contemporary Hypnosis,21, 63–78. doi:10.1002/ch.292
41. Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., & Hallquist, M. (2008). Social cognitive theories of hypnosis. In M. R. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 111–140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
42. Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., Knox, J., & Lilienfeld, S. (2006). Hypnosis and neuroscience: Implications for the altered state debate. In G. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive-neuroscience perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43. Lynn, S. J., Nash, M. R., Rhue, J. W., Frauman, D. C., & Sweeney, C. (1984). Nonvolition, expectancies, and hypnotic rapport. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,93, 295–303. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.93.3.295
44. Lynn, S. J., Neufeld, V., & Matyi, C. L. (1987). Inductions versus suggestions: Effects of direct and indirect wording on hypnotic responding and experience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(1), 76–79.
45. Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1991). An integrative model of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 397–438). New York, NY: Guilford.
46. Lynn, S. J., Rhue, J. W., & Weekes, J. R. (1990). Hypnotic involuntariness: A social-cognitive analysis. Psychological Review,97, 169–184. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.169
47. Lynn, S. J., Snodgrass, M. J., Rhue, J., Nash, M., & Frauman, D. (1987). Attributions, involuntariness, and hypnotic rapport. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 30, 36–43.
48. Lynn, S. J., Vanderhoff, H., Shindler, K., & Stafford, J. (2002). Defining hypnosis as a trance vs. cooperation: Hypnotic inductions, suggestibility, and performance standards. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,44, 231–240. doi:10.1080/00029157.2002.10403483
49. MacLeod, C. M. (2011). Hypnosis and the control of attention: Where to from here? Consciousness and Cognition,20, 321–324. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.10.007
50. MacLeod, C. M., & Sheehan, P. W. (2003). Hypnotic control of attention in the Stroop task: A historical footnote. Consciousness and Cognition,12, 347–353. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00025-4
51. Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., McGeown, W. J., & Kirsch, I. (2013). Neuroimaging resolution of the altered state hypothesis. Cortex, 49(2), 400–410.
52. McConkey, K. M. (1986). Opinions about hypnosis and self-hypnosis before and after hypnotic testing. The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,34, 311–319. doi:10.1080/00207148608406996
53. McGeown, W. J., Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., & Kirsch, I. (2009). Hypnotic induction decreases anterior default mode activity. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal,18, 848–855. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.09.001
54. Meyer, E. C., & Lynn, S. J. (2011). Responding to hypnotic and nonhypnotic suggestions: Performance standards, imaginative suggestibility, and response expectancies. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59(3), 327–349.
55. Nadon, R., Laurence, J.-R., & Perry, C. (1991). The two disciplines of scientific hypnosis: A synergistic model. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 485–518). New York, NY: Guilford.
56. Niedzwieñska, A. (2000). Goal-directed fantasy does not explain the training effect of the Carleton Skills Training Package. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,48, 404–417. doi:10.1080/00207140008410369
57. Nordby, H., Jasiukaitis, K., & Spiegel, D. (1999). Effects of hypnotizability on performance of a Stroop task and event-related potentials. Perceptual and Motor Skills,88, 819–830. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.819
58. Oakley, D. A., & Halligan, P. W. (2010). Psychophysiological foundations of hypnosis and suggestion. In S. J. Lynn, J. W. Rhue, & I. Kirsch (Eds.), Handbook of clinical hypnosis (pp. 79–177). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
59. Pintar, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2008). A brief history of hypnosis. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
60. Polito, V., Barnier, A. J., Woody, E. Z., & Connors, M. H. (2014). Measuring agency change across the domain of hypnosis. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice,1, 3–19.
61. Rainville, P., Duncan, G. H., Price, D. D., Carrier, B., & Bushnell, M. C. (1997). Pain affect encoded in human anterior cingulate but not somatosensory cortex. Science,277, 968–971. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.968
62. Raz, A., Kirsch, I., Pollard, J., & Nitkin-Kaner, Y. (2006). Suggestion reduces the Stroop effect. Psychological Science,17, 91–95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01669.x
63. Raz, A., Shapiro, T., Fan, J., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Archives of General Psychiatry,59, 1155–1161. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.12.1155
64. Rubichi, S., Ricci, F., Padovani, R., & Scaglietti, L. (2005). Hypnotic susceptibility, baseline attentional functioning, and the Stroop task. Consciousness and Cognition,14, 296–303. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2004.08.003
65. Sheehan, P. W. (1991). Hypnosis, context, and commitment. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 520–541). New York, NY: Guilford.
66. Sheehan, P. W., Donovan, P., & MacLeod, C. M. (1988). Strategy manipulation and the Stroop effect in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,94, 249–255.
67. Sheehan, P. W., & McConkey, K. M. (1982). Hypnosis and experience: The exploration of phenomena and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Spanos, N. P. (1971). Goal-directed fantasy and the performance of hypnotic test suggestions. Psychiatry,34, 86–96.
69. Spanos, N. P. (1986). Hypnosis and the modification of hypnotic susceptibility: Social psychological perspective. In P. Naish (Ed.), What is hypnosis? Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
70. Spanos, N. P., Cross, W. P., Menary, E. P., & Smith, J. (1988). Long term effects of cognitive skill training for the enhancement of hypnotic susceptibility. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis,5, 73–78.
71. Szechtman, H., Woody, E., Bowers, K. S., & Nahmias, C. (1998). Where the imaginal appears real: A positron emission tomography study of auditory hallucinations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,95, 1956–1960. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.4.1956
72. Tellegen, A. (1981). Practicing the two disciplines for relaxation and enlightenment: Comment on “role of the feedback signal in electromyograph biofeedback: The relevance of attention” by Qualls and Sheehan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 217–226. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.217
73. Woody, E. Z., & Szechtman, H. (2000). Hypnotic hallucinations: Towards a biology of epistemology. Contemporary Hypnosis,17, 4–14. doi:10.1002/ch.186