The future of professional hypnosis: comment on kirsch, mazzoni, and montgomery.

I believe the paper by Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery (this issue) should surprise about 95% of ASCH members (maybe only 93% of SCEH members) because the three facts espoused in their paper speciously seem to be 100% true. To paraphrase from their abstract: 1) nothing that can be produced by hypnotic induction plus suggestion cannot also be produced by suggestion alone; 2) administration of a hypnotic induction does not produce a meaningful increase in response to suggestion relative to suggestion alone; and 3) responsivity to suggestions are highly correlated to responsivity on the same measure when preceded by a hypnotic induction ceremony. In order to persuade that these propositions are true, several objections to them must be addressed. However, just because one's facts are true does not mean that one's interpretation of the facts and their interrelationships are also true. The ramifications of the above facts and their interrelationships for the future of professional hypnosis (experimental, clinical and forensic) are identified and discussed.

Hypnosis, hypnotizability, and placebo.

Dr. Raz's speculations about the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are critically examined. While there is no generally accepted theoretical definition of hypnosis, there is a general consensus that hypnotizability can be reliably measured. In contrast, there seems to be a general consensus about a theoretical definition of placebo (including placebo effect, placebo response, and nocebo). There is no widely accepted measure of individual differences in placebo responsivity. Various methodological considerations about how to examine the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified. Studies are identified which indicate that response to treatments which utilize adjunctive hypnosis are superior to placebo treatments. The only study which examined whether placebo responsivity was correlated with hypnotizability seems to indicate that they are only slightly related at best. The possibility that there may be such thing as a "good placebo responder (GPR)" is questioned, while the known clinical value of hypnotizability assessment is reaffirmed. Future directions for empirical research on the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified.

A historical context for understanding "an eye roll test for hypnotizability" by herbert spiegel, m.d.

Herb Spiegel was known for many professional and scientific achievements. He may be best remembered for his discovery of the Eye Roll Sign (ERS) and its relation to innate trance capacity and the parallel creation and development of the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP). The present paper provides a historical context for understanding Herb's 1972 publication of "An Eye Roll Test for Hypnotizability" which originally appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 38 years ago and is reprinted in this journal issue.

Kenneth s. Bowers, interactionism and hypnosis.

Like most seminal thinkers in hypnosis, Kenneth Bowers' interests and contributions have ranged beyond that particular domain. The list of his published works is impressive by anyone's standards, and includes important contributions in the areas of health, psychotherapy, and hypnosis. This paper will focus on his major contribution to personality theory, "Situationism in Psychology: An Analysis and Critique," published in 1973 in the Psychological Review.

The hypnotic induction profile and absorption.

This study examined the relationship between scores on the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) and the trait of absorption in three different clinical groups: Smokers (n = 226), Phobics (n = 95), and patients with Chronic Pain (n = 65). Two hypotheses were investigated. The first predicted that both the Eye-Roll sign (ERS) and Induction Score (IND) of the HIP would correlate similarly (r = .30) with scores on the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS), as has been previously reported with other measures of hypnotic responsivity in student samples. The second was that using a combination of both ERS and IND scores to predict TAS scores would result in a significant increase in forecasting accuracy over using either HIP measure alone. Both hypotheses were supported in all three clinical groups. Correlations between HIP and Absorption scores ranged from .33 to .53. Clinical and theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

The relationship between the hypnotic induction profile and the stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, form C: revisited.

Hilgard's comment raises some important issues, although many of these have little to do with the primary purpose of the study under discussion. This purpose was to objectively examine the relationship between three conceptually and operationally different procedures for measuring hypnotic responsivity. Hilgard's concern over the magnitude of the correlation between the HIP and SHSS:C is unfounded. A cross-validated correlation of .66 was found between the HIP and SHSS:C in a new sample of 44 student volunteers. This demonstrates that the HIP correlates about the same with SHSS:C as the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Hilgard's conception of the Eye-Roll (ER) hypothesis is clarified. Evidence which utilizes all cases in the correlational analysis is presented in support of the ER hypothesis. Happily, we all agree on a new methodology which will be definitive in testing the validity of the ER hypothesis.

Hypnotic responsivity and the treatment of flying phobia.

Systematic follow-up data are reported for 178 consecutive flying phobia patients treated with a single 45-minute session involving hypnosis and a problem restructuring strategy. One hundred fifty-eight (89%) of the patients completed follow-up questionnaires between six months and ten and one half years after treatment. Results showed that hypnotizable patients were over two and one half times more likely to report some positive treatment impact than those who were found to be nonhypnotizable on the Hypnotic Induction Profile. In addition, the patients' previous experiences with psychotherapy were found to be significantly associated with treatment outcome. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested posthypnotic amnesia in psychiatric patients and normals.

The present study examined both quantitative and qualitative hypnotizability differences among four psychiatric patient groups (dissociative disorder (n = 17), schizophrenic (n = 13), mood disorder (n = 14), and anxiety disorder (n = 14) patients), and normals (college students (n = 63)). Dissociative disorder patients earned significantly higher corrected total scores on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (mean = 7.94), than all other groups. Likewise, dissociative disorder patients initially recalled significantly fewer items when the posthypnotic amnesia suggestion was in effect (mean = .41) and reversed significantly more items when the suggestion was canceled (mean = 3.82) than all other groups. In contrast, schizophrenic patients recalled significantly fewer items when the amnesia suggestion was in effect (mean = 1.85) and reversed significantly fewer items when it was canceled (mean = .77) than the remaining groups. This qualitative difference between schizophrenic patients and the other groups on the suggested posthypnotic amnesia item was observed even though there were no significant quantitative differences between groups in overall hypnotic responsivity.

Construct Validity of the Dissociative Experiences Scale: II. Its Relationship to Hypnotizability.

Undergraduates (n = 311) who volunteered to participate in an experiment on "Hypnotizability and Personality" filled out several personality questionnaires (including the Dissociative Experiences Scale; DES), were administered the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS), and completed a self-rating of hypnotizability. The DES overall score correlated significantly with the HGSHS summary score (r(309) = .12, p < .05, two-tailed) and with subject's self-rating of hypnotizability (r(309) = .13, p < .05, two-tailed). The magnitude of these correlations was similar to that observed in a previous study (.14 & .18) and is also similar in magnitude to the correlations typically observed between the HGSHS and the Tellegen Absorption Scale. The potential clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

A historical context for understanding "An eye roll test for hypnotizability" by Herbert Spiegel, M.D.

Herb Spiegel was known for many professional and scientific achievements. He is may be best remembered for his discovery of the Eye Roll Sign (ERS) and its relation to innate trance capacity and the parallel creation and development of the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP). The present paper provides a historical context for understanding Herb's 1972 publication of "An Eye Roll Test for Hypnotizability" which originally appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 38 years ago and is reprinted in this journal issue.

William E. Edmonston, Jr.: Editor, 1968-1976.

This article is part of an occasional series profiling editors of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis (AJCH). William E. Edmonston was the second editor, succeeding Milton H. Erickson. His research focused on the use of conditioning paradigms and psychophysiological measures to explore a wide variety of hypnotic phenomena, leading to a "neo-Pavlovian" theory of neutral hypnosis as physiological relaxation (anesis). A longtime professor of psychology at Colgate University, he created an interdisciplinary undergraduate major in neuroscience, and was named New York State College Professor of the Year in 1988. He gave the Journal a new look, and a greater balance of clinical and experimental papers. The article also provides background on George Barton Cutten, George H. Estabrooks, and Frank A. Pattie, pioneers of hypnosis who were linked to Edmonston.

A comment on an alleged association between hypnosis and death: two remarkable cases.

Dr. Ewin recently reported his research on two "remarkable" cases where hypnosis performed by a lay hypnotist was allegedly associated with the death of the subject. Commentary is provided about both cases. In the first case, it seems clear that the death was co-incident to the hypnosis. In the second case, Dr. Ewin speculates that hypnosis may have been related to the subject's death following her experience in a stage hypnosis show. Instead, we propose that the alerting suggestion used to terminate the hypnosis (that "the subjects would feel 10,000 volts of electricity through the seat of their chairs"), not hypnosis per se, was inappropriate and may have specifically adversely affected this particular subject due to her phobia regarding electricity. Legal ramifications of these cases regarding the issue of informed consent are raised. It is concluded that these cases do not imply a duty to warn subjects/patients that one possible negative consequence of undergoing hypnosis is death.

A concurrent validity study between the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) and the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS:A) in an inpatient sample: a brief report.

The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) is a brief, standardized assessment of hypnotizability which takes 5-10 minutes to administer. The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS:A) is a different clinical measure of hypnotizability that takes about 20-25 minutes to administer. Although both scales purport to measure the same thing, they were based on different theories of hypnosis and constructed using different psychometric techniques. The present investigation is a concurrent validation study comparing scores on the two instruments in a sample of 24 inpatients. The correlation between the SHCS:A and HIP Induction score was 0.41 (p < .01). However, the Eye Roll Sign (ERS) did not correlate significantly with either the SHCS:A (.04, ns) or the HIP-IND score (-.05, ns). These results indicate that while scores on the HIP and SHCS:A are significantly correlated the inter-correlations are not high enough to consider them as interchangeable measures. Implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

Hypnosis, hynotizability, and placebo.

Dr. Raz' speculations about the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are critically examined. While there is no generally accepted theoretical definition of hypnosis, there is a general consensus that hypnotizability can be reliably measured. In contrast, there seems to be a general consensus about a theoretical definition of placebo (including placebo effect, placebo response and nocebo). There is no widely accepted measure of individual differences in placebo responsivity. Various methodological considerations about how to examine the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified. Studies are identified which indicate that response to treatments which utilize adjunctive hypnosis are superior to placebo treatments. The only study which examined whether placebo responsivity was correlated with hypnotizability seems to indicate that they are only slightly related at best. The possibility that there may be such thing as a "good placebo responder (GPR)" is questioned, while the known clinical value of hypnotizability assessment is reaffirmed. Future directions for empirical research on the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified.

The future of professional hypnosis: comment on Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery.

I believe the paper by Kirsch, Mazzoni and Montgomery (this issue) should surprise about 95% of ASCH members (maybe only 93% of SCEH members) because the three facts espoused in their paper speciously seem to be 100% true. To paraphrase from their abstract: 1) nothing that can be produced by hypnotic induction plus suggestion cannot also be produced by suggestion alone; 2) administration of a hypnotic induction does not produce a meaningful increase in response to suggestion relative to suggestion alone; and 3) responsivity to suggestions are highly correlated to responsivity on the same measure when preceded by a hypnotic induction ceremony. In order to persuade that these propositions are true, several objections to them must be addressed. However, just because one's facts are true does not mean that one's interpretation of the facts and their interrelationships are also true. The ramifications of the above facts and their interrelationships for the future of professional hypnosis (experimental, clinical and forensic) are identified and discussed.

Herbert Spiegel, MD, a man for all seasons: early personal and professional development, 1914-1946.

Herbert Spiegel, MD, was a pioneer in American psychiatry and the field of hypnosis, which he first started using as an army psychiatrist posted at Fort Meade, Maryland. He served as a battalion surgeon during the invasion of North Africa and later in the Tunisian campaign. On the battlefield, Spiegel used hypnosis for quick symptom resolution and pain control. He was wounded in action on May 7, 1943, and was awarded a Purple Heart for his courage and bravery. When Spiegel was evacuated back to America, he began writing about short-term treatment strategies based on cognitive restructuring, hypnosis, and other clinical techniques. This article details his early life and career.