The National Council for Hypnotherapy has pioneered a programme which allows our members to offer homecoming servicemen and women a free consultation/session to help cope with their return to civilian life after the stresses of warfare.

Such sessions, says the NCH chairman Paul White, will help with relaxation, removing anxiety, dealing with depression, processing traumatic events, dealing with loss, re-adjustment and building self-esteem.

Many returning servicemen and women have shown a high rate of stress.

Sessions, says the NCH chairman Paul White, will help with relaxation, removing anxiety, dealing with depression, processing traumatic events, dealing with loss, re-adjustment and building self-esteem

Everyone reacts to stress in different ways and to different degrees. Some people have more stress than others. Some people handle stressful situations better than others. Each person is triggered by different stressful situations, depending on their own make-up.

“Stress is one of the biggest threats to people’s health, happiness, and well being,” says White.

“Stress may cause confused thinking, depression, over-eating, excessive drinking, reckless driving, high blood pressure, heart problems, and a myriad of other health problems. The symptoms of stress are sometimes insidious and undetectable, until one day you feel overwhelmed with life. Everything bothers you, from your work to your favourite pet at home. You may even start doubting your sanity. All of this results in the feeling of being out of control.”

Stress may be triggered by an event or episode.

Once a person learns to recognise stress triggers, they can learn to introduce new, alternative behaviour when experiencing a stress trigger.

Hypnosis will help a person recognise stress triggers and, while in the hypnotic state, be better able to see alternative perspectives and behaviours in stressful situations.

In essence, someone can learn to reprogramme thoughts and actions while in a trance state to help develop new behaviour in the waking conscious state.

Hypnosis will help a person recognise stress triggers and, while in the hypnotic state, be better able to see alternative perspectives and behaviours in stressful situations.

John Barry, research psychologist with City University, in his summary on the Warrior programme (a charity based in the UK aimed at „connecting the disconnected‟ including ex-army personnel) said the programme helped improve the psychological functioning of people suffering from the effects of traumatic experiences, especially those ex-army services personnel.

This programme uses cognitive behavioural therapy – recognised as one of the most effective treatments for conditions where anxiety or depression is the main problem; neuro-linguistic programming which can change, adopt or eliminate patterns of behaviour and timeline therapy, an internal process that allows unresolved negative emotions from the past to be accessed and resolved safely and swiftly.

Research by Eitan Abramowitz and others in 2008 into hypnotherapy in the treatment of chronic combat-related PTSD patients suffering from insomnia, evaluated the benefits of add-on hypnotherapy in patients with chronic PTSD.

Some patients were treated with medication and add-on hypnotherapy as opposed to others receiving symptom-oriented hypnotherapy.

Helping homecoming heroes re-adapt to life after the stresses and trauma of military duty is one of the services the National Council for Hypnotherapists can offer.

There was a significant main effect of the hypnotherapy treatment, the team found, with PTSD symptoms as measured by the Post traumatic Disorder Scale.

Additional benefits for the hypnotherapy group were decreases in intrusion and avoidance reactions and improvement in all sleep variables assessed.

Modern hypnotherapy, concludes White, has become the most dramatically effective short-term therapy developed to date, which means that many problems and issues can be transformed dramatically using hypnotherapy.

Helping homecoming heroes re-adapt to life after the stresses and trauma of military duty is one of the services the National Council for Hypnotherapists can offer.

The National Council for Hypnotherapy is the UK‟s largest independent, not-for-profit governing body for Hypnotherapy practitioners. The high standards it requires for membership ensures that all of our therapists must have achieved a certain level of training and demonstrated competence in practice. In addition all our members are bound by a strict Code of Ethics & Practice, which includes the requirement for Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Click here to find a ‘Homecoming Hero’ hypnotherapist.

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.

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.

NCH Page on Facebook

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 hypnotists, 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.

“Professor David Spiegel, of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Stanford University, wants the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) to sanction sweeping changes.

He will tell the Royal Society of Medicine on Monday that Nice should add hypnotherapy to its list of approved therapeutic techniques for the treatment of conditions ranging from allergies and high blood pressure to the pain associated with cancer treatment and bone marrow transplantation.”

We were asked for our comments on this story and we were given a lot of great coverage. See the link below read the full article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5468518/British-surgeons-should-hypnotise-patients-for-some-operations-says-academic.html

This article nearly doubled the hits our website received compared to a usual Sunday.

The NCH gives you more.

Hopefully I will see some of you at the Hypnotherapy Extravaganza in a couple of weeks

Paul Howard
Marketing Director

The Royal Society of Medicine

The Hypnotherapy Extravaganza is being held on
20th June 2009
at
The Royal Society of Medicine
1 Wimpole Street,
London, W1G 0AE.

This one day event is not just an opportunity to meet with colleagues and to be entertained, educated and informed; this is also an opportunity to learn how the most successful people in business achieve their success. Of course you can be the best therapist in the world, but if nobody knows about you, your talents are wasted. For this reason we want to help to maximise your client base. Put simply, if you don’t get at least 1 extra client per week we would have to ask you if you were paying attention during the day.

Each topic will be presented by internationally renowned experts in their field, some of the ideas you will find challenging and some of the practical demonstrations fascinating.

Subjects covered will include

Consciousness
Hypno-surgery and Pain Control
Marketing
CBT
Voluntary Self-Regulation

Speakers
Professor Susan Blackmore BA, MSc, PhD
Dr John Butler PhD (Lond.), MBSH, CHT, MA, BA(Hons.), BSc(Hons.), FNRHP
Dr David Kato PhD. DCH. DHP. C.ht
Gary May & Steve Mills – SAQQARA
Maggy Wallace, coChair, CNHC (Complementary Natural Healthcare Council)

Professor Sue Blackmore is a psychologist and writer researching consciousness, memes, and anomalous experiences, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth. She has a regular blog in the Guardian, and often appears on radio and television. Her book The Meme Machine (1999) has been translated into 13 other languages and more recent books include a textbook Consciousness: An Introduction (2003) and Conversations on Consciousness (2005). Ten Zen Questions will be published in March 2009. She is a thought provoking and controversial speaker.

Dr John Butler is a highly regarded hypnotherapist with over 28 years and over 30,000 hours of practice as a successful clinical practitioner. He is an instructor in hypnosurgery, teaching clinical hypnosis applications to surgeons and anaesthetists in a course accredited by the Royal College of Anaesthetists. He has made more than 20 television appearances as an expert in hypnotherapy with several programmes focussing on his use of hypnotherapy as an anaesthetic for chronic pain and in invasive surgeries.

Dr. David Kato is internationally known and is the renowned UK expert on depressive disorders. He provides lectures seminars and workshops to medical departments in universities, hospitals and to varied clinicians and physicians in the UK & USA. He has been using CBT in his own practice for 15 years with great success.

Founders of The Business Acceleration Company, SAQQARA, Steve Mills & Gary May are sharing their knowledge and experience with NCH members, inspiring change and delivering results. Having been consulted by and worked with business leaders, top telecoms companies to business start ups, their successes are not only proved but sustainable. With their strategies companies have gone on to receive accolades and successes such as: Sunday Times/Virgin Fast Track 100 and National Business Awards.

Maggy Wallace, CoChair CNHC, has a substantial background in professional education, the health service and professional regulation in the UK and internationally. CNHC’s mission is to support the use of complementary and natural healthcare as a uniquely positive, safe and effective experience. CNHC key purpose is to protect the public by means of regulating practitioners on a voluntary register for complementary and natural healthcare practitioners.

We are holding a members dinner in the evening to finish off this incredible day. It is only open to NCH members. The numbers for the dinner are strictly limited so book early to avoid disappointment.

Prices
Delegate – NCH member £50
Delegate – Non NCH member £100
Evening member dinner £36
All prices exclude VAT

To book go to fill in the paypal form above or call 0844 736 5806

]]> http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/884/nch-hypnotherapy-extravaganza-event-london-20th-june-2009/feed/ 0 http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/1037/june-research-snippet-eysencks-typology-of-hypnotic-suggestion/ http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/1037/june-research-snippet-eysencks-typology-of-hypnotic-suggestion/#comments Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:02:31 +0000 Donald Robertson http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/?p=1037 Okay, research snippet time and it’s back into the past again for a look at an important historical piece of research. Many of you will be familiar with the name of Hans Eysenck (1916-1997). He was allegedly the most widely-referenced psychologist in scientific literature at one point during his lifetime and a pioneer of behaviour therapy. Well, hypnotherapists may not know that Eysenck also carried out some seminal research on the different factors in suggestion and the relationship between hypnosis and personality traits. His original research on hypnosis was published in a well-known journal article and reviewed in his book Dimensions of Personality (1947) which contains a whole chapter on hypnosis and suggestion.

Basically, Eysenck’s research is important for two reasons,

1. He provided data which contradicted the traditional assumption that “hysterical” patients were particularly hyper-suggestibile, i.e., that hypnosis itself is a form of “artificial hysteria.”
2. He was one of the first people to provide evidence which suggested a distinction between different species of suggestion and suggestibility.

Eysenck carried out a series of studies, and reviewed other research. He collated data from over a thousand military personnel and psychiatric patients. Essentially, he found that so-called “hysterics” were no more hypnotisable than other emotionally disturbed patients. However, he did find data pointing to a link between trait neuroticism and hypnotic suggestibility. In the preface to the 1998 edition of the book, presumably written just before his death, he neatly sums up his findings on suggestion,

I was trying to extend my experimental approach to psychiatric concepts, and chose certain specific statements from psychiatric textbooks for testing. It had been almost universally claimed that hysterics are suggestible, but there was no experimental evidence. I applied a number of standard tests of suggestibility to groups of hysteria and anxiety states, as well as non-neurotic controls, and found that there were at least two kinds of suggestibility which I called “primary” and “secondary”. Hysterics did not differ from anxiety states, but neurotics as a group differed profoundly from normals, being much more suggestible. When I showed the results to Sir Aubrey Lewis, my boss, he immediately summoned all the patients I had tested to make sure the hysteria had been correctly diagnosed – he agreed that they had.

Eysenck’s factor analysis of the data from hypnotic suggestion tests seemed to show that indirect (”secondary”) suggestion functioned by means of a fundamentally different mechanism from direct (”primary”) suggestion. Indeed, Eysenck concluded that indirect suggestibility was probably not a single trait and probably not directly related to hypnotism as traditionally understood. He was not alone in this conclusion as earlier researchers such as Binet and Hull had produced similar findings.

In two factorial studies of altogether 16 different tests of suggestibility, it was shown that these tests define two entirely different and separate types of suggestibility: (1) Primary suggestibility, characterised by dependence on ideo-motor action, and (2) Secondary suggestibility, characterised by dependence on indirection. Primary suggestibility was shown to be closely related to hypnosis; secondary suggestibility showed no such relation. (Eysenck, 1947: 201)

If Eysenck’s interpretation of the data is correct then, to put it in plain English, the concept of “indirect hypnosis” becomes a bit of a problem because what we know about traditional hypnotism probably can’t be applied to the use of indirect suggestion. For instance, there’s good evidence that direct (”primary”) suggestibility tends to increase (albeit by a modest amount on average) following a standard hypnotic eye-fixation induction. It wouldn’t follow from this, though, that indirect suggestions would become stronger following the same induction. Moreover, Hull and others had found evidence that direct (primary) suggestion responses tend to increase with practice whereas responses to indirect (secondary) suggestion do not seem to do so, and may even weaken with repetition.

Of course, questions have been raised in the past over the relatioship between Milton Erickson’s indirect approach and traditional hypnotherapy. Eysenck’s analysis is part of the backdrop to that riddle and his intelligent discussion of the research evidence provides some interesting facts and figures to chew over.

You can read a more detailed discussion of this research on my blog article below,

http://ukhypnosis.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/types-of-hypnotic-suggestion-eysenck/

]]> http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/1037/june-research-snippet-eysencks-typology-of-hypnotic-suggestion/feed/ 0 http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/951/hpd-gets-open-university-approved-credit-rating/ http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/951/hpd-gets-open-university-approved-credit-rating/#comments Sat, 09 May 2009 13:17:57 +0000 nch http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/?p=951 The Open University has considered the Education and Training Programme from the National Council for Hypnotherapy and assigned a credit value to the Hypnotherapy Practitioner Diploma (HPD) as follows.

Open University Credits for Hypnotherapy Practitoner Diploma (HPD):
45 points at Undergraduate Level 1 (FHEQ Level 4/SCQF Level 7)

This provides an endorsement of the quality, amount and level of the learning within the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) and credits for the course.

Students receive their award from the NCH, and in addition can download a certificate confirming the credit award from the OU website.

Students may find this helpful if they wish to study at the Open University or other higher education institutions.

For more information about using your credits at the Open University visit the Credit Transfer website at:

http://www.open.ac.uk/credit-transfer

]]> http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/951/hpd-gets-open-university-approved-credit-rating/feed/ 3 http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/943/may-research-snippet-multiple-sclerosis/ http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/943/may-research-snippet-multiple-sclerosis/#comments Sun, 03 May 2009 17:24:05 +0000 Donald Robertson http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/?p=943 Apologies for the delay, but here we are again… Research snippets… but first some news…

Stephanie Kirke’s research on hypnotic pain management, sponsored by NCH, is nearing publication and that will probably be summarised in the NCH Journal.

Incidentally, the NCH page on Facebook now has over 300 members and we’re posting research snippets there on a regular basis. There are now ways to subscribe to various RSS news feeds online whereby you can receive updates on research news and journal articles as they’re published, updated in real time. Scientific American even have a news feed that links to 60 second audio podcasts summarising news snippets about psychology, much of which would be of interest to hypnotherapists. You can beam psychology factoids directly into your brain via your ipod while you’re playing sardines on the underground. Technology races ahead of us!

I should also give a plug for my own research into cognitive-behavioural hypnotherapy for noise-related stress, and my historical article in this month’s IJCEH, which presents a backward translated version of James Braid’s last article On Hypnotism (1860), also published in the new NCH book The Discovery of Hypnosis: The Complete Writings of James Braid, the Father of Hypnotherapy. You can now order the book online at Amazon UK. In the same edition of IJCEH as Braid’s “lost manuscript” we find an intersting outcome study by a team of ten (!) researchers, let’s call them Jensen, Barber, Romano, et al., entitled ‘A comparison of self-hypnosis versus progressive muscle relaxation in patients with multiple sclerosis and chronic pain’ (IJCEH, 57(2): 198-221).

Twenty-two participants were recruited for this study (which is just short of the 25 required for an empirically-supported treatment). Self-hypnosis was compared head-to-head against progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) for its ability to help management of pain in multiple sclerosis and, basically, those receiving self-hypnosis reported significantly greater pain reduction during sessions, and following treatment, than those using PMR., this was maintained at 3-month follow-up. (The use of an established relaxation technique as an active treatment control group serves here as a valid alternative to a placebo control group.)

Two predictor variables were measured: hypnotic susceptibility and the Treatment Expectancy Scale (TES). The TES is a common measure of expectancy which I think might have some useful applications in clinical practice. It basically asks the client to rate their response to four questions (0-10),

1. How logical does this type of treatment seem to you?
2. How confident are you that this treatment will be succesful in eliminating your symptoms?
3. How succesful do you feel that this treatment will be in reducing your symptoms?
4. How confident would you be in recommending this treatment to a friend who is suffering badly from the same symptoms?

Despite having similar outcome expectations, however, in both relaxation and self-hypnosis groups, the hypnotic subjects experienced more improvement. In other words, their improvement probably exceeded the effect of expectation alone. However, overall there was a moderate correlation between expectation and outcome across both groups (r=.40). In other words, expectation probably contributed substantially but does not account for all of the effects of self-hypnosis. Hypnotic susceptibility, by contrast, was not found to correlate with outcome. (Both findings which have been reported in other studies.)

Analysis of the levels of clinically significant reduction in pain showed that at 3-month follow-up, 47% of self-hypnosis subjects reported clinically meaningful pain reduction compared to only 29% of the relaxation group. (Although below 50%, this is a reasonably good outcome for a clinical trial of this kind.)

This study provides some support for the view that relatively simple self-hypnosis techniques can be effective in managing pain associated with multiple sclerosis, and is substantially superior to relaxation training, and probably therefore superior to placebo. It adds further to the body of evidence showing that treatment outcome expectations are an important factor in determining the outcome of therapy, but far from being the only factor. And it also adds to those studies which question the value of hypnotic susceptibility scales in predicting treatment outcome. Either these scales are flawed, perhaps because they measure the wrong type of responses, or being highly hypnotisable isn’t more helpful than being moderately hypnotisable when it comes to the kind of suggestions used in therapy.

]]> http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/943/may-research-snippet-multiple-sclerosis/feed/ 0