Hypnotic suggestibility is a trait-like, individual difference variable reflecting the general tendency to respond to hypnosis and hypnotic suggestions. Research with standardized measures of hypnotic suggestibility has demonstrated that there are substantial individual differences in this variable. Higher suggestibility has been found to be associated with greater relief from hypnotic pain interventions. Although individuals in the high suggestibility range show the strongest response to hypnotic analgesia, people of medium suggestibility, who represent approximately one third of the population, also have been found to obtain significant relief from hypnosis. Thus, high hypnotic suggestibility is not necessary for successful hypnotic pain intervention. However, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of hypnotic pain interventions for people who fall in the low hypnotic suggestibility range. However, some studies suggest that these individuals may benefit from imaginative analgesia suggestions, or suggestions for pain reduction that are delivered while the person is not in hypnosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Patterson DR, Jensen MP: Hypnosis and clinical pain. Psychol Bull 2003, 129:495–521.
Jensen MP, Patterson DR: Hypnotic treatment of chronic pain. J Behav Med 2006, 29:95–124.
Green JP, Barabasz AF, Barrett D, Montgomery GH: Forging ahead: the 2003 APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 2005, 53:259–264.
Montgomery GH, DuHamel KN, Redd WH: A meta-analysis of hypnotically induced analgesia: how effective is hypnosis? Int J Clin Exp Hypn 2000, 48:138–153.
Milling LS, Shores JS, Coursen EL, et al.: Response expectancies, treatment credibility, and hypnotic suggestibility: mediator and moderator effects in hypnotic and cognitive-behavioral pain interventions. Ann Behav Med 2007, 33:167–178.
Gur RC: Measuring hypnotic susceptibility: a guest editorial. Am J Clin Hypn 1978/1979, 21:64–66.
Weitzenhoffer AM, Hilgard ER: Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1962.
Council J: A historical overview of hypnotizability assessment. Am J Clin Hypn 2002, 44:199–208.
Gwynn MI, Spanos NP: Hypnotic responsiveness, nonhypnotic suggestibility, and responsiveness to social influence. In Hypnosis and Imagination. Edited by Kunzendorf RG, Spanos NP, Wallace B. Amityville, NY: Baywood; 1996:147–175.
Hilgard ER: Hypnotic Susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World; 1965.
Spanos NP, Radtke HL, Hodgins DC, et al.: The Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: normative data and psychometric properties. Psychol Rep 1983, 53:523–535.
Piccione C, Hilgard ER, Zimbardo PG: On the degree of stability of measured hypnotizability over a 25-year period. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989, 56:289–295.
Chaves JF: Pain management. In Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis. Edited by Rhue JW, Lynn SJ, Kirsch I. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993:511–532.
Kirsch I, Montgomery G, Sapirstein G: Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 1995, 63:214–220.
Cohen J: Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences, edn 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
Liossi C, Hatira P: Clinical hypnosis versus cognitive behavioral training for pain management with pediatric cancer patients undergoing bone marrow aspirations. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1999, 47:104–116.
Harmon TM, Hynan MT, Tyre TE: Improved obstetric outcomes using hypnotic analgesia and skill mastery combined with childbirth education. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990, 58:525–530.
Andreychuk T, Skriver C: Hypnosis and biofeedback in the treatment of migraine headache. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1975, 23:172–183.
Friedman H, Taub HA: Brief psychological training procedures in migraine treatment. Am J Clin Hypn 1984, 26:187–200.
ter Kuile MM, Spinhoven P, Linssen AC, et al.: Autogenic training and cognitive self-hypnosis for the treatment of recurrent headaches in three different subject groups. Pain 1994, 58:331–340.
Gay M, Philipport P, Luminet O: Differential effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing osteoarthritis pain: a comparison of Erikson hypnosis and Jacobson relaxation. Eur J Pain 2002, 6:1–16.
Spanos NP, Kennedy SK, Gwynn MI: Moderating effects of contextual variables on the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and suggested analgesia. J Abnorm Psychol 1984, 93:285–294.
Spanos NP, Perlini, AH, Patrick L, et al.: The role of compliance in hypnotic and nonhypnotic analgesia. J Res Pers 1990, 24:433–453.
Spanos NP, Perlini AH, Robertson LA: Hypnosis, suggestion, and placebo in the reduction of experimental pain. J Abnorm Psychol 1989, 98:285–293.
Stam HJ, Spanos NP: Hypnotic analgesia, placebo analgesia, and ischemic pain: the effects of contextual variables. J Abnorm Psychol 1987, 96:313–320.
Tripp EG, Marks D: Hypnosis, relaxation and analgesia suggestions for the reduction of reported pain in high and low-suggestible subjects. Aust J Clin Exp Hypn 1986, 14:99–113.
Barber TX, Glass LB: Significant factors in hypnotic behavior. J Abnorm Psychol 1962, 64:222–228.
Braffman W, Kirsch I: Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: an empirical analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999, 77:578–587.
Hilgard ER, Tart CT: Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. J Abnorm Psychol 1966, 71:196–208.
Hull CL: Hypnosis and Suggestibility: An Experimental Approach. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1933.
Weitzenhoffer AM, Sjoberg BM Jr: Suggestibility with and without “induction of hypnosis.” J Nerv Ment Dis 1961, 132:204–220.
Kirsch I, Braffman W: Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Cur Dir Psychol Sci 2001, 10:57–61.
Barber TX: Measuring “hypnotic-like” suggestibility with and without ‘hypnotic induction,’ psychometric properties, norm, and variables influencing response to the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS). Psychol Rep 1965, 16:809–844.
Houle M, McGrath PA, Moran G, Garrett OJ: The efficacy of hypnosis-and relaxation-induced analgesia on two dimensions of pain for cold pressor and electrical tooth pulp stimulation. Pain 1988, 33:241–251.
Milling LS, Kirsch I, Allen GJ, Reutenauer EL: The effects of hypnotic and nonhypnotic imaginative suggestion on pain. Ann Behav Med 2005, 29:116–127.
Spanos NP, Katsanis J: Effects of instructional set on attributions of nonvolition during hypnotic and nonhypnotic analgesia. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989, 56:182–188.
Spanos NP, Radtke-Bodorik HL, Ferguson JD, Jones B: The effects of hypnotic susceptibility, suggestions for analgesia and the utilization of cognitive strategies on the reduction of pain. J Abnorm Psychol 1979, 88:282–292.
Van Gorp WG, Meyer RG, Dunbar KD: The efficacy of direct versus indirect hypnotic induction techniques on reduction of experimental pain. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1985, 33:319–328.
Stam HJ, Spanos NP: Experimental designs, expectancy effect, and hypnotic analgesia. J Abnorm Psychol 1980, 89:751–762.
About this article
Cite this article
Milling, L.S. Is high hypnotic suggestibility necessary for successful hypnotic pain intervention?. Current Science Inc 12, 98 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-008-0019-0
- Pain Reduction
- Weighted Effect Size
- Suggestibility Range
- Hypnotic Suggestion
- Hypnotic Susceptibility