Interaction between Hypnotist and Subject: A Social Psychophysiological Approach (Preliminary Report)
There is a vast amount of literature demonstrating that hypnotic susceptibility is a stable personality trait. In the course of our practice of teaching beginners to hypnotize, however, it occurred to us that hypnotists without sufficient previous training frequently measured a lower level of hypnotic susceptibility than the true score. It has to be emphasized that hypnosis is a special altered state of consciousness which develops as a result of an interaction between a hypnotist and a subject. The failure of beginners to induce hypnosis could be explained by considering an insufficient participation of the hypnotist in this interaction.
The purpose of the present study was to analyze the necessary and sufficient subjective, behavioral and physiological alterations in both participants of the hypnotic interaction. During successful and unsuccessful hypnotic inductions the subjective experiences, behavioral manifestations and physiological indicators including respiration, ECG, EMG, EOG, GSR and bilateral fronto-occipital EEG leads, were recorded simultaneously in the hypnotists and the hypnotized subjects.
The results indicate that hypnotic induction is successful if a mutual “tuning in” of the other person occurs not only on the subjective and behavioral levels, but first of all on the psychophysiological level.
KeywordsMuscular Tension Hemispheric Dominance Empty Column Stable Personality Trait Hypnotic State
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Gill, M. M., and Brenman, M., 1959, Hypnosis and related states: Psychoanalytic studies in regression, International Universities, Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Greguss, A. C., Bányai E, Mészáros, I., Csókay, L., és and Gerber, A., 1975, A hipnózis iránti érzékenység standard vizsgálata magyar nyelven, in: “A Magyar Pszich. Tars. IV. Tud. Jub. Nagygyülése. nov. 17–18. L. Benedek, T.-ne Székely eds., Budapest, 61–62.Google Scholar
- Haley, J., 1958, An interactional explanation of hypnosis, Am.J.clin. Hypnosis, 1:41–57.Google Scholar
- Haley, J., 1963, How hypnotist and subject maneuver each other, in: “Strategies of Psychotherapy,” J. Haley, ed., Grune and Stratton, New York.Google Scholar
- Hilgard, E. R., 1965, Hypnotic susceptibility, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
- Hilgard, E. R., 1977, Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action, John Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto.Google Scholar
- Mészáros, I., Bányai, E. I., and Greguss, A. C., 1982, Evoked potential correlates of verbal versus imagery coding in hypnosis, Paper presented at the 9th International Congress of Hypnosis and Psychosomatic Medicine, Glasgow, Scotland, August.Google Scholar
- Shor, R. E., and Orne, E. C., 1962, Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility form A. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
- Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard, E. R., 1959, Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, Forms A and B, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
- Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard, E. R., 1967, Revised Stanford profile scales of hypnotic susceptibility, Forms I and II., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar