Is hypnosis real?
Hypnotists can seemingly alter the behavior,
emotions and perceptions of others, simply through the
power of suggestion. Franz Mesmer first introduced this
technique, known as “Mesmerism,” in the 1780s and
scientists have since been fascinated by this mysterious
practice. In fact, since the 1960s, over 7,000 studies have
been conducted on the effects of hypnosis. And, yet, much
about it still remains a mystery.1 While the term “hypnosis” literally means “to
sleep,” it’s still unclear exactly what a hypnotic state really
is. Stanford researcher, Ernest Hilgard, studied hypnosis
for over 40 years and, in all that time, he was unable to
develop a single, reliable measure to tell whether or not
someone was actually hypnotized. This is because
hypnosis doesn’t appear to alter people’s brain activity,
compared to those who are simply relaxed.2 Hypnotic
states are similarly difficult to detect with physiological
measures, such as heart rate, blood pressure or galvanic skin response (i.e., sweating). In other
words, scientists haven’t yet discovered a foolproof way of telling whether someone is legitimately
hypnotized or simply “faking it.” While this has led some scientists to believe that hypnosis, itself,
is not a real phenomena,3 most scientists agree that hypnosis can yield effects that would be
extremely difficult to fake.
The most impressive of these effects is the ability of hypnosis to reduce or even eliminate
pain. Meta-analyses—which examine data from many individual studies—have found that
hypnosis can significantly reduce pain for people recovering from injury and those suffering from
chronic pain disorders.4, 5, 6 Hypnosis also appears
to help relieve pain, nausea and discomfort in
pregnant women during labor7 and cancer patients
receiving chemotherapy or radiation.8, 9, 10 Studies
show that 75% of those who undergo hypnotic
treatments experience significantly less pain than
those that don’t.11 Some studies even find that
hypnosis can be just as effective as traditional
painkillers. Furthermore, researchers have found
that people who undergo hypnosis after surgery
require less post-operative pain medication and even
heal more quickly.12
The power of hypnosis to reduce pain seems to be related to its unique ability to focus a
person’s attention on a desired object or sensation. Most often, a hypnotist will instruct clients to
focus on an area of their body that is not in pain (e.g., center of the forehead) and to feel specific
sensations in that area that are pleasant and relaxing (e.g., light pressure and warmth). This process
helps distract from pain sensations, even after the hypnotic treatment has ended. Studies show that
hypnosis helps to lessen activity in areas of the brain related with pain sensations,13 as well as areas
related with bodily-awareness.14 In other words, hypnosis acts as a distraction tool, allowing
people to simply not pay attention to their pain.
While hypnosis may be a great tool for pain management,
it doesn’t appear to be effective in treating more psychological
problems. Many scientists have attempted to use hypnosis to
change bad habits (e.g., smoking, over-eating) and treat mental
illness, but results have been mixed at best. For example, when
scientists attempt to use hypnosis to help people stop smoking,
they generally find that it’s only slightly more effective than no
treatment at all, and actually less effective than other behavior
modification techniques (such as slowly decreasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day).15,
16
Similarly, an extremely comprehensive meta-analysis of 693 studies examining hypnotic
treatments of anxiety disorders found no evidence that hypnosis was effective in treating
generalized anxiety, phobias, PTSD or test-anxiety.17 This has largely been the case for treating
other disorders as well, and research shows that hypnosis may actually worsen symptoms of those
with schizophrenia or dissociative disorders.18, 19, 20 While these results are disappointing, they
make sense given that hypnosis appears to be primarily a method of distracting the mind. Simple
distraction may provide temporary relief from some symptoms, such as pain or nausea, but it’s
unlikely to affect habitually ingrained behaviors, addictions, or serious mental disorders.
One of the more controversial aspects of hypnosis is whether or not it can be used to
retrieve “lost” memories. This idea comes from an old, Freudian view of the mind, which holds
that if someone has memories that are especially
traumatic, the mind my block or “repress” them from
becoming conscious. While there is little scientific
evidence that repressed memories actually exist,21, 22
this was a prominent theory from the early 1900s up
until the 1980s. During this time, psychologists
commonly used hypnosis as a way to unlock
repressed memories, so that patients could work
through them with the help of their therapist.23
However, over the year, psychologists became
increasingly concerned that what clients were
remembering during these hypnosis sessions weren’t
true memories, but merely imagined events.24
In the 1970s, psychologists (and the public) started to seriously question the efficacy and
ethicality of this technique when courts began accepting hypnotically recalled memories as
evidence in criminal trials.25, 26 By 1984, over 1,000 interrogation officers in the U.S. had received
training in hypnotic suggestion, and hypnotically recalled information had been used in over 600
criminal cases by the LA Police Department alone.27 In the 1980s, scientists finally began testing
whether hypnosis really could aid memory recall and, with each successive study, it became more
clear that the answer was a resounding, “No.”28, 29, 30 Many of these studies involved participants
watching videotaped events (often mock crimes) and then attempting to recall them the next day,
either while under hypnosis or not. Many of the studies found that participants were actually less
likely to accurately recall information when under hypnosis and much more susceptible to
suggestion. For example, if a person had seen a perpetrator wearing a red shirt while committing
a crime, they were no more likely to later remember the color of their shirt while under hypnosis.
But, if the hypnotist asked if the perpetrator was wearing a
green shirt at the time, many more participants in the hypnosis
condition reported that they did remember the shirt being
green. This is because hypnosis can create extremely vivid
imaginary events, which can seem more real than genuine
memories. By 1985, the American Medical Association ruled
that hypnosis should not be used by physicians, psychologists,
or police officers to aid memory recall.31 The American
Psychological Association and American Psychiatric
Association made similar recommendations in the 1990s.
Courts in the U.K., Australia and Canada have since banned
the use of hypnosis in gathering eye-witness testimony.
However, the U.S. courts have still not officially ruled on the
matter.
Yet another limitation of hypnosis is that about 15 – 25% of people don’t appear to respond
to it at all.32, 33 It’s unclear why so many people cannot be hypnotized, but twin studies suggest
that a person’s “hypnotizability” is highly heritable.34, 35 Other studies have found that
hypnotizability is related with specific genes and in-born characteristics of the brain,36, 37, 38
suggesting that it might just come down to the way our brains are individually wired. Researchers
have also found that hypnotizability is strongly related with a person’s general level of creativity
and how often they become absorbed in fantasy and daydreams.39, 40 These so-called “fantasizers”
constitute about 5% of the general population and have extremely vivid imaginations, often losing
track of the world around them and sometimes having a hard time separating real life from
fantasy.41, 42 Research shows that fantasizers respond twice as strongly to hypnotic suggestion and
report the greatest levels of pain relief while under hypnosis.43
The classic way psychologists test a person’s
“hypnotizability” is to administer a hypnotic susceptibility
test. One such measure, called the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale (SHSS), was originally established by
Stanford professors, Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, in the
1950s.44 This has remained one of the more popular
measures of hypnotizability has been well established in
predicting how easily and powerfully someone can be
hypnotized.45, 46 The SHSS is freely available online47, 48
and can be administered by anyone, as long as they fully
follow the instructions. During the test, the subject is asked
to imagine specific stimuli (e.g., “an insect buzzing by your ear”) while an observer measures that
person’s visible reactions (e.g., “does the subject flinch or tilt their head away from the imagined
insect”). This should be done without the test subject knowing that they are being visually
observed. Research shows that people who take this measure tend to consistently yield the same
scores again and again, even if administered over the course of 25 years.49 In other words, a
person’s hypnotizability is both highly heritable and extremely stable throughout their lifetime.
After many decades of research and thousands of individual studies, it’s clear that
hypnosis is “real,” but also that it’s limited. It can provide most people with a substantial degree
of pain relief and can greatly help those recovering from injuries, surgery, or cancer treatments.
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be effective in changing long-term behavioral or emotional
problems (e.g., addictions, mental illness).
Looking toward the future, some scientists are
now developing computerized hypnotism
programs for pain, which would allow people
to simply log onto a website to receive
hypnotic treatments.50, 51 This would be
extremely beneficial in reducing the cost of
hypnosis treatments, while also making
hypnosis available to people who are
impoverished, uninsured, or living in areas
where hypnotherapists aren’t available. Such programs are also likely to offer scientists much
larger and more comprehensive datasets on the effects of hypnosis. This may go a long way
toward helping scientists to more fully understand exactly what hypnosis is and how it works.
Many are hopeful that the next great break-through in hypnosis research may be just on the
horizon
References
1
Hawkins, R. F. (2001). A systematic meta-review of hypnosis as an empirically supported
treatment for pain. Pain Reviews, 8(2), 47-73. doi:10.1191/0968130201pr175ra
2
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-trouble-hypnosis 3
Wagstaff, G. F. (1981) Hypnosis, Compliance and Belief. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN
0-312-40157-4 4
Adachi, T., Fujino, H., Nakae, A., Mashimo, T., & Sasaki, J. (2014). A meta-analysis of
hypnosis for chronic pain problems: A comparison between hypnosis, standard care, and other
psychological interventions. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 62(1),
1-28. doi:10.1080/00207144.2013.841471 5
Hammond, D. C. (2007). Review of the efficacy of clinical hypnosis with headaches and
migraines. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 55(2), 207-219.
doi:10.1080/00207140601177921 6
Montgomery, G. H., DuHamel, K. N., & Redd, W. H. (2000). A meta-analysis of hypnotically
induced analgesia: How effective is hypnosis? International Journal of Clinical And
Experimental Hypnosis, 48(2), 138-153. doi:10.1080/00207140008410045 7
Landolt, A. S., & Milling, L. S. (2011). The efficacy of hypnosis as an intervention for labor
and delivery pain: A comprehensive methodological review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6),
1022-1031. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.002 8
Montgomery, G. H., Bovbjerg, D. H., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Golfarb, A., et al. (2007). A
randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery
patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 99, 1304-1312. doi:10.1093/jnci/djm157 9
Montgomery, G. H., Kangas, M., David, D., Hallquist, M. N., Green, S., Bovbjerg, D. H., &
Schnur, J. B. (2009). Fatigue during breast cancer radiotherapy: An initial randomized study of
cognitive–behavioral therapy plus hypnosis. Health Psychology, 28(3), 317-322.
doi:10.1037/a0013582 10
Richardson, J., Smith, J. E., Mccall, G., Richardson, A., Pilkington, K., & Kirsch, I. (2007).
Hypnosis for nausea and vomiting in cancer chemotherapy: A systematic review of the research
evidence. European Journal of Cancer Care, 16(5), 402-412. doi:10.1111/j.13652354.2006.00736.x 11
Hawkins, 2001 (see previous footnote) 12
Tefikow, S., Barth, J., Maichrowitz, S., Beelmann, A., Strauss, B., & Rosendahl, J. (2013).
Efficacy of hypnosis in adults undergoing surgery or medical procedures: A meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 623-636. 13
Deeley, Oakley, Toone, et al. (2013). The functional anatomy of suggested limb paralysis.
Cortex, 49, 441. 14
Oakley DA, and Halligan PW (2013). Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive
neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14 (8), 565-76 PMID: 23860312 15
Green, J. P., & Lynn, S. J. (2000). Hypnosis and suggestion-based approaches to smoking
cessation: An examination of the evidence. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental
Hypnosis, 48(2), 195-224. doi:10.1080/00207140008410048 16
For similar findings, see: Barnes, J., Dong, C. Y., McRobbie, H., Walker, N., Mehta, M. &
Stead, L. F. (2010). Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 10, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001008.pub2 17
Coelho, H. F., Canter, P. H., & Ernst, E. (2008). The effectiveness of hypnosis for the
treatment of anxiety: A systematic review. Primary Care & Community Psychiatry, 12(2), 49-63. 18
Gruzelier, J. (2000). Unwanted effects of hypnosis: A review of the evidence and its
implications. Contemporary Hypnosis, 17(4), 163-193. doi:10.1002/ch.207 19
Bliss, E. L. (1983). Multiple personalities, related disorders and hypnosis. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 26(2), 114-123. doi:10.1080/00029157.1983.10404151 20
Williams, D. T., & Velazquez, L. (1996). The use of hypnosis in children with dissociative
disorders. Child And Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 5(2), 495-508. 21
Boag, S. (2006). Freudian repression, the common view, and pathological science. Review of
General Psychology, 10(1), 74-86. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.1.74 22
Rofé, Y. (2008). Does repression exist? Memory, pathogenic, unconscious and clinical
evidence. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 63-85. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.63 23
Mazzoni, G., Laurence, J., & Heap, M. (2014). Hypnosis and memory: Two hundred years of
adventures and still going! Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, And Practice, 1(2),
153-167. doi:10.1037/cns0000016 24
Gow, K. M. (1999). Recovered memories of abuse: Real, fabricated, or both? Australian
Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 27(2), 81-97. 25
Giannelli, P. C. (1995). The admissibility of hypnotic evidence in U.S. courts. International
Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 43(2), 212-233. doi:10.1080/00207149508409962 26
Scheflin, A. W., & Frischholz, E. J. (1999). Significant dates in the history of forensic
hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 42(2), 84-107. 27
Steblay, N. M., & Bothwell, R. K. (1994). Evidence for hypnotically refreshed testimony: The
view from the laboratory. Law And Human Behavior, 18(6), 635-651. doi:10.1007/BF01499329 28
Mingay, D. J. (1987). The effect of hypnosis on eyewitness memory: Reconciling forensic
claims and research findings. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36(2), 163-183.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1987.tb00383.x 29
Sheehan, P. W. (1988). Memory distortion in hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical &
Experimental Hypnosis, 36(4), 296-311. doi:10.1080/00207148808410520 30
Steblay & Bothwell, 1994. See previous citation. 31
http://www.fmsfonline.org/links/fmsfrecoveredmemories.html 32
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-trouble-hypnosis 33
Montgomery, DuHamel, & Redd, 2010 (see previous footnote) 34
http://digest.bps.org.uk/2013/08/neuroscience-gets-serious-about-hypnosis.html 35
Morgan, A. H. (1973). The heritability of hypnotic susceptibility in twins. Journal Of
Abnormal Psychology, 82(1), 55-61. doi:10.1037/h0034854 36
Raz, A. (2005). Attention and Hypnosis: Neural Substrates and Genetic Associations of Two
Converging Processes. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 53(3), 237258. doi:10.1080/00207140590961295 37
Rominger, C., Weiss, E. M., Nagl, S., Niederstätter, H., Parson, W., & Papousek, I. (2014).
Carriers of the COMT Met/Met allele have higher degrees of hypnotizability, provided that they
have good attentional control: A case of gene–trait interaction. International Journal Of Clinical
And Experimental Hypnosis, 62(4), 455-482. 38
Szekely, A., Kovacs-Nagy, R., Bányai, É. I., Gősi-Greguss, A. C., Varga, K., Halmai, Z., & ...
Sasvari-Szekely, M. (2010). Association between hypnotizability and the catechol-omethyltransferase (COMT) polymorphism. International Journal of Clinical And Experimental
Hypnosis, 58(3), 301-315. doi:10.1080/00207141003760827 39
http://digest.bps.org.uk/2013/08/neuroscience-gets-serious-about-hypnosis.html 40
Manmiller, J. L., Kumar, V. K., & Pekala, R. J. (2005). Hypnotizability, creative capacity,
creativity styles, absorption, and phenomenological experience during hypnosis. Creativity
Research Journal, 17, 9–24. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_2 41
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200101/the-power-hypnosis 42
Barrett, D. (1992). Fantasizers and dissociaters: Data on two distinct subgroups of deep trance
subjects. Psychological Reports, 71(3, Pt 1), 1011-1014. doi:10.2466/PR0.71.7.1011-1014 43
Flammer, E., & Bongartz, W. (2003). On the efficacy of hypnosis: A meta-analytic study.
Contemporary Hypnosis, 20(4), 179-197. doi:10.1002/ch.277 44
Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1959). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Forms
A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 45
Perry, C., Nadon, R., & Button, J. (1992). The measurement of hypnotic ability. In E. Fromm,
M. R. Nash, E. Fromm, M. R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research (pp. 459-490). New
York, NY, US: Guilford Press. 46
Woody, E. Z., & Barnier, A. J. (2008). Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: What do
we need and how should we use them? In M. R. Nash, A. J. Barnier, M. R. Nash, A. J. Barnier
(Eds.) , The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 255-280). New
York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. 47
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/PDFfiles/Hypnotizability/SHSSC%20Script.pdf 48
http://hypnosis.tools/suggestibility-scales.html 49
Piccione, C., Hilgard, E. R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1989). On the degree of stability of measured
hypnotizability over a 25-year period. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56(2), 289295. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.289 50
Farrell-Carnahan, L., Ritterband, L. M., Bailey, E. T., Thorndike, F. P., Lord, H. R., & Baum,
L. D. (2010). Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a self-hypnosis intervention available on the
web for cancer survivors with insomnia. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(2), 10-23. 51
Soltani, M., Teeley, A. M., Wiechman, S. A., Jensen, M. P., Sharar, S. R., & Patterson, D. R.
(2011). Virtual reality hypnosis for pain control in a patient with gluteal hidradenitis: A case
report. Contemporary Hypnosis & Integrative Therapy, 28(2), 142-147.