Wagstaff 'S Definition of Hypnosis

The Journal of commentary Wagstaff’s Definition of Hypnosis Commentary: On the Centrality of the Concept of an Altered State to Definitions of Hypnosis. Irving Kirsch, PhD* March, 2014 As Wagstaff (this issue) notes, finding a suggestion (e.g., those associated with the definition of hypnosis upon which hypnosis placebo effect and the misinformation effect). scholars can agree has proven to be a hercu- Broadly defined, the domain of hypnosis in- lean task that has eluded the best efforts of cludes responding to imaginative suggestions individuals and committees. Wagstaff’s pro- without the induction of hypnosis, regardless posed revision of the APA definition of hyp- of the presence or absence of a hypnotic state. nosis (American Psychological Association, Preferences between these narrow and 1994), which is the last paragraph of his ar- broad approaches to defining hypnosis vary ticle, is one of the best I have seen. Whether and do not seem correlated with theoretical it succeeds in achieving a consensus among stances on the altered state issue (Kirsch, et | EISSN 1925-1688 hypnosis scholars remains to be seen, but it al., 2011). Wagstaff (this issue) argues strong- has much to recommend it. The inclusion of ly for a narrow definition. Although I do not the term alleged is especially important, as it have a strong preference and have vacillated is noncommittal with respect to the question greatly on the issue, I think that some of his of whether hypnotic procedures produce a objections can be countered easily. Wagstaff specifically hypnotic state. This may allow argues that a broad definition leads to con- acceptance of the definition by scholars with torted terminology, such as ‘hypnotic hypno- substantially different theoretical views on sis’ and ‘hypnotic non-hypnosis’. However, the subject. It also insures that hypnosis can this results from mixing narrow and broad exist even if the alleged altered state does definitions. Consistent use of terms from mbr.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca not, in the same way that séances exist even one or the other need not result in verbal if communication with the dead does not. contortions. There are two approaches to defining A central concern that Wagstaff raises is hypnosis (Kirsch et al., 2011). One is a nar- that any definition that does not include the row definition in which it hypnosis is linked notion of an altered state loses sight of the ety- * Beth Israel Deacon- to the administration of a hypnotic induc- mological origins of the term. However, there ess Medical Center, tion (Kirsch, et al., 2011) or the acceptance are many examples of scientific definitions Harvard Medical of the idea that one is in a hypnotic state that have been changed in response to em- School, 330 Brookline (Wagstaff, this issue). There is also a broader pirical and theoretical advances. According Ave, Boston, MA, approach to defining hypnosis, according to most dictionary definitions, for example, 02215 to which hypnosis is defined as a domain of gravity is a force by which bodies are drawn School of Psychology, characteristic phenomena, central to which towards each other. According to the theory Plymouth Univer- is the administration of imaginative sug- of general relativity, however, gravity is not a sity, Drake Circus, gestions (Hilgard, 1973). Imaginative sug- force. Instead, it is a byproduct the curvature Plymouth, Devon, PL4 gestions is a term coined by Braffman and of spacetime. So, should we neutralize or wa- 8AA, UK Kirsch (Braffman & Kirsch, 1999) to de- ter down the definition of gravity, or should e-mail: i.kirsch@hull. scribe the kinds of suggestions used in hyp- we respect the etymological roots of the ac.uk nosis scales, as distinct from other types of term, keep the concept of an attractive force 124 || MBR || Volume : 2 || Issue : 2 commentary The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation as central to its definition, and then conclude Responses to suggestion are measures of sug- that gravity does not exist? gestibility, not of hypnotizability. However, Here is are examples closer to home. For Wagstaff then goes on to suggest that cur- the last century, the terms mesmerism and rent “hypnotizability” scales, which measure animal magnetism have been considered suggestibility, can be used as indirect proxy synonymous with hypnosis. This can be seen measures of hypnotizability, because of their in common dictionary definitions of mes- high correlation with hypnotic depth scales. merism and in Binet and Féré’s (1888) clas- This may put us on a slippery slope, as there sic work on animal magnetism, where they is already a tendency to confuse hypnotiz- state that “magnetism and hypnotism are ability with primary or imaginative sug- fundamentally synonymous terms (p. 67).” gestibility. Furthermore, the correlation So are mesmerism and animal magnetism holds only if a hypnotic induction has been hypnosis? Only if we accept definitions used. In the absence of a hypnotic induc- that Mesmer and his followers would never tion, highly suggestible people respond well have recognized. And let us not forget that to hypnotic suggestion but rate themselves original definition of hypnosis was “nervous as not being hypnotized (Mazzoni et al., sleep” (Braid, 1843). If we were to be true 2009). More important, why should we use to our etymological origins, nervous sleep proxy measures, when valid and reliable di- would remain the definition of hypnosis, and rect measures are available? We should use we would all have to agree that hypnosis does intelligence tests rather than socio economic not exist. status to measure intelligence, and blood One of the problems in defining hypnosis alcohol levels rather than impulsiveness to is its relation to hypnotizability. If hypnosis measure intoxication. Similarly, if we adopt | EISSN 1925-1688 is defined as a hypothesized altered state (al- Wagstaff’s (this issue) proposed definition beit one with unknown or disputed charac- of hypnosis, we should use hypnotic depth teristics), then what we call hypnotizability, scales, not suggestibility scales, to measure as conventionally measured, is a misnomer hypnotizability . (Kirsch, 1997; Weitzenhoffer, 1980). Wagstaff Despite these quibbles, Wagstaff’s (this (this issue) is well aware of this, and given his issue) article is an important contribution to definition of hypnosis, he is correct in noting the ongoing discussion about definitions of that self-report hypnotic depth scales are the hypnosis and hypnotizability. His proposed most direct measures of hypnotizability. If definition is as good or better than any nar- hypnosis is the acceptance of the suggestion row definition of hypnosis that I have seen mbr.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca to enter a hypnotic state, then the experi- and should be considered seriously as a con- ence of that state is it operational definition. tender consensual adoption. References American Psychological Association, Divi- Hilgard, E. R. (1973). The domain of hyp- Mazzoni, G., Rotriquenz, E., Carvalho, C., sion of Psychological Hypnosis. (1994). nosis: With some comments on alternate Vannucci, M., Roberts, K., & Kirsch, I. Definition and description of hypnosis. paradigms. American Psychologist, 28, (2009). Suggested visual hallucinations in Contemporary Hypnosis, 11, 142–162. 972–982. and out of hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 494–499. Binet, A., & Féré, C. (1888). Animal Magne- Kirsch, I. (1997). Suggestibility or hypnosis: tism. New York, NY: Appleton. What do our scales really measure? Inter- Wagstaff, G. F. (2013). On the centrality of national Journal of Clinical and Experi- the concept of an altered state to defini- Braffman, W., & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imagina- mental Hypnosis, 45(3), 212–225. tions of hypnosis. Journal of Mind–Body tive suggestibility and hypnotizability: An Regulation, 2(2), 90–108. empirical analysis. Journal of Personality Kirsch, I., Cardeña, E., Derbyshire, S., Di- and Social Psychology, 77(3), 578–587. enes, Z., Heap, M., Kallio, S., . Whalley, Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1980). Hypnotic K. (2011). Definitions of Hypnosis and susceptibility revisited. American Journal Braid, J. (1843). Neurypnology; or, the ratio- Hypnotizability and their Relation to Sug- of Clinical Hypnosis, 22, 130–146. nale of nervous sleep, considered in relation gestion and Suggesitibility: A Consensus with animal magnetism. London, UK: Statement. Contemporary Hypnosis & John Churchill. Integrative Therapy, 28(9), 107–115. 125 || MBR || Volume : 2 || Issue : 2.

Load more