Fear of hypnosis: the role of labeling in patients' acceptance of behavioral interventions

Hendler, Cobie S.; Redd, William H.

doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(86)80109-5

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gender and ethnicity can also affect hypnosis efficacy. Last but not least the labeling of the interventions can influence the response of the patient (Hendler & Redd, 1986). The impact of levels of hypnotizability (E. R. Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975;Lang, Joyce, Spiegel, Hamilton, & Lee, 1996;Patterson & Jensen, 2003;Richardson et al, 2006) and the dose-response effect of audiotape practice (Laidlaw & Willett, 2002;Liossi & Hatira, 2003;Patterson & Jensen, 2003) on hypnosis efficacy, however, are more controversial but should be assessed in a high-quality RCT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnosis Before Diagnostic or Therapeutic Medical Procedures:A Systematic Review

Cheseaux

Lager

Walder

2014

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to estimate the efficiency of hypnosis prior to medical procedures. Different databases were analyzed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hypnosis to control interventions. All RCTs had to report pain or anxiety. Eighteen RCTs with a total of 968 patients were included; study size was from 20 to 200 patients (14 RCTs ≤ 60 patients). Fourteen RCTs included 830 adults and 4 RCTs included 138 children. Twelve of 18 RCTs had major quality limitations related to unclear allocation concealments, provider's experience in hypnosis, patient's adherence to hypnotic procedures, and intention-to-treat design. This systematic review observed major methodological limitations in RCTs on hypnosis prior to medical procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnosis Before Diagnostic or Therapeutic Medical Procedures:A Systematic Review

Cheseaux

Lager

Walder

2014

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Hendler and Redd (1986) recently found that cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy had significantly more negative attitudes toward hypnosis than did college students. Moreover, patients were significantly more likely to refuse a psychological intervention for nausea control when the intervention was labeled as "hypnosis" as opposed to "relaxation."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Measure of Attitudes toward Hypnosis: Relationships with Absorption and Hypnotic Susceptibility

Spaños

Brett

Menary

et al. 1987

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hypnosis was labeled ‘imagery’ to prevent for a selection bias, as some people could have been attracted to or frightened by supposed mystical aspects of the technique. Further, people are less likely to state that they would try hypnosis, even when descriptions of the proposed techniques are identical (Hendler and Redd, 1986). In addition, Sarbin and Coe (1972) and Barber (1972) have found that psychosociological factors, such as expectations and beliefs in the technique, are able to influence a person's response to suggestions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing osteoarthritis pain: a comparison of Erickson hypnosis and Jacobson relaxation

Philippot

Luminet

2002

European Journal of Pain

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates the effectiveness of Erikson hypnosis and Jacobson relaxation for the reduction of osteoarthritis pain. Participants reporting pain from hip or knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: (a) hypnosis (i.e. standardized eight-session hypnosis treatment); (b) relaxation (i.e. standardized eight sessions of Jacobson's relaxation treatment); (c) control (i.e. waiting list). Overall, results show that the two experimental groups had a lower level of subjective pain than the control group and that the level of subjective pain decreased with time. An interaction effect between group treatment and time measurement was also observed in which beneficial effects of treatment appeared more rapidly for the hypnosis group. Results also show that hypnosis and relaxation are effective in reducing the amount of analgesic medication taken by participants. Finally, the present results suggest that individual differences in imagery moderate the effect of the psychological treatment at the 6 month follow-up but not at previous times of measurement (i.e. after 4 weeks of treatment, after 8 weeks of treatment and at the 3 month follow-up). The results are interpreted in terms of psychological processes underlying hypnosis, and their implications for the psychological treatment of pain are discussed.

show abstract

Fear of hypnosis: the role of labeling in patients' acceptance of behavioral interventions

Cited by 29 publications

References 30 publications

Hypnosis Before Diagnostic or Therapeutic Medical Procedures:A Systematic Review

Hypnosis Before Diagnostic or Therapeutic Medical Procedures:A Systematic Review

A Measure of Attitudes toward Hypnosis: Relationships with Absorption and Hypnotic Susceptibility

Differential effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing osteoarthritis pain: a comparison of Erickson hypnosis and Jacobson relaxation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About