The systematic study of negative post‐hypnotic effects: research hypnosis, clinical hypnosis and stage hypnosis

Abstract

This commentary on a paper by Wagstaff (2000) focuses on the need to systematically study the nature, frequency and determinants of negative post-hypnotic reactions across diverse contexts (for example, hypnosis in research, clinical hypnosis and stage hypnosis), and highlights data collected in our laboratory with well-validated measures of positive and negative post-hypnotic experiences. The findings reviewed challenge the idea that hypnosis evokes more negative experiences than many other activities. The paper concludes with a discussion of issues and research questions pertinent to understanding not only negative post-hypnotic reactions but also the differences between hypnosis in research, clinical hypnosis and stage hypnosis.In his paper entitled 'Can hypnosis cause madness?' Wagstaff forcefully disputes the claim that a person with no history of mental illness can develop schizophrenia following stage hypnosis. The impetus for Wagstaff's consideration of this question was a High Court case in which the judge ruled against the plaintiff, who claimed that he developed schizophrenia after he was coaxed or persuaded against his will to volunteer to participate in a stage hypnosis show and was then placed in a trance and made to 'perform humiliating and embarrassing activities of which he was not fully conscious, and which he would have resisted had he not been in this deep trance state' (p. 97).We are in complete agreement with Wagstaff's cogent argument that there is no merit to the prosecution's claim that hypnosis can evoke a psychotic-like state with neurological underpinnings similar to schizophrenia, and that hypnosis can, therefore, unmask schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals. However, as Wagstaff observes, the case does raise important issues about the status and dangers of stage hypnosis, as well as the dangers of hypnosis in general, which, we believe, merit more extended discussion in the commentary that follows.We concur with Wagstaff that the proportion of individuals who experience serious sequelae of stage hypnosis is probably small. Yet it is also the case that negative after-effects have been reported by individuals who have undergone hypnosis in research, clinical hypnosis and stage hypnosis. To be more specific, a minority (8-49%) of individuals report mostly transient negative post-hypnotic experiences (for example, headaches, dizziness, nausea, stiff necks) in contrast with a much larger percentage (62-85%) of individuals who report positive experiences including relaxation (see Lynn, Martin and Frauman, 1996).Our commentary will focus on the need to systematically study the nature, frequency and determinants of negative post-hypnotic reactions across diverse contexts (hypnosis in research, clinical hypnosis and stage hypnosis), and will highlight data we have secured (some of it not reported elsewhere) with well-validated measures of positive and negative post-hypnotic experiences that have some bearing on the case at hand.

Hypnosis and madness: identifying the issues

“…Ultimately, this is an empirical issue; and here the commentary by Lynn, Myer and Mackillop (2000) comes in. Ultimately, this is an empirical issue; and here the commentary by Lynn, Myer and Mackillop (2000) comes in.…”

Producing Altered States of Consciousness, Reducing Substance Misuse: A Review of Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy, Transcendental Meditation and Hypnotherapy

“…Of note, the commonly hypothesized link between hypnotic depth and therapeutic effects has not been established, e.g., in [52,62,63]. Also, participant experiences often appear indistinguishable from those undergoing relaxation interventions [66], and when identical interventions are labelled as either relaxation or hypnosis, reports of suggestibility and involuntariness increase more in the latter [67], suggesting that outcomes may in part depend on expectancy effects or demand characteristics. These limitations suggest that where substance misuse benefits have been reported in a minority of studies, these may be accounted for by factors like suggestibility or therapeutic alliance, rather than the hypnotic state.…”

Promoting Safety in Hypnosis: A Clinical Instrument for the Assessment of Alertness

“…The adverse effects most extensively discussed in the literature in clinical practice include the emergence of strong affect (primarily anxiety); the encountering of unanticipated repressed/dissociated material (and/or spontaneous or uncontrollable abreactions); the discovery of problematic ego states; the onset of acute psychophysiological or somatoform symptoms (e.g., headaches, non-epileptic seizures); the onset of acute psychiatric decompensation (usually psychotic in nature); and difficulties with dehypnosis/realerting. These occurrences have been attributed to a number of factors (Gruzelier, 2000;Kluft, 2012aKluft, , 2012bKluft, , 2012cKluft, , 2012dLynn, Myer, & Mackillop, 2000;MacHovec, 1986;Page & Handley, 1990;1993). These include subject factors, such as hypnotizability, underlying psychopathology, and idiosyncratic understandings of the experiences of hypnosis.…”