Today, despite the growing research by cognitive-behavioral hypnotic theorists, state theorists still support their theoretical perspectives (Conn, 1957). Regardless with which camp theorists identify, a hypnotic experience has the potential to increase access to vivid imagery, increase awareness of bodily sensation, and increase the possibility for cognitive alteration (Dengrove, 1973). However, the assumptions made by the cognitive-behavioral historical shift and subsequent implications have profound effects for the understanding of the hypnotized patient and the implications for hypnotic application.
The historical conception of hypnosis as a complex configuration of variables is a major contribution to the field of clinical hypnosis. From a cognitive-behavioral perspective, recognizing the importance of such cognitive-motivational variables such as expectancy and volition in hypnotic behavior can enhance clinical practice of hypnosis. The history of this perspective has revealed that the interactional framework of the hypnotic relationship will strongly effect the outcome of hypnotherapy (Hart & Hart, 1997).
Historical implications for specific hypnotic phenomena provided by the historical shift of the cognitive-behavioral perspective are important with respect to the patient’s attitudes and expectations. In other words, when using hypnotic techniques, the cognitive-behavioral perspective cautions that patient’s misconceptions about hypnosis, negative attitudes, lack of motivation to change, or situational variables that interfere with a patient’s attention might all effect the hypnotic experience and its subsequent effectiveness (Hart & Hart, 1997).
Another implication of the cognitive-behavioral shift and its ramifications are in the threat of hypnotic non-compliance. Throughout the historical shift, the cognitive-behavioral perspective contends that the interactional framework and social context within a hypnotic experience occurs is remarkably significant. Again, this understanding places much emphasis upon the attitude of the hypnotic patient. Thus, negative expectancies about hypnosis or a failure to understand that responsiveness to suggestions involves active involvement (not passive responsivity) might obstruct the use of hypnosis from a cognitive-behavioral approach (Dengrove, 1973).
Considering the aforementioned factors that have been provided by the historical implications of the cognitive-behavioral split is essential for a successful hypnotic experience.
Arnold, M.B. (1946). On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 107-128.
Banyai, E.I. (1998). The interactive nature of hypnosis: Research evidence for a social-psychobiological model. Contemporary Hypnosis, 15, 52-53.
Banyai, E.I. & Hilgard, E.R. (1976). A comparison of active- alert hypnotic induction with traditional relaxation induction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 218- 224.
Barber, T.X. (1969). Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold.
Bernheim, H. (1900). Suggestive therapeutics. New York: Putnam.
Coe, W.C. (1989). Hypnosis: The role of social political factors in a paradigm clash. In N.P. Spanos & J.F. Chaves (Eds.), Hypnosis: The cognitive-behavioral perspective (pp. 418-436). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Conn, J.H. (1957). Historical perspective of scientific hypnosis. Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 5, 17-24.
Dengrove, E. (1973). The uses of hypnosis in behavior therapy. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 21(1), 13-17.
Ellenberger, H. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.
Erickson, M.H. & Erickson, E. (1944). Concerning the nature and character of post-hypnotic behavior. Journal of General Psychology, 24, 95-133.
Gorassini, D.R. (1987). Use of concurrent verbalization to assess the dissociation of conscious controls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(3), 218-222.
Hart, C. & Hart, B. (1997). The use of hypnosis with children and adolescents. Australian Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 25(2), 118-126.
Hull, C.L. (1933). Hypnosis and suggestibility: An experimental approach. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
Janet, P. (1925). Psychological healing. New York: Crowell- Collier & Macmillan.
Lynn, S.J., Rhue, J.W., Weekes, J.R. (1989). Hypnosis and experienced nonvolition: A sociocognitive integrative model. In N.P. Spanos & J.F. Chaves (Eds.), Hypnosis: The cognitive-behavioral perspective (pp. 78-109). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Ross, P.J. (1981). Hypnosis as a counseling tool. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 9, 173-179.
Sarbin, T.R. (1962). Attempts to understand hypnotic phenomena. In L. Postman (Ed.), Psychology in the making (pp. 745-785). New York: Knopf.
Spanos, N.P. & Chaves, J.F. (1989). Hypnosis: The cognitive- behavioral perspective. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Spanos, N.P. & Chaves, J.F. (1991). History and historiography of hypnosis. In S.J. Lynn & J.W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 43-78). New York: The Guilford Press.
Spanos, N.P. & Gottleib, J. (1979). Demonic possession, mesmerism, and hysteria: A social psychological perspective on their historical interrelations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 527-546.
Spanos, N.P., Menary, E., Gabora, N.J., DuBreuil, S.C., & Dewherst, B. (1991). Secondary identity enactments during hypnotic past-life regression: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 308-320.
Wagstaff, G.F. (1981). Hypnosis, compliance, and belief. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Wagstaff, G.F. (1998). The semantics and physiology of hypnosis as an altered state: Towards a definition of hypnosis. Contemporary Hypnosis, 15(3), 149-165.
White, R.W. (1941). An analysis of motivation in hypnosis. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 4, 83- 91.