http://www.shoners3.freeserve.co.uk
©
Copyright protected
Abstract
The study of self-hypnosis by Fromm and
Khan gives some interesting insight into self- hypnosis and how it differs
from heterohypnosis. Although the first study of its kind, it does indicate
that we need to know much more. Self-hypnosis is a learned skill that can be
improved over time. However, being taught self-hypnosis in therapy is not
enough. The individual also needs guidance in utilising the trance state,
self-therapy and utilising imagery.
Self-hypnosis: Beyond the
Chicago Paradigm
Ronald Shone
I recently read with great interest
Self-hypnosis: the Chicago Paradigm by Erika Fromm and Stephen Kahn (Fromm
& Kahn, 1990) - which contains a number of chapters reprinting articles
published elsewhere, plus some new material. It was more remarkable from my
point of view because it was the first in-depth study of the subject I had
come across. There is virtually nothing on self-hypnosis in the more learned
journals, and as the authors point out, many consider the topic more or less
the same as heterohypnosis. But as their book testifies, this is not so. In
presenting their studies they draw on the diaries of the subjects they used -
although much of their formal analysis is derived from the analysis of
questionnaires.
What I present here is a comment on, a
critique of, and a condensed longitudinal study of the topic based on my own
experience. The longitudinal studies used in their analysis were based on a
mere four weeks of using self-hypnosis. My own experience comes from utilising
self-hypnosis intensively over a 25-year period. It is also based on my study
of hypnosis and my training as a hypnotherapist. I am aware that one can
always dispense with a single study on the grounds that it is not possible to
generalise from the particular. My reply to that is that a longitudinal study
over a 25-year period can, and does, give additional insight into the subject
that adds to our understanding of self-hypnosis in particular, and the
phenomenon of hypnosis in general. It has the added advantage that it not only
draws on the experience of the person engaging in self-hypnosis, but draws on
a knowledge of the subject matter which most subjects would not possess.
Heterohypnosis versus Self-hypnosis
Prior to 1970 the general belief was that
self-hypnosis and heterohypnosis were basically the same, the only difference
was who was inducing the trance state. Based on this belief, teaching
self-hypnosis is to teach the individual trance induction and deepening. Fromm
and her team came to question this.
The first consideration was the degree to
which consciousness was split in the two types of trance. In heterohypnosis
there is, besides the hypnotist, the experiencer and the part that is the
observer. In other words, the individual’s consciousness splits into two. In
the case of self-hypnosis, however, the individual must be the director (the
hypnotist) the one being directed (the experiencer) and the observer. In other
words, in self-hypnosis the individual’s consciousness splits into at least
three. In their investigations, all subjects reported more splits in
consciousness (what Fromm and Khan call “ego splits”) in self-hypnosis than in
heterohypnosis. My own experience confirms this too. However, the same ability
can be utilised in heterohypnosis, e.g. when utilising double dissociation. It
appears to me that the split occurs ‘more naturally’ in self-hypnosis but has
to be suggested in heterohypnosis.
My own view is that self-hypnosis is
easier to achieve once heterohypnosis has been achieved. The reasons for this
are: (a) knowing what to expect; (b) knowing/learning the body responses; (c)
becoming comfortable with the experience; (d) taking advantage of
post-hypnotic suggestion, and (e) removing doubts and uncertainties. My own
experience, however, of teaching self-hypnosis is that individuals can induce
and deepen a trance fairly readily, but then get stumped - often asking “what
do I do now?” This is important. The next step is no longer self-hypnosis but
more correctly self-therapy. The individual moves from being a hypnotist to
being a therapist. But not all individuals know how to be a therapist, or even
if they do, it does not mean that they will be a good therapist. Therapists go
through long periods of training. Why should a clinician assume, then, that an
individual they train in self-hypnosis will also be a good therapist? Clearly,
guidance is required in the use of suggestions, imagery, metaphors, etc.,
depending on the problem or the use to which the self-hypnosis is to be put.
Take the following example. Suppose self-hypnosis is to be used for improving
concentration and examination performance. A knowledge of learning skills is
called for - unless one believes simple direct suggestions like: “I am going
to perform magnificently” will work! Where self-hypnosis is for a specific
purpose, like pain, then the guidance can be specific, short and reasonably
comprehensive. But it should not be forgotten that what the clinician is now
instructing the client in is not self-hypnosis but self-therapy. These are
quite different things.
In carrying out their investigation the
authors raise doubt about the technique used in their pilot study: “Also, we
wondered whether a single autohypnosis session was sufficient to enable a
subject to experience and explore the really significant phenomena of
self-hypnosis.” (p.31). I find this astonishing! Would anyone say from one
session of golf or one session of tennis that an individual fully appreciated
either? No. So why should they expect it of self-hypnosis. If self-hypnosis
was innate and fixed, then this makes sense. If it is a skill that must be
learnt, then it makes little sense. Hypnosis is a skill that not only
can be learned but can be constantly improved. This was indeed found
to be the case on a further study of six volunteers.
The authors report that subjects switch
back and forth between Ego Activity and Ego Receptivity, i.e., actively
deciding to focus on something as against letting things float into their
awareness. This terminology, however, I find very value-laden. Furthermore,
the study showed that Ego Receptivity was greater in self-hypnosis than in
heterohypnosis. The problem here is disentangling what is going on. Ego
Receptivity is highly correlated with vivid imagery, and vivid imagery was
reported by the subjects to be much more prevalent in self-hypnosis than in
heterohypnosis. They go as far as saying that “Ego Receptivity and Imagery are
the most important aspects of self-hypnosis.” (p.25). One interpretation of
this, however, is the limitation of the study. The subjects had no great
purpose or focus for engaging in self-hypnosis. Quite naturally, then,
subjects would concentrate on internal states, which utilised imagery and
fantasy. In heterohypnosis part of their focus, part of their attention, would
be directed at what the hypnotist was suggesting. Even so, it does indicate an
important observation that in self-hypnosis imagery is crucial for achieving
focused concentration, which is essential for the trance state.
Trance is a skill
Going into trance, deepening the trance,
maintaining the trance and utilising the trance state are all skills. In
heterohypnosis the hypnotist acts like a coach. They give instruction,
encouragement and facilitate the trance process. In self-hypnosis the
individual also takes on board the tasks performed by the coach. I can learn
tennis by reading instructions and playing with others who know the game. I
can join a club and be instructed by a coach on how best to play the game. The
second route is more likely to lead me to play better. In either case, I am
still the one who learns to play, and the standard I reach depends on a
mixture of innate ability, practise and taking advantage of what the coach
instructs me to do. Over time my skill improves, usually with many
ups-and-downs. Now I could go to a club and play once a day for four weeks. My
skill would improve, but I very much doubt that I would be a proficient player
of tennis in such a time-period. Why, then, should researches expect so much
from individuals engaging in self-hypnosis for an equally short period of
time?
My comments should not be construed as
saying we learn nothing from the present study, far from it. What it does
imply is that we need to go beyond it. The study is an important one because
it is the first of its kind. What, then do we learn from it? First, and as to
be expected from any learned skill, it became easier over time. Certain
aspects of the induction and deepening became automatic (almost like changing
a gear). Once they had become automatic, the subjects could concentrate on the
utilisation of the trance state itself. Furthermore, as time went on subjects
found it easier to concentrate. As in meditation, this is a learned
experience. Consciousness varies, and even more when in a relaxed state. In
self-hypnosis the individual has to learn to keep focused. As the trance
deepens this becomes more difficult. What needs to be emphasised, however, is
that if concentration wavers, then don’t worry. Bring the thoughts back to
what was being focused on before this happened.
As a corollary to this, the authors make
an interesting observation on p.36. When engaging in self-hypnosis you can
always give yourself enough time to carry out some suggestion. In
heterohypnosis the client has often created an image while the therapist is
trying to describe it. Furthermore, the image can often be at variance to what
the therapist is describing, especially if it is quite explicit. In
self-hypnosis this simply does not happen. The individual knows exactly what
is wanted and creates it and knows when he or she has created it. For this
reason I have found it necessary in heterohypnosis to utilise ideometer
responses - “Nod your head when you have done such-and-such”. On one occasion
when utilising a computer re-programming metaphor (basically achieving
reframing), the subject took 10 minutes! He was, however, very actively
engaged in debugging his programme throughout it all, as he informed me later.
Another feature discovered in the study
was the loss of motivation to continue with self-hypnosis. But this is a
common feature in all learning experiences. Sustaining motivation requires a
high input of energy and a desire to achieve some goal. The only real goals of
the volunteers were a curiosity and a desire for self-exploration. The lesson
to be learned from this is that the individual must have a good reason for
pursuing self-hypnosis. Pain is one of the greatest motivators. What
individuals seem to want were new skills and knew areas to explore. Without
these, boredom sets in. There needs to be a reason to utilise self-hypnosis,
even if it is only for relaxation or the control of tension. The difficulty is
that we often do not know the value of a new skill, nor do we know the many
uses to which it can be put - neither of which can be achieved in four weeks.
Only be acquiring this additional knowledge can a person engaging in
self-hypnosis gain fully from it.
Over the many years of engaging in
self-hypnosis I have found that my skills have changed and developed as I have
become more knowledgeable about the subject. In the early period I tried, like
the subjects in this study, simple exercises and simple explorations. Like
them, I used it for problem solving and for self-exploration. Like them I
became bored. What I discovered very early on was my limited acquaintance with
imagery and image formation. Correcting this led to my book on Creative
Visualization (Shone, 1984). In the study it was reported that individuals
had greater and more vivid imagery. But as a hypnotherapist I have found
individuals need some guidance on image formation and the utilisation of
imagery. As an example see my earlier paper on Hypnosis and ME, (Shone, 1997).
I will have more to say on imagery later.
The journal reports of the subjects
indicate that they explored the trance phenomena by giving themselves tasks to
do and establishing which were easy and which not. But the trance state is a
dynamic process. On some occasions a task may be easy while on other occasions
the same task may be difficult or simply not done. The longitudinal studies do
not indicate sufficiently that even entering trance can vary across states;
and that the quality of the trance state can vary. The authors do speculate
that the depth of trance fluctuated much more during self-hypnosis than
heterohypnosis and that this could be because of changes in arousal levels
throughout the day. My experience is just so.
Ultradian rhythms and self-hypnosis
In this study subjects were not
instructed to enter self-hypnosis at the same time of the day or to take note
of the time. Consequently, nothing could be gleaned from these studies
concerning changes in arousal levels and its impact on the trance state. Over
many years I have frequently entered self-hypnosis in the morning and again
after returning from work. The morning session immediately on awakening was
not found to be effective. However, after breakfast and before going to work
it was very effective. In fact, this would be around the first ultradium
rhythm of the day (see Rossi, 1991; Rossi, Lippincott & Bessette, 1994 and
1995). The one on returning home after work often overlapped another. But
interestingly, the two differed in quality and purpose. In terms of the
authors’ distinctions, the morning session was Ego Active while the afternoon
session was Ego Receptive. Very rarely was it the other way round.
It is now becoming documented that
hemispherical dominance switches throughout the day. One manifestation of this
is the dominant nostril in breathing! The 90-to 120-minute of the rest-active
cycle, the ultradian rhythm, leads to much more vivid imagery during the rest
phase of the cycle when self-hypnosis or heterohypnosis is engaged in. It is
also possible that during the rest phase individuals are likely to loose
consciousness more readily during heterohypnosis. If, as Rossi maintains, it
is possible to tune oneself into the rest phase of the ultradium rhythm, then
entering self-hypnosis during these periods, even for short periods of time,
could be more beneficial than at other times, in which longer periods of
self-hypnosis are undertaken. Or it may be that during the rest phase of the
cycle Ego Receptivity is more prevalent and during the active phase more Ego
Activity is prevalent. Far more research needs to be undertaken on
hemispherical dominance and the ultradian rhythm and its relationship to the
trance state
Imagery and self-hypnosis
A constantly reported feature of the
subjects’ experiences was the greater use of imagery in self-hypnosis - the
imagery being idiosyncratic, very rich and very vivid. Quantitatively, about
three-quarters of the subjects reported a greater and more vivid imagery in
self-hypnosis than in heterohypnosis. It also appeared that geometric shapes
were more frequent in self-hypnosis. The report also indicated that levels of
imagery production remained virtually the same over the four-week period. With
regard to this last point, four weeks is simply not long enough to learn the
skill of utilising imagery.
Images can be realistic or they can be
unrealistic, they can metaphorical or symbolic, they can be empowering or not.
Creative imagery is a skill. There is a basic and natural level of imagery
that everyone can utilise. But to go beyond this requires some understanding
of imagery formation and imagery utilisation. Hypnotherapists are well
acquainted with basic imagery. I can say to a client relax or I can ask them
to imagine that they are on a beach, lying in the warm sun just having had a
swim... But as the subjects indicated, they can become bored. Images need to
be varied, even when wanting to illicit the same response. This is as true in
self-hypnosis as it is in heterohypnosis.
Good imagery utilises the subject’s own
experiences. In heterohypnosis these experiences must be obtained either by
direct questioning or by simply listening to the client. In self-hypnosis the
individual knows what interests them, knows the type of fantasies that they
like and can relate to. But even here, exploring new images can still be
achieved and perfected. However, unless imagery is to be developed simply for
its own sake, it needs to be directed at some purpose. There needs to be a
goal or reason for the imagery in the first place. Consider the simple example
of someone worried about examinations. The hypnotherapist can do a whole
variety of procedures to help: direct suggestion, going through the
examination in the mind’s eye, being given post-hypnotic suggestions about
what they should do when they first go into the examination room and sit down,
etc. But suppose you know that they are a great fan of Star Trek. In the case
of self-hypnosis you would know this without having to illicit it. The point
is, that with this knowledge it is possible to construct a very elaborate
image that has the individual on the spaceship Enterprise, heading for a
planet on which examinations are undertaken. On board, however, they go
through all sorts of procedures to enhance their abilities and allow them to
achieve their full potential. Such imagery can be as simple or elaborate as
the individual needs. The point is that in self-hypnosis, the images can be as
elaborate as the individual wants, and can be pursued for as long as the
individual wants. But having said this, images of this type need to be
practised. The self-hypnotist has to become proficient at creating images
easily and quickly. I do not believe that imagery is a constant innate
characteristic. Once this is accepted, then the logic is that imagery can be
improved and utilised far more efficiently. One simple way forward is to learn
a stock of images, try them and adapt them for your own purpose (see Denning &
Phillips, 1993; Epstein, 1989; Fanning, 1988; Page, J.L., 1990, Page, M, 1990;
Shone, 1984; Stanton, 1985; Wells, 1990). Like fairy stories, there are good
fairy stories and there are ones not so good. Equally, there are good images
and there are images that are not so good. But an image that is good for one
person may not be for another. The Star Trek image is good for someone who
likes Star Trek and is comfortable with science fiction, but for others a
different image is called for.
In heterohypnosis it is the therapist who
has to become proficient in the use of imagery. In the case of self-hypnosis,
it is the individual himself or herself. Once again, then, we return to the
point that individuals require guidance in the use of imagery if they are to
take full advantage of it.
Conclusion
When teaching self-hypnosis to a client
it is important to realise that a number of skills are required:
i)
entering, deepening and maintaining the trance state
ii)
utilising the trance state
iii)
self-therapy
iv)
utilising imagery
The first is often all that a client is
given guidance in. But this is the easiest and (probably) the least important
of the list - so long as the individual can enter self-hypnosis. Once the
skill of entering and deepening self-hypnosis is achieved, which is not at all
difficult for most people, then the real difficulty is utilising the trance
state; knowing exactly how to engage in self-therapy and how to utilise
imagery to its full advantage.
References
Denning, M. and
Phillips, O. (1983) The LLewellyn Practical Guide to Creative
Visualization, 2 edn. LLewellyn Publications.
Epstein, G. (1989)
Healing Visualizations, Bantam Books.
Fanning, P. (1988)
Visualization for Change , New harbinger Publications, Inc.
Fromm, E. and Kahn, S.
(1990) Self-hypnosis. The Chicago Paradigm, New York: The Guildford
Press.
Page, J.L. (1990)
Applied Visualisation, Quantum.
Page, M. (1990)
Visualization, The Aquarian Press.
Rossi, E.L. (1991)
The 20-Minute Break, Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Rossi, E.L., Lippincott,
B.M. and Bessette, A. (1994) Ultradian Dynamics in Hypnotherapy - Part One.
European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 2, No.1, 10-20.
Rossi, E.L., Lippincott,
B.M. and Bessette, A. (1995) Ultradian Dynamics in Hypnotherapy (Part 2).
European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 2, No.2, 6-14.
Shone, R. (1984)
Creative Visualization, Wellingborough: Thorsons Publishers Limited.
Shone, R. (1997)
Hypnosis and M.E. European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 4, No.1,
35-39.
Stanton, H.E. (1985)
The Fantasy Factor, Optima.
Wells, V. (1990) The
Joy of Visualization, Chronicle Books.
To link directly to this article use this
link:
http://www.hypnotherapyarticles.com/ArtP/articlep00003.htm
Ronald
Shone
©
Copyright protected
http://www.shoners3.freeserve.co.uk
Be
confident, more relaxed and in control. Be successful in
love, work and so much more! 
