The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
Volume 45, Number 2 - April 1997 - English
Relateralizing hypnosis: Or, have we been barking up the wrong hemisphere?
Jasiukaitis,-Paul; Nouriani,-Bita; Hugdahl,-Kenneth; Spiegel,-David
Research and theory over the past couple decades have suggested that the right cerebral hemisphere might be the focus of brain activity during hypnosis. Recent evidence from electrodermal responding, visual event-related potentials, and Stroop interference, however, can make a case for a role of the left hemisphere in some hypnotic phenomena. A left-hemisphere theory of hypnosis is discussed in light of recent findings and theories about a left-hemisphere basis for synthetic or generational capabilities (M. C. Corballis, 1991) and a neuro-evolutionary model of a left-hemisphere dopaminergic activation system for the implementation of predetermined motor programs (D. M. Tucker and P. A. Williamson, 1984).
The experience of effortlessness in hypnosis: Perceived or real?
Hypnotized Ss who successfully respond to a suggestion typically report that the response requires little or no cognitive effort. The authors note that it is important to distinguish between whether this effect occurs in actual effort or is only perceived. In addition, the authors distinguish between cognitive effort expended to initiate a response and that required to maintain it. The authors examine the different predictions of 4 theories (compliance theory, sociocognitive theory, dissociated experience theory, and dissociated control theory) regarding both of these distinctions. Experimental evidence bearing on the various predictions is examined. Additionally, the authors propose a number of design modifications that may help sort out the variables contributing to the effortlessness of the hypnotic response.
Hypnotic susceptibility: A personal and historical note regarding the development and naming of the Stanford Scales.
Addresses allegations that have been made by others regarding the conception of the Stanford scales. No special meaning was intended when the scales were designated susceptibility scales. A retrospective examination, however, indicates that grounds existed for making certain differentiations. The possibility of using suggestibility to assess hypnotic responsiveness in dissimilar contexts may have been partially responsible for the confusing variety of labels that have been attached to what in the past has appeared to many to be one and the same thing. Further confusion has been introduced by researchers and clinicians who have used the term depth, previously and conventionally attached to assessments based on observed overt responses, in reference to now certain subjectively based assessments.
The integration of clinical and experimental work.
The work and the professional relationships of clinicians who use hypnosis and their research counterparts always contain a certain degree of tension. This is especially true when one group or the other claims to have a purchase on truth. A review of the strengths and limitations of each subspecialty is provided along with an understanding of some of the differences between the clinical and experimental perspectives. The author raises a number of points with the hope that this article will promote discussion among those who are engaged in clinical and experimental work and those few who are active in both. Several suggestions for integration and collaboration are offered for consideration by both groups.
Preoperataive hypnotic techniques reduce consumption of analgesics after surgical removal of third mandibular molars: A brief communication.
Evaluated the effects of preoperative hypnotic techniques (HTs) used by patients planned for surgical removal of third mandibular molars. The aim of the study was to examine whether preoperative HTs can reduce preoperative stress and improve healing and rehabilitation. Ss were randomly assigned to an HT (n = 33) or a no-HT (n = 36) group. During the week before the surgery, the HT group listened to an audiotape containing a hypnotic relaxation induction. Posthypnotic suggestions of healing and recovery were given on the tape together with advice regarding ways to achieve control over stress and pain. Only 1 surgeon who was not aware of S group assignments performed all the operations. Anxiety before the operation increased significantly in the no-HT group but remained at baseline level in the HT group. Postoperative consumption of analgesics was significantly reduced in the HT group compared with the no-HT group.