This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University] On: 20 January 2015, At: 22:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Letter to the Editor Peter A. McCue Published online: 21 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Peter A. McCue (1990) Letter to the Editor, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32:4, 294-295, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1990.10402837 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1990.10402837
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
VOLUME 32, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1990
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 22:16 20 January 2015
Letter to the Editor
In a recent editorial in this journal (Mott, 1989), the following statements appear, without any acknowledgment that they are controversial: Any complete definition of hypnosis must take into consideration three important elements of the phenomenon: the hypnotic relationship, the hypnotic state, and hypnotic suggestion. The usefulness of our present testing of hypnotizability is primarily in determining the capacity of the patient to experience the hypnotic state. (p. 2) ... knowing how a person scores on a test of hypnotizability permits us to estimate the probability that they will experience some degree of the hypnotic state in the clinical setting. (p. 2) These statements are controversial because they take for granted the traditional notion that a special state (hypnosis, hypnotic state, or "hypnotic trance") plays a role when subjects are exposed to induction procedures and respond positively to suggestions. Not all researchers and clinicians adhere to a "state" interpretation of hypnosis, and a considerable body of research challenges the view that a special state of consciousness (the "hypnotic state") is a necessary construct in explaining the behavior of "good" hypnotic subjects (see, for example, Barber, 1979; Wagstaff, 1981). If a subject performed well on an intelligence test, one would not tend to assume that he had temporarily entered an "intelligence state" or "intelligence
trance" which somehow facilitated problem-solving. Equally, in the absence of independent evidence of a special state of consciousness, it would be unparsimonious to invoke the notion of a "hypnotic state" simply because a subject had responded positively to a series of test suggestions. If a subject scores highly on a hypnotic susceptibility test, there are various possibilities. First, he might have scored highly even if there had been no induction procedure. Second, the induction procedure might have facilitated his responsiveness to suggestions, but not through the induction of a special state. (For example, simple relaxation and freedom from distraction might have played a role.) Third, the subject might have actually entered a special state which somehow enhanced responsiveness to suggestions. Clearly, the special state notion, which is adopted uncritically by many writers, is not the only way of explaining the observable phenomena. Indeed, it is questionable whether vague notions such as "hypnotic state" or "trance" have much explanatory power at all. To say that a subject experienced stiffness in his arm when it was suggested because he was in a "hypnotic trance" does not really shed light on the underlying mechanisms. Hence the notion of a "trance" or "hypnotic state" could be seen as a pseudo-explanation, and there is, of course, a risk of sterile circular reasoning in which a sub-
294
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 22:16 20 January 2015
LEITER TO TIlE EDITOR
ject is assumed to be in a hypnotic state because he responds to suggestions and his responding to suggestions is attributed to his being in a hypnotic state. Hypnotic state therorists have, of course, tried to find independent markers of the supposed "trance state," but little or no convincing evidence is available. For example, socalled trance logic is not confined to supposedly hypnotized subjects (c.f., Sheehan, 1977), and contrary to the assertions of the late Milton Erickson, hypnotic subjects do not typically respond to questions and requests in a peculiarly literal manner (McCue & McCue, 1988). References Barber, T. X. (1979). Suggested ("hypnotic") behavior: The trance paradigm versus an alternative paradigm. In E. Fromm and R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Devel-
295
opments in research and new perspectives, pp. 217-271. New York: Aldine. McCue, P. A. & McCue, E. C. (1988). Literalness: An unsuggested (spontaneous) item of hypnotic behavior? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 192-197. Mott, T. (1989). Editorial: Hypnotizability testing and clinical hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32, 2-3. Sheehan, P. W. (1977). Incongruity in trance behavior: A defining property of hypnosis? In W. E. Edmonston (Ed.), Conceptual and investigative approaches to hypnosis and hypnoticphenomena. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences, 296, 194-207. Wagstaff, G. F. (1981). Hypnosis, compliance, and belief Brighton, Sussex, England: Harvester Press. Peter A. McCue I The Green, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle, Cheshire SK8 6JB, England
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Letter to the Editor Peter A. McCue Published online: 21 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Peter A. McCue (1990) Letter to the Editor, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32:4, 294-295, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1990.10402837 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1990.10402837
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
VOLUME 32, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1990
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 22:16 20 January 2015
Letter to the Editor
In a recent editorial in this journal (Mott, 1989), the following statements appear, without any acknowledgment that they are controversial: Any complete definition of hypnosis must take into consideration three important elements of the phenomenon: the hypnotic relationship, the hypnotic state, and hypnotic suggestion. The usefulness of our present testing of hypnotizability is primarily in determining the capacity of the patient to experience the hypnotic state. (p. 2) ... knowing how a person scores on a test of hypnotizability permits us to estimate the probability that they will experience some degree of the hypnotic state in the clinical setting. (p. 2) These statements are controversial because they take for granted the traditional notion that a special state (hypnosis, hypnotic state, or "hypnotic trance") plays a role when subjects are exposed to induction procedures and respond positively to suggestions. Not all researchers and clinicians adhere to a "state" interpretation of hypnosis, and a considerable body of research challenges the view that a special state of consciousness (the "hypnotic state") is a necessary construct in explaining the behavior of "good" hypnotic subjects (see, for example, Barber, 1979; Wagstaff, 1981). If a subject performed well on an intelligence test, one would not tend to assume that he had temporarily entered an "intelligence state" or "intelligence
trance" which somehow facilitated problem-solving. Equally, in the absence of independent evidence of a special state of consciousness, it would be unparsimonious to invoke the notion of a "hypnotic state" simply because a subject had responded positively to a series of test suggestions. If a subject scores highly on a hypnotic susceptibility test, there are various possibilities. First, he might have scored highly even if there had been no induction procedure. Second, the induction procedure might have facilitated his responsiveness to suggestions, but not through the induction of a special state. (For example, simple relaxation and freedom from distraction might have played a role.) Third, the subject might have actually entered a special state which somehow enhanced responsiveness to suggestions. Clearly, the special state notion, which is adopted uncritically by many writers, is not the only way of explaining the observable phenomena. Indeed, it is questionable whether vague notions such as "hypnotic state" or "trance" have much explanatory power at all. To say that a subject experienced stiffness in his arm when it was suggested because he was in a "hypnotic trance" does not really shed light on the underlying mechanisms. Hence the notion of a "trance" or "hypnotic state" could be seen as a pseudo-explanation, and there is, of course, a risk of sterile circular reasoning in which a sub-
294
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 22:16 20 January 2015
LEITER TO TIlE EDITOR
ject is assumed to be in a hypnotic state because he responds to suggestions and his responding to suggestions is attributed to his being in a hypnotic state. Hypnotic state therorists have, of course, tried to find independent markers of the supposed "trance state," but little or no convincing evidence is available. For example, socalled trance logic is not confined to supposedly hypnotized subjects (c.f., Sheehan, 1977), and contrary to the assertions of the late Milton Erickson, hypnotic subjects do not typically respond to questions and requests in a peculiarly literal manner (McCue & McCue, 1988). References Barber, T. X. (1979). Suggested ("hypnotic") behavior: The trance paradigm versus an alternative paradigm. In E. Fromm and R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Devel-
295
opments in research and new perspectives, pp. 217-271. New York: Aldine. McCue, P. A. & McCue, E. C. (1988). Literalness: An unsuggested (spontaneous) item of hypnotic behavior? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 192-197. Mott, T. (1989). Editorial: Hypnotizability testing and clinical hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32, 2-3. Sheehan, P. W. (1977). Incongruity in trance behavior: A defining property of hypnosis? In W. E. Edmonston (Ed.), Conceptual and investigative approaches to hypnosis and hypnoticphenomena. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences, 296, 194-207. Wagstaff, G. F. (1981). Hypnosis, compliance, and belief Brighton, Sussex, England: Harvester Press. Peter A. McCue I The Green, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle, Cheshire SK8 6JB, England
