Medical hypnosis has been in existence for several years since it was discovered. Two approaches to hypnosis were proposed in the 20th century namely clinical and experimental hypnosis. Clinical hypnosis uses psychoanalytic assumptions and is based on the use of hypnosis to access individuals’ unconscious mind. Experimental hypnosis is concerned with the conceptualization of how people respond to hypnotic suggestions, or individuals’ susceptibility to hypnosis. It is considered a measurable trait and has been associated with various cognitive-emotional characteristics such as imagery, emotionality, creativity, and proneness to fantasy. Thus, hypnotizability measures a person’s ability to modify perception, behavior and memory with respect to specific suggestions administered in a hypnotic and awake state.
De Pascalis & Santarcangelo (2020) argue that hypnotizability predicts individuals’ response to suggestions minus the effects of those suggestions in the ordinary state of consciousness. These effects can also be different from those observed in the hypnotic state. Moreover, studies have also challenged the assumption that only individuals who score high on hypnotizability scales are able to accept suggestions, arguing that medium and low hypnotizable individuals can also show a positive response to suggestions.
Current studies show that the important aspect of hypnotizability is how individuals characterized as highly hypnotizable respond to suggestions. However, research findings demonstrate that it requires more than a cognitive disposition for individuals to show this trait since psychophysiological characteristics portrayed in individuals when out of hypnosis and in the absence of suggestions are also involved. It has been determined that different hypnotizability scores are dependent on specific bran morpho-functional characteristics and cognitive-emotional, sensorimotor, and cardiovascular correlates. All these elements make hypnotizability a relevant factor for individuals’ psycho-physiological identity and the way they live their everyday lives.
According to De Pascalis & Santarcangelo (2020) brain morphofunctional asymmetries can be observed in highly hypnotizable individuals in the ordinary state. However, the brain’s functional features are modified during hypnotic induction. Many questions on the relationship between the brain and hypnosis are still being asked and relevant answers have not been obtained. It has not been adequately determined whether the asymmetric morphological difference in limbic structures responsible for the highs’ higher interoceptive sensibility exists. The specific association among such factors still remains unexplored and requires further research.
Despite the existing questions, the most interesting aspect of hypnotic phenomenology is still the high’s increased ability to respond to different suggestions. This phenomenon makes it unlikely that brain morphofunctional asymmetry may play a significant role in this whole process. Studies have shown that highs portray bilateral and largely distributed mechanism of information processing involving cognitive and sensory tasks. It has also been determined that suggestions showcasing deeper relational aspects could be supported by hormonal factors. Thus, it is important to consider both neurophysiological and behavioral factors in studying the relationship between hypnosis and the brain and how such association influences individuals’ hypnotic susceptibility.
References
De Pascalis, V., & Santarcangelo, E. L. (2020). Hypnotizability-Related Asymmetries: A Review. Symmetry, 12(6), 1015.
Melvin S. Marsh is a certified hypnotherapist serving Atlanta GA, Augusta GA, Statesboro GA, and Savannah GA. He performs hypnotherapy appointments both in person (although that is on hold due to covid) and worldwide virtually. He can be reached at www.afterhourshypnotherapy.com .
