Hypnosis and Behavior Therapy a Review

This article was downloaded by: [86.154.205.49]On: 03 February 2013, At: 05:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalHypnosisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20

Hypnosis and behavior therapy: A reviewPhilip Spinhoven aa University of Leiden, Leiden, NetherlandsVersion of record first published: 31 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Philip Spinhoven (1987): Hypnosis and behavior therapy: A review, International Journal ofClinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 35:1, 8-31

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148708416033

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drugdoses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for anyloss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148708416033

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The International journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 1987, Vol. XXXV, No. 1, 8-31

HYPNOSIS AND BEHAVIOR THERAPY: A REVIEW

PHILIP SPINHOVEN’.’

University of Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands

Abstract: Hypnosis is widely used as an adjunct to behavior therapy. Hypnosis can be defined both as an antecedent variable (the hypnotic context and suggestions given) and as a subject variable (the capacity to experience profound subjective changes). A factor common to hypnosis and imagination-based behavior therapies is the use of relaxation and imagination processes. Empirical studies of hypnosis and behavior therapy are reviewed. It is concluded that hypnosis as an adjunct primarily influences common therapy factors such as expectancy of success and treatment credibility. A more specific effect of hypnosis in behavior therapy still needs to be demonstrated. It is suggested that a fruitful combination of hypnosis and behavior therapy requires a therapeutic approach in which voluntary control is less prominent and suggestions for involuntary hypnotic experiences are given.

One finds many clinical studies in the literature which report the successful application of a combination of hypnotherapy and behavioral techniques. In this context, hypnosis is described as a valuable adjunct to certain behavior therapy procedures. This article presents an analysis of some concepts and empirical findings in this field of research. The concept of hypnosis and hypnotherapy are briefly discussed, and the role of principles of learning in diverse imagination-based behavioral procedures is critically reviewed. Commonalities and differences between hypnotherapy and cognitive behavior therapy are analyzed at a process level. This is followed by a review of available controlled outcome studies of hypnotherapy and behavior therapy. Finally, some general issues concerning the use of hypnosis in a behavior therapy context are raised. Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy

The term “hypnotherapy” signifies such a wide array of theoretical formulations and practical techniques that the word has almost lost its descriptive value (Katz, 1980; Wadden & Anderton, 1982). Experimen- tally, hypnosis can be defined in two different ways: as an antecedent variable and as a subject variable. When hypnosis is an antecedent variable, the therapy situation is defined by the therapist as one involving hypnosis. The therapist induces hypnosis in a traditional or nonauthori-

Manuscript submitted May 16, 1984; final revision received July 22, 1985. ‘The author gratefully acknowledges the critical remarks and very valuable and stimulating

suggestions of Richard Van Dyck, M.D. and the four anonymous reviewers of the Znternu- tional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.

‘Reprint requests should be addressed to drs. Philip Spinhoven, Jelgersrnapolikliniek, Rhijngeesterstraatweg 13, 2342 AN Oegstgeest, The Netherlands.

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

HYPNOSIS AND BEHAVIOR THERAPY: A REVIEW 9

tarian way, and suggestions for hypnotic phenomena are given. Central to this antecedent definition is everything the therapist does or says to convince the patient (and himherself) that hypnosis is applied. It goes without saying, however, that a hypnotic context is no proof that hypnotic phenomena are actually involved.

Conceptually distinct from this first definition-but not easy to separate in practice-is the definition of hypnosis as a subject variable. There are important individual differences in hypnotic ability (i.e., the ability actually to experience the given hypnotic suggestions, Hilgard, 1965). In fact, when a subject has a high hypnotic capacity, even an experimental instruction can be experienced as a hypnotic suggestion (Weitzenhoffer, 1974). A subject can tap hisher hypnotic abilities even when the situation is not defined as hypnosis (Andreychuk & Skriver, 1975; Benson, Frankel, Apfel, Daniels, Schniewind, Nemiah, Sifneos, Crassweller, Greenwood, Kotch, Ams, & Rosner, 1978; Knox & Shum, 1977) and no hypnotic induction is given (Barber & Hahn, 1962; Spanos, Radtke-Bodorik, Ferguson, & Jones, 1979).

What is the relevance of this experimental definition of hypnosis to the elucidation of the concept of hypnotherapy? In one respect, hypnotherapy does not exist because it is not a special method of treatment; it is more accurate to regard hypnosis as a facilitator of a number of different treatment methods (Mott, 1982). Consequently, it is no wonder that differences between hypnotic and nonhypnotic therapies are difFicult to determine and that the common factors among different techniques identified as hypnosis are similarly elusive (Brown, 1982). In the present article, hypnotherapy will be defined both as a contextual and a subject variable. Although this definition will not capture the essence of hypnotherapy from the perspective of the clinician, for research purposes, this definition helps to disentangle nonhypnotic and specific hypnotic variables influencing the outcome of hypnotherapy. When therapists label their therapy as hypnosis and administer a hypnotic induction, patients are not necessarily hypnotized. Improvement can be associated with relaxation in the absence of hypnosis and, in most instances, will also be related to the faith the patient has in the hypnotherapist and the procedure.

The definition of hypnotherapy as a subject variable is more essential for hypnosis per se. Treatment outcome can be said to be achieved hypnotically only when it is positively correlated with hypnotic ability. Indi- viduals with hypnotic ability are more likely to experience involuntary perceptual and memory alterations that cannot be accounted for by nonhypnotic events such as relaxation or placebo effects (Hilgard, 1977, 1979; Orne, 1977). Principles of Learning in Imagination-Based Behavioral Procedures

The experimental and clinical literature on hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy refers almost exclusively to behavior therapy techniques that make use of relaxation and imaginative processes as the pivot for change. The present article limits itself to the use of hypnosis as an adjunct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

10 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

to relaxation and imagination procedures in behavior therapy. Behavior modification procedures which do not focus on relaxation and imagination will not be discussed. Wilson (1978) delineated three major models which have been and continue to be influential in behavior therapy: applied behavioral analysis, the neo-behavioristic mediational stimulus-response (S-R) model, and the social learning model. In addition, behavior therapy is said to have undergone a “cognitive revolution” during the past decade, and many different cognitive therapies have emerged.

Some imagination-based behavioral procedures will be described with reference to the particular learning model from which they were developed. It will be argued that traditional classical and operant learning theories are inadequate to explain the results of imagination-based procedures in behavior therapy. Cognitive processes such as the meanings which subjects attach to their situation and their expectations will be stressed as being of primary importance in mediating therapeutic results.

Applied behavioral analysis model. This model focuses primarily on changing overt behavior by principles of operant conditioning. In this model, it is assumed that behavior is directly increased or decreased by its immediate consequences. Responses that result in unrewarding or punishing effects tend to be discarded, whereas those that produce re- warding outcomes are retained.

Cautela (1970a, b) and Cautela and McCullough (1978) developed different covert operant imagination procedures by applying operant conditioning principles on a covert basis. For example, in covert positive reinforcement, the individual is trained to generate imagery of a pleasant activity (e.g., eating a favorite food or attaining social approval). The individual is asked to imagine performing some desired response (e. g., asserting oneself) and then to shift to a reinforcing image. Further, patients are trained to practice the technique on their own. The efficacy of many of the covert operant techniques is as yet undemonstrated (Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978). Moreover, it is highly questionable that covert behaviors (imaginal events) follow the same principles as overt behaviors (Mahoney, 1974).

According to Cautela (1975), it is more scientific to use covert conditioning procedures without hypnosis in the absence of data pointing to a facilitative effect of a hypnotic induction. Although Cautela discourages the ancillary use of hypnosis, techniques introduced by him such as covert positive reinforcement and covert sensitization have, in fact, been used for decades by hypnotherapists in their practice in one form or another.

Neo-behavioristic mediatiowl stimulus-response (SR) model. This model relies heavily on principles of classical conditioning and concerns itself primarily with anxiety-based disorders. In this model, it is assumed that a conditioned stimulus (e.g., dog) can come to elicit an emotional response (e.g., anxiety), because in the past it has occurred together with an un- conditioned stimulus (e.g., being bitten by a dog).

Treatment methods such as flooding (Stampfl, 1967) and systematic desensitization (Wolpe, 1958) rely on both verbal and imaginal processes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


It is intriguing that systematic desensitization is not based on overt behavior rehearsal but on the capacity of patients to relax and concentrate on visual images (Singer & Pope, 1978). In systematic desensitization, the therapist establishes a hierarchy of frightening situations. Patients are taught relaxation and asked to visualize each of the perhaps 20 steps in the hierarchy. As soon as they come to a point on the hierarchy where they experience any anxiety, they are encouraged to relax more, until they feel comfortable and can tolerate the images that constitute the particular step in the hierarchy without discomfort. The procedure thus serves to gradually desensitize the fear of the phobic object, and it is assumed that this reduction will generalize to real life situations.

It is worth mentioning that most of the controlled experiments and case studies on hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy relate to relaxation and desensitization procedures. Wolpe and Lazarus (1966) used hypnosis in one-third of their systematic desensitization patients, but Wolpe (1969) reduced this to 10%. Despite the rather frequent use of hypnosis, for Wolpe this variable played no role in the explanation of the efficacy of systematic desensitization which was accounted for in terms of reciprocal inhibition (i.e., the inhibition of the sympathetic nervous activity associated with anxiety by relaxation which is thought to be predominantly a parasympathetic reaction).

Several authors state, however, that nonspecific factors such as treatment credibility and expectancy of success are essential ingredients of systematic desensitization (Emmelkamp, 1982; Van Dyck, 1982; Woody, 1973). After reviewing the experimental literature, Lick and Bootzin (1975) as well as Kazdin and Wilcoxon (1976) concluded that it still needs to be demonstrated more conclusively that systematic desensitization is more effective than a placebo therapy which generates expectations of therapeutic improvement comparable to those elicited by systematic desensitization. Rosen (1976), in his review of the comparative effectiveness of systematic desensitization under experimental versus therapeutic conditions, also states that the results of systematic desensitization are strongly determined by expectancy factors.

Social learning model. This model is more comprehensive in that it acknowledges the role of both classical and operant processes, while it emphasizes the importance of cognitive mediational processes. It is assumed that most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action. The response information can be conveyed by physical demonstration, but also by verbal description and pictorial imaginal representation.

Kazdin (1974, 1975) has demonstrated that the imaginal rehearsal of appropriate behavior (covert modeiing) is more effective than control conditions in reducing avoidance behavior and in increasing assertive responses. Covert modeling, however, has been shown to be less effective than in uiuo participant modeling phase & Moss, 1976). During the last

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

12 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

few years, hypnosis has, on several occasions, been described as an adjunct to covert modeling procedures (Devine & Bornstein, 1980; Deyoub & Wilkie, 1980; Wadden & Flaxman, 1981).

During the last decade, cognitively based therapies have proliferated, many of them explicitly drawing on treatment components used in behavior therapy (Latimer & Sweet, 1984). As Rachman and Wilson (1980) have pointed out,

the fundamental assumptions on which all cognitive behavior therapy methods are based are that emotional disorders are a function of maladaptive thought patterns and that the major task of treatment is to restructure these faulty cognitions [p. 1951.”

Patients nave to become aware of what they are thinking. They need to recognize what thoughts are dysfunctional, and they have to substitute accurate for inaccurate judgments. Finally, they need feedback on the correctness of their cognitive changes. Notwithstanding these shared fundamental assumptions, several cognitive behavior therapies exist, and the three most influential are Ellis’ (1975) rational-emotive therapy; Becks (1970) cognitive therapy; and Meichenbaum’s (1977) self-instructional training.

Most cognitive therapists make use of imagination procedures, for example, rational-emotive imagination (Ellis, 1975); coping imaginations (Meichenbaum, 1977); and spontaneous imagination (Beck, 1970). Typi- cally, patients are asked to imagine the desired behavioral and emotional responses while thinking the rational thoughts discussed during therapy. There are few controlled studies which compare cognitive imagination procedures with other therapy procedures or with an attentiodplacebo group. Cognitive therapies - including imagination as just one of the procedural components-appear to be just as effective as other forms of psychotherapy (Miller & Berman, 1983). Furthermore, the cognitive theory underlying these procedures has not received sufficient empirical support and scarcely has been addressed in studies of cognitive therapies. In a few reports, the hypnotic utilization of suggestions derived from rational-emotive therapy has been described (Boutin, 1976; Stanton, 1977).

In summary, better controlled research on the efficacy of covert operant procedures and various cognitive imagination procedures is needed. Avail- able evidence supports the claim that the established efficacy of systematic desensitization and covert modeling is mediated through cognitive processes, which are altered by experiences of mastery arising from successful in vitro performance. Patients’ expectations of therapeutic improvement and altered expectations of personal efficacy are assumed to regulate behavior in the social learning model (Bandura, 1977). This model offers a more comprehensive explanation of the results of various (imagination) procedures than traditional classical or operant learning theories, which assume that individuals automatically respond to stimuli and that behavior is directly affected by its immediate consequences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


Common Processes in Hypnotherapy and Imagination-Based Therapies The conceptualizations of hypnotherapy and imagination-based behav-

ioral therapy discussed above ask for an analysis of the commonalities and differences between the two phenomena. An analysis of common and different process variables may help in the understanding of the results of treatment studies reviewed in the next section of the present paper. At first glance, the fact that relaxation and imagination are essential ingredients of both approaches gives the impression of a fundamental similar- ity. Indeed, some authors try to reduce hypnotherapy to imagination- based behavior therapy and vice versa, because it is hypothesized that identical processes are involved.

Murray (1963) and Litvak (1970) state that imagination procedures used in behavior therapy (e.g., systematic desensitization, implosive therapy, flooding) inadvertently induce a hypnotic state, which facilitates therapeutic gain. Litvak (1970) explicitly hypothesized that hypnosis is effective in systematic desensitization, even when a formal hypnotic induction has not been employed. Although no empirical data were provided, this possibility can be tested by research. The inadvertent use of hypnosis by behavior therapists using relaxation and imagery can be studied by measuring hypnotic responsiveness and analyzing the correlation between the level of hypnotizability and the effect of behavior therapy. When a significant positive correlation is found, it suggests that hypnosis as a subject variable is tapped by and is effective in behavior therapy. (The empirical evidence for this position will be reviewed on p. 22 of the present paper.)

Cautela is a behavior therapist who proposes an opposite view. In his first article on systematic desensitization and hypnosis, Cautela (1966b) concluded, on the basis of a logical and empirical analysis, that the efficacy of systematic desensitization cannot be explained in terms of hypnosis. On the contrary, in a subsequent article (Cautela, 1966a), he concluded that therapeutic gains obtained by hypnotherapists in the treatment of phobic complaints are the result of an unsystematic use of desensitization principles (behavior therapy) rather than of an altered state of consciousness (hypnosis). With reference to his covert operant techniques, Cautela (1975) also states that hypnotherapists use procedures which are similar to covert conditioning on an intuitive and unsystematic basis.

In his covert conditioning model, however, Cautela makes several im- plicit assumptions about human behavior (Mahoney, 1974). Two of the most significant are the continuity and the automaticity assumptions. The continuity assumption contends that covert behaviors follow the same principles of learning as overt behavior. The automaticity assumption contends that human learning is automatically produced by stimulus- response contiguities. Both of these assumptions are questionable, because there is little empirical evidence for conditioning of covert events (Mahoney, 1974; Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978). More likely, vicarious sym- bolic and self-regulatory processes play a decisive role in human learning (Bandura, 1977).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

14 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

Weitzenhoffer (1972), Dengrove (1973, 1976), Kroger (1980), and Kroger and Fezler (1976) conceptualize hypnosis and behavior therapy as two different entities. They argue that a wide range of behavior therapy methods are effective without employing any hypnotic techniques, but that hypnosis can be an extremely useful adjunct. Hypnosis can make treatment easier, especially by facilitating relaxation, heightening the vividness of imagery, and increasing the level of suggestibility.

Claims of hypnotherapists for the efficacy of hypnosis at this process level, however, contradict research findings. After critically reviewing the experimental literature, Edmonston (1981) concluded that hypnotic and nonhypnotic relaxation methods are equally effective and have similar physiological effects. In some experimental studies, hypnotic relaxation was compared with progressive muscle relaxation, which is a method widely used in behavior therapy. Paul (1969a) discovered that relaxation training in fact produced significantly more physiological relaxation (as indicated by heart rate and tonic muscle tension) and did so more rapidly than did the hypnotic technique. Paul and Trimble (1970) found in a study of these same methods presented on tape that only the hypnotic technique was significantly more effective than a self-relaxation control group. Paul (1969b) also found that progressive muscle relaxation and hypnotic relaxation were equally eflfective and both significantly superior to a control group in reducing physiological responses evoked by anxiety-inducing imagery.

In their review of the experimental literature, both Sheehan (1979) and Coe, St. Jean, and Burger (1980) conclude that there are conflicting data on the enhancement of imagery during hypnosis. In studies where imagery seems to be enhanced, it is not clear (a) whether this enhancement is the result of either a hypnotic induction or positive expectations, or (b) whether this effect is confined to highly hypnotizable subjects.

Existing clinical research also gives some evidence that hypnosis per se is not really influential in deepening relaxation or enhancing vividness of imagery (Devine & Bornstein, 1980; Lazarus, 1973; Wadden & Flaxman, 1981). Besides, it is questionable whether deeper levels of relaxation and more vivid imagination are process variables which are essential for a more positive outcome (Kazdin, 1978; McLemore, 1972; Spanos, de Moor, & Barber, 1973; Wilkins, 1971). It is possible that existing research has overstated the clinical importance of these processes which are thought to be of central importance in the traditional learning model of classical conditioning (Wolpe, 1958).

Several authors have drawn attention to the fact that there are differences but also several important common factors in a hypnotherapy and behavior therapy situation which make use of the subject’s imagination (de Moor, 1978; Spanos & Barber, 1976; Spanos et al., 1973; Turk, Meichenbaum, & Genest, 1983; Wickramasekera, 1976). Spanos et al. (1973) argued that the behavioral and experiential changes occurring in hypnosis and behavior therapy can, in part, be accounted for in terms of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


four sets of common variables: (a) positive motivation toward the therapy situation and instructions or suggestions given; (b) positive attitude and expectancy concerning the procedure; (c) wording of suggestions and instructions which provide information concerning the overt behavior and cognitive activity expected; and (d) involved imaginings, which are con- sistent with the theme suggested.

This position reflects the growing consensus that hypnosis involves imaginative processes. Terms such as “believed-in imaginings” (Sarbin & Coe, 1972), “imaginative involvement” (J. Hilgard, 1970), “involvement in suggestion related imaginings” (Spanos & Barber, 1972) all point to similar imaginative characteristics of hypnosis.

This consensus concerning imagination as an essential component of hypnosis, however, does not preclude theoretical controversy. In a social learning model of hypnosis, patients are assumed to be actively involved in adopting and maintaining the definition of the situation contained in the suggestions when they try to become absorbed in imaginary situations. In contrast, in more traditional models it is hypothesized that, special psychological processes such as trance or dissociation produce automatic hypnotic responding. In this view, motivation, positive attitudes, and suggestions merely set the stage for the occurrence of involuntary and dissociative imaginative experiences characteristic of hypnosis per se.

When deliberately enacted imaginative processes play a decisive role both in hypnosis and in imagination-based behavior therapies, it is difficult to understand how and to what extent hypnosis can have a special facilitative effect on behavior therapy. At the process level, a most relevant research topic is whether the results of imagination-based behavior therapy and hypnotic imagery are brought about by the same cognitive processes. Studies which validate the occurrence of more involuntary and dissociative imaginative experiences during hypnosis andlor in highly hypnotizable subjects can help to differentiate behavior therapy from hypnosis per se. Until now, clinical research along these lines does not exist. Controlled Outcome Studies of Hypnotherapy and Behavior Therapy

A search of the literature resulted in 21 analogue and clinical studies in which a hypnotherapeutic technique was compared with a behavioral therapeutic technique. These studies are listed in Table 1, and their salient features charted. Apart from methodological weaknesses and differences in population and therapeutic technique, hypnotherapy was more effective in 5 studies, behavior therapy in 7 studies, and in 9 studies both methods yielded a comparable therapeutic result. At first sight, chance seems to offer the most plausible explanation for this distribution of results. In view of the difficulties of a global comparison between hypnotherapy and behavior therapy, a closer review of the controlled research based on the following questions can be more informative: (a) Are hypnotic relaxation and symptom-reduction techniques more effective than progressive muscle relaxation, used in behavior therapy? (b) Does a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

16 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

TABLE 1 CHARA~RISTICS OF CONTROLLED OUTCOME STUDIES

OF HYPNOTHERAPY AND BEHAVIOR THERAPY ~~

n e n p y Dependent Hypnotizahility Follow-up Posttreatment Measurer' Scale Results' Study Population. N Sessions

Hmnotic h.luation) techniques and progressive muscle relaxation Maher-Loughnau asthma 252p 12 1. hypnmir and self-hypnosis: O A T no no 1=2

direct suggestions

breathing exercises

Z. pmgressive relaxation 3. waling control

2. m i v e relaxation + (1970)

McAmmond et d. phobia 27P 7 1. hypnosis: direct suggestions 0,s no 5mor. 1=2=3 ( 1 ~ 1 )

Borkovec et al. insomnia 37V 3 1. hypnosis: relaxation S no no 1=2>3=4 (1973) 2 progressive relaxation

3. self-relaxation 4. waiting-list control

Deahler et d. hypertension ZIP 9 1. hypnosis: relaxation 0 no no 1>2>3 (1973) 2. progressive relaxation

Sullivan et al. behavioral 24P 4 1. hypnosis: direct suggestions 0 SHSS:A no 1>2>3 (1974) deficit in 2. progressive relaxation

3. no-treatment control

brain 3. no-treatment control &age

Schlutter et d. muscle 48P 4 1. hypnosis: analgesia P, s "0 10-14 i = 2 = 3 (1980) contraction 2. EMC wkr.

headache 3. progressive relaxation + EMC

Behavior therapy in a hypnotic context

Lazarus outpatients 26P ? 1. "hypnosis"received T no no 1 = 2 = 3

Schubot phobia 3OV ? 1. systematicdesensitization + 0,s SHSS:C ? 1 = 2

phobia 27V 7 1. systematicdexnsitization + 0 . S snss:m ? 1 = 2

(1973) 2. "hypnosis" refused

(1967) hypnotic induction

fang (1969)

2. systematic desensitization

hypnotic induction 2. systematic desensitization

Deyoub et d. obesity 72V 8 1. covert modeling + hypnotic 0 BSS 2mos. 2>1=3 induction

motivation 2. covert modeling + task 3. no-treatment m n t d

(1980)

Devine et al. obesity 48V 8 1. covert modeling + hypnotic 0,s HGSHSA 3mos. 1>3; induction 2 = 3

2. covert modeling 3. no-model control 4. minimal treatment mntd

(1980)

Wadden et al. obesity 33V 7 1. covert modeling + hypnotrc 0 , s BSS 1 + 4 1 = 2 = 3 (1981) induction + parthypnotic mos.

suggestions 2. covert modeling 3. relaxatiodattention control

Goldstein obesity 6OP 4 1. behaviormodification + 0 no 5mos. 1>2=3 (I9w hypnotic induction + trance

ratification 2. behavior modification +

hypnotic induction 3. behavior modification

O'Brien et al. phobia 18V 9 or 4 1. systematic desensitization + 0,s "0 no 1>2 ( 1 W hypnotic induction +

posthypnotic suggestion 2. systematic desensitization

(TABLE 1 cont. p. 17)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


TABLE 1 (Continued) CHARAIXERISTICS OF CONTROLLED OUTCOME STUDIES

OF HYPNOTHERAPY AND BEHAVIOR THERAPY

nernpy Lkpendent Hypnotizability Follow~up Posttreatment Procedure Measuresb Scale ResultsC

Study Population’ N Sessions

Hypnotherapeutic and behavior therapeutic methods

Lang et al. phobia 44V 16 1. hypnosis: pseudotherapy 0 . S no no 221=3 (1965) 2. systematic desensitization

Mmre prthma 12P 8 1. hypnosis: direct suggestions 0 , s no no 2>1=3 (1965) 2. relaxation + systematic

3. no treatment control

desensitization 3. relaxation

l a n d 4 2>1 Marks et al. phobia 2AP 12 1. hypnosis direct suggestions S.T no

Gibbons et al. phobia 2N 5 or 3 1. hypnosis: directed S no ly r . 1=2>3 ow 2. systematic desensitization yrs.

experience 2. systematic desensitization 3. no treatment control

Melnick et al. phobia 36V 4 1. hypnosis: directed 0 . s no no 2>1=3= 4 (1976) experience

2. systematic desensitizntion 3. contact no treatment control 4. no contact control

I n v i m and in uitro methods

Barkley et al. smoking 29V 7 1. hypnosis: cognitive S no 6and 2 2 1 = 3 WR) restructuring + self- 12 wks.

2. rapid smoking 9 mos. 3. attention-placebo control

Perry et al. smoking 46V 1 1. hypnoskwgnitive S HGSHS:A 3mos. 2 2 1 (1979) restructuring + self-

hyqnosis

hypnosis 2. rapid smoking

*P = ptientr; V = volunteerr. bO = physiological or objective change associated with symptom removal; S = self-report of symptom removal; T = therapist’s or

‘Numbers refer to numbered items in column 5 (Therapy Procedure) on same line. investigator’s impression of symptom removal.

hypnotic context enhance the effectiveness of behavior therapy? (c) Are behavior therapy in uitro techniques more effective than forms of hyp- . notherapy in which behavior therapy techniques are not explicitly used? (d) Is the level of hypnotizability related to the effectiveness of hypnotherapy andlor behavior therapy? (e) Are hypnotherapy in vitro techniques more effective than behavior therapy in uiuo techniques?

Hypnotherapy and progressiue muscle relaxation. In six studies, a hypnotherapeutic technique was compared with Jacobson’s (1929) progressive muscle relaxation. Recently, behavior therapists (see Rachman & Wilson, 1980) have used this training procedure as a therapeutic technique in its own right as originally proposed by Jacobson. A comparison between hypnotherapy techniques and relaxation per se is also interest- ing, in view of the position of some authors that hypnosis can be equated to relaxation, because both have very similar physiological effects char- acterized by decreased blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, etc. (Edmonston, 1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

18 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

In two of these studies, the hypnotic procedure consisted of hypnotic relaxation only. Borkovec and Fowles (1973) compared a hypnotic relaxation procedure, a progressive muscle relaxation procedure, self-relaxation, and a no-treatment condition for the treatment of insomnia in college students. There were no significant differences between the hypnosis group and the progressive muscle relaxation group. In a study by Deabler, Fidel, Dillenkoffer, and Elder (1973), hypertension was treated with progressive relaxation and further lowered to a normal level by hypnotic relaxation. The apparent superiority of hypnosis may have been caused by an order effect, because all patients received hypnosis directly after the relaxation.

In the other four studies, hypnotherapy included a hypnotic induction followed by direct suggestions to diminish or eliminate symptoms such as asthma (Maher-Loughnan, 1970); pain and anxiety in a dental situation (McAmmond, Davidson, & Kovitz, 1971); tension headache (Schlutter, Golden, & Blume, 1980); and anxiety in patients with organic brain damage (Sullivan, Johnson, & Bratkovitch, 1974). In the study by Maher- Loughnan (1970), both asthma treatment groups showed some improvement. There were marked differences in response according to sex; women treated with hypnosis showed significantly greater improvement than women treated with relaxation and breathing exercises. McAmmond et al. (1971) measured self-reported anxiety, skin conductance, and pain tolerance of frightened patients in a dental situation. In general, there were no clear-cut differences between hypnosis, relaxation, and control subjects at posttreatment. At follow-up, however, significantly more subjects from the hypnosis group than from the relaxation group were willing to seek and again undergo dental treatment. Sullivan et al. (1974) found that hypnosis improved intellectual functioning of brain damaged persons by reducing “catastrophic anxiety” significantly more than relaxation or control conditions. No follow-up data were reported, however, and the possibility of experimenter bias could not be excluded. Finally, Schlutter et al. (1980) in a study of the control of muscle contraction headache observed a comparable effect of hypnotic analgesia, EMG feedback, and EMG feedback combined with progressive relaxation.

On the basis of six studies with various shortcomings in methodology, each involving the treatment of a difFerent disorder, no firm conclusions on the relative efficacy of hypnosis and progressive muscle relaxation training can be drawn. A clear superiority of hypnosis over progressive muscle relaxation was not found. More clinical research is needed to investigate different hypnotic and relaxation techniques at a physiological level and at the level of treatment outcome. The study by Benson et al. (1978) is a very good example of research along these lines. These authors found that there was no essential difference between a meditational technique and a self-hypnotic relaxation technique in the treatment of 32 patients with anxiety neurosis. Independent of the technique used, patients who had moderately high hypnotic responsiveness, however, sig-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


nificantly improved on psychiatric assessment and decreased average systolic blood pressure over the 8-week training period.

Behavior therapy in a hypnotic context. With respect to the issue of an enhanced effectiveness of behavior therapy in a hypnotic context, the following questions can be posed: (u) Does the definition of the therapeutic situation as one involving hypnosis enhance the effectiveness of a behavior therapy procedure? (b) Does the induction of hypnosis enhance the effectiveness of a behavior therapy procedure? (c) Do suggestions for specific hypnotic phenomena increase the effectiveness of behavior therapy procedures?

In a study of an outpatient population whose symptoms were not described, Lazarus (1973) compared a treatment labeled “hypnosis” with behavior therapy. The only difference between the hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatment was that relaxation was called “hypnotic relaxation” or “hypnosis” in the hypnosis condition and was called “relaxation” in the relaxation condition. Patients who specifically requested hypnosis and received “hypnosis” improved more than patients who requested hypnosis and received “relaxation” or patients who were indifferent to hypnosis and received “relaxation,” although the differences between treatments were not statistically significant (p C .lo). Clinical outcome was judged globally by the author who was also the therapist in the study; hence, a potential for experimenter bias was present. On the grounds of this clinical trial, Lazarus concluded that expectancy fulfillment is the most plausible explanation for the differences found between the three groups.

In four studies not only was the situation defined as hypnosis, but a behavior therapy procedure was also preceded by a hypnotic induction. In two studies (Lang, 1969; Schubot, 1967), the effectiveness of systematic desensitization in the treatment of snake phobics was investigated in a hypnotic and a nonhypnotic condition. In both studies no differences in outcome between the two groups were found. Both systematic desensitization with and without a hypnotic induction resulted in a significant reduction in phobic anxiety.

The two other studies dealt with a comparison of covert modeIing with and without hypnotic induction in the treatment of obesity. Deyoub and Wilkie (1980) found that only covert modeling without a hypnotic induction was significantly effective compared to a no-treatment control group. The authors interpret their findings by pointing out that patients in the hypnosis condition were less relaxed and concentrated and more anxious and defensive. Uncertainty about a sufficient level of hypnotic capacity may have interfered with a positive outcome.

Devine and Bornstein (1980) investigated the efficacy of covert modeling- hypnosis and covert modeling alone in the control of obesity. Measure- ment of proportional weight loss indicated a significantly greater weight loss only in covert modeling hypnosis subjects as compared to the no- model controls. Credibility may be crucial in this respect, because patients rated the hypnotic treatment as more credible than covert modeling without hypnosis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

20 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

In three studies not only was the situation defined as hypnosis and a hypnotic induction used, but the behavior therapy procedure was also supplemented with specific hypnotic suggestions. In the treatment of obesity with covert modeling, Wadden and Flaxman (1981) gave direct suggestions for weight reduction and suggestions that the induction of a hypnotic trance and the power of the unconscious would facilitate the loss of weight. At posttreatment and follow-up, there were no significant differences between the covert modeling with and without hypnosis group and a relaxation-attention control group.

Goldstein (1981) investigated the effectiveness of a treatment for obesity under the following three conditions: (a) behavior modification following the program of Stuart and Davis (1972); (b) same as (a) and including a definition of the situation as hypnosis, a hypnotic induction, and posthypnotic suggestions for a changing eating pattern; (c) same as (b) and including verbal and nonverbal suggestions for hand levitation. Treatment time between subjects was variable. At posttreatment and follow-up, there was a significant difference in weight reduction between the hypnosis with hand levitation group and the other two groups. Goldstein’s conclusion that hand levitation as a form of trance ratification influences the credibility and hence the effectiveness of the treatment procedure does not seem warranted, because his study contains a major confounding variable in terms of length of treatment for each of the subjects.

In the treatment of snake phobics, OBrien, Cooley, Ciotti, and Henninger (1981) compared systematic desensitization alone with systematic desen- sitizatioh complemented with posthypnotic suggestions for positive noc- turnal dreams about the anxiety-provoking situation. At posttreatment, more students belonging to the hypnosis group were able to touch a snake than those belonging to the nonhypnosis group. The two subjects from the hypnosis group who were unable to touch the snake reported dreams in which a snake was absent or threatening. The results of this study are diacult to interpret in view of the following methodological problems: (a) subjects from the hypnosis group were highly hypnotizable - hypnotizability in the nonhypnosis group was not assessed; (b) subjects in the hypnosis group received nine therapy sessions, while those in the nonhypnosis group received four; and (c) one therapist conducted the mea- surements and both sets of treatment.

In summary, research into the facilitation of behavior therapy by a hypnotic context is scarce and shows varying degrees of methodological rigor. Hypnosis as an adjunct can influence the effectiveness of behavior therapy in two different ways. Dependent on the therapy expectations of patients, a hypnotic context enhances or reduces the credibility and hence the effectiveness of a behavior therapy method. A hypnotic context has the nonspecific value of a ritual. That suggestions for hypnotic phenomena (such as posthypnotic dream suggestions) also have a more specific effect still needs to be demonstrated more definitely..

Hypnotherapy and behavior therapy imagination procedures. In five studies, systematic desensitization has been compared with a hypno-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


therapy method, which was not an explicit application of a procedure known in behavior therapy. Lang, Lazovik, and Reynolds (1965) tried to prove that the results of systematic desensitization are not related to suggestibility. They compared systematic desensitization with no-treatment and pseudotherapy, a condition which is described in later articles as a form of hypnosis (cp. Marks, Gelder, & Edwards, 1968). Systematic desensitization proved to be significantly more effective than no-treatment and pseudotherapy. But it is misleading to interpret these results as an indication that systematic desensitization is superior to hypnosis. For one thing, 18 of the 33 college students in the systematic desensitization condition received a hypnotic induction, as mentioned casually in a foot- note. Furthermore, students in the pseudotherapy condition were encouraged to discuss topics totally unrelated to their phobic complaints.

Marks (1971) and Marks et al. (1968) treated phobic patients with systematic desensitization and hypnosis in a crossover design. In the hypnotic condition “a forceful suggestion was made to the patients that their phobias would gradually disappear. Only a general suggestion was given. No imagery was presented and no suggestions were made that they should enter particular situations [Marks et al., 1968, p. 12651.” As rated by the therapist and an independent observer, phobic problems were reduced in both conditions. According to the self-ratings of patients, however, systematic desensitization resulted in a significantly greater reduction of anxiety than hypnosis.

Moore (1965) treated asthma patients in a balanced incomplete block design with relaxation, relaxation with suggestion (hypnosislhypnoidal state), and systematic desensitization. In the suggestion condition, “strong reiterated suggestions were given while the patient was relaxed, that he would be a little improved in various specific ways during the coming week and that he would be a more relaxed person [p. 2591.” All three conditions showed a significant subjective improvement, but only in the systematic desensitization group was a significant objective improvement reached.

Gibbons (1971) and Gibbons, Kilbourne, Saunders, and Castles (1970) assessed the comparative effectiveness of systematic desensitization and a directed experience hypnotic technique in reducing test anxiety. In the hypnosis condition, suggestions were given that the subject was taking a test and that some serious decision concerning his future depended upon the results of this test. Selected items of existing tests were presented to the subject in a context of ease and automatic control. Compared to a no- treatment control group, both groups improved significantly. The results of this study are dif€icult to interpret, however, because (a) subjects were permitted to choose their own treatment, (b) time in treatment was not equal across treatment groups, and (c) no objective measures were included.

Melnick and Russell (1976) replicated the study of Gibbons et al. (1970), while controlling for the methodological shortcomings mentioned above. In this particular study, only systematic desensitization yielded a significant subjective reduction in anxiety compared to two control groups. For

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

22 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

either treatment condition, however, there was no significant improvement observed in academic performance. Only the no-treatment control group showed a positive improvement on the final exam.

An outstanding feature of the studies reviewed above is the almost caricatural way in which behavior therapists such as Lang, Marks, and Moore operationalize hypnotherapy as a form of pseudotherapy or as an authoritarian dismissal of symptoms. The apparent superiority of behavior therapy compared to hypnosis in these studies must be interpreted in this perspective. Studies which assess the therapeutic value of a more complex hypnotherapeutic approach, however, show many methodological flaws (Gibbons et al., 1970). The comparative research into hypnotherapeutic and behavioral methods is especially illustrative of the mutual prejudices of proponents of either approach.

Hypnotizability, behavior therapy, hypnotherapy. The relationship between the level of hypnotizability and the outcome of hypnotherapy was assessed in 7 of the 21 studies. Three of the 4 studies in which a significant positive correlation was found were related to the treatment of anxiety disorders (Lang, 1969; Schubot, 1967; Sullivan et al., 1974). In 3 studies of the treatment of obesity and smoking, no relationship was demonstrated (Devine & Bornstein, 1980; Perry, Gelfand, & Marcovitch, 1979; Wadden & Flaxman, 1981). Only Deyoub and Wilkie (1980) reported a significant positive correlation between hypnotizability and weight reduction in hypnotherapy. These findings further validate the hypothesis that in hypnotherapy, hypnotizability is especially relevant in the treatment of psychosomatic and anxiety disorders as opposed to habit disorders which have a more voluntary component (Spinhoven, 1982; Wadden & Anderton, 1982).

In none of the six behavior therapy studies in which the relationship between hypnotizability and outcome was measured did significant cor- relations emerge. The fact that in behavior therapy irrespective of the nature of the disorder no relationship between hypnotic capacity and outcome was found, sheds a critical light on the position of Murray (1963) and Litvak (1970), who hold that imagination procedures used in behavior therapy inadvertently induce a hypnotic state. In five of these six studies, an imagination procedure was investigated and, in contrast to, the hypnotic condition, hypnotizability was not therapeutically relevant. The finding that behavior therapy procedures with a high ingredient of relaxation and imagination do not tap the hypnotic capacities of patients possibly can be explained by the issue of control. Behavior therapists typically emphasize a rational and explicit use of scientifically based procedures. This emphasis on voluntary control may prevent the occurrence of more involuntary and dissociative experiences characteristic of hypnosis per se.

In vivo and in uitro methods. In only two studies (Barkley, Hastings, & Jackson, 1977; Perry et al., 1979) has the question of the comparative effectiveness of hypnotic (in uitro) and behavioral (in viuo) techniques been addressed. Perry et aI. (1979) compared Spiegel’s (1970) single- treatment method utilizing ancillary (self) hypnosis with rapid smoking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


This technique requires patients to smoke cigarettes rapidly while con- centrating on the accompanying feelings of discomfort. Barkley et al. (1977) assessed the effectiveness of group rapid smoking with group hypnosis. The hypnotic suggestions were the same as those reported by Hall and Crasilneck (1970). In both studies, a significantly greater number of abstainers was found in the aversive conditioning group which is in agree- ment with results of research on the relative effectiveness of in uiuo versus in vitro techniques (Rachman & Wilson, 1980). This field of research points to the conclusion that overt behavioral rehearsal results in a more profound behavioral change than covert techniques, and that techniques which are based on the use of imagination should be applied in combination with overt techniques.

DISCUSSION This review has confirmed the speculation of many clinicians that hyp-

nosis can be a valuable adjunct to some behavioral procedures to a certain extent. This effectiveness, however, is not attributable to the enhancement of factors critical for conditioning processes such as a deeper relaxation or more vivid imagery. Hypnosis primarily influences common therapy factors such as expectancy of success and treatment credibility. That hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy also has a genuine hypnotic effect still needs to be demonstrated more definitively. Moreover, no evidence was found that imagination-based behavior therapies inadvertently tap the hypnotic capacities of patients.

Further controlled clinical outcome research is necessary in light of the relatively small number of studies conducted to date and the methodological problems associated with these studies. Among the improvements needed are longer follow-up, the use of multiple outcome measures, the use of patients instead of volunteers, random assignment of subjects to experimental conditions, and standardized measurement of hypnotizability.

Above all, future research should address procedures and techniques that are more representative of cIinical hypnosis as it is currently prac- ticed. The image of hypnotherapy which arises from the studies in the present review is that of hypnosis in a sloppy, ready-made behavioral suit or hypnosis as an authoritarian dismissal of symptoms. In almost all studies, hypnosis merely involved a hypnotic induction followed by a behavior therapy procedure or a standardized relaxation procedure with direct hypnotic suggestions of symptom amelioration. Perhaps hypnotherapists who use less rigid approaches think that individualized hypnotherapy is inconsistent with methodologically sound research. That outcome research does not necessarily restrict the intuition and flexibility of the therapist is, however, well illustrated by Holroyd’s (1980) review of hypnosis and cigarette smoking. This review gives a reasonably strong indication that therapeutic effectiveness is associated with more individualized approaches to hypnotherapy.

The most fruithl line of research involving hypnosis and behavior therapy is to study the conditions under which clinical hypnosis can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

24 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

used to facilitate behavior therapy. It is unlikely that behavior therapy researchers will address this issue of the effectiveness of a more flexible and individualized approach to hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy. References to hypnosis or hypnotic phenomena in the behavior therapy literature have lessened over the past several years. There appear to be several reasons for this trend. Some time ago, behavior therapists loosely defined hypnosis as a controI condition for the “specific” conditioning components of behavior therapy. Times have changed and more sophis- ticated placebo control conditions are used in the research strategies of behavior therapists (Kazdin & Wilson, 1980). Secondly, in the 196O’s, behavior therapy still had to establish its position as a respectable form of psychotherapy. Smith, Glass, and Miller (1980) concluded that at this stage these data are simply not in. Behavior therapy researchers are mainly interested in studying the comparative efficacy of variants of behavior therapy instead of the comparative efficacy of different forms of psychotherapy. Moreover, one of the forces at work has been the move away from imaginal systematic desensitization to other methods, including in uiuo exposure methods with phobic disorders. It is noteworthy that about two-thirds of the studies in the present review involved relaxation and imaginal desensitization. Perhaps the most influential factor is that behavior therapists, and lately cognitive behavior therapists, use strategies and interventions which are almost identical to hypnotic strategies and interventions without being bothered by the common factors between the two therapy situations. As Weitzenhoffer noted as early as 1972 with regard to certain therapy methods used by behavior therapists (i.e., aversive conditioning), it is not the procedure itself which is new, but the explanation of the efficacy of the procedure in terms of 1earningTheory. Illustrative in this respect is the cognitive treatment of pain in which a variety of imagination procedures are used, procedurally similar to hypnotic interventions but otherwise labeled. Authors in this field who men- tion hypnosis (Turk et al., 1983; Turner & Chapman, 1982) equate hypnosis with a form of cognitive behavioral treatment.

The question arises whether and how behavior therapy can be improved by considering hypnosis. The answer to this question must be based on a more carefully considered conceptualization of what hypnosis is and how it works; this has not been the basis of the majority of the studies mentioned in this review. The most common hypotheses about hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy are concerned with characteristics of hypnosis per se. An example is the hypothesis that imagination procedures used in behavior therapy inadvertently induce a hypnotic state, which mediates therapeutic change. In the light of current evidence, it is not likely that even behavioral procedures, in which one of the main ingredients is imagination, always tap the hypnotic abilities of a volunteer subject or patient. In the six studies in which the relationship between outcome of behavior therapy and level of hypnotizability was assessed in the behavior therapy condition, no relationship was demonstrated in contrast to the hypnotic condition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


The hypothesis that hypnotic induction adds leverage to a behavior therapy procedure by inducing a hypnotic state andlor by enhancing factors critical for (classical) conditioning, such as the level of bodily relaxation and the vividness of imagery, also has to be reassessed. On the contrary, the studies reviewed above suggest that the therapeutic effects of defining the therapy situation as hypnosis and using a hypnotic induction are mainly effective by influencing the credibility of the therapy procedure and inducing expectations of therapeutic success.

This finding fits neatly into the changed theoretical perspective on the efficacy of imagination-based behavior therapy discussed above. Tradi- tional learning theories are thought to be inadequate to interpret the results of such procedures in terms of cognitive processes. Contemporary social learning approaches, however, which emphasize the roIe played by subjects’ expectations and meanings in mediating therapeutic effects offer a conceptual framework in which the results of behavior therapy and behavior therapy in a hypnotic context can be more meaningfully interpreted. Studies along these lines of the nonspecific role of hypnosis in the process of change seem more promising than existing studies which have tried to elucidate the specific ways in which hypnosis facilitates especially classical conditioning processes. The possibility of influencing credibility and expectancy by a hypnotic context has now been reasonably documented. The way in which hypnosis potentiates or depotentiates other common therapy factors (such as the facilitation of the therapeutic relationship) deserves further clarification and validation.

A fundamental objection to this position would be the contention that similarities between hypnosis and behavior therapy must not obscure relevant distinctions. It can be argued that hypnosis as a subject variable involves a capacity to experience profound changes in perception, memory, and cognition (Orne, 1977) not accountable in terms of social-learning theory. The studies in the present review have been so designed that this question, which is more fundamental for hypnosis per se, is scarcely broached. It can hardly be expected that hypnotic capacity will facilitate a more successful outcome of behavior therapy of which the only hypnotic component is a hypnotic induction added to a standard behavior therapy procedure. The behaviorist’s emphasis on control - deliberately doing something to change one’s thoughts, emotions, behavior, or circumstances - is excessively organized around rational and willful efforts to produce significant change (Bowers, 1982). In hypnotherapy it is realized to a greater extent that sometimes it can be more beneficial to circumvent the patient’s willful, active efforts to control his subjective experiences, and instead, to engender a psychological state, which facilitates the occurrence of automatic and dissociative responses. A fruitful combination of hypnosis and behavior therapy requires a therapeutic approach in which voluntary control is less prominent and suggestions for involuntary hypnotic experiences are given. The very few studies in the present review which addressed just this issue, however, were methodologically weak (Goldstein, 1981; O’Brien et al., 1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

26 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

Wadden and Anderton (1982) suggest that the preferred design for better controlled research is to assign individuals of low and high hypnotizability to induction and non-induction conditions; the individuals otherwise receive the same treatment. It is suggested, here, that the therapeutic value of hypnosis for behavior therapy must be approached by comparing in high and low hypnotizables a behavioral treatment of known efficacy to the same treatment plus a hypnotic induction and specific hypnotic suggestions relevant for the disorder under treatment. In such a constructive therapy research strategy, treatment components are added to study the resulting enhancement of therapeutic effects (Kazdin & Wilson, 1980). If the hypnotic suggestions address problems and capacities which are over- looked by the behavioral treatment, then the combination treatment should yield superior results, especially in the high hypnotizable-hypnosis condition. A nonspecific effect of hypnosis could be assessed by comparing the low hypnotizable-hypnosis condition with the low-hypnotizable-waking state condition. The influence of hypnotic responsiveness on outcome can be more pronounced in the treatment of pain, anxiety, and vegetative complaints than in the treatment of addictive disorders such as smoking, obesity, and alcoholism (Bowers, 1982; Perry et al., 1979; Spinhoven, 1982; Wadden & Anderton, 1982). Employing the above design in the treatment of different disorders can help to elucidate further the conditions for using hypnosis as an adjunct in behavior therapy. This kind of research can help to answer the important clinical questions of why and how to use or not use hypnosis in behavior therapy.

In conclusion, the nonspecific and specific effects of hypnosis as an adjunct to behavior therapy have not been convincingly demonstrated by controlled outcome studies. As Wadden & Anderton (1982) note, “It is time for the field to abandon its Muse, Hypnos, and to awaken to the need for experimental rigor in the pursuit of improved clinical service [p. 2381.” To this can be added that for clinical researchers interested in and sympathetic to both hypnosis and behavior therapy, it is time to delineate the conditions in terms of context, type of disorder, patient characteristics, and hypnotic interventions under which hypnosis can be a valuable adjunct to behavior therapy. In the absence of confirming data, the most parsimonious position is to state that hypnotherapy is procedurally similar to certain (cognitive) behavior therapy procedures but that it is labeled otherwise. If proponents of hypnosis advocate that this equation is false, they need to demonstrate either that hypnosis has an additional nonspecific effect or that for certain patients it yields a far more favorable therapeutic outcome.

REFERENCES ANDREYCHUK, T., & SKRIVER, C. Hypnosis and biofeedback in the treatment of migraine

BANDURA, A. Social Zearning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall, 1977. BARBER, T. X. Measuring “hypnotic-like” suggestibility with and without “hypnotic induc-

tion”; psychometric properties, norms, and variables influencing response to the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS). Psychol. Rep. , 1965, 16 (Monogr. Suppl. 3-V16), 809-844.

headaches. Int. J . clin. exp . Hypnosis, 1975,23, 172-183.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


BARBER, T. X., & HAHN, K. W. Physiological and subjective responses to pain producing stimulation under hypnotically-suggested and waking-imagined “analgesia.” J . abnorm. SOC. Psychol., 1962, 65, 411-418.

BAFIKLEY, R. A., HASTINGS, J. E., & JACKSON, T. L. The effects of rapid smoking and hypnosis in the treatment of smoking behavior. Int. J . d in. exp. Hypnosis, 1977, 25,

BECK, A. T. Role of fantasies in psychotherapy and psychopathology. J . neru. ment. Dis., 1970, 150,3-17.

BENSON, H., FRANKEL, F. H., APFEL, R., DANIELS, M. D., SCHNIEWIND, H. E., NEMIAH, J. C., SIFNEOS, P. E., CRASSWELLER, K. D., GREENWOOD, M. M., KOTCH, J. B., ARNS, P. A., & ROSNER, B. Treatment of anxiety: A comparison of the usefulness of ,self-hypnosis and a meditational relaxation technique. An overview. Psychother. Psy- chosom., 1978, 30, 229-242.

BORKOVEC, T. D., & FOWLES, D. C. Controlled investigation of the effects of progressive and hypnotic relaxation on imsomnia. J. abnonn. Psychol., 1973,82,153-158.

BOUTIN, G. E. The treatment of test anxiety by rational stage directed hypnotherapy. Diss. Abst. Znt., 1976, 37, (2-B), 969.

BOWERS, K. S. The relevance of hypnosis for cognitive-behavioral therapy. Clin. Psychol. Reo., 1982.2, 67-78.

BROWN, C. J. Controlled psychotherapy outcome studies involving the use of hypnosis. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical and Experi- mental Hypnosis, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 1982.

CAUTELA, J. R. Desensitization factors in the hypnotic treatment of phobias. J . Psychol., 1966, 64,277-288.(a)

CAUTELA, J. R. Hypnosis and behavior therapy. Behao. Res. Ther., 1966,4, 219-224.(b) CAIJTELA, J. R. Covert negative reinforcement. J . behau. Ther. exp. Psychiot., 1970, 1 ,

CAUTELA, J. R. Covert reinforcement. Behao. Ther., 1970, 1 , S O . @ ) CAUTELA, J. R. The use of covert conditioning in hypnotherapy. Znt. 1. d i n . exp. Hypnosis,

1975,28,15-27. CAUTELA, J. R., & MC CULLOUGH, L. Covert conditioning: A learning-theory perspective

on imagery. In J. L. Singer & K. S. Pope (Eds.), The power of human itnagination. New methods in psychotherapy. New York: Plenum, 1978. Pp. 227-254.

COE, W. L., ST. JEAN, R. L., & BURGER, J. M. Hypnosis and the enhancement of visual imagery. Znt. J . din. exp. Hypnosis, 1980,28, 225-243.

’ DEABLER, H. L., FIDEL, E., DILLENKOFFER, R. L., & ELDER, S. T. The use of relaxation and hypnosis in lowering high blood pressure. A m r . I . clin. Hypnosis, 1973,16,75-83.

DE MOOR, W. De psychotherapeutische interoentie, ZZ. De behandelingsstrategische fase. [The psychotherapeutic interoention, ZZ. The phase of therapeutic strategy.] Deventer, The Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1978.

DENGROVE, E. The uses of hypnosis in behavior therapy. Znt. /. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1973, 21, 13-17.

DENGROVE, E. Hypnosis. In E. Dengrove (Ed.), Hypnosis and behaoior therapy. Spring- field, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1976. Pp. 26-35.

DEVINE, D. A., & BORNSTEIN, P. H. Covert modeling-hypnosis in the treatment of obesity. Psychother.: Theor. Res. Pract., 1980, 17, 272-276.

DEYOUB, P. L., & WILKIE, R. Suggestion with and without hypnotic induction in a weight reduction program. Znt. J . clin. erp. Hypnosis, 1980,28, 330-340.

EDMONSTON, W. E., JR. Hypnosis and reluxation: Modern oerijication of an old equation. New York: Wiley, 1981.

ELLIS, A., & HARPER, R. New guide to rational liuing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975.

EMMELUMP, P. M. G. Phobic and obsessive-compulsiue disorders. New York: Plenum, 1982.

GIBBONS, D. Directed-experience hypnosis: A one-year follow-up investigation. Amer. J . clin. Hypnosis, 1971, 13, 206-207.

7-17.

273-278.(a)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

28 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

GIBBONS, D., KOLBOURNE, L., SAUNDERS, A,, & CASTLES, C. The cognitive control of behavior: A comparison of systematic desensitization and hypnotically-induced “directed experience” techniques. Amer. I. clin. Hypnosis, 1970,12, 141-145.

GOLDSTEIN, Y. The effect of demonstrating to a subject that she is in a hypnotic trance as a variable in hypnotic interventions with obese women. Int. 1. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1981, 29, 1523.

HALL, J. A., & CRASILNECK, H. B. Development of a hypnotic technique for treating chronic cigarette smoking. Int . / . clin . exp . Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 283-289.

HILGARD, E. R. Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965. HILGARD, E. R. Di&d conscioumess: Multiple controls in human thought and action.

New York: Wiley, 1977. HILGARD, E. R. Divided consciousness in hypnosis. The implications of the hidden ob-

server. In E. Fromm & R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Deuelopments in research and new perspectiues. (2nd rev. ed.) New York: Aldine, 1979. Pp. 45-79.

HILGARD, J. R. Personality and hypnosis. A study of zmaginatiue inuoloement. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1970.

HOLROYD, J. Hypnosis treatment for smoking: An evaluative review. Int. ]. d in . exp. Hypnosis, 1980,28,341-357.

JACOBSON, E. Progressiue relaxation. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press, 1929. KATZ, N. W. Hypnosis and the addictions: A critical review. Addict. Behuu., 1980,5, 41-47. KAZDIN, A. E. Effects of covert modeling and model reinforcement on assertive behavior. I. abnorm. Psychol., 1974, 83,240-252.

KAZDIN, A. E. Covert modeling, imagery assessment, and assertive behavior. ]. consult. clin. Psychol., 1975,43, 716-724.

KAZDIN, A. E. Covert modeling: the therapeutic application of imagined rehearsal. In J. L. Singer, & K. S. Pope (Eds.), The power of human imagination. N e w methods in psychotherapy. New York: Plenum, 1978. Pp. 255-278.

KAZDIN, A. E., & WILCOXON, L. A. Systematic desensitization and nonspecific treatment effects: A methodological evaluation. Psychol. Bull., 1976, 83, 729-758.

KAZDIN, A. E., & WILSON, G. T. Eualuation of behavior therapy: Issues, euidence and research strategies. London: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1978.

KNOX, V. J., & SHUM, K. Reduction of cold-pressor pain with acupuncture analgesia in high- and low-hypnotic subjects. I. abnorm. Psychol., 1977, 86, 639-643.

KROGER, W. S. Hypnotherapy and behaviour modification. In G. D. Burrows & L. Dennerstein (Eds.), Handbook of hypnosis and psychosomatic mdicine. New York: Elsevier/North Holland, Biomedical Press, 1980. Pp. 509-516.

KROCER, W. S., & FEZLER, W. D. Hypnosis and behauior modification: Imagery conditioning. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976.

LANG, P. J. The mechanics of desensitization and the laboratory study of human fear. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Pp. 160-191.

LANC, P. J., LAZOVIK, A. D., & REYNOLDS, D. J. Desensitization, suggestibility and pseudotherapy. ]. abnonn. Psychol., 1965, 70, 395-402.

LATIMER, P. R., & SWEET, A. A. Cognitive versus behavioral procedures in cognitive- behavior therapy: A critical review. ]. behau. Ther. exp. Psychol., 1984, 15, 9-22.

LAZARUS, A. A. “Hypnosis” as a facilitator in behavior therapy. Int. I. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1973, 21, 25-31.

LICK, J., & BOOTZIN, R. Expectancy factors in the treatment of fear: Methodological and theoretical issues. Psychol. Bull., 1975, 82, 917-931.

LITVAK, S. B. Hypnosis and the desensitization behavior therapies. Psychol. Rep., 1970,

MAHER-LOUGHNAN, G. P. Hypnosis and autohypnosis for the treatment of asthma. Znt. /.

MAHONEY, M . J. Cognition and behauior modification. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1974.

27, 787-794.

d in . erp. Hypnosis, 1970, 18, 1-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


MAHONEY, M. J. , & ARNKOFF, D. B. Cognitive and self-control therapies. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1978. Pp. 68S722.

MARKS, I. Phobic disorders four years after treatment. A prospective follow-up. Brit. J . Psychol., 1971, 118, 683-688.

MARKS, I. M., GELDER, M. G., & EDWARDS, G. Hypnosis and desensitization for phobias: A controlled prospective trial. Brit. J . Psychol., 1968, 114, 1263-1274.

MCAMMOND, D. M., DAVIDSON, F’. O., & KOVIT~, D. M. A comparison of the effects of hypnosis and relaxation training on stress reactions in a dental situation. Amer. J. clin. Hypnosis, 1971,13,233-242.

MCLEMORE, C. W. Imagery in desensitization. Behau. Res. Ther., 1972.10, 5157. MEICHENBAUM, D. Cognitice-behaoior modijication: An integratioe approach. New York:

MELNICK, J., & RUSSELL, R. W. Hypnosis versus systematic desensitization in the treatment

MILLER, R. C., & BERMAN, J. S . The efficacy of cognitive behavior therapies: A quantitative

MOORE, N. Behavior therapy in bronchial asthma: A controlled study. J . psychos^. Res.,

Mom, T. The role of hypnosis in psychotherapy. Amer. j . clin. Hypnosis, 1982,24,241-248. MURRAY, E. J. Learning theory and psychotherapy: Biotropicversus sociotropic approaches.

O’BRIEN, R. M., COOLEY, L. E., Cromr, J., & HENNINGER, K. M. Augmentation of systematic desensitization of snake phobia through posthypnotic dream suggestion. Amer. J. clin. Hypnosis, 1981, 23,231-238.

ORNE, M. T. The construct of hypnosis: Implications of the definition for research and practice. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci.. 1977,296, 14-33.

PAUL, G. L. Effects of relaxation training and hypnotic suggestion. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1969, 74, 425-l37.(a)

PAUL, G. L. Inhibition of physiological response to stressful imagery by relaxation training and hypnotically suggested relaxation. Behau. Res. Ther., 1969, 7, 249-256.(b)

PAUL, G. L., & TRIMBLE, R. W. Recorded vs “live” relaxation training and hypnotic suggestion. Comparative effectiveness for reducing physiological arousal and inhibiting stress response. Behau. Ther., 1970, 1, 285302.

PERRY, C., GELFAND, R., & MARCOVITCH, P. The relevance of hypnotic susceptibility in the clinical context. J . abnorm. Psychol., 1979, 88, 592-603.

RACHMAN, S. J., & WILSON, G. T. The effects of psychological therapy. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Pergamon, 1980.

ROSEN, G. M. Subjects’ initial therapeutic expectancies and subjects’ awareness of therapeutic goals in systematic desensitization: A review. Behao. Ther., 1976, 7, 14-27.

SARBIN, T. R., & COE, W. C. Hypnosis: A social psychological analysis of influence com- munication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.

SCHLUITER, L. C., GOLDEN, C., & BLUME, H. G. A comparison of treatments forprekontal muscle contraction headache. Brit. j . med. Psychol., 1980,53,47-52.

SCHUBOT, E. D. The influence of hypnotic and muscular relaxation in systematic desensitization of phobias. Diss. Abst. I d . , 1967, 27, 3681-B-3682-B. (University Microfilms No. 67-4430.)

SHEEHAN, P. W. Hypnosis and the process of imagination. In E. Fromm & R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Developments in research and new perspectiues. (2nd rev. ed.) New York: Aldine, 1979. Pp. 381411.

SHOR, R. E., & OWE, E. C. Haruard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

SINGER, J. L., & POPE, K. S. The use of imagery and fantasy techniques in psychotherapy. In J. L. Singer & K. S . Pope (Eds.), The power of human imagination: New methods in psychotherapy. New York: Plenum, 1978. Pp. 3-34.

Plenum, 1977.

of test anxiety. J. couns. Psychol., 1976, 23, 291-295.

review of the research evidence. Psychol. Bull., 1983, 94,39-53.

1965, 9, 257-276. .

J . couns. Psychol., 1963,10, ~ 2 . 5 5 .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

30 PHILIP SPINHOVEN

SMITH, M. L., GLASS, G. V., & MILLER, T. I. The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore: John Hopkins Univer. Press, 1980.

SPANOS, N. P., & BARBER, T. X. Cognitive activity during “hypnosis” suggestibility: Goal- directed fantasy and the experience of non-volition. J . Pers., 1972, 40, 510524.

SPANOS, N. P., & BARBER, T. X. Behavior modification and hypnosis. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eider, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behuoior modification. (Vol. 3.) New York: Academic Press, 1976. Pp. 1-43.

SPANOS, N. P., DE MOOR, W., & BARBER, T. X. Hypnosis and behavior therapy: Common denominators. Amer. J . d in . Hypnosis, 1973, 16,4544.

SPANOS, N. P., RADTKE-BODORIK. H. L., FERGUSON, J. D., & JONES, B. The effects of hypnotic susceptibility, suggestions for analgesia, and the utilization of cognitive strategies on the reduction of pain. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1979, 88, 282-292.

SPIEGEL, H. A single-treatment method to stop smoking using ancilliary hypnosis. Znt. J . d in . exp. Hypnosis, 1970,18,23%?.50.

SPINHOVEN, P. Het therapeutisch belang van hypnotiseerbaarheid. [The therapeutic relevance of hypnotizability.] Dht. I O w r t d c h r . Door dir. ther. en hypn., 1982,2,329-365.

STAMPFL, T. C. Implosive therapy, Part I: The theory. In S. G. Armitage (Ed.), Behavior modijication techniques and the treatment of emotional disorders. Battle Creek, MI: V. A. Publications, 1967. Pp. 12-21.

STANTON, H. E. The utilization of suggestions derived from rational-emotive therapy. Znt. 1. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1977,25, 1%26.

STUART, R. B., & DAVIS, B. Slim chance in a fat wrld. Behavioral control of obesity. Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1972.

SULLIVAN, D. S., JOHNSON, A., & BRATKOVITCH, J. Reduction of behavioral deficit in organic brain damage by use of hypnosis. I . d i n . Psychol., 1974, 30, 96-98.

THASE, M. E., & MOSS, M. K. The relative efficacy of covert modeling procedures and guided participant modeting on the reduction of avoidance behavior. J . behuo. Ther. exp. Psych., 1976, 7, 7-12.

TURK, D. C., MEICHENBAUM, D., & GENEST, M. Pain and behaoioral medicine. A cogni- tiue-behaoioral perspective. New York: Guilford, 1983.

TURNER, J. A., & CHAPMAN, C. R. Psychological interventions for chronic pain: A critical review 11. Operant conditioning, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy. Pain, 1982, 12, 23-46.

VAN DYCK, R. Non-specific factors and placebo in psycho-therapy. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Denver, October 1982.

WADDEN, T. A., &ANDERTON, C. H. The clinical use of hypnosis. Psychol. Bull., 1982,91, 215-243.

WADDEN, T. A., & FLAXMAN, J. Hypnosis and weight loss: A preliminary study. Znt. J. clin. exp. Hypnosis, 1981,29, 162-173.

WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. Behavior therapeutic techniques and hypnotherapeutic methods. Amer. J. d in . Hypnosis, 1972,15, 71-82.

WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. When is an “instruction” an “instruction”. Znt. J. clin. exp. Hyp- nosis, 1974,22, 258-269.

WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.

WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILGARD, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

WICKRAMASEKERA, I. Biofeedback, behavior therapy and hypnosis: Convergence and the placebo response. In I. Wickramasekera (Ed.), Biofeedback, behaoior therapy and hypnosis: Potentiating the verbal control of behaoior for clinicians. Chicago: Nelson- Hall, 1976. Pp. 579-591.

WILKINS, W. Desensitization: Social and cognitive factors underlying the effectiveness of Wolpe’s procedure. Psychol. Bull., 1971, 76, 311317.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


WILSON, G. T. Cognitive behavior therapy: Paradigm shift or passing phase? In J. Foreyt & D. Rathjen (Eds.), Cognititie behavior therapy: Research and applications. New York: Plenum, 1978. Pp. 7-32.

WOLPE, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1958. WOLPE, J., The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon, 1969. WOLPE, J., & LAZARUS, A. A. Behatiior therapy techniques. Oxford: Pergamon, 1966. WOODY, R. H. Clinical suggestion and systematic desensitization. Atner. 1. d i n . Hypnosis,

1973, 15,250-257.

Hypnose und Verhaltenstherapie: Ein Uberblick Philip Spinhoven

Abstrakt: Hypnose wird in weitem Ma6e als ein Zusatz zur Verhaltenstherapie benutzt. Hypnose kann als eine vorhergehende Variable (Hypnosekontext und gegebene Suggesti- onen) wie auch als eine Subjektvariable (die Fihigkeit, profunde, subjektive Verinderun- gen durchzumachen) definiert werden. Ein Faktor, den Hypnose mit e iner auf Vorstellungskraft basierten Verhaltenstherapie gemeinsam hat, ist der Gebrauch von Entspannungs- und Imaginationsprozessen. Empirische Hypnosestudien und Verhal- tenstherapie werden hier rividiert. Man kam zu dem BeschluB, da6 Hypnose als ein Zusatz in erster Linie gewohnliche Therapiefaktoren, wie Erwarten des Erfolgs und Vertrauen zur Behandlung, beeinflu6t. Ein mehr spezifischer Effekt der Hypnose in der Verhaltenstherapie mu6 immer noch demonstriert werden. Es wird daher vorgeschlagen, daB eine fruchtbare Kombination von Hypnose und Verhaltenstherapie ein therapeu- tisches Vorgehen verlangt, in dem eine spontane Kontrolle weniger prominent ist und Suggestionen fiir unwillkurliche Hypnoseerlebnisse gegeben werden.

Hypnose et therapie behaviorale: une revue Philip Spinhoven

Resume: L'hypnose est largement utilisee comme compkment A la th6rapie behaviorale. L'hypnose peut &tre definie autant comme une variable situationnelle (contexte hypnotique et suggestions donn6es) que comme une variable individuelle (la capacitb dexpkrimenter des changements subjectifs profonds). L'utilisation de la relaxation e t des processus ima- ginatifs semble 6tre le facteur commun 5 l'hypnose e t aux therapies behaviorales bas6es sur I'imagination. Une revue des etudes empiriques de I'hypnose et des therapies behaviorales est presentee. 11 est conclut que I'hypnose mmme complement a la th6rapie behaviorale influence premibrement des facteurs communs aux therapies en g6n6ral comme par exemple les attentes de s u d s et la credibilitb du traitement. Un effet plus specifique de l'hypnose dans les therapies behaviorales reste encore a demontrer. L'auteur sdggbre qu'une mmbinaison fructueuse dhypnose et de th6rapie behaviorale exige une approche thkrapeutique ax6e plus sur la suggestion d'expkriences hypnotiques involontaires que sur le mntr6le volontaire comme tel.

Una revisi6n sobre hipnosis y terapia comportamental Philip Spinhoven

Resumen: Se ha generalizado el us0 de la hipnosis como complementaria a las terapias comportamentales. La hipnosis puede ser definida ya sea como una variable antecedente (el context0 hipn6tico y las sugestiones dadas) o como una variable del sujeto (la capacidad para experimentar cambios subjetivos profundos). Un factor comirn a la hipnosis y a las terapias comportamentales basadas en la imagineria, es el us0 de relajaci6n y de procesos imaginativos. Se lleva a cab0 una revisi6n de estudios empiricos sobre hipnosis y terapia comportamental. Se concluye que la hipnosis utilizada mmo complemento, influencia, en primer lugar, factores tales como expectativa de Bxito y credibilidad del tratamiento. Todavia necesitaria ser demostrado otro efecto mis especifico de la hipnosis sobre la terapia comportamental. Se sugiere que una combinaci6n fructifera de hipnosis y terapia comportamental, requiere de un enfoque terapeutico, en el cual el control voluntario sea menos importante y se den, en camhio, sugestiones para experiencias hipn6ticas involun- tarias.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

86.1

54.2

05.4

9] a

t 05:

44 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Date post:	14-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	georgios-lerios
View:	43 times
Download:	2 times

Hypnosis and Behavior Therapy a Review

Documents