The article reviews the literature on the effects of direct versus indirect hypnotic suggestions. A conceptual and methodological analysis of direct versus indirect suggestions is also provided. Three conclusions follow from the review: (a) Contrary to views of Ericksonian hypnotists, suggestion style has little effect on objective responding to hypnotic test items; (b) studies of clinical- and laboratory-induced pain and other measures of subjective experience have yielded contradictory results--however, the best controlled studies have not indicated that indirect suggestions are superior to direct suggestions; and (c) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that hypnotizability level and suggestion wording interact, such that low hypnotizable subjects are particularly responsive to indirect suggestions. Methodological and conceptual problems in defining and studying hypnotic communications, the lack of rigorous experimental controls, and research issues and directions are highlighted.

This article summarizes data from three studies (Maré, Lynn, Kvaal, Segal, & Sivec, in press; Lynn, Maré, Kvaal, Segal, & Sivec, 1993) designed to extend research on the "hidden observer" to two phenomena of clinical relevance: hypnotic dreams and suggested age regression. Subjects received suggestions for a hypnotic dream or age regression and then received suggestions for a "hidden observer" (i.e., the subject possesses a part of the self that is aware of images and ideas that the conscious mind is unaware of) with respect to the dream or age-regression experience. Hidden reports contained more personally relevant information than the target suggestions (i.e., dream, age regression). Subjectives were also less likely to recall hidden reports. The high rate of hidden-observer responding (> 80%) was also evident in nonhypnotized simulating and relaxed subjects, although they did not exhibit as much primary process thinking in their dream reports as hypnotized subjects. Case studies of a trauma client and a forensic client are used to illustrate the clinical potential of hidden-observer suggestions.

In Study 1, virtuoso (n = 13; passed more than 10 suggestions on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A [HGSHS:A] and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C), high hypnotizable (n = 14; passed more than 8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A), and medium hypnotizable (n = 17; passed 4-8 suggestions on the HGSHS:A) Ss were administered a hypnotic dream suggestion followed by a "dream hidden observer" suggestion (i.e., access hidden part; have new thoughts and images pertinent to dream). The majority of Ss reported dreams (81.8%) and hidden observers (80%), with hidden reports being characterized by more personal content, less primary processes, and poorer recall than dream reports. Study 2 replicated major findings. Although hypnotized (n = 18) and low hypnotizable simulating Ss (n = 17) responded comparably on most measures, hypnotizable Ss' dreams contained more primary process than did simulating Ss, providing support for M. R. Nash's (1991) psychoanalytic model.

No abstract