Direct Versus Indirect Suggestions: A Conceptual and Methodological Review

Abstract

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.

Hypnosis and top-down regulation of consciousness

“…Therapeutic suggestions are often individually tailored and can be delivered in a formal, indirect, or more conversational style, replete with anecdotes, metaphors, and analogies. Typically, few or no differences in responsiveness are evident as a function of suggestion wording, so long as the response intent of the suggestion is clear (Lynn, Neufeld, & Mare, 1993).…”

Strategic Eclecticism in Hypnotherapy: Effectiveness Research Considerations

“…Erikson's action has much less to do with the dubious status of indirect suggestion (Lynn et al, 1993) than it does with directional intention. We can return to Kirsch (1999) and others (Lynn & Hallquist, 2004) to ground Ericksonian or strategic eclectic treatment in sound research-based principles of change.…”

Not all group hypnotic suggestibility scales are created equal: Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses

“…Because the CURSS contains a higher proportion of cognitive-perceptual suggestions, we hypothesized that participants would exhibit a lower rate of behavioral responding, as compared with participants administered either the HGSHS: A or the GSHA. Although the authoritative wording of suggestions does not affect rates of behavioral responding (Lynn et al, 1993), an authoritative tone can potentiate suggestion-related feelings, including the experience of suggestion-related involuntariness (Lynn, Neufeld, & Matyi, 1987). Accordingly, we expected that the authoritatively worded HGSHS: A and GSHA would be associated with greater subjective responding and with higher rates of involuntary responding in particular, than the relatively indirect, permissive CURSS.…”

“…Scales also have different administration times. Each of these scale characteristics has the potential to engender differences in behavioral and subjective responses to the scales (Lynn, Neufeld, & Mare 1993;Lynn, Vanderhoff, Shindler, & Stafford, 2002).…”