Factors influencing rapport in hypnosis.

Abstract

The phenomenon of countering expresses the tendency of some highly susceptible subjects to favor the intent of the hypnotist when placed in a conflict situation where social influences of another kind dictate an alternative response. The present research explored the parameters of this objective index of involvement with the hypnotist to investigate the special relevance of rapport processes to the hypnotic setting. Rapport was manipulated in five different experiments, varying either the warmth or genuineness of the hypnotist. It was predicted from transference theorizing that countering would decrease in the negative context and increase in the positive one. Results confirmed predictions for highly susceptible subjects tested in the former context but not the latter. In the negative setting, subjects were inhibited in their rate of countering, but maintained their previous level of response to the hypnotist when rapport was facilitated. Results highlighted the relevance of interpersonal processes to theorizing about hypnosis.Just as in therapy the interpersonal framework that exists for therapist and client constitutes a very powerful matrix within which a number of influencing techniques become potentiated (Strupp, 1973), so too the relationship between hypnotist and subject can be said to be relevant to the understanding of hypnotic phenomena. The nature of the relevance of interpersonal theorizing to hypnosis has been asserted most strongly by thoseThe research reported in this article was financed by grants from the Australian Research Grants Committee to the author for the period 1973-1978. The author is greatly indebted to the Committee for that support.The author wishes to thank the following persons for their valued help as experimenters, raters, or demonstration models at various stages throughout the conduct of the research:

Mirror agnosia and the mirrored-self misidentification delusion: A hypnotic analogue

“…Previous research has shown that hypnosis participants actively work to interpret and experience the suggestions given to them (e.g., Barnier, Dienes, & Mitchell, 2008;Lynn & Sivec, 1992;McConkey, 1991;Sheehan, 1991;Sheehan & McConkey, 1982;Spanos, 1981;White, 1937White, , 1941. This is reflected, for example, in research showing that high hypnotisable participants often respond to what they perceive to be the hypnotist's intention rather than the literal suggestion (e.g., Green et al, 1990;Lynn et al, 1990;Sheehan, 1971Sheehan, , 1980. As McConkey (1991) observed, this involvement of participants ''should not be viewed in terms of simple acquiescence or compliance, but rather as a position of cognitive readiness by the subjects to construct incoming information in a way that allows them to experience the suggested effect'' (p. 555).…”

The Four Causes of Hypnosis

“…. ''Try to bend your arm'') may leave subjects in a quandary easily filled by deference to the emphases of the hypnotist (Haley, 1972;Sheehan, 1980;Sheehan & Dolby, 1979). Hume noted the great power of extrinsic stimuli: ''No internal impression has an apparent energy, more than external objects have'' (1888/1939, pp.…”

Rapport and Cognitive Skill Training in the Enhancement of Hypnotizability

“…Furthermore several studies indicate that hypnotist/subject rapport influences hypnotic responding [18][19][20][21]. For instance, it was found in one study [6] that the degree of hypnotizability gain that followed CSTP administration was positively correlated with the degree of rapport reported by subjects toward their trainers.…”