Hypnosis, Human Nature, and Complexity: Integrating Neuroscience Approaches into Hypnosis Research

Abstract

Hypnosis research has contributed much to the understanding of human behavior and experience, both normal and abnormal. This paper considers ways in which neuroscience approaches may be integrated into hypnosis research to continue and enhance that contribution, as well as further reveal the nature of hypnosis itself. The authors review the influences on and advances in hypnosis research over the last century; illustrate the investigative value of hypnosis to selected phenomena across the areas of doing, feeling, believing, and remembering; and specify elements for the successful integration of neuroscience approaches into hypnosis research. The authors believe that hypnosis research offers powerful techniques to isolate psychological processes in ways that allow their neural bases to be mapped. Successful integration will be achieved when researchers add levels of explanation, rather than shift the emphasis from one level or feature to another.

Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility

“…Instrumentallyoriented studies using functional neuroimaing require relative uniformity of mechanisms underlying hypnotic responding among HS individuals (Barnier & McConkey, 2003;Woody & McConkey, 2003). Insofar as the presence of two HS subtypes with dissimilar cognitive and phenomenological profiles suggests that they are experiencing hypnotic suggestions through distinct mechanisms, this study warrants that instrumental studies more closely consider individual di↵erences in this population.…”

The emerging neuroscience of hypnosis

“…Highly suggestible individuals display marked variability in a variety of critical dimensions, including responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions (McConkey and Barnier, 2004), cognitive control during hypnosis (Terhune et al, in press), and the mechanisms underlying hypnotic responding (Galea et al, 2010). Heterogeneity poses a significant challenge for instrumental neuroimaging research because the inclusion of discrete subgroups that experience a phenomenon through disparate mechanisms in the same study will produce misleading results (Barnier and McConkey, 2003;Woody and McConkey, 2003).…”

Variations in the sense of agency during hypnotic responding: Insights from latent profile analysis.

“…Irrespective of the mechanisms, these results suggest three qualitatively distinct phenomenological modes of hypnotic responding: a pronounced level of involuntariness and effortlessness (class 1) or a moderate-to-high level of one or the other (classes 2 and 3). If these different modes of responding are replicable and relate to variability in other features of cognition (Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011a;Terhune et al, 2011b) or strategy utilization during hypnotic responding (Galea et al, 2010;King & Council, 1998;McConkey, Glisky, & Kihlstrom, 1989;Sheehan & McConkey, 1982), it may be problematic to collapse participants into single groups as this will mask potentially important differences (Barnier & McConkey, 2003;Woody & Szechtman, 2003).…”