Direct vs Indirect Hypnotic Techniques: What to Choose?

Journal title IPNOSI
Author/s Giuseppe De Benedittis
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/1
Language Italian Pages 9 P. 5-13 File size 173 KB
DOI 10.3280/IPN2024-001001
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Historically, direct hypnotic induction techniques have enjoyed a prominent place in the clinician’s and researcher’s arsenal. Indirect techniques, introduced by M. Erickson as an approach aimed at bypassing the resistances of some patients have over time become the reference standard of the New Hypnosis. The alleged advantage of indirect techniques over direct ones is based on the formulation of a permissive style, which offers the subject a wide range of ap-propriate experiential and behavioral responses. Indirect suggestions make use of a wide variety of ther-apeutic interventions that cover all possible alternatives and offer the subject a choice of therapeutically useful behaviors, including the use of metaphors, stories, paradoxes and double binds. The popularity of these indirect suggestions has pro-gressed in step with the popularity of Ericksonian hypnosis, of which they have become the emblem. But are indirect techniques superior to direct ones? A review of the literature supports three conclusions on key Ericksonian axioms: (a) contra-ry to Ericksonian views, the indirect suggestive style has little effect on the objec-tive response to hypnotic tests; (b) clinical and laboratory induced pain studies have produced contradictory results; however, the best controlled studies have not demonstrated a clear superiority of indirect techniques over direct ones and (c) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the client’s hypnotizability is essen-tially a function of the hypnotist’s ability. In conclusion, the available evidence does not allow to support the absolute superiority of indirect methods over direct ones, while the principle of parsimony suggests that the adoption of direct or indi-rect techniques must be evaluated case by case and not indiscriminately, favoring an eclectic approach, not self-referential, more appropriate and functional. The time has come to demystify some Ericksonian axioms, to prevent the New Hyp-nosis from being isolated from the debate of the scientific community and relegat-ed to an apodictic and unsupported practice.

Keywords: direct techniques, indirect techniques, ericksonian approaches, compa-rison of techniques

  1. Alman B.M., Wexler D. (1988). Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (AWIHSS). In Pratt G.J., Wood D.P., Alman B.M., eds., Clinical hypnosis primer. Expanded and updated. New York: John Wiley.
  2. Barber J. (1977). Rapid induction analgesia: a clinical report. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 19(3): 138-145. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1977.10403860
  3. De Benedittis G. (2009). Modulazione cognitiva ed emotiva in stato di veglia e ipnosi: un’analisi bispettrale dinamica. In: Valerio C., Mammini C., a cura di, L’evoluzione clinica dell’ipnosi. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  4. Weitzenhoffer A.M., Hilgard E.R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  5. Van Gorp W.G., Meyer R.G., Dunbar K.D. (1985). The efficacy of direct versus indirect hypnotic induction techniques on reduction of experimental pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33(4): 319-328. DOI: 10.1080/00207148508406968.
  6. Szabó C. (1993) The Phenomenology of the Experiences and the Depth of Hypnosis: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Induction Techniques. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41(3): 225-233. DOI: 10.1080/00207149308414552
  7. Shor R.E., Orne E.C. (1961). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. American Psychological Association PsycTests.
  8. Rossi E. (1985). Guarire con l’ipnosi. Roma: Astrolabio.
  9. Rodolfa E.R., Kraft W.A., Reilley R.R. (1985). Current trends in hypnosis and hypnotherapy: An interdisciplinary assessment. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 28(1): 20-26. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1985.10402627
  10. Robin B.R., Kumar V.K., Pekala R.J. (2005). Direct and indirect scales of hypnotic susceptibility: resistance to therapy and psychometric comparability. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53(2): 135-147. DOI: 10.1080/00207140590927617.
  11. Pratt G.J, Wood D.P., Alman B. (1984). A Clinical Hypnosis Primer. London: Psychology Press.
  12. O’Hanlon W.H. (1987). Underlying principles of Milton Erickson’s therapy and hypnosis. New York: Norton & Company.
  13. Matthews W.J. (2000). Ericksonian approaches to hypnosis and therapy: Where are we now? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48(4): 418-426. DOI: 10.1080/00207140008410370
  14. Matthews W.J., Bennett H., Bean W., Gallagher M. (1985). Indirect versus direct hypnotic suggestion an initial investigation: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33: 219-223. DOI: 10.1080/00207148508406650
  15. Lynn S.J., Neufeld V., Maré C. (1993). Direct versus indirect suggestions: A conceptual and methodological review. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 41: 124-152. DOI: 10.1080/00207149308414543
  16. Lynn S.J., Neufeld V., Matyi C.L. (1987). Hypnotic induction versus suggestions: The effects of direct and indirect wording. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96: 76-80.
  17. Lankton S.R., Lankton C.A., Lankton C.H. (1983). The Answer Within: A Clinical Framework of Ericksonian Hypnotherapy. London: Psychology Press.
  18. Kuhn T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University Press.
  19. Hammond D.C. (2011). Handbook of Hypnotic Suggestions and Metaphors. New York: Norton & Company.
  20. Groth-Marnat G., Mitchell K. (1998). Responsiveness to direct versus indirect hypnotic procedures: the role of resistance as a predictor variable. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46(4): 324-333. DOI: 10.1080/00207149808410012.
  21. Fricton J.T., Roth P. (1985). The effects of direct and indirect hypnotic suggestions for analgesia in high and low subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27: 226-231. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1985.10402612
  22. Erickson M.H. (1966). The Interspersal Hypnotic Technique for Symptom Correction and Pain Control. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 8(3): 198-209, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1966.10402492
  23. Erickson M.H. (1964). An Hypnotic Technique for Resistant Patients: The Patient, the Technique and its Rationale and Field Experiments. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 7(1): 8-32. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1964.10402387
  24. Dowd T.E., Milne C.R., Wise S.L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69: 541-545.
  25. De Benedittis, G. (2020). Tecniche dirette ed indirette a confronto: quali scegliere? Presentazione al XIV Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di Ipnosi, Paestum, 25-27 settembre 2020.

Giuseppe De Benedittis, Ipnosi: tecniche dirette e indirette a confronto: quali scegliere? in "IPNOSI" 1/2024, pp 5-13, DOI: 10.3280/IPN2024-001001