This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 29 September 2013, At: 07:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of Clinical HypnosisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20

Commentary: The Ghosts of ResearchPastDavid M. Wark PhD aa University of Minnesota, USAPublished online: 21 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: David M. Wark PhD (2007) Commentary: The Ghosts of Research Past, AmericanJournal of Clinical Hypnosis, 49:3, 203-204, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2007.10401581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2007.10401581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

203

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Copyright ©2007 by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis49:3, January 2007

Address correspondence and reprint requests to:David M. Wark, PhD1313 5th St. SEMinneapolis, MN 55414Email: Wark@umn.edu

Commentary: The Ghosts of Research Past

David M. WarkUniversity of Minnesota

Kirsch at al (in press this issue) argue that phenomena produced bysuggestions in hypnosis can be produced almost as well by suggestion withoutthe induction of hypnosis. They base their conclusion in part on a research paradigmusing imaginative suggestions (Braffman & Kirsch, 1999; Braffman & Kirsch, 2001).Subjects are asked to imagine that their arm is rising, or that their arms are movingapart, or their arms are immobile, items all taken from the Carleton UniversityResponsiveness to Suggestion Scale (Spanos et. al., 1983a, 1983b). In that situation,and with those suggestions, there is no significant or practical difference betweena response following a “waking suggestion” and one following a hypnotic induction.The responses of interest are relatively simple, observable and for the most parthighly practiced.

Consider now an alternative suggestion paradigm. A middle aged male hashabitually over used tobacco for many years. On the evening of a certain January1, in a condition that could be called “waking,” he suggests to himself: “That wasmy last cigarette.” On January 2, he is seen to be smoking. He repeats this processevery year for five more consecutive years. On the next January 3 he hires a therapistto teach him self hypnosis. After the session, the client relaxes, remembers that thetherapist told him that smoking brings poison to his body, he needs his body tolive, that he owes his body respect. He repeats to himself some instructions designedto produce hypnosis, and then suggests “I’m never going to smoke again”. Hefollows that hypnotic suggestion, stops smoking, and lives a longer, healthier life,consistent with the clinical literature (Green and Lynn 2000). In this imagined case,the suggestion following hypnotic induction is considerably more effective. Doesthat trump Kirsch’s generalized, reductionistic argument? Clearly, no.

It may simply be that the situation that Kirsch describes, while real, islimited. It may be that hypnotic suggestions are not very impactfull on certainimaginative suggestions; suggestions that are highly practiced, involve simple

25799_pg203_204.pmd 1/11/2007, 5:35 PM203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:33

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

204

Commentary

motoric responses, and occur over a relatively short span of time. It is conceivable that theresponses to these suggestions are so over determined that a hypnotic induction has aminor, insignificant impact. Conclusions from suggestions for simple responses may notgeneralize to complex ones.

Consider now abstention, which is a complex emotional and cognitive as well asand motoric response, and which occurs over a relatively long period of time. A simplewaking suggestion: “This is my last cigarette” does not change the behavior. But a suggestionfollowing hypnotic induction, repeated over time, may be more powerful. We might speculatewhy that is so, but not in this brief comment.

The point here is simply to suggest that failure to differentiate aspects of the pastmay inadvertently lead to incomplete projections about the future.

References

Braffman, W. & Kirsch, I. (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: A empiricalanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 578-587

Braffman, W. & Kirsch, I. (2001). Reaction time as a predictor of imaginative suggestibilityand hypnotizability. Contemporary Hypnosis, 18(3), 107-119.

Green, J. P., & Lynn, S. J. (2000). Hypnosis and suggestion-based approaches to smokingcessation: An examination of the evidence. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 48(2), 195.

Kirsch, I., Mazzoni, G., and Montgomery, G. (2006). Remembrance of hypnosis past. AmericanJournal of Clinical Hypnosis, 49(3), 171-178.

Spanos, N. P., Radtke, H. L., Hodgins, D. C., Stam, H. J., & Dubreuil, D. L. (1983a). TheCarleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Stability, reliability,and relationships with expectancy and “hypnotic experiences.” PsychologicalReports, 53, 555-563.

Spanos, N. P., Radtke, H. L., Hodgins, D. C., Stam, H. J., & Bertrand, L. D. (1983b). TheCarleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale: Normative data andpsychometric properties. Psychological Reports, 53, 523-535.

25799_pg203_204.pmd 1/11/2007, 5:35 PM204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:33

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13