Commentary on My Theory of Hypnosis

by Alfred A Barrios, PhD

My commentary will cover the following key areas:

I. Contrasting my theory with other major perspectives in the field including the Socio-cognitive, the Dissociation/Neo-Dissociation, and the Response-Expectancy perspectives, pointing out some of the key similarities and differences between these approaches and my theory.

II. Presenting some of the research and work subsequent to the first publication of my theory (Barrios, 1969) that I feel presents further support for it; and

III. Pointing out some of the subsequent benefits of the theory which will include:

A. Showing how the theory leads to a further understanding/explanation of such areas as the hallucinogens, bio-feedback, higher-order conditioning, placebos, and religion.

B. Showing how the theory led to developing more effective methods of hypnotic induction including the use of subtle natural occurring responses as well as biofeedback techniques.

C. Showing how the theory led to developing more effective methods for giving post-hypnotic suggestion.

D. Showing how combining "B" and "C" above together with a set of positive guidelines to life led to the development of Self-Programmed Control (SPC) (Barrios, 1973c, 1985), a positive-oriented behavioral improvement program aimed at helping individuals achieve Self-Actualization (Maslow, 1971), greater Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and higher Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 1995). This emphasis on a positive psychological approach to behavioral improvement fits right in with the current Positive Psychology movement (Seligman, 2005). The positive results of SPC's first applications are presented starting in 1970 with its application in improving the educational system. Next presented are the positive results of its applications in the areas of welfare, industry, medicine, and drug rehabilitation.

COMPARISON OF MY THEORY WITH THE SOCIOCOGNITIVE THEORIES

Similarities

Both perspectives discuss the importance of the part played by individual differences in affecting initial responsiveness to suggestion. The following are included as individual influencing factors in both perspectives: subjects' expectations and beliefs about hypnosis; motivation and imagination (or fantasy proneness). Two areas of individual differences mentioned in my theory which I did not notice mentioned in the literature on sociocognitive theories were age of the subject and prestige of the hypnotist in the eyes of the subject. I would expect that the sociocognitive theorists would agree that these are also important individual difference factors. However, the explanation for how these factors play a part according to my theory might differ from the sociocognitive perspective.

With regards to age, for instance, I state that the reason initial suggestibility varies with age "...may be traced to certain factors that vary with age. One of these is language ability. Since [according to my theory] hypnosis is dependent to a great extent on the conditioned response evoked by words, we can understand why very young children whose language ability is not yet well-developed would make very poor subjects for hypnosis, and thus why we would expect an initial gradual increase in suggestibility with increasing age.

"An explanation for the gradual decline in suggestibility after the age of eight is that with continued increasing age the number of cognitive stimuli competing with a suggestion increases (that is knowledge increases with age) and a corollary to the 'reciprocal inhibition' or 'stimulus dominance hierarchy' postulate is that the more stimuli in the hierarchy, the lower the probability of a reaction to any one of them... with increasing age there will be a greater number of possible contradictory stimuli [competing with] a suggestion; that is, subjects have more information available with which to verify or contradict the suggestion." (Barrios, 2001, p. 185)

With regards to prestige, "It is fairly well accepted that the more 'prestige' a hypnotist has in the eyes of subjects, the better his chances of success. It is felt that is so because the statement, commands or suggestions of a person with prestige tend to be questioned less, that is, such a person evokes a greater inhibitory set to begin with. In general, people have previously been conditioned to accept at face value the statements of someone who is an authority in his field. That is, an inhibitory set which inhibits contradictory stimuli [in the stimulus dominance hierarchy] has been previously conditioned (in much the same way as in the hypnotic induction process). This is so because what the authority says has usually turned out to be true!" (Barrios, 2001, p.181). It will be recalled that in my theory a positive response to a series of suggestions (the hypnotic induction) conditions in an inhibitory set to automatically inhibit any stimuli' (cognitive or sensory) in the stimulus dominance hierarchy that would contradict the suggestion.

(2) Another similarity between the sociocognitive and my perspective revolves around the use of what the sociocognitives refer to as "goal directed fantasies" (GDF's). GDF's are defined as "imagined situations which, if they were to occur, would be expected to lead to the involuntary occurrence of the motor response called for by the suggestion." (Spanos, Rivers & Ross, 1977, p.211); although I would not limit responses to only motor responses. In my theory, Hypothesis IV states: "A suggestion produces the desired response by first evoking a cognitive stimulus which is associated with that response." And a corollary to this hypothesis, Corollary 8 states: "The more (compatible) cognitive stimuli associated with the response evoked by the suggestion, the stronger the response to the suggestion." For example, to increase the probability of producing the involuntary response of salivation and/or the secretion of pepsin, you might want to suggest that the subject was eating a delicious steak or, better yet a thick juicy steak smothered in onions.

(3) A third similarity between the two perspectives is how they apparently both seem to fit in with Milton Erickson's strategic approach to therapy. How Erickson's approach fits in with the sociocognitive perspective is discussed in a very extensive article by Lynn & Sherman (2000). The following includes some examples of how Erickson's ideas parallel mine as presented in my theory:

Scripts

In the section of Lynn & Sherman's article where they are discussing Erickson's strategy of using scripts, they point out that "Erickson found this technique useful in engendering a 'yea saying' response pattern. He would start with questions with an obvious 'yes' answer; to establish a pattern or response set, he would keep asking such questions. Patients would [then] apparently agree to things that they would not have agreed to in the absence of such a response set." (Lynn & Sherman, 2000, p.306) This also explains the effectiveness of persuasive salesmen who "prep" a person to buy by getting the person to respond with "yeses" to a series of questions. If we can look upon these "questions" as a variation of suggestions, then in both cases the individual is being put through a form of hypnotic induction according to my theory: As stated by Hypothesis III of the theory: A Positive response to a suggestion will induce within the responding person a more or less generalized increase in the normally existent tendency to respond to succeeding suggestions." (Barrios, 2001, p. 178)

Also related to this "yea saying" technique of Erickson is another he often used to get positive responses to his suggestions: "He often tied suggestions to naturally or frequently occurring responses, or more broadly to whatever response the patient made (Erickson & Rossi, 1976). Certain naturally occurring responses, such as lowing of an outstretched arm, provide immediate positive propioceptive feedback." (Lynn & Sherman, 2000, p.307) To see the similarity of this to what I say in my theory, I refer you to what I say related to Corollary 6 following Hypothesis III of the theory: "The response could be 'artificially' induced in a number of ways. For instance, the suggestions that the eyes are going to get tired may be helped if a slight eye strain is placed on them by having the subjects look at an object at a difficult angle." (Barrios, 2001, p.180)

Erickson's Altering Accessibility

According to Lynn & Sherman (2000,p.306), "Response sets can be established and reinforced by altering the accessibility of facts or events in memory... For example, imagining negative outcomes of smoking and overeating and positive outcomes of not doing so can make it easier to resist these urges." This very same procedure is referred to as the "Punishment-Reward" technique, one of several visualization techniques for facilitating re-programming, in my Self-Programmed Control (SPC) program for improving behavior (see Barrios, 1973c & Barrios, 1985, pp.49 & 50). These techniques and others for facilitating suggestion and post-hypnotic suggestion are derived from Corollary 8 of my theory and will be discussed further in a later section of this paper.

Click here to read the rest of this article, or visit www.stresscards.com for more information.