A Personalised Induction Will Always Be More Effective

...

Clark Hull

Hull had very different ideas to Erickson in the process of hypnosis and did not consider it important to involve the client in their therapy. Hull (cited in Hidden Depths: The Story of Hypnosis, 2004) did not believe the existence of a special state during hypnosis (hypnotic trance). In fact he went as far as denying it. He believed that it was more of a case of normal psychological mechanisms than phenomena.

Hypnosis was further developed in 1940 by Jung and Hull still believing that the authoritarian style was the best to use, forcing the clients to follow the desires of the therapist however Jung did not feel comfortable in forcing client to follow his will so he broke away from Hull as he no longer wished to continue this method of therapy.

The authoritarian style is very different to the permissive style and is more direct and commanding and its main purpose is to take control over the client and alter their behavior through repetitious commands.

Maybe Erickson appeared to have more success than Hull because he was gentler in his approach and took into consideration the individual and their wants and needs. Neither of these hypnotherapists made personalized scripts but Erickson took notice of his client’s individual differences and showed importance to building rapport with them, so the client’s responses and co-operation were much more.

There are two main techniques used in the induction process, the authoritarian technique and the permissive technique. These techniques are very different and both are effective in different situations and with different clients.

Permissive technique

This technique employs a softer tone of voice to lull the subject into relaxation. In contrast to the authoritarian technique, the hypnotist and the subject are equal partners in the process. More imaginary is used to enhance suggestions, and greater responsibility is given to the subject. The subjects who are most responsive to this technique are ones who are more imaginative and creative. (Hypnosis for change, Hadley and Staudacher)

Authoritarian technique

This technique is more commanding and direct. Its purpose is to establish control over the subject and alter behavior through the use of repetitious commands. This approach was used in early experiments because hypnotists believed that the authority they had over their subjects increased their chance for success. Generally speaking, the subjects who are most responsive to this technique are those who have great respect for and respond well to authoritarian figures in daily life. (Hypnosis for change, Hadley and Staudacher)

Knowing which style suits and individual is determined at the first meeting with the client. As stated before this is when we gather the information and find out which modality they are. Everyone is different and some people need to be guided through the induction process, so find that the authoritarian technique is best for them, example; when being hypnotized and asked to find their special place, they find it difficult without being told where to go, so need the therapist to choose a place for them. Others however do not like being told what to do, so it is important that the permissive technique is used for those individuals as the client may disengage if given direct commands. It may not be a personalized script but it is tailored somewhat to the individual.

Different personalities need different approaches so personalizing scripts are successful to a certain point

Is personalised always more effective;

The most effective way in which to achieve a deep hypnotic state is to employ all of the senses in your description. This is called Compounding. In a compounding script you would refer to all of the modalities. Example; “Looking out over the garden and seeing the flowers” (Visual). “As you look around the garden you can hear the birds singing” (Auditory, visual). “And as you look down at the flowers you reach out and feel the velvety petals, it feels so soft” (Visual, Kinaesthetic). This is why an induction has to be flexible and by trying to get an idea of which modality our clients prefer as this will help them to feel more comfortable. We use all of our senses in different day to day situations but all of us have a favourite one of which we are more comfortable, although it is beneficial to use all the senses when trying to build a safe and comfortable space for the client. A compounding combination is far more effective in achieving a deep hypnotic state. It is important that we treat our clients as individuals and remember that all people are different and one script does not fit all. All scripts including a compounding script are tailored in a way that meets that individuals needs to ensure they are met. We also have to be aware of their fears and dislikes so that any damaging or negative suggestions can be avoided. If a client for example had a fear of water they would not find it enjoyable to take a nice walk across a bridge with water flowing gently under.

Some therapists prefer to use scripts containing both permissive and authoritarian depending on the goal of the therapy. Sometimes a mix of both gentle and a more direct approach are needed and can be more successful when used together, Example; when a client wants to stop smoking or lose weight. They are still directly involved in their therapy and are more likely to retain their responsiveness to achieve success.

Conclusion

Personalising inductions are generally more effective but not always as it varies on the goal of the therapy. Example; if a person who wants to stop smoking is assessed as being best suited to a permissive technique, but they may also need a more firm approach to achieve success. The permissive screed may then have to be adapted to incorporate authoritarian style to be more successful and achieve the goal.

Reasons not to use personalised inductions are; Personalised inductions take much longer to prepare, they can’t be used for group sessions and they can’t be recorded and distributed to others.