American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
ISSN: 0002-9157 (Print) 2160-0562 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts James R. Council To cite this article: James R. Council (2015) Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57:4, 386-389, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468
Published online: 07 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 65
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujhy20 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 11 November 2015, At: 22:18
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57: 386–389, 2015 Copyright © American Society of Clinical Hypnosis ISSN: 0002-9157 print / 2160-0562 online DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468
Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts James R. Council
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
As a member of the APA Division 30 Hypnosis Definition Committee, I should probably let the main paper speak for itself. However, now that the deed is done, I do have some thoughts of my own to share. I will also note that as one of the Science Editors of this journal, I have seen several of the other commentaries before publication and have been invited to refer to them in my comments. As documented in the main paper, previous attempts to define hypnosis (Green, Barabasz, Barrett, & Montgomery, 2005; Kirsch, 1994) were criticized for being too long (Elkins, Barabasz, Council, & Spiegel, 2015). As the commentaries on those definitions demonstrated, one drawback of having too many words is that they offer numerous targets for criticism. The new definition is nothing if not concise, but as a consequence, several words stick out that are bound to make some people unhappy. The brevity of the definition leaves specific terms very open to interpretation—depending on one’s interpretation, one may find a lot to like, or vice versa. The most contentious word in the definition is likely to be “state.” It should be noted that the initial version of the definition used the phrase “altered state of consciousness,” and the qualifier “altered” was dropped by the committee to make the definition more theoretically neutral. Even so, Lynn et al. (this issue) seem to view the inclusion of this term as the most important factor in making the revised definition a “step backwards” in establishing a science of hypnosis. Of course, Lynn and his co-authors are strong proponents of the sociocognitive view of hypnosis (which I favor myself). However, it would be instructive for those up in arms over the revised definition to read (or re-read) The Altered State of Hypnosis (Kirsch & Lynn, 1995), which concludes its discussion of the term with: when the term hypnotic state is used by researchers today, it is usually in a descriptive sense to denote the subjective changes that hypnotized persons report experiencing. It is not used to explain those changes. Instead, most hypnosis researchers agree that the impressive effects of hypnosis stem from social influence and personal abilities, not from a trancelike state of altered consciousness. (p. 849) Address correspondence to James R. Council, North Dakota State University, Department of Psychology, 232B2 Minard, Department #2765, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS
387
The absence of the concept of a hypnotic “state” in the 1994 and 2005 definitions surely displeased more people than will be displeased by its new presence (see Barabasz, 2005; Daniel, 2005; Nash, 2005; Spiegel & Greenleaf, 2005; Yapko, 2005). Most likely, the majority of those who see the newest revision will be happy to see it included—as Christensen and Gwozdziewycz (2015) point out, surveys indicate that most professionals view hypnosis as a particular state. And for better or worse, as Kluft (this issue) points out, a definition that includes “state” has much better “street creds” than one that does not. Although the specific connotation of the term will vary by user, calling hypnosis a state of consciousness opens the door to a focus on its phenomenology. Pekala (this issue), I am sure, speaks for many when he expresses his excitement that the “mind is now being more clearly highlighted as a legitimate area of study,” and that the definition emphasizes “the importance of consciousness . . . in trying to understand the nature and essence of hypnosis” (p. 402, emphasis in original). Another term that raises hackles is “hypnotherapy.” Edward Frischholz (1995, 1997) had a particular distaste for this word, to the point of writing an AJCH editorial warning potential contributors not to use it in submissions. According to Frischholz (1995), “hypnotherapy” implies that hypnosis is therapy per se, as opposed to being a technique used in the context of a particular psychotherapeutic approach and also implies that professionals who employ hypnosis clinically are merely “hypnotherapists.” These points are echoed in Kluft (this issue), Lynn et al. (this issue), and Yapko (this issue) commentaries, which raise other concerns about the consequences of having a very open-ended definition of this term. However, Frischholz (1997) did find one good reason for using it, namely Medicare Procedure Code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy). Using the term “hypnotherapy” in a definition of hypnosis may be a good idea, if only for the practical reason that Procedure Code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy) is still around. Later, Frischholz (1998) relented on his stance, accepting the word “hypnotherapy” in manuscripts because it was popular among the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis membership, but only if it was “specifically defined.” As in the case of “state of consciousness,” the term “hypnotherapy” in the revised definition is open to a variety of interpretations, and any given usage should be specifically defined. Finally, I will mention “hypnotizability.” I have criticized the use of this term myself, since it implies that responsiveness to hypnotic procedures results from an inborn trait as opposed to situational variables (Kirsch & Council, 1992). Yapko (this issue) and Lynn et al. (this issue) present excellent reasons for using such terms as “hypnotic responsiveness” or “hypnotic suggestibility” instead, and I agree with them. For years, I disciplined myself not to say “hypnotizability,” but now I have gotten lazy and use it as much as anyone. It is simply much easier to say than the alternatives. I think that the new revision recognizes that “hypnotizability” is in widespread use. Once again, the specific user should be careful to be clear about what is meant.
388
COUNCIL
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
The APA Division 30 Hypnosis Definition Committee veered sharply away from previous efforts in crafting a short and fairly nonspecific definition, kind of an empty vessel to be filled according to one’s beliefs about hypnosis. As long as those who employ the definition are explicit about their use of the terms, this could turn out to be a productive approach. Going by history, in about another 10 years, another president of the division will form a new committee that will come up with a brand new approach to defining hypnosis. Is defining hypnosis just the hobby of an occasional Division 30 president? Is it, as Yapko (this issue) wonders, worth the effort? Results will tell.
References Barabasz, A. (2005). Whither spontaneous hypnosis: A critical issue for practitioners and researchers. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 91–97. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401501 Christensen, C., & Gwozdziewycz, N. (2015). Commentary: Revision of the APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63, 1–9. doi:10.1080/00207144.2014.961870 Daniel, S. A. (2005). The perspective of a teacher and clinician: The 2003 APA Division 30, definition of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 141–143. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401510 Elkins, G. R., Barabasz, A., Council, J. R., & Spiegel, D. (2015). Advancing research and practice: The revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63, 1–9. doi:10.1080/00207144.2014.961870 Frischholz, E. J. (1995). Editorial. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 38, 1–2. doi:10.1080/ 00029157.1995.10403171 Frischholz, E. J. (1997). Medicare procedure code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy): Use the code (not the word). American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 85–88. doi:10.1080/00029157.1997.10403412 Frischholz, E. J. (1998). Editorial. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 271–272. doi:10.1080/ 00029157.1998.10403437 Green, J. P., Barabasz, A. F., Barrett, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2005). Forging ahead: The 2003 APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 259–264. doi:10.1080/00207140590961321 Kirsch, I. (1994). Defining hypnosis: A core of agreement in the apple of discord. Contemporary Hypnosis, 11, 160–162. Kirsch, I., & Council, J. R. (1992). Situational and personality correlates of hypnotic susceptibility. In E. Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research (pp. 267–291). New York, NY: Guilford. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1995). The altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape. American Psychologist, 50, 846–858. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.10.846 Kluft, R. P. (this issue). The revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis: An appreciation, a commentary, and a wish list. American of Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 431–438. Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Kirsch, I., Capafons, A., Lilienfeld, S. O., Laurence, J.-R., & Montgomery, G. H. (this issue). Grounding hypnosis in science: The “new” APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis as a step backward. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 390–401. Nash, M. R. (2005). The importance of being earnest when crafting definitions: Science and scientism are not the same thing. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 265–280. doi:10.1080/00207140590961934
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS
389
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
Pekala, R. J. (this issue). Hypnosis as a “state of consciousness”: How quantifying the mind can help us better understand hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 402–424. Spiegel, H., & Greenleaf, M. (2005). Commentary: Defining hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 111–116. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401504 Yapko, M. D. (2005). Some comments regarding the division 30 definition of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 107–110. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401503 Yapko, M. D. (this issue). The new Division 30 definitions regarding hypnosis: Is “concise” better? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 425–430.
ISSN: 0002-9157 (Print) 2160-0562 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts James R. Council To cite this article: James R. Council (2015) Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57:4, 386-389, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468
Published online: 07 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 65
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujhy20 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 11 November 2015, At: 22:18
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57: 386–389, 2015 Copyright © American Society of Clinical Hypnosis ISSN: 0002-9157 print / 2160-0562 online DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011468
Words, Words, Words: Some Final Thoughts James R. Council
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
As a member of the APA Division 30 Hypnosis Definition Committee, I should probably let the main paper speak for itself. However, now that the deed is done, I do have some thoughts of my own to share. I will also note that as one of the Science Editors of this journal, I have seen several of the other commentaries before publication and have been invited to refer to them in my comments. As documented in the main paper, previous attempts to define hypnosis (Green, Barabasz, Barrett, & Montgomery, 2005; Kirsch, 1994) were criticized for being too long (Elkins, Barabasz, Council, & Spiegel, 2015). As the commentaries on those definitions demonstrated, one drawback of having too many words is that they offer numerous targets for criticism. The new definition is nothing if not concise, but as a consequence, several words stick out that are bound to make some people unhappy. The brevity of the definition leaves specific terms very open to interpretation—depending on one’s interpretation, one may find a lot to like, or vice versa. The most contentious word in the definition is likely to be “state.” It should be noted that the initial version of the definition used the phrase “altered state of consciousness,” and the qualifier “altered” was dropped by the committee to make the definition more theoretically neutral. Even so, Lynn et al. (this issue) seem to view the inclusion of this term as the most important factor in making the revised definition a “step backwards” in establishing a science of hypnosis. Of course, Lynn and his co-authors are strong proponents of the sociocognitive view of hypnosis (which I favor myself). However, it would be instructive for those up in arms over the revised definition to read (or re-read) The Altered State of Hypnosis (Kirsch & Lynn, 1995), which concludes its discussion of the term with: when the term hypnotic state is used by researchers today, it is usually in a descriptive sense to denote the subjective changes that hypnotized persons report experiencing. It is not used to explain those changes. Instead, most hypnosis researchers agree that the impressive effects of hypnosis stem from social influence and personal abilities, not from a trancelike state of altered consciousness. (p. 849) Address correspondence to James R. Council, North Dakota State University, Department of Psychology, 232B2 Minard, Department #2765, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS
387
The absence of the concept of a hypnotic “state” in the 1994 and 2005 definitions surely displeased more people than will be displeased by its new presence (see Barabasz, 2005; Daniel, 2005; Nash, 2005; Spiegel & Greenleaf, 2005; Yapko, 2005). Most likely, the majority of those who see the newest revision will be happy to see it included—as Christensen and Gwozdziewycz (2015) point out, surveys indicate that most professionals view hypnosis as a particular state. And for better or worse, as Kluft (this issue) points out, a definition that includes “state” has much better “street creds” than one that does not. Although the specific connotation of the term will vary by user, calling hypnosis a state of consciousness opens the door to a focus on its phenomenology. Pekala (this issue), I am sure, speaks for many when he expresses his excitement that the “mind is now being more clearly highlighted as a legitimate area of study,” and that the definition emphasizes “the importance of consciousness . . . in trying to understand the nature and essence of hypnosis” (p. 402, emphasis in original). Another term that raises hackles is “hypnotherapy.” Edward Frischholz (1995, 1997) had a particular distaste for this word, to the point of writing an AJCH editorial warning potential contributors not to use it in submissions. According to Frischholz (1995), “hypnotherapy” implies that hypnosis is therapy per se, as opposed to being a technique used in the context of a particular psychotherapeutic approach and also implies that professionals who employ hypnosis clinically are merely “hypnotherapists.” These points are echoed in Kluft (this issue), Lynn et al. (this issue), and Yapko (this issue) commentaries, which raise other concerns about the consequences of having a very open-ended definition of this term. However, Frischholz (1997) did find one good reason for using it, namely Medicare Procedure Code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy). Using the term “hypnotherapy” in a definition of hypnosis may be a good idea, if only for the practical reason that Procedure Code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy) is still around. Later, Frischholz (1998) relented on his stance, accepting the word “hypnotherapy” in manuscripts because it was popular among the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis membership, but only if it was “specifically defined.” As in the case of “state of consciousness,” the term “hypnotherapy” in the revised definition is open to a variety of interpretations, and any given usage should be specifically defined. Finally, I will mention “hypnotizability.” I have criticized the use of this term myself, since it implies that responsiveness to hypnotic procedures results from an inborn trait as opposed to situational variables (Kirsch & Council, 1992). Yapko (this issue) and Lynn et al. (this issue) present excellent reasons for using such terms as “hypnotic responsiveness” or “hypnotic suggestibility” instead, and I agree with them. For years, I disciplined myself not to say “hypnotizability,” but now I have gotten lazy and use it as much as anyone. It is simply much easier to say than the alternatives. I think that the new revision recognizes that “hypnotizability” is in widespread use. Once again, the specific user should be careful to be clear about what is meant.
388
COUNCIL
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
The APA Division 30 Hypnosis Definition Committee veered sharply away from previous efforts in crafting a short and fairly nonspecific definition, kind of an empty vessel to be filled according to one’s beliefs about hypnosis. As long as those who employ the definition are explicit about their use of the terms, this could turn out to be a productive approach. Going by history, in about another 10 years, another president of the division will form a new committee that will come up with a brand new approach to defining hypnosis. Is defining hypnosis just the hobby of an occasional Division 30 president? Is it, as Yapko (this issue) wonders, worth the effort? Results will tell.
References Barabasz, A. (2005). Whither spontaneous hypnosis: A critical issue for practitioners and researchers. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 91–97. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401501 Christensen, C., & Gwozdziewycz, N. (2015). Commentary: Revision of the APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63, 1–9. doi:10.1080/00207144.2014.961870 Daniel, S. A. (2005). The perspective of a teacher and clinician: The 2003 APA Division 30, definition of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 141–143. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401510 Elkins, G. R., Barabasz, A., Council, J. R., & Spiegel, D. (2015). Advancing research and practice: The revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63, 1–9. doi:10.1080/00207144.2014.961870 Frischholz, E. J. (1995). Editorial. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 38, 1–2. doi:10.1080/ 00029157.1995.10403171 Frischholz, E. J. (1997). Medicare procedure code 90880 (Medical Hypnotherapy): Use the code (not the word). American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 85–88. doi:10.1080/00029157.1997.10403412 Frischholz, E. J. (1998). Editorial. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40, 271–272. doi:10.1080/ 00029157.1998.10403437 Green, J. P., Barabasz, A. F., Barrett, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2005). Forging ahead: The 2003 APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 259–264. doi:10.1080/00207140590961321 Kirsch, I. (1994). Defining hypnosis: A core of agreement in the apple of discord. Contemporary Hypnosis, 11, 160–162. Kirsch, I., & Council, J. R. (1992). Situational and personality correlates of hypnotic susceptibility. In E. Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.), Contemporary hypnosis research (pp. 267–291). New York, NY: Guilford. Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1995). The altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape. American Psychologist, 50, 846–858. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.10.846 Kluft, R. P. (this issue). The revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis: An appreciation, a commentary, and a wish list. American of Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 431–438. Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Kirsch, I., Capafons, A., Lilienfeld, S. O., Laurence, J.-R., & Montgomery, G. H. (this issue). Grounding hypnosis in science: The “new” APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis as a step backward. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 390–401. Nash, M. R. (2005). The importance of being earnest when crafting definitions: Science and scientism are not the same thing. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 265–280. doi:10.1080/00207140590961934
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS
389
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:18 11 November 2015
Pekala, R. J. (this issue). Hypnosis as a “state of consciousness”: How quantifying the mind can help us better understand hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 402–424. Spiegel, H., & Greenleaf, M. (2005). Commentary: Defining hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 111–116. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401504 Yapko, M. D. (2005). Some comments regarding the division 30 definition of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 48, 107–110. doi:10.1080/00029157.2005.10401503 Yapko, M. D. (this issue). The new Division 30 definitions regarding hypnosis: Is “concise” better? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57, 425–430.
