A Personalised Induction Will Always Be More Effective (Research Paper Sample)

A Personalised Induction Will Always Be More Effective
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Number of words: 2012 words excluding reference and cover page
A personalised induction will always be more effective
A personalised induction is a type of hypnotic induction that is designed to suit a certain individual. As humans, we appear to share the same traits, but in reality, we are different in various ways. This is because we have different likes, dislikes, perspectives, values, and we have diverse cultural backgrounds. Because of these unique differences, everyone has his or her way of handling various situations, and every individual has a different level of openness and resistance (Chapman 2006, p.113). Consequently, during hypnosis, it is imperative for the hypnotist to adopt the personalised approach because each participant has unique traits, and people normally respond to the hypnotic process in different ways. The personalised approach takes into account the client’s desires, perceptions, likes, dislikes, as well as cultural background. Thus, by personalising the induction, hypnotherapists can help their clients to realize quality results, which conform to their objective of attending the therapy sessions. In this essay, I agree that a personalised induction approach will always be more effective.
As humans, we communicate with each other in various ways including gestures, facial expressions, body language, as well as tone of voice and intonation. However, during hypnosis, the hypnotist has limited techniques of communication available since the clients have their eyes closed. For instance, he or she cannot adopt non-verbal communication techniques, and this makes the message or the instructions he or she is sending to weaken. Thus, it is necessary for the hypnotist to adopt other appropriate techniques of strengthening the message being conveyed to the clients. In order to do this effectively, the hypnotist can personalise the way he or she speaks to the clients by adopting different words, tone variation, volume, and pace, but ensuring the message remains unchanged.
Milton H. Erickson commonly referred to as the father of the contemporary hypnotherapy recognised that people have different beliefs, values, perceptions, and cultural backgrounds, and consequently, throughout his career as a psychiatrist, he adopted the personalised induction as the best tool during hypnosis. Although he was motivated to conduct more research on hypnosis after attending Clark Hull’s seminar on hypnosis, he differed with Hull’s opinion, which was based on the ideology that the subject is always a passive participant during the hypnotic process. According to Hull’s conceptualization, adoption of a standardized induction would have the same effect on all the subjects. Difference of opinion between these two great psychiatrists fuelled Erickson’s quest for a valid understanding of the best approach during hypnosis. Ultimately, Erickson concluded that it is what the subjects do and understands that matters most, not what the operator wishes. In other words, he believed that in order to realize quality results of the therapy, the subjects must be active participants, and the suggestions given by the therapist ought to concur with the client’s desires, perceptions, values, and goals of the therapy (Zeig & Munion, 1999, p.48-51).
As Erickson advanced his research in hypnosis, he discovered that hypnosis is a natural process that must adopt a permissive style not the authoritarian style in order to enhance a client’s responsiveness as well as cooperation. The permissive technique acknowledges that every individual has unique traits, values, perceptions, and desires. It also takes into account that every person has a unique way of entering into a trance state as well as receiving suggestions. In this approach, the client knows how to relax and enter a trance state, and as a result, the hypnotist simply acts as a guide as the subjects enters into a hypnotic state. Before Erickson pioneered the permissive technique, the authoritative technique prevailed as the only viable method of hypnosis. The authoritative approach is commanding and direct, and its main objective is usually to establish control over the client and modify his or her behaviour through adoption of repetitive commands. Pioneers of this approach believed that by establishing control over their clients, they would be able to increase the chances of getting remarkable results. However, this approach does not produce effective results as asserted by its pioneers since the subjects, who respond in a positive way to it, are only those who respect their authoritarian figures in their daily lives. Moreover, the authoritative technique is often ineffective because in case the subject cannot enter into a trance, the hypnotist considers him or her as un-hypnotisable (Sheehan 2005, p.67-70).
Unlike the authoritative approach, the permissive technique adopts a soft tone to lull the client into relaxation. Furthermore, in the permissive approach, the client and the hypnotist are equal partners, and more imagery is employed to increase the magnitude of the suggestions. The subject is also given greater responsibility. Since personalised imagery is incorporated in this technique, the induction becomes more real and viable than in the authoritative approach. Consequently, this approach produces quality results almost on every subject especially those people desiring so succeed in a given occupation or those who want to improve their workplace conditions by adjusting their behaviour (Sheehan 2005, p.70-72).
Despite the concrete proves provided by the father of the permissive technique ‘Erickson Milton' on the viability of the personalised induction, some people still argue that the personalised induction approach is not effective during the hypnotic process. They claim that the personalised induction approach takes more time than the authoritative approach. Moreover, they support their stance by citing some of the works of the great traditional hypnotherapists including Clark Hull and Sigmund Freud. They also source more support for their arguments using the state and the role theory. Hull had a very different opinion to Erickson on what the process of hypnosis entailed. He claimed that during the hypnotic process, the subject must be a passive participant, and that adoption of a standardized induction technique would influence each subject in the same manner. In 1940, Jung backed him in his research, but Jung was not comfortable in using the authoritarian technique, which Hull highly recommended, because it involved commanding clients to do according to their therapist’s desires. Consequently, Jung broke away from Hull’s research (Hamill 2012, p.24). Based on this, it is clear that the authoritarian approach is not viable during the hypnotic process, and as a result, it is not logical to oppose the personalised approach based on Hull's research.
On the other hand, Sigmund Freud believed that the process of hypnosis would give better results when the subject was on deep trance. Like Hull, Freud adopted the authoritarian technique in a more assertive manner hoping that he would get better results (Sofroniou 2010, p.12). He was particularly interested in the technique because he believed that it was the perfect way of influencing as well as accessing forgotten events and emotions, a cathartic process, which paved way for relief to his clients. However, Freud became uncomfortable with hypnosis because his patients did not respond uniformly to the process. He was also afraid that the direct suggestion technique might do away symptoms that were important for the clients to retain. In addition, Freud had worries over the sexual perceptions that surrounded the hypnotic process, which labelled a client as ‘giving herself’ emotionally to the psychiatrist. Because of these reasons, as well as lack of sufficient experience with hypnosis both through research and clinically, Freud decided to quit hypnosis (Zeig & Munion 1999, p.48-49). Therefore, it is worthwhile arguing that those who reject the personalised induction based on Freud’s research should reconsider their stance and adopt the better option ‘the permissive approach.'
In addition, advocates of the state theory base their argument on the notable changes that occur to the brain during hypnosis, and to the dramatic effects, which hypnosis can cause such as the disappearance of warts and insensitivity to pain. They also claim that sometimes, both the hypnotised and non-hypnotised people take instructions differently. For instance, in a certain study, both the hypnotised and non-hypnotised were told to run their hands through their hair once they heard the word ‘experiment.' The pretenders carried out the suggestion only when the psychiatrist said the word, but the hypnotised participants complied regardless of who gave the suggestion. Based on this, opponents of the personalised induction claim that the authoritative approach is as effective as the permissive approach. Moreover, advocates of the role theory assert that hypnosis is not a special state of consciousness. They argue that some of the changes linked with hypnosis can also take place without it. They claim that hypnotised people just comply with the demands of the situation, and act in conformity with a special role. From this point of view, hypnosis provides a socially logical reason to comply with someone’s suggestions, in the same way as a physical exam, which provides a logical reason of removing clothes on request. Supporters of the role theory justify their claims by arguing that non-hypnotised participants sometimes exhibit behaviours that are usually linked with hypnosis ...