Back in the room: did they ever 'leave'?

Stage hypnosis is once again a topic for discussion with the appearance on our television screens of ITV's gameshow 'Back in the Room', hosted by Philip Schofield and featuring stage hypnotist Keith Barry. The most common question that people ask when they observe the over-the-top performances of the participants is 'Are they really hypnotised or are they just acting?' Indeed, is there any difference between the two?

A modern definition of hypnosis may begin 'a process whereby the hypnotist directs the subject's imagination in such a way as to elicit alterations in sensations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts and behaviour'. Depending on his or her commitment and suggestibility, the subject's responses have two related subjective qualities: a sense of reality and a feeling of effortlessness or involuntariness. 

Theories of hypnosis attempt to account for the above characteristics of hypnotic responding and there are now several quite sophisticated neurocognitive models of hypnosis, along with a burgeoning neuroimaging research literature (Jamieson, 2007). The traditional explanation of hypnotic responding based on the notion of a trance state induced by the hypnotist has been undermined and the role of the hypnotic induction appears to be limited to enhancing the subject's engagement and expectation of a positive response to the suggestions to follow. Hence, while it may still be that some subjects do experience something akin to a trance state, trance itself does not play an explanatory role in accounting for hypnotic responding generally.  We may also ignore all references to something called 'the subconscious mind'. 

We have no reason to doubt that responsive participants in a stage hypnosis show are being truthful when, as they often do, they profess to be astonished by their experiences and to feel that they were under the complete control of the hypnotist. However, as we would expect from the above summary, the performances presented by those stage hypnotists who dispense with the induction ceremony (and even inform the participants that hypnosis is not involved) are no different from those who do not. Also, the behaviour and experiences of the hypnotic subject are greatly influenced by the (non-hypnotic) demands and expectations of the context in which hypnosis takes place. On stage these are the participants' requirement to respond immediately to the hypnotist's suggestions in a highly visible, dramatic and hilarious manner for the entertainment of the audience. This is not evidence that they must be in an especially deep trance or, indeed, that they are extremely suggestible. 

Just how much hypnotic factors account for the participants' experiences and behaviour requires further research, of which there is very little. One impression I have is that the incidence and degree of spontaneous post-hypnotic amnesia and associated time condensation is greater with stage hypnosis than in other hypnotic contexts, and there is some evidence for this (Crawford et al. 1992). 

- Michael Heap is a Chartered Psychologist who has published many papers and books on hypnosis over a 35 year period. He was a member of the Society's working party on hypnosis, which reported in 2001.

References

Crawford, H.J., Kitner-Triolo, M., Clarke, S.W. and Olesko, B. (1992). Transient positive and negative experiences accompanying stage hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 663-667.

Jamieson, G. (Ed.) Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.