International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 32
Barber (1999) proposed that there are not one but three
distinctly different kinds of hypnotic subjects, and that
each subject experiences and responds to hypnosis in
different ways:
a) The fantasy prone. These hypnotic subjects
developed a talent for fantasy during childhood
imaginative activities (such as pretend-play,
make-believe, imaginary playmates, and
exposure to fantasy-stimulating tales or
stories), or they used fantasy to escape from
highly adverse early life experiences and
environments (such as war, poverty or neglect).
b) The amnesia prone. These hypnotic
subjects typically experienced significant
and ongoing abuse in childhood. They
developed an ability to “block out” (e.g.,
repress or dissociate) memories and experiences.
Some may have learned to “sleep” and
“forget” while subjected to childhood
sexual abuse, usually by a trusted adult
caretaker.
c) The positively set. These subjects are highly
socialized, empathic, cooperative, friendly
persons who respond to social expectations with
highly positive attitudes and are ready to
embrace the wishes or suggestions of another
person. They can relax mentally and move
into a receptive mode in which they “go
with the flow” of whatever is being suggested.
These subjects often make the best (and most
entertaining) participants in stage hypnosis acts.
They may not be “in trance” but they
want to please the hypnotist and audience by
happily following suggestions.
Barber’s trichotomy closely matches my own experiences
in practicing clinical hypnosis with many patients over
the past 30 years. Many who feel drawn to Eastern-based
HDGs come from the first group of hypnotic subjects.
In the 1960s and 1970s they often experimented with
fantasy-producing drugs (hallucinogens) and often
reported being highly involved with reading myths,
fantasies, and science fiction, or being fascinated with
the arts throughout childhood and adolescence. Those
who seemed to fit the third group were often the least
damaged, while those in the second group were often
extremely damaged, with long-lasting, post-traumatic
consequences.
The question of hypnotizability is another confounding
factor in hypnosis research. Like many human
characteristics and talents, the ability of and depth to
which an individual can go into hypnosis is distributed
normally on what is often referred to as a bell curve.
Like math or music talent, some people have a lot of
hypnotic talent, some have only a little, a very few have
none at all, and most of us have a moderate degree.
Thus, some of us easily and quickly achieve a deep level
of hypnosis, while a few of us are not hypnotizable.
Most individuals can achieve at least a moderate level
of hypnotic trance, although typically not enough to
produce posthypnotic amnesia. Hypnotizability is a
personality characteristic that is quite stable over many
years (Piccione et al., 1989). Research studies often
do not take hypnotizability into account, which may
explain some of these studies’ contradictory findings.
Perhaps the exact nature of hypnosis cannot ultimately
be decided in the tightly controlled and limited
confines of a university laboratory. In the mushy
real world, where multiple factors and psychological
processes blend together and form intricate and
sometimes random webs of causality, altered states of
consciousness (ASCs) seem to be very real to those who
experience them and hypnosis is a real phenomenon
that often induces an ASC.
Can Hypnosis Be Used to Brainwash People?
For close to a century, researchers have been debating
a highly controversial question: Can hypnosis induce
people to behave in ways they would not behave out
of hypnosis? This question is central to the belief that
hypnosis can effectively brainwash individuals into
violating their morals and engaging in criminal or
sociopathic behavior against their will.
Initial reports of something akin to brainwashing—
hypnotically produced sociopathic (i.e., criminal)
behavior—were case studies. Like almost all such
studies, no control groups or objective observers
were involved. When subjects engaged in sociopathic
acts following hypnosis, there was no way to know
Barber (1999) proposed that there are not one but three
distinctly different kinds of hypnotic subjects, and that
each subject experiences and responds to hypnosis in
different ways:
a) The fantasy prone. These hypnotic subjects
developed a talent for fantasy during childhood
imaginative activities (such as pretend-play,
make-believe, imaginary playmates, and
exposure to fantasy-stimulating tales or
stories), or they used fantasy to escape from
highly adverse early life experiences and
environments (such as war, poverty or neglect).
b) The amnesia prone. These hypnotic
subjects typically experienced significant
and ongoing abuse in childhood. They
developed an ability to “block out” (e.g.,
repress or dissociate) memories and experiences.
Some may have learned to “sleep” and
“forget” while subjected to childhood
sexual abuse, usually by a trusted adult
caretaker.
c) The positively set. These subjects are highly
socialized, empathic, cooperative, friendly
persons who respond to social expectations with
highly positive attitudes and are ready to
embrace the wishes or suggestions of another
person. They can relax mentally and move
into a receptive mode in which they “go
with the flow” of whatever is being suggested.
These subjects often make the best (and most
entertaining) participants in stage hypnosis acts.
They may not be “in trance” but they
want to please the hypnotist and audience by
happily following suggestions.
Barber’s trichotomy closely matches my own experiences
in practicing clinical hypnosis with many patients over
the past 30 years. Many who feel drawn to Eastern-based
HDGs come from the first group of hypnotic subjects.
In the 1960s and 1970s they often experimented with
fantasy-producing drugs (hallucinogens) and often
reported being highly involved with reading myths,
fantasies, and science fiction, or being fascinated with
the arts throughout childhood and adolescence. Those
who seemed to fit the third group were often the least
damaged, while those in the second group were often
extremely damaged, with long-lasting, post-traumatic
consequences.
The question of hypnotizability is another confounding
factor in hypnosis research. Like many human
characteristics and talents, the ability of and depth to
which an individual can go into hypnosis is distributed
normally on what is often referred to as a bell curve.
Like math or music talent, some people have a lot of
hypnotic talent, some have only a little, a very few have
none at all, and most of us have a moderate degree.
Thus, some of us easily and quickly achieve a deep level
of hypnosis, while a few of us are not hypnotizable.
Most individuals can achieve at least a moderate level
of hypnotic trance, although typically not enough to
produce posthypnotic amnesia. Hypnotizability is a
personality characteristic that is quite stable over many
years (Piccione et al., 1989). Research studies often
do not take hypnotizability into account, which may
explain some of these studies’ contradictory findings.
Perhaps the exact nature of hypnosis cannot ultimately
be decided in the tightly controlled and limited
confines of a university laboratory. In the mushy
real world, where multiple factors and psychological
processes blend together and form intricate and
sometimes random webs of causality, altered states of
consciousness (ASCs) seem to be very real to those who
experience them and hypnosis is a real phenomenon
that often induces an ASC.
Can Hypnosis Be Used to Brainwash People?
For close to a century, researchers have been debating
a highly controversial question: Can hypnosis induce
people to behave in ways they would not behave out
of hypnosis? This question is central to the belief that
hypnosis can effectively brainwash individuals into
violating their morals and engaging in criminal or
sociopathic behavior against their will.
Initial reports of something akin to brainwashing—
hypnotically produced sociopathic (i.e., criminal)
behavior—were case studies. Like almost all such
studies, no control groups or objective observers
were involved. When subjects engaged in sociopathic
acts following hypnosis, there was no way to know
