myths cited above about hypnosis, the person’s
expectations will be mistaken, which will have
consequences. The major consequence will be
that whatever may be performed in that context
will not be hypnosis but something else (with or
without manipulative nuances). Note that the
fact of one not giving proper information is in
itself a manipulative nuance. According to
Kirsch (1985, 1991), a person’s expectations
about what will occur during hypnosis are the
main causes of the actual occurrence of those
responses. That is why Kirsch developed the
response expectancy theory, which is an
extension of Rotter’s social learning theory.
Kirsch’s response expectancy theory is based on
the idea that expectancies can generate
nonvolitional responses. Kirsch’s research has
shown that a wide variety of hypnotic responses
vary in accordance with people’s beliefs and
expectancies about the occurrence of these
responses. In fact, Kirsch claims that throughout
the history of hypnosis many have confused the
products of hypnosis with its essence. This
confusion is because, consistently, subjects
under hypnosis perform the type of responses
that are expected from them. Thus, Mesmer’s
subjects convulsed, whereas those of later
hypnotizers relaxed. And they all did so because
the hypnotizers conveyed to them, more or less
explicitly, an expectation of what the “proper”
response to hypnosis was. Expectations, and
their correct handling by means of the
information given to a person about what
hypnosis is and what it is not, are, therefore,
very important—so much so that Kirsch and
Lynn (1995) consider response expectancy to be
the essence of hypnosis.
At the same time, for consent to be free, it
cannot be forced. That is to say,
a) The person undergoing hypnosis must
not be pressed to experience certain
responses to suggestions, nor be
reprimanded if these responses are not
forthcoming.
b) The person’s limits should not be
overreached for example, overloading
the participant with information, not
giving him time to assimilate what he is
being told, bombarding him with
repetitive and monotonous stimuli
patterns, or putting him into an inferior
or submissive position with regard to the
hypnotizer (i.e., using coercion
techniques).
In the cult literature we frequently find the
expressions hypnotic techniques, hypnotic
inductions (Garvey, 1993), or posthypnotic
suggestion (Tobias, 1993) when the authors
make reference to a situation in which
psychological manipulation is present. It is
suggested subsequently that, in a way,
psychological manipulation arises from the
hypnotic features of those techniques, when in
fact it occurs because of their coercive features.
It is necessary to understand that, in such
contexts, hypnosis is one thing and coercion
another, although the two may become
intermingled.
In short, the utilization of these methods would
have more to do with coercion than with
hypnosis. The method would not then be
hypnosis, whatever happened while one was
practicing it. Spiegel (2004) and Kirsch (1994)
as we have said, noted that hypnosis is based
upon the confidence and freedom that induces
the person voluntarily to let herself go and
become involved in the suggestions the
hypnotist presents. The same confidence and
freedom allows the person under hypnosis to get
out of it whenever she wants to. Only under
coercion will a person have more difficulty,
precisely because she is being coerced.
Therefore it would not be appropriate to refer to
such a situation by the term hypnosis.
In this sense, hypnosis is always self-hypnosis.
The hypnotist offers a proposal, but it is our
choice to go with that suggestion or not. To
choose well, we must not be coerced in any way
(Capafons, 1998 Kirsch, 1991 Spiegel, 2004).
Change of Focus
Change of focus is related to changing our
perceptual perspective. Doing this, in turn, will
favor a state of concentration or absorption
toward whatever is the current focus of our
attention. We thus dissociate ourselves from
everything that lies outside the boundaries of
that focus of attention.
54 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
expectations will be mistaken, which will have
consequences. The major consequence will be
that whatever may be performed in that context
will not be hypnosis but something else (with or
without manipulative nuances). Note that the
fact of one not giving proper information is in
itself a manipulative nuance. According to
Kirsch (1985, 1991), a person’s expectations
about what will occur during hypnosis are the
main causes of the actual occurrence of those
responses. That is why Kirsch developed the
response expectancy theory, which is an
extension of Rotter’s social learning theory.
Kirsch’s response expectancy theory is based on
the idea that expectancies can generate
nonvolitional responses. Kirsch’s research has
shown that a wide variety of hypnotic responses
vary in accordance with people’s beliefs and
expectancies about the occurrence of these
responses. In fact, Kirsch claims that throughout
the history of hypnosis many have confused the
products of hypnosis with its essence. This
confusion is because, consistently, subjects
under hypnosis perform the type of responses
that are expected from them. Thus, Mesmer’s
subjects convulsed, whereas those of later
hypnotizers relaxed. And they all did so because
the hypnotizers conveyed to them, more or less
explicitly, an expectation of what the “proper”
response to hypnosis was. Expectations, and
their correct handling by means of the
information given to a person about what
hypnosis is and what it is not, are, therefore,
very important—so much so that Kirsch and
Lynn (1995) consider response expectancy to be
the essence of hypnosis.
At the same time, for consent to be free, it
cannot be forced. That is to say,
a) The person undergoing hypnosis must
not be pressed to experience certain
responses to suggestions, nor be
reprimanded if these responses are not
forthcoming.
b) The person’s limits should not be
overreached for example, overloading
the participant with information, not
giving him time to assimilate what he is
being told, bombarding him with
repetitive and monotonous stimuli
patterns, or putting him into an inferior
or submissive position with regard to the
hypnotizer (i.e., using coercion
techniques).
In the cult literature we frequently find the
expressions hypnotic techniques, hypnotic
inductions (Garvey, 1993), or posthypnotic
suggestion (Tobias, 1993) when the authors
make reference to a situation in which
psychological manipulation is present. It is
suggested subsequently that, in a way,
psychological manipulation arises from the
hypnotic features of those techniques, when in
fact it occurs because of their coercive features.
It is necessary to understand that, in such
contexts, hypnosis is one thing and coercion
another, although the two may become
intermingled.
In short, the utilization of these methods would
have more to do with coercion than with
hypnosis. The method would not then be
hypnosis, whatever happened while one was
practicing it. Spiegel (2004) and Kirsch (1994)
as we have said, noted that hypnosis is based
upon the confidence and freedom that induces
the person voluntarily to let herself go and
become involved in the suggestions the
hypnotist presents. The same confidence and
freedom allows the person under hypnosis to get
out of it whenever she wants to. Only under
coercion will a person have more difficulty,
precisely because she is being coerced.
Therefore it would not be appropriate to refer to
such a situation by the term hypnosis.
In this sense, hypnosis is always self-hypnosis.
The hypnotist offers a proposal, but it is our
choice to go with that suggestion or not. To
choose well, we must not be coerced in any way
(Capafons, 1998 Kirsch, 1991 Spiegel, 2004).
Change of Focus
Change of focus is related to changing our
perceptual perspective. Doing this, in turn, will
favor a state of concentration or absorption
toward whatever is the current focus of our
attention. We thus dissociate ourselves from
everything that lies outside the boundaries of
that focus of attention.
54 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
