26 ICSA TODAY 32
Part of the confusion around the issue in academia (and in the
real world) may also lie in the mistaken belief that hypnosis is a
singular phenomenon that is pretty much the same for everyone.
In his theoretical tour de force, “Hypnosis: A Mature View,” the
late T. X. “Ted” Barber synthesized the hypnosis research to date
and posited that the contradictory results often obtained by
researchers are a result of a basic and misleading simplification
of the construct of hypnosis. Barber (1999) proposed that there
is not one, but rather there are three distinctly different kinds of
hypnotic subjects, and that each 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
‘70s 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 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 it to 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). In research studies, hypnotizability is often
not taken 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 altered state of consciousness.
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, there were no control
groups or objective observers involved. When subjects engaged
in sociopathic acts following hypnosis, there was no way to know
what was actually behind the behavior. Nevertheless, successful
criminal prosecutions of hypnotists who induced nonconsensual
behavior, often involving sexual exploitation, are not uncommon
(Gottlieb, 2002 Katz, 1987). Independent reports of hypnotic and
quasihypnotic brainwashing tactics in HDGs led me to write a
paper specifically aimed at providing potential and new recruits
with tools to resist them (Eichel, 1985).
In the 1950s, the CIA funded a major effort to discover a mind-
control technology that, among other things, could both create
the perfect assassin (one with no memory of committing the act)
and break Soviet spies. Declassified documents on the MKULTRA
program show that hypnosis was one of the techniques
evaluated, but it was determined to be too unreliable to be
considered an effective brainwashing method (Marks, 1991).1
In his comprehensive review of the literature on the ability of
hypnosis to manipulate behavior, Aguado (2015) concluded that
the power to manipulate people
is not contained within … hypnosis, or in the
hypnotizer rather, [control] lies within each person’s
mind. Hypnosis is just a tool that can aid us in putting
these mental resources to work—resources that
are inside, not outside each person, and not within
[hypnosis] or the hypnotizer. (p. 58)
But academic studies cannot help but be of limited use,
especially in efforts to try to apply their findings to HDG/cultic
settings and experiences. First, these studies did not examine
Part of the confusion around the issue in academia (and in the
real world) may also lie in the mistaken belief that hypnosis is a
singular phenomenon that is pretty much the same for everyone.
In his theoretical tour de force, “Hypnosis: A Mature View,” the
late T. X. “Ted” Barber synthesized the hypnosis research to date
and posited that the contradictory results often obtained by
researchers are a result of a basic and misleading simplification
of the construct of hypnosis. Barber (1999) proposed that there
is not one, but rather there are three distinctly different kinds of
hypnotic subjects, and that each 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
‘70s 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 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 it to 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). In research studies, hypnotizability is often
not taken 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 altered state of consciousness.
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, there were no control
groups or objective observers involved. When subjects engaged
in sociopathic acts following hypnosis, there was no way to know
what was actually behind the behavior. Nevertheless, successful
criminal prosecutions of hypnotists who induced nonconsensual
behavior, often involving sexual exploitation, are not uncommon
(Gottlieb, 2002 Katz, 1987). Independent reports of hypnotic and
quasihypnotic brainwashing tactics in HDGs led me to write a
paper specifically aimed at providing potential and new recruits
with tools to resist them (Eichel, 1985).
In the 1950s, the CIA funded a major effort to discover a mind-
control technology that, among other things, could both create
the perfect assassin (one with no memory of committing the act)
and break Soviet spies. Declassified documents on the MKULTRA
program show that hypnosis was one of the techniques
evaluated, but it was determined to be too unreliable to be
considered an effective brainwashing method (Marks, 1991).1
In his comprehensive review of the literature on the ability of
hypnosis to manipulate behavior, Aguado (2015) concluded that
the power to manipulate people
is not contained within … hypnosis, or in the
hypnotizer rather, [control] lies within each person’s
mind. Hypnosis is just a tool that can aid us in putting
these mental resources to work—resources that
are inside, not outside each person, and not within
[hypnosis] or the hypnotizer. (p. 58)
But academic studies cannot help but be of limited use,
especially in efforts to try to apply their findings to HDG/cultic
settings and experiences. First, these studies did not examine
