International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis - E-Lib FK UWKS

136 INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
hypnotizable. Pettinati, Kogan, Evans et al. 1990) compared hypnotizability on
two measures, the Hypnotic Induction Pro®le HIP) and the Stanford Hypnotic
Suggestibility Scale: C SHSS: C) for ®ve clinical and one normal college populations.
The group with a diagnosis of major depression scored higher on the
SHSS: C than the normal population and only marginally lower, although higher
than the anorexia nervosa and schizophrenia groups, on the HIP.
HYPNOSIS MAY PRECIPITATE FURTHER DETERIORATION
This notion exists in a number of forms. Several commentators have suggested
e.g., Miller, 1979; Terman, 1980) that by focusing hypnotically on emotionally
laden aspects of the individual's life, further disintegration of the ego may occur.
Hypnosis has also been described as precipitating a more rapid development of
`transference' distortions which may result in the patient being over-reactive to
speci®c therapy issues Burrows, 1980). These issues appear to be related to the
psychodynamic model of therapy which de®nes them rather than to hypnosis as a
technique and there is no objective evidence to suggest that these are signi®cant
issues when the therapist is an experienced clinician.
PATIENTS MAY UTILIZE THE HYPNOTIC PROCESS TO
REINFORCE DEPRESSION
Hammond 1990) discusses the use of age projection techniques with signi®cantly
depressed patients. He refers to Erika Fromm's belief that age regression procedures
are contraindicated with seriously depressed and suicidal patients, despite
Erickson's utilization of this method. Hammond urges `great caution' in utilizing
this technique with seriously depressed patients `who may project themselves
negatively into the future, stimulating further feelings of hopelessness' p. 543).
CURRENT ISSUES
Michael Yapko 1989, 1992, 1994) is the most proli®c current therapist to enthusiastically
embrace the application of hypnotic techniques to the management of
depression. Unfortunately, it is necessary to agree with recent reviewers of his work
Stanley, 1994; Council, 1993) that what is undoubtedly a `¯exible and creative
approach to patient management' Stanley, 1994) is accompanied by a relative
disregard for empirical data. Others have levelled this criticism at the Ericksonian/
brief therapy literature in general Bloom, 1991). The criticism of a general lack of
attention to theory, research and to standardize assessment, however, can validly be
directed towards the body of published material in the area of hypnosis as a whole,
which remains dominated by descriptive case material.
To make any useful statement about the value of hypnosis in the management of