Although the social interaction is basic to some definitions of hypnotic procedures (Barnier & Nash, 2008), very little, if anything, is written about it in research reports. A formal induction technique never works in isolation.
Having been on both ends of the hypnotic dyad, I know that my willingness to remain open to suggestions depends largely on how much I like and trust the hypnotist. Treating research volunteers as ‘subjects’ who just are there to produce data may very easily affect the willingness to engage in the process- and to adopt a hypnotic mindset.
Hypnosis is a human cognitive interaction and yet none of the theories or definitions of hypnosis captures the aspects of a first-person perspective such as experiencing thoughts, images, emotions, or sensory perceptions. Nor do they capture the sense of agency that comes with an altered sense of awareness.
On that understanding should we be challenging the results of many acclaimed results in hypnosis research?
Likewise, how can we debate the theory of hypnotic response and the sense of involuntariness without understanding the subjective experience of the action response?
Neurophenomenology attempts to synthesise systematic introspective enquiry with measures of brain functioning.
Linda is an avid reader of late-night research papers, dental professional, successful hypnotherapist, lecturer at UCL in Dental Hypnosis, award winner x2 RSM Hypnosis and Psychosomatic Medicine Section, Cognitive Behavioural and Advanced Hypnotherapist from AECTH, graduate of BSc (Hons) (1st) in Clinical Hypnosis and post-graduate researcher. Her hypnotic interest lies with the interactional dyad of hypnosis and phenomenological subjective experience of hypnosis.