American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Copyright 2001 by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis

44:1, July 2001

Rapid Self-Hypnosis: A New Self-Hypnosis

Method and Its Comparison with the
Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP)
Juan Martínez-Tendero
Centro Psicológico para la Salud
Antonio Capafons
Universitat de Valéncia
Viola Weber
Universität Mannheim
Etzel Cardeña
University of Texas, Pan Am

Despite its clinical importance, there are few systematic studies on the
application of self-hypnosis. Rapid Self-Hypnosis (RSH) was created to
provide a new procedure that is easy, comfortable, fosters alertness, and can
be done covertly in everyday life. We present it as an alternative to the self-
hypnosis version of the Hypnosis Induction Profile (HIP). Using a cross-
over design, we found in an experimental session that the RSH and the HIP
produced comparable objective and subjective scores in the Barber
Suggestibility Scale (BSS). However, as compared with the HIP, participants
rated RSH as significantly more coherent, pleasant, faster and easier to learn,
more likely to be used in everyday life and go unnoticed by others, less
bothersome to use, and more likely to be used in private. Additional research
should clarify whether these differences are reliable and have clinical
significance. Our results suggest that RSH will be a valuable addition to the
clinician’s arsenal.

Introduction

The history of self-hypnosis, defined as the self-administration of hypnotic induction

and suggestions, is as old as that of hetero-hypnosis, the administration of induction
and suggestions to a hypnotic subject by somebody else (Ruch, 1975). The behavioral
effectiveness of self- and hetero-hypnosis are comparable (Johnson & Weight, 1976;
Johnson, 1979; Ruch, 1975), but there is evidence that hetero-hypnosis and tape-

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 47th Annual meeting of the Society for Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, Tampa, FL, 1996. Request reprints from:
Etzel Cardeña, PhD
Chair, Department of Psychology and Anthropology
University of Texas, PanAm
1201 West University Drive
Edinburg, TX, 78539-2999
email:ecardena@panam.edu
3
 Rapid Self-Hypnosis

assisted hypnosis are experienced more positively than self-hypnosis, although that
advantage may fade with practice (Hammond, Haskins-Bartsch, Grant, & McGhee,
1988; Johnson, Dawson, Clark, & Sikorsky, 1983). It may be that self-hypnosis requires,
at least in the beginning, greater effort than hetero-hypnosis because the participant
must be simultaneously the agent and recipient of the suggestions.

Self-hypnosis has often received a secondary role in the specialized literature, partly
because many authors have discussed it only in the context of post-hypnotic suggestions
given by the hypnotist to the client (Weitzenhoffer, 1957). This is paradoxical because
some form of self-hypnosis is included in many, if not most, therapeutic approaches
to hypnosis. An important exception to this trend is the programmatic work on the
theory, phenomenology, and clinical application of self-hypnosis carried out by Fromm
and collaborators (for a review, see Fromm & Kahn, 1990). However, specific research
on applied aspects of self-hypnosis has generally been scant. Although Barabasz and
Barabasz have described the successful use of their INAP procedure to treat ADHD,
their reports have referred to a combination of hetero- and self-hypnosis, without
specific data presentation or analysis about self-hypnosis alone (e.g., 1999).

One of the advantages of self-hypnosis is that it can be easily incorporated into therapies
that emphasize the use of relaxation in everyday life, such as active management of
stress (Denney, 1983), and training on applied relaxation (Hutching, Denney, Basgall,
& Houston, 1980). A second advantage is that it can reduce the clients’ dependence
on the therapist, thus enhancing their self-control and perception of self-efficacy. In
addition, self-hypnosis can be used with individuals who are afraid of losing control
or volition if they are hypnotized by someone else. In our observation, a number of
people refuse to be hypnotized because of this fear, thereby hampering the application
of hypnosis in clinical and research settings. Finally, there is evidence indicating that
hypnosis in general can have a synergistic effect on general therapeutic strategies,
whether psychodynamic or cognitive-behavioral (Kirsch, Capafons, Cardeña, & Amigó,
1999; Kirsch, Montgomery, & Sapirstein, 1995).

Despite these advantages, few clearly defined methods of self-hypnosis have been
tested empirically or are easy to adapt to the clients’ everyday lives. We think that, in
general, these procedures should be enjoyable, not require unusual abilities, and be
easy to understand. They should also lead the individuals to exhibit and experience
apparently unusual and automatic behaviors, which will enhance their response
expectancy of being hypnotized (Kirsch, 1990).

In this study, we compared two self-hypnosis procedures that provide certain

experiences that can be thought of as hypnotic, while interfering minimally with
everyday tasks. These techniques are also rapid, easy to learn, and use in everyday
life, convenient, and may be done in a concealed or “camouflaged” way.

The self-hypnosis version of the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP; H. Spiegel & D.
Spiegel, 1978) fulfills these criteria and is perhaps the best known and most widely
used self-hypnotic procedure. It can be used in the midst of many common activities
and has empirical backing. Its instructions, after a previous induction through hetero-
hypnosis, are as follows:
4
 Martínez-Tendero, Capafons, Weber, Cardeña

You sit or lie down and, to yourself, you count to three. At one you
do one thing; at two, you do two things; at three you do three things.
At one, look up toward your eyebrows; at two, close your eyelids and
take a deep breath; and at three, exhale, let your eyes relax, and let
your body float. As you feel yourself floating, you permit one hand
or the other to feel like a buoyant balloon and let it float upward as
your hand is now. When it reaches this upright position, it becomes
your signal to enter a state of meditation in which you concentrate on
these critical points. (p. 76)

Instructions are given about how to come out of hypnosis by counting backwards, and
a camouflaged version to be done in public is explained. The latter consists of doing
the eye-roll surreptitiously and levitating the arm to casually touch the forehead (see
Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978, p. 77).

There is evidence for the efficacy of the HIP self-hypnosis procedure in the control of
pain (D. Spiegel & Bloom, 1983) and smoking (D. Spiegel, Frischholz, Fleiss, & H.
Spiegel, 1983), but we have observed that some people have problems with the method.
They include mild ocular pain, inability to roll up the eyes, feeling the arm heavy
instead of light, and difficulty in covertly keeping the eyes closed and the arm raised in
some public situations (Capafons, 1998b; Capafons & Amigó, 1993).

The second author developed the Rapid Self-Hypnosis (RSH) method to address these
problems (Capafons, 1998a, 1998b). RSH is based on a rapid hetero-hypnosis induction
that uses slow and relaxed breathing, an abrupt fall back into a chair and hand clasps.
It can be done with eyes open or closed. RSH has three steps: In the first, the participant
must sit in a comfortable chair, clasping the hands lightly, with his or her back separated
from the back of the chair about 3 inches. He or she should then make three exhalations
after three deep inhalations, accompanied by a light but increasingly stronger hand
press, with suggestions that the arms are feeling heavy. If the exhalations are too abrupt,
the client can be told to imagine a lit candle about 10 inches from the nose, and that the
exhalation should make the flame waver lightly, without going out.

The second step in RSH involves having the client separate the body from the back of
the chair and letting the body fall back suddenly, while self-administering a suggestion
of momentary immobility. Steps 1 and 2 are then chained by repeating the hand clasping
and, at the third exhalation, letting the body fall back and the hands fall down, while
self-administering suggestions of relaxation and immobility. The final step is to repeat
the exercise with the suggestion that one of the arms will feel so heavy that it will feel
glued to the legs. Although this heaviness sensation can be experienced without the
assistance of images, participants can enhance the sensation by imagining that they are
made of lead or that there is a very heavy object on their legs.

Participants are told that the sensation of heaviness signals that they are hypnotized
and ready to give themselves suggestions. This method must be practiced until all the
steps can be done with the eyes open. Participants also learn to “cover” the procedure
by making it seem as if they have just been clasping their hands before changing posture.
To end the procedure, the client must count to three, open the eyes if they were closed,
5
 Rapid Self-Hypnosis

and lightly move the arm until it feels normal (Capafons, 1998a, 1998b; Capafons &
Amigó, 1993). Although the initial training procedure is somewhat elaborate to instigate
hypnotic experiences, in clinical practice clients have been taught to “fade out” these
initial steps so that the sensation of a heavy or dissociated arm alone will produce
similar effects as the whole procedure (see Capafons, 1998a).

In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of RSH on suggestibility by comparing

its scores on a suggestibility test with those of the HIP. We also measured the preference
for each procedure.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 30 participants (19 women and 11 men; mean age = 23.4,
SD= 3.13). They were recruited through acquaintances of the researchers and word-
of-mouth, and did not receive payment or academic credit; they were not provided any
additional information than that required for informed consent. Three participants had
previous experience with hetero-hypnosis, but none with self-hypnosis.

Instruments

To evaluate suggestibility, we used Barber’s Suggestibility Scale (BSS; Barber, 1969/

1995; Barber & Wilson, 1979), which contains an objective scale with 8 items, scored
as 1, “pass,” or 0, “fail.” The BSS also has a subjective scale, which evaluates the
experience on those same items according to a score from 0-3. The 8 items are: arm
lowering, arm levitation, hand lock, thirst hallucination, verbal inhibition, body
immobility, “posthypnotic-like” response, and selective amnesia. The BSS has good
reliability and validity, and a strong correlation with the Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale, Form A (Barber, 1969/1995; Council, 1999). Although not widely
employed nowadays, we used the BSS because it includes objective and subjective
scales for various items, and requires less administration time than most hypnosis scales.

To determine if there was any preference for either the HIP or the RSH, we developed
the Preferences Questionnaire for Self-Hypnosis Methods (Martínez-Tendero, 1995).
This instrument consists of eighteen questions that evaluate which method is more
pleasant, easier to use and learn, and so on (see Table 1). Participants can state a
preference for either technique or for none.

Design and Procedure

We used a cross-over design, with random assignment to presentation order. The

experiment was conducted by two experimenters, a man and a woman, both previously
trained in teaching both techniques. The procedure consisted of individual sessions,
lasting between 1-2 hours, which adhered to these steps:

1) Rapport was established, a demographic form was filled out, and

information was given to the participant on hypnosis and the
experiment.
6
 Martínez-Tendero, Capafons, Weber, Cardeña

2) The first self-hypnosis technique (either HIP or RSH) was taught by

having the experimenter verbalize the procedure and model it until
the participant understood it. Afterwards, he or she practiced the
method with the help of the experimenter until it had been learned.
Finally, the camouflaged version of the technique was taught and
modeled. Afterwards, the participant did the non- camouflaged version
and the BSS was administered.

3) After a small rest, step #2 was repeated for the second technique.

4) At the end of the session, the Preferences Questionnaire for Self-

Hypnosis was administered.

Results

A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect on suggestibility

of technique (RSH vs. HIP), order of presentation, and their interaction. The techniques
did not differ in objective (F = 1.27, p>.05) or subjective (F = 0.88, p>.05) BSS
scores, nor were there significant order or interaction effects. There were no significant
gender differences in either of the BSS subscales. As expected, the scores on the
objective and subjective subscales were highly correlated (r =.86, p<.01 for the HIP;
r =.8, p<.01 for the RSH).

The means and standard deviations for the objective scores on the BSS obtained after
using the HIP (M= 4.72, SD = 1.91) and the RSH (M = 5.36, SD = 2.06), were
comparable to those obtained by the second author (Capafons, 1993) using the hetero-
hypnosis relaxation procedure of Friedlander and Sarbin (1938) (M = 4.8, SD= 2.13)
with a sample of 20 undergraduate students (14 women; mean age = 23.8, SD = 4.4).
The means and standard deviations of the BSS subjective scales for the HIP (M=14.4,
SD=10) and the RSH (M=12, SD=4.67) were also comparable to those obtained by the
second author (Capafons, 1993) with the sample described above (M=11.10, SD=5.14).
However, scores on the objective scale were somewhat lower than those reported by
Barber and Wilson (1979) for a North American sample, (M=5.8, SD=2.1).

We also analyzed the results on the BSS by experimenter, because the main experimenter
was not blind as to authorship of the RSH (a professor of both experimenters), but the
second experimenter was. There were no significant differences between experimenters
either for the HIP (for the objective and subjective subscales, F =.05, p >.1, and
F =.02, p>.1, respectively) or the RSH (for the objective and subjective subscales, F =
1.32, p >.1, and F = .46, p >.1 respectively).

Finally, we evaluated whether participants showed any preference for either the HIP
or the RSH. Table 1 shows that, as compared with the HIP, the RSH was rated as
significantly more coherent, pleasant, faster and easier to learn, more likely to be used
in everyday life and go unnoticed, less bothersome to use, and more likely to be used
in private.

7
 Rapid Self-Hypnosis

Table 1: Preference between self-hypnosis methods (N=30)

HIP AHR
Category % % X2
Logic 13.3 30 1.92
Coherent 16.7 60 7.34**
Easy to learn 16.7 23.3 0.33
Easy to understand 20.0 33.3 1.00
Pleasant 10.0 63.3 11.63***
Fast to learn 16.7 70.0 9.84**
Easy in everyday life 23.3 40.0 1.31
Will use in everyday life 23.3 53.3 3.52*
Easy to do 13.3 30.0 1.92
Helpful for my problems 10.0 16.7 0.50
Helpful for psychological problems 6.7 16.7 1.28
Bothersome to use 43.3 10.0 6.25**
Unnoticed in public 13.3 46.7 5.55**
Easy to remember 50.0 36.0 0.61
Will use in private 6.7 43.3 8.06**
Will use in public 26.7 40.0 0.80
Would recommend it 10.0 26.7 2.27
Felt myself hypnotized 30.0 26.7 0.59

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Conclusions

The high correlation between the BSS objective and subjective scales supports a close
correspondence between the behavioral response to suggestions and the accompanying
subjective experience (Tart, 1970). This correspondence has clinical implications
because an unusual subjective experience, partial involuntariness for instance, may
enhance a therapeutic response expectancy in the majority of individuals who can
follow at least a few self-hypnotic suggestions (Kirsch, 1990).

The RSH and the HIP produced similar objective and subjective scores on the BSS,
which were also similar to those obtained by hetero-hypnosis in other studies. Thus,
we predict that the RSH will have similar clinical efficacy as that already reported for
the HIP and for hetero-hypnosis procedures. In our study, both self-hypnosis techniques
were explained and modeled thoroughly before the participants attempted them. This
is, of course, different than just buying tapes or reading about self-hypnosis.

8
 Martínez-Tendero, Capafons, Weber, Cardeña

One of the motivations for developing the RSH was to create a technique with the
efficacy of the self-hypnotic procedure of the HIP, but which could be done with open
eyes and not produce the discomfort that the HIP seems to have on a few people. The
finding that the RSH was preferred over the HIP in certain areas suggests that this goal
may have been achieved. Our study needs to be replicated by independent researchers
because the main experimenter was not blind as to the authorship of the RSH and
could have inadvertently biased the results; however, our analysis did not show evidence
of an “experimenter effect.”

If the results of this study are replicated, it will be important to evaluate if the preference
of the RSH over the HIP translates into meaningful clinical effects. Although the
actual effectiveness of a procedure will depend on factors such as level of
hypnotizability, the specific suggestions used, and non-specific factors, a convenient,
comfortable, and easy self-hypnotic procedure may facilitate treatment adherence and,
ultimately, have a significant clinical effect. It would also be advisable to develop
and evaluate self-hypnotic variants of procedures emphasizing alertness (e.g., Barabasz
& Barabasz, 1999), which may be preferable in some circumstances (Cardeña, Alarcón,
Capafons, & Bayot, 1998). The call for systematic studies of hetero-hypnosis as an
empirically supported treatment (e.g., Cardeña, 2000; Kirsch, Capafons, Cardeña &
Amigó, 1999) should be accompanied by another call for more systematic studies on
the application of self-hypnosis.

References

Barabasz, A., & Barabasz, M. (1999, August). Treating ADHD with hypnosis and
neurotherapy. Paper presented at the 107 th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Barber, T. X. (1995). Hypnosis. Northvale, NJ: Aronson. (Originally published 1969)

Barber, T. X. & Wilson, S.C. (1979). The Barber Suggestibility Scale and the Creative
Imagination Scale: Experimental and clinical applications. American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis, 21, 84-108.

Capafons, A. (1993). Investigación empírica y terapia de auto-regulación (Empirical

research and self-regulation therapy). In A. Capafons & S. Amigó (Eds.), Hipnosis,
terapia de auto-regulación e intervención comportamental (Hypnosis, self-regulation
therapy and behavioral intervention) (pp. 117-150). Valencia (Spain): Promolibro.

Capafons, A. (1998a). Hipnosis clínica: Una visión cognitivo-comportamental (Clinical

hypnosis: A cognitive-behavioral perspective). Papeles del Psicólogo, 69, 71-88.

Capafons, A. (1998b). Rapid self-hypnosis: A suggestion method for self-control.

Psicothema, 10, 571-581

Capafons, A. & Amigó, S. (1993). Hipnosis y terapia de auto-regulación (Hypnosis

and self-regulation therapy). Madrid (Spain): Eudema.

9
 Rapid Self-Hypnosis

Cardeña, E. (2000) Hypnosis for the treatment of trauma: A promising but not fully
supported efficacious intervention. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 48, 221-234.

Cardeña, E., Alarcón, A., Capafons, A., & Bayot, A. (1998). Effects on suggestibility
of a new method of active-alert hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 46, 280-294.

Council, J. (1999). Measures of hypnotic responding. In I. Kirsch, A. Capafons, E.

Cardeña, & S. Amigó, S. (Eds.) (1999). Clinical hypnosis and self-regulation therapy:
A cognitive-behavioral perspective (pp. 119-140). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Denney, D.R. (1983). Relaxation and stress management training. In C. E. Walker

(Ed.), The handbook of clinical psychology: Theory, research and practice (pp. 967-
1008). Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones Irwin.

Friedlander, J.W., & Sarbin, T.R. (1938). The depth of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 33, 353-375.

Fromm, E., & Kahn, S. (1990). Self-hypnosis: The Chicago paradigm. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Hammond, D. C., Haskins-Bartsch, C., Grant, C. W., & McGhee, M. (1988).

Comparison of self-directed and tape-assisted self-hypnosis. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 31, 129-137.

Hutching, D. F., Denney, D. R., Basgall, J., & Houston, B. K.(1980). Anxiety
management and applied relaxation in reducing general anxiety. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 18, 181-190.

Johnson, L. S. (1979). Self-hypnosis: behavioral and phenomenological comparison

with hetero-hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
27, 240-264.

Johnson, L. S., Dawson, S. L.., Clark, J. L., & Sikorsky, C. (1983). Self-hypnosis
versus hetero-hypnosis: Order effects and sex differences in behavioral and experiential
impact. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31, 139-154.

Johnson, L. S. & Weigth, D.G. (1976). Self-hypnosis versus hetero-hypnosis:

Experiential and behavioral comparisons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 523-
526.

Kirsch, I. (1990). Changing expectations: A key to effective psychotherapy. Pacific

Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Kirsch, I., Capafons, A., Cardeña, E., & Amigó, S. (Eds.) (1999). Clinical hypnosis
and self-regulation therapy: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

10
 Martínez-Tendero, Capafons, Weber, Cardeña

Kirsch, I., Montgomery, G., & Sapirstein, G. (1995). Hypnosis as an adjunct to

Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 63, 214-220.

Martínez-Tendero, J. (1995). Investigación sobre la preferencia de dos métodos de

auto-hipnosis (Research on preferences of two self-hypnosis methods) Unpublished
master’s thesis. Universitat de Valencia (Spain).

Ruch, J. C. (1975). Self-hypnosis: The result of heterohypnosis or vice versa?

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23, 282-304.

Spiegel, D., & Bloom, J.R. (1983). Group therapy and hypnosis reduce metastatic
breast carcinoma pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 45, 333-339.

Spiegel, D., Frischholz, E. J., Fleiss, J. L., & Spiegel, H. (1993). Predictors of smoking
abstinence following a single-session restructuring intervention with self-hypnosis.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1090-1097.

Spiegel, D, & Spiegel, H. (1978). Trance and treatment. New York: Basic Books.

Tart, C. T. (1970). Self-report scales of hypnotic depth. International Journal of

Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 18, 105-125.

Weitzenhoffer, A.M. (1957). General techniques of hypnotism. New York: Wiley.

11