The ‘standardised’ approach emphasises the capacity to relax into hypnosis.
Standardised Hypnosis
The ‘standardised’ approach was popularised in the U.S.A. during the 1950’s.
It was streamlined to suit the medical profession and to ensure that hypnotherapy could lose its charlatan tag and become widely accepted. Serious hypnotherapists wanted this important therapy to become mainstream, through a rationalisation of the process called hypnosis. The result was a fixed set of procedures that is much easier to teach and to learn.
This uniform, elementary method is the one most commonly used by the majority of practising hypnotherapists. It uses simple techniques, to reduce the importance of the hypnotist, and place greater emphasis on the subject’s imagination. Indeed, an induction can happen without the hypnotist even being present! Trance can be brought about via an audio tape / CD / mp3 recording, containing the basic formula for inducing the state. There are numerous self-help, self-hypnosis recordings – and more recently ‘Apps’ – on the market today.
The standardised approach relies on relaxation and typically begins by fixing the attention of the subject on a spot on the wall. Once the body is motionless, trance is deepened using relaxation imagery – lifts going down, escalators, staircases, leaves falling, ocean waves etc.
There are patently some drawbacks to this approach. Because of its rigid application, idiosyncratic subjects may not respond if the standard suggestions do not suit them; even though they would be highly responsive to a more flexible approach.
In this era of standardisation ‘Suggestibility Tests’ examined the statistical responsiveness of the population. Typically 15% were highly suggestible; 70% were suggestible to a varying degree and 15% were not suggestible at all. Such tests discounted anyone from the lower end of the scale which was unfair and particularly unhelpful to the individuals seeking help. Remember: anyone can be hypnotised, if they so desire. Using a conventional deep-relaxation script to enter trance may be acceptable, but the real failing of one-size-fits-all occurs when treatment strategies are applied. It is not sufficient in clinical therapy to assume that a treatment will work most of the time, for most people, to some degree. This epitomises the limitations of using mass-produced, mainstream ‘hypno-scripts’ with every client, regardless of his/her individuality, personal qualities and needs. Effective hypnosis should be centred on the subject as an individual, and not on pre-determined words and procedures.