d) tapering off of improvement.
Improvement. Improvement was felt by 76% of the subjects (26 of
34). Nearly all of those suffering from allergies felt some benefit from
hypnosis (21 of 23: 91%). The response of the two groups to treatment was
significantly different (X square=6.332; p<.01).
Degree of improvement. The four categories of improvement (total,
moderate, a little, none) were collapsed into two categories called "Marked
Improvement: (total and moderate) and "Little or No Improvement."
A market improvement in their symptoms was felt by 35% of the subjects (13 of
34). this percentage was lowered by the small number of asthmatics that
experienced marked improvement. Only 1 of 11 asthmatics (9%) experienced
marked improvement, while 12 of 22 allergics (55%) noted a marked improvement.
Reduction in medication. At the time of the study, 22 subjects were
taking medication: 16 for allergies and 6 for asthma. 14 of the 16 allergy
patients (88%) were able to decrease their medication with hypnosis. Only
one of the 6 asthma subjects could do so.
Tapering off of Improvement. The effectiveness of the hypnosis
seemed to taper off for some. Of the 23 subjects who responded to this question,
48% reported that there was no tapering off (11 of 23); and of the 52% who
reported a tapering off, many reported that there were still noticeable gains
that remained, including a reduced need for medication.
2.
Did Practice Have an Effect on Improvement?
Practice had a definite relationship to perceived improvement of symptoms.
The great majority of subjects practiced self-hypnosis during the two month
period following the second class (28 of 33). Of this group, 86%
experienced some degree of relief. None of the five subjects who failed to
practice experienced any relief at all.
Table 1
Effect
of Practice upon
Improvement of Symptoms
|
|
Any Improvement |
No Improvement |
| Regular Practice |
24 |
4 |
| No Practice |
0 |
5 |
X
square=11.690, p<.001
"Regular practice: included the categories :daily, a couple of times a
week, or upon attack." "No practice: meant that there was no
practice at all after the last session. Although the group of subjects who
did not practice was very small, practice was clearly related to experiencing
some relief (X square=11.690, p<.001).
3.
Did Feeling Hypnotized Have an Effect on Improvement?
Feeling hypnotized was related to experiencing at least some improvement.
Seventy percent of the subjects (24 of 34) reported feeling some degree of
hypnosis. Of the 24 who felt hypnotized, 21 (88%) reported some
improvement. half of the 10 who did not feel hypnotized at all were still
able to feel some improvement in their conditions. although it is encouraging
that one need not feel hypnotized to get the benefits of hypnosis, the chances
of improving are greater if there is some subjective feeling of hypnosis (X
square=16.107, p,.002).
Table
2
Degree
of Improvement as a Function of
Feeling
Hypnotized
Degree
of Improvement
|
|
Total |
Moderate |
A Little |
None |
| Very Hypnotized |
0 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
| A Little Hypnotized |
0 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
| Not At All Hypnotized |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
X square=16.107, p<.002.
Krukal-Wallis H with Degree of Improvement as dependent = 13.6855, p<.001
In this study there was a relationship between degree of feeling hypnotized and
the degree of improvement. Six of the seven subjects who felt "very
hypnotized: experienced a marked amount of improvement in their symptoms.
Of the remaining 26 who did not feel very hypnotized, 20 reported no improvement
or just a little improvement.
These figures were weighted by the high percentage of asthma subjects who were
neither able to be very hypnotized nor to achieve marked improvement. Of
the 10 asthma subjects who answered the depth of hypnosis question, only one was
able to feel deeply hypnotized, and he alone experienced marked
improvement. From this limited sample one could say that unless an
asthmatic really experiences hypnosis, he will not feel improvement to any great
extent.
The same is not true for allergy patients. A third of them (6 of 17) who did no
feel very hypnotized nevertheless experienced marked improvement.
Discussion
the results of this preliminary investigation of the effects of hypnosis upon
reported allergy/asthma symptoms, while based on self-report procedures and in
the absence of a control group, suggest that subjects who are hypnotized in a
group and learn self-hypnosis can experience significant symptomatic relief and
can decrease their use of medication.
The results also suggest that the hypnotic suggestions employed in this study
were significantly more effective in the relief of allergy than of asthma
symptoms. Not only did more allergy patients report improvement, they also
reported greater levels of improvement. Allergy patients also reported
decreased use of medication by a factor of more than 5 to 1 over asthmatics.
Of the 23 subjects who reported some form of relief, 11 reported that the
results held up during the two summer months following the training
sessions. Twelve subjects reported that the benefits had tapered off,
although there still were significant pains including a reduction in
medication. This tapering off might have been prevented by a midsummer
refresher session or through the use of supplementary tapes which were, in fact,
requested by many of those who participated.
the effect of practice upon improvement was dramatic. While 86% of the
subjects who regularly practiced experienced improvement, none of those who
failed to practice felt any improvement at all. some who reported only
limited relief used hypnosis only at the onset of an attack. This may
suggest that more regular practice could improve their results.
It seems that initial success in feeling some degree of hypnosis during the
group sessions was important to improvement. Subjects who reported feeling
a significant depth of hypnosis during the sessions practiced more at home and
also reported the greatest levels of relief. Interestingly, 5 of the 10 allergy
patients who reported no feeling of being hypnotized during the sessions
nonetheless experienced improvement. By contrast,
6 of 7 subjects who reported being deeply hypnotized, including one asthmatic,
experienced marked improvement. since no measures of hypnotic depth were
employed, it is interesting to speculate on how these subjects judged their
level of hypnosis.
It is interesting to note that while 6 of 23 allergics felt they had achieved
deep levels of hypnosis, only 1 of 10 asthmatics did so, and that while 12 of 23
allergics experienced marked improvement, only the same 1 of 10 asthmatics did
so. The authors wonder if this marked difference in improvement between
allergic and asthmatic subjects may have resulted from a differential ability
between the two groups to achieve the hypnotic state.
It should be noted that in contradistinction to many investigations of hypnosis,
this study did not involve regidly standardized inductions or suggestion
sets. Rather, it was characterized by the variety offered and the
considerable choice available to subjects in terms of which induction they
preferred and which suggestions for improvement seemed appropriate for their
individual needs. Furthermore, subjects were given multiple sequential
trance experiences (fractionation) and more than one hypnotist was involved in
both sessions. It may well be that replications of this study which do not
incorporate these elements would yield different results.
As alluded to previously, this study was limited in a number of ways. for
one thing, all subjects were volunteers for a study involving group hypnosis and
may not be representative of allergy/asthma patients in general.
furthermore, no attempt was made to verify either symptom complexes or allergic
etiology, nor were objective measures of symptomatic improvement undertaken.
Some participants may have had no immunologic or IgE mediated basis for the
production of their production of their symptoms. for another, there was
no control group involved. thus there may have been symptom variations unrelated
to the treatment protocol. also, the followup period was limited to only 2
months and it is possible that the tapering effect noted may be significantly
different over greater time periods. (It is interesting to note, however,
that a few subjects reported to the authors that the improvement got better even
in the next allergy season.)
All data in this study were self-reported data and not only involved reports on
subjective experience but incorporated imprecise measures of improvement.
Although greater objectivity and precision would be desirable, the patient's own
experience of improvement is an important part of improved health and is, in
fact, his immediate goal. It was just such subjective experiences of relief
following hypnosis that this sutdy was designed to explore.
References
Mason,
A. A., & Cobb, S. (1958). Allergic skin responses abolished under treatment
of asthma and have fever by hypnosis. Lancet, 1, 877-879.
Perloff,
M.A., & Spiegelman,. J. (1973). Hypnosis in the treatment of a
child's allergy to dogs. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 15,
269-272.
Anderson,
E. L., (1983). Effect of hypnotic instructions on the nasal congestion of
24 hay fever sufferers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44,
1050.
Madrid,
A. D., & Barnes, S. V. d. H. (1991). A hypnotic protocol for eliciting
physical changes through suggestion of biochemical responses.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 34, 122-128.
