HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Am Psychol. 2014 ; 69(2): 167–177. doi:10.1037/a0035644.

Hypnotic Approaches for Chronic Pain Management:

Clinical Implications of Recent Research Findings

Mark P. Jensen and David R. Patterson

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington.

Abstract
Author Manuscript

The empirical support for hypnosis for chronic pain management has flourished over the past two
decades. Clinical trials show that hypnosis is effective for reducing chronic pain, although
outcomes vary between individuals. The findings from these clinical trials also show that hypnotic
treatments have a number of positive effects beyond pain control. Neurophysiological studies
reveal that hypnotic analgesia has clear effects on brain and spinal-cord functioning that differ as a
function of the specific hypnotic suggestions made, providing further evidence for the specific
effects of hypnosis. The research results have important implications for how clinicians can help
their clients experience maximum benefits from hypnosis and treatments that include hypnotic
components.

Keywords
hypnosis; chronic pain; hypnotic analgesia
Author Manuscript

Chronic pain remains a significant burden for both individuals and society. Standard medical
treatment for chronic pain is often inadequate (Turk, Wilson, & Cahana, 2011), and it is
common for frustrated patients to seek costly treatments from multiple health care
professionals without significant relief. Although a number of psychological approaches to
the treatment of chronic pain have demonstrated important success over the last few decades
(see Jensen & Turk, 2014, this issue), there is a need for additional and robust treatment
options that could benefit individuals with chronic pain.

Growing awareness of the limitations of currently available pain treatments make training
patients in self-hypnosis an attractive component of pain treatment. For example, there are
increasing concerns about the overreliance on analgesic medications, which can have
Author Manuscript

negative side effects, have limited evidence for long-term efficacy, and can result in
significant problems associated with addiction or diversion (i.e., nonprescription use)
(Manchikanti & Singh, 2008; Maxwell, 2011). There is a corresponding need for effective

© 2014 American Psychological Association

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark P. Jensen, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of
Washington, Box 359612, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. [email protected].
Mark P. Jensen is the author of two books (2011, Oxford University Press) related to the topic of this article (Hypnosis for Chronic
Pain Management: Therapist Guide and Hypnosis for Chronic Pain Management: Workbook), and David R. Patterson is the author of
one book (2010, American Psychological Association) related to the topic of this article (Clinical Hypnosis for Pain Control). They
receive royalties for the sale of these books.
 Jensen and Patterson Page 2

pain treatments that have minimal negative side effects; we are not aware of any pain
Author Manuscript

treatment option with fewer adverse effects than hypnosis (Jensen et al., 2006).

In spite of the promise of this treatment, however, general acceptance of and research on
hypnosis continues to be limited. This may be due in part to the lack of a widely accepted
definition of hypnosis (Barnier & Nash, 2008). Hypnosis incorporates a number of
components, such as relaxation, focused attention, imagery, interpersonal processing, and
suggestion. There continue to be differences in expert opinion regarding which of these
elements represents the core component(s) of hypnosis, making it difficult to determine if a
specific treatment should be classified as hypnosis or not. Despite the lack of consensus, we
think it is important for clinicians and researchers to specify the definition they use in their
work. Our preferred definition has been that proposed by Kihlstrom (1985, p. 385): “a social
interaction in which one person, designated the subject, responds to suggestions offered by
another person, designated the hypnotist, for experiences involving alterations in perception,
Author Manuscript

memory, and voluntary action.” (For further discussion regarding different definitions of
hypnosis that have been proposed, and the theoretical models underlying them, see Barnier
& Nash, 2008.)

Hypnosis has been used to treat every type of pain condition imaginable over centuries and
across cultures (Pintar & Lynn, 2008). What is new about hypnotic analgesia is the
compelling empirical evidence that has emerged in the last two decades regarding its
efficacy and mechanistic underpinnings. Much of the earlier research studying hypnotic
analgesia focused on acute pain induced in laboratory settings or pain associated with
medical procedures (Chaves, 1994; Ewin, 1986). This work continues, and there have also
been a number of recent innovative applications of this modality to treat acute procedural
pain (e.g., Patterson, Wiechman, Jensen, & Sharar, 2006). Other recent advances in
Author Manuscript

understanding have come from imaging studies examining the brain functions associated
with hypnosis and hypnotic analgesia (Barabasz & Barabasz, 2008; Oakley, 2008; Oakley &
Halligan, 2010; D. Spiegel, Bierre, & Rootenberg, 1989). In addition, there has been a recent
and dramatic increase in research on the efficacy of hypnosis for chronic pain conditions
(Montgomery, DuHamel, & Redd, 2000; Stoelb, Molton, Jensen, & Patterson, 2009; Tomé-
Pires & Miró, 2012).

Clinical outcome studies on acute and chronic pain as well as neurophysiological studies in
the laboratory have demonstrated that hypnosis is effective over and above placebo
treatments and that it has measurable effects on activity in brain areas known to be involved
in processing pain. Equally important, recent clinical trials provide significant findings
useful to the clinical application of hypnosis for the management of chronic pain. The
Author Manuscript

ensuing review and discussion highlight the clinical relevance of these findings to the use of
hypnosis for chronic pain and present the issues that we believe should be considered in
future clinical and theoretical work.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 3

Findings From Hypnosis Clinical Trials

Author Manuscript

Two general findings from hypnosis trials have particular clinical and theoretical relevance:
(a) There is a high degree of variability in response to hypnotic analgesia, and (b) the
benefits of hypnosis treatment go beyond pain relief.

Response to Hypnosis Treatment Is Highly Variable

In hypnosis/pain clinical trials, the standard primary analysis compares group average
differences in pain reduction between patients who receive treatment and patients in a
control condition (e.g., relaxation training, standard care, attention). However, it is unwise to
draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of any treatment based only on the statistical
significance of averaged results. Statistically significant group differences can emerge even
when there are very small (i.e., essentially meaningless) improvements in outcome in all or
nearly all study participants. More important, perhaps, nonsignificant results can emerge for
Author Manuscript

treatments that have large and meaningful effects in many study participants if the study
sample is too small or if the treatment is highly effective for a small subset of patients. In
short, average group differences tell us little about the variability of treatment response
among the individuals who receive the treatment.

Responder analyses have been recommended as an alternative strategy for determining the
meaningfulness of treatment effects in pain clinical trials once a significant treatment effect
has been established (Dworkin et al., 2008). In a responder analysis, the investigator
identifies the amount of improvement in the outcome variable needed to determine that an
improvement is clinically meaningful and then reports the proportion of “responders” in the
different treatment conditions. For example, one early clinical trial of hypnosis for migraine
headache (Anderson, Basker, & Dalton, 1975) used “complete remission” as a criterion
Author Manuscript

indicating a meaningful treatment response. More recent studies use a 30% reduction in
average daily pain intensity to represent a clinically meaningful improvement in chronic
pain conditions (Dworkin et al., 2005).

We were able to identify four hypnosis studies that reported the results of responder
analyses in addition to group average results. In the first of these (Anderson et al., 1975), 47
patients with migraine headache were randomly assigned to receive 12 months of either (a)
six or more sessions of hypnosis (with instructions to practice self-hypnosis daily) or (b)
medication management (administration of the prophylactic drug Stemetil 5 mg four times
per day for the first month and two times per day for the remaining 11 months of the trial).
A responder analysis indicated that “complete remission” of headaches during the last three
months of treatment was achieved by 44% of the participants in the hypnosis condition and
Author Manuscript

13% of the participants in the medication-management condition.

In an early uncontrolled case series and two follow-up controlled trials, we examined
response to 10 sessions of self-hypnosis training in a combined total of 82 individuals with
various diagnoses associated with physical disability who also had chronic pain (Jensen,
Barber, Romano, Hanley, et al., 2009; Jensen, Barber, Romano, Molton, et al., 2009; Jensen
et al., 2005). A 30% or more reduction in average pain identified treatment responders, and
analyses showed treatment-response rates varied from a low of 22% for individuals with

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 4

spinal cord injury to 60% for persons with acquired amputation. Moreover, in one of these
Author Manuscript

studies, a significant Time × Treatment Condition × Pain Type (neuropathic vs.

nonneuropathic) interaction also emerged, explained by the fact that all of the participants
who reported a clinically meaningful decrease in pain intensity had neuropathic pain, but
none of the participants with nonneuropathic pain reported a meaningful pain reduction
following hypnosis treatment (Jensen, Barber, Romano, Molton, et al., 2009).

When discussing variability in response to hypnosis treatment, it is important to consider the

issue of hypnotizability. Hypnotizability reflects a person’s tendency (or, as some
investigators in the field view it, a trait, talent, or ability) to respond positively to a variety of
different suggestions following a hypnotic induction. A number of standardized measures of
hypnotizability exist (e.g., the Hypnotic Induction Profile, H. Spiegel & Spiegel, 2004; the
Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962; the Harvard Group
Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Shor & Ome, 1962; and the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical
Author Manuscript

Scale, Morgan & Hilgard, 1978–1979). Each of these measures consists of a standardized
hypnotic induction followed by a series of suggestions (for changes in sensory experiences,
amnesia, etc.), and the subject’s hypnotizability score is the simple sum of positive
responses to the suggestions.

One of the most consistent research findings is that hypnotizability scores are very stable,
even across decades (Morgan, Johnson, & Hilgard, 1974). Another consistent finding is that
general hypnotizability (i.e., response to suggestions not involving analgesia) predicts
response to hypnotic analgesia in the laboratory setting (Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975). This has
led to speculations that hypnotizability might explain the variability in response to hypnotic
treatments of chronic pain. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that general
hypnotizability demonstrates weak and inconsistent associations with hypnotic treatment of
Author Manuscript

chronic pain in the clinical setting (Patterson & Jensen, 2003). The weak associations with
clinical pain and the fact that the majority of patients show at least some benefits of hypnotic
treatment (Montgomery et al., 2000) partially account for the fact that hypnotizability
screenings are seldom used in clinical approaches to hypnotic pain control.

Hypnosis Treatment Has Significant Benefits Beyond Pain Relief

Clinicians in our hypnosis clinical trials anecdotally noted that the overwhelming majority
of participants reported high levels of treatment satisfaction whether or not they experienced
clinically meaningful pain relief. Moreover, we also found that a large proportion of patients
—including many who did not report clinically meaningful decreases in average or
characteristic pain with treatment— reported at follow-up that they continued to practice the
self-hypnosis skills taught (Jensen, Barber, Romano, Hanley, et al., 2009; Jensen, Barber,
Author Manuscript

Romano, Molton, et al., 2009). To help understand what appeared to be an anomalous

finding, we contacted a cohort of patients who received self-hypnosis training to determine
their reasons for continued use of self-hypnosis skills despite an apparent lack of benefit on
average daily pain intensity. Consistent with what the study clinicians reported, almost all of
the study participants reported high levels of treatment satisfaction (Jensen et al., 2006). In
addition, the great majority of those who continued to practice self-hypnosis reported that

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 5

they experienced temporary pain relief when they listened to audio recordings of the
Author Manuscript

treatment sessions or practiced self-hypnosis on their own without the recordings.

In short, we have found that hypnosis treatment has two potential effects on chronic pain.
First, as described above, the treatment can result in substantial reductions in average pain
intensity that is maintained for up to 12 months in some—but not all—patients. We interpret
this finding as support for the hypothesis that hypnosis treatment can result in sustained
changes in how the brain processes sensory information in subgroups of patients (larger or
smaller subsets, depending on the specific pain condition studied). However, for greater
numbers of patients, hypnosis treatment teaches self-management skills that patients can
(and most do) continue to use regularly and that can result in temporary pain relief.

We also asked our sample to describe the positive and negative effects of hypnosis, and of
the 40 different effects elicited, only three were negative (Jensen et al., 2006). Moreover,
Author Manuscript

and to our surprise, only nine (23%) of the positive descriptions of hypnosis were pain-
related. Non-pain-related beneficial treatment effects included improved positive affect,
relaxation, and increased energy. These non-pain-related benefits were reported despite the
fact that the hypnotic intervention was script driven and focused exclusively on pain
management.

These results are consistent with qualitative comments in the literature regarding the
beneficial “side effects” of hypnosis (Crawford et al., 1998; Stewart, 2005). They also
reflect another important finding in the pain literature: People who report positive changes
and satisfaction with treatment do not always report substantial reductions in pain intensity
(Turk, Okifuji, Sinclair, & Starz, 1998). As we discuss in greater detail below, the use of
hypnosis to improve quality of life in people with chronic pain often involves focusing on
Author Manuscript

outcome variables other than just pain relief.

Clinical Implications of Findings From Hypnosis Clinical Trials

The key findings from the hypnosis clinical trials reviewed above have three important
implications for maximizing the benefits of hypnotic pain treatment. Specifically, they
indicate that clinicians should (a) include suggestions for both immediate and long-term pain
relief, (b) include suggestions for benefits in addition to pain reduction, and (c) use the
knowledge about the multiple benefits of hypnosis to enhance treatment outcome
expectancies.

Immediate and long-term pain relief with self-hypnosis—Given the evidence that
hypnotic analgesia treatment can result in both (a) long-term pain relief and (b) learning
Author Manuscript

skills that produce immediate but shorter lasting (i.e., a matter of hours) relief, clinicians
providing hypnosis treatment should ensure that they take full advantage of both of these
outcomes. Specifically, they should include hypnotic suggestions for “automatic” and long-
term reductions in pain and related distress. They should also provide suggestions, such as
the following, that can facilitate the regular use and practice of self-hypnosis:

And when you practice self-hypnosis, your mind can easily enter this state of
comfort, and the comfort will stay with you for minutes and hours … the more you

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 6

practice, the easier and more automatic this will be … and the longer the beneficial
Author Manuscript

effects will last.

Addressing issues beyond pain reduction—Given the established beneficial effects

of hypnosis on other outcome domains, hypnotic suggestions for addressing additional pain-
related issues should also be included in the hypnotic treatment (Jensen, 2011; Patterson,
2010). In chronic pain, there are almost always associated symptoms that deserve attention.
For example, between 50% and 88% of patients with chronic pain report problems with
sleep (Smith & Haythornthwaite, 2004). For such patients, hypnotic suggestions can be
provided for an increased ability to fall asleep, to return to sleep if they awaken, and to feel
rested in the morning (Jensen, 2011).

Effective chronic pain treatments also often target increased activity and adaptive coping
responses. Patients who are involved in physical therapy or who are maintaining a regular
Author Manuscript

exercise program can be given suggestions that they will feel confident in their ability to
engage in and maintain exercise. Those who experience fatigue might be given suggestions
such as being able to draw on an inner strength and experience reserves of energy when
needed and appropriate (Jensen, 2011).

It is also important to remember that people with chronic pain often suffer from clinically
significant depression and anxiety (Patterson, 2010), and mood states can be addressed by
hypnosis (Alladin, 2010; Yapko, 2001). Hypnosis can also include suggestions for
improving activity levels, adaptive coping responses, adaptive pain-related cognitions, and
sleep quality (Jensen, 2011). Thus, clinicians should take full advantage of all potential
hypnotic effects to help patients achieve a number of treatment goals; suggestions should
rarely, if ever, focus exclusively on pain reduction.
Author Manuscript

Good practice involves giving patients with chronic pain realistic hope—It is
clear, based on research findings, that not all patients with chronic pain are going to
experience pain relief with hypnosis. This brings up the question of how expectations for
treatment can be enhanced, given that outcome expectancy is an important factor that can
enhance any clinical intervention. Because of our finding that the great majority of the
participants in our clinical trials report some benefits through learning hypnosis, even when
those benefits do not necessarily include pain relief, we now tell patients something along
the lines of the following to enhance outcome expectancies without giving unrealistic
expectations:

Many patients find that they experience meaningful reductions in their pain that
maintain for a year or more after treatment. Others report that they use the skills
Author Manuscript

they learn to experience pain relief for a few hours at a time when they use self-
hypnosis for just a minute or two. Even when the treatment does not result in
significant pain relief, almost everyone reports some benefit, such as improved
sleep, an increased sense of overall calmness and well-being, or reduced stress. I
don’t know at this point which of these benefits you would experience if you
choose to learn self-hypnosis … want to find out?

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 7

The Effects of Hypnotic Analgesia on Pain-Related Brain Activity

Author Manuscript

To date, the primary imaging techniques used to study the neurophysiological effects of
hypnosis include positron emission tomography (PET; cortical metabolic activity),
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; changes in blood flow in the brain and spinal
cord), and electroencephalography (EEG; cortical electrical activity). PET and fMRI are
most useful for identifying locations of brain activity, and EEG is most useful for assessing
brain states. Rather than repeating what has been reported in a number of reviews on cortical
responses to hypnotic analgesia (Barabasz & Barabasz, 2008; Oakley, 2008; Oakley &
Halligan, 2010; D. Spiegel et al., 1989), we discuss four key findings from this body of
research that have important clinical implications for applying hypnosis to chronic pain
management.

Hypnotic Analgesia Influences Pain Processing at Multiple Sites

Author Manuscript

One of the most important findings from recent neurophysiological studies of pain is that
there is no single “pain center” in the brain that is responsible for the processing of pain. We
now know that pain is associated with activity in and interaction between a number of
different areas of the peripheral and central nervous systems, each of which contributes to
the overall experience of pain (Apkarian, Hashmi, & Baliki, 2011). The cortical areas most
often activated during pain are the thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insular cortex,
primary and secondary sensory cortices, and prefrontal cortex. The relative contribution of
each of these areas to the experience of pain varies as a function of the nature of the pain
stimuli (Apkarian et al., 2011).

Some of the earliest research on the cortical effects of hypnotic analgesia was reported by D.
Spiegel and colleagues (1989), and this body of research has gained substantial momentum
Author Manuscript

over the last decade (Abrahamsen et al., 2010; Derbyshire, Whalley, & Oakley, 2009;
Derbyshire, Whalley, Stenger, & Oakley, 2004; Faymonville, Boly, & Laureys, 2006; Raij,
Numminen, Narvanen, Hiltunen, & Hari, 2005; Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2009). Each of the
brain areas involved in pain processing has been shown to respond to hypnosis in more than
one study: insula (Abrahamsen et al., 2010; Derbyshire et al., 2004), prefrontal cortex
(Derbyshire et al., 2009; Derbyshire et al., 2004; Raij et al., 2005), thalamus (Derbyshire et
al., 2009; Derbyshire et al., 2004; Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2009; Wik, Fischer, Bragee, Finer,
& Fredrikson, 1999), primary or secondary cortex (Derbyshire et al., 2009; Hofbauer,
Rainville, Duncan, & Bushnell, 2001), and cingulate cortex (Derbyshire et al., 2009;
Derbyshire et al., 2004; Faymonville et al., 2000, 2006; Raij et al., 2005; Rainville, Duncan,
Price, Carrier, & Bushnell, 1997; Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2009; Wik et al., 1999). Moreover,
hypnosis has also been shown to influence the processing of aversive stimulation at the level
Author Manuscript

of the spinal cord (see review by Jensen, 2008). Thus, hypnotic analgesia appears to
influence different areas of the nervous system that are involved in the processing of pain
rather than having a single, unilateral mechanism.

Hypnotic Suggestions Can Target Specific Brain Areas

In a hallmark study, Rainville and colleagues (1997) demonstrated that hypnotic suggestions
for reduced pain unpleasantness influenced activity in the corresponding area of the brain

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 8

expected (ACC) but not in other brain areas, including the sensory cortex. Subsequently, this
Author Manuscript

research group demonstrated that hypnotic suggestions for less pain intensity influenced
activity in the primary sensory cortex but did not influence activity in the ACC (Hofbauer et
al., 2001). Together, these studies indicate that hypnotic suggestions can be targeted to
specific effects in brain activity. Thus, not only the hypnotic induction but the content of the
specific hypnotic suggestions is of critical importance to the benefits derived from hypnosis.

Hypnotic Inductions Are Associated With Changes in Brain States Consistent With Pain
Relief
Cortical neurons fire at different frequencies, and the speed at which they fire is associated
with different brain states. Moreover, the experience of pain is associated with more neurons
firing at relatively fast (beta, 13–30 Hz) frequencies and fewer neurons firing at slower
(alpha, 8–13 Hz) frequencies (Bromm & Lorenz, 1998; Chen, 2001). Importantly, hypnotic
Author Manuscript

suggestions result in changes in brain activity consistent with those observed in individuals
who experience pain relief; with hypnosis, there is a decrease in relative beta activity and an
increase in relative alpha activity (Crawford, 1990; Williams & Gruzelier, 2001). Thus, the
neurophysiological processes associated with pain perception appear to be related not only
to the site of activity but also to general activity levels that likely transcend specific areas of
functions. Therefore, hypnotic analgesia may influence pain both by altering activity in
specific areas and by facilitating shifts in general brain states.

Hypnosis Is More Than Simple Imagination

In 2004, Derbyshire and colleagues published an important study comparing the subjective
and neurophysiological effects of (a) noxious stimulation (painful heat applied to the palm),
(b) imagined pain (asking participants to imagine the pain they experienced during the
Author Manuscript

noxious stimulation “as vividly as possible”), and (c) hypnotic pain (providing a hypnotic
induction followed by suggestions to reexperience the pain experienced during the noxious
stimulation) (Derbyshire et al., 2004). The fMRI results for the noxious stimulation
condition were consistent with those of many other fMRI pain studies, showing activation in
the thalamus, ACC, secondary sensory cortex, insula, and prefrontal cortex (as well as, in
this case, activity in the cerebellum and parietal cortex). Moreover, the pattern of brain
activity during the hypnotic pain condition was similar to that observed during the noxious
stimulation condition, with overlap of activity in the ACC, insula, prefrontal cortex, and
parietal cortex. However, the intensity of this activity in the stimulation condition tended to
be stronger than that in the hypnotic pain condition, and activation of the primary sensory
cortex occurred only in the hypnotic pain condition. In the imagined pain condition, there
was some (but much less than either of the other two conditions) activation in the ACC,
Author Manuscript

insula, and secondary sensory cortex. The findings add support to the aforementioned notion
that hypnotic suggestions are localized to specific areas of the brain but also add important
support for the conclusion that such effects involve more than a process of simple
imagination.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 9

Clinical Implications of the Findings From Hypnosis Imaging Studies

Author Manuscript

The key findings from the studies on the effects of hypnotic analgesia on neurophysiological
processes discussed above have two important clinical implications. First, to maximize
efficacy, hypnotic treatment should target multiple specific pain domains. Second, clinicians
should take full advantage of the calming effects of hypnosis on brain activity and processes.

Hypnotic suggestions should target multiple pain domains—We have already

discussed the importance of providing suggestions to improve outcomes other than just pain
relief (sleep quality, well-being, activity level, etc.) when treating chronic pain with
hypnosis. This same principle applies when treatment targets pain relief, because pain is a
multidimensional construct with sensory, affective, and evaluative components. Each of
these domains can be influenced by hypnotic suggestions.

It follows that clinicians using hypnosis for pain management should target their suggestions
Author Manuscript

to the different brain areas that process pain. In fact, clinicians will likely be more effective
if they are guided by knowledge of the specific brain areas that are linked to pain (Jensen,
2008). Some of the pain-related domains that appear to have specific cortical associations
include intensity and quality (sensory cortices), bothersomeness or unpleasantness (ACC), a
sense of comfort and physical integrity (insula), reduced threat value and negative
implications of the pain (prefrontal cortex), and the ability to “screen out” discomfort and
“let in” comfortable sensations (spinothalamic tract). Current thinking in pain physiology
suggests that hypnotic suggestions should target several of these domains rather than any
one of them (Jensen, 2011; Patterson, 2010).

Taking advantage of the cortical calming effects of hypnosis—The hypnotic

induction itself— even before any suggestions are made for pain relief— results in a shift of
Author Manuscript

brain activity in a direction consistent with that of someone experiencing pain relief.
Hypnosis is certainly not necessarily the only technique that can be used to shift brain states.
Some clinical trials comparing hypnosis to relaxation training have failed to detect
differences in outcome for these two treatments, at least for headache pain relief (Patterson
& Jensen, 2003). Importantly, response to relaxation training appears to be associated with
hypnotizability (Patterson & Jensen, 2003). Many meditation strategies have also has been
shown to result in shifts in EEG bandwidth activity consistent with those that follow
hypnosis (i.e., an increase in the slower alpha rhythms; Fell, Axmacher, & Haupt, 2010).
Like these other “hypnotic-like” treatments, the induction phase of hypnosis may have
analgesic effects in and of itself for some patients.

It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish among hypnosis, relaxation/autogenic training,

Author Manuscript

and guided imagery interventions. Certainly, relaxation training and guided imagery often
contain elements that look very much like a hypnotic induction, and hypnosis often includes
suggestions for relaxation and use of imagery. However, clinical hypnosis usually involves
suggestions not only for perceptual changes but also for other clinical benefits (Jensen,
2011; Patterson, 2010), while these other techniques tend to focus on just a single outcome
(e.g., relaxation training focuses mostly on perceived relaxation). Understanding that it is
often difficult to distinguish among hypnosis, relaxation training, and guided imagery in a

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 10

clinical situation, we would argue that hypnosis allows clinicians to target a much larger
Author Manuscript

variety of outcomes (i.e., changes in sensory experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior)
than many other treatments do.

We have cited the important finding that hypnosis has larger effects on pain than does
simple imagination (Derbyshire et al., 2004). The implication is that hypnosis is more
powerful than simple imagery; however, it is important to acknowledge the potential
beneficial impact of imagery in changing perceptual processes. For many patients, including
imagery for pain reduction can be a powerful component of the hypnotic intervention. The
possibilities for using imagery in this way are endless (“Imagine that your pain has a color.
That color is now changing” or “Notice that you are lying with your low back in a stream of
healing water … cool and comfortable”). Many patients will benefit from the inclusion of
imagery as long as it does not bring up unpleasant or irritating memories. However,
clinicians should realize that not all patients enjoy imagery or find visual processing easy
Author Manuscript

and that a variety of other components of hypnosis should also be typically included (e.g.,
enhanced relaxation, changing the focus of attention, altering negative cognitions; Jensen,
2011; Patterson, 2010).

Unresolved Clinical and Theoretical Questions

Our understanding of hypnotic analgesia has increased substantially in the past two decades.
An important review in the early 1980s (Turner & Chapman, 1982) noted that there were no
randomized, controlled trials to support its utility as a viable treatment for chronic pain.
Based on the findings from the clinical trials and neurophysiological studies cited in this
article, we can conclude that hypnosis and hypnotic analgesia have specific effects beyond
those attributable solely to placebos. Yet, as we discussed in our introduction, there remains
Author Manuscript

a lack of consensus on what hypnosis is, and there are significant unanswered questions
regarding the mechanisms and best clinical use of this approach to pain management. We
conclude this article with a brief discussion of four of these critical questions: (a) What
is/are the mechanism/s of hypnotic analgesia? (b) How can hypnosis best be combined with
other therapies? (c) What is the best dose of hypnosis, and does ongoing hypnosis practice
improve outcome? and (d) Can hypnosis enhance acceptance of pain?

What Is/Are the Mechanism/s of Hypnotic Analgesia?

We cannot address possible mechanisms of hypnotic analgesia without at least introducing
some of the different theoretical perspectives of hypnosis. During much of the latter part of
the 20th century, a substantial amount of effort was put into arguing the relative merits of
two primary theoretical models of hypnosis: neodissociation and sociocognitive models.
Author Manuscript

However, despite significant debate and decades of research, neither perspective has been
universally adopted by experts in the field. In the last decade, there has been a growing call
to view hypnosis from multiple perspectives (e.g., Holroyd, 2003; Kihlstrom, 2003). Some
preliminary work to develop more integrative models has also been published (e.g., Barnier,
Dienes, & Mitchell, 2008; Pekala et al., 2010b). Despite the fact that the field is beginning to
move beyond these two narrow (and conflicting) notions of hypnosis, it is still useful to
understand the original models, because each will likely contribute important ideas to an
overarching biopsychosocial model of hypnotic analgesia.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 11

Neodissociation and dissociated control models—The neodissociation theory of

Author Manuscript

hypnosis proposed by Ernest Hilgard (Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975) and the dissociated control
theories offered by Bowers (1990) and Woody and Sadler (2008) stress the sense of
automaticity and effortlessness with respect to behavioral and perceptual changes that often
occur with hypnosis. The perceived effortlessness is thought to be associated with a shift in
the control of responses from higher executive functions (evaluative and more effortful
responding) to those cognitive subsystems that have a direct influence on the behavioral
responses without the (usual) layer of judgment or critical screening. In short, dissociation
theories hypothesize that hypnosis involves a qualitative shift in the nature of cognitive
processes. Dissociation models of hypnosis are also consistent with the views of a number of
researchers studying the brain processes associated with hypnotic analgesia. Rainville and
Price (2004), for example, argued that hypnosis creates a shift from an active to a passive
form of attention and noted that these attentional shifts are associated with a reduction in the
Author Manuscript

monitoring of control and the censoring of experience. Because dissociation theories

hypothesize a qualitative shift in neurophysiological states during hypnosis, these models
are often referred to as state models of hypnosis.

As mentioned above, hypnotizability is a trait-like capability that remains highly stable

across decades (Morgan et al., 1974). Moreover, an individual’s baseline hypnotizability
score is a much more powerful predictor of subsequent response to hypnotic suggestions
than is any one of a number of interventions designed to boost hypnotic responding
(Frischholz, Blumstein, & Spiegel, 1982). State theorists have argued that hypnotizability is
a genetically loaded characteristic that helps predict which subjects are more likely to
respond to suggestions. This may explain the consistent associations found between
measures of hypnotizability and response to hypnotic analgesia in laboratory settings,
although, as we have noted, general hypnotizability is less able to predict response to
Author Manuscript

hypnosis in the clinical context (Jensen, 2011; Montgomery, Schnur, & David, 2011;
Patterson & Jensen, 2003).

Sociocognitive models—Researchers who espouse sociocognitive models of hypnosis

argue that the concept of an altered state is not needed to understand or explain hypnosis.
Rather, they maintain that hypnosis is best explained by the same sociopsychological factors
that explain all behaviors whether or not they involve hypnosis: subject expectancy, subject
motivation, contextual cues in the social environment, demand characteristics, and role
enactment (Kirsch & Lynn, 1995; Lynn, Kirsch, & Hallquist, 2008).

In support of this line of reasoning, Montgomery and colleagues (2010) have shown that
measures of outcome expectancies partially mediate the benefits of hypnotic analgesia. In
Author Manuscript

addition, the clinical approach of such theorists working with chronic pain (Chaves, 1993)
will often appear very similar to conventional cognitive-behavioral interventions that have
been popular for the past three decades (Holzman, Turk, & Kerns, 1986; see also Ehde,
Dillworth, & Turner, 2014, this issue).

Understanding the effects of hypnosis on pain from the perspective of more

integrated theories—We anticipate that in the same way that biopsychosocial models
have replaced more restrictive psychological or biological models of pain (Novy, Nelson,

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 12

Francis, & Turk, 1995; see also Gatchel, McGeary, McGeary, & Lippe, 2014, this issue),
Author Manuscript

models of hypnotic analgesia that take into account both neurophysiological states (Oakley,
2008; Oakley & Halligan, 2010) and traditional psychological factors (such as expectancies,
motivation, social cues, etc.) may ultimately prove to have more explanatory power than
models that exclude either category of factors. We can envision at least two directions that
such theories might take in understanding hypnotic analgesia.

First, it is possible that state and nonstate theories explain different components of hypnotic
analgesia; each model may ultimately prove to be most useful with different subsets of
patients. For example, patients who score high on tests of hypnotizability may respond better
to hypnotic analgesia interventions based on a state approach (e.g., hypnotic inductions and
suggestions that focus on dissociation), whereas those who score in the medium or low
range on hypnotizability measures may respond better to hypnotic treatments based on
sociocognitive hypnotic protocols or at least may be less influenced by their general
Author Manuscript

hypnotizability (e.g., Martínez-Valero et al., 2008).

Alternatively, some investigators have hypothesized that hypnotizability is not a trait that
lies on a single continuum but rather that there may be different types of hypnotic
responding. For example, T. X. Barber (2000) proposed three basic types of hypnotic
responders: fantasy-prone, amnesia-prone, and positive-set responders (see also Pekala et
al., 2010a). To the extent that people can be reliably classified into different types of
responders, hypnotic interventions might be developed that could best match each
individual, ultimately resulting in more positive outcomes for more people. Research
examining these questions would be very useful.

Which potential mechanisms of hypnosis might be considered in the development of a more

Author Manuscript

complete model? Several mechanisms have been postulated as important elements of

hypnosis (Barnier & Nash, 2008), and all of these have been hypothesized to be associated
with pain reduction. These include relaxation (Edmonston, 1991), the use of distracting
imagery (Chaves, 1994), focused attention (Barabasz & Barabasz, 2008), and expectancy
(Wagstaff, David, Kirsch, & Lynn, 2010). The field has also gained an understanding of
some potential mechanisms that do not contribute to the effects of hypnotic analgesia; we
know, for example, that although hypnotic responding can be influenced by outcome
expectancies, hypnosis has specific effects over and above those associated with placebos
(Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975). Research suggests that the effects of hypnotic analgesia are not
mediated by endogenous opioids (J. Barber & Mayer, 1977) or distraction mechanisms such
as those produced by immersive virtual reality (Patterson, Hoffman, Palacios, & Jensen,
2006).
Author Manuscript

We have discussed how hypnotic suggestions can affect specific areas of the brain that
process pain depending on the wording of the hypnotic suggestions. One important next step
is to investigate how hypnosis allows subjects to better access and impact those areas of the
brain. We speculate that subjects experiencing hypnosis suspend critical monitoring and
judgment and, as a result, have more direct access to and influence over critical areas of the
central nervous system. This process may be enhanced by any number of factors: focused
attention, deep relaxation, and disruption of linear (i.e., critical) thinking.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 13

Neurophysiological research provides preliminary support for these ideas in that individuals
Author Manuscript

who score high on tests of hypnotizability (highs) clearly process information differently
from those who score low on hypnotizability tests (lows) and that many of the differences in
processing are associated with those (frontal) areas of the brain associated with executive
control (Jensen et al., 2013). Research is needed to further examine the potential role of
frontal/ executive brain areas in response to hypnotic analgesia and other hypnotic
treatments.

What Are the Additive Effects of Hypnosis?

In 1995, Irving Kirsch and colleagues published an important meta-analysis of the additive
effects of hypnosis when combined with other treatments (Kirsch, Montgomery, &
Sapirstein, 1995). These authors reviewed 18 studies in which cognitive-behavioral
psychotherapy was provided in a hypnotic context and compared with the same therapy
Author Manuscript

without hypnosis. They reported that adding hypnosis to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy

enhanced the average study effect size by 0.5 standard deviation units. Further, “the average
client receiving cognitive-behavioral hypnotherapy benefitted more than at least 70% of
clients receiving the same treatment without hypnosis” (Kirsch et al., 1995, p. 218).
However, only one of the studies reviewed by Kirsch and colleagues studied chronic pain.

To our knowledge, there has been only one study published since Kirsch and colleagues’
(1995) review that examined the effects of combining hypnosis with another intervention in
the treatment of chronic pain (Jensen et al., 2011). Although the findings from this study
were positive—a “hypnotic cognitive therapy” intervention resulted in additional reductions
in pain intensity, catastrophizing cognitions, and pain interference, over and above the
effects of either hypnotic analgesia or cognitive therapy alone—it was essentially a pilot
study. More research examining the effects of combining hypnosis with other established
Author Manuscript

pain treatments is clearly warranted.

A related issue is whether adding hypnosis to treatment results in health care cost offsets.
Two significant studies have addressed this question. Lang and colleagues (2000) randomly
assigned 241 patients undergoing cutaneous vascular and renal procedures to groups
receiving self-hypnotic relaxation (n = 82) or standard care (n = 79). Patients who received
hypnosis used less procedure room time, had more hemodynamic stability, used fewer
sedating/analgesic medications, and reported less pain and anxiety than those who did not
receive hypnosis. In a secondary analysis using data from this study, Lang and Rosen (2002)
reported that the participants in the hypnosis group incurred medical care costs that were
less than half those incurred by the participants in the control group. Montgomery and
colleagues (2007) reported even more dramatic cost savings in 200 patients who were
Author Manuscript

scheduled to undergo breast cancer procedures. Patients in the hypnosis group received
fewer sedating or analgesic drugs (propofol and lidocaine) and reported less pain, fatigue,
nausea, discomfort, and emotional upset than patients in the control group. In a cost
analysis, the authors reported that care of the hypnosis group cost the institution an average
of $772.71 less per patient than did care of the control group, a difference that was
accounted for largely by reduced surgery time and personnel and equipment costs for the
hypnosis group.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 14

Can Hypnosis Enhance Acceptance of Pain?

Author Manuscript

The notion of enabling patients to manage their chronic pain through such approaches as
mindfulness meditation training (and therapies that incorporate mindfulness) is becoming
increasingly popular (McCracken & Vowles, 2014, this issue). In such approaches, efforts to
directly resist or reduce chronic pain are thought to contribute to suffering. Put another way,
having a goal of a direct reduction in chronic pain might decrease the quality of life for
some patients.

Clearly, as discussed in this review, hypnosis can be used to reduce pain intensity or
otherwise change the experience of pain for some individuals. However, without going into
an extensive discussion of mindfulness, hypnosis could potentially serve some patients well
as a tool for helping them to accept rather than seek to change their experience of pain. For
example, during the hypnotic process, patients can be encouraged to examine pain from a
Author Manuscript

distance or to accept the notion that all perceptual experiences are temporary (Patterson,
2010). Fordyce (1988) taught us long ago that the primary problem many patients face is
suffering rather than pain. Accordingly, he counseled patients to focus away from pain with
the understanding that dwelling on it only enhanced pain-related suffering. There are
parallels to this thinking in some Eastern philosophies that view suffering as a direct result
of a person’s resisting or seeking to change his or her experience, as opposed to accepting it.
In any case, it is possible that hypnosis can not only facilitate the ability of patients to reduce
their pain but can also increase their acceptance of their experience of pain, which would
ultimately result in a decrease in suffering (Patterson, 2010).

Summary and Conclusions

Chronic pain management remains one of the largest challenges in health care, and hypnosis
Author Manuscript

is an undeveloped but highly promising intervention that can help to address this problem.
Findings from controlled trials indicate that hypnosis is effective for reducing chronic pain
intensity on average but that there is also substantial individual variation in outcome.
Importantly, hypnosis for chronic pain has few negative side effects. In fact, with hypnotic
treatment, most patients report positive side effects, such as an improved sense of well-
being, a greater sense of control, improved sleep, and increased satisfaction with life,
independent of whether they report reductions in pain. A burgeoning literature on the
neurophysiological impact of hypnotic analgesia has guided both theoretical and clinical
work. We have learned that hypnosis has a measureable impact on neurophysiological
activity and functioning of pain. Importantly, depending on the specific wording, hypnotic
suggestions can target specific pain domains and outcomes, as well as activity in specific
brain areas.
Author Manuscript

Our theoretical understanding of hypnotic pain relief is plagued by a lack of consensus on a

basic definition of hypnosis as well as by the lack of a comprehensive biopsychosocial
theory that explains its impact. Although it appears that the various components that often
constitute hypnosis (e.g., focused attention, relaxation, imagery) have beneficial effects on
their own, we have yet to fully understand how the sum of these parts has beneficial effects.
We look forward to the increased understanding that will come with further research and
theoretical developments.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 15

Acknowledgments
Author Manuscript

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research Grant R01 HDD070973, and National Institute
of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Grant R01 AR054115. The views presented here are not
necessarily those of the National Institutes of Health.

We would like to express our appreciation to Lisa C. Murphy and Jenny Nash for their valuable comments and
feedback on an earlier version of this article.

Biographies
Author Manuscript

Mark P. Jensen

David R. Patterson
Author Manuscript

REFERENCES
Abrahamsen R, Dietz M, Lodahl S, Roepstorff A, Zachariae R, Ostergaard L, Svensson P. Effect of
hypnotic pain modulation on brain activity in patients with temporomandibular disorder pain. Pain.
2010; 151(3):825–833. [PubMed: 20933331]
Alladin A. Evidence-based hypnotherapy for depression. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. 2010; 58:165–185. [PubMed: 20390689]
Anderson JA, Basker MA, Dalton R. Migraine and hypnotherapy. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. 1975; 23:48–58. [PubMed: 1110112]
Apkarian AV, Hashmi JA, Baliki MN. Pain and the brain: Specificity and plasticity of the brain in
clinical chronic pain. Pain. 2011; 152 Suppl(3):S49–S64. [PubMed: 21146929]
Barabasz, AF.; Barabasz, M. Hypnosis and the brain. In: Nash, MR.; Barnier, A., editors. The Oxford
handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press;
2008. p. 337-363.
Author Manuscript

Barber J, Mayer D. Evaluation of the efficacy and neural mechanism of a hypnotic analgesia procedure
in experimental and clinical dental pain. Pain. 1977; 4(1):41–48. [PubMed: 337220]
Barber TX. A deeper understanding of hypnosis: Its secrets, its nature, its essence. American Journal
of Clinical Hypnosis. 2000; 42:208–272. [PubMed: 10710810]
Barnier, AJ.; Dienes, Z.; Mitchell, CJ. How hypnosis happens: New cognitive theories of hypnotic
responding. In: Nash, MR.; Barnier, AJ., editors. The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory,
research, and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 141-177.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 16

Barnier, AJ.; Nash, MR. Introduction: A roadmap for explanation, a working definition. In: Nash,
MR.; Barnier, A., editors. Contemporary hypnosis research. 2nd ed.. Oxford, England: Oxford
Author Manuscript

University Press; 2008. p. 1-18.

Bowers, KS. Unconscious influences and hypnosis. In: Singer, JL., editor. Repression and
dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press; 1990. p. 143-178.
Bromm B, Lorenz J. Neurophysiological evaluation of pain. Electroencephalography & Clinical
Neurophysiology. 1998; 107:227–253. [PubMed: 9872441]
Chaves, JF. Hypnosis in pain management. In: Rhue, JW.; Lynn, SJ.; Kirsch, I., editors. Handbook of
clinical hypnosis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993. p. 511-532.
Chaves JF. Recent advances in the application of hypnosis to pain management. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis. 1994; 37(2):117–129. [PubMed: 7527615]
Chen ACN. New perspectives in EEG/MEG brain mapping and PET/fMRI neuroimaging of human
pain. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2001; 42(2):147–159.
Crawford, HJ. Cognitive and psychophysiological correlates of hypnotic responsiveness and hypnosis.
In: Fass, ML.; Brown, D., editors. Creative mastery in hypnosis and hypnoanalysis: A Festschrift
Author Manuscript

for Erika Fromm. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1990. p. 47-54.

Crawford HJ, Knebel T, Kaplan L, Vendemia JM, Xie M, Jamison S, Pribram KH. Hypnotic
analgesia: 1. Somato-sensory event-related potential changes to noxious stimuli and 2. Transfer
learning to reduce chronic low back pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis. 1998; 46:92–132. [PubMed: 9439105]
Derbyshire SW, Whalley MG, Oakley DA. Fibromyalgia pain and its modulation by hypnotic and
non-hypnotic suggestion: An fMRI analysis. European Journal of Pain. 2009; 13(5):542–550.
[PubMed: 18653363]
Derbyshire SW, Whalley MG, Stenger VA, Oakley DA. Cerebral activation during hypnotically
induced and imagined pain. Neuroimage. 2004; 23(1):392–401. [PubMed: 15325387]
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Witter J. Core outcome
measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005; 113(1–2):9–
19. [PubMed: 15621359]
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Zavisic S. Interpreting the
Author Manuscript

clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT

recommendations. The Journal of Pain. 2008; 9(2):105–121. [PubMed: 18055266]
Edmonston, WE, Jr. Anesis. In: Lynn, SJ.; Rhue, JW., editors. Theories of hypnosis: Current models
and perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1991. p. 197-237.
Ehde DM, Dillworth TM, Turner JA. Cognitive behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain:
Efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. American Psychologist. 2014; 69:153–166.
[PubMed: 24547801]
Ewin DM. Emergency room hypnosis for the burned patient. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
1986; 29(1):7–12. [PubMed: 3739965]
Faymonville ME, Boly M, Laureys S. Functional neuroanatomy of the hypnotic state. Journal of
Physiology - Paris. 2006; 99(4–6):463–469.
Faymonville ME, Laureys S, Degueldre C, DelFiore G, Luxen A, Franck G, Maquet P. Neural
mechanisms of antinociceptive effects of hypnosis. Anesthesiology. 2000; 92:1257–1267.
[PubMed: 10781270]
Fell J, Axmacher N, Haupt S. From alpha to gamma: Electrophysiological correlates of meditation-
Author Manuscript

related states of consciousness. Medical Hypotheses. 2010; 75:218–224. [PubMed: 20227193]

Fordyce WE. Pain and suffering: A reappraisal. American Psychologist. 1988; 43:276–283. [PubMed:
2968063]
Frischholz EJ, Blumstein R, Spiegel D. Comparative efficacy of hypnotic behavioral training and
sleep/trance hypnotic induction: Comment on Katz. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 1982; 50:766–769. [PubMed: 7142550]
Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD, McGeary CA, Lippe B. Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: Past,
present, and future. American Psychologist. 2014; 69:119–130. [PubMed: 24547798]
Hilgard, ER.; Hilgard, JR. Hypnosis in the relief of pain. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann; 1975.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 17

Hofbauer RK, Rainville P, Duncan GH, Bushnell MC. Cortical representation of the sensory
dimension of pain. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2001; 86(1):402–411. [PubMed: 11431520]
Author Manuscript

Holroyd J. The science of meditation and the state of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis. 2003; 46(2):109–128. [PubMed: 14609297]
Holzman, AD.; Turk, DC.; Kerns, RD. The cognitive-behavioral approach to the management of
chronic pain. In: Holzman, AD.; Turk, DC., editors. Pain management: A handbook of
psychological treatment approaches. New York, NY: Pergamon Press; 1986. p. 31-50.
Jensen MP. The neurophysiology of pain perception and hypnotic analgesia: Implications for clinical
practice. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 2008; 51(2):123–148. [PubMed: 18998379]
Jensen, MP. Hypnosis for chronic pain management: Therapist guide. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press; 2011.
Jensen MP, Barber J, Romano JM, Hanley MA, Raichle KA, Molton IR, Patterson DR. Effects of self-
hypnosis training and EMG biofeedback relaxation training on chronic pain in persons with spinal-
cord injury. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2009; 57:239–268.
[PubMed: 19459087]
Jensen MP, Barber J, Romano JM, Molton IR, Raichle KA, Osborne TL, Patterson DR. A comparison
Author Manuscript

of self-hypnosis versus progressive muscle relaxation in patients with multiple sclerosis and
chronic pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2009; 57(2):198–221.
[PubMed: 19234967]
Jensen MP, Ehde DM, Gertz KJ, Stoelb BL, Dillworth TM, Hirsh AT, Kraft GH. Effects of self-
hypnosis training and cognitive restructuring on daily pain intensity and catastrophizing in
individuals with multiple sclerosis and chronic pain. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. 2011; 59:45–63. [PubMed: 21104484]
Jensen MP, Hanley MA, Engel JM, Romano JM, Barber J, Cardenas DD, Patterson DR. Hypnotic
analgesia for chronic pain in persons with disabilities: A case series. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2005; 53:198–228. [PubMed: 16025734]
Jensen MP, McArthur KD, Barber J, Hanley MA, Engel JM, Romano JM, Patterson DR. Satisfaction
with, and the beneficial side effects of, hypnotic analgesia. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. 2006; 54:432–447. [PubMed: 16950685]
Jensen MP, Sherlin LH, Askew RL, Fregni F, Witkop G, Gianas A, Hakimian S. Effects of non-
pharmacological pain treatments on brain states. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2013; 124:2016–2024.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 23706958]
Jensen MP, Turk DC. Contributions of psychology to the understanding and treatment of people with
chronic pain: Why it matters to ALL psychologists. American Psychologist. 2014; 69:105–118.
[PubMed: 24547797]
Kihlstrom JF. Hypnosis. Annual Review of Psychology. 1985; 36:385–418.
Kihlstrom JF. The fox, the hedgehog, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis. 2003; 51:166–189. [PubMed: 12908750]
Kirsch I, Lynn SJ. The altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape. American
Psychologist. 1995; 50:846–858.
Kirsch I, Montgomery G, Sapirstein G. Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1995; 63:214–220. [PubMed:
7751482]
Lang EV, Benotsch EG, Fick LJ, Lutgendorf S, Berbaum ML, Berbaum KS, Spiegel D. Adjunctive
non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: A randomised trial. The Lancet.
Author Manuscript

2000; 355(9214):1486–1490.
Lang EV, Rosen MP. Cost analysis of adjunct hypnosis with sedation during outpatient interventional
radiologic procedures. Radiology. 2002; 222:375–382. [PubMed: 11818602]
Lynn, SJ.; Kirsch, I.; Hallquist, MN. Social cognitive theories of hypnosis. In: Nash, MR.; Barnier,
AJ., editors. The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 111-139.
Manchikanti L, Singh A. Therapeutic opioids: A ten-year perspective on the complexities and
complications of the escalating use, abuse, and nonmedical use of opioids. Pain Physician. 2008;
11 Suppl(2):S63–S88. [PubMed: 18443641]

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 18

Martínez-Valero C, Castel A, Capafons A, Sala J, Espejo B, Cardeña E. Hypnotic treatment synergizes

the psychological treatment of fibromyalgia: A pilot study. American Journal of Clinical
Author Manuscript

Hypnosis. 2008; 50:311–321. [PubMed: 18524298]

Maxwell JC. The prescription drug epidemic in the United States: A perfect storm. Drug and Alcohol
Review. 2011; 30(3):264–270. [PubMed: 21545556]
McCracken LM, Vowles KE. Acceptance and commitment therapy and mindfulness for chronic pain:
Model, process, and progress. American Psychologist. 2014; 69:178–187. [PubMed: 24547803]
Montgomery GH, Bovbjerg DH, Schnur JB, David D, Goldfarb A, Weltz CR, Silverstein JH. A
randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery
patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2007; 99:1304–1312. [PubMed: 17728216]
Montgomery GH, DuHamel KN, Redd WH. A meta-analysis of hypnotically induced analgesia: How
effective is hypnosis? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2000; 48:138–
153. [PubMed: 10769981]
Montgomery GH, Hallquist MN, Schnur JB, David D, Silver-stein JH, Bovbjerg DH. Mediators of a
brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients: Response expectancies
and emotional distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2010; 78:80–88. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

20099953]
Montgomery GH, Schnur JB, David D. The impact of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical care settings.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2011; 59:294–309. [PubMed:
21644122]
Morgan AH, Hilgard JR. The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis. 1978–1979; 21(2–3):134–147. [PubMed: 747162]
Morgan AH, Johnson DL, Hilgard ER. The stability of hypnotic susceptibility: A longitudinal study.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1974; 22:249–257. [PubMed:
4847205]
Novy DM, Nelson DV, Francis DJ, Turk DC. Perspectives of chronic pain: An evaluative comparison
of restrictive and comprehensive models. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 118:238–247. [PubMed:
7568572]
Oakley, DA. Hypnosis, trance and suggestion: Evidence from neuroimaging. In: Nash, MR.; Barnier,
A., editors. The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research and practice. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 365-392.
Author Manuscript

Oakley, DA.; Halligan, PW. Psychophysiological foundations of hypnosis and suggestion. In: Lynn,
SJ.; Rhue, JW.; Kirsch, I., editors. Handbook of clinical hypnosis. 2nd ed.. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 2010. p. 79-117.
Patterson, DR. Clinical hypnosis for pain control. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2010.
Patterson DR, Hoffman HG, Palacios AG, Jensen MJ. Analgesic effects of posthypnotic suggestions
and virtual reality distraction on thermal pain. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2006; 115:834–
841. [PubMed: 17100541]
Patterson DR, Jensen MP. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129:495–521.
[PubMed: 12848218]
Patterson DR, Wiechman SA, Jensen M, Sharar SR. Hypnosis delivered through immersive virtual
reality for burn pain: A clinical case series. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis. 2006; 54:130–142. [PubMed: 16581687]
Pekala RJ, Kumar VK, Maurer R, Elliott-Carter N, Moon E, Mullen K. Suggestibility, expectancy,
Author Manuscript

trance state effects, and hypnotic depth: I. Implications for understanding hypnotism. American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 2010a; 52:275–290. [PubMed: 20499542]
Pekala RJ, Kumar VK, Maurer R, Elliott-Carter N, Moon E, Mullen K. Suggestibility, expectancy,
trance state effects, and hypnotic depth: II. Assessment via the PCI-HAP. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis. 2010b; 52:291–318. [PubMed: 20499543]
Pintar, J.; Lynn, SJ. Hypnosis: A brief history. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Raij TT, Numminen J, Narvanen S, Hiltunen J, Hari R. Brain correlates of subjective reality of
physically and psychologically induced pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
USA. 2005; 102(6):2147–2151.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.

 Jensen and Patterson Page 19

Rainville P, Duncan GH, Price DD, Carrier B, Bushnell MC. Pain affect encoded in human anterior
cingulate but not so-matosensory cortex. Science. 1997; 277(5328):968–971. [PubMed: 9252330]
Author Manuscript

Rainville, P.; Price, DD. The neurophenomenology of hypnosis and hypnotic analgesia. In: Price, DD.;
Bushnell, MC., editors. Psychological methods of pain control: Basic science and clinical
perspectives (Progress in Pain Research and Management, Vol. 29). Seattle, WA: IASP Press;
2004.
Shor, RE.; Ome, EC. Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press; 1962.
Smith MT, Haythornthwaite JA. How do sleep disturbance and chronic pain inter-relate? Insights from
the longitudinal and cognitive-behavioral clinical trials literature. Sleep Medicine Reviews. 2004;
8:119–132. [PubMed: 15033151]
Spiegel D, Bierre P, Rootenberg J. Hypnotic alteration of somatosensory perception. American Journal
of Psychiatry. 1989; 146(6):749–754. [PubMed: 2729425]
Spiegel, H.; Spiegel, D. Trance and treatment: Clinical uses of hypnosis. 2nd ed.. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association; 2004.
Stewart JH. Hypnosis in contemporary medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2005; 80:511–524.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 15819289]
Stoelb BL, Molton IR, Jensen M, Patterson DR. The efficacy of hypnotic analgesia in adults: A review
of the literature. Contemporary Hypnosis. 2009; 26:24–39. [PubMed: 20161034]
Tomé-Pires C, Miró J. Hypnosis for the management of chronic and cancer procedure-related pain in
children. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2012; 60:432–457.
[PubMed: 22917107]
Turk DC, Okifuji A, Sinclair JD, Starz TW. Differential responses by psychosocial subgroups of
fibromyalgia syndrome patients to an interdisciplinary treatment. Arthritis Care & Research. 1998;
11:397–404. [PubMed: 9830884]
Turk DC, Wilson HD, Cahana A. Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. The Lancet. 2011; 377(9784):
2226–2235.
Turner JA, Chapman CR. Psychological interventions for chronic pain: A critical review. II. Operant
conditioning, hypnosis, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Pain. 1982; 12:23–46. [PubMed:
7036050]
Author Manuscript

Vanhaudenhuyse A, Boly M, Balteau E, Schnakers C, Moonen G, Luxen A, Faymonville ME. Pain

and non-pain processing during hypnosis: A thulium-YAG event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage.
2009; 47:1047–1054. [PubMed: 19460446]
Wagstaff, GF.; David, D.; Kirsch, I.; Lynn, SJ. The cognitive-behavioral model of hypnotherapy. In:
Lynn, SJ.; Rhue, JW.; Kirsch, I., editors. Handbook of clinical hypnosis. 2nd ed.. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. p. 179-208.
Weitzenhoffer, AM.; Hilgard, ER. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Pres; 1962.
Wik G, Fischer H, Bragee B, Finer B, Fredrikson M. Functional anatomy of hypnotic analgesia: A
PET study of patients with fibromyalgia. European Journal of Pain. 1999; 3(1):7–12. [PubMed:
10700332]
Williams JD, Gruzelier JH. Differentiation of hypnosis and relaxation by analysis of narrow band theta
and alpha frequencies. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2001;
49:185–206. [PubMed: 11430154]
Woody, EZ.; Sadler, P. Dissociation theories of hypnosis. In: Nash, MR.; Barnier, A., editors. The
Author Manuscript

Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press; 2008. p. 81-110.
Yapko, MD. Treating depression with hypnosis: Integrating cognitive-behavioral and strategic
approaches. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge; 2001.

Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 14.