La Hipnosis y La Percepción Del Dolor

Algunas personas creen que el control del dolor mediante hypnosis depende del grado de sugestionabilidad de los sujetos es decir que cuanto mas sugentionable es una persona, más fácil es ayudarle a controlar el dolor, pero los estudios realizados en la British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis publicados en el 2007 por John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd., han demostrado que la hipnotizabilidad no facilita la reducción del dolor mientras que la hipnosis SI puede lograrlo

Y los studios descriptos por British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Contemp. Hypnosis 24: 143–153 (2007)

Published by John Wiley & Sons  tambien han demostrado que cuando existe un fuerte dolor, la atención oscila entre la tarea que está ejecutando la persona y el dolor que siente en su cuerpo, pero cuando una persona es hipnotizada, puede concentrar su atención de tal forma en las sensaciones placenteras que la hipnosis produce, que logra excluir el dolor

¿Cómo incide en la capacidad para controlar el dolor, el hecho de que la persona crea que la hipnosis le va a ayudar a controlar el dolor?

Definitivamente se ha podido comprobar que consiguen mejores resultados quienes comienzan su tratamiento creyendo que la hipnosis puede ayudarles

¿Y que pasa si la persona cree que puede ser ayudada mediante hipnosis pero en realidad nunca logran hipnotizarla adecuadamente?

Por increíble que pueda pareer es más importante que la persona crea que puede ser hipnotizada que sea realmente hipnotizada, ya que si cree que puede ser ayudada mejorará aún cuando no puedan hipnotizarla

Con mis mejores deseos
Dr. Roberto A. Bonomi

Si quieres saber más sobre lo que la Hipnosis puede ayudarte a lograr,  simplemente anótate con el siguiente formulario para recibir nuestros videos GRATIS.

References

Baker SL, Kirsch I (1993) Hypnotic and placebo analgesia: order effects and the placebo label.

Contemporary Hypnosis 10: 117–26.

Barber TX, Calverley DS (1964) Empirical evidence for a theory of hypnotic behaviour: effects

on suggestibility of fi ve variables typically included in hypnotic induction procedures. Journal

of Consulting Psychology 29: 98–107.

Barber TX, Calverley DS (1965) Toward a theory of hypnotic behaviour: effects on suggestibility

of defi ning the situation as hypnosis and defi ning response to suggestions as easy. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology 68: 585–92.

Broadbent DE (1958) Perception and communication. Oxford UK: Pergamon Press.

Council JR, Kirsch I, Vickery AR, Carlson D (1983) ‘Trance’ vs. ‘skill’ hypnotic inductions: the

effect of credibility, expectancy and experimenter modelling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology 51: 432–40.

Crawford HJ, Gruzelier J (1992) A midstream view of the neuropsychophsysiology of hypnosis:

recent research and future directions. In E Fromm and M Nash (eds) Contemporary Perspectives

in Hypnosis Research. New York: Guilford Press, 227–66.

Crawford HJ, Brown AM, Moon CE (1993) Sustained attentional and disattentional abilities:

differences between low and highly hypnotizable persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology

102: 534–43.

Crawford HJ (1994) Brain dynamics and hypnosis: attentional and disattentional processes.

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 42: 204–32.

Eccleston C (1995) The attentional control of pain: methodological and theoretical concerns. Pain

63: 3–10.

Eccleston C, Crombez G (1999) Pain demands attention: a cognitive–affective model of the interruptive

function of pain. Psychological Bulletin 125: 356–66.

Farthing GW, Venturino M, Brown SW, Lazar JD (1997) Internal and external distraction in the

control of cold-pressor pain as a function of hypnotizability. International Journal for Clinical

and Experimental Hypnosis 45: 433–46.

Gandhi B, Oakley DA (2005) Does ‘hypnosis’ by any other name smell as sweet? The effi cacy

of ‘hypnotic’ inductions depends on the label hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition 14:

304–15.

Gracely RH, McGrath F, Dubner R (1978) Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain

descriptors. Pain 5: 5–18.

Gruzelier JH (1998) A working model of the neurophysiology of hypnosis: a review of evidence.

Contemporary Hypnosis 15: 3–21.

Gruzelier JH (2006) Frontal functions, connectivity and neural effi ciency underpinning hypnosis

and hypnotic susceptibility. Contemporary Hypnosis 23: 15–32.

Hilgard ER, Hilgard JR (1994) Hypnosis in the Relief of Pain. UK: Psychology Press.

Hilgard ER (1975) The alleviation of pain by hypnosis. Pain 1: 213–31.

Horton JE, Crawford HJ, Harrington G, JH Downs III (2004) Increased anterior corpus callosum

size associated positively with hypnotizability and the ability to control pain. Brain 127:

1741–7.

Kirsch I (1996) Hypnosis in psychotherapy: effi cacy and mechanisms. Contemporary Hypnosis

13: 109–14.

Modifying pain perception 153

Copyright © 2007 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis Contemp. Hypnosis 24: 143–153 (2007)

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd DOI: 10.1002/ch

Lynn SJ, Vanderhoff H, Shindler K, Stafford J (2002) Defi ning hypnosis as a trance vs. cooperation:

hypnotic inductions, suggestibility and performance standards. American Journal of

Clinical Hypnosis 44: 231–40.

Miller FM, Barabasz AF, Barabasz M (1991) Effects of active alert and relaxation hypnotic inductions

on cold pressor pain. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100: 223–6.

Norman DA, Schallice T (1986) Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behaviour.

In: RJ Davidson, GE Schwartz, D Shapiro (eds) Consciousness and Self-regulation: Advances

in Research and Theory (Vol. 4). London: Plenum Press, 1–18.

Rubichi S, Ricci F, Padovani R, Scaglietti L (2005) Hypnotic susceptibility, baseline attentional

functioning, and the Stroop task. Consciousness and Cognition 14: 296–303.

Schiffrin RM (1988) Attention. In: RC Atkinson, RS Hernstein, G Lindzey and R Luce (eds)

Steven’s Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 2: Learning and Cognition (3rd edn).

New York: Wiley, 739–811.

Shor RE, Orne EC (1962) Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Wallace B, Priebe FA (1985) Hypnotic susceptibility, inference, and alternation frequency to the

necker cube illusion. The Journal of General Psychology 112(3): 271–277.

Wallace B (1986) Latency and frequency reports to the necker cube illusion: Effects of hypnotic

susceptibility on mental anthmetic. The Journal of General Psychology 113(2): 187–194.

Walsh NE, Schoenfeld L, Ramamurthy S, Hoffman S (1989) Normative model for cold pressor

test. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 68: 6–11.