benson 1981 int j clin exp hypno relaxation response and hypnosis

8/3/2019 Benson 1981 Int j Clin Exp Hypno Relaxation Response and Hypnosis

1/13

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 15 February 2012, At: 09:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20

The relaxation response and hypnosisHerbert Benson

ab

, Patricia A. Arnsab

& John W. Hoffmana

aDivision of Behavioral Science Medicine, Beth Israel Hospital and Thorndike Laboratory,

bCharles F. Dana Research Foundation, Harvard Medical School,

Available online: 31 Jan 2008

To cite this article: Herbert Benson, Patricia A. Arns & John W. Hoffman (1981): The relaxation response and hypnosis,

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29:3, 259-270

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148108409160

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148108409160http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207148108409160http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nhyp20


2/13

Th e In lernaf ional lournal of Clinical and Experimenlal Hypno.yix1981, Vol. XXIX. No. . 159.270

THE RELAXATION RESPONSEAND HYPNOSISHERBERT BENSON, PATRICIA A. ARNS,

AND OHN w. HOFFMAN2,3Division of Behavioral Science Medicine,B eth Israel Hospital and Thorndike Laboratoy,and Charles F . Dana Research Foundation, Harvard Medical School

Abstract: Procedures for self-and hetero-hypnotic induction and for theelicitation of the relaxation response appear to be similar. Further,before experiencing hypnotic p henom ena, either during a traditional oran ac tive induction, a physiological state exists which is comparable tothe relaxation response. This state is characterized, in part, by decreasedheart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. After the physiologicalchanges of the r elaxation response occur, the ind ividual proceeds to ex-perience other exclusively hypnotic phenomena, such as perceptualdistortions, age regression, p osthypnotic suggestion, and amn esia.

A comparison of the induction procedures of self- and hetero-hypnosisand those used to elicit the relaxation response is warranted because ofthe apparent similarities between these procedures. The hypnotic ex-perience is usually described as a subjective event with a great degree ofvariability among subjects. As E.R. Hilgard and J.R. ilgard (1975)have stated, we seem able to find out more about individual differencesamong those who can and cannot be hypnotized than about specific in-dices of the hypnotic state . . . [p. 141. Indeed, a physiological responsespecific to the hypnotic state has not yet been found (Sarbin & Slagle,1972).The relaxation response, on the other hand, is defined as a specificset of physiological changes. There may be different subjective ex-periences during elicitation of this state, but objective parameters havebeen emphasized in its description. Despite these apparent difficultiesinvolved in a comparison of hypnosis and the relaxation response,elements common to both are present and will be discussed in the presentpaper. Although hypnosis includes phenomena such as age regression,hallucination, and posthypnotic suggestion, these phenomena are not or-dinarily noted during elicitation of the relaxation response. Therefore,the discussion here will not include these aspects of the hypnotic ex-perience.

Manuscript subm itted August 10, 1979; final revision received December 20, 1979.Supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants HL 22727 and HL 07374.ZThe authors would like to thank Fred H. Frankel, M.B.Ch.B., D.P.M. for his reviewJReprint requests should be addressed to Herbert Benson, M.D . , Department ofof the manuscript and Nancy E . MacKinnon for her excellent secretarial assistance.

Medicine, Beth Israel Hospital, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.2.59


3/13

260 BENSON ET AL.

THE ELAXATION ~ P O N S EThe relaxation response is an integrated physiological response be-lieved to be associated with d ecreased activity of the sym pathetic ner-vous system. Dur ing elicitation of the relaxation response, there ar edecreases in oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide elimination, respir-atory rate, hear t rate, blood pressure, and arterial blood lactate (Benson,Beary, & Carol, 1974; Wallace & Benson, 1972; Wallace, Benson, &Wilson, 1971; Wallace, Benson, Wilson, & Garrett, 1971). There arealso increases in th e intensity of slow alp ha w aves and occasional thetawave activity, as ndicated by th e electroencephalogram (Wallace et al.,1971). The relaxation response is believed to be the counte rpart of th eemergency reaction or fight-or-flight response (Cannon, 1914)which is associated with increased sympathetic nervous system activity.Both the relaxation response and the fight-or-flight response are prob-ably mediated through activation of hypothalamic areas of the brain(Hess, 1957).There are four basic elements found in techniques which elicit therelaxation response: (a) a men tal device in the form of a con stantstimulus such as a sound, w ord, o r phrase; (b ) a passive attitude w hichallows distracting thou ghts to be disregarded; (c )decreased muscle tonusor a com fortable position; and ( d ) a quiet environment with decreasedsensory stimulation.HETERO-HYPNOSIS

In contrast to the e licitation of t he relax ation response, which isassociated with a consistent physiological patte rn, hypnosis may lead tomany d ifferent p hysiological responses, depending o n th e type of sugges-tions given an d th e typeof indu ction procedure used (Crasilneck& Hall,1959; Levitt & Brady, 1963). Th e physiological effects of task hy pnosis,in which specific suggestions are given, are different from those ofneutral hypnosis, in which no specific suggestions are offered. Further-more, hypnotic suggestions can involve changes in emotional states aswell as changes in specific physiological responses (Cra silneck & Hall,1959; Levitt & Chapman, 1972). These suggestions usually result inphysiological responses similar to those which occur durin g com para bleemotional states when an individual is awake. Thus, a variety ofphysiological effects can occur d uring the g eneral experience of hyp-nosis, only some of which resemble the physiology of the relaxationresponse.

Hypnosis which involves specific suggestions should be differentiatedfrom a more neutral state of hypnosis. Thisneutral state is initiated bya traditional induction, but it is limited to th at time before the sugges-


4/13

RELAXATION RESPONSE AND HYPNOSIS 261

tions concerning the effect being evaluated have been presented(Crasilneck & Hall, 1959). Prior to specific suggestions, the tra dition almethod s of hypno tic induction utilize the sam e basic elements emp loyedto elicit the relaxation response. Although there are many differenttechniques used to induce hypnosis, most reply upo n: rep etition of amono tonous stimulus; narrow ing of the subjects atten tion; a state ofrelaxation in the subject; and a reduction of environmental stimuli.Physica l methods of hy pno tic inductio n consist essentially of m onot-onous stimula tion of one or other of th e organs of special sense. Thosecommonly affected are sight, hearing a nd touch [Ambrose& Newbold,1958, p. 471.The object [of the induction] is to lead the subject, carefully but con-fidently, to redistribute his attention so as to withdraw it from hisgeneral surroundings and focus it on a circumscribed area . Meanwhilehe is encouraged to relax and let happen what will happen. . . .Throughout this [deepening] procedure the operator fosters the illu-sions by offering his comments in a slow , repetitive monotone, ex hort-ing the subject to feel relaxed and ca lm, or to float and drift [Fran kel,1976, p. 221.

O r, asChristenson (1952) has stated , to ex perience light hypnosis, a sub-ject needs to bring abouta state of inner relaxation and such changes in the reactivity andawareness of the subject th at he is highly susceptible to suggestionsfrom th e hypnotist. . . . This change a ppe ars to involve a special varie-ty of concentration or attention which is not tense or focused but re-laxed and receptive without specific direction or emphasis [p. 331.

On e possible difference between hy pnotic induction and elicitation ofthe relaxation response concerns the use of partic ular p osthypno tic sug-gestions. These suggestions allow a subject to enter a hypnotic trance im-mediately upon cue. Such phenomena have not been investigated instudies related to the elicitation of the relax ation response.SELF-HYPNOSIS

Self-hypnosis has been relatively neglected by hypnosis researchers,and it is not clear how an d to wh at extent this kind of hypnosis relates tohetero-hypnosis. The few studies which have been conducted to com-pare and contrast the tw o do not offer conclusive statemen ts. Shor an dEaston (1973) developed the In ventory of Self-Hypnosis (ISH) preciselyto compa re self-hypnosis and hetero-hypnosis as measured by the Har-vard Cr ou p Scale of Hypn otic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) ofShor and E.Orne (1962). Their data suggested that ISH and HCSHS:Ameasure different phenomena. Using these same scales to measure self-


5/13

262 BENSON ET AL.

and hetero-hypnosis, Johnson and Weight (1976)ound that, in general,self-and hetero-hyp nosis were phenom enologically and beh aviorallysimilar. Responsiveness to individual items that were comparable onboth scales, however, varied according to the scale used. Fromm (1975)also conducted a preliminary study comparing the states induced by ISHand HGSHS:A and found that more hypnotizable Ss reported phenome-nological differences betwee n th e tw o experiences. These Ss experiencedmore ego splits, visual imagery, and idiosyncratic fantasy during self-hypnosis than during hetero-hypnosis.Controversy also exists concernin g the level of hypnosis or d epth ofhypnotic trance which may b e attained with self-hypnosis. Crasilneckand Hall (1975)main tain th at the de pth of self-hypnosis may vary froma light hypnoidal state to a deep somnam bulistic one, b ut that most peo-ple experience a greater d epth of trance d uring hetero-hyp nosis tha nduring self-hypnosis. E.R.Hilgard and J.R. Hilgard (1975) ssert tha tself-hypnosis is more effective than might be expected. In a study de-signed to investigate self-hypnosis an d t he effects of prior trainin g inhetero-hypnosis, Ruch (1975) ound that Ss without previous hetero-hypnotic training could experience phenomena considered to require th egreatest depth of hetero-hypnotic trance. Fromm (1975) eported thatthere are individual differences regarding which type of hypnotic ex-perience, self-or hetero-hyp nosis, produce s a deeper sta te of trance .These controversies concerning self- and hetero-hypnosis focus on t hesubjective experiences of the subjec ts. In an effo rt to dete rmin ephenomenological differences that may exist between these two states,induction procedures for both self- and hetero-hypnosis were examinedand compared.The induction procedure for self-hypnosis used by Shor and Easton(1973),Fromm (1975), nd Johnson and Weight (1976)was derivedfrom HGSHS:A. Ruch (1975) lsomodified forms of b oth H GSHS:A andthe Stanfo rd Hypn otic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) of W eit-zenhoffer and E.R. Hilgard (1962)or th e self-hypnosis procedu res usedin his study. Both HGSHS:A and SH SSC provided a traditional induc-tion incorporating a quiet environm ent, relaxation, repetition of stim uli,and narrowed attention. It would appear that the induction of self-hypnosis in these studies, similar to tha t of hetero-hypnosis, contains t heelements which elicit the relaxation response.

In a subsequent study, Fromm, Brown, Hurt, Oberlander, Boxer, &Pfeifer (1981) nvestigated a different aspect of the self-hypnosis ex-perience. The Ss in this study experienced a more u nstructured form ofself-hypnosis, which included self-initiated suggestions, tha n allowed byscales such as ISH. The Ss were encouraged to use their own suggestionsfor induction and trance experience. All Ss were exposed to standard


6/13

RELAXATION RESPONSE AND HYPNOSIS 26 3

scales of hetero-hypnosis before they were instructed to attempt self-hypnosis. Although induction procedures developed by Ss were notdescribed in detail and likely reflected individual differences, it seemsthat many Ss would rely upon the basic elements used for induction inthe standard scales.

Fromm et al. (1981) reported phenomenological differences betweenthe two states, but found that in both instances Ss experienced fading ofthe generalized reality orientation.

It would appear that in both states there is a sense of immediate in-volvement with the events of trance and a com plementary detachmentfrom the surroun ding external environmen t. These two factors seem toset the stage, the structure, for the trance experience, whether self-induced or entered into with the aid of an Elhypnotist. Without thisshift from an awareness of the external world to the internal and asense of engagement with the events which take place there, the ex -periences of trance are indistinguishab le from those of everyd ay wak-ing life [Fromm et al., 1981, p . 2091.

This transition, as described by Fromm et al. (1981), also occurs duringtechniques which elicit the relaxation response. The concept of nar-rowed attention, through repetition of a sound, word, phrase, or prayerand adoption of a passive attitude, includes a detachment from the ex-ternal environment and a shift into an internal world.

Despite possible differences between self- and hetero-hypnosis, simi-larities in induction procedures do exist, including the use of the tradi-tional basic elements of induction. Moreover, these similarities are con-sistent with the elicitation of the relaxation response. Indeed, theabsence of a hypnotist in self-hypnosis greater likens this experience tothe elicitation of the relaxation response. Both experiences place agreater emphasis on the subject than does traditional hetero-hypnosis.During both self-hypnosis and elicitation of the relaxation response, sub-jects are more able to direct their own behavior, since both are usuallymore unstructured experiences than hetero-hypnosis. In fact, Ruch(1975)suggested that heterohypnosis s in effect guided self-hypnosis .[p . 2821.

SIMPLERELAXATION ND T H E RELAXATIONRESPONSEThe terms, relaxation and the relaxation response, are not

synonymous. The relaxation response refers to a specific, innatephysiological response which is characterized by diminished sympatheticnervous system activity. Relaxation, in contrast, usually refers only todecreased skeletal muscle tonus. In certain individuals, however, in-structions for muscle relaxation alone may lead to elicitation of the relax-ation response. Thus, suggestions for relaxation given in most traditionalhypnotic inductions may be viewed as a confounding variable in any


7/13

264 BENSON ET AL .

comp arison of the relaxation response an d neutr al hypnosis. Indeed, t hehypnosis would not be neutral according to the definition ofCrasilneck and Hall (1959), if th e effects of re laxa tion were beingmeasured. If simple relaxation were omitted from the induction pro-cedu re, a better com parison of ne utral hypnosis an d the relaxationresponse migh t be possible. No studies specifically om itting relax ation in -structions have been reported to date. However, experiments in whichboth hypnosis and the relaxation response were induced in a physicallyactive state without relaxation have been conducted (Banyai & E.R.Hilgard, 1976; Benson, Dryer, & Hartley, 1978; Liebert, Rubin, & E.R.Hilgard, 1965).Banyai and E.R. Hilgard (1976) com pared the effects of responses tohypno tic suggestions of a traditional relaxation induction, or neu tralhypnosis, to those of an active -alert procedu re. T he active-alert pro-cedure involved pedaling a bicycle ergometer and substituting sugges-tions of alertness, attentiveness, and freshness for those of relaxation an ddrowsiness. The traditional induction procedure followed the eye-fixation and relaxation induction of the Stanford Hyp notic SusceptibilityScale, Form B (SHSS:B) of W eitzen hoffer an d E.R. Hilgard (1959).Although no physiological measurements were made, both proceduresinduced a state of hypnosis. The effects of both procedu res we re assessedby testing Ss with eight items from SHSS:A an d SHSS:B. T he active-a lertinduction, howe ver, produc ed a m ore active state consisting of rigidposture with accelerated body movements. The traditional inductionproduced a less active state characterized by a relaxed posture and slowand limited body m ovements.Th e only study conc erning the elicitation of th e relaxation responseduring a nonrelaxed state is tha t of Benson et al. (1978). The relaxationresponse was elicited while Ss were pedaling a stationary bicycleergometer. A decrease in oxygen consump tion occurred in one-half of Sseven though work intensity remained unchanged. It was hypothesizedtha t the reason half of Ss responded with d ecreased oxygen consum ptionwas du e to individual differences. Other data have suggested that dif-ferences in ga ining beneficial effects from the relaxation response in thetreatm ent of anxiety might be related to hypnotic responsivity (Benson,Frankel, Apfel, Daniels, Schniewind, Nemiah, Sifneos, Crassweller,Greenwood, Kotch, Arns, & Rosner, 1978).Therefore , both the induction of hypnosis and the elicitation of t herelaxation response may occur with or with out suggestions of ph ysicalrelaxation. This fact further supports the hypothesis that these two pro-cedures are similar. The extent to which hypnosis and the relaxationresponse are similar can b e examined by a review of the literatu re con-cern ing the physiology of these two phenomena.


8/13


The Physiology of Hypnosis and the Physiologyof the Relaxation ResponseEven though the physiology of hypnosis has been of interest to re-

searchers since the early 1 900~~physiological definition of the state re-mains to be established. There exists a large number of investigations inthe physiology of hetero-hypnosis (Barber, 1961; Barker & Burgwin,1948, 1949; Diamant, Dufek, Hoskovec, Kristof, Pekarek, Roth, &Velek, 1960; Ford & Yeager, 1948; Gorton, 1949; Jenness & Wible,1937; Lane & Ruskin, 1950; Marinesco, Sager, & Kreindler, 1937;Whitehorn, Lundholm, Fox, & Benedict, 1932; Wible & Jenness, 1936;Zikmund, 1964). Yet, despite its expansiveness, this literature lacks well-controlled studies necessary for conclusive statements. As Gorton (1949)pointed out, the methodological problems involved in the use of hyp-nosis are considerable and account for much of the contrauiction to befound in the literature [p. 3221. Further, as research in hypnosis hasprogressed, additional uncontrolled variables have become evident.Some of these variables include: the absence of criteria for the depth ofhypnotic trance; variations in S s , hypnotists, situations, and instructions;the use of patients as Ss; the small S populations of most studies; theability of S s to alter voluntarily autonomic responses in the absence ofhypnosis; and the absence of baseline control levels (Crasilneck& Hall,1959; Levitt & Brady, 1963; Sarbin, 1956). Perhaps the most importantomission was the failure to measure hypnotic responsivity of S .

Hypnotic responsivity is a factor of major importance in the physio-logical investigations of hypnosis. Since this variable was not consideredimportant until the 1960s, it had not been taken into account in earlierstudies and even in some later investigations. Consideration of hypnoticresponsivity is especially significant in such physiological researchbecause the measurements during hypnosis of S with low responsivitymay be quite different from those of S with high responsivity. The Sswith low responsivity may not experience hypnosis at all. Therefore,parameters measured in these Ss would not be applicable to aphysiological definition of hypnosis.

There are, however, recent physiological investigations of traditionalinductions of hetero- and self-hypnosis which are well-controlled andmeasure hypnotic responsivity. These studies support the hypothesis thathypnosis and the relaxation response might evoke similar physiologicalstates. When the hypnoidal or relaxed level of hypnosis . . . is con-sidered and compared with the lighter stages of the other modes, theevidence for the widespread Occurrence of the relaxation response seemspersuasive [Frankel, 1976, p. 191.Crasilneck and Hall (1960) measured heart rate and blood pressurechanges to determine whether decreases in these parameters were at-


9/13

266 BENSON ET AL .

tributa ble to th e state of neutral hypnosis or to the suggestions for relaxa-tion during induction. The Ss were relaxed but awake. The measure-ments were repeated imm ediately after hypnosis was induced. Althoughhypnotic responsivity was not specifically assessed, all Ss were clinicalpatients a nd had been hypnotized on numerous occasions. There were nostatistically significant differences between the blood pressure an d heartrate decreases in the w aking and hypnotic states. The au thors concludedtha t the decreased autonom ic measures resulted from suggestions for re-laxation rather than induction of neutral hypnosis. The design of thisstudy (Crasilneck & Hall, 1960), howe ver, fails to rule out the possibilitytha t decreases in blood pressure and he art rate did result from th e induc-tion of ne utral hypnosis, but th at these changes were not g reater tha nthose found in a grou p of presum ably hypnotically responsive Ss whoelicited the relaxation response in an awake, relaxed state.Barber and H ahn (1963) reported decreased heart rate, respiratoryrate, and palmar conductance in Ss who had either undergone a tradi-tional hypnotic induction technique or who had been instructed to sitquietly. Since all Ss were in the upper q uartile of h ypnotic responsivityand since hypnotic responsivity has been shown to be related to theelicitation of the relaxa tion response (Benson et al ., 1978), howe ver, it ispossible that Ss who were sitting quietly were eliciting the relaxationresponse. Perhaps, both the hypnotic induction and the instructions to sitquietly produced these autonomic nervous system changes in the hyp-notically responsive Ss.Wa lrath and Hamilton (1975) measured heart rate, respiratory rate,

and galvanic skin response (GSR) in three groups of high hypnoticresponsivity Ss: a self-hypnosis group; a Transcendental Meditationgroup which elicited the relaxation response; and an instructed relaxa-tion group. Th e Ss were considered to have high hypnotic responsivity ifthey scored at least 10 on the 12-point SHSS:A. A reduction inautonomic functioning was recorded in all the response parameters forall three groups of Ss. This reduction was evidenced by decreased heartrate, decreased respiratory rate, fewer discrete GSR responses, andlower basal GSR levels. Thus, Ss experiencing either TranscendentalMeditation or self-hypnosis displayed physiological changes consistentwith the elicita tion of the relaxation response . Since all Ss were highlyresponsive to hypnosis, it is likely that these same physiological changesoccurred even though some were given only relaxation instructions.A similar, but more complex study was conducted by Morse, Martin,Furst, and Dubin (1977). Moderate-high hypnotic responsivity Ss wereclassified according to prior training: Transcendental Meditation, self-hypnosis, both Transcendental Meditation and self-hypnosis, or no-training control. Hypnotic responsivity was measured by Spiegel's Eye-


10/13


Roll Method (Spiegel, 1972) and all Ss scored in th e mo derate to highrange. The physiological parameters measured were blood pressure,heart rate, respiratory rate, GSR, electroencephalogram, a nd muscle ac-tivity. There were no differences between the groups of Ss, except forGSR in which Ss trained in auto-hypnosis or Transcendental Meditationor both had lower GSRs than no-training control Ss. All Ss were testedunder various alert and relaxation conditions. In terms of within-Smeasurements, the relaxation states we re significantly different from thealert states in that the relaxation states w ere characterized by decreasesin blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, muscle activity, and in-creases in skin resistance and slow alpha waves. Regardless of the groupassignment, however, Ss displayed physiological changes during therelaxation states that closely resemble those which occur during theelicitation of the relaxation response. As in the Walra th and Hamil ton(1975) stud y, the lack of b etwe en-g roup differences in this stud y (Morseet al . , 1977) may have resulted from t he use of mode rate-high hypnoticresponsivity Ss.In conclusion, it appears, therefore, that neutral hypnosis (th e sta teinitiated by a traditional induction before the time of suggestion),wh ethe r experienced w ith the aid of a hypnotist or with a self-hypnotictechnique, and the relaxation response are associated with a similarphysiological state. This state is characterized, in part, by decreasedheart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. Moreover, the pro-cedures for hypnotic induction a nd the elicitation of th e relaxationresponse are similar for traditional methods, and to some extent, fo r alerthypnosis. It is possible that, before experiencing hypnotic phenomena,whether undergoing a traditional or an active induction procedure, anindividual first elicits the relaxation response. After the physiologicalchanges of the relaxation response occu r, the individual proceeds to ex-perience other exclusively hypnotic phenomena, such as perceptualdistortions, age regression, posthypnotic suggestions, and amnesia.

REFERENCESAMBROSE, . . NEWBOLD.. A /lotldbfJ/Jk f JttcdicU/ hyptifJSLV:At, i t l td tr ct io t l f fJr proc-

fifioticr.7otid stirdetits. (2nd ed .) London: Bailliere. Tindall and Cox, 1958.traditional relaxation induction. 1. Uhtlorttl. P . w y h / . , 19i6, 85 . 218-224.B A N Y A I ..1 . . pr HILCARD.. R . A comparison of active-alert hypnotic induction with

BARBER..X . Physiological effects of hypnosis. P . ~ y c h o / . i t / / . 1961, 58 . 3W-419.BARBER.. X . , h H A H N ,K . W . , R . Hypnotic induction and relaxation:An experimentalBARKER. . . dr BIJRCWIN,. Brain wave patterns accompanying changes in sleep an dBARKER.%.,BURGWIN, S. Brain wave patterns during hypnosis, hypnotic sleep andBENSON. . , BEARY , .F., 8 CA RO L, 1.P. Th e relaxation response. hych io t ry . 1974, 37.

study. Arch. gvn. P . y c h i u f . .1963, 8 . 295-300.wakefulness during hypnosis. P . ~ y r h r * ~ r ~ m .c d . . 1948. 1 0 . 317-326.normal sleep. Arch. Netrrol . Aychiaf . . 1949, 62. 412-420.37-46.


11/13

268 BENSON ET AL.

BENSON , . . DRYER, . , a HARTLEY,.H. Decreased VOP consumption during exercisewith elicitation of the relaxation response. ]ourno1 of Human Stress, 1978, 4 , 38-42.J . C . , S I FNEOS,.E., CRASSWELLER,.D. , GREENWOOD,.M., KOTCH, .B., ARNS,P.A., & ROSNER.B. Treatment of anxiety: A comp arison of the usefu lness of self-hypnosis and a meditational relaxation technique - n overview. Psychother.P.yychoaom.. 1978, 30, 229-242.C A N N O N , .B. The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the majoremotions. Amcr. 1. Physiol.. 1914, 33 . 356472.CHRISTENSON,.A. Dynamics in hypnotic induction. In L .M. L eCron (E d.) , Experimen-tal hypnosis: A ~symposir~mf articles on research by many of th e world 6 leadingauthorities. New York: MacMillan, 1952. Pp . 29-54.CRASILNECK,.B., a HA LL , .A. Physiological changes associated with hypnosis: A reviewof the literature since 1948. fnt. 1.clin . c r p . Hypnosis, 1959. 7, 9-50.CRASILNECK,.B., a HALL, .A . Blood pressure and pulse rates in neutral hypnosis. fnt .1. clin. cxp . Hypnosis, 1960, 8, 137-139.CRASILNECK,.B., a HALL, .A. Clinical hypnosis: Principles and applications. NewYork: Grune & Stratton, 1975.D I A M A N T ,. , DUFEK.M. . HOSKOVEC.. , KRISTOF, M., PEKAREK,., ROTH,B. , ~ V E L E K ,M. n electroencephalographic study of th e waking state and hypnosis with p ar-ticular reference to subclinical manifestations of sleep activity. I n t . ]. c h . exp . Hyp-nosis, 1960, 8, 199-212.FORD, .L., & Ywcw, C. L. Change s in the electroencephalogram in subjects under hyp-nosis. Dis. eru. Syst., 1948, 9, 190-192.FRANKEL, .H . Hypnosis: Trance us a coping m echanism. New York: Plenum, 1976.FROMM.. Selfhypnosis: A new area of research. Psychother. Theoty, Res. Pract., 1975,

FROMM,. , BROW N, .P . , HURT, . W . , OBFJUANDER,.Z., BOXER, .M., a PFEIFER,C.Th e phenomena and characteristics of self-hypnosis. Int. 1.clin. exp . Hypnosis, 1981,GO RTO N, .E. Th e physiology of hypnosis: I . A review of the literature . Psychiat. Quart.,HESS,W .R . Thefunctiona l organization of the dienceph alon. New York: Grune & Strat-HILCARD, .R. , a HILCARD,.R . Hypnosis in the relief of pain. Los Altos, Calif.: Kauf-J ENNESS,., a WIBLE.C.L. Respiration and heart action in sleep and hypnosis. ]. gen.J OHNSON,.S., a WEIGHT,D.G. Self-hypnosis versus heterohypnosis: Experiential andbehavioral com parisons. 1.abnorm. Psychol. , 1976, 85, 23-526.L A N E , , , a R U S K I N ,A . A note on the failure in labile essential hypertension. Taus R e p .Biol. 6 M e d . , 1950, 8, 66-70.LEVIIT.E. E . , & BRADY,.P. Psychophysiology of hypnosis. In J.M. Schneck (Ed.), Hyp-

nosis in modem medicine: (3rd ed.) Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1963. Pp.LEVITT, .E. , at C H A P M A N ,.H. Hypnosis as a research method. In E. Fromm C R.E.Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research deuelopments and perspectioes. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972. Pp . 85-113.LIEBERT,.M., R U B I N ,N. , a HILCARD..R . T he effects of suggestions of alertness in hy p-nosis on paired-associate learnin g. I . P e n . , 1965, 33. 605-612.

BENS ON, . . FRANKEL, .H.. APFEL, R . , DANIELS, .D. , SCHNIEWIND,.E., NEMIAH,

12, 295-301.

29, 189-246.1949, 23, 317-343.ton, 1957.mann. 1975.P q c h o l . . 1937, 16 . 197-222.

314-362.


12/13

RELAXA TION RESPONSE AND HYPNOSIS 269

MARINEXO, G . , SAGER, . , L K R E I N D L E R ,A . Etudes electroencephalographiques: e sorn-meil nature1 et le sornrneil hypnotique. Bull. Acad. Med. , 1937, 117, 273-276.MORSE, .R. , MARTIN, .S., FURST,M.L. , L D U B IN , . L . A physiological and subjectiveevaluation of meditation, hypnosis, and relaxation. Psychosom. Med. , 1977, 39,

RU CH , .C . Self-hypnosis: Th e result of heterohypnosis or vice versa?Int . 1. clin. exp.Hypnosis, 1975, 23 , 282-304.SAR BIN, .R . Physiological effects of hyp notic stimu lation. In R .M. Dorcus (E d. ),H y p -nosis and its therapeutic applications. New York: McCraw-Hill, 1956. Pp. 4/1-4157.SARBIN, .R.,L SLAGLE,.W . Hypnosis and psychophysiological outcomes.I n E . F ro m mand R.E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research dw elop men ts and perspectioes. Chicago:Aldine-Atherton, 1972. Pp. 185-214.SHOR,R . E . , L EASTON, .D . A preliminary report on research comparing self- andhetero-hypnosis, A m e r . 1.clin. Hypnosis, 1973, 16 , 37-44.

SHOR, .E . , L O R N E , . C . Haroard Cro up Scale of H ypnotic Susceptibility. Form A . PaloAlto, Calif. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.SPiEcEL, H . An eye-roll test for hypnotizability. A m e r . 1.di n. Hypnosis, 1972, 15 , 25-28.WALLACE, . K . , L BENSON,H. The physiology of meditation. S c i . A m e r . , 1972, 226,

WALLACE, . K . , BENSON, . , L WILSON, A.F. A wakeful hypometabolic physiologicWALLACE,.K., BENSON.H. , WILSON, .F . , L GARRFIT,M.D. Decreased blood lactateWALRATH,.C. . L H A M IL T O N ,.W . Autonomic correlates of m editation and hypnosis.WUTZENHOFFER,.M., L HILGARD,.R . Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms AWEITZENHOFFTR,.M. , dr HILCAFID,.R . Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C.W H IT E H O R N ,. C . , L U N D H O L M ,. , Fox , E . J . , L BENEDICT,.G . Metabolic rate in hyp-WIBLE,C . L . , L JENNFSS, A. Electrocardiograms during sleep and hypnosis.1.Psychol.,Z I K M U N D ,. Some physiological characteristics of natural and hypnotic sleep in man.

304-324.

84-90.state. Amer. 1. Physiol. , 1971, 221, 795-799.during transcendental meditation. Fed. Proc.. 1971. 30. 376.Arner. ]. .cl in . Hypnosis, 1975, 17. 190-197.an d B. Palo Alto, Calif .: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.Palo Alto, Calif. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

notic sleep. N. Engl. 1.M e d . , 1932. 206, 777-781.1936, 1, 235-245.Physiol. bohemosloo., 1964, 13 , 196-201.

Di e Entspannungsbean twortungund HypnoseHerbert Benson, Patricia Arns und John W. Hoffman

Abstrakt: Induktionsverfahren fur Selbst- und Heterohypnose und fur das Ausl6sen derEntspannungsbeantwortung scheinen einander ahnlich zu sein. Auch besteht vor dernErlebnis des hypnotischen Phanomens, entweder wahrend einer traditionellen oder eineraktiven Induktion, ein physiologischer Zustand, der der Entspannungsbeantwortungvergleichbar ist. Dieser Zustand ist teilweise durch eine verminderte Herzrate, dieRespirationsrate und den Blutdruck charak terisiert. Nach dern Auftreten derphysiologischen Anderungen der Entspannungsbeantwortung beginnt das Individuum,andere, ausxhlieRlich hypnotische Phanomene wie perzeptorische Venerrungen, Alters-regression, posthypnotische Suggestion und Amnesie durchzumachen.


13/13

270 BENSON ET AL.

La dpons e de relaxation et IhypnoseHerbert Benson, Patricia Ams, et john W . Hoffman

R6ume: Les techniques dinduction de Iauto-hypnose et de Iheterohypnose et les tech-niques de relaxation paraissent semblables. De plus, avant de faire lexp6rience duphenombne hypnotique, quil sagisse dinduction traditionnelle ou active, un etatphysiologique comparable a la dponse de relaxation se produit. Cet etat est caracGris6, enpartie, par une diminution du rythme cardiaque, du rythme respiratoire, et de la pressionsanguine. Une fois etablis les changements physiologiques ypiques de la reponse de relaxa-tion, Iindividu a a&s a daut res phenombnes exclusivement hypnotiques, tels que lesaltkations perceptives, la regression temporelle, la suggestion posthypnotique etIamnkie.

Respuesta de relajacidn e hipnosisHerbert Benson, Patricia A m John W. Hoffman

Resumen: Las Gcnicas de inducci6n a la autohipnosisy a la heterohipnosis son similares alas tknicas de relajacion. Ademh, antes de experimenter el fe nhe no hipnotico, ya seamediante la induccidn tradicional o active, se produce un estado fiiiologico comparable ala respuesta de relajacibn. Este estado es caracterizado, en parte, por una diminuci6n delritmo cardiaco, del ritmo respiratorio y de la presidn sanguinea. Una vez establecidos 10scambios fiiiologicbs tipicos de la respuesta de relajacion, el individuo accede a otrosfenomenos exclusivamente hipnoticos, cOmo lasalteraciones perceptivas, la regresidn tem-poral, la sugestion posthipnotica y la amnesia.

benson 1981 int j clin exp hypno relaxation response and hypnosis

Documents