ABSTRACT
As one becomes more and more intensely involved in the study of hypnosis, one is drawn to the view that the response of entering a hypnotic state, perhaps at the uttering of the very first suggestion, deepening, and terminating the condition, is intimately related to the interpersonal communications between the therapist and the patient as well as to the motivational needs of both. The amateur tends to think of hypnosis as simply a state entered by the subject in reaction to certain cues provided by the hypnotist. Such a beginner (although this concept is certainly not limited to those who would view themselves as beginners or amateurs) oft en shows the greatest interest in reading about and memorizing “techniques,” completely ignoring that it is the meaning of the interpersonal interaction implied in the so-called technique and not the simple stimulus value of certain words that is of most significance in determining the kind and extent of the hypnotic response rather than hypnotic experience (J. G. Watkins, 1992). Nash (2005) explained that even in the American Psychological Association Division 30 definition of hypnosis (Green, A. Barabasz, Barrett, & Montgomery, 2005), some experts in the field apparently are still stumbling over whether or not the word hypnosis must be uttered during the procedure. The notion that the word hypnosis is somehow essential does nothing more than perpetuate naïve operationalism, which reflects little upon human nature, hypnosis, or the meaning of the interpersonal hypnotic interaction.
