I’ve had a few more questions about my View on Compounding Suggestions thrown this eay and so I’d like to clarify and further muddle the waters a bit . . . these are more thoughts on compounding hypnotic suggestions. The quotes are from random discussion, sorry that the attributions have migrated.

I’ve just checked and I say that there are no depths or levels to hypnosis but that there is an intensity. I prefer to think of it as fine tuning, and yes of course I do that tuning but depth is misleading.

I have no problem with describing it as "intensity" in terms of responsiveness as I frame hypnosis in terms of intensity for depth concepts as well. I also like the idea of "increasing your connection" as Barry describes it. To me, compounding and convincers are ways for doing just that, increasing the connection of the subject to the experience and intensifying the imaginative involvement which becomes bypass of the critical factor of the conscious mind or hypnosis per se. I think of it in terms of imaginative involvement and intensity is part of my "official model" for how I perceive and work with hypnosis and other focused trance modalities (which I approach the same way but use the different wording to make sure what I do complies to legal definitions in locales where "hypnosis" is strictly controlled while "focused trance" is not . . . a rose by any other name may smell as sweet but it’s also legal in places where rose gardens are forbidden.

My take on hypnosis . . . and you and others are free to disagree with me, and that’s okay . . . your model works for you and I play with my model and fine tune it so that it represents the results I get and helps me continue to improve my success with folks who look to me to get the job done.

The meat of the definition (with the bits related to my organizational philosophy removed) . . . hypnosis or "directed focused trance" . . . is . . . "guided intensified imaginative involvement to bypass the critical factor of the conscious mind and establish appropriate selective thinking via forms of influence and suggestion through formal and informal ritual induction procedures within variable contexts" (the variable contexts part allows my organization to recognize and encourage the realization and presupposition that not all hypnosis is for therapy but that it is perfectly appropriate to train and use hypnosis in a wide range of contexts without any prejudice in favor of one application over another . . . for entertainment, recreational, therapeutic and educational objectives).

Intensity makes perfect sense to me as I believe the intensification of hypnosis is to a large degree about intensifying the imaginative involvement or experience and expectations of the subject. When I discuss depth of trance, it is the intensity of the involvement of the imagination and how it directly relates to how powerfully one responds to suggestion.

Compounding is one way in which compliance and acceptance to suggestions are intensified. While we may or may not disagree on whether or not this effect only works on one set of suggestions (say, the Elman pain responses) or a series of suggestions that are not as clearly related (the Elman example of the stage hypnotist who finds that as the show goes on and the subjects are warmed up, they respond more quickly and more deeply to both subsequent suggestions and to earlier ones for which response times become shorter and more automatic).

What do you think, is compounding more powerful in strengthening previous or following suggestions? And how strong would you say are thoses effects at all?

There really isn’t a number you can put on this stuff. The strengthening effect is based upon the active present imaginative involvement of the subject that results in further critical factor bypass. It is really more of a matter of increased susceptibility and response rather than an actual measure of strength in a numerical fashion. The result is "as if" it is an exponential increase and as part of a buildup as a compliance set. In my experience, all suggestions in the set are increased in terms of speed and density (intensity of imaginative involvement) to the point that the effect functions to strengthen both previous and following suggestions.

Remember, this is a model from which we explain what seems to happen and through which we work to enhance our success. It is not intended to be a neurological description of how suggestion is affected by previous and following suggestion in terms of biological response. It is a useful model, but it certainly is not the entire map of what happens and why.

I’ve heard and read this a few times. Is there some evidence that points to this phenomenon?

Look at early work by Clark Hull and Milton Erickson for descriptions of laboratory and clinical tests on the effect. Many of the more analytical texts on the subject go into compliance sets as related to suggestibility and suggestion along with other laws of influence that come into bear. Of course, there’s also the Elman and Elman-based texts alredy mentioned but they are based upon clinical experience rather than analytical data.

How do we know it works?

Direct personal experience working with others or having others work with us. It actually doesn’t matter as much whether or not the model is completely descriptive, only that it is useful for our purposes and is helpful. I have found that compounding suggestion tends to make my sessions much more powerful and much more effective than when no compounding is given.

How would I go about personally testing it with a client? I’m having a hard time coming up with non-binary (i.e. they do it or they don’t) suggestions to gauge the strength of a suggestion.

Do multiple sessions with a variety of individuals using the same induction set and the same outcome goal. Compare sessions where the suggestions are given only once to those where the suggestions are compounded through a similarity reference a la Elman’s model or through a physical suggestibility set a la my model. The keypoint suggestion should be a physically manifested post-hypnotic suggestion with suggestion for amnesia (which is merely a test for suggestibility at this point). Emerge from focused trance and then at a non-predicted time fire the trigger and see what the response rate is.

Are some suggestions ‘harder’ to follow than others?

Yes. In my opinion, those suggestions that are more radically changing of the personality or previous beliefs are going to be more difficult to accept using suggestive processes alone. In terms of Milton Rokeach’s model of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, those beliefs that are more core to the personality are more resistant to change.

This is one good reason why any good hypnotist will use leading suggestions that create a compliance set, a habit of response, if you will. You don’t start off with the money shot suggestion, you need to work into it in the session with suggestions that are less difficult to follow and once you’ve established full somnambulism – complete involvement of the imagination leading to expectation and critical factor bypass – then you can begin working in more difficult suggestions which will also be suggested.

Which way of compounding is the more effective one? Strengthening the previous suggestions by new ones, or vice versa? I mean: Do the first or the last suggestions of the chain of suggestions get more power by the process of compounding? Or is there no difference?

See the previous discussion. In my opinion, it is best thought of as a holistic response generator rather than in terms of individual responses.

Does this principle really extend to all suggestions, regardless how much time went by and how many suggestion are elements of the chain?

When I discuss compounding, I am usually speaking of single session suggestions. Suggestions given within a single time frame. However, Erickson discussed suggestion compliance and patterns of compliance in terms of multiple sessions, often as long as years a part.

Is the effect taken down when many suggestion are given, or even increased, or constant? (Someone said the effect grows exponantially, and not linerelly, with the amount of suggestions.)

Not in my experience. However, I have never really tested that. Most stage shows would use a set series or variety of suggestions. Most clinical sessions would be related to a single issue rather than working on a multiple issue set so there aren’t really any "clean" examples to look at. You are welcome to test it and report to us.

I use the term exponential to refer to compounding’s effect to set it off from those who use linear or arithmetic models. Of course, no suggestion’s power can really be measured in such terms. Think of it more along the lines of synergy. That is when suggestions are compounded, their sum result is synergistically effected so that the power of the whole seems much more powerful than that of the individual parts.

Actually, and in all honesty, this one is the real truth of the matter. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how much more powerful the suggestions become as long as the intensity of the subject’s imaginative involvement is likewise strengthened to increase the critical factor bypass resulting in more susceptibility to suggestion. As suggestibility increases, so does the net result of the acceptance of the suggestions.

All the best,
Brian

Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH [phillips@nccu.edu.tw]Certified Hypnotherapist
Associate Professor, NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan
http://www.briandavidphillips.com