Demystifying hypnosis: Unravelling facts, exploring the historical roots of myths, and discerning what is hypnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypnosis, a mind-body treatment dating back to early human history, has regained attention in the last decade, with research suggesting its effectiveness for varied physiological and psychological ailments such as distress, pain, and psychosomatic disorders. However, myths and misconceptions have prevailed among the general public and clinicians, hindering the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis. It is important to distinguish myths from facts and discern what is hypnosis and what is not to enhance the understanding, acceptance, and adoption of hypnotic interventions. METHODS: This narrative review traces the history of myths surrounding hypnosis in contrast to the evolution of hypnosis as a treatment modality. In addition to comparing hypnosis to other interventions with similar procedures and features, the review unravels misconceptions that have impeded the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis in clinical and research settings and presents evidence to demystify this intervention. RESULTS: This review examines the roots of myths while presenting historical facts and evidence that support hypnosis as a treatment modality and alleviate misconceptions depicting it as mystical. Further, the review distinguishes hypnotic and non-hypnotic interventions with overlapping procedures and phenomenological features to enhance our understanding of hypnotic techniques and phenomena. CONCLUSION: This review enhances the understanding of hypnosis in historical, clinical, and research contexts by disproving related myths and misconceptions to promote the adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research contexts. Further, this review highlights knowledge gaps requiring further investigations to steer research toward an evidence-based practice of hypnosis and optimise multimodal therapies embedding hypnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".