Basic HTML Version
HYPNOTHERAPY AND WEIGHT LOSS
Table 1
Summary ofMeans and Standard Deviations of Weight Variables
491
Initialweight
One-month weight loss
Six-month weight loss
Group
n
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Hy-T
17
215.99
34.19
-6.53
1.05
-17.82
2.73
Hy
17
184.76
29.23
-8.00
0.97
- 17.12
2.54
Cont
20
175.79
40.13
1.50
0.95
-0.50
2.45
Note.
Hy-T = hypnosis treatment plus audiotapes; Hy = hypnosis treatment alone; Cont = control group.
is evident from a compar ison of the means that weight loss after
1 month and again after 6 months was simi lar in both t reatment
groups but did not occur in the control group.
The three groups were statistically compared for weight loss
at 1 and 6 months by an analysis of covariance, using the initial
weight as a covariate.
The adjusted mean weight losses of both exper imental groups
(Hy-T and Hy) were greater than that of the control group,
t(44) = 7.53 and 6.26, p < .01, for l -mon t h and 6-month weight
loss, respectively. The two exper imental groups Hy-T and Hy
were not significantly different from one another.
This finding indicates that in this study hypnosis was an
effective t reatment for weight loss. The lack of significance be-
tween Hy-T and Hy indicates that the use of audiotapes did
not have a statistically significant influence on weight loss. The
mean audiotape usage, obtained from recorded usage by the
Hy-T subjects dur ing the 6-month follow-up, was 45.65 times.
Because no adjunctive therapies were provided dur ing the fol-
low-up period, the findings suppor t the pr imary hypothesis that
direct par t icipat ion in the hypnotherapy program was the im-
por tant factor in the weight loss efforts of both groups. A sum-
mary of means and standard deviations for seven variables from
the three groups is provided in Table 2.
Pearson correlat ion coefficients were calculated for 6-month
weight loss and six independent variables. None of the indepen-
dent variables cont r ibuted significantly to variabi l i ty in weight
loss at 6 months with correlat ion coefficients ranging from - . 13
t o . 11. Correlat ion coefficients were also calculated for 6-month
weight loss and the RSI (Hy-T = - . 111 and Hy = . 182). These
results indicate that imagery absorpt ion as measured by the RSI
did not cont r ibute significantly to weight loss.
A mul t iple regression analysis was also conducted, first wi th
each of the three groups and the appl icable independent vari-
ables and then wi th the combined groups and the independent
variables. Forced ent ry of the data resulted in
R 2 =
.25 for Hy-
T, R: = .39 for Hy,
R 2 =
.68 for control , and
R 2 =
.04 for the
combined groups. These results indicate that intergroup
differences may have effected overall variance, but being in one
t reatment group or the other appears to have been the determin-
ing factor in weight loss.
Di s cu s s i on
As hypothesized, the findings indicate that subjects in the Hy-
T and Hy groups lost significantly more weight than subjects in
the control group. This result provides suppor t for the use of
hypnotherapy as a t reatment for obesity. No statistically sig-
nificant differences were found in amount of weight lost by sub-
jects in the Hy-T and Hy groups. Tape-recorded suggestions did
not provide the reinforcement or mot ivat ional component that
Fromm (1979) had considered possible. It seems that active par-
t icipat ion in the hypnotherapy program, and not auxi l iary tape
use, can be credi ted with the weight loss results that were
achieved.
Whereas statistical analysis did not suppor t the hypothesis
that there would be a significant difference in weight loss be-
tween subjects who scored higher and those who scored lower
on the RSI, there was a t rend toward greater weight loss wi th
Table
2
Summary ofMeans and Standard Deviations of Seven Variables by Three Groups
Hy-T
Hy
Control
Independent
variables
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
BSS
14.79
7.80
11.71
7.24
16.39
5.32
FAM
44.29
12.55
51.06
11.41
48.55
12.81
AGE
1.65
0.58
1.69
0.58
1.50
0.52
TSCS
321.99
38.60
325.47
34.26
355.99
39.54
ECON STAT
34.41
14.58
33.53
14.38
26.50
8.72
EDUC
13.76
0.21
13.00
0.16
13.38
0.22
RSI
92.71
19.60
90.76
22.08
- -
- -
Note.
Hy-T ffi hypnosis treatment plus audiotapes, Hy = hypnosis treatment alone; BSS = Barber Suggestibility Scale; FAM = Family History of
Distress Scale, AGE = age of obesity onset; TSCS = Tennessee Self Concept Scale; ECON STAT = economic status; EDUC = education level;
RSI = Representational Systems Inventory.