Basic HTML Version
JCOLSIENPICHA BLAFROBREURM
Freedom from Smoking:
Integrating Hypnotic Methods and Rapid
Smoking to Facilitate Smoking Cessation
Joseph Barber
1,2
University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
Abstract
: Hypnotic intervention can be integrated with a Rapid
Smoking treatment protocol for smoking cessation. Reported here is a
demonstration of such an integrated approach, including a detailed
description of treatment rationale and procedures for such a short-term
intervention. Of 43 consecutive patients undergoing this treatment protocol,
39 reported remaining abstinent at follow-up (6 months to 3 years
posttreatment).
Hypnotic methods have been used adjunctly with other treatment
approaches to enhance the treatment effects of a number of cognitive-
behavioral interventions (Kirsch, Montgomery, & Sapirstein, 1995).
The unsupported belief that hypnotic treatment alone—that is, a suggestion
such as, “You will not smoke again”—can cure someone of smoking
addiction may be partially reinforced by the sometimes quite powerful
effects of posthypnotic suggestion to alter an individual’s perception
and behavior (Barnier & McConkey, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). Ultimately,
however, hypnotic suggestion alone is not likely to be effective in the
long-term treatment of smoking addiction, because hypnotic suggestion
cannot stop someone from smoking if the person wishes (or feels the
need) to continue doing so.
This is not an efficacy study. No attempts were made to compare this
intervention with a control group. Nor were physiological indices of nicotine
consumption measured at any point. Using 43 consecutive cases
for illustrative purposes, this report is intended to demonstrate how
hypnotic methods can be seamlessly integrated with a Rapid Smoking
(RS) protocol. Perhaps clinicians will be encouraged to explore such an
integration, and perhaps researchers will examine the interaction
between behavioral and hypnotic interventions.
RS is a behavior modification technique that has been reported to be
60% effective as a long-term cure of smoking addiction (Lando, 1975;
Manuscript submitted June 20, 1999; final revision received July 17, 2000.
1
The author is grateful to Mark Jensen, Ph.D., David Patterson, Ph.D., and Mary
Pepping, Ph.D., for their thoughtful reading of the manuscript.
2
Address correspondence to Joseph Barber, Ph.D., ABPH, Depts. of Anesthesiology
and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 413
Thirty-First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122-6319 or jbarber@u.washington.edu
The
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
, Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2001 257-266
© 2001 The
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
257
Lichtenstein & Rodrigues, 1977; Poole, Sanson-Fisher, & German, 1981;
Relinger, Bornstein, Bugge, Carmody, & Zohn, 1977; Zelman, Brandon,
Jorenby, & Baker, 1992). This substantial success rate is associated with
some risk. Thus, it is important to note here that RS may constitute a serious
danger to pregnant women and to patients who have compromised
cardiovascular or pulmonary function. Further, because of the risk of
nicotine toxicity, any patient considering this treatment should seek
appropriate medical consultation.
Two previous studies have examined RS and hypnotic intervention
for smoking cessation. Perry, Gelfand, and Marcovitch (1979) examined
the effects of RS and hypnotic treatments used separately and concluded
that motivation is exceedingly predictive for both treatments. Barkley,
Hastings, and Jackson (1977) also investigated the effectiveness of RS
and hypnotic treatments used separately and conclude that both are
effective at 6-week follow-up. Tori (1978) reported a slight variation on
these investigations, an examination of the effects of hypnotic treatment
for follow-up reinforcement of the RS treatment. To my knowledge, no
one has reported an integration of the two treatments. Accordingly, in
this paper I describe such an integration.
T
HE
R
ATIONALE FOR
I
NCLUSION OF A
H
YPNOSIS
C
OMPONENT