Hypnosis as a lens to the development of attention.

Clinicians and researchers typically report that children are more hypnotizable than adults. An estimated 60–90% of children are highly hypnotizable, compared with just 10–15% of adults (Gardner & Olness, 1981). Even if we take these estimates with a grain of salt, putative explanations for this phenomenon must consider developmental factors including the role of behavior, imagination, dependence, mental and brain maturation, style of upbringing, and attentional capacities. And yet, developmental cognitive neuroscientists seldom use hypnosis as a lens to examine the development of attention. Here we outline why such an approach may be advantageous. Aptitude for imaginative involvement may contribute to hypnotic ability. For example, guided imagery, the foundation of most pediatric hypnotherapy, is similar to story-telling (Kohen, Olness, Colwell, & Heimel, 1984) and hypnosis may come naturally to children because they regularly use these basic induction techniques (Lee & Olness, 1996). However, it is unclear whether this form of facilitated response is due to their greater exposure to story-time activities, or to the intrinsic appeal of story-telling techniques. In addition, early findings show that young stay-at-home mothers were significantly higher in hypnotizability than young fathers or age-matched female college students (Morgan & Hilgard, 1973). These data led to theories claiming that spending more time playing ‘‘pretend’’ with a young child may result in a ‘‘practice effect,’’ thereby contributing to an enhanced proficiency in using fantasy-based hypnosis techniques. Hypnosis researchers, moreover, often argue that the central difference between children and adults in the hypnotic context lies in the ability to imagine, and outline fantasy as the most effective method for inducing hypnosis (Smith, Barabasz, & Barabasz, 1996; Sugarman, 1996). Little empirical evidence, however, supports these claims. Many hypotheses about youth and hypnotic ability rely on behavioral insights. For example, children display an urge for mastery of situations, social interaction, imaginative involvement, and deference to authority – qualities which make them ideal participants for hypnotherapy (Olness & Kohen, 1996). Because hypnotizability declines past 11 years of age, some scholars have proposed that hypnotizability fades when imagination becomes secondary to logic, but again – little experimental evidence supports this hypothesis. Instead, arguments usually rely on rather general trends. For example, one study examined the use of hypnotherapy for cystic fibrosis-related pain and anxiety and reported that the 78% of patients who successfully used hypnotherapy were significantly younger than the 22% who did not (Anbar, 2000). Most studies, however, rarely provide demographics that permit analyzing the results as a function of age. While we can examine fundamental mechanisms of social influence and self-regulation that may contribute to the hypnotic process across development, explanations of hypnosis during development often fall short with respect to the underlying neurobiological substrates. On the one hand, hypnotic susceptibility should vary as a function of personality outcomes of early experiences, including attachment, self-regulation, and the establishment of personal agency. On the other hand, it has been remarkably difficult to find personality differences that are consistently related to hypnotic susceptibility (e.g., Kihlstrom, 1985). One interpretation of this lack of result is, of course, that hypnotic susceptibility is not a stable trait. However, high test–retest correlations (r > .70) have been observed for hypnotic susceptibility measured over 10, 15, and even 25 years (Piccione, Hilgard, & Zimbardo, 1989) alongside substantial correlation (r = .60) of different hypnotic susceptibility measures (Bowers, 1983). Finally, the heritability of susceptibility is among the highest of any psychological individual