[This article was originally published in the ICBCH journal, Reframe.]

Rethinking Confusion

I was originally taught that the way to work with analytical clients, even resistant clients, was to confuse them. To speak in endless sentences, employing all kinds of clever language patterns, to wrap their mind up in trying to make sense of whatever I said. The idea was that they would get so confused that they would jump to accept the first meaningful thing that was said to them. If that meaningful thing was a suggestion to go into trance, into trance they would go!

I have to say that can work. However, after following this advice for many years, I have now come to the conclusion that it is a lousy way to treat people. Confusion inductions have never worked on me and I would be considered an ‘analytical’ client. I’ve always found them frustrating and it would seem that I am not the only one.

Questioning Confusion

In 2012, a study by the University of Notre Dame concluded that contrary to what we might presume, confusion can actually be beneficial to learning something, if – and this is important – if the confusion is ultimately resolved. Yet, what we often see with confusion inductions is the confusion being escaped from, not resolved.¹

Rather than being an experience to learn from, confusion becomes an annoyance to be avoided. Erickson records the reaction of one client:

I have always felt somewhat annoyed and distressed by the Confusion Technique, and I have resented its use, but initially I was willing to listen and cooperate as best I could. Part of my resentment was undoubtedly due to my own mental pattern of thought; I always like to grasp each idea and organize my thoughts before proceeding. However, I went along with the confusion suggestions and I know they worked on me, although not as well as other techniques did.

At the present time they will not work on me. No matter how deep a trance I am in and how cooperative I am, I simply stop listening if that type of suggestion is begun. Nor will I make any pretence of listening. If the operator insists on keeping on talking, I shut off my
hearing (self-established hypnotic deafness) and I may wake up feeling strongly annoyed.’  ²

Research conducted by Stanger, Tucker & Morgan in 1996 found that confusion techniques were no more effective than a standard induction for low susceptible subjects. Whilst it is unclear whether the low-susceptible subjects were analytical thinkers, it seems plausible to assume that at least some in
that group would have been.³

In 1985, Kirsch, Matthews and Mosher examined the ‘double induction.’ The procedure involves two hypnotists speaking into a subject’s ears (one speaking to the left, one speaking to the right). This had been promoted by Bandler and Grinder as superior to traditional hypnotic inductions.⁴ Further, Lankton and Lankton⁵ claimed that using such two-level communication and interspersing suggestions in a confusing dual induction produces superior results. The researchers found no significant differences between the double induction and a traditional one in terms of depth of trance or response to suggestion. In fact, it seems that the double induction may actually decrease hypnotic responsiveness in some subjects!⁶

How then do we account for the anecdotal evidence suggesting that confusion inductions work well, particularly for those with a more analytical thinking style? There are a number of things to consider here. Firstly, any anecdote that involves Erickson needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is not because they are necessarily inaccurate, but simply because he was Milton Erickson. After Erickson had reached a certain level of fame – often for using innovative hypnotic techniques – he was sought out by many for precisely that reason. Then, it seems fair to assume that the great doctor could have said anything to such visitors and they would have slipped into trance. When Erickson uttered confusing words it would have been a very clear signal that this was a hypnotic technique in action, prompting the expected response.

Secondly, some therapists turn to confusion techniques after having tried a number of other inductions unsuccessfully. It is certainly possible that by the time a confusion induction is employed, the client will have gone into and out of light trances enough times that any induction could have been used and
effectively benefited from the previous fractionation. Thirdly, confusion techniques certainly do work for some people. For example, Erickson records the experiences of two subjects:

Miss H and Mr. T were excellent subjects for either traditional or the Confusion Techniques. However, after a few experiences with the Confusion Technique they reacted by bypassing it and developing a trance at once, no matter how subtly the author made his approach. As they would explain in the trance state, “As soon as I experienced the slightest feeling of confusion, I just dropped into a deep trance.” They simply did not like to be confused. Neither of these subjects, fully capable with more common techniques, could seem to learn to use a Confusion Technique or even to outline a possible form. There were others who responded similarly.’ ⁷

Practitioners of the confusion induction might celebrate this as an example of the induction actually working. After all, the clients bypassed the confusion and “dropped into a deep trance.” However, note that ‘they simply did not like to be confused.’ This was not a pleasant experience for them. With such an experience, the induction becomes simply a tool to pressurise someone into trance. They gain nothing else from it. I hardly think this is an approach we should be promoting.

Using confusion to befuddle someone into trance is an outdated and non-therapeutic approach to inductions. I have no desire to cause someone to doubt themselves; quite the opposite. And I have no need to outsmart or out-analyse anyone. So, if someone has a strong and active mind, I want to help
them use that to their advantage.

Confusion techniques utilise whatever the client is doing to inhibit trance or other therapeutic developments as the basis for inducing those developments.’ ⁸

I’m aware that my thoughts on confusion are in opposition to much of the writing on the subject. So, allow me to provide an example of the kind of client with whom I may still use some elements of confusion.

If someone comes to see me and they are an experienced meditator they may appear to be an ideal candidate for hypnosis. Without a doubt, they will be experienced at going in to trance and their interest in the process will produce an internal analytical loop that can be easily utilised. However, there can be a downside to such a client and that is their tendency to want to assist the hypnotist. If they want to analyse everything that it happening at the conscious and subconscious level, I have not got a problem with that and it makes my job substantially easier. Yet, if they are trying to fulfil my role,
rather than allowing themselves to experience what is taking place, we could have difficulties. As such, I tend to say that I use confusion for people whose mind gets in their own way.

I strongly reject the outdated idea of using confusion to practically bully someone into submission. I find such a battle-of the-wits idea to be unnecessary and unhelpful. In fact, it is a sure way to increase resistance and merely demonstrates that the hypnotist and the client are not on the same page. Instead, confusion is best employed as a temporary means of assisting clients to steer past an obstacle that they themselves desire to bypass.

So, I encourage my students to use confusion as part of their collaborative interaction with people, as an example of client-centred utilisation. That’s almost the opposite to the battle-of the-wits.

This may be the place to note that another reason why the battle of wits is unhelpful is that there is no guarantee that the hypnotist is going to win. If you do happen to be working with someone whose mind tends towards analysis, what makes you think that you are going to be able to stay one step ahead of them and confuse them into submission? They may very well keep up with everything you’re saying and just end up annoyed at the nonsense you are wasting their time spouting.

Kinaesthetic Confusion

Of course, we should note that there is a difference between utilising confusion as an occasional technique and using it as the whole induction. Additionally, there are all sorts of ways that confusion can be employed. Linguistic confusion is but one example.⁹ Other types of confusion include:

 Unconscious/conscious dissociation
 Sensory overload
 Shifting states
 Kinaesthetic confusion
 And more…

I’ve talked about not using confusion to deal with so-called analyticals. However, I should mention that one of the main ways I do still use aspects of confusion is by employing kinaesthetic confusion. In doing so, I intentionally choose concrete memorable experiences versus confusing language. I know which I’d rather be on the receiving end of!

A good example of kinaesthetic confusion is seen in something like the Thain wrist-lift. The sudden catalepsy can create a moment of confused wonder and expectancy as your client receives the strong impression that the usual rules do not currently apply.

I like to think of inductions as “phenomenal learning experiences.” Therefore, in my practice, the induction is an experiential learning process, with hypnotic phenomena at the core. A good example of this is something like the Elman Induction. This can function as a process for clients to partake in, not simply a passive experience that is unleashed upon them.

Phenomena is key with clients whose minds lean towards analysis. As they are frequently in trance, they may not experience it in the same way that others do. Further, they may not be aware of it when they do. So, these may be the clients who tend to say things like, “I did not feel as if I was in hypnosis.” However, that is less of an issue when you have just taken them on an experiential journey that involved their hand floating into the air and their foot being stuck to the floor!

When such an approach to inductions is undertaken effectively, there is no longer any need to fear the so-called analytical client. And confusion as a battle-of-the-wits becomes a thing of the past.

Rather than opposing someone’s analytical mind, we can use the induction to lead them through an experiential process where they learn just how powerful their mind is. We can therefore begin to look forward to working with such clients, recognising that they bring great strengths to the hypnotic encounter. Instead of battling and belittling such powerful minds, let’s welcome them and
learn with them.

1. D’Mello, Sidney & Lehman, Blair & Pekrun, Reinhard & Graesser, Art. (2013). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction. in press. X. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003.
2. The Confusion Technique in Hypnosis, Milton H. Erickson. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, January, 1964, 6, 183-207.
3. Thomas Stanger , Carolyn M. Tucker & James I. Morgan. The Impact of a Confusion Technique on Hypnotic Responsivity in Low-Susceptible Subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Volume 38, 1996 – Issue 3.
4. They described it as “one of the most powerful induction and deepening techniques.” Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. (Vol. 1). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications, p. 196.
5. Lankton, S., & Lankton, C. (1983). The answer within: A clinical framework of Ericksonian hypnotherapy. New York: Brunner Mazel Publishers, Inc.
6. Matthews WJ, Kirsch I, Mosher D. Double hypnotic induction: an initial empirical test. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1985 Feb;94(1):92-5.
7. Erickson, ibid. Emphasis added.
8. Gilligan, S. (1987). Therapeutic trances. New York: Brunner-Routledge, p.236. Emphasis mine.
9. However, Erickson did view confusion as ‘primarily a verbal technique.’