Hypnotherapy claims that are weak, unsupported, or ethically risky

Hypnotherapy claims are not always well supported by contemporary research. Below is a summary of 5 claims that responsible training programs explicitly caution against using!

1. “Hypnosis can recover accurate repressed memories”

Why it's Problematic:

Memory is reconstructive, not a recording

Hypnosis increases suggestibility, not accuracy

Strong risk of false memories, especially for trauma

Ethical stance today:

Hypnosis should not be used to “uncover” memories

If memories emerge spontaneously, they are treated cautiously and non-interpretively

This is one of the strongest red lines in ethical hypnosis practice

2. “Anyone can be hypnotised equally well”

What the research shows:

Hypnotic responsiveness varies widely and depends on many things including, age, state of mind, level of rapport, trust, motivation to change, and previous experience.

Ethical framing

Hypnosis is a skillful collaboration, not a guaranteed technique

Good practitioners adapt methods to meet the client's requirements, rather than blaming clients for being 'resistant' or 'difficult' to hypnotise.

3. “Hypnotherapy can be used with people with serious mental illness”

Includes claims about:

Psychosis, Bipolar disorder, Severe dissociative disorders, Major personality disorders

Current professional consensus:

Hypnosis may be adjunctive in regulated clinical contexts where the clinician is skilled in this area of work beyond hypnotherapy, and can use other modalities to support the clients, and where client's issues are well medicated and regulated.

Hypnosis is not a standalone cure or resolve, and clear scope-of-practice boundaries are essential.

4. “Hypnosis works instantly for everyone”

Reality:

Some people experience rapid shifts

Others need repeated sessions over at least 3-6 sessions

Long-term change and relapse prevention usually involves integration and practice

Instant-results or 'one session' marketing creates unrealistic expectations, client disappointment and unethical marketing practices.

5. “Hypnosis reveals objective truth about past events”

Legal and scientific position:

Hypnotically “retrieved” testimony is unreliable and can only be supportive alongside verificable objective evidence 

Most jurisdictions restrict or exclude it in court, and indeed it may even be detrimental to a victims' court case when used against them by the defence, suggesting seeds have been sown or there has been collusion by the therapist to create false memories.

Ethical practitioners never present hypnotic material as factual proof.