What does “susceptible to hypnosis” mean?
In research, hypnotic susceptibility—also called hypnotizability—usually refers to how strongly a person responds to standardized hypnotic suggestions. These suggestions may involve experiences such as feeling an arm become heavy, experiencing temporary amnesia, or perceiving an imagined event as subjectively real.
Susceptibility is not the same as intelligence, gullibility, weakness, or willingness to be controlled. It is better understood as an individual difference in how readily someone responds to suggestions in a structured situation.¹
Are women more susceptible to hypnosis than men?
On average, women have sometimes scored slightly higher than men on measures of hypnotic susceptibility. However, the difference is generally small, and findings have not been perfectly consistent across studies.²
That means sex or gender is not a reliable way to predict whether a particular person will respond well to hypnosis. The scores of men and women overlap substantially. Many men are highly responsive to hypnosis, and many women are less responsive. Individual differences matter much more than a simple category-based prediction.
Why have some studies found a difference?
Several factors may contribute to small average differences between groups:
Expectations: People’s beliefs about hypnosis can affect how they approach suggestions.
Social context: The relationship with the hypnotist, the testing environment, and perceived expectations may influence responses.
Measurement methods: Different hypnotic scales and procedures do not measure exactly the same aspects of responding.
Self-report and behavior: Some studies emphasize reported experience, while others focus on observable responses.
Cultural and historical influences: Ideas about masculinity, femininity, emotional expression, and suggestibility may affect how people interpret or report their experiences.
These factors make broad conclusions difficult. A group average does not explain why any one person responds as they do.
Does gender identity determine hypnotic responsiveness?
No. Research findings about sex differences should not be treated as rules about gender identity. Studies have often used male and female categories that do not capture the full range of gender identities or personal experiences.
A person’s response to hypnosis is better assessed directly than inferred from gender. A respectful practitioner should avoid assuming that someone will be highly or poorly responsive based on gender, appearance, personality, or stereotypes.
Are men less willing to be hypnotized?
There is no sound basis for assuming that men are inherently unwilling to participate in hypnosis. A person’s willingness may be shaped by expectations, trust, privacy, the setting, the wording of suggestions, and whether the activity feels relevant and voluntary.
Some people may be cautious because hypnosis is often portrayed inaccurately in entertainment. Others may be curious and enthusiastic. These reactions can occur in people of any gender.
Does being highly hypnotizable mean a person is passive?
No. Hypnotic responsiveness does not mean that someone gives up judgment or becomes automatically obedient. People can respond strongly to some suggestions while still evaluating whether they want to participate.
In clinical and research settings, hypnosis typically involves cooperation: the person listens, imagines, focuses attention, and responds to suggestions. A person can usually stop participating or decline a suggestion.
Can a person’s responsiveness change?
A person’s measured response can vary with circumstances. Attention, fatigue, anxiety, motivation, rapport, the clarity of instructions, and the testing environment may all affect performance. Still, research suggests that hypnotic responsiveness also has a relatively stable individual component, especially when measured carefully over time.³
This is why a single unsuccessful experience does not necessarily show that someone is incapable of hypnosis. It may indicate that the setting, expectations, method, or timing was not a good fit.
Does hypnosis work equally well for everyone?
No treatment or psychological method works in exactly the same way for everyone. Hypnosis may be useful for some people as part of an appropriate clinical approach, but results depend on the concern being addressed, the person’s goals, the practitioner’s training, and other factors.
Hypnosis should not be presented as a guaranteed solution or as a substitute for needed medical or mental health care. Anyone considering hypnotherapy for a health concern should seek a qualified professional and receive an appropriate evaluation.
What matters more than gender?
When considering how someone may respond to hypnosis, more useful questions include:
Does the person understand what hypnosis involves?
Do they want to participate?
Do they feel safe and respected?
Can they focus on the instructions?
Are the suggestions clear and relevant?
Is there a good working relationship with the practitioner?
Is the method appropriate for the person’s goals?
These questions support a more accurate and respectful view than asking whether men or women are generally more susceptible.
Bottom line
Women have sometimes shown slightly higher average scores than men on hypnotic susceptibility measures, but the difference is small and does not provide a dependable prediction for an individual. Men and women both show the full range of responses, from low to high.
The most useful conclusion is simple: gender is a poor shortcut for predicting hypnotic responsiveness. Personal expectations, cooperation, attention, context, and individual differences are more informative.
Notes
Steven J. Lynn, Judith W. Rhue, and Irving Kirsch, “Varieties of Hypnotic Experience: A New Conceptual Framework,” in Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives, edited by Steven J. Lynn and Judith W. Rhue, 199–242 (New York: Guilford Press, 1991).
Josephine Hilgard, “Personality and Hypnosis: A Study of Imaginative Involvement,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174, no. 2 (1986): 63–71.
Erika Fromm, Michael R. Brown, and David R. Cohen, “Hypnosis and Trance: An Experimental Approach,” (New York: Aldine, 1979).