As an introduction to what constitutes Hypnosis for children or “Pediatric Hypnotherapy” the question may well be asked, What is the difference between hypnotherapy on the small-sized child, on the medium-sized child, on the large-sized child, and on that older, taller child we encounter so frequently in our offices? Therapy of any kind properly parallels the physical examination in adaptation to the patient as a reality object possessed of needs requiring recognition and definition. And any kind of hypnosis applied used should always be in accordance with the needs of the patient, whatever they may be, and not based in any way upon arbitrary classifications.

Psychologically oriented forms of therapy properly employed need always be in relationship to the patient´s capacity to receive and to understand. Pediatric hypnotherapy is no more than hypnotherapy directed to the child with full cognizance of the fact that children are small, young people. As such, they view the world and its events in a different way than does the adult, and their experiential understandings are limited and quite different from those of the adult. Therefore, not the therapy but only the manner of administering it differs. In this connection, and of the utmost importance in the use of hypnosis, is the fact that there governs children, as growing, developing organisms, an ever-present motivation to seek for more and better understandings of all that is about them. This is one of the things that adults so often lose, and which facilitates so greatly the use of hypnosis with all patients.

Children have a driving need to learn and to discover, and every stimulus constitutes, for them, a possible opportunity to respond in some new way. Since the hypnotic trance may be defined, for purposes of conceptualization, as a state of increased awareness and responsiveness to ideas, hypnosis offers to the child a new and ready area of exploration. The limited experiential background of the child, the hunger for new experiences, and the openness to `new learnings render the children good hypnotic subjects. They are willing to receive ideas, they enjoy responding to them — there is only the need of presenting those ideas in a manner comprehensible to them. This, as in all other forms of psychotherapy for all types of patients, is a crucial consideration. But such presentation needs to be in accord with the dignity of the patient´s experiential background and life experience—there should be no talking down to, or over the head of, the patient. There needs to be the simple presentation of an earnest, sincere idea by one person to another for the purpose of achieving a common understanding and a common goal and purpose. The mother croons a lullaby to her nursing infant, not to give it an understanding of the words but to convey a pleasing sense of sound and rhythm in association with pleasing physical sensations for both of them and for the achievement of a common goal and purpose. The child that is cuddled properly, handled in an adequate way, placed at the breast in the right way with the proper “hypnotic touch” is not so likely to develop colic. By “hypnotic touch” is meant no more than the type of touch that serves to stimulate in the child an expectation of something pleasurable, and that is continuously stimulating to the child in a pleasing way.

It is the continuity of the experience that is of importance—it is not just a single touch or pat or caress, but a continuity of stimulation that allows the child, however short its span of attention, to give a continued response to the stimulus. So it is in hypnosis, whether with adults or children, but especially is it so with children. There is a need for a continuum of response-eliciting stimuli directed toward a common purpose. The child at the breast needs the lullaby continued and the nipple between its lips, even after it has satisfied its hunger and is falling asleep. It needs those continuing stimuli until the physiological processes of sleep and digestion serve to replace them. Similarly in children hypnosis there is a need for a continuity of stimulation, either from without or from within, or a combination of both. Hypnosis, whether for adults or children, should derive from a willing utilization of the simple, good, and pleasing stimuli that serve in everyday life to elicit normal behavior pleasing to all concerned.

Another consideration in using hypnosis therapeutically with children is the general character of the approach to the child. No matter what the age of the child may be, there should never be any threat to the child as a functioning unit of society. Adult physical strength, intellectual strength, force of authority, and weight of prestige are all so immeasurably greater to children than their own attributes that any undue use constitutes a threat to their adequacy as individuals. And since hypnosis is dependent upon a cooperation in a common purpose, a feeling of goodness and adequacy is desirable for both participants. That sense of goodness and adequacy is not to be based upon a sense of superiority of one´s own attributes, but upon a respect for the self as an individual dealing rightfully with another individual, with each contributing a full share to a joint activity of significance to both.

There is a need, because of the child´s lack of experiential background and understanding, to work primarily with, and not on, the child. The adult can better comprehend passive participation. Nor can there be a linguistic condescension to the child. Comprehension of language always precedes verbal facility. There should not be a talking down to the child, but rather a utilization of language, concepts, ideas, and word pictures meaningful to children in terms of their own learnings. To speak in “baby talk” is usually an insult and a mockery, since any intelligent child knows that the adult possesses vocal facility.

Similarly, respect must be given to the child´s ideational comprehension with no effort to derogate or minimize the child´s capacity to understand. It is better to expect too great a comprehension than to offend by implying a deficiency. For example, the surgeon who told four-year old Kristi, “Now that didn´t hurt at all, did it?” was told with bitter, scornful contempt, “You´re poopid! It did, too, hurt, but I didn´t mind it.” She wanted understanding and recognition, not a falsification, however well-intended, of a reality comprehensible to her. For one to tell a child, “Now this won´t hurt one bit” is courting disaster. Children have their own ideas and need to have them respected, but they are readily open to any modification of those ideas intelligently presented to them. Thus, to tell the child, “Now this could hurt a lot, but I think that maybe you can stop a lot of the hurt, or maybe all of it,” constitutes an intelligent appraisal of reality for the child and offers an acceptable idea of a reasonable and possible responsive participation of an inviting character.

Children must be respected as thinking, feeling creatures, possessed of the capacity to formulate ideas and understandings and able to integrate them into their own total of experiential comprehension, but they must do this in accord with the actual functioning processes they themselves possess. No adult can do this for them, and any approach to the child must be made with awareness of this fact.