When people first begin to study hypnosis, one of the earliest questions that arises is very simple on the surface, yet often becomes unnecessarily complicated:

“Should I use direct suggestions… or indirect suggestions?”

In recent years, this has turned into one of the most debated topics in hypnosis, particularly in workshops and popular training. Underneath the theory, however, there is a much more straightforward reality.

Direct vs Indirect Suggestions – What Are We Really Talking About?

On the face of it, the contrast seems clear:

• Direct Suggestions – clear, explicit instructions:
  • “You can now feel your body relaxing deeply.”
  • “You will feel more confident when you speak.”

• Indirect Suggestions – more permissive, artfully vague, or embedded inside stories and metaphors:
  • “Some people begin to notice a certain comfort growing… almost without trying.”
  • “You may find that at some point, in your own way, confidence begins to fit you more naturally.”

Certain schools of thought, especially those driven by NLP hypnosis teachings, have promoted the idea that indirect, permissive suggestions are always superior.

You will sometimes hear strong claims such as:

• Direct suggestions only create temporary change.
• Direct approaches intensify dependence on authority.
• Direct suggestions increase repression and resistance.
• A “proper” Ericksonian hypnotist should always be artfully indirect.

From this, a myth has grown:

“Indirect suggestions are better. Direct suggestions are crude, old-fashioned, and less effective.”

So the question is:
Are indirect and permissive suggestions always superior?

What Actually Happens in Practice?

When this assumption is examined more closely, a very different picture emerges.

1. People Respond Differently

When we compare response to direct and indirect suggestions, what we tend to find is not a single “winner,” but a spread:

• Some people respond very well to direct, clear, straightforward suggestions.
• Others respond better to permissive, indirect wording.
• Many people sit comfortably in the middle and respond similarly to both.

In other words, response to suggestion style is normally distributed – it spreads across a range, rather than clustering at one extreme.

The implication is simple:

There is no single “best” style that suits everyone.

2. Indirect Suggestions Are Not Always More Powerful

There are individual studies and clinical reports that appear to show better effects with indirect suggestions in particular contexts. However, when you look more closely at how those sessions were actually conducted, you often find important confounding details.

For example:
One indirect suggestion protocol was simply much longer than the direct one.
Unsurprisingly, the longer procedure led to a deeper state – not necessarily because it was indirect, but because the person had more time in trance.

When we move beyond isolated reports and look at a broad range of applications, such as:

• Medical and dental procedures
• Surgical situations
• Pain control
• Various therapeutic contexts

Many studies have not found any consistent superiority for indirect suggestion.

In some situations, in fact, traditional, direct hypnotic suggestions have shown themselves to be more effective, particularly for:

• Experimental pain tasks
• Posthypnotic responses and specific targeted changes

So the idea that indirect suggestion is always better does not hold up when exposed to a wider range of real-world applications.

3. Indirectness Does Not Necessarily Reduce Resistance

One of the most commonly repeated beliefs is that:

“Indirect suggestion is better for resistant, independent, or sceptical clients.”

The reasoning goes:

• Direct suggestions will trigger resistance.
• Indirectness will “slip past” the critical factor.
• Therefore, indirect suggestions are ideal for such clients.

However, when this has been put to the test, we find:

• People do not consistently respond better to indirect inductions or indirect suggestions.
• In some cases, subjects exposed to indirect suggestions actually became more resistant, not less.
• The expected reduction in resistance from indirectness did not reliably show up.
• Psychological traits like locus of control (internal vs external) did not reliably predict whether a person would respond better to direct or indirect suggestions.

So the widely repeated rule:

“Use indirect suggestions for resistant or independent people”

appears to be more clinical folklore than evidence-based guidance.

4. The Sense of Involuntariness and “Real Hypnosis”

A key aspect of hypnotic response is the sense of involuntariness:

• The client experiences the change as something that “just happens.”
• The arm lifts by itself.
• The pain reduces “on its own.”
• The mind shifts without effort.

You might imagine that indirect suggestions would create a greater sense of this involuntariness, because they are more subtle.

Yet when this has been measured:

• The sense of involuntariness is generally about the same for direct and indirect suggestions.
• In some research, the sense of involuntariness and subjective involvement was actually greater with direct suggestions than with indirect ones.
• These findings have been carefully replicated.

So, far from indirectness always being more “genuinely hypnotic,” direct suggestions can in some cases produce a stronger subjective sense of hypnotic involvement.

5. Double Inductions and Confusional Techniques

Another popular idea, especially in NLP-style and Ericksonian-inspired trainings, is that:

“Two-level communication, dual inductions, and confusion techniques are more powerful than traditional inductions.”

Here, the therapist may:

• Speak in a deliberately confusing, multi-layered way.
• Deliver two different streams of language at once.
• Interweave embedded commands in a complex pattern.

The claim is that this:

• Overloads the conscious mind.
• Grants special access to the unconscious.
• Creates deeper or more profound hypnosis than “simple” methods.

When this has been systematically examined, the findings are sobering:

• Double inductions are not more effective than standard induction procedures.
• If a double/confusional induction is used as a client’s first experience of hypnosis, it can actually be less effective.
• In some cases, it appears to have a negative impact on later hypnotic experiences.

Even if we consider Erickson’s own original intention, confusional methods were devised primarily for specific clients: Those who were consciously motivated to change. Yet unconsciously resistant and conflicted.

Used indiscriminately, confusion techniques may muddy the water more than they help.

So… Are Indirect Suggestions Superior?

If we now return to our starting question:

“Are indirect suggestions superior to direct hypnotic suggestions?”

The practical answer, based on the existing body of experience and research, is: No.

What we do seem to know is:

• Some individuals respond better to direct suggestion.
• Some individuals respond better to indirect suggestion.
• Most people sit somewhere in the middle and can work well with either style, provided the context is appropriate and the relationship is sound.

The wave of enthusiasm over the idea that “indirect is always better” is reminiscent of other hypnotic and NLP fashions that have not stood up well to methodical examination.

As therapists and hypnotherapists, we must be very careful not to turn creative ideas into unquestioned dogma.

Practical Recommendation: Flexibility Over Dogma

In light of this, a more useful and respectful stance is:

• Keep your therapeutic options open.
• Maintain the flexibility to use both direct and indirect suggestions.
• Avoid becoming rigidly attached to one style.

The debate about which is “better” may well be much ado about nothing when taken to extremes.

It is also important to remember:

• Even Erickson, often held up as the model of indirect work, used a wide range of approaches.
• With some patients he was highly directive, even authoritarian.
• With others he was deeply permissive and indirect.
• His real artistry lay in adapting to the individual, not in worshipping one style.

We Still Lack Clear “Rules” – So Stay Humble

At this point, we do not have solid, validated rules that say:

• “Use indirect suggestions for this type of person, and direct for that type.”
• “Avoid direct suggestions with resistant clients.”
• “Always use indirect language with independent personalities.”

Many of the widely accepted indications for using indirect suggestions—such as “with resistant and independent clients”—have not been robustly supported by evidence. They are, as far as current knowledge goes, clinical stories that have become widely repeated.

Hypnosis, like much of psychotherapy, remains more art than science.

Therefore, as practitioners it is wise to:

• Stay open.
• Stay curious.
• Avoid premature conclusions.
• Be willing to revise your beliefs in the light of new experience and evidence.

A Practical Guide: When Might More Direct Suggestions Be Useful?

Everything that follows is offered as clinical opinion, not as fixed truth. It is a working model you can experiment with in your own practice.

In many cases, a more direct, straightforward, and even quite firm style of giving hypnotic suggestions can be especially useful when:

1. There is good rapport and a solid therapeutic relationship.
When trust is established and the client feels safe, direct suggestions are more likely to be welcomed rather than resisted.

2. The client appears motivated and non-resistant.
If the person clearly wants change, is engaged, and is not pushing back, there is often no need to “sneak around” their consciousness.

3. The client is comfortable accepting guidance or authority.
Some clients are more dependent or used to clear direction. They may find vague or overly permissive language uncomfortable or confusing and actually prefer clarity and structure.

4. The client is more highly hypnotically responsive and in a deeper trance.
When someone is already deeply engaged in a hypnotic state, clear and direct suggestions often land very powerfully and cleanly.

5. You know the client’s hypnotic capacities.
When you are familiar with what phenomena they can produce (amnesia, analgesia, time distortion, etc.), you can tailor very precise direct suggestions that match their demonstrated abilities.

6. The client explicitly prefers directness.

If, upon asking, you discover that the client responds better to:

• Clear, precise instructions
• Straightforward goals
• Less ambiguity

…then honour that preference.

In fact, you might think of this as taking a “work sample”:

• Try both more direct and more indirect suggestions.
• Observe carefully how the client responds to each.
• Use their actual response as your guide, rather than relying on abstract “personality theories.”

This “sample the response” approach is almost always more reliable than making predictions based on untested ideas about what a “resistant,” “independent,” or “analytic” client “must” need.

Bringing It All Together

To summarise the core points in a simple, usable form:

– Indirect suggestions are not inherently superior to direct suggestions.
– Direct suggestions are not obsolete or necessarily more resistable.
– People are heterogeneous in their responses; different styles suit different individuals.
– The client’s motivation, rapport, trance depth, and preference often matter more than whether your language is formally labelled “direct” or “indirect.”
– Complex confusional or dual inductions are not automatically more powerful, and may even be counterproductive when used inappropriately.
– Many traditional beliefs about when to use indirect language are unproven and should be held lightly.

For a practising hypnotherapist, the most practical attitude is:

• Cultivate skill in both direct and indirect suggestion.
• Let the client’s experience guide you, not dogma.
• Test, observe, and adapt, maintaining a stance of curiosity and humility.

In doing so you move away from chasing the “one right style” of suggestion and back towards what really matters:

Helping each individual client create the changes they desire in the way that best fits who they are.