48 hypnosis statistics for 2026: hypnotizability, treatment outcomes and use (updated October)

Hypnotizability statistics

People do not all respond to hypnotic suggestions to the same degree. This section shows how hypnotizability is measured, how stable it stays over time, how little of it can be predicted from personality, how it affects outcomes and whether it can be trained.

19.2% of 99 German adolescents were classified as highly hypnotizable. 19 of the 15- to 19-year-olds scored 9–12 on the Harvard scale; with a stricter cutoff of 10 the proportion was 8.1%. The share therefore depends on the cutoff and is not a worldwide population estimate. (Peter et al., 2015)

Hypnotizability correlated at r = .71 across 25 years. Measured in 50 people who were followed up; individual scores changed by a median of only 1 point on the 12-point scale. The value describes the relationship between two measurements without targeted training, not a success rate. (Piccione, Hilgard & Zimbardo, 1989)

Personality and gender explained approximately 6% of the variation in hypnotizability. The model, using the five broad personality dimensions and gender, was tested in 285 undergraduates (variance after adjustment). A personality profile therefore says little about hypnotizability. (Green, 2004)

With hypnosis, experimental pain fell by about 42% in highly suggestible people and by 29% in medium suggestible people. Meta-analysis of 85 controlled experiments with 3,632 healthy volunteers, for hypnosis with direct analgesic suggestions. People with low suggestibility benefited minimally. Experimental pain is not the same as pain in patients. (Thompson et al., 2019)

After training, more than half of previously low-hypnotizable people scored in the high range. In this 1986 study, low and medium hypnotizable people received information, practice and a model video; the figure applies to that group, in which more than two thirds of the medium group reached the high range. A later study that asked participants to answer honestly found smaller gains, so part of the effect reflects expectation and adapting to the test situation. Standard tests measure without practice. (Gorassini & Spanos, 1986)

Treatment outcome statistics

Treatment outcomes only make sense next to their comparison group. The figures below come from randomized trials, meta-analyses and a few large observational studies. They include both advantages and results where hypnosis did not come out ahead.

Pain

Across 42 controlled studies, hypnosis reduced clinical pain with a medium effect size (g = 0.60). The average person receiving hypnosis had less pain than about 73% of control participants. In the 19 comparisons without high risk of bias the effect was 0.77, and in the 9 follow-ups 0.61. Effect sizes are not a success rate. (Milling et al., 2021)

For chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain, the effect was statistically reliable from 8 sessions (g = −0.56) but not with fewer (g = −0.30). Meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials with 530 participants; a moderate overall effect (g = −0.42), with short-term follow-up only. A small evidence base. (Langlois et al., 2022)

Irritable bowel syndrome

40.8% reported adequate IBS relief after 3 months of individual hypnosis, compared with 16.7% in the control group. The control group received educational supportive therapy; the IMAGINE trial analysed 342 participants by intention to treat. At 12 months, individual hypnosis was again at 40.8%. Relief does not mean cure. (Flik et al., 2019)

At 12 months, 49.5% of group-hypnosis participants reported adequate IBS relief, compared with 22.6% in the control group. The figures come from the same IMAGINE trial. They do not establish that group hypnosis is superior to individual hypnosis. (Flik et al., 2019)

For every 5 people treated with hypnosis for IBS, one more on average reached adequate relief than in the control groups. Meta-analysis of 8 randomized trials with 464 people with refractory IBS (NNT 5 at the end of treatment). In the long term the NNT was 3, and 54% of those treated reported adequate relief. (Schaefert et al., 2014)

71% of 204 IBS patients responded to hypnosis; 81% of them maintained the improvement for up to 5 years. Prospective observational study at a specialist centre, without a control group. In the remaining 19%, symptoms mostly worsened only slightly. (Gonsalkorale et al., 2003)

In an audit of 1,000 patients with refractory IBS, 76% achieved a clinically relevant improvement. At least a 50-point fall on the IBS-SSS after 12 sessions; 80% of women and 62% of men. Pain days fell from 18 to 9 per month. An uncontrolled audit from a specialist centre. (Miller et al., 2015)

Gut-directed hypnosis improved IBS symptoms as well as the low-FODMAP diet: in 72% vs 71%. 74 people were randomized; the combination of both also reached 72%. At 6 months the improvement was maintained in 74% (hypnosis), 82% (diet) and 54% (combination). Only hypnosis also reduced anxiety and depression scores. A small trial. (Peters et al., 2016)

Six years after treatment, 80.0% (home CD) and 86.6% (individual hypnosis) of children with IBS or functional abdominal pain reported adequate relief. 227 of 250 participants in a randomized trial were followed up; the difference was not significant. There was no group without hypnosis. (Rexwinkel et al., 2022)

Anxiety and depression

Across 17 controlled comparisons, hypnosis clearly reduced anxiety symptoms (d = 0.79). Meta-analysis of 15 studies; the average person receiving hypnosis improved more than about 79% of controls. The effect was largest in combination with other psychological treatments. Many studies did not involve clinically diagnosed anxiety disorders. (Valentine et al., 2019)

Across 13 controlled comparisons, hypnosis reduced depressive symptoms with an effect size of d = 0.71. Meta-analysis of 10 studies. Only 4 comparisons report longer-term follow-up (d = 0.52). A small evidence base. (Milling et al., 2019)

Hypnosis as an add-on and for weight loss

When cognitive behavioral therapy was supplemented with hypnosis, the average client did better than at least 70% of those without hypnosis. A 1995 meta-analysis of 18 studies comparing the same therapy with and without hypnosis. Older studies; the weight-loss finding was later recalculated (see below). (Kirsch, Montgomery & Sapirstein, 1995)

For weight loss, the added benefit of hypnosis shrank from d = 1.96 to 0.26 after correction. The reanalysis of the same 6 studies corrected transcription and computational errors; without one questionable study the effect was 0.21 and no longer significant. The authors conclude the added benefit is small at most. (Allison & Faith, 1996)

A further reanalysis found a weight loss of 6.75 kg with hypnosis vs 2.74 kg without at the last assessment. Using additional data from two study authors; effect size 0.98, with the difference growing over time. Whether the added benefit is small or large remains disputed, and 6 small studies make a narrow evidence base. (Kirsch, 1996)

Hot flashes, smoking cessation and urgency incontinence

The hot-flash score fell by 53.4% after 6 weeks of hypnosis audio, and by 40.9% with the sham intervention. 250 women were randomized. The score combines frequency and severity, and the sham intervention was also followed by a marked reduction. This is not a cure rate. The lead author receives fees from Mindset Health, a hypnosis app company. (Elkins et al., 2025)

Five weekly hypnosis sessions reduced self-reported hot flashes by 74% at 12 weeks, compared with 17% in the control group. 187 women were randomized; the control group received structured attention. Physiologically measured hot flashes fell by 57% vs 10%. Sessions with a clinician instead of audio, and a different control condition (attention rather than sham hypnosis), are possible reasons for the larger gap than in the 2025 audio trial. (Elkins et al., 2013)

15.0% were continuously smoke-free 12 months after hypnosis, and 15.6% after cognitive behavioral therapy. 360 people were randomized and received six group sessions each. The outcome was CO-validated; the difference was not statistically significant. On the secondary outcome of 7-day abstinence, CBT was ahead (21.2% vs 16.7%), significantly so after controlling for suggestibility. (Batra et al., 2024)

Urgency-incontinence episodes fell by a median of 73.0% after 2 months of hypnosis, and by 88.6% with medication. 152 women were randomized. Hypnosis did not meet the prespecified noninferiority criterion at the primary endpoint. At 6 and 12 months it was noninferior to medication (85.7% vs 83.3% and 80% reduction). (Komesu et al., 2020)

Medical procedures, childbirth and dentistry

During medical procedures, pain was on average 1.14 cm lower on the visual analogue scale with hypnosis. Meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials with 811 participants; 95% confidence interval −1.86 to −0.41 cm. The studies differed substantially (I² = 91%), so the average should be read with caution. (Lahoud, Tell Gurary & Elia, 2025)

The relative risk of nausea or vomiting after procedures was 0.43 with hypnosis. 3 randomized trials, 185 participants; 95% confidence interval 0.25–0.74. That is a 57% lower relative risk, not 57 percentage points fewer people affected. The review’s primary outcome, use of anaesthetics and painkillers, remained unproven. (Lahoud, Tell Gurary & Elia, 2025)

15 minutes of hypnosis before breast surgery saved about USD 773 per patient, mainly through shorter surgery time. 200 patients randomized, compared with empathic listening. The hypnosis group needed less propofol and lidocaine and reported less pain, nausea and fatigue; there was no difference in fentanyl, midazolam or recovery-room analgesics. Patients knew which group they were in. (Montgomery et al., 2007)

With self-hypnosis, vascular and renal procedures took 61 instead of 78 minutes on average, and 1 instead of 12 patients became haemodynamically unstable. 241 patients randomized to standard care, structured attention or self-hypnosis. With hypnosis, pain stayed flat during the procedure instead of rising; with attention alone, 10 patients became unstable. A study from 2000. (Lang et al., 2000)

Women who used hypnosis to prepare for birth were less likely to use pain medication (relative risk 0.73). Cochrane review of 9 trials with 2,954 women. There was no clear difference in satisfaction with pain relief, coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth; the evidence is of low to very low quality. (Madden et al., 2016)

For injections and blood draws, hypnosis strongly reduced children’s self-reported pain (standardized mean difference −1.40). Cochrane review; for hypnosis, 5 trials with 176 children and adolescents, very low quality evidence. Distraction, combined CBT and breathing exercises also helped. (Birnie et al., 2018)

For acute anxiety during oral surgery, hypnosis is the intervention with the most certain evidence (moderate certainty). Review of 173 randomized trials on dental anxiety; standardized mean difference −0.31, a small effect. For long-standing dental anxiety and dental phobia, cognitive behavioral therapy had the best evidence. (Steenen et al., 2024)

Duration and delivery statistics

How many sessions does it take, and in what settings is hypnosis used? Two studies offer reference points, both with clearly limited reach.

78.8% achieved IBS symptom improvement after 6 sessions of gut-focused hypnosis, and 73.9% after 12 sessions. 178 of 226 and 164 of 222 participants respectively improved by at least 50 IBS-SSS points. Six sessions met the noninferiority criterion; each group was assessed at its treatment completion. (Hasan et al., 2021)

40 of 40 patients with claustrophobia completed their MRI scan under hypnosis. All had previously had to abort an MRI because of claustrophobia; a retrospective Swiss study from Lugano. All 40 in the anesthesia comparison group also completed scanning. A small, nonrandomized study and not a general success guarantee. (Rizzo et al., 2021)

Online hypnosis and self-hypnosis statistics

Does hypnosis also work by video, by app or with recordings at home? Most of the data come from IBS research. They show that online works, in some studies slightly less than in the same room.

65% responded to IBS hypnotherapy via Skype, and 76% to in-person hypnotherapy. Response meant at least a 50-point fall on the IBS-SSS. At least 30% less pain was reached by 44% online and 62% in person. A nonrandomized comparison; the authors conclude that online hypnotherapy works but slightly less than in person, and that many patients would otherwise have had no access. (Hasan et al., 2019)

52% would have chosen remote hypnotherapy even without the pandemic, and 90% would recommend it. Survey of 52 patients after 12 remote sessions for IBS. 58% reported at least 30% improvement in overall symptoms; 39% felt they would have benefited more in person. (Noble et al., 2022)

54% of clinicians who had delivered hypnosis online rated it as effective as in person. International survey of 691 clinicians, 2023; most had worked online. An opinion, not a measured treatment effect. (Palsson et al., 2023)

With an app-based hypnotherapy program, 81% achieved a clinically relevant IBS improvement, compared with 63% with a digital control program. 240 adults were randomized. At least 30% less pain was reached by 71% vs 35%. Psychological symptoms improved similarly in both groups. (Anderson et al., 2025)

In another trial, 30.4% reached the pain target with a hypnosis app and 27.1% with app-based muscle relaxation. 362 people were randomized; no significant difference on the primary endpoint (at least 30% less abdominal pain in the 4 weeks after treatment). During treatment, more people responded on pain with hypnosis. (Berry et al., 2023)

After one year, home hypnosis with a CD was noninferior to individual hypnotherapy for children: 62.1% vs 71.0% treatment success. 250 children with IBS or functional abdominal pain, randomized. Directly after treatment, individual hypnotherapy was clearly ahead (50.1% vs 36.8%). (Rutten et al., 2017)

A German-language online hypnosis course for birth preparation reduced stress and fear of childbirth in a randomized trial. 221 pregnant women. Stress, birth expectations and the birth experience (fear, self-efficacy) were more favourable in the hypnosis group; there was no significant difference in pain. (Motz, Brückner & Schmidt, 2025)

Safety statistics

How often does hypnosis cause adverse effects? The evidence is limited because many studies do not record side effects systematically.

In registered clinical trials, 0.47% of participants had milder adverse events, and none had serious ones likely caused by hypnosis. Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. Many trials did not report adverse-event data, and all concerned physical conditions or procedures, not mental disorders. (Bollinger, 2018)

55% of surveyed clinicians had encountered adverse effects of hypnosis. Survey of 691 clinicians from 31 countries; the effects were generally short-lived and very rarely judged serious. It counts who has ever seen one, not how often they occur per session. (Palsson et al., 2023)

1 of 238 IBS patients receiving hypnosis (0.4%) stopped treatment because of an adverse event. It was a panic attack. Counted in a meta-analysis of 8 randomized trials whose authors rate hypnosis as safe. (Schaefert et al., 2014)

Use and attitude statistics

Surveys show how widespread hypnosis is and what people think of it. They measure self-reports and opinions, not treatment effects.

7.6% of surveyed US adults had previously undergone hypnosis treatment. Self-report in a demographically balanced online survey of 1,000 adults, 2019; 63.1% of them reported some benefit. This is not a Swiss usage estimate. (Palsson, Twist & Walker, 2019)

54.9% of respondents with no hypnosis experience would consider hypnosis treatment. Among respondents who had never undergone hypnosis treatment in the same US survey; only 12.8% of all respondents held a negative view. Willingness is not actual use. (Palsson, Twist & Walker, 2019)

88% of surveyed clinicians rated therapeutic rapport as very or extremely important. Survey of 691 clinicians across 31 countries, 2023. A professional opinion, not a measured treatment effect. (Palsson et al., 2023)

Hypnosis research statistics

How much research exists, and how consistent are its findings? Reviews count studies and rate their quality, which is not the same as a success rate among patients.

A 2024 umbrella review covered 49 meta-analyses with 261 distinct primary studies. Nine of the 49 meta-analyses received a high methodological quality rating using AMSTAR 2. Of the reported effects, 25.4% were medium and 28.8% large. The count describes this one review, not all hypnosis research. (Rosendahl, Alldredge & Haddenhorst, 2024)

A network meta-analysis of 67 randomized trials confirmed the efficacy of gut-directed hypnosis for IBS but rated the certainty as low. 7,441 participants. Compared with a waiting list, hypnosis lowered the relative risk of symptoms not improving to 0.79 (12 trials, 1,507 people). Several other behavioural therapies ranked higher; no trial was at low risk of bias in every domain. (Thakur et al., 2025)

47.7% of 44 sleep studies reported positive findings. A 2023 review: 47.7% positive, 22.7% mixed, 29.5% no impact. In the 11 studies that required sleep problems and used sleep suggestions, 54.5% were positive and 9.1% showed no impact. These are percentages of studies, not patients. (Wofford et al., 2023)

Often-quoted figures that do not hold up

Some figures turn up again and again in advertising and articles. These two do not stand up to a check of their sources.

“93% success after 6 sessions” The figure is usually attributed to a 1970 paper by Barrios. That paper is a narrative literature review, not a controlled trial. Success rates from different reports, with different patients and different criteria for success, do not add up to a rate that applies to treatment today. (Barrios, 1970)

High quit rates for hypnosis Many high rates come from uncontrolled case series. A 1992 meta-analysis of 633 smoking-cessation studies showed why such raw rates mislead: about 6.4% quit without any help, and that share has to be subtracted. In a randomized trial, 15% were continuously smoke-free 12 months after hypnosis, the same as after CBT. (Viswesvaran & Schmidt, 1992)

Findings from the Mion Hypnose practice

The figures in this section do not come from published studies but from my own practice records as a hypnotherapist. They describe the clients I see, not hypnosis in general.

87% of clients who attended at least three sessions reported a noticeable improvement in their concern afterwards. Clients who stopped after one or two sessions are not included, because their outcome is hard to establish: some stop because it has already helped, others for different reasons. From some I only hear years later, through someone else, that it worked well. I counted what clients told me themselves, ranging from “it’s much better” to “the issue I came for is completely gone”. There is no standardized questionnaire and no comparison group.

68% of clients had an inaccurate idea of what hypnosis is at their first session. Most pictured hypnosis as it appears in films or stage shows: losing consciousness, responding to a finger snap or following a pendulum. In therapeutic hypnosis you stay awake and responsive.

60% of clients prefer in-person sessions to online sessions. Of these, 19% switch to online after their first in-person session because it fits their day more easily. For them, the point is to meet once in person. Once trust is there, they choose online.

Analysis: Jan Mion, Hypnotherapist EZC, Mion Hypnose. Based on my own session notes, in which I wrote down what clients told me. No standardized outcome measure, no comparison group, no independent review. Read these figures as a description of my practice, not as a forecast for an individual treatment. They are not a guarantee or a promise of a cure, and hypnosis does not replace medical assessment or treatment.

What these hypnosis statistics mean in practice

Study figures cannot tell you how an individual treatment will go. They do help to set expectations and to ask better questions.

Read results as a range, not a promise

In the studies cited here, some participants reached the target and others did not, depending on the condition and the outcome measured. A rate from one study is not a forecast for one person, and it is not a statement about results at Mion Hypnose. The hypnotherapy overview lists the topics hypnosis is used for in practice.

Look at the comparison group

A 53.4% reduction reads differently once the sham intervention reaches 40.9%. What carries the information is the gap to the control, together with sample size and study design.

Do not equate hypnotizability with success

The hypnotizability figures come from standardized scales. They describe how people respond to test suggestions without practice, not how well a treatment works. In experimental pain, hypnosis worked clearly better in highly suggestible people; but a low test score does not mean hypnosis cannot help, and in training studies scores rose. The page on the hypnosis method explains how sessions are structured.

Have medical complaints assessed by a doctor

Many of these studies concern medical diagnoses such as irritable bowel syndrome or urgency incontinence. Hypnosis does not replace medical assessment or treatment. To see what a session involves, read My first hypnosis session; for questions, get in touch.

Methodology and sources

A curated collection of published findings, not an exhaustive systematic review. Literature checked on 20 October 2026; every figure was compared with the abstract, open full text or official record, except two hypnotizability figures available only in paywalled full texts (Peter et al., Green). Figures refer to the stated samples and outcomes, not to results at Mion Hypnose. Percentages, correlations and effect sizes measure different things and cannot be ranked against each other. Studies and reviews may overlap. Citation years refer to the original publication.

Sources

Peter et al.: Harvard scale adolescent norms (2015) · Piccione, Hilgard & Zimbardo: 25-year stability (1989) · Green: personality and hypnotizability (2004) · Thompson et al.: experimental pain and suggestibility, 85 trials (2019) · Gorassini & Spanos: training hypnotizability (1986) · Bates: training with honesty instructions (1992) · Milling et al.: clinical pain meta-analysis (2021) · Langlois et al.: chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain (2022) · Flik et al.: IMAGINE IBS trial (2019) · Schaefert et al.: IBS meta-analysis (2014) · Gonsalkorale et al.: IBS long-term follow-up (2003) · Miller et al.: IBS audit of 1,000 patients (2015) · Peters et al.: hypnosis vs low-FODMAP diet (2016) · Rexwinkel et al.: children with IBS, 6-year follow-up (2022) · Valentine et al.: anxiety meta-analysis (2019) · Milling et al.: depression meta-analysis (2019) · Kirsch, Montgomery & Sapirstein: hypnosis as an adjunct to CBT (1995) · Allison & Faith: weight loss reanalysis (1996) · Kirsch: weight loss, further reanalysis (1996) · Elkins et al.: hypnosis audio vs sham (2025) · Elkins et al.: hot flashes, therapist-led sessions (2013) · Batra et al.: smoking cessation, hypnosis vs CBT (2024) · Komesu et al.: urgency incontinence, hypnosis vs medication (2020) · Lahoud, Tell Gurary & Elia: hypnosis for procedures, meta-analyses (2025) · Montgomery et al.: hypnosis before breast surgery (2007) · Lang et al.: self-hypnosis during vascular and renal procedures (2000) · Madden et al.: hypnosis in childbirth, Cochrane (2016) · Birnie et al.: children and needles, Cochrane (2018) · Steenen et al.: dental anxiety meta-analyses (2024) · Hasan et al.: 6 vs 12 sessions for IBS (2021) · Rizzo et al.: hypnosis for MRI and claustrophobia (2021) · Hasan et al.: IBS hypnotherapy via Skype (2019) · Noble et al.: satisfaction with remote hypnotherapy (2022) · Anderson et al.: app hypnotherapy vs digital control (2025) · Berry et al.: app hypnotherapy vs muscle relaxation (2023) · Rutten et al.: home hypnosis recordings for children (2017) · Motz, Brückner & Schmidt: online hypnosis birth course (2025) · Bollinger: adverse events in clinical trials (2018) · Palsson, Twist & Walker: US population survey (2019) · Palsson et al.: international clinician survey (2023) · Rosendahl, Alldredge & Haddenhorst: umbrella review of meta-analyses (2024) · Thakur et al.: behavioural therapies for IBS, network meta-analysis (2025) · Wofford et al.: review of hypnosis and sleep (2023) · Barrios: 1970 review (1970) · Viswesvaran & Schmidt: smoking cessation methods, 633 studies (1992)