Hypnosis as a Mechanism of Emotion Regulation and Self-Integration: An Integrative Review of Neural, Cognitive, and Experiential Pathways to Fundamental Peace

Abstract

Hypnosis has traditionally been conceptualized as a clinical technique for reducing physiological symptoms (e.g., pain, nausea) and psychological symptoms (e.g., anxiety, intrusive thoughts), yet emerging neuroscientific evidence suggests it operates through the fundamental mechanisms of emotional regulation and self-integration. This integrative review synthesizes research on clinical hypnosis from cognitive neuroscience, affective science, and clinical practice to examine how hypnotic phenomena modulate large-scale brain networks-particularly the default mode network (DMN), executive control network (ECN), and salience network (SaN)-to reorganize emotional experience and self-referential processing. We propose a formal mechanistic model in which hypnotic induction produces heightened experiential plasticity through coordinated network reconfiguration, enabling adaptive emotion regulation and reduced dissociative fragmentation. Central to this framework is the construct of Fundamental Peace (FP), operationalized as a dynamic neuro-experiential state characterized by: (1) flexible attentional control without effortful suppression; (2) emotional coherence across self-states; (3) reduced self-referential rigidity; (4) compassionate self-awareness. Unlike equanimity (affective neutrality) or well-being (positive evaluation), Fundamental Peace represents integrated regulatory capacity under changing conditions. Key findings from neuroimaging studies demonstrate that hypnotic states consistently reduce DMN activity, enhance ECN-SaN coupling, and modulate connectivity patterns associated with self-referential processing. Meta-analytic evidence from 85 controlled experimental trials shows robust pain reduction effects, while clinical studies document improvements in trauma-related dissociation and emotional dysregulation. We critically evaluate this framework against alternative theories (dissociated control, cold control, predictive processing, social-cognitive models), specify testable predictions, and assess evidence quality across neuroimaging and clinical domains. Implications for trauma treatment, clinical implementation, and future research integrating causal inference methods are discussed, alongside ethical and cultural considerations.

Tags