2002
DOI: 10.1002/ch.247
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conceptual issues in hypnosis research: explanations, definitions and the state/non‐state debate

Abstract: The present paper aims to integrate existing streams of hypnosis research and theory into a broader context. A conceptual framework is presented that illustrates the range of explanatory approaches that are available to describe psychological phenomena in general, and this is applied to the discussion of hypnosis. In doing so, various approaches to hypnosis research are categorized and the scope and limitations of the theories derived from them are considered. The definition of hypnosis is also explored within… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the notions about hypnosis related to state or non-state (debate has been about whether or not hypnosis involves an altered state of consciousness), intrapersonal or interpersonal, special process or social-psychological, neurocognitive or sociocognitive, single and multifactor theories (Yapko, 2003, Hasegawa & Jamieson, 2002. Most researchers claim that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the notions about hypnosis related to state or non-state (debate has been about whether or not hypnosis involves an altered state of consciousness), intrapersonal or interpersonal, special process or social-psychological, neurocognitive or sociocognitive, single and multifactor theories (Yapko, 2003, Hasegawa & Jamieson, 2002. Most researchers claim that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consideration of levels of explanation by Kallio and Revonsuo (2003), also entertained by Hasegawa and Jamieson (2002) from my laboratory, is helpful in this regard. However, just as it is clear that the phenomenological level is of fundamental importance to hypnosis as it is to ASC in general, and the methodological innovations of McConkey (McConkey, Wende, Barnier, 1999) are welcomed, it is also clear that ASC require biological changes that are different from ordinary SC.…”
Section: Relaxationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…They assert that the evidence only establishes the existence of particular brain states during hypnosis, not that the states played a causal role (Kirsch, 2000;Kirsch & Lynn, 2006;Wagstaff, 2000). These critics admit to dissociative-like cognitive processes, acknowledge neurobiological evidence of brain states that correspond to altered cognitive functioning, offer few proposals themselves for critical brain-state evidence to support their position, and propose ever more stringent demands for controls conditions (that some argue are impossible) (Gruzelier, 1998(Gruzelier, , 2000Hasegawa & Jamieson, 2002;Kirsch, 2000;Kirsch & Lynn, 2006;Wagstaff, 1998Wagstaff, , 2000. This may simply be part of the refinements in theory and method that occurs as science advances.…”
Section: Whence the Future?mentioning
confidence: 99%