The altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape.

Abstract

Presentations of theories of hypnosis in scholarly and introductory texts portray the field as dominated by two warring camps, variously referred to as state and nonstate or as special process and social psychological. Current issues and theories in the hypnosis literature are examined. In the process, we seek to dispel the myth that hypnosis theorists can be grouped into two camps. Although there is considerable controversy about the nature of hypnosis, no issues separate all so-called special process theorists from all social psychological theorists. Instead, virtually all substantive differences between theorists cut across this apparent distinction. Furthermore, the positions taken on many of the important issues dividing the field can no longer be portrayed as simple dichotomies, such as state versus nonstate or trait versus situation. Positions on these issues can more accurately be described as points on a continuum. We conclude by drawing attention to specific questions and issues that remain unresolved.Does hypnosis produce an out-of-the-ordinary, trance-like, "altered" state of consciousness? Psychologists are divided on this question. Some say yes, others say no. In general, state theories maintain that hypnosis induces a unique state of consciousness. ... In contrast, nonstate theories generally maintain that hypnosis is not a distinct physiological state. . . . The skeptics differ in their emphasis, but all agree that the impressive effects of hypnosis stem from the power of social influence, not from a trance-like state of altered consciousness. (Kassin, 1995, pp. 158-159).Edilor's note. Ernest R. Hilgard served as action editor for this article.

Hypnosis, memory and amnesia

“…Among those individuals who are most highly hypnotizable (Hilgard 1965b), these alterations in consciousness are associated with subjective conviction bordering on delusion, and an experience of involuntariness bordering on compulsion. Comprehensive treatments of hypnosis are provided by Hilgard (1965aHilgard ( ,b, 1975, Kihlstrom (1985a), Fromm & Nash (1992), and Kirsch & Lynn (1995).…”

Neurobiología de la hipnosis y su contribución a la comprensión de la cognición y la conciencia.

“…Por un lado, existe la distinción entre modelos intrapersonales, los cuales centran la importancia en los rasgos y estados internos de la persona para explicar el fenómeno hipnótico; y, modelos interpersonales, los cuales centran la explicación del fenómeno en los aspectos sociales de la relación hipnótica (Yapko, 2008). Otra forma de diferenciar los modelos es según la cantidad de factores que incluyen; si un factor (Edmonston, 1981) o diversos factores (Kirsch y Lynn, 1995). Otra clasificación distingue entre planteamientos cognitivo-conductuales y planteamientos psicosociales (Spanos y Chaves, 1989;Spanos, 1986;Spanos, 1994).…”

“…También podemos encontrar la ya clásica distinción dicotómica de teorías del estado versus teorías del no-estado (Hilgard, 1973;1990;Fellows, 1990;Lynn, Vanderhoff, Shindler y Stafford, 2002). A groso modo, todas estas distinciones pueden ser clasificadas en dos grandes grupos: las teorías que explican el fenómeno de la hipnosis como propiedades de un estado de conciencia (Spiegel y Spiegel, 1978;Erickson, 1980;Kallio y Revonsuo, 2003), y las teorías que explican el fenómeno de la hipnosis como producto de sugestiones que dependen de variables psicosociales como las expectativas, creencias, motivaciones, imaginación y fantasías del sujeto (Jara y Martínez, 1999;Spanos, 1986;Lynn et al 2002;Barber, 1969;Kirsch y Lynn, 1995;Kirsch, 1999;Lynn y Rhue, 1991).…”

What happened to the social in contemporary accounts of hypnosis?

“…Indeed, there has been ongoing debate regarding the foundations for such a debate, with a variety of researchers arguing that the two positions have at least some points of convergence (e.g. Spanos and Barber, 1974;Wagstaff, 1981;Kirsch and Lynn, 1995) and others offering a cautionary note regarding the many presumed similarities (e.g. Chaves, 1997;Kihlstrom, 1997).…”