What happened to the social in contemporary accounts of hypnosis?

Abstract

Historically and continuing into the present, the fi eld of hypnosis has been divided into proponents of 'state' or 'special-state' and 'non-state' or 'sociocognitive' accounts of hypnosis. Although many investigators now dispute this distinction, it can still be used as a rough guide to views of the phenomenon. The sociocognitive view, at least in the last 20 years, has emphasized social and cognitive processes in the explanation of hypnosis and its effects, but increasingly -and consistent with social cognition in general -the social too has been theorized in cognitive terms. This paper reviews these theoretical developments with the aim of exploring the implications of the loss of the social in 'non-state' accounts. As a historical, cultural and ultimately social phenomenon, at what cost is hypnosis reduced to its strictly cognitive dimensions?

Mechanisms of Hypnosis:Toward the Development of a Biopsychosocial Model

“…While sociocognitive models of hypnosis argue that hypnotic responding has both cognitive and social components, Radtke and Stam (2008) have argued that these models tend to focus more on cognitive factors (e.g., the factors discussed in the previous section) than the social aspects of hypnosis. This may be one of the reasons that only two social factors have been examined with respect to their association to responses to hypnosis: rapport (also referred to as “therapeutic alliance,” “resonance,” and “harmony,” among other labels) and social context.…”

“…Although virtually all theorists recognize that hypnosis has a social context, and a number of theories specifically include “social” in the label they give to their theory, there has been a paucity of research examining the associations between measures of social factors (such as rapport and context) and response to hypnosis and hypnotic suggestions (Radtke & Stam, 2008). The little research that has been performed supports both direct and moderating roles for social variables – at least the ones that have been studied to date – and hypnotic responding.…”

“…The role that social factors, in particular, may play has not yet been adequately examined (Radtke & Stam, 2008). A rare exception to a lack of attention to social factors in the field is the work of Éva Bányai, Katlin Varga, and their colleagues at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, who have developed an impressive program studying hypnosis in the context of its social and interactional elements (Bányai, 1985, 1998; Varga, 2013; Varga, Banyai, & Gosi-Greguss, 1994; Varga, Banyai, Gosi-Greguss, & Tauszik, 2013; Varga, Józsa, Bányai, & Gösi-Greguss, 2009; Varga, Jozsa, Banyai, Gosi-Greguss, & Kumar, 2001).…”

Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy: Emerging of Science-Based Hypnosis

“…The interactional behavioral and affective synchrony between the child and the parent is highly similar to the relationship between the subject and the hypnotist. Synchrony can occur in the behavioral, emotional, phenomenological, and psycho-physiological variables in both the subject and the hypnotist [53][54][55][56][57][58][59].…”