Theories of Hypnosis
Controversial Question
• When someone is hypnotised, do they ener a
different state of consciousness or is there
another explanation for their behaviour.
State versus Non-state
• State Theory: Hypnosis is a different state
from waking or sleeping
• Non-state: Hypnosis promotes relaxation,
imagination and compliance. So
hypnotised people are not in a different
state, the just behave differently
State Explanations
• Neodissociationist View – Hilgard(1977)
• Neo-state view – Oakley (1999)
2. (Neo-) Dissociation theory
(Hilgard, 1970’s, 1980s)
The mind consists of a hierarchy of
control structures:
Ernest Hilgard
1904-2001
Hypnosis dissociates the Executive Ego, so that part of it
is under direct control of hypnotic instructions:
=> There should be part of the person aware of everything
that is happening – Hilgard called this the “Hidden Observer”
Hidden Observer
• Part of the executive ego is not under the
control of the hypnotist and is watching
everything that is happening during
hypnosis.
• The hidden observer may not always be
consciously watching, but is aware of
everything (see p151)
Hidden Observer
• Hilgard demonstrated this using freezing cold water
• During hypnotic analgesia subjects rates very little pain
as arm is held in ice cold water.
• “There is a hidden part of you that really knows
everything that is going on. When I put my hand on your
shoulder, I can contact this hidden part”
• The hidden observer gives high pain ratings, and insists
they have always been high; when the hand is off the
shoulder the person gives low pain ratings!
Hilgard – State or Non-State?
• (NB: According to Hilgard, hypnosis need not be an
altered state of consciousness – it just involves a split in
the executive ego.
• On the other hand, it could be an altered state of
consciousness if there were enough cognitive structures
under dissociated control
Reals Versus Fakers
• If hypnosis is a real state, we should be able to
spot if someone is faking it.
• Evans & Orne (1971) found that hypnotised
subjects continued in a behaviour longer than
fakers.
• Hypnotised subject also show stronger posthypnotic response (Evans and Orne 1968
• Why does this support the “State” view?
Counterarguments?
Neo state-view – Oakley(99)
• Use this as AO2
• Normal consciousness – executive control
system (in frontal cortex) does 2 things:
• Monitors information and makes decisions
• Monitors our behaviour and gives us a
sense of self-awareness
Neo state-view – Oakley(99)
• During hypnosis, the hypnotist “hacks” into
the executive control system.
• So the hypnotist’s instructions direct
behaviour
• So self-awareness is reduced, causing a
different state of consciousness.
Neo state-view
Evidence in favour of hypnosis being a separate
state of consciousness
•
•
•
•
•
•
For some time now hypnosis has been successful when anaesthetics cannot be used and in
the treatment of chronic pain (Hilgard and Le Baron 1984).
People can imitate clinical depression successfully but that is not to say clinical depression
does not exist. The crucial point is that the hypnotised person believes they are in a different
state, whilst the imitator does not. (McIlveen 1995).
An important feature of the Hilgard model is the “hidden observer”. Hilgard (1973) induced
hypnotic deafness in a participant but also suggested that he should raise a finger when
asked if there was any part of him that could still hear. Deafness was convincingly
established but a finger was still raised when the question was asked. In Hilgards view this
is the hidden observer monitoring the situation and replying to the question without the
participants awareness.
Some researchers feel that hypnosis is associated with specific changes in brain electrical
activity (Crawford and Gruzlier – 1992)
It is possible we are looking at the wrong measures or the wrong part of the brain for
hypnotic phenomena.
Although Kosslyn et al (2000) found that when pps were asked to visualise adding colour to
a grey image there was increased brain activity in the left hemisphere when they were
hypnotised but not when they weren’t.
Alternative explanations of hypnosis – Non-state
theories
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barber (1969) suggests that hypnosis is simply the result of experimental “demand
characteristics” i.e. the participant pleases the experimenter and tries not to “ruin the show”.
All hypnotic phenomena can be imitated by non hypnotised people, indistinguishably from
the hypnotised (Barber 1979)
In a study by Orne (1959) subjects were told prior to being hypnotised that a common
feature of a trance is stiffening of the muscles in the dominant hand.
This information was fictitious.
When the subjects were hypnotised, 55% spontaneously displayed hand stiffening.
No subjects in a control group showed this behaviour.
No measure of brain activity successfully distinguishes between hypnotised and non
hypnotised states consistently. (Sarbin and Slagle 1972).
Council and Kenny (1992) showed that expert ratings also failed to distinguish between self
reports of subjects experiencing hypnotic induction from those experiencing relaxation
training and they conclude that the state of consciousness produced by the two procedures
is indistinguishable.
Wagstaff (1995) indicates that research and debate in hypnosis flourishes but we do not
seem to be any further forward in deciding whether there is an altered state of
consciousness we can call “hypnosis”.