Explaining Hypnosis

153
Hypnosis
out” (Hilgard, 1965). Second, hypnotized people tend to ignore all but the hypnotist’s
voice and whatever it points out: Their attention is redistributed. Third, hypnosis
enhances the ability to fantasize. Participants more vividly imagine a scene or relive a
memory. Fourth, hypnotized people readily take on roles. They more easily act as though
they were people of a different age or sex than nonhypnotized people do. Fifth, hypnotized individuals show reduced reality testing. They tend not to question whether
statements are true, and they are more willing to accept distortions of reality. So a hypnotized person might shiver in a warm room if a hypnotist says it is snowing.
Explaining Hypnosis
Source: Hilgard (1965).
FIGURE
4.6
Hypnotic Age Regression
Here are the signatures of two
adults before hypnotically induced age regression (top of
each pair) and while age regressed (bottom of each pair). The lower signatures in
each pair look less mature, but was the
change due to hypnosis? To find out, ask a
friend to sign a blank sheet of paper, first
as usual, and then as if he or she were five
years old. If the two signatures look significantly different, what does this say
about the cause of certain age-regression
effects?
doing
2
learn
by
state theory A theory proposing that
hypnosis creates an altered state of consciousness.
role theory A theory proposing that
hypnotized people act in accordance
with a social role that provides a reason
to follow a hypnotist’s suggestions.
dissociation theory A theory proposing that hypnosis is a socially agreedupon opportunity to display one’s
ability to let mental functions become
dissociated.
Hypnotized people look and act different from nonhypnotized people (Hilgard, 1965).
Do these differences indicate an altered state of consciousness?
Advocates of state theory say that they do. They point to the notable changes in
brain activity that occur during hypnosis (Egner, Jamieson, & Gruzelier, 2005; Mohr et
al., 2005; Raij et al., 2005) and to the dramatic effects that hypnosis can produce, including insensitivity to pain and the disappearance of warts (Noll, 1994). They also note that
there are slight differences in the way hypnotized and nonhypnotized people carry out
suggestions. In one study, hypnotized people and those pretending to be hypnotized were
told to run their hands through their hair whenever they heard the word experiment
(Orne, Sheehan, & Evans, 1968). The pretenders did so only when the hypnotist said the
cue word. Hypnotized participants complied no matter who said it. Another study found
that hypnotized people complied more often than simulators with a posthypnotic suggestion to mail postcards to the experimenter (Barnier & McConkey, 1998).
Supporters of role theory maintain that hypnosis is not a special state of consciousness. They point out, for example, that some of the changes in brain activity associated with hypnosis can also be created without hypnosis (Mohr et al., 2005). They
suggest that hypnotized people are merely complying with the demands of the situation and acting in accordance with a special social role (Kirsch, 1994b). From this perspective, hypnosis provides a socially acceptable reason to follow someone’s suggestions,
much as a physical exam provides a socially acceptable reason to remove clothing on
request. Support for role theory comes from several sources. First, nonhypnotized people sometimes display behaviors that are usually associated with hypnosis. For example, contestants on television game shows and reality shows do lots of odd, silly, disgusting, or even dangerous things without first being hypnotized. Second, laboratory
studies show that motivated but nonhypnotized volunteers can duplicate many aspects
of hypnotic behavior, from arm rigidity to age regression (Dasgupta et al., 1995; Orne &
Evans, 1965). Other studies have found that people rendered blind or deaf by hypnosis can still see or hear, even though their actions and beliefs suggest that they cannot
(Bryant & McConkey, 1989).
Hilgard (1992) proposed a dissociation theory to blend role and state theories. He
suggested that hypnosis is not a single specific state but a general condition that temporarily reorganizes or breaks down our normal control over thoughts and actions.
Hypnosis, he said, activates a process called dissociation, meaning a split in consciousness (Hilgard, 1979). Dissociation allows body movements normally under voluntary
control to occur on their own and normally involuntary processes (such as overt reactions to pain) to be controlled voluntarily.
Hilgard argued that this relaxation of control is possible because of a social agreement between the hypnotized person and the hypnotist to share control. In other
words, people usually decide for themselves how to act or what to attend to, perceive,
or remember. During hypnosis, the hypnotist is given permission to control some of
these experiences and actions. Compliance with a social role may tell part of the story,
Hilgard said, but hypnosis also leads to significant changes in mental processes.
Support for Hilgard’s theory comes from brain imaging studies showing that the
ability to dissociate certain mental processes is greater in people who are more hypnotically susceptible (Egner et al., 2005). Dissociation was also demonstrated behaviorally by asking hypnotized participants to immerse a hand in ice water (Hilgard,