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 post hypnotic 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”.