Hypnosis State vs. Non-State Flashcards
Introduction: the debate?
Many researchers define hypnosis as an ‘altered state of consciousness’ that is qualitatively different from normal waking consciousness. Whether hypnosis produces an altered state of consciousness has been a key debate in the academic study of hypnosis and has come to be known as the ‘state vs. non-state debate’. State theorists hold that hypnosis induces an altered state of consciousness whereas non-state theorists argue that the effects of suggestions can be experienced with or without the prior administration of a hypnotic induction and ask “what is the necessity for an altered state?”. The requirement of any theory of hypnosis is that it provides explanations of the phenomena we observe. In addition, we must be able to assess the validity of these explanations, by testing the predictions that they generate, modifying or abandoning the theory if the predictions are not supported. This essay shall describe and evaluate different theories of hypnosis using empirical evidence, in order to answer the question of whether hypnosis leads to qualitative different mental states?
outline State theory
Hilgard’s Neodissociation theory of hypnosis is a classic ‘state’ theory. It proposes that hypnotic phenomenon are produced through a dissociation within high level control systems. Essentially, the hypnotic induction is said to split the functioning of the executive control system (ECS) into different streams. Part of the ECS functions normally, but is unable to represent itself in conscious awareness due to the presence of an ‘amnesic barrier’. Hypnotic suggestions act on the dissociated part of the ECS and the subject is aware of the results of the suggestions, but is not aware of the process by which they came about. Hilgard’s theory was inspired by his experiments with the ‘hidden observer’ phenomenon whereby a ‘hidden part’ of the mind of a subject experiencing hypnotic pain relief could be encouraged to elicit reports of the ‘true’ pain experience. The idea that the hidden observer demonstrates the presence of conscious and unconscious executive systems in hypnosis is a controversial notion. Perhaps neuroimaging studies can shed some light on the debate
State theory evidence: Neuroimaging studies’ review.
According to a review of neuroimaging studies examining the altered state hypothesis, evidence from brain imaging studies has been used to support claims for various altered state hypotheses, without resolving the debate. The designs of many neuroimaging studies confound the induction of hypnosis with the suggestions that can be given in or out of hypnosis, thus rendering them incapable of resolving the controversy. Brain imaging studies that do not have this confound support the hypothesis that hypnotic inductions produce changes in brain activity, but also indicate that these changes are not required for the experience of hypnotic suggestions or their neural correlates. The data remain ambiguous as to whether there is a causal relation between the changes in brain activity produced by hypnotic inductions and those produced by other suggestions. It also remains uncertain whether the changes in activation produced by hypnotic inductions reflect a uniquely hypnotic state as opposed to more ordinary processes. One of the critics of Hilgard’s theory is Spanos, who claims that the theory relies on unusual processes, especially dissociation. Rather than directly criticizing the theory, Spanos attempted to show that its special constructs were completely unnecessary for explaining hypnotic behaviour. Spanos proposed an explanation of hypnotic behaviour in terms of the same general purpose social-psychological processes that may be used to explain everyday, non-hypnotic social behaviour.
outline Non-state theory
Spanos and colleagues proposed the Social-cognitive theory of hypnosis which suggests that the experience of effortlessness in hypnosis results from participant’s motivated tendencies to interpret hypnotic suggestions as not requiring active planning and effort. Put simply, effortlessness in hypnosis comes about when individuals expect things to be effortless, and ‘decide’ (more or less consciously) to respond along with suggestions. It is worth mentioning that non-state theories do not imply that participants are always ‘faking’, or not truly experiencing a hypnotic response, they are still entirely consistent with the notion that hypnotised participants have unusual experiences.
Non-state theory support
Raz et al., (2006) examined the effects of suggestion on Stroop interference in highly suggestible individuals. Participants completed the Stroop task with and without a suggestion to perceive Stroop words as meaningless symbols. Half the participants were given this suggestion in hypnosis, and half without the induction of hypnosis. Suggestion produced a significant reduction in Stroop inhibition, accounting for about 45% of the variance in Stroop responding, regardless of whether hypnosis had been induced. Researchers conclude that a suggestion to construe words as meaningless scribbles markedly reduces the Stroop effect in highly suggestible individuals and that this effect does not depend on the induction of hypnosis.
Non-state theory study limitations
However, the study has limitations, with only 25 participants completing the study and all of them were university students, some of them already familiar with the Stroop task, this is hardly a good representation of the general public. Therefore, results of this study should not be generalized to the rest of the world’s population. Nevertheless, this data is in conjunction with previous studies, which confirm that suggestion can significantly reduce the Stroop effect (Raz et al., 2005), and in some cases completely eliminate it (Raz et al., 2002) supporting the non-state theories claim that participants respond to suggestion almost as well without hypnosis.
