A more recent explanation of hypnosis with a psychoanalytic flavor is
called neodissociation theory (Hilgard, 1994; Woody & Sadler, 2008).
According to this explanation, deeply hypnotized people experience a division
of their conscious. Part of their conscious enters a type of altered state, but
part remains aware of what is going on during the hypnotic session. This sec-
ond part is said to act as a “hidden observer ”monitoring the situation. The
hypnotized part of the conscious is unaware of the observer part.
Advocates of the neodissociation theory use pain analgesia experiments
to illustrate how the hidden observer works. Highly responsive participants
in one study were hypnotized and told they would not experience pain
(Hilgard, 1977). Their arms were then lowered into ice water for several sec-onds. Like any of us, when not hypnotized, these people reported severe pain
almost as soon as their arms touched the water. However, when hypnotized,
they appeared to withstand the icy water with little evidence of suffering.
But this ability to withstand pain under hypnosis has been demonstrated
before. The new twist the investigator added was asking participants to re-
port their experiences through automatic writing orautomatic talking. The
researcher found that people could keep one arm in the cold water while writ-
ing with the other arm that the experience is quite painful. Advocates of neo-
dissociation theory interpret this finding as a demonstration of the division of
consciousness that occurs under hypnosis. The hypnotized part denies the
pain, but the hidden observer is aware of what is going on.
Sociocognitive Theories of Hypnosis
In response to the psychoanalytic theories that once dominated the field of
hypnosis, some psychologists began to challenge the notion that hypnosisparticipants experience a state of consciousness different from being awake
(Barber, 1969; Sarbin, 1950). They pointed out there is nothing a person can
do under hypnosis that cannot be done without hypnosis. For example, people
who are relaxed but not hypnotized, and who are asked to imagine a weight
pulling their arms down, will experience increased heaviness in their arms.
But how do these skeptical psychologists explain some of the unusual
things people do when hypnotized? Most use concepts such as expectancy,motivation, and concentration to account for hypnotic phenomena (Barber,
1999; Coe & Sarbin, 1991; Lynn, Kirsch, & Hallquist, 2008; Spanos, 1991).I sometimes ask a few students in my class to stand up and spin like a top.
In every case the students comply. When I ask why they are doing this, they
say it is because I asked them to. None have ever said it was because theywere hypnotized. Yet most people who see hypnosis participants stand and
spin like tops at the hypnotist ’s request say the people act that way because
they are hypnotized. What is the difference between these two situations?
Does the hypnotist use certain magical words that suddenly transform the
people into a trance? Sociocognitive theorists argue that hypnotized and non-
hypnotized people stand up and spin for the same reason: They think they are
supposed to.
These theorists are also critical of “hidden observer ”demonstrations
(Green, Page, Handley, & Rasekhy, 2005; Spanos & Katsanis, 1989). They“From being in love
to hypnosis is evi-
dently only a short
step. There is thesame humble sub-
jection, the same
compliance, thesame absence of
criticism toward the
hypnotist as towardthe love object. ”
Sigmund Freud88 CHAPTER 4 The Freudian Approach