awareness. They skeptically maintain there is nothing mysterious about hyp-
notic phenomena —that all the amazing things people do under hypnosis can
be explained in terms of basic psychological processes applicable to hypno-
tized and nonhypnotized people. Many hypnosis practitioners and researchers
fall somewhere between these two positions. It also may be the case that both
descriptions of hypnosis are correct, and that each explains different aspects
of the hypnotic experience (Kihlstrom, 1998 2005; Spiegel, 2005). We ’ll ex-
amine the two opposing viewpoints in this debate in depth. At one end we
find explanations of hypnosis influenced by psychoanalytic theory, and at
the other, theories that emphasize the role of cognitive and social processes.
Psychoanalytically Influenced Theories
Freud saw hypnosis as a passkey to a highly hypnotizable patient ’s unconscious
mind. Somehow the barrier to the unconscious is weakened during hypnosis,
allowing easier access to crucial unconscious material. Many psychoanalytictherapists still use hypnosis this way (Baker & Nash, 2008). For example,
Milton Erickson (1967) developed several techniques to confuse and distract
the conscious so that contact with the unconscious could be made. One teamof psychologists proposed that the ego forms a new subsystem during hypnosis
(Gill & Brenman, 1967). According to this theory, the ego creates a kind of
pocket in which the formerly unconscious material that surfaces during hypno-sis is stored. The ego monitors this pocket of information during hypnosis but
keeps it out of conscious awareness once hypnosis is terminated.
Like the volunteers in this classroom demonstration, most people respond to simple
suggestions during hypnosis. However, why these subjects go along with the hypno-tist ’s suggestions remains a matter of controversy.Hypnosis 87