Skip to content

Altered state of hypnosis: Changes in the theoretical landscape.

Irving Kirsch, Steven Jay Lynn

American Psychologist 1995 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.50.10.846 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Review Peer reviewed
Citations 255
Key findings Argues that the common portrayal of hypnosis theory as divided into two warring camps (state versus nonstate, or special process versus social psychological) is a myth: no issues separate all special process theorists from all social psychological theorists, and virtually all substantive differences cut across that distinction. Contends that positions on many dividing issues are better described as points on a continuum than as simple dichotomies.

Abstract

Presentations of theories of hypnosis in scholarly and introductory texts portray the field as dominated by two warring camps, variously referred to as state and nonstate or as special process and social psychological. Current issues and theories in the hypnosis literature are examined. In the process, we seek to dispel the myth that hypnosis theorists can be grouped into two camps. Although there is considerable controversy about the nature of hypnosis, no issues separate all so-called special process theorists from all social psychological theorists. Instead, virtually all substantive differences between theorists cut across this apparent distinction. Furthermore, the positions taken on many of the important issues dividing the field can no longer be portrayed as simple dichotomies, such as state versus nonstate or trait versus situation. Positions on these issues can more accurately be described as points on a continuum. We conclude by drawing attention to specific questions and issues that remain unresolved.

Citations in the library