This paper provides a summary and clarification of Barber's reconceptualization of “hypnosis” and contrasts it with the traditional approach. Traditional hypnosis theory assumes that a special state of consciousness (the hypnotic trance state) is instrumental in eliciting “hypnotic” behaviors. Barber rejects this basic assumption and focuses on denotable antecedent variables that are functionally related to the behaviors. Differences in assumptions underlying the two approaches have led to fundamental differences in methodology, in the types of questions asked, and in the explanations provided. All available criticisms of Barber's work are discussed and evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John F. Chaves (1968) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: