DID/Trauma/Memory Reference List
Theories of Hypnosis
Bowers, K, & Davidson, TM. (1991). A neodissociation critique of Spanos' sociopsychological model of hypnosis. In SJ Lynn, & JW Rhue (Eds.) Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives, pp. 105-143. New York: Guilford.
Chaves, JF. (1997). The state of the "state" debate in hypnosis: A view from the cognitive-behavioral perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 4593), 251-265.
Fromm, E & Nash, MR. (Eds.). (1992). Contemporary hypnosis research. New York: Guilford.
Hilgard, ER. (1986). Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kihlstrom, JF. (1997). Convergence in understanding hypnosis? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45(3), 324-332.
Laurence, JR. (1997). Hypnotic theorizing: Spring cleaning is long overdue. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45(3), 280-290.
Suggests that "armchair theorizing" of clinicians has led to destructive practices and that most experiments are interpreted to support the theoretical stance of the researcher. A remedy is to start designing experiments that will actually thrust theories against one another. Also, both clinical and research theories are both often based on hypothesized mental constructs that have no substantiation.
Lynn, SJ. (1997). Automaticity and hypnosis: A sociocognitive account. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45(3), 239-250.
Lynn, SJ, & Rhue, JW. (Eds.). (1991). Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives. New York: Guilford.
Nash, MR. (1997). Why scientific hypnosis needs psychoanalysis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45, (3), 291-300.
Sarbin, TR, & Coe, WC. (1979). Hypnosis: A social psychological anaysis of influence communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Contends that some hypnotic theories are restricted and narrow in scope, rendering them unnecessarily isolated from mainstream models of human development, psychopathology, and personality functioning. For illustrative purposes the author criticizes the sociocognitive perspective of hypnosis (Spanos, Lynn, & Rhue, Sarbin, etc.) contending that it is too narrowly inductive in focus, overvalues social influence, and has its own problems with reification. The author suggests remedies.